It Will Be Amazing. Believe Me.

Posted: January 28, 2017 | Author: | Filed under: Uncategorized | Tags: , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Amazing:  causing astonishment, great wonder, or surprise

— Merriam Webster Dictionary

We have now experienced the first week of the administration of President Donald J. Trump.  And it was quite a week.  I am not sure that the country can survive many more of these types of weeks. Among other highlights we have the following:

  • A public battle over the size of the crowd on Inauguration Day (somehow with Mr. Trump it always involves size), including a personal call from the president to the head of the National Park Service to have him produce pictures to prove he had the biggest crowd ever.  “Period.”  There are no such pictures.
  • In his first full day in office, he went to the CIA, stood in front of the Wall of Heroes, and proceeded to mislead about crowd sizes, the role of the media, and deny that he said the intelligence community was like “Nazi Germany.”  I watched it live and not once did he mention the ultimate sacrifice of those listed on the wall, some of whom still cannot be named because of the sensitivity of their actions. They died for their country yet somehow it was all about him. I have been to the Wall.  It is humbling. It was appalling to see our president be so unaware, or uncaring, of his surroundings and their meaning.
  • A senior adviser to the president introduced the administration’s use of “alternative facts.”
  • A claim by the president that 3 to 5 million “illegals” voted in the presidential election and that every single one of them voted for Secretary Hillary Clinton.  No proof was provided.
  • A self-created diplomatic crisis with our neighbors in Mexico when they said that they would not pay for a wall along the border.
  • A declaration that torture works and should be used in interrogations because terrorists do a lot worse than that.  Torture is illegal under U.S. law including the Eighth Amendment to the Constitution and under international law.
  • A draft Executive Order to bring back the “black sites” overseas where the CIA and other agencies can take terrorists secretly and interrogate them outside of international and U.S. law. The new Director of the CIA and the new Secretary of Defense say they were not consulted on the order.
  • A presidential pronouncement that lifting sanctions on Russia might be a good thing.  This while we still await the results of inquiries into their interference with our election and while they still illegally occupy Crimea and other parts of Ukraine.
  • An Executive Order halting immigration from seven Muslim countries including Iraq.  We currently have troops on the ground along side Iraqi military units fighting ISIS.  We will arm them and train them and send them into battle, but we will not let them into the country.  The ban includes those in danger because they worked with and helped U.S. forces as interpreters, informants, and fighters.
  • A presidential statement that his immigration ban is not anti-Islam, even though the only countries banned are Islamic and the president said that Christians from those countries would be admitted.  A gentle reminder may be in order that our Constitution prohibits discrimination due to one’s religion.
  • A host of other Executive Orders and Presidential Memoranda that create questions about the future of programs and freeze numerous regulations from the Affordable Care Act to inspections of commercial airliners.

There are more, but you get the idea.  Taken as a whole it is amazing.  Depending on your view of President Trump, it is amazing good or it is amazing bad.  But most of us can agree that as a whole his actions to date meet Webster Merriam Dictionary definitions and are certainly creating “astonishment” and “surprise”.  We may also “wonder” what is going on?

There are several ways to look at his words and actions thus far.  Some may think that President Trump is the ultimate egotist, thin-skinned and overly concerned about being the best ever — it is all about him and very little about the country’s well-being.  Some may say that he and his administration are rookies and that many of the rough patches will smooth out as they get accustomed to governing rather than campaigning — which is not unusual with changes in administrations.  Some may say that no one has ever told him “no” and that he is used to running a one man show and that eventually he will figure out that even though he ran as an autocrat, that is not how our government works.  Some may think that he is, simply put, a nut case.  Some may think that he is doing exactly what they voted for him to do and by golly he is out there doing it.

Of course, some or all of those opinions may be true in part or in whole.  The real question is whether the nation as we know it will withstand his impetuous actions and words.  And no, that is not a “sky is falling” we are all doomed statement.  It is too early to see how all of this will settle out.  More on that in a minute, but first let me digress for a few sentences.

Famously in the aftermath of the election, it was said that members of the press did not take him seriously, but they took his statements literally, while his supporters took him seriously but did not take his words literally.  An interesting way of looking at things. Maybe we should take him both literally and seriously as his actions thus far seem to indicate that he looks at himself that way. Regardless, here is the problem.

As president, words matter.  What the president says is often taken literally, or taken as a signal of intentions, in foreign capitals and can impact international relations, trade, economic matters and other elements of our national interest.  When he says he is building the wall and Mexico will pay for it with a 20% tax, the leadership in Mexico has to take him seriously.  When he says that 3 to 5 million illegals voted in the election and therefore it was rigged (yet he won!) it plays right into the hands of those in Moscow and other places that Americans are no better off than they are and that democracy is a sham. People around the world listen.  I have no idea if he believes what he says or not, but he must understand that as President and Commander-in-Chief he can no longer say the first thing that pops into his head.

There is an old military saying that he should become familiar with — “no plan survives contact with the enemy.”  Our opponents always have a vote in what happens because they have their own self interests and national goals to defend.  You can slap a 20% tariff on another country out of pique, but you have no say in what they do in return.  And you can be sure that they will react, often in ways that are unpredictable and harmful to our own interests.

Here is my opinion of Mr. Trump’s actions so far.  They are based on two factors.  He has never functioned as a part of government or of the military.  In his life all he has ever had to do was say he wanted something done, and it pretty much got done.  The government does not work like that. For better or for worse, there are a lot of moving parts.  The president alone cannot change laws or hand down court rulings.

The second factor is that much of Mr. Trump’s success, however big or small or entangled with overseas governments and entities (we still wait for him to reveal their extent), his biggest successes are in marketing and self-promoting — branding as it is now called.  His brand is brash and huge and a take no prisoners approach.  I am surmising that in his mind, he needs to keep the brand alive with his supporters and therefore he is continuing to be outrageous, bullying and a man of action. All of that feeds back into his own perception of himself as the best at whatever he does and the cycle continues. When it stops is anyone’s guess.

I am very concerned about the damage to our world position of leadership that will occur if he continues on his “America First” doctrine.  It may be a good marketing slogan, but isolationism is not in our own best interest and does not help us with our interests overseas.  Our history is replete with such attempts in our past and the result inevitably is war or a depression or both.  Neither of those outcomes are in our national interests.

I am less concerned about his actions thus far on the domestic front.  When looked at carefully, most of his Executive Orders are more like outlines of where he would like to go.  He is fairly restricted in what he can and cannot do without the House and Senate in agreement.  Thus far the Republican controlled Congress has begun to realize that governing, rather than just opposing the other party’s initiatives, is hard to do.  The first real test of President Trump will be when enough Republicans say “no” to one of his proposals. Hopefully when Congress collectively says no, it will be a political lesson to Mr. Trump and not result in a Constitutional crisis.

My biggest and most fundamental concern are his and his administration’s attacks on the First Amendment.  Most modern presidents have had a dim view of the media coverage they receive and some have had an adversarial relationship with the press.  That’s fine and to some extent it is good for our Republic’s health.  However it does no one any good for President Trump to continually and perpetually call the press dishonest, the worst people on earth, liars or any of the other epitaphs that he throws their way. His senior adviser told the press to “shut up.”  He went on to call the press the “opposition party” — not the Democrats.  The attacks come because the press reports what Mr. Trump and his advisers actually do and say.  As they used to say, “let’s go to the video tape!”  It’s there.  It’s a matter of public record and yet Mr. Trump continues to deny that a given action or statement took place.  This is dangerous.

I fear that over time the outrageous comments and attacks on the press will become old news. People will stop paying attention.  Or worse — justify the outrageous and potentially unconstitutional behavior because we got some jobs back, or some other narrow, short-range goal at the expense of what we hold dear. Most autocrats gain power that way.

None of us has any idea how the next four years will unfold.  Based on the last week, we know that it will indeed be amazing.  I trust that the Congress and the American people will begin insisting that we get more from our president than a sweeping “believe me” when it comes to critical issues.

 

But Do They Have A Football Team?

Posted: January 18, 2017 | Author: | Filed under: Uncategorized | Tags: , , , , , | 1 Comment

Much has been written and discussed lately concerning the Electoral College.  Some argue that it is an anachronism that outlived its usefulness.  Others argue that it is integral to the foundation of our republic and must stay in place.  There are strong arguments on both sides of the issue and it seems that most people’s opinions are colored by whether they see our country as one nation, indivisible — as stated in the Pledge of Allegiance — or whether they see it as a collection of united states.

Although the discussions surrounding the Electoral College pop up every four years in conjunction with presidential elections , they are more noticeable this time around given that we have two presidents out of the last three (George W. Bush and Donald J. Trump) that lost the popular vote but won in the Electoral College.  There are only three other times in our entire history where this happened.  John Quincy Adams became president in 1824 through a vote in the House of Representatives.  Although Andrew Jackson won more Electoral College votes, he did not win enough to get a majority as required under the Twelfth Amendment (more on that later) and the House elected Mr. Adams.  In 1876 Rutherford B. Hayes became our president despite having lost the popular vote and the Electoral College vote — until 20 disputed electoral votes were changed under a compromise between Republicans and Democrats and awarded to Mr. Hayes.  This despite the fact the his opponent Samuel J. Tilden not only had more popular votes, but had a majority of the vote (just over 50%).  And we think our current election was contentious.  The only other time that the Electoral College victory came despite losing the popular vote was in 1888 when Benjamin Harrison defeated the incumbent president Grover Cleveland by campaigning to keep trade tariffs high to protect American jobs.  Some things don’t change.

For the next 124 years there were no instances of a candidate losing the popular vote but still winning the Electoral College vote.  And now in the first sixteen years of the 21st century it happened twice. Thus the argument over whether it is still a valid way to elect our presidents.

To fully understand the issue, a quick history of the reasons for the Electoral College are in order. Briefly stated, it was established because our esteemed Founding Fathers did not want the citizens of the new United States to elect the president.  Remember that their ideal for “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” was really meant for white wealthy males.  The pursuit of happiness meant property, and wealth meant education.  The masses were considered unfit and untrustworthy to elect the “real” leaders of the nation. Thus the president was elected by the Electoral College and United States Senators were elected by the legislatures of each state.  The House of Representatives was the “people’s house” — the safety valve for allowing the average citizen to participate.  Note that Senators are elected for six years (designed to provide stability and experience) and the House is elected every two years, making it easily changeable.

Article II, Section 1, Clause 3 of the Constitution created the Electoral College as the means to elect the President and the Vice President.  In practice it did not work out so well and the procedure was modified through the Twelfth Amendment when it was ratified in 1804.  All subsequent elections have been carried out under that amendment.  Clearly a precedent was set that if our method of electing the president is not efficient or effective, then it can be changed.

Article I, Section 3 of the Constitution was replaced by the Seventeenth Amendment when it was ratified in 1913 and provided for the direct election of Senators, vice having them elected by state legislatures. This is another precedent that our voting procedures can change with the times.

Both of these changes are relevant to the arguments for and against the continued use of the Electoral College.  The arguments are cogent on both sides of the issue, although passions sometimes run rampant rather than logic or historical facts.

Some of the arguments for eliminating the Electoral College, or to significantly change the way that it works, include the following.

  • Our presidential election process is not democratic.  It is the only national office where “one person, one vote” does not apply.  As has happened, the voice of the people can be muted or eliminated by the electors choosing someone who did not win the popular vote.
  • Originally Senators were picked in a manner very similar to the Electoral College voters. That process was changed with an amendment to the Constitution to allow direct voting.  If that can change because the original purpose for state legislators to vote for Senators changed, then that same argument for the purpose of the Electoral College is no longer relevant. We now have an educated citizenry with easy access to communications and an understanding of the issues.
  • The Electoral College was meant to be a check on the whims of the citizens.  Most states now require the electoral voters to match the results of the popular vote in their state, thus the original purpose of the college is no longer followed.
  • Too much power is invested in smaller states relative to their population.  For example, one electoral vote in Wyoming equals 142,741 people whereas in New York one electoral vote equals 519,075 people.  One can argue that this is patently unfair to all voters, and gives disproportionate power to states with small populations.
  • The House of Representatives could elect the next president and in doing so totally ignore the wishes of the electorate.  This would happen if the Electoral College vote ends in a tie, a mathematical possibility unrelated to the national popular vote results.  The vote in the House is by state — one state, one vote — thus giving Rhode Island the exact same say in choosing a president as Texas.
  • It solidifies a two-party system and precludes the possibility of other candidates making a meaningful run for president.
  • A president may punish a state that voted for his/her opponent even though many citizens of that state voted for the winner.
  • Presidential candidates ignore states that are safely in their camp or that they believe will not vote in their favor.  They end up not visiting large states (no serious campaigning by either candidate in New York, California, Texas for example) and small states (no serious campaigning in North Dakota, South Dakota, Wyoming for example).  They only campaign in a handful (about ten) of swing states.

Some of the arguments for keeping the Electoral College as it is include the following.

  • The Electoral College protects states rights.  Small states would lose their voice in presidential elections in favor of states with large populations.  Candidates would only focus on states such as New York, California, Texas and Florida.
  • The two-party system is preserved.  Such a political system is proven to be the best form for governing in the United States through competing political parties and their ideas .  If the Electoral College is eliminated in favor of directly voting for candidates, multiple candidates could conceivably run and splinter the popular vote.  This could allow a candidate with only 20 or 30% of the vote to win.
  • The Electoral College embodies our nation’s principle of federalism and eliminating it could be the first step in dismantling that system of governing.
  • Only the “coastal elites” in large cities would get presidential attention.
  • No one should mess with what the Founding Fathers created.  They knew what they were doing.
  • To change or abolish the Electoral College would require a Constitutional Amendment.  This process may open the door to other changes to our Constitution.
  • A victory in the Electoral College gives the president the legal authority to govern all of the states and all of the population.

To me, the strongest argument for changing or eliminating the system is that states with small populations have a disproportionate impact on the election.  The strongest argument for keeping our current process is to prevent a candidate from winning in a race with multiple candidates and garnishing only a small percentage of the popular vote.

Additionally, given the current political climate in our nation, any attempt now to change the Constitution would probably open a Pandora’s Box of other issues that could fundamentally change our Constitution and thus our way of life.

Although it goes against my preference, I reluctantly conclude that keeping the Electoral College is, at least for now, the best thing for our country.

And no, the Electoral College does not have a football team.  And that’s too bad.

It’s Not Funny Anymore

Posted: December 13, 2016 | Author: | Filed under: Uncategorized | Tags: , , , , , | Leave a comment

“What in the wide, wide, World of Sports is going on here?”

— Slim Pickens as “Taggart” in Blazing Saddles

I made a promise to myself, and to many others, that I would give President-Elect Donald J. Trump a chance to prove himself as our next president.  After all, I reasoned, he has yet to take office, has not had any Cabinet officers confirmed or proposed any legislation to the Congress.  I thought to myself, let’s give him a chance and see what he actually does rather than what he might do.

Too late.  Mr. Trump is already showing us what kind of president he will be.  In so doing, it appears to me that he has forgotten that he is not yet the president.  We only have one president at a time and currently Barack Obama is our president, like it or not.  Yet Mr. Trump has already meddled in foreign affairs, the market place, labor union affairs, and other areas properly the purview of the person that is the president.  In addition he continues to refuse to reveal anything about his business interests, or tax returns or any other aspect of his dealings that may well impact his decisions as president.  Mr. Trump was to have a news conference this Thursday to outline how he will deal with all of those interests, but he announced yesterday that the news conference has been deferred to an unspecified date in January. Don’t count on him actually holding it.  Despite frequent promises, he has not held a news conference since 27 July 2016.  In that one, he famously invited the Russians to hack Secretary Hillary Clinton’s emails.

My biggest concerns with his actions thus far relate to national security.  He has been reckless in his statements and actions to date.  One can argue that in the United States domestic economic concerns are the biggest motivators to the voting public.  However, the number one role of a national government is national security.  If the government cannot protect its citizens from all enemies foreign and domestic, then it has failed.  Otherwise, there is no ability to focus on any other aspect of government.  I find that Mr. Trump is woefully uninformed and reckless in his actions thus far and has already put our national interests in jeopardy.  One can only imagine what may take place once he assumes the office.

If you have only glanced at the news (real news, not fake news) you know that Mr. Trump has muddled our relations with both China and Taiwan.  His original conversation with the Taiwanese President sent shock waves through our diplomatic corps and the Chinese were not amused.  This week, Mr. Trump compounded the mess by saying in an interview on Fox News Sunday that in essence, his comments on China and Taiwan was an opening gambit in trade negotiations.  This thrilled Taiwan because now they are considered bargaining chips in our relations with China.  Their take away over the last 48 hours is that Mr. Trump would not expand the relationship with Taiwan but rather bargain them away as a pawn if it meant a “good deal” with China on trade.  In only a few days he managed to scare and to irritate both a friend and a foe, without stating any clear policy to move forward.

There are always new policies and ways of doing business with each new administration.  But as they say on Monday Night Football, “c’mon man!”

Most troubling, and seriously dangerous, is Mr. Trump’s reaction to the profoundly disturbing news that the Russian involvement in the presidential election is much deeper than imagined.  As I have written in this space before, it was disturbing to me that during the campaign the discussion was about the juicy tidbits in the hacked information and not that it was illegally obtained through the auspices of a foreign nation.  If you have not recently read about the intricate details, there is a primer in the New York Times that provides the outline of the case and what is known and unknown.

In short, the Russians have been acting deliberately to interfere with our election in a wide variety of ways.  One can argue whether the intent was to “merely” undermine the integrity of the democratic process or whether it was actively trying to derail Secretary Clinton’s campaign in order to help Mr. Trump.  Either way, we as a nation should be outraged and demand an investigation.

Unless you are Mr. Trump or his advisers that is.  They repeatedly called the notion “laughable” and “ridiculous.”  Or as Mr. Trump said on Sunday;

“I think it’s ridiculous. I think it’s just another excuse. I don’t believe it. I don’t know why, and I think it’s just — you know, they talked about all sorts of things. Every week it’s another excuse. We had a massive landslide victory, as you know, in the Electoral College.”

— Mr. Donald J. Trump on Fox News Sunday on 11 December 2016

This followed a Friday night press release where they ridiculed the CIA and Mr. Trump has repeatedly said that he does not take the daily intelligence briefs because “I am a smart person.”

It baffles me why Mr. Trump and his advisers didn’t just say something along the lines of this:

We are deeply troubled by the revelations of possible Russian intrusion into the 2016 presidential election.  While there is no evidence that the election results were tampered with or otherwise illegitimate we welcome the Congressional investigation into what happened in order to confirm the basic tenets of our democracy.  President-Elect Trump looks forward to working closely with the intelligence community to keep our nation safe.

Here is the problem.  He must believe that the CIA and other intelligence agencies — which are unanimous in their conclusion that the Russians tried to influence the election, but not on why they did so — are not good at their job and politicized.  Either or both assumptions are dangerous to our well-being.  Today Michael V. Hayden, former director of the NSA and later of the CIA wrote an opinion piece that explains the danger.  The question is not really about whether or not there are political overtones to the Russian involvement or what their intent may be.  The real question is why Mr. Trump refuses to seek the assistance of the intelligence agencies in solving problems and to use the information to help inform his decisions.  An adversarial relationship with the intelligence agencies is not going to help protect our nation.  To be dismissive of the information that they provide is reckless.

Through my personal experience and confirmed by all knowledgeable accounts, the members of our intelligence communities work very hard to keep us safe.  More importantly in this context, they are career professionals that have faithfully served both Republicans and Democrats.  They are apolitical. They seek only the facts.

There are cultural differences between the agencies, which could be used to the new president’s advantage rather than as a weapon to delegitimize their efforts.  For example, the CIA lives in a mushy world where the preponderance of evidence gives them signals to interpret events and to predict potential adversarial relationships in order to inform decision makers as they set policy.  They themselves do not set any policies.  The FBI on the other hand, has a different culture.  They are a law enforcement agency that works to convict criminals and others in a court of law.  They must gather proof beyond a reasonable doubt that can stand up in court.  An entirely different mission.  Add to that the fact that the CIA is focused on the international scene and that the FBI has an internal domestic focus. Thus, it shouldn’t be surprising that there are areas for disagreement as to the degree of surety about a particular case.

Look at it another way.  Many CIA employees risk their lives to gather information to keep our nation safe.  How motivated are they going to be to do so if the Commander-in-Chief basically calls them liars and political operatives attempting to “re-litigate the election”?

As a side note, but related, Mr. Trump seemingly due to his thin skin and lack of understanding, attacks anyone that he surmises does not support his election.  And that happens to anybody that does not tout his “landslide” victory.  I have yet to conclude whether Mr. Trump’s numerous untruths are the result of wishful thinking, studied ignorance or outright lies.  I suppose it could be all three, but it is continual. Let’s just use the election results as an example.  Mr. Trump claims that he won the election in a landslide.  The fact is that his percentage of electoral votes ranks him 46th out of the 58 presidential elections in our history. Not even the top half.  He is also losing to Secretary Clinton in the popular vote by nearly 3 million votes — her total is more than that received by any presidential candidate in history except Barack Obama — a result he claims is the result of “millions” of illegal voters that otherwise would have afforded him the outright win.  There is no proof of any voter fraud, much less “millions.”  I could go on but I don’t have enough time or space to enumerate the misinformation that comes from him and his aides — even if I just limited it to the last seven days.

This is dangerous.  We need an informed and truthful president — or at least one that doesn’t create his own facts.

Even more troubling is his cozy relationship with Russia and seemingly endless admiration of Russian President Vladimir Putin.  Let’s take a look at but a few examples.

Mr. Trump’s son said that Russian investors are a major factor in the family business.  Or more precisely he said, “Russians make up a pretty disproportionate cross-section of a lot of our assets. We see a lot of money pouring in from Russia.”

Members of his campaign and future administration have close business ties with Russia, including his national security adviser LT General Michael Flynn, USA (ret.).  He famously sat at a banquet with Mr. Putin and lambasted American news media outlets during a Russian propaganda television broadcast.

Mr. Trump’s nominee for Secretary of State is a personal friend of Mr. Putin and was awarded Russia’s Order of Friendship in 2013.  Oh, by the way, Mr. Rex Tillerson, as the CEO of Exxon-Mobil, has done a lot of business with Mr. Putin and other Russian oligarchs over oil.  Secretary-nominee Tillerson is a staunch advocate for removing sanctions against Russia imposed after Russia illegally annexed Crimea. He is quoted as saying the sanctions cost his company one billion dollars.  I am sure that will have no bearing in his dealings with the Russians.

I have no doubt that Mr. Trump did not personally collude with the Russians to interfere with the election and I am equally sure that no actual votes cast changed as a result of the Russian actions. I do feel strongly that their actions did impact the election, but it is impossible to know whether the outcome would have been any different without the Russian efforts.  Mr. Trump will be our president.

That said, I think it perfectly reasonable to investigate the extent and intent of Russian interference.  I think it perfectly reasonable to investigate Mr. Tillerson’s ties to Russia and his other dealings.  I think it perfectly reasonable to investigate Mr. Trump’s business dealings and relations with foreign powers. I think it perfectly reasonable for Mr. Trump to continue to receive pressure to release his tax returns and to build a firewall between himself and his businesses — just like everyone that works for him will have to do.

Thankfully, members of the Senate are going to do that on a bi-partisan basis.  They should dig deep and hard.  The point is not to undo the election.  That will not happen.  The point is make sure that undue influence from foreign powers is deterred in future elections and to make sure that going forward, the ties to Russia that are obvious to all but Mr. Trump do not inhibit the national interests of the United States of America.  Our nation and citizens come before the business interests of the billionaires that apparently will be running our country.  Let’s keep the pressure on Congress to provide the over sight needed to keep our nation safe.

 

 

Just The Beginning

Posted: November 5, 2016 | Author: | Filed under: Uncategorized | Tags: , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

In my lifetime, an election was usually a beginning.  Most of the time, it was a positive beginning as proponents of opposing candidates and political parties were happy or sad, justified or disappointed, but generally supportive of the process and willing to give the new president a chance to see what he could accomplish.  The election was over, and so most folks took a time out and turned towards the holidays and the approaching new year, and didn’t think much about politics again until Inauguration Day or later.

This year I worry that the most fractious campaign in our lifetimes will not end on Tuesday at the voting booth.  Two flawed candidates are limping towards the finish line, but I am not sure how things will play out when the results are tallied.  I am out of the prediction business as I have no idea who will win on 8 November but you already know what I think as to which of the two will do less harm to our country. That said, I do try to be balanced, or at least fair, in presenting my views in this space.  I will endeavor to do so again today, but I am concerned that not everyone involved in the two campaigns, the most ardent supporters or haters as the case may be, will be satisfied with the outcome.  I am worried that  some will not only be upset about the results but that they will act on their dissatisfaction in negative ways.  And let’s be blunt, when one candidate whines about the election being “rigged” because he is losing, suggests that “poll watchers” go to the inner city to make sure that voters are not “cheating” and other similar statements, the probability of a conflict increases greatly.  (And I note that he only cites the “inner cities” — code for minority areas — and not rural areas or small towns. He often suggests that they exercise their Second Amendment rights while watching the polls. Can you imagine what would happen if a group of armed African-Americans showed up in a small town in Kansas to watch the voters vote?)

Having said that, I am more worried about the impact on our form of government, our law makers ability, indeed their desire, to do their jobs and the unpredictable actions of our fellow citizens.  Which ever candidate wins, there are huge problems ahead.  Let’s look at a Hillary Clinton victory first.

Votes are yet to be counted, results are yet to  be certified, and no one knows who will win on Tuesday. Yet, Representatives Jim Sensenbrenner (R-Wisconsin), Louie Gohmert (R-Texas), and Michael McCall (R-Texas) Chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, as well as Senator Ron Johnson (R-Wisconsin), among others, have already stated publicly that they plan to begin impeachment proceedings against Secretary Clinton should she be elected.  Additionally, Senators Ted Cruz (R-Texas), Richard Burr (R-North Carolina), John McCain (R-Arizona) and Rand Paul (R-Kentucky), among others, have clearly stated or with a wink and a nod hinted at confirming none (repeat: none) of Secretary Clinton’s appointments to the Supreme Court.  Wow.  Even with a sense of leavening that these statements were made under the stress of campaigns and the emotions of the moment, these men still made astounding, and frankly, un-American statements about using the law of the land to punish an election winner that they do not like. The will of the people be damned, I suppose.   You will note that there is a pretty good likelihood that the Democrats will regain control of the Senate, yet I have not heard a single Democrat running for office promise not to confirm Mr. Trump’s nominees or that they will begin impeachment proceedings against him as soon as he is sworn in as president.

Some argue that there is no need for nine justices and that we have had different numbers on the Supreme Court over our history.  True.  But there have been nine since 1869.  With Justice Scalia’s untimely death early this year, the Court has been functioning (although deferring some cases until a ninth judge is confirmed) with only eight.  However, if the Republicans follow through on their threat, what is the right number?  Seven?  Six?  No one knows what deaths may occur, or retirements may occur, or other unforeseen circumstances that would further reduce the number of Justices.  Really? And what happened to the current Senate Majority Leader’s,  Senator Mitch McConnell (R-Kentucky), promise that the next president gets to nominate a Justice, and of course the fact that our current president (we only have one at a time) has a nominee on the floor for going on seven months?

As if that is not enough, Mr. Trump himself made a similar promise in the second debate this fall.  In the context of the “lock her up!” cries at his rallies, he made the following statement in response to a debate question about it should he be president.

“I am going to instruct my Attorney General to get a Special Prosecutor to look into your (Clinton’s) situation.”

The next day he reiterated his plan to prosecute Secretary Clinton when he is president.  Besides being unheard of in American politics — no winning president has ever threatened to jail his losing opponent in our history like we are some kind of third world banana republic — it also exhibits Mr. Trump’s desire to use the government for his personal vendettas.  It also demonstrates his lack of knowledge in that president’s are not authorized to order specific criminal investigations of individuals, not to mention political opponents.  To lose the impartiality of the Department of Justice in order to pursue his own ends would undermine the very fabric of justice in our country.

These examples alone would be cause for alarm as to what will happen after the election.  Actions that could destroy the delicate balance between a functioning two-party system and one where the rule of law and our Constitution is used only as a prop when it suits one’s purpose.

Of additional concern, and this really really bothers me, is the ongoing hacking of Secretary Clinton’s campaign.  By the Russians.  And I have heard very little concern expressed about it by any Republican, and especially none by Mr. Trump himself.  Indeed, last summer he invited the Russians to hack Secretary Clinton.  This is serious, people.  And yet all I hear about is what is in the emails and not that they were illegally stolen by a foreign government and used to disrupt our election.  (By the way they may be embarrassing but there are no “smoking guns” about illegal activity and I would argue that any large organization or campaign would be embarrassed if their internal discussions and unvarnished proposals were made public.)

Intelligence and law enforcement officials are preparing for some kind of additional cyber attack before, or on, election day.  The attack could come in any number of ways, but will probably be designed to further undermine the perception of a free and fair election process.  Democrats and Republicans should both be deeply concerned about this prospect.  But it seems to be of little concern as compared to petty fighting over minor issues.

Let’s look at a Donald Trump victory.  My concerns for our nation are not in any way lessened should Mr. Trump win.  As hard as it is, I will momentarily forget that the man is temperamentally unsuited for the office, and that he has shown a remarkable lack of intellectual curiosity to learn even the basics of how the government works under the Constitution or our most basic foreign policies.

Mr. Trump currently has approximately 75 lawsuits actively pending against him.  Many are long-standing complaints against him ranging from discrimination to failure to pay contractors.  Most notable, a trial in a class action lawsuit against him for fraud surrounding Trump University starts 28 November.  That is one of three state lawsuits against Trump University.  The Trump Foundation is also under legal scrutiny for illegal fund-raising efforts and for violating laws on how such money may be spent.  It is a long list.  How does that impact his ability to carry out the duties of his office?  How will the trials be impacted if he is president?  This creates yet another opportunity for the public perception of justice to be tainted by politics.

Mr. Trump continues to refuse to release any of his tax returns so we know nothing of his business dealings, except for what he chooses to brag about. Multiple responsible inquiries have shown him to be far less successful in business than he gives himself credit for having accomplished.  (By the way, it was pointed out that his final 2015 tax returns were due about two weeks ago.  There is nothing to stop him from releasing those as he would not know if they were going to be audited.  Not to mention that the Internal Revenue Service repeatedly stated that there is nothing stopping him from releasing them while under audit.)

The primary reason this is important, among many reasons, is that he claims to have extensive business dealings overseas, which is the basis of his claimed knowledge of foreign policy.  If so, we should know what those dealings might be so that potential conflicts of interest may be identified.  What checks and balances would be in place to make sure that foreign policy decisions were made to further the interests of the United States and not merely to help his business?  Without this knowledge it is possible that foreign agents could compromise our interests overseas.

In this vein I find his admiration for Russian President Vladimir Putin troubling.  I am not so bothered by Mr. Trump’s claims that Mr. Putin is “a great leader.”  Strange, but less troubling than the fact that the Russians are hacking and attempting to influence our election.  The Russians, and others, are using propaganda, psychological operations (PSYOPS) and intelligence to undermine our election and thereby demonstrate to their own citizens that there is no such thing as a real democracy, it is all a sham and rigged by the powerful.  This message to their own people, by using us as an example, can be very effective in keeping their own power.  Mr. Trump received classified briefings on this effort.  And yet, in the debates, he claims that there is no evidence that the Russians are involved and further claims that he does not trust the U.S. intelligence agencies.  Wow again.  He either willfully ignores the information he is given, or he is frighteningly uncaring, or he is glad that it is going on, especially if it helps him.  Any one of those reasons are scary.  Perhaps most scary would be that he does not believe the information because he already knows it all — a statement he has repeated concerning foreign policy, military affairs, and a host of other issues.  (“I know more about ISIS than the generals do.  Believe me.”  — 12 November 2015)

Here is the kicker and perhaps the most dangerous of all the unknowns.  How will the American people react over the long run?  My question reflects how we ended up in our current presidential predicament. In my view, the current atmosphere was created by politicians promising to do things that they could not, or in some cases, never intended to deliver.  Many of our fellow citizens feel abandoned by their government and suspicious of the leaders in Washington.  Mr. Trump tapped into that and we are now on the verge of being one vote away from him as president.  Many will rejoice and think “finally, we have someone to change things.”

That is what is worrisome.  Hear me out, please.  First, we have prominent Republican law makers promising that if Secretary Clinton is president they will block essentially everything she tries to do and tie her up in impeachment hearings and other vindictive investigations and hearings — mostly about things they have been investigating for four years or more and have yet to find anything of substance. In other words, more of the same from the last six years.  Lots of promises but no substantive action. Isn’t that how we got here in the first place? What makes Republican law makers think that more dysfunction and lack of, you know, actual governing is going to make things better?  Four more years of doing nothing is not going to heal the country and it will not endear the Republican party to future voters. Such an approach is more than a little short-sighted politically and not good for the future of our nation.

The first test is coming up soon.  On 29 September 2016, about 36 hours before the government would shut down, Congress passed a Continuing Resolution to keep the government funded until 9 December and then promptly left town and haven’t been in session since.  They must now come back in a lame duck session to fund the government for the rest of the fiscal year. However, the members of the Freedom Caucus, the Republican Tea Party group, are threatening to block all federal funding unless certain of their pet demands are met.  They are also threatening to unseat Representative Paul Ryan (R-Wisconsin) as Speaker of the House if he doesn’t go along with their demands, which run counter to the overall objectives of the Congress as a whole.  Welcome to the post-election honey moon.

Most disturbing to me is that during his campaign Mr. Trump promises many things that he cannot do under the Constitution or that are unlikely to be supported by the Congress.  When that happens, will the country react with more disappointment and lack of trust, or will something else occur?  Mr. Trump’s campaign rhetoric has often bordered on inciting violence and I fear that rather than finding himself frustrated in not being able to do what he wants, he will put out “a call to action.”  No one knows what form that call may take, or more to the point, how some on the fringe may interpret it.  Whatever the case, it will not be good for our country.

I hope that I am wrong and that my worries are unfounded.  But the indicators are not good.  There will be no post-election honey moon and the prospects for civil political discourse to address urgent issues and to keep our nation on track are not promising.

Or as cartoonist Walt Kelly said in his comic strip Pogo:

“We have met the enemy, and he is us.”

 

Wondering Out Loud On A Saturday

Posted: July 16, 2016 | Author: | Filed under: Uncategorized | Tags: , , , , | 1 Comment

The past few weeks were filled with notable events, often coming so fast that it is hard to digest one before the next takes our attention.  Many are horrific, others significant, and still others may change our world in ways we yet know.  Taken in sum or in part, they can be depressing and continue to challenge my view that the world is basically a good place and that given the chance, most people will do the right thing.

In no particular order, here are a few thoughts on the major and minor events of the last few weeks that have set me to thinking.

Turkey.  The attempted coup in Turkey yesterday proved one old adage.  When the person you are trying to over throw takes off in an airplane, do not let them land back in the country again.  More seriously, it is not only good for Turkey that their democratically elected President Recep Erdogan was able to disrupt and ultimately defeat those attempting the coup, but it is also good for NATO and for the United States.  Turkey is a lynch pin in a wide range of western policies ranging from the defeat of ISIS to relations with Israel.  However, President Erdogan will never be accused of being a nice guy.  Do not expect it to be a pretty sight in the coming days and weeks as the government rounds up those that tried to bring them down.  And those suspected of helping them whether or not they actually did.

Mass killings.  When is it “too soon” to talk about them besides offering up only “thoughts and prayers”? When some politicians try to go beyond platitudes they are accused of politicizing the events.  At the rate that they have recently been coming, we will never talk about them because one can hardly comprehend what happened before another occurs.  Our society is increasingly violent. We need to look seriously at ways to stop the violence and provide for the safety of the average citizen.  This does not mean solely protection from alleged Islamist terrorists — many of whom have no religious background and are primarily disgruntled or mentally unstable petty crooks looking for a cause — but in other ways as well. According to recent studies by the American Automobile Association and the American Safety Council, 56% of all fatal crashes in the multi-year study are caused by road rage and 37% of the incidents involve a fire arm.  In the United States.

Black Lives Matter.  When did discussions in our country become “either or” discussions?  Why does supporting the Black Lives Matter protesters become anti-police officer or vice versa?  Why does one have to choose a side when in the end we are talking about the well-being of our communities and those that live in them?  A serious discussion needs to occur at the community level to get everyone back on the same page.  In the end we all want the same thing — a safe and pleasant community — so why not protest when citizens believe that they do not live in a such a community?  But more violence and targeting police officers will not bring that about.  Ironically, the police chief in Dallas had been working hard to change the atmosphere and context of police-community relations and by many accounts had made great progress.  It is so sad and so senseless that his community and our nation suffered the loss of five fine police officers.

Gun Safety.  When did working for increased gun safety become anti-gun?  Another example of a complex issue in our country becoming an “either or” argument.  I despair that we will ever have a serious discussion about this issue.  Any discussion that contains “libtards”, “red-necks”, “do away with all guns” or “from my cold dead hands” is going nowhere from the start.  There is a middle ground. When over 30,000 people die from guns every year in the United States we have a problem. We must address it.

Congress.  Do not get me started.  I will say this, Congress just left Washington for a seven week summer break (and oh yeah, to campaign for re-election).  According to the current schedule, they will only be around, you know, actually working on bills, for about two more weeks before the November elections. Please note that most weeks when they are in session, work (actually a chance that they may vote on something) never begins before 6:30 PM on Monday (and usually it is noon on Tuesday) and never goes past 3:00 PM on Friday (usually actually ends about 8 PM on Thursday).  We should all be so lucky. According to govtrack.us there are currently 10,896 bills and resolutions before the current Congress. On 3 January 2017 the 114th Congress will end and all bills not addressed by then will die.  To see the light of day again, they must again be put forward by our legislators.  In the one to two weeks left of actual legislating (unless they meet in a lame duck session after the election — note that one can only be a lame duck after an election that you lost, not because you are declared one 10 months prior to the election) they will have to address appropriations bills across the government in order to keep it functioning.  Once again we are facing an omnibus continuing resolution that provides some money to keep things going until they can figure it out (and some are calling for that to carry over until next March so that the new Congress can deal with it — and remind me why we elect these people) or there will be another government shutdown.

The Supreme Court.  Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg spoke out this week about the future of the nation should Mr. Donald J. Trump (R-Manhattan) become our next president.  Let’s just say she didn’t think it would be a good thing.  She caught a lot of criticism from both the left and the right about a Supreme Court Justice inserting herself into the election process.  In my view, the criticism is justified.  We cannot be naive enough to think that they do not have personal opinions, but publicly, and repeatedly opining about the qualifications of a presidential candidate creates the perception of bias.  Not good.  Late this week Justice Ginsburg issued a statement expressing her “regret” but no apology.  Hopefully, this will be a lesson. However, historians point out that through out our history Supreme Court Justices have been political and made political statements.  As outlined in many articles this week, including one in historynewsnetwork.org  at least nine Supreme Court Justices became involved in Presidential politics. William Howard Taft was the president before going to the Supreme Court as Chief Justice. I am sure his political views were well-known.  Another, Charles Evans Hughes resigned from the Supreme Court to run for President, lost the election, and then come back many years later as Chief Justice.  And there are others.   For goodness sake, Chief Justice John Marshall was both Chief Justice and Secretary of State under President John Adams at the same time.  Still, I think it best if Supreme Court Justices stay above election politics.

And then there’s this.  At the Republican National Convention two security zones are to be established by law enforcement officials.  One will be in the direct vicinity of the convention center and run by the Secret Service.  Another, larger one will encompass much of center Cleveland.  Since Ohio has laws that allow for the open carrying of fire arms without a permit, fire arms will be allowed in the second security zone.  Here is what bothers me.  Guns are okay, but a partial list of items that are not okay includes air rifles, BB guns, knives, slingshots, metal cans, thermos bottles, tennis balls, umbrellas with metal tips, coolers, gas masks, string, tape more than six inches long and on and on.  For the safety of the participants.  Here’s a question, because it caused confusion in Dallas.  How are law enforcement officials supposed to know which people carrying guns are citizens exercising their rights and which are terrorists bent on mass destruction?

There has been so much more that has confused, amazed and appalled me these past few weeks but that is enough rambling for the time being.  I am sure there will be more confusing, amazing and appalling events to come, especially with the Republican Convention beginning on Monday followed the week after by the Democrats.  Good luck to us all.

 

 

Taxation Without Representation

Posted: June 19, 2016 | Author: | Filed under: Uncategorized | Tags: , , , , | Leave a comment

The title of this piece is the same as the motto that for years can be found on the license plates of vehicles registered in Washington D.C.  Most tourists, when they recognize it, are startled to see it and often ask about it, thus the reason for it being there in the first place.  The answer, however, while simple in response — “the District has no voting representatives in the Congress” — is far less simple in the context of the current political world.

To many D.C. residents, last Tuesday’s Democrat presidential primary in the District was symbolic of their plight in the modern United States.  While afforded the opportunity to vote for one of the nominees (Hillary Clinton won, while Senator Marco Rubio (R-Florida) won the Republican primary held in March), their votes were the last in the nation and of no significance since the nomination had already been decided.

It may be useful to put things in a quick historical context.  As we all learned in elementary school, Washington became the new capital city for the newly created United States.  Created by Congress through passage of the Residence Act in July 1790, the city’s location was the result of a compromise hammered out between Thomas Jefferson, James Madison and Alexander Hamilton.  The Constitution (Article I, Section 8) already provided for a federal district that was not a part of any state and that would be governed by the Congress.  Maryland and Virginia each donated land along the Potomac River that created a square-shaped jurisdiction and included the existing cities of Georgetown on the Maryland side, and Alexandria on the Virginia side.  In 1846 Congress returned Virginia’s donated land to the state (a complicated story in itself but it has to do with slaves as well as the city of Alexandria, and the fact that all federal buildings were constructed on the Maryland side) creating the current District’s size and shape.

For most of their history, D.C. residents had no say over how their city was governed.  The first significant change came in the early 1960’s with the ratification of the Twenty-third Amendment to the Constitution which gave the District three electoral college votes for president.  The votes are allocated according to population, but regardless, cannot exceed the number of votes allotted to the least populous state.

In 1973, Congress passed the District of Columbia Home Rule Act that allowed for the citizens of the city to elect a mayor and 13 Council members.  The first mayor was elected in 1975.

What is the significance of this brief history lesson?  Well, because of these cases and others, some legal scholars argue that, starting with the return of Virginia’s portion of the District, the Congress undid many elements of the original Constitution, thus setting a precedent that the District should be allowed home rule.

Here’s the real rub.  The District’s citizens resent that Congress over rides many of the laws that they pass within the Council or via referendum among the citizens.  Often, they are undone by conservative members of Congress that, according to many of the District’s citizens, use D.C. as a personal lab to push conservative causes that they cannot get done in their home state or in the Congress.  Additionally, when Congress is gridlocked, the District suffers because their budget, just like the Defense Department or the State Department is held hostage during the negotiations, making it difficult to run the city because even though they have the money (their own money, they argue) unless Congress authorizes them to spend it, they are not able to do so.

This is relevant today, as another major battle is brewing between the District’s government and Congress.  While D.C. supposedly has home rule, they must have their budget approved by Congress . This year the city government says that while they will submit it to Congress for review, they will not wait for approval and will spend the $13 billion dollars as they see fit. That budget breaks down to $4 billion in federal taxes and $7 billion in local property, sales, and other taxes.  (In the past, Congress would block spending on items or issues of which they did not approve. They also control all of the funds, including those through local taxes.) It is, as the Washington Post observed, essentially a Declaration of Independence by the city.  The Congress is not amused.  It may be a fight that D.C. cannot win, with threats of contempt of Congress and possible jail time for the mayor and Council.  Such activity directly in spite of Congress is deemed un-Constitutional.  In a vote in late May, the House voted to nullify the District’s voter approved measure to give themselves autonomy over their own city’s spending.

The real issue of course is whether or not Washington D.C. should become the fifty-first state.

Primarily, the desire of an increasing number of the city’s citizens is for autonomy in creating budgets and taking legislative actions, and gaining voting representation in Congress, just like the “other” states — 67% of voters in D.C. want statehood according to a poll last fall. (Currently the District has one representative or “delegate” in the House but that person cannot vote on legislation.)

The behind the scenes issue is that Washington D.C. voters are primarily Democrats and that giving the District two Senators and a member of Congress would add to the numbers of Democrats in those two legislative bodies.

As argued by the proponents of statehood, and delineated in the Post, Washington D.C. is not an economically backward city dependent on the federal government for its income.  For example:

  • The D.C. economy is bigger per capita than 16 states.
  • The D.C. budget is less reliant on federal funds than are those of 30 states.
  • D.C is actually a “donor state” along with states such as New York, Massachusetts, and California that pay more in federal taxes each year than the receive in services from the federal government.
  • D.C. has a larger population than Vermont and Wyoming.
  • Large portions of the city pay no local taxes as they are federally owned (Capital, White House, monuments, etc.) or are owned by tax-exempt entities.
  • D.C. has its own National Guard unit and its citizens serve in the Armed Forces of the United States without a say in how such forces are used.
  • Most federal workers live in Maryland or Virginia, paying no taxes in D.C., while the city has to bear the expenses of providing services (police, fire, sewer, etc.) to those workers.

The list goes on and on.  Washington D.C. has its share of arguments as to why it should become the fifty-first state.  And yet, there is that pesky little document called the Constitution.

Personally, I do not think that Washington D.C. should become a state.  However, clearly a compromise of some sort that gives the citizens of D.C. some say in their own, and their nation’s affairs should be reachable.  Past efforts at compromise have failed, mainly for political reasons that have little to do with city politics or policies and more to do with wielding power in the Congress.

Other proposals include giving the land back to Maryland and thus D.C. would have two Senators (Maryland’s) and gain representation in the House based on population.  Unfortunately, Maryland does not want to regain the city and the District does not want to join Maryland.

My thought is that D.C. is on the right track.  Allow the city to manage its own fiscal and legislative affairs, just like any other governmental entity in our country.  Make the “delegate” a voting member of the House and add (or subtract) Representatives based on population and the current census used to draw up representation in the House.  No representation in the Senate.

The original creation of Washington D.C. was a compromise.  It seems that a reasonable compromise is attainable in the twenty-first century so that all of our nations’ citizens have some form of representation in designating how their tax dollars will work.

Party Like It’s 1852 Again

Posted: February 29, 2016 | Author: | Filed under: Uncategorized | Tags: , , , , , , | 1 Comment

As the cliché goes, history often repeats itself.  1852 marked the effective end of the Whig Party, a political party that had elected four presidents and that generally favored the supremacy of Congress over the presidency, based on the Constitution.  It evolved for a while into the Know Nothing Party which was virulently anti-immigrant, especially against Catholic immigrants.  Eventually, mostly along regional lines over the issue of slavery, and forged by the Civil War, the modern Republican and Democrat parties emerged.

I am a strong believer in the two-party system.  In my lifetime, our country at times has veered right of center and left of center, depending on the election of one party over the other.  But I believe that the majority of Americans are moderate and centrist, with tendencies that cause them to lean left or right at various times over differing issues, but in the end, we mostly want to stay in the middle of the road.  We stay there without careening blindly over the cliff thanks to our two-party system.  It is self-correcting as one party or the other pulls its opponent back towards the middle when things start to get too wacky.  I am concerned that we are about to lose that balanced system as it appears to me that the Republican Party is about to self-destruct, much like the Whigs in the mid-19th century, over politicians and policies that no longer fit the main stream.  The reasons are many.

Tomorrow is Super Tuesday and by Wednesday morning we may wake up to the inevitability of Mr. Donald Trump (R-Manhattan) as the presumptive Republican nominee for president.  There is no need for me to list the many insults he has thrown at various groups around the country or to point out that he has no literate policy in any area of significance to this country other than to build a wall.  His nomination will create a dilemma for many main stream Republicans.  Support their nominee, chosen by the people and for the people, or not?  Whether or not individual voters continue to support him in the general election, he will have destroyed the Republican Party as we know it.  Even a cursory look at his statements (it is difficult to call them policies) indicate that he is all over the map on defense, foreign policy, healthcare, taxes, understanding the Constitution, trade, the economy and just about everything else. Few of his pronouncements match long-standing Republican policies.  Should he be elected, I am not sure how the rest of the Republican Party will align with his ideas, whether or not the Republicans continue to control both the House and the Senate.  (It may be hard for Republicans to hold onto the Senate with Mr. Trump at the top of their ticket.)  Those that think Mr. Trump will be better than any Democrat may be in for a rude awakening.  Regardless, under Mr. Trump, the Republican Party will not continue to exist as we know it today.

Couple the thought of Mr. Trump as president (gasp!) with current events in the House and Senate. In the House of Representatives, the compromise budget hammered out as former House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) was being driven out of the Congress by his own party is now in jeopardy. The bipartisan agreement on the budget was to make 2016 non-controversial, get the Congress back to the business of running the country, and allow for other issues to get addressed in “regular order.” In the last few days, however, the Republican Freedom Caucus, a group of about 40 Tea Party Representatives that caused the revolt that resulted in the government shut down in 2013, are now threatening to do the same thing again this year.  They do not plan to follow the budget agreement that all sides thought was in place.  Speaker of the House Paul Ryan (R-Wisconsin) is going to have his hands full dealing with this rebellion, just as Speaker Boehner did before him.  In many ways it is a battle within the Congress, among Republicans, as to the future of their party.

In the Senate, not much is getting accomplished.  Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Kentucky) seems intent on shutting the government down through inaction.  So far, nothing of substance that President Obama put forward has been, or apparently will be, considered. Senator McConnell and his fellow Republicans have moved from just disagreeing with or opposing the president’s policies, to being down right insulting.  There are numerous examples as to how they are doing this to a “lame duck” president (for the record, an elected official is a lame duck only after an election where their replacement has been duly elected — not the full last year in office), but let me just throw out a few.

Earlier this month, the president sent his budget plan for fiscal year 2017 to the Congress. Before it officially arrived in the House and Senate, the Republican leadership rejected it in total.  Their prerogative of course, but one would think that they should actually take a look at it before rejecting it. However, that was not sufficient in their view.  For the first time in 41 years, the Congress did not even provide the courtesy of inviting the budget director to testify before Congress about what was in the plan. The Republican chairs of the respective budget committees announced before the budget was released that they would not invite the director to testify because they were not interested in knowing anything about what was in it.

Another example can be found in the video released last week by Senator Pat Roberts (R-Kansas) where he makes a show of taking President Obama’s plan to close down the prison at Guantanamo Bay Cuba and wadding it up into a ball and shooting it into the trash can without reading it.  One may disagree about the efficacy of closing the prison, but why make it into an insult?  (See: Trump, Donald.)

Biggest in the news, and the one that most worries me, is the refusal of the Senate leadership to abide any nomination by the president to fill the vacancy on the Supreme Court following the untimely passing of Justice Antonin Scalia.  No nominee is named — but they already promise to refuse to provide even the most basic of traditional American political processes and will not meet with the nominee.  I have seen the tapes of then Senator Barack Obama (D-Illinois) and then Senator Joe Biden (D-Delaware) saying during Republican presidential administrations that the president should not be allowed to nominate a justice in their last year as president.  Two things come to mind.  We seem to be on a giant national play ground so let me use a grade school admonition:  two wrongs don’t make a right.  More importantly, Senator Obama and Senator Biden never actually stopped a nominee from coming before the Senate.  They may have voted against some, but they did not stop them and they certainly did not prevent the process from playing out as it should.  If Republicans do not like the nominee, fine.  Don’t vote for the person.  But to be rude and insulting by refusing to meet with and provide due consideration is ridiculous.  It is their job — do it.   It is also bad politics.  Think about it.

The country is angry and about to nominate Donald Trump as a major party nominee.  Much of that anger is directed at the Senate and House for not doing their jobs.  It seems that strategically and tactically Senator McConnell is off base.  No Republican needs to vote for any nominee (although if qualified, they should follow American tradition and do so) but by not allowing any nominee to be vetted in the Senate, they play right into the Democrat’s hands.  Talk about rallying the Democrat’s base — this will do it and probably lead to some incumbent Republican Senators losing their re-election campaigns. Follow the process, use the system to their advantage, keep the seat vacant but do it by following the rules.  I am not sure what he is thinking unless he is afraid that some Republicans might actually vote for the president’s nominee if that person is qualified.  What a tragedy that would be.

Senator McConnell’s thinking is also short-sighted.  To satisfy the base now, he is willing to take a chance on the future.  President Obama would likely nominate a moderate to the Supreme Court this year because he knows  that is the only way his nominee has any chance at all to be confirmed.  What kind of nominee will a President Trump put forward?  Does Senator McConnell think that a President Clinton will put up a nominee more to his liking?  Hardly. (Fantasy:  President Clinton nominates Barack Obama for the empty Supreme Court seat.  Now that would be something to behold.) If Senator McConnell wants to see a more moderate nominee, his best chance is now, not after the election. Especially as his argument is that “the people” should have their say — well they will, and both presumptive presidential nominees are surely likely to put forward someone less palatable to the Senate.

(History lesson:  Chief Justice John Marshall, perhaps one of the greatest to sit in that chair, was nominated by John Adams in late January 1801 — months after the election of Thomas Jefferson as president.  The Senate confirmed him and he took the bench on the 4th of February, one month before President Adams left office.  President Jefferson accepted the appointment because the Constitution gives the president and the Senate the power to appoint members of the court.  Nothing in the Constitution says anything about “lame ducks” which in this case, both the president and some members of the Senate most certainly were.  These are the “Founding Fathers” that so many now refer to as the justification for their actions.  These Founding Fathers knew the Constitution, were certainly “originalists,” and guess what?)

Why do I think this is important to Republicans and that they should change their approach? Because taken together, and in conjunction with other similar events and the mood of the nation, the soul of the party is at risk.  I worry that the back lash, and continued infighting within the party, will destroy or at least splinter the current Republican Party.  Whether that new political entity will be better or worse than what exists now, I certainly cannot say.  However, I am concerned about another Know Nothing Party emerging, for however short of a time.  Without two strong mainstream political parties, both vibrant and reflecting the core values of our nation, we will lose our way in the middle of the road and careen recklessly off of it and over a cliff.

 

 

A Road Map For Success

Posted: November 2, 2015 | Author: | Filed under: Uncategorized | Tags: , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Today President Obama signed a two-year budget deal passed by the House and Senate last week in a bipartisan deal to get the nation through and beyond the election of 2016.  Indeed, it is called the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015.  It accomplishes several things.  Foremost among them is that it suspends the nation’s debt ceiling until March of 2017, taking that issue off the table until after the next president is sworn into office. Additionally, it provides relief from the Budget Control Act of 2013. That is the bill that set spending levels for domestic and defense programs that many thought were too severe.  It has become known as the “sequester bill”  putting arbitrary limits on spending.

This is a good deal — not perfect for either Republicans or Democrats — because we would have hit our debt limit tomorrow (3 November) with the distinct possibility of a major financial crisis as a result. It also provides for increases in defense and domestic spending above the sequester limits. Perhaps more importantly, it provides a two-year deal that will finally give some stability to military and other planning and allow for more long-term investments, rather than living weeks or months at a time on Continuing Resolutions (CR) that may or may not be held hostage for political reasons each time they come up for renewal.  The CRs provided the ever-present opportunity to threaten a default or a government shutdown should certain minority demands not be met.

There are of course other provisions in the 144 page bill addressing a number of issues, but perhaps the most important of the other provisions is a fix for Medicare to keep premiums from rising drastically and a provision to keep the Social Security Disability Insurance trust fund solvent through 2022.

It also shows that members of both parties in the House and Senate can work together and actually accomplish meaningful results.  To me, this reinforces my belief that many of our nation’s problems can be solved with moderate Republicans and Democrats working together to compromise on important legislation rather than letting the extremes of either party hold the rest of the body hostage.

From a political standpoint, this may be the last gift from the former Speaker of the House John Boehner to the rest of us.  Given his imminent retirement, he was freed from having to negotiate with the Freedom Caucus — the group of 30 or 40 Tea Party conservatives in the House — and could get sufficient bipartisan support for it to pass.  The Senate recognized a solution when it stared them in the face and ignored objections by Senator Ted Cruz (R – Texas), another Tea Party favorite and Senator Rand Paul (R-Kentucky).  Both are running for president as “outsiders” and condemn the leadership of both parties in Washington.  I suppose the bill gave them another meaningless grand standing opportunity to make it look like they are “standing up” to Washington when they knew full well that the bill would pass anyway.

While this is a major milestone — even as one might argue that doing the nation’s most basic business should not be a “milestone” — there are obstacles ahead.  It is too early to sing kumbaya as we all hold hands around the campfire.

The new Speaker of the House Paul Ryan (R-Wisconsin) has promised to use the Hastert Rule in bringing bills to the floor of the House.  The Hastert Rule is named for the now disgraced (he is on his way to jail) former Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-Illinois).  Basically, it is a “majority of the majority” rule whereby a Speaker will not bring a bill for a vote if it is not guaranteed that the majority of the party will vote for it. Speaker Boehner often invoked this same rule.  What it does, is give groups such as the Freedom Caucus inordinate power within the House of Representatives to veto any legislation that they do not like, regardless of the ability otherwise to get a majority of the Representatives to vote for a given bill.

Speaker Ryan may be a new face and a respected leader.  I hope that he is able to get the House working again.  Unfortunately, he seems to have already tied his own hands by promising over the weekend that he would  continue to use the Hastert Rule, thus again inordinately empowering the minority of Tea Party Republicans in the House.

Another reason to keep from breaking out in song is that the deal is not done.  The bill that President Obama signed today is really only a framework for work yet to be done.  Because the legislature and White House could not reach a deal prior to the start of the new fiscal year, the nation’s business is currently conducted under a Continuing Resolution that keeps things going only until 11 December this year.  The CR is based on the sequester spending caps and there are some in the House and Senate that believe those caps should stay in place regardless of the just concluded compromise. As we all know from our civics classes, the budget is meaningless until the Congress passes Appropriations Bills (to say exactly how much money goes where) and Authorization Bills (allowing the government to actually spend the money).  Normally those are passed in 12 individual bills to fund each area of government (Defense, Education, Homeland Security, etc.).  Given the time remaining (and the propensity for Congress to take weeks off for holidays such as Thanksgiving), it is likely that there will be an omnibus bill (all of them rolled up together in one big bill) to cover the ability to spend money to the new budget guidelines.  This will give those that oppose the agreement more time to undermine it, especially by adding amendments to the bill that have little to do with the subject at hand but are used because they know that the overall bill needs to be passed and thus their individual proposals get little scrutiny.  There is also the possibility that some of those amendments may be “poison pills” added to scuttle the agreement totally.  One example would be to add a rider totally defunding Planned Parenthood.  That would open up a new debate that could cause the 11 December deadline to pass and result in shutting down the government after all.  There are some presidential candidates that think that would be a very fine idea.  Only time will tell on how skilled House and Senate leaders are in moving forward.

For all us political junkies, last week there was further cause for hope that maybe the House could act in a bipartisan way for the good of the country.  Many Tea Party members in the House (and Senate) want to eliminate the Export-Import Bank (Ex-Im Bank).  Most moderate Republicans and Democrats see the bank as important to American commerce and small businesses.  Without going too far into the arcane rules of the House of Representatives, moderate Republicans utilized a little used rule to set up a petition, signed by enough Republicans and Democrats to force a vote on a bill that was previously held from the House floor by Speaker Boehner and the rest of the leadership as a “bone” to the Freedom Caucus.  The measure to restore the Ex-Im Bank passed on a vote of 313 to 118, (within the Republican Party the vote was 127 for and 117 against), demonstrating again that the majority can work together to accomplish common goals when the full House is able to cooperate. After debate, the Senate is also expected to pass the bill.

I hope that these two accomplishments are more than a mere flash in the pan but are instead a positive sign of things to come.  It does demonstrate that there is a road map that can lead to success when compromise is not considered a dirty word and our leaders work together to move our nation forward.

The Real Meaning of Politics

Posted: September 25, 2015 | Author: | Filed under: Uncategorized | Tags: , , , , | 1 Comment

Yesterday Pope Francis addressed a joint session of Congress.  In my view his speech, and indeed his entire visit thus far, was extraordinary.  Not just in seeing a Pope addressing Congress, although that alone was indeed extraordinary.  And not just in seeing the overwhelming positive reaction he elicits from celebrities and regular citizens, rich and poor, Catholic and non-Catholic alike.  It was in his message.

(As a footnote, we should note that he was not the first head of a religion to address a joint session of Congress.  Queen Elizabeth II was the first when she addressed Congress in May 1991 as she is the titular head of the Church of England.  Similarly, Pope Francis is also the titular head of state of the Vatican, which adds diplomatic overtones to the visit and resultant ceremonies.  But I digress.)

Some people may focus on his remarks at the welcoming ceremony at the White House and his remarks to Congress as being too “political.”  I disagree.  His public comments are not political, they are pastoral and totally in keeping with the long-held traditions of the Catholic church, and dare I say it, the Bible.  I had the opportunity to watch his entire speech live (you may find a transcript here) and thought it engaging, knowledgeable, and entirely within his “lane” as the current punditry likes to use the term. Likewise, he was animated in his delivery, which means to me that not only did he believe in what he was saying, but that despite speaking in a language that is not his own, he understood the subtleties of what he was saying.

Even though this is his first ever visit to the United States, as a life long citizen of the Americas, he understands the United States and the traditions of the Western Hemisphere.  It was a well thought out speech that understood the historical touchstones of this nation.  Rather than focusing on the individual policies and hot button issues of his speech, I took away that his over all message was one of reconciliation and an admonition that politics, to accomplish anything, means that there must be compromise for the common good.  Additionally, he gently reminded the members of Congress before him that they were not there for their own good, but rather for the good of the nation.  Or as he said right at the beginning of his remarks:

“Your own responsibility as members of Congress is to enable this country, by your legislative activity, to grow as a nation. You are the face of its people, their representatives. You are called to defend and preserve the dignity of your fellow citizens in the tireless and demanding pursuit of the common good, for this is the chief aim of all politics. A political society endures when it seeks, as a vocation, to satisfy common needs by stimulating the growth of all its members, especially those in situations of greater vulnerability or risk. Legislative activity is always based on care for the people. To this you have been invited, called and convened by those who elected you.”

His remarks are particularly cogent given events today.  As I write, the Speaker of the House John Boehner (R-Ohio) announced that he would step down as Speaker, and resign his seat in the House, at the end of October.  We have yet to hear from him personally (I am sure we will before the day is over), but those who heard the announcement in a closed-door Republican caucus meeting said that it was because of the divisiveness of his own party — in particular the roughly 30 or so Tea Party Republicans that have no desire to compromise on anything.  They are interested in their agenda rather than the essence of politics — as even the Pope understood — which is to compromise and, as Pope Francis said in his speech “(b)uilding a nation calls us to recognize that we must constantly relate to others, rejecting a mindset of hostility in order to adopt one of reciprocal subsidiarity, in a constant effort to do our best.”

“To do our best.”  What a concept.  I am disappointed that the tremendous atmosphere of good will and positive outlooks evident in the Pope’s visit yesterday — and it was clear that many of the Representatives and Senators in the chamber during the speech were moved by it — has evaporated in less than 24 hours.

I, among others, have been critical of Speaker Boehner and his leadership style.  However, his stepping down is likely to make things in our Congress even more chaotic and divisive.  The Tea Party element of the Congress will probably celebrate his departure and see it as some kind of victory for their viewpoint. They are aiming for another shutdown of the government, an outcome that the serious leaders in the House and Senate, Republican and Democrat, are seeking to avoid.  We shall see if they are succesful as things unfold.

None-the-less, such developments are the antithesis of the Pope’s message. Already seemingly lost is his plea to the Congress, and through them to all of us as citizens, that we remember our history and our purpose as a nation.  As he put it:

“I have sought to present some of the richness of your cultural heritage, of the spirit of the American people. It is my desire that this spirit continue to develop and grow, so that as many young people as possible can inherit and dwell in a land which has inspired so many people to dream.”

Pope Francis knows the real essence of politics.  I hope that in some way, our representatives, the candidates now vying for our votes for president, and each of us as citizens remembers that we are all here together and can only achieve our greatness by working for common goals.

“My visit takes place at a time when men and women of good will are marking the anniversaries of several great Americans. The complexities of history and the reality of human weakness notwithstanding, these men and women, for all their many differences and limitations, were able by hard work and self-sacrifice – some at the cost of their lives – to build a better future. They shaped fundamental values which will endure forever in the spirit of the American people. A people with this spirit can live through many crises, tensions and conflicts, while always finding the resources to move forward, and to do so with dignity. These men and women offer us a way of seeing and interpreting reality. In honoring their memory, we are inspired, even amid conflicts, and in the here and now of each day, to draw upon our deepest cultural reserves.”

Amen.

Business As Usual

Posted: June 8, 2015 | Author: | Filed under: Uncategorized | Tags: , , , , | Leave a comment

It is with some disappointment, but little surprise, that I note that it appears this Congress is going to do no better than the last several in seriously addressing our nation’s needs.  The elements of a “do nothing Congress” remain in place.  Sadly, this seems particularly true in the Senate with 5 Senators running for president (currently one Democrat and four Republicans) portending that there probably will be more grandstanding and less legislating in the months to come.

Three examples (there are other similar cases) outline my pessimism.  They are the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), the Highway Trust Fund (part of the Transportation, Housing and Urban Development Authorization Bill, known as “THUD”) and the Authorization for the use Of Military Force (AUMF or “Anti-ISIS Bill”).

At this point let me do a quick refresher on spending bills 101 in the U.S. Congress.  Authorization Bills set policy and funding limits for an agency or program.  They do not allow for the actual expenditure of money.  An Appropriations Bill is needed to actually spend money and sometimes, although a program is authorized, it does not receive the money — or at least all of the money — they thought they were going to have.  Authorizations have no real Constitutional basis but are the result of the way Congress has handled such issues since roughly the Civil War.  Appropriations are necessary under the Constitution in order for the federal government to spend money.   Authorizations usually cover two years (except for the Department of Defense which is done every year) while appropriations for all agencies and programs are done annually.

Throw on top of all of this that the Congress, and the federal government, are still operating under the Budget Control Act (BCA) of 2011 — commonly known as “sequestration” or the draconian spending limits Congress set for itself to force a compromise, and then did not implement one, thus leaving those draconian cuts in place.

So what, you may ask?  First let’s take a look at the 2016 NDAA, and unfortunately, we must dig into the weeds a bit more.  In order to bypass the sequestration spending limits the Republican Congress proposes to put $38 billion into the Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) account.  The OCO is used to pay for war fighting and counter-terrorism operations in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere. Instead, the proposed bill directs the Defense Department to use the money (or at least a substantial portion of it) to pay for core costs that should be paid for under the regular budget accounts.  This is a direct attempt to over-ride sequestration for the Defense Department.  Why do this?  Because under the law, to increase Defense spending, cuts must be made in other areas of an already tight budget and the Republican leadership is not willing to do that.  Democrats are threatening to block the NDAA and the president is threatening to veto it for two reasons.  One, they think the hard choices should be made.  Two, and more importantly to them, they think there are domestic programs that need increases as well.  Part of the “deal” with the BCA was that all parties would suffer in order to force a compromise.  It didn’t happen and now, the Democrats argue, Republicans are trying to implement different rules for Defense than those that were originally agreed upon.  No one is sure what will happen in the coming days and weeks. Democrats do not want to look “anti-defense” and yet they cannot allow this budgetary legerdemain to stand as it will set a precedent that probably is not good for the long-term fiscal or policy interests of the U.S. And remember, this is just the authorization bill, they have yet to fully grapple with the appropriations bill that will actually spend money.

Similarly the Highway Trust Fund — used to build and maintain the nation’s federal highways, bridges and the like — is due to go bankrupt.  No agreement could be reached on how to fund it so for the thirty-third time (33!) in the past six years, a continuing resolution keeps it in operation until 31 July of this year.  The Highway Trust Fund was established with the Federal Highway Act of 1956 and resulted in the interstate highway system that became the backbone of commerce in our country. It gets its money from the federal fuel tax, which has not been raised in 22 years even though expenditures are outpacing income and our infrastructure crumbles. There is little agreement on how to continue to fund the program.  Many proposals made, none enacted.  There is little expectation that anything substantive will happen in July.

Besides being political footballs, these two bills represent many others that impact our economy and the ability to get things done.  Acquiring weapons, raising armies and navies and training the men and women to man them takes long-range planning, long-range contracts and long-range funding.  Building roads and bridges likewise takes long-range planning and funding.  When civilian contractors cannot expect to be reliably paid, they are reluctant to take on new work.  This hampers us all.  Most politicians agree that our defense is important (perhaps the most important thing that a national government does) and that our infrastructure needs significant upgrading and maintenance.  These programs also produce jobs, jobs, jobs, of which every politician of every stripe argues we need more. Just get on with it.

Not tied to spending is the dithering over the Authorization to Use Military Force (AUMF) that President Obama sent to Congress in February to authorize our current military action against ISIS and other terrorist organizations.  It is now ten months since we began air operations against them.  Experts predict the AUMF will never come up for a vote. The most important role of Congress is to authorize the use of force by our military under the president as Commander-in-Chief and they won’t even take it up in committee, much less bring it to the floor for a vote.  I fail to understand why.  If the president’s proposal is lacking in some way — and several argue that it is — then fix it!  Pass your own legislation to authorize military force against ISIS and other terrorists.  Many (all?) of the fifteen or so (I lose track) Republicans running for president are critical of our current policies.  Four of them are Senators.  Bring up some legislation to get things moving.  To be fair, there is resistance on both sides of the aisle. Some Democrats complain that the proposal is too expansive and can get us involved in another Middle East war.  Some Republicans complain that the proposal is too restrictive and may preclude other courses of action should new developments occur. Okay — but I don’t see how doing nothing at all is productive. What it does do is allow the president to continue his current course of action — a good thing if one supports his policy.  Not so good if you don’t.  But the bottom line is the same either way — the Congress is abdicating its most important responsibility and has no immediate plan to do anything about it.

All I see is poor leadership.  All the way around.  Unfortunately, it is business as usual.

 

← Older Entries
Newer Entries →