The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly

Posted: December 11, 2014 | Author: | Filed under: Uncategorized | Tags: , , , | 1 Comment

Two recent Congressional committee reports made the news in the last few days.  The first was from the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence chaired by Representative Mike Rogers (R-Michigan) on the events in Benghazi on 11 September 2012, and the second is the report from the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence chaired by Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-California) on the CIA’s detention and interrogation program.  These reports show how well the system can work, as well as how sometimes the system fails itself and our nation.

The House report on Benghazi was the seventh such investigation into the events of that night when terrorists attacked the American Consulate in Benghazi Libya and four of our citizens died, including the U.S. Ambassador to Libya.  This investigation and the resulting report is meant to be the final and definitive report on the events surrounding that tragic loss of life.  It will not be. Influential Republicans in the House and the Senate do not like the results of the investigative report, chaired by a Republican and that garnered bipartisan support from the committee members, and therefore are going to open yet another committee investigation.  This is because it uncovered no evidence of a conspiracy or cover-up or any other devious behavior by the Obama Administration.  They are sure that it happened, even if there is not a bit of evidence to support their claim.  I am also sure that their desire for yet another investigation has nothing to do with the fact that Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State during that time and is likely to run for president in 2016.  They are merely trying to satisfy “the American people.”

Even a cursory reading of the Executive Summary of the report shows that the Select Committee exhaustively reviewed documents and diplomatic cables, conducted hearings and interviews and thoroughly reviewed the mountains of evidence surrounding the incident.  Their conclusion was that “appropriate U.S. personnel made reasonable tactical decisions that night” and that contrary to rumors perpetuated for political purposes “the Committee found no evidence that there was either a stand down order or a denial of available air support.”  They also concluded that “there was no intelligence failure prior to the attacks.”  Further, despite continued claims by those not involved, they found that “there was no evidence that any officer was intimidated, wrongfully forced to sign a nondisclosure agreement or otherwise kept from speaking to Congress or polygraphed because of their presence in Benghazi.”

That is not to say that there were no problems.  The Committee findings include the fact that “after the attacks the early intelligence assessments and the Administration’s initial public narrative on the causes and motivations for the attacks were not fully accurate.” They state that the initial reports were confusing and conflicting (also known as the fog of war) and inaccurate information was disseminated prematurely.  The assessments changed after further investigation and the receipt of more information, about ten days after the event.  They also discuss the infamous talking points process that provided Ambassador Susan Rice information when she appeared on Sunday talk shows.  They call the process “flawed” but did not conclude that it was a deliberate attempt to cover anything up or to mislead the public.  It should also be noted that the Administration corrected the record as additional evidence came to light.  (As a side note, I continue to be baffled by the unprecedented and unremitting attention paid to these talking points by some political opponents of the president, rather than on the facts of what happened. Talking points?  Really?  That’s what is important?)

There is more to the report, obviously, but these are the key findings and directly rebut the persistent rumors that continue to exist about cover-ups and abandoning our citizens.  Yet, the report, crafted by a Republican majority committee and joined by Democrats does not satisfy conspiracy theorists, or those that blatantly use mis-truths for their own political purposes.  So, we will now, for the eighth time, have yet another committee investigate at a cost in time and money that could best be used to govern the country.

Perhaps more newsworthy was the Senate report on the CIA’s detention and interrogation techniques following the attacks on 11 September, 2001 — “enhanced interrogation” techniques or “torture” depending on one’s view.  This, again, was an exhaustive study which took many years of investigation and work to compile.  It has less bipartisan support than the House report, but it does have the support of some Republican Senators (notably John McCain (R-Arizona) who knows torture) and the opposition of some Democrats.

I am sure that debate over this issue will continue into the foreseeable future, and I am not sure that there is only one “right” answer.  There is a lot of criticism over the timing of the release of the report, with some asserting that it will lead to terrorist attacks on our men and women around the world. I am not sure what would be a “good” time to release the report.  To my knowledge, terrorists and those that work to undermine our nation go to work everyday and already, in their minds, have sufficient motivation to attack us regardless of any report from Congress.  Let me also short-circuit any claims that anyone in our country wants to coddle the terrorists or has any sympathy for them.  People I know hope they rot in hell, they are evil beings, so this issue has nothing to do with going easy on terrorists.

I have tremendous sympathy and respect for most of the key decision makers following the attacks. They were under tremendous pressure to make sure that no further attacks were imminent or planned and they were focused on the need to safeguard our country.  I get that.  I also think that the discussion over how much or what kind of intelligence was gained, or not gained, is misguided.  Few of us outside of positions of authority that require very high intelligence clearances knows exactly what was obtained or from what source or from what method.  (Although I will point out that members of the Select Intelligence Committee do meet that high bar, as obviously do CIA personnel.)  However, there are many experts that contend torture is counter-productive in the long run and generally leads to poor intelligence.  There are better and more productive ways to gain valuable intelligence from detainees and prisoners that do not include torture.

To me there is only one bottom line argument.  The United States is different from other countries in the world, and thank God for that.  Most countries would not do such an introspective study of such a serious, contentious, and classified operation.  We do, and we try to learn from it.

More importantly, we are different because we act differently.  We don’t do torture.  I know all of the moral and ethical hypotheticals (if you knew you could shoot one person, even if illegally, and save thousands in the process would you do it?  Etc. Etc.)  I am talking about state sponsored, systematic, wide-spread, ongoing operations the scope and nature of which apparently was hidden for a long time from key elements of our government (seemingly including the president, Secretary of State and Congress).  We do not do it and we should not do it.  Otherwise, we are no different from the forces we aim to defeat.

I am no Pollyanna.  I know what goes on in the world and I have a good idea that bad things happen to bad people in our name as a nation.  This is different.  I am glad that it is in the public spotlight and hope that our nation can have an intelligent discussion about what we stand for as a country and where we should draw the line on official activities.

Just two examples of the good, bad, and ugly of life today.

Immigration

Posted: November 24, 2014 | Author: | Filed under: Uncategorized | Tags: , , , | Leave a comment

“We’re all very different people.  We’re not Watusi.  We’re not Spartans.  We’re Americans with a capital “A”.  You know what that means?  That means that our forefathers were kicked out of every decent country in the world.”  Bill Murray as “John Winger” in the movie Stripes.

President Obama’s speech last Thursday outlining an Executive Order regarding immigration raised a national hue and cry about the merits of his actions.  Some applauded it, some opposed it on Constitutional grounds and some opposed because, because, well I’m not quite sure why they opposed it, but they sure are vociferous about it.

I am not a Constitutional lawyer and so I will leave it to the experts (of which I’ve heard very few certified experts weigh in — and they seem to be split) as to the Constitutionality of his actions.  It seems from what I read that there is merit to his claim that it is within his power, as well as precedents by previous Republican and Democrat presidents, but I’ll keep an open mind about it as it plays out.  I’m more interested in trying to take the emotion out of it and trying to discern the facts surrounding the issue.

The Pew Research Center did significant research into the immigration issue and continues to do so.  Interestingly, they find that 75% of Americans surveyed believe that our immigration laws need “to be completely rebuilt” or have “major changes.” Only 21% said that the laws are fine or need only “minor changes.”  So it would seem that many United States citizens are looking for the laws to change. There is less agreement on what those changes should be, but still nearly 73% of those surveyed believe that there should be a way for undocumented immigrants to stay in the country legally.  There is far less agreement on the means to allow them to stay, ranging from permanent residency only to the belief that there should be a path to citizenship, even if it isn’t an easy one.

They also reveal that there is a misperception on current enforcement of the border.  In recent years, over 400,000 undocumented immigrants were deported.  Significantly higher than for most of the last twenty years.  Conversely, the number of illegal immigrants in the United States also increased over those twenty years — although it is down over the last six years.  In other words, there are lots of ways to look at the numbers, but one cannot argue that there is no, or lax, enforcement at the borders.  To be realistic about it,  there will never be (or almost certainly a nearly non-existent chance) a time where no one crosses the border illegally.  We should also note, that not all of those undocumented immigrants are crossing the border illegally.  There is a significant portion that came to the United States legally, but never left.  Many of those are in college or in jobs that contribute to the American economy.  Indeed, according to the Pew Research Center, Americans are nearly evenly split on whether the presence of undocumented immigrants helps or hinders our economy.  According to their survey, 49% believe their presence “strengthens” the economy and 41% believe that they are a “burden.”

Canards that undocumented immigrants are a pathway to terrorism, and even the spread of Ebola, are merely the hysterical statements of those desperate to get elected, or to find themselves in the news. There is no evidence of either taking place.

I am sympathetic to the argument that our country should not condone illegal activity and, some argue, short change those immigrants that play by the rules and wait years to legally enter the country as workers or permanent residents.  I also argue that it is unrealistic to believe that we are going to round-up and deport 11 million people and send them to, to, where exactly is it that we are going to send them? And how?  To say “back where they came from” is hardly realistic.  And realism is what we need. Deportation, as has been accurately reported, will also tear families apart, as some family members are legal residents and some are American citizens.  How do we deal with that reality?  Talk about an impact on our economy and the militarization of our nation — try rounding up 11 million people from across every state in the Union and transporting them outside of our borders.  Not to mention the impact on the stability of the rest of the world.

This is a knotty problem.  There are no easy solutions.  I keep coming back to the idea that our country is a nation of immigrants.  I daresay many of us would not be upstanding, law-abiding citizens in our nation today if one of our ancestors had not immigrated from somewhere else.  And recall that for much of our nation’s history, all you had to do was show up and find your own way.  So what do we do today?

As you know, the Senate already addressed the issue.  In June, 2013, nearly 16 months ago, by a vote of 68 to 32 a bipartisan bill passed.  (Let us just note that in the current political climate, the Senate usually cannot muster 68 votes in favor of sending flowers on Mother’s Day.)  The bill is not perfect, and reflecting its bipartisan flavor has something for everyone to dislike or like.  It’s key provisions involve a pathway to citizenship that takes about twelve years and involves some very specific actions to make up for their previously illegal status.  It also addresses increased border security, an expansion of high skill visas, a guest worker program and employment verification.  All of the things that those serious about reforming our immigration laws, from both sides of the aisle, want to see.

This is where I am critical of the opponents to any reform.  Speaker of the House John Boehner asked the president to “wait” and he will bring up the issue of immigration in the next Congress.  I am not sure why the president would think that Speaker Boehner would follow through on that statement (when specifically asked, Speaker Boehner would not promise to bring up the issue).  The House had nearly 16 months to act on a bill passed by the Senate and that the president said he would sign.  And nothing happened.  Nothing.  Not a hearing in committee.  Not a vote on the floor.  Not an alternative bill that addresses the issue and that could then go to negotiations.  Nothing.  There is no reason to believe that anything would be different in the coming Congress.  And by most Republican and Democratic polls, it would pass.  But since politics and not what is good for the nation seems to dominate everything in the House of Representatives these days, Speaker Boehner will not bring it up because he knows he would need Democrat’s votes to pass it and he will only bring up bills that will pass with only Republican’s votes.  I am not saying this hasn’t happened in the past or that Republicans are the only one’s to do this, but I am saying that in the past, both Republicans and Democrats brought important, but divisive within their own parties, bills to the floor that passed and the leadership did it because they thought it important to the country.

Those running around yelling “amnesty” should take another look at the Executive Order and at the Senate bill.  There is no amnesty as defined by the dictionary. (“A pardon extended by the government to a group or class of persons, usually for a political offense; the act of a sovereign power officially forgiving certain classes of persons who are subject to trial but have not yet been convicted.“) Amnesty means that there will never be any action taken against the perpetrators of the forgiven offense. This is not what the president did, and it is not what the Senate bill does. However, for those that just like to shout slogans, I suppose it gives them something to shout about.

I am with the president in this respect.  If certain members of the House and Senate do not like what he has done, then pass a bill.  They can undo what he has done.  However, I do not think that no action is the way to go.  In all the hand wringing and ‘toing and froing” I have yet to hear a serious proposal from the loyal opposition as to how they would deal with the issue.  To coin a phrase, I suppose those opposed to any action on immigration advocate “don’t ask, don’t tell”.  By doing nothing, they are endorsing the status quo.  If only they would say so.  However, I guess they can get more political mileage out of complaining rather than doing something.

Others more knowledgeable than I will decide the Constitutionality of the president’s actions.  But I remind everyone that it will become a moot point if the House finally acts.

 

Well Isn’t That Special

Posted: November 6, 2014 | Author: | Filed under: Uncategorized | Tags: , , , | 2 Comments

To few people’s surprise, the Republican Party won big in Tuesday’s election.  What was a surprise to most of the “3Ps” (politicians, pundits and personalities) is how easily they won and by such wide margins.  While the word “historic” is passed around, it isn’t quite as historic as it is made out to be, but significant none-the-less.

This is the third president in a row (Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, Barak Obama) that had the Congress flip completely during their tenure (going from full control of one own’s party to full control by the loyal opposition).  That to me is significant in a number of ways.

Perhaps foremost among them is the possibility that fewer and fewer people are voting “straight tickets” anymore.  That is, voting only for one party regardless of the issues.  To some degree I question my conclusion here, as there are some states, especially in the South and the Northeast that are increasingly deep red or blue states.  But there are also significant numbers of “purple” states that change from one party to the other based on the particulars of that election.  That gives me hope.  One would think that more and more Americans vote on the issues and finding the best people to lead our country rather than just voting ideologically.

Many analysts see Tuesday’s votes as a repudiation of President Obama and the Democrats.  I am not as sure about that as they are as I see a subtle difference.  While many Americans are disappointed in the president, and legitimately disagree with some of his decisions, I think the vote is more of a reflection of the general dissatisfaction that the electorate now holds, particularly with respect to the economy.  To me the vote was one based on the premise that the party previously in control — the Democrats symbolized by the president in the White House — is not getting the job done.  The results are based on a framework of “let’s give the other guys a chance to make it better.”  In other words, change for change’s sake as a means to shake things up and to see if something positive can result.  So yes, it was a vote against the president and Harry Reid and the rest, but that does not necessarily translate into a vote for Mitch McConnell, John Boehner and company.  As a nation we are willing to see what they can accomplish, but if they don’t move the ball forward they will be in trouble in 2016 as another backlash is likely to occur.  This time against the Republican controlled Congress.

Of course if they succeed they will be in a much stronger political position and the country should also be better off.  I am sure that there will be some serious behind the scenes discussions in the Republican caucus to get the disruptive Tea Party types — who are by their own statements unwilling to compromise on anything, an antithetical position to take in governing — to sit down.  If not to be quiet, at least to let the process move forward.

Ironically, one could argue that Presidents Clinton and Bush did some of their most productive work after their party lost control of Congress.  Perhaps the same will hold true with President Obama.  In my mind a divided government forces compromise or nothing is accomplished.  Fortunately President Clinton and President Bush did not have to deal with Tea Party conservatives or disruptive liberals. Not that there weren’t ideological differences that interrupted the workings of government from time to time (think Gingrich vs. Clinton and the government shutdown), but in the end they figured out how to make it work.

Both parties need to reassess the events of the last four years and learn that cooperation on common issues of concern is a far better way to govern.  Hopefully (and I am hopeful), both parties will avoid the easy lessons learned about why the vote went the way it went and look closer.  They must realize that the outcome is a reflection of a willingness to try anything to get rid of the status quo of gridlock and bitter partisan politics.

To the super conservatives that say this gives them a mandate, all I can say is, “well isn’t that special.”  To the moderate Republicans and Democrats that want to get things done, I say go for it.

A Big Storm’s A’Comin’

Posted: November 3, 2014 | Author: | Filed under: Uncategorized | Tags: , , , , | 3 Comments

Or so they say in Maine.  And they did have a big storm this week that hit much of the East Coast. But that is not what I mean.

Tomorrow is Election Day and by all accounts it is very likely that the Republican Party will strengthen their majority in the House of Representatives and win a majority in the Senate.  Although the final result may not be known until much later (Louisiana and Georgia are very tight Senate races with multiple candidates and in those states at least a 50% majority is required), 2015 will likely dawn with the Republicans in control of Congress.

My hope for the country is that it is calm and smooth sailing for the next two years.  No storms.  That would require the Republicans in charge to actually govern and for the Democrats to work with the party in control to help them pass meaningful legislation.

My fear is that both Republicans and Democrats will take the “paybacks are hell” approach to governing.  The Republicans by passing legislation they know the President will veto (repeal of the Affordable Care Act, increased restrictions on immigration, and many other issues or worst of all, attempt to impeach him), while the Democrats in the Senate will use the same tactics currently used by Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Kentucky) and use the arcane rules of the Senate to block every Republican initiative.  In my view either approach (or worse, both) is bad for the country. We cannot afford two more years of partisan bickering with little to nothing getting accomplished.

There are too many problems facing our country that could be solved through genuine bipartisan cooperation such as rebuilding our infrastructure (jobs, jobs, jobs!), refining the tax code in a meaningful way, removing the sequester (which in 2015 kicks back in and there is universal agreement that it will put a big hole in government operations, especially for the Armed Forces, without a meaningful assessment of where funds need to be spent), genuine immigration reform, determining a coherent Middle East policy (our troops are in combat and the Congress went home without debating whether to put them in harm’s way), approving the Keystone Pipeline and other issues worth the time and huge amounts of money spent on getting elected to Congress.  If they want the job so badly, then they should do it.

Reality being what it is these days in Washington DC, there will inevitably be some bills passed by the Republican Congress that they know in advance the President will veto.  This is so they can use the issues for the 2016 Presidential race.  And for some of those issues, the Democrats will be happy to say that the President vetoed them in order to clearly draw the line between the positions of the two parties.  But let’s hope that these showmanship evolutions are kept to a minimum and the Congress decides to do its job.  They should keep in mind that the Congress, Democrats and Republicans alike, are at their lowest level of public approval in memory.  No one is happy with them, primarily because not much gets accomplished other than one or another “gotcha” activity.  Come the new Congress in January 2015, let’s just get on with it.

There will of course be wild cards.  One already making noise is Senator Ted Cruz (R-Texas), who we will remember as the architect of the government shutdown last fall.  In the Washington Post today, Senator Cruz said the first order of business should be a series of hearings on President Obama, “looking at the abuse of power, the executive abuse, the regulatory abuse, the lawlessness that sadly has pervaded this administration.”  He further would not say that he will support Senator McConnell when/if he takes over as Senate Majority Leader.  Look for more Tea Party inspired insurrections in the House and Senate that will sorely test the leadership of Speaker Boehner and Leader McConnell. If they do not get support from their more moderate party members, coupled with middle of the road Democrats, then we are in for a long two years.

Let’s hope the current election cycle is the storm before the calm, rather than the other way around.

Tuesday’s Random Thoughts

Posted: September 30, 2014 | Author: | Filed under: Uncategorized | Tags: , , , | 1 Comment

So much is happening in our nation and in the world that often events move so fast that many of us cannot keep up with it all. Here are a few quick thoughts about some of these happenings.

  • Syria and Iraq.  The President gave a good speech at the United Nations General Assembly last week.  (You can read it here.)  However, in his remarks there and to the American people, he has assiduously avoided the use of the word “war.” For those flying the combat missions and on the ground in Iraq, legal definitions of “war” make little difference.  For them, we are at war.  As a minimum, the Obama Administration should have the Department of Defense and Central Command come up with a name for the operation.  From the Middle East to Panama we have over the last few decades named all of our significant military undertakings.  This one should be no exception and would, psychologically, help the American people to understand the nature and seriousness of our commitment.  Something like Operation Desert Lightning might work.
  • White House Security.  As many of you are aware, the Secret Service has had a series of revelations of breakdowns in their procedures for protecting President Obama and his family.  So far, most of the suggested changes to improve that security involve expanding the security perimeter around the White House and making it harder for normal citizens to access the area.  Indeed, the security perimeter along Pennsylvania Avenue has already been expanded.  Wrong answer.  Review and follow the protocols.  The failures of the Secret Service cannot be fixed by imposing increasing restrictions on the people. One of my biggest disappointments in recent years is going to Philadelphia to see the Liberty Bell and Freedom Hall.  The security procedures required to get into the building were worthy of any security check for any airport in the world.  Bad news that our symbols of freedom are hidden away behind tight security.
  • Congress.  Whether or not we are technically at war, Congress has an important role to play in making sure that our Armed Forces are not sent needlessly into harms way.  Although the last time that Congress actually passed a resolution declaring war was long ago (in June 1942 against Bulgaria, Romania and Hungary), they have debated and passed resolutions supporting significant military operations.  Other than authorizing funds to begin to train Syrian fighters, Congress left town last week for campaigning without addressing the current actions against ISIS.  (Incidentally, this is the earliest Congress has left town for mid-term elections in fifty years — after having worked only eight days following a five-week summer recess.  Nice work if you can get it.) There is no more important matter for our government as a whole and for Congress in particular than national defense.  The only good news here is that it was a bipartisan agreement. Perhaps the only one of the past year.  Neither party wanted the “operation” against ISIS to get in the way of the campaigns surrounding the mid-term elections.  In other words, most Representatives and Senators did not want to have to go on record with a vote either for or against military action in fear of having to explain it during the campaign.   Shameful.
  • Baseball.  On a more positive note, at least in this area of the country, both the Washington Nationals and the Baltimore Orioles won their divisions and are in the playoffs.  It is too much to hope that they will meet in the World Series, but the locals can dream.  Already the debate is underway as to what to call it.  Battle of the Beltways?  The Parkway Series?  It would be fun.  And no comment on baseball could be complete without a comment on the retirement of Derek Jeter.  As a rehabilitated Boston Red Sox fan (Jetah — you suck!) I tip my hat to the man.  It is too easy to get carried away about what our various sports teams mean to the country and one can question what role it should play.  But all of the leagues and those in sports would be well served if their players were as consistent — on and off the field — in grace and leadership as Derek Jeter.

I could go on, but this is enough for today.  It is a fast paced world that we live in, indeed.

Cleaning Things Up

Posted: February 12, 2014 | Author: | Filed under: Uncategorized | Tags: , , , | 1 Comment

I do not often give a “well done” to Speaker John A. Boehner (R–Ohio) for his leadership in the House, but today I’ll give him a nod and a smattering of applause for getting fed up with his own party and getting something done.  Yesterday the House approved a “clean” extension of the government’s borrowing authority, or in common terms, they passed a bill allowing for an increase in the debt ceiling.   It was accomplished without amending any other elements to it and without creating another crisis such as the country went through last fall.  Unfortunately, it still had its share of drama, at least in the Republican Party.

The bill passed by a vote of 221 to 201 with only 28 Republicans voting for it.  Speaker Boehner made it clear that there would be no shutting down the government again this time and that the bill needed to pass sufficiently ahead of the government hitting the debt ceiling so as to remove the uncertainty and drama of the past several years.  I hope that he determined this was necessary in order to insure the full faith in the word of the United States government, and not because we are approaching mid-term elections and most of the American voting public is fed-up with the shenanigans from last fall and he did not want to risk losing control of the majority in the House.

The Speaker worked hard since the start of the new year to find a suitable compromise that would bring in both Republican and Democrat House members to vote for the bill.  He tried several different amendments to bring Republicans on board such as lifting the Cost of Living Allowance (COLA) cut to military veterans benefits (see my post from 7 January 2014) without losing Democrats’ votes.  It also had to be realistic enough that there would be a chance of getting the bill through the Senate and signed into law.  He was unable to come up with any compromise positions on the bill because the extremely conservative elements in his party opposed any effort to raise the debt ceiling — even though that ceiling is necessary to pay the bills already authorized by the Congress.

In a surprise move on Tuesday morning, he told the Republican caucus that he was moving ahead with the clean bill and, essentially, letting the Democrats move ahead with actually governing the country.

What rankled me a bit, although I was happy they finally did what they should have done long ago, is  that many Republican Congressmen wanted the debt ceiling raised knowing what the consequences of not doing so would be, but refused to vote for it because of fears that they would be challenged in this year’s primaries.  As Representative Devin Nunes (R-California) put it (he was one of the 28 Republicans that voted for the bill); “It wasn’t exactly a profile in courage.  You had members saying that they hoped it would pass but unwilling to vote for it.”

The Senate is expected to pass the same legislation (although just one hour ago a filibuster by some conservative Republican Senators was narrowly averted) and the President has declared that he will sign it.  Now we can get on with the business of governing.

Why Is This Necessary?

Posted: January 29, 2014 | Author: | Filed under: Uncategorized | Tags: , , , , | 2 Comments

On Tuesday President Obama reported on the State of the Union to a joint session of Congress and to the American people.  It was his fifth since being elected (traditionally the first speech given by a president, when it occurs, is an “annual message” rather than the “State of the Union” since they just took office days before the speech, so this is his sixth such speech).  Following his speech, the Republican Party offered their rebuttal to the president.   Why is this necessary?  Why does the party not holding the presidency always have to have “equal time” to present their political viewpoint when the president’s speech is fulfilling an official obligation of the office?

Article II, section 3 of the United States Constitution states that “He shall from time to time give to Congress information of the State of the Union and recommend to their consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient.”  (Of course the founding fathers could never imagine that the president might one day be a woman, since women did not get the right to vote until 1920, thus the “he” reference concerning the president.)

The Constitution does not say anything about the party or parties not in power having the obligation, or even the right, to follow what is a Constitutionally proscribed event with a requirement of their own.  This has been ongoing for years, for both Democrats and Republicans, and has been a staple of televised State of the Union addresses since 1966.  But why does it have to continue?

Indeed, the president does not even have to make a speech to a joint session of Congress to deliver his message.  As many of you may know, George Washington did so, but starting with Thomas Jefferson, most presidents sent an annual letter to meet the requirement.   Woodrow Wilson revived the custom of actually speaking before a joint session, and it was solidified under Franklin Roosevelt in its current form.

My question remains, however, as to why the “other” party must be given air time on national television to give a scripted rebuttal to a speech that they do not directly address, as the rebuttal is written prior to the original speech being delivered.

This year there was not even a unified rebuttal.  The “official” Republican response was delivered nearly immediately after President Obama finished by Representative Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA) in English.  A nearly identical “official” speech was given by Representative Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FLA) in Spanish.   (I am sure that the choices were merely a coincidence and had nothing to do with the perception that the Republicans have lost voters among women and Hispanics in recent years.)  Additional “rebuttals” were given by Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) and Senator Mike Lee (R-UT).  Senator Paul’s speech was “his own” (and pre-recorded) — coincidentally he will undoubtedly run for president in 2016 — and Senator Lee’s response was the “official” Tea Party position.

It all makes for great political theater and provides employment for the various analysts and strategists employed by the networks, media outlets and political campaigns.  So in that way, I guess that makes them all “job creators.”

I just wish that all that “speechifying” was useful.  Can’t they actually talk to each other?

Puhleeze!

Posted: January 21, 2014 | Author: | Filed under: Uncategorized | Tags: , , , , | 4 Comments

It struck me today while reading the Washington Post print edition that our Congress may be even more under-handed than I thought.  I doubt that it was the editors’ intent to do so, but in just the “A” section of the paper there were numerous articles, editorials and opinion pieces that when put together show just how self-centered and narrow-minded some members of Congress can be.  While arguing for smaller government, reduced spending, and the elimination or reduction of various government agencies, the omnibus spending bill that just passed was full of what used to be called “pork”.   Since the current rules of the House and Senate eliminate anything that resembles good old-fashioned bring-home-the-bacon pork barrel spending, they are now called “add-ons” or “specialized programs” or prohibitions for eliminating programs that benefit specific Congressional districts.

Here is a short list of some of these dubious exploits outlined in today’s paper.  It is hardly exhaustive and does not include everything a casual look at the news will reveal.

The 605.7 billion dollar Department of Defense (DOD) budget (over half of the total 1.1 trillion dollar total budget) is riddled with unwanted and unnecessary spending mandated by Congress, as highlighted by Walter Pincus in his piece in today’s paper.  The money comes by shifting money from the “base” DOD budget to the Operational Contingency Operations (OCO) fund.  The OCO fund is outside the regular budget and is not part of the agreement.  It is intended to be used to fight the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan but through accounting sleight of hand moving funds around, billions of dollars become available for “special projects” while being able to trumpet the savings to the base budget which does not directly reflect all of these expenditures.  Much of that spending is unwanted, unrequested and only minimally related to achieving the military’s mission or desired spending levels.

In an article about the United State Postal Service (USPS) which has come under withering criticism from the Congress for its increasing debt, we find that the USPS is trying to sell off surplus post offices but is being prohibited from doing so by House members until a study by the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) is completed.  Remember that the USPS tried to change delivery days to Monday through Friday — dropping Saturday delivery to save money — and was prohibited from doing so by the Congress.

As explained on the editorial page, Congress is considering a “tax extenders bill” to continue specific tax exemptions or tax breaks for special interests for everything from Puerto Rican rum to auto race tracks.  Historically, there are no increased revenue sources nor spending off-sets from other parts of the budget to pay for these special exemptions.  Yet, the proposed extension of added unemployment benefits is held up by those that insist it cannot be passed without corresponding reductions to “pay for it” in other areas.

Despite the chemical spill in West Virginia that contaminated the water supply for hundreds of thousands for over a week, many in Congress still want to eliminate or severely inhibit the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

I could go on.  This was only in a few pages of one paper today.  Puhleeze!  Spare me!  Enough!

This is the same Congress that has members that want to do away with or at least limit unemployment benefits, significantly reduce SNAP (food stamps), reduce the Cost of Living (COLA) payments to veterans, and on and on.

By focusing on the deficit and deficit reduction, some members have put their energy on the wrong issue.  While there is little criticism of trying to get spending under control, the real issue is where the money is spent and how effective it is in achieving the intended result.  Focusing only on dollar amounts and screaming about debt limits does little to enhance the effectiveness of government in achieving those things that can only be done on the scale needed to get at root problems.  And it does not help their credibility as they continue to add pork barrel spending while the demagoguery continues about too much spending.

I understand that some of the spending outlined above is about the give and take of doing business in our government following many,  many years of doing business in that way.  Sometimes these “add-ons” grease the wheels of progress towards larger issues.  I get that.

My problem is the callous deceit and phony-baloney lecturing about getting spending under control by focusing on spending on social issues while at the same time inflating spending in order to satisfy special interests that support their re-election.

While this is nothing new, I suppose, I have just grown tired of all of the posturing and self-righteousness that has no actual meaning.  Governing our country is a messy business and politics are a necessary part of it.  What I miss is a clear vision for the country and demonstrable leadership that extends beyond parochial interests or self-promotion.

One cannot be a “leader” in name only.  It must be demonstrated and focused towards a definable goal that contributes to society.

Where are the leaders?

It Seemed Like A Good Idea At The Time

Posted: August 23, 2013 | Author: | Filed under: Uncategorized | Tags: , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Not all new ideas are good ideas.

Some new ideas, of course, are good ideas, and some we don’t know whether or not they work until they are tried, but there are also definitely bad ideas that get implemented and then never go away.  I am sure that Pandora thought it was a good idea to open that box, and then it was too late.

I am not entirely sure which category the addition of ethanol to gasoline (commonly called gasohol) falls into, but I think it is probably in the “nice try, but no” category.  It seemed like a good idea at the time, but it is not clear to me that the technology to produce it is as efficient as once believed.  To meet the demand for the amounts of ethanol required produces negative impacts such as less corn for food and animal feed and the conversion of farm land now growing other crops into corn.

The Energy Policy Act of 2005 implemented the requirement to mix ethanol into gasoline produced in the United States.  This was further expanded through the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007.  What was once a voluntary program became a mandatory one.  The 2007 Act created subsidies for producing ethanol and banned the importation of ethanol from outside the US.  Two groups that are very happy with this new windfall are the large agribusiness companies and the lobbyists that pushed to have the law enacted.  As a result, it is a matter of faith for members of Congress from the farm states that this is a crucial element to our national security.   This notion is re-enforced every few years by candidates for President that have to make their way through the Iowa caucuses.

To meet the sudden demand for ethanol, corn was the easiest and most logical source.  Ethanol is alcohol, something well-known for a very long time by those using corn in their stills to make a little “home-brew”.  When mixed with gasoline it can provide an alternative fuel that reduces US consumption of oil.  Currently, most gasoline sold in the US is 10% ethanol although in some areas it can be as high as 15%.   (There are a few remaining sources of pure gasoline, but they are few and far between.)  Many new vehicles can use “flex fuel” or a blend of up to 85% ethanol (E85) resulting in more demand for the product.

The original idea was a good one — the search for alternative fuels to lessen American dependence on oil, especially oil from politically unreliable sources.  In fact, ethanol can be made from a variety of other plants (the next two most used sources are sugar cane and sorghum), but so far alternative bio-mass sources do not provide the same yield, which is part of the problem.  With the establishment of corn as the primary source and a near monopoly, there is less incentive for research and development for alternative sources.  Although touted as a renewable energy source, it is doubtful that large-scale use of bio-mass fuel is currently economically feasible.  Some day — but not yet.  For the long haul, there needs to be much more diversity if we are serious about developing large quantities of fuel from plants.  As new sources of oil, and especially natural gas, are discovered in the US, there is even less incentive to develop alternatives.  Yet ethanol from corn continues to be subsidized.

Like most things in life, there are pros and cons to the use of gasohol and sourcing it primarily from corn.  However, the benefits expected are so far turning out to be much less than they were originally thought to be.

The positive impact of burning gasohol rather than pure gasoline may be over-stated when taking into account its production and delivery costs.  For example, ethanol is hygroscopic (absorbs water) which cannot be totally eliminated.  Therefore it cannot be transported long distances via pipelines (goes by truck) and causes corrosion and water slugs in fuel lines of engines not operated often (such as boat motors, lawn mowers and other small engines).  One must also take into account the farm equipment, fertilizers, trucks, production plants and other sources using energy to grow and harvest the corn and then to  generate ethanol.

Vehicles get less gas mileage with ethanol.  In most cases it is about a 3-4% reduction in a 10% ethanol/gasoline mix and up to 30% with E85.  This means we are filling our tank more often, costing more in a tight economy.

With the advent of the mandates to supply ethanol in our gas supply, and the subsequent decreased availability for food and feed, the price of a bushel of corn has increased significantly.  This increases the cost of everything from Frosted Flakes to beef.

The original idea was a good one and it was a noble and valid experiment.  Now, however, it appears to have become a cash cow for agribusiness and those that support it.  Most small farmers, of which there are actually very few left,  do not much benefit because they cannot produce the mass quantities required.

The basic idea of using bio-mass as an alternative renewable fuel source continues to have great promise but it is not yet really commercially feasible.  To be a truly effective alternative fuel source, which we will need in the years ahead despite our currently expanding fossil fuel sources, more research and development is needed.

In the meantime, remove the subsidies for the production of ethanol and the requirement that 10% or more of our gasoline must be made of ethanol.  The industry will catch up and we’ll have a more sustainable path to the future.

Shaken, Not Stirred

Posted: July 30, 2013 | Author: | Filed under: Uncategorized | Tags: , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

“The optimist proclaims that we live in the best of all possible worlds; and the pessimist fears this is true.” — James Branch Cabell

With apologies to James Bond for borrowing his famous tag line, I would say that despite the deep divide within our Congress today, when put into historical perspective it’s bad, but not historically bad.  We are shaken in our belief in the ability of the system to accomplish anything meaningful, but we are not stirred to action to undo it or, seemingly, to even vote for someone new.  It is however, no less frustrating that important, if not easy, issues get side-tracked over partisan political bickering.  (Of course like many of us that take to the internet to blog, I think that all right thinking people will agree with my view of things.)

Recent opinion polls rating Congressional job approval are abysmal with an average across five different polls of 15.8% approving and 76.2% disapproving of the job that our representatives in Congress are doing.  The President’s approval ratings are better (46%) but still historically lower than average for this point in a president’s term, at least since Gallup began polling in 1938.

But keep it all in perspective because we often forget as a nation that the absolute worst period in our history has to be the years leading up to and including the Civil War.  We may have a war of words in the political circles of our capital, but no one is talking about secession.  Or at least no one that the main stream citizenry takes seriously.

It wasn’t just the Civil War.  In the period immediately following our independence serious disagreements existed among our Founding Fathers as to how the country should be run.  Washington and Adams were Federalists with a distinct view of how government needed to operate to preserve our hard-fought independence.  The Republicans (a different flavor of political party in those days),  represented by Jefferson, avowed that as president he would undo nearly everything his predecessors had implemented in forming a new government and differed greatly on how it should operate.   (As with many politicians, reality set in once in office and he found that much of what took place before him could not, and should not, be undone without hurting the country more than the sting of  his distaste for some of their policies — also true today.)

When did this letter arrive at the White House?

“You have brought the government to the jaws of destruction. I do not undertake to say whether by supineness, timidity, or enthusiasm. The effect is certain.”

According to Jon Meacham in his award-winning biography of Thomas Jefferson (Thomas Jefferson: The Art of Power) those words were written in  February 1809 to the President as he was preparing to leave office.  There were more from people of many walks of life that were even more critical of his time in office.

Even our Founding Fathers found that politics in the United States is a full contact sport.  The nature of our democracy (often grossly misunderstood by adversaries past and present) is that we are a contentious people as we strive to make our country better.  Our history and current events support that view.

But, come on guys and gals.  Seriously.  I think you can do a lot better than 16%.

Newer Entries →