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.

Protecting First Amendment Rights

Posted: April 12, 2016 | Author: | Filed under: Uncategorized | Tags: , , , , , | Leave a comment

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

— First Amendment to the Constitution

I must admit that I am somewhat baffled by the string of new laws passed by various state legislatures pretending to protect religious beliefs as they pertain to same-sex marriage and to the LGBT community. Rightfully, several governors vetoed the work done in their legislatures, but others did not and signed them into law.  Taking it one step further, Tennessee passed a law making the Bible the official state book. (As of this writing, it is unclear whether the governor will veto or sign the bill.) In most, if not all, of these cases, legislators claim that religion is under attack.  In fact, they really mean that in their view, conservative Christianity is under attack.  If they felt that “religion” was under attack they would decry Mr. Donald Trump’s and Senator Ted Cruz’s (R-Texas) proposals to ban all Muslims from entering the United States and to spy on those already here.  That is certainly a threat to Muslims practicing their religion.

So why do they feel that way?  The short answer is that I cannot pretend to know what is in their hearts. I will say this, however. I am a practicing Catholic with close ties to my local parish and in no way do I feel that my religion or my ability to practice it is in any kind of danger.  And Catholics know something about being discriminated against for their religion. Without going into a lengthy history lesson, let me remind you that Catholics in most of the original thirteen colonies were widely discriminated against, especially in matters of property, voting or holding office.  Even after the Revolution many of them had prohibitions against Catholics holding office, or requirements for them to denounce their religion before they could hold office. Other religions were equally mistreated.  With the ratification of the Constitution in 1789, freedom of religion as provided in the First Amendment became the law of the land, but it did not preclude suspicion and  intolerance of Catholics which carried into the Twentieth Century and included anti-Catholic criminal acts by the Ku Klux Klan. Some of that sentiment was a carry over from the Reformation.  Much of it centered on immigrants, especially from Germany and Ireland.  Other manifestations centered on a belief that American Catholics, if given a chance, would turn the country over to the Pope in Rome.  In my lifetime I remember the anti-Catholic sentiment directed at John F. Kennedy as he ran for president leading him to make a major speech that certified his loyalty to the United States rather than to the Pope.  There is more, but you get the idea.

So, yeah, I will say it again, I know a little something about “attacks on religion” and I most definitely do not feel that I am under attack.

I do feel that the separation of church and state ratified in the Constitution is under attack. State legislators, and those that support them, seem to feel that the government is forcing them to do something evil by treating LGBT folks as they themselves would want to be treated.  I will say up front, again, that I do not know what is in their hearts or the sincerity of their beliefs, I just fail to see the logic behind the idea that if one serves a same-sex couple a cake that one will then burn in hell. Just like I am not a Constitutional scholar, I am also not a theologian, but I have read the Bible (cover to cover — not bragging, just saying most people I know only read excerpts of it) and I do not see anything about serving cakes to same-sex couples.  I also do not understand the belief that by doing so, one condones the same-sex marriage.  By serving divorced people does one condone divorce?  By serving atheists does one condone atheism?  Of course not, especially since there is nothing to condone, condemn or otherwise get one’s knickers in a knot over.  It’s nobody’s business.

Some argue that the real issue is “protecting” young girls from predatory men in bathrooms. Thus the laws state that one must use the bathrooms designated for use based on one’s birth sex. Besides wondering how that will be enforced, because there is no use in passing a law if it will not be enforced (bathroom police?  which gives a whole new meaning to “drop ’em mister”), I see that issue as a smoke screen to hide much more ominous provisions of those laws that can lead directly to unabashed discrimination under the claim of religious freedom.

The heart of the First Amendment regarding religion is the Establishment Clause.  As interpreted and accepted as law, it is not only the idea that the government cannot establish an official religion, but also that it cannot pass any law that favors one religion over another and cannot pass laws that favor religion over non-religion or vice versa.  In that context, laws created ostensibly to allow religious tolerance can easily become religious intolerance laws as they push the tenets of one religion over others.

I also do not buy the “slippery slope” arguments used by some.  Serving cake to a same-sex couple is not going to result in the eventuality of the government forcing clergy to marry everyone or anyone in their community.  We will have much bigger problems to contend with prior to reaching that point.  It isn’t going to happen.

It seems that in the context of civility and mutual respect that we could survive in a “live and let live” world without having to pass laws over who does or does not get served based on one’s personal religious beliefs. Discrimination is discrimination, however one tries to justify it.

Same-sex marriage is now a reality in the United States and other countries.  With the Supreme Court decision in 2015 in the case of Obergefell v. Hodges, same-sex marriages receive equal protection under the law. One may agree or disagree with the decision, but it is what it is and efforts to circumvent the decision by using state laws under the cover of religious tolerance is in my view an abuse of power, and I suspect, will also be shown to be un-constitutional.

I try to understand the real motivation behind such laws.  I am sure there are many that are truly concerned from a religious stand point.  (Which of course assumes that LGBT people are not religious, which is no more true than that all straight people are religious.)  More probably, I think that some of the legislators are really trying to score political points with their constituents.  By that I do not mean that they have listened to the religious concerns of those constituents.  I think instead they are really reacting to what they consider an “out of control” federal government and Supreme Court. They are really trying to show that they will not “tolerate” directions from a “godless” Obama administration.  And they have succeeded — they are ably demonstrating just how intolerant they are.

How Far Can We Drive the Country to Ruin?

Posted: February 14, 2016 | Author: | Filed under: Uncategorized | Tags: , , , , , | Leave a comment

Justice Antonin Scalia died sometime during the night Friday, reportedly of natural causes. Whatever one thought of his very conservative view of the law — based on what is often called an “originalist” view, or one where the original words as written are the law, not what the intent might have been or changes in community standards might be — he was also reported by those who knew him to be brilliant, funny and a good friend.  I extend my condolences to his family and friends who are surely reeling from the shock.  Although I rarely agreed with his votes or opinions, one can still recognize his innate kindness and abilities.

Unfortunately, such understanding of individuals as individuals, and their inherent abilities, does not extend to the Republicans in the United States Senate.  While one might understand the opinion of those on the campaign trail vying for the presidency — all of whom think that they will one day be president and should have the ability to appoint a Justice to the Supreme Court — I do not understand the majority leader of  the Senate claiming that the president has no right to appoint a replacement for Justice Scalia. Only an hour or so after the announcement of Justice Scalia’s death, Senator Mitch McConnell (R-Ky) announced that “this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president.”  Senator Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) echoed Senator McConnell’s call to wait until the next president is sworn in.  This is significant as Senator Grassley is the Chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee and can prevent a vote on a nominee within the committee and thereby prevent the entire Senate from voting.

I point out that a divided Senate confirmed Ronald Reagan’s nomination of then U.S. Court of Appeals Judge Scalia to the Supreme Court by a vote of 98-0.  Things were not perfect in the Senate then, but it was still the era where if a nominee was eminently qualified, like them or not, the president’s pick was his pick.

This unprecedented and outrageous stunt announced by Senators McConnell and Grassley has many ramifications and probable consequences.  One can only surmise that the personal animosity towards President Obama is so strong, that all of those Senate Republicans who espouse following the Constitution as their guiding light seem to have missed the part about the Supreme Court.

First, let’s simply look at the calendar.  If a new president knew exactly who his or her nominee was going to be and announced it the day that he/she is sworn in as president on 20 January 2017, and assuming the modern average of about 67 days for confirmation hearings and votes, we would still not have a new Justice until roughly the end of March or early April 2017.  About 13 or 14 months from now! Talk about the slow wheels of the legislative process.  It is also unprecedented in our nation’s modern history.  Not to mention that it leaves many important cases coming before the court this year susceptible to a 4-4 tie vote.  More on that later.  If this happened in September, then it might be reasonable to wait, but it is only mid-February, with about a year left in office for President Obama.  Is he to do nothing until next January?  Does he have no right to execute his office under the Constitution? It would be unprecedented for a sitting president to abdicate his Constitutional powers to the demands of the legislative body and turn over his power to appoint justices to the Senate. The Senate’s job is to “advise and consent” to presidential nominees, not to hijack presidential powers.  Let them work with the White House and see if there is a compromise candidate for the court.  Let each branch do what it is designed to do.  Senator McConnell and other Republicans argue that elections have consequences.  I agree. We elected President Obama to do a job.  Twice.  He should do it.

Second, the Senate Majority Leader’s announced plan to block any nomination from the president presumes that the individual is not qualified, merely by the fact that President Obama nominates that person.  And they do not know who the nominee will be.  I sincerely hope and expect that the president goes ahead with a nomination and decides to “leave it to the American people” (the catch phrase of choice for so many of the obstructionists) to see who is following the Constitution and doing their job. And it’s not exactly like the Senate calendar is jammed or packed with other pending legislation.  Take a look and it is apparent that the Senate has plenty of time to fairly proceed with the process. (You can find the proposed calendar here.  Note that being in session doesn’t mean they are actually working as most come in from their home states on Tuesday morning and go home on Friday.)  To block a nomination when the nominee is unknown makes no sense. Hold hearings.  Vet the nominee.  Find out how qualified that person may be and then vote. Making demagogic pronouncements within an hour of the loss of a Justice is ridiculous.

Third, there is a presumption in the Republican Senator’s actions that the next president will be a Republican.  Perhaps.  The next president could also be a Democrat. Does the Senate think that it will just wait another four years for another presidential election to fill the vacancy?

Fourth, the practical impact of not filling the vacancy for over a year could be tremendous and further divide our already politically divided country.  A 4-4 tie vote in the Supreme Court leaves lower court decisions in place.  This has many possible consequences.  The Supreme Court is set to make many important decisions in the upcoming year with scheduled cases including ones impacting abortion, The Affordable Care Act, one-person one-vote, affirmative action and a host of others.  We the people may not like what those lower cases decide and want the Supreme Court to weigh in.  In a 4-4 tie they have no impact.

More importantly, many Supreme Court cases are taken on because lower courts often pass down conflicting judgments.  For example, if the U.S. Ninth Court of Appeals (the western U.S. including California) hands down one decision, and the Eleventh (the southeast including Florida) hands down a conflicting decision, which is the rule of the land? One nation of law-abiding citizens is no longer the case as the “law of the land” is different depending on where one lives.  One function of the Supreme Court is to pull disparate court decisions together for a unified interpretation of the law. Such a scenario of conflicting opinions is not out of the realm of possibility when it will be over a year before the Supreme Court is at full strength.

I am many things, but I am not a political strategist.  However it seems to me that the Senate Republican’s strategy to stonewall the president on nearly everything, but especially on the nomination of a Supreme Court Justice could backfire.  Congress is already considered by many of us to be doing nothing to help the American people.  Prognosticators say that depending on who the two major party nominees are, that Republican control of the Senate could be in jeopardy.  It seems to me that if the voters do not see their Senators doing much of anything for a year, coupled with a few of the lower court decisions becoming the law of the land in a series of 4-4 votes in the Supreme Court, that some are going to take it out on their sitting Senators, especially in “blue” or “purple” states where Republican incumbents will be challenged by strong Democrats in the fall.

We will see how things actually unfold.  I am not optimistic that the Senate will move forward and conduct the business that we elected them to do.  Now not only will we have a divided legislative process, but the complete lack of cooperation between the Senate and the president will be exacerbated by a potentially hog-tied Supreme Court.  Hog-tied only due to the personal animosity towards the president, which apparently takes precedence over actually doing their job.

It will be a long, poisonous year.  I comfort myself in knowing that in our history we have been through some extremely divisive internal crises (Civil War anyone?) and come out the stronger for it. I hope that we enter 2017 with a new sense of purpose.  It is a shame that we will have to waste an entire year first.

 

Time To Get On With It, Already

Posted: May 7, 2014 | Author: | Filed under: Uncategorized | Tags: , , , | 1 Comment

The controversy over the Keystone Pipeline System continues.  Adding to the controversy is the continued effort by President Obama’s administration to kick the can down the road.  Essentially, they keep moving a decision on the building of Phase IV (the “XL” or “eXport Limited” you see in the news as the source of so much contention between various factions) until after the next election. In a political sense this may be a good thing for those arguing on both sides of the issue as it gives them both continued fodder to use against the other in elections. Lots of people making lots of money to support their cause. In a real sense, however, it is at best ridiculous to continue to delay a decision and in a worse sense it could have an impact on the economy to continue to delay it. There is an old saying that “a bad decision is better than no decision” meaning that some action, which can be modified as the event unfolds, is better than dithering and having events unfold without direction.

I am hardly an expert on this subject, but in my opinion, it is time for the Obama administration to approve the new pipeline and to get on with it.  In truth, the arguments for and against it are exaggerated by all involved.  It will not significantly increase jobs in the United States and it will not significantly impact the environment in this country either given that our reliance on carbon based fuels will be a fact of life for years to come.  (This does not mean that we should give up on alternative methods of producing energy.  Quite the contrary.  To be viable into the future we need to learn to wean ourselves off fossil fuels.  However, the reality is that while those systems are being developed and coming on line, we will need to use what we have.)

In particular, since we now have to move fuel via train and truck tankers which, as has been proven dramatically in recent months, are prone to accidents that can have horrific results.  It seems to me that the use of a pipeline, while hardly fool-proof, is in any case safer than moving volatile liquids by rail or road.

For those that may not have followed this closely, I will try to summarize the issue.  (A more in-depth explanation of the issue may be found here.  A map of the current and proposed systems may be found here.)

In sum, the Keystone Pipeline System is designed to carry oil from Alberta Canada to the Gulf Coast of the United States and will run through the middle of the country.  The economic viability of the project is based on the relatively new technology that makes it possible to recover oil from shale and sand.  It is owned by the TransCanada Corporation.  Since that is a foreign company, and the pipeline crosses an international boundary, it was left to the State Department to study its impact and to recommend to the president whether it should or should not be approved.  Among the factors that impact the decision, and the primary source of much of the emotional debate, is the impact on the environment.  Arguments from both side of the aisle in Congress tends to be divided by which states perceive that they will benefit from the project, and those that use the project as a symbol of the fight to reverse the impact of fossil fuels on climate change. Besides the policy implications, I never forget that large amounts of money are involved on both sides of the issue and that they are playing for high stakes.

Those that politically support the expanded pipeline — parts of it are already in operation — primarily argue that it will lessen the need for the United States to import oil from outside North America, with Canada as a reliable and stable trading partner, and that it will create jobs for the economy.  Those that politically oppose its construction primarily argue that it will impact the environment in several ways: the possibility of oil spills in environmentally sensitive areas it crosses; the method used to extract the oil is not really akin to drilling but rather is closer to strip mining; and the biggest factor, they argue, is that it will add to climate change by adding more greenhouse gases to the environment, both by the burning of the oil, and because of the process used to extract it from the ground.

Lost in the argument, of course, is the fact that oil is a fungible commodity.  The price and availability is dependent on market forces and when converted to fuel it does not matter where it came from in the first place. While piping is cheaper than shipping it overseas (TransCanada has threatened to ship it to China if the United States does not build the pipeline), in the end the impact on the worldwide oil market is not significantly affected — it is driven mostly by availability rather than source.

Studies delineating the economic impact of the pipeline and the promised number of jobs created vary greatly with the groups presenting the information.  Most of the numbers have been grossly inflated by the proponents. The official State Department study indicates that somewhere around 2,000 jobs would be created while the pipeline was being built (about a two year process) with less than a hundred permanent new jobs.  The effect on the gross domestic product (GDP) would be almost nothing — a few billion dollars or a fraction of one percent.

Currently, the Senate is considering legislation requiring that the pipeline by built.  This would be a binding resolution, expected to pass easily in the House of Representatives. This follows in the wake of a non-binding resolution from last year that passed with 62 votes in favor.  There is some question as to whether the proposed legislation is Constitutionally legal as the Executive Branch is tasked with decisions relating to foreign powers.  Unknown is whether such legislation could survive a presidential veto which might be likely be it for environmental reasons or to prevent the Constitutional issues from setting a precedent. No one knows for sure if the president would veto it, but it is thought that a Senate override would fall short of the needed 67 votes to do so.

The Obama Administration has been reviewing the issue for approximately five years.  The State Department initially rejected the project in 2011 because the pipeline crossed aquifers in Nebraska that were a significant source of water in the Mid-West.  Since then the route was changed to avoid the most environmentally vulnerable locations.  The State Department deferred another decision in April of this year in order to continue to study its impact as expressed in what was considered an “unprecedented” number of inputs from the public.  However, the study is complete and seems to indicate that the environmental impact of building it or not building it will be nearly the same.

It is an emotional issue and is believed by those concerned to have ramifications beyond the actual facts of the case. I understand that.  However, it is time for the president to make a decision and get on with it.  The reality is that whatever his official decision, the issue will not die and is surely going to result in more lawsuits in addition to those that are already in the courts. It is time to resolve the issue and to stop trying to delay it again until after the next set of elections.  That in my mind, is poor leadership.  The issue has been studied to death.  It is time to act.  I consider myself to be an advocate of setting standards to limit or reverse climate change (whether or not you believe in climate change, how can one be for pollution?).  However, in this case, I see little reason to delay the completion of a pipeline that is already partially built and results in ever-increasing numbers of truck and train tankers on our roads and rail lines, especially when predictions are that those numbers will quadruple in 2014.

Just do it Mr. President.

 

 

 

Newer Entries →