Taxation Without Representation
Posted: June 19, 2016 Filed under: Uncategorized | Tags: Congress, Constitution, Historical Perspective, Politics, United States Constitution Leave a commentThe 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.
Only One Vote Away
Posted: June 11, 2016 Filed under: Uncategorized | Tags: Divisiveness, Donald Trump, Partisan, Politics Leave a commentAs hard as one may try, it is nearly impossible to avoid the controversy surrounding the two standard bearers for the major parties in the race for the presidency. They certainly do not need more discussion or analysis, especially here. And yet. And yet. It is equally impossible to ignore the big old elephant in the middle of the room. Even if one tries their best to ignore him, like a petulant two-year old, he will eventually get your attention. Of course, I am speaking about Donald J. Trump the presumptive nominee of the Republican Party.
Before we journey too far down this road, let me say up front that I am not a particular fan of Hillary Clinton, the presumptive nominee of the Democrat Party. This piece will not push you to vote for her if you are not inclined to do so. But it will push hard to suggest that it should be impossible to vote for Mr. Trump. Vote for the former Republican governor of New Mexico Gary Earl Johnson who is the Libertarian Party nominee. Vote for your cousin. Write in any name you may want to do — shoot put your own name as a write-in candidate so that you can say that you once ran for president. But for the sake of our nation, please do not vote for Mr. Trump.
There are several things that are dangerous about him. His well-documented racist, misogynistic, narcissistic, self-serving, thin-skinned, bloviating pronouncements are well-known. They started with his “birther” attacks on President Obama in March, 2011 and continue to today. (By the way, he promised that he had discovered “absolute proof” that President Obama was not born in Hawaii. I still have not seen it, have you?) Why would anyone think that the blow hard would change his tune and become presidential? (More on that in a minute.) He erased any remaining boundaries constraining political discourse in this country. I could go on, but I think you know who and what we are dealing with when it comes to Donald J. Trump. I give him the benefit of the doubt when people say he is not really racist. Perhaps. I cannot know what is in his heart or his mind. Unfortunately for our country, it does not matter. What he does say is racist and he plays to the basest instincts of mankind. Whether he has it in his heart or not, his actions say he is a racist. Even Speaker of the House Paul Ryan (R-Wisconsin) says his recent pronouncements are racist.
Equally troubling is that I presume Mr. Trump is a smart man. However, after a year of running for president he has not taken the time or the interest to gain even the most shallow understanding of the important issues facing our nation, whether foreign or domestic. One of his supporters, the Majority Leader of the Senate, Mitch McConnell (R-Kentucky) said on CNN yesterday that Mr. Trump better pick a knowledgeable running mate for Vice President. As he said, “He needs someone highly experienced and very knowledgeable because it’s pretty obvious he doesn’t know a lot about the issues.” His total lack of intellectual curiosity further solidifies my belief that he is a loose cannon with no real interest in leading our country beyond the ego trip of the trappings of the office and the possible benefit to his personal business holdings. (Many analysts speculate that Mr. Trump will not release his tax forms because it will reveal the Potemkin Village that his business “empire” really is — just a sham presented to make things look better than the reality. Many reports in the media already show that his promises of his “huge” philanthropic efforts either do not exist, or are the result of his foundation giving away other people’s money — not his own. As Senator Marco Rubio (R-Florida) correctly points out, he is a con man.)
I hope that the glare of the national spotlight shines brightly on Mr. Trump and that the American people end up with a huge case of buyer’s remorse before it is too late. We are already beginning to see the real Donald J. Trump as he attacks an Indiana born federal judge as being biased against him because he is a “Mexican.” (And later Mr. Trump added that a Muslim judge would also not give him a fair shake in court.) Whenever Mr. Trump is under attack, or more regrettably when things do not go his way as is happening with the law suit against Trump (cough cough) University he lashes out. Those that should know better say that when he is president, he will act differently and be surrounded by advisers that will temper his tantrums. Why do they think that? There is nothing in his demeanor to indicate that he will change and indeed he makes a point of saying that he will not change, that his is the brightest mind in the room, that he hasn’t listened to the advisers thus far and look how far he has come and many many more such pronouncements that lead me to believe that he will act exactly the same way as president as he has in his reality show of a campaign.
That people like Mr. Trump exist in our country was not a surprise to me. That so many people would vote for him, and thus by extension validate his ideas, divisiveness and lack of ability is deeply distressing to me. I had no idea so many of our fellow Americans were of the same nature as he is. Among those that have profoundly and deeply disappointed me and my generally positive view of the world are the majority of the Republican political leadership that endorsed Mr. Trump and thereby endorsed his policies, ideas, and methods. Look again at the above paragraphs. The Republican leadership in the Congress, embodied by Speaker Ryan that calls Mr. Trump’s remarks “racist” and Majority Leader McConnell’s statement that it is pretty obvious Mr. Trump “doesn’t know a lot about the issues” a year into the process, and yet they fully endorse him. It blows my mind. Like it or not, one cannot slice the apple by saying that they support Mr. Trump but not his racism, misogyny, threat to the Constitution and general lack of the temperament to be Commander-in-Chief. You support him, you support all of him — there is no separating the man from his policies, such as they are.
In my life I have disagreed strongly with particular policies of some presidents. Most maybe. But with the possible exception of Richard Nixon, I never felt that it was personal or that they would end up destroying the fabric of our society. The thought of Donald J. Trump as president is the scariest thing I have ever faced in my political lifetime.
Nearly half of his avowed supporters say that they do not believe that he will actually do what he says he will do, such as deport 11 million undocumented immigrants or keep those of the Muslim faith from entering the country (I wonder what Muhammad Ali thought of that — talk about “the greatest.”) They claim that his “policies” are more symbolic and not anything that he would actually do and besides, they really want someone to “blow up” the business as usual attitude in the nation’s capital. Be careful what you wish for. He will certainly shake things up, but remember that all new ideas are not necessarily good ideas. More to the point, what makes anyone think that he will not actually do what he says he is going to do? Can we take that chance?
In trying to understand why the Republican leadership would endorse and work to elect someone like Mr. Trump, it occurs to me that they secretly want Secretary Clinton to win. I do not mean that as a joke, and of course I do not know this for a fact because they will never say it, but here’s why I think that they do. If Secretary Clinton wins, the world and our nation are saved from the irrational dictates of Mr. Trump. While at the same time, they can continue to oppose everything that President Clinton puts forward, just as they have with President Obama, in order to maintain their political base, keep their jobs, and the Congress under Republican control. Then they go for the White House in 2020 campaigning that twelve years of Democrats in the White House “ruined” the country. If there is a President Trump, they will be forced to work with him and his nutty ideas, or oppose their own party’s president in office. They will likely lose their jobs and Republican control of the Congress. If not in 2016, then certainly in 2018 when the nation comes to understand just how dangerous Mr. Trump is, and the current leadership will not be able to say “don’t blame us” because they have all put party above country. Forget about a Republican in the White House in 2020. There may not even be a recognizable Republican Party in 2020 with Mr. Trump as the leader of the party of Lincoln.
I give great credit to some Republicans like former presidential nominee Mitt Romney, Senator Ben Sasse (R-Nebraska) and a few (too few in my view) others that have put country above party. They clearly are not enamored of Secretary Clinton and claim they will not vote for her. They are also just as clear that they will never vote for Mr. Trump. They know him up front and personal. All of us should pay attention.
Our nation is just one vote away from having a President Trump. We should be worried, very worried. To me, Donald J. Trump fits the mold of strong men across the arc of history that were duly elected and then proceeded to ruin their countries and cost many their lives. Let’s keep that from happening here.
Protecting First Amendment Rights
Posted: April 12, 2016 Filed under: Uncategorized | Tags: Constitution, Divisiveness, Historical Perspective, Politics, Same-sex marriage, United States Constitution Leave a commentCongress 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.
Party Like It’s 1852 Again
Posted: February 29, 2016 Filed under: Uncategorized | Tags: Congress, Divisiveness, Donald Trump, Partisan, Politics, Presidential Election, United States Constitution 1 CommentAs 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.
Game On!
Posted: February 3, 2016 Filed under: Uncategorized | Tags: Elections, Politics, Presidential primaries, Ted Cruz, United States Leave a commentBut where are the clowns?
Quick, send in the clowns.
Don’t bother, they’re here.Stephen Sondheim — “Send in the Clowns”
It is unclear what to make of Monday’s Iowa caucus results. Analysts and pundits are busy parsing it in many directions. So far I have heard that Hillary Clinton’s win was really a loss, Marco Rubio’s third place finish was a win, Bernie Sanders pulled out the biggest upset, Ted Cruz really knew how to do “retail politics” and Donald Trump is not unstoppable. I suppose all of that means we can make of the results whatever we wish.
There are a few things that are apparent. Projections, pundits and potential are all mostly in the past now that real people are voting. The game is on. On to New Hampshire. There is no clear front-runner in either party even though various candidates would like to think that they are the inevitable nominee for their respective parties.
Perhaps we also know (or hope) that the reality show atmosphere of the Republican debates will be a thing of the past. Perhaps the clown show is finally over. (Time out: You may remember that Donald Trump boycotted last week’s debate on Fox News. We will never know if that hurt him or helped him — many argue the latter because he would be asked some difficult questions. Ever the entrepeneur Mr. Trump opined that they should pay him for his appearance as he was such a boon to ratings for the network, and felt that the questions asked him were “unfair” — even as Fox News claims it is the only network that is “fair and balanced.” If I were a cynical conspiracy theorist, I would opine that it was actually a back room deal between Fox and Mr. Trump to boost ratings for each of them by creating a mock feud. But I must stop myself from slipping into the slime that is unworthy of the citizens of our great country.) Perhaps the next debates will be more substantive, but in truth, without Mr. Trump there, the last Republican debate was the most policy driven one they have held thus far.
There are a few things to keep in mind about the “winning and losing” that often get lost. In no particular order these include:
- Caucus goers in Iowa are not representative of the voters nationally. For both Democrats and Republicans they tend to skew farther to the edges of their respective parties. The last two winners of the Republican caucuses were former Governor Mike Huckabee and former Senator Rick Santorum. Neither were much of a factor in later primaries.
- The “winner” in the Republican caucus was Senator Ted Cruz (R-Texas) who got 8 delegates. In second place Mr. Donald Trump (R-Manhattan) got 7 and in third place Senator Marco Rubio (R-Florida) got 7 delegates. Out of 1,237 needed to gain the nomination. (For the record, Dr. Ben Carson (R-Johns Hopkins) got 3 and Jeb Bush, Rand Paul, Carly Fiorina, and John Kasich each got one. Chris Christie got zero, along with Mike Huckabee, Rick Santorum, “other” and Jim Gilmore — “other” actually got more votes than Jim Gilmore.) The “winner” got about six tenths of one percent — less than one percent — of the total needed for the nomination.
- The “winner” for the Democrats, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton got 23 delegates and the runner-up, Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) got 21. Former governor Martin O’Malley (D-MD) got no delegates but he did finish ahead of “other” and “uncommitted” in the voting. Out of 2,382 delegates needed to get the nomination, the “winner” got about one percent of the total needed.
(Time out number two: Out of the roughly 314 million citizens of the United States, these fifteen people are the best our nation has to offer? No offense to any one of the candidates that have put themselves out there to run (well, maybe offense to two or three of them), but whoever ends up being the two nominees do not to me look like the best that we can do.)
One thing is clear, the economy of Iowa benefits from hosting the first test of the candidates among the voters. I am not so sure the rest of us get much benefit from it.
The real impact of the caucus is the psychological aspects of winning or losing. Especially this year. Given the number and variety of candidates running, many voters are undecided and more importantly to the candidates, many major donors have been sitting out this cycle waiting to see who is a viable candidate with a shot at winning, you know, the real election. Additionally, some candidates found out that they have no realistic shot. (Farewell Governor Huckabee, Governor O’Malley, and Senator Paul. All “suspended” their campaigns after Iowa.)
The rules of the Iowa caucus, for both Democrats and Republicans are a bit arcane. I won’t go into them here, but even as one may argue that Iowa does not represent the country as a whole with respect to race, ethnicity, socio-economic factors, etc. it is also difficult to participate in the caucus. None-the-less, it is what it is and it does provide a chance to start narrowing the field.
Up next, New Hampshire. While that state also may not reflect the make up of the rest of the population of this great nation, at least the good citizens of the Granite State cast a real ballot at a polling booth. What makes New Hampshire interesting is that independents can vote in either the Republican or the Democrat primary (but not both). Expect more Republican candidates to suspend their campaigns after New Hampshire, especially those that only paid lip service to the Iowa caucus and put most of their effort into New Hampshire and still make a poor showing.
That said, I am not in the prognosticating business so I will not venture a guess as to who decides to retire from the field. I also am sure that we will still have a large field for a few more weeks. At a minimum, however, it should start to reveal who has a realistic shot at being their party’s nominee.
Perhaps by early March, we can send out the clowns.
Happy New Year and Good Luck in 2016
Posted: December 31, 2015 Filed under: Uncategorized | Tags: Donald Trump, Historical Perspective, Politically Correct, Politics, Ted Cruz, United States Constitution 1 CommentAs 2015 comes to a close, I wish each of you a wonderful new year in 2016 and hope that our country comes through the coming elections in better shape than what I fear may be the case given our experience over this past year.
I am normally an optimistic, the glass is half-full kind of guy, but I am discouraged by the political discourse of the last few months. I am concerned that it will only get worse in the new year. The rhetoric is depressing and may become more so as some candidates find that it works to their advantage to vilify others, and as some candidates become desperate to be noticed before they fade away.
I also learned long ago to stay out of the prediction game. With the right knowledge and experience, it used to be feasible to make a meaningful, if not always correct, educated guess as to the direction of certain events and the resulting policy decisions that follow. I do not feel that way anymore. Additionally, as I have expressed in previous pieces, I think that it is too early to begin discussing which candidates from which political parties will be our choices in November. I have no idea who will make it through the spring and summer and emerge as a viable candidate. Therefore, at this point in the process, I have no idea who I will vote for and I will try to keep my mind open as the campaigns progress. That said, I have already decided who I cannot vote for no matter their popularity or the alternative candidate from the other party. Out of the roughly 15 candidates combined in the Republican and Democrat parties still running (and sometimes it is hard to keep track) there are at least five that I know that I cannot vote for, no matter what. Some fall into that category because of their hateful rhetoric and others because in my view, they are just plain unqualified to lead this country. Some fall into both categories. Hopefully, they will not end up running against each other.
Logically, and historically, I know that we have experienced shameful demagoguery in campaigns past. I know also that our nation’s history has had shameful periods of racism and bigotry that were considered main stream. And as much as I would like to think that as a nation we have moved past those misguided beliefs, I know that some racists and bigots still exist in our country.
So the politics of racism, bigotry, hatred and fear — dealing in the mysterious “other” who are not like us and do not belong in our country — is, unfortunately, not new to this nation. We now have at least two leading candidates, Mr. Donald Trump and Senator Ted Cruz (R-Texas), that are experts at exploiting the fear and hatred of others and who also have little use for the truth should it not coincide with their narrative. They seem to be very popular — although it is difficult to know whether that popularity will translate at the voting booth. While I am deeply disappointed in their campaigns, it is really nothing new in our history. What has truly discouraged me is the number of people who pollsters of all stripes tell us support their campaigns. I knew there were bigots and racists out there, what is discouraging is the number that seem still to exist in the year 2015. And before someone gets their hair on fire, I recognize that not all supporters of Mr. Trump and Senator Cruz are bigots or racists. I know that. However, too many seem to fit in that category. By a lot. Anger and fear are powerful motivators, but when exploited for purely personal gain, it becomes dangerous. Both Mr. Trump and Senator Cruz are well polished exploiters of those emotions. I see their hateful ways reflected in all sorts of social media and other outlets. Although I am never sure if the anonymity of social media creates more salacious comments “just because” — “trolls” that enjoy stirring things up — or if the anonymity of social media allows people to expose what is really in their hearts without fear of being considered haters, but whichever is the case, Mr. Trump and Senator Cruz through their speech and actions, make it okay to be anti-social.
Please spare me the accusations of “political correctness.” For these two candidates (and others) claiming that they do not have to be politically correct has become a crutch. It is an anti-intellectual and facile claim that assures that no substantive discussion of the issues is needed and that to be polite and not rude in political discourse is not necessary. We are the worse for it. Bigots and racists are given free rein to malign others.
Before Christmas, Danielle Allen wrote an interesting opinion piece about “political correctness.” (It can be found here.) The term, according to Professor Allen was first coined by James Wilson in 1793. James Wilson was a representative to the Continental Congress and an influential member of the committee that gave us the Constitution and was one of the original Justices of the Supreme Court. The first substantive case heard by the new court was Chisolm v. State of Georgia which established that individuals could sue states. The decision was later effectively over-turned by the Eleventh Amendment. (I am not a legal scholar, but should one want to read an interesting analysis of the case, it may be found here.) What is pertinent to this discussion, is that the rhetoric following a lazy interpretation of “politically correct” has subverted the original use of the phrase. In some ways it may be better said as “correct politically” or Justice Wilson’s emphasis on “We the People” and his belief that sovereignty rested with the “people of the United States” rather than individual states.
This interpretation was presaged by a speech of his on July 4th 1788 following the achievement of the minimum number of states needed to ratify the Constitution. In his speech he laid out the vision of the crafters of that great document, its importance and how it is up to us, the people, to vote for good leaders. He emphasized how each vote was important (perhaps because his was the deciding vote for independence in the Pennsylvania delegation). Or as he said in part in his stem-winder of a speech (original spellings used below, italics and bold are mine):
Allow me to direct your attention, in a very particular manner, to a momentous part, which, by this constitution, every citizen will frequently be called to act. All those in places of power and trust will be elected either immediately by the people; or in such a manner that their appointment will depend ultimately on such immediate election. All the derivative movements of government must spring from the original movement of the people at large. If, to this they give a sufficient force and a just direction, all the others will be governed by its controuling power. To speak without a metaphor; if the people, at their elections, take care to chuse none but representatives that are wise and good; their representatives will take care, in their turn, to chuse or appoint none but such as are wise and good also. The remark applies to every succeeding election and appointment. Thus the characters proper for public officers will be diffused from the immediate elections of the people over the remotest parts of administration. Of what immense consequence is it, then, that this primary duty should be faithfully and skillfully discharged? On the faithful and skillful discharge of it the public happiness or infelicity, under this and every other constitution, must, in a very great measure, depend. For, believe me, no government, even the best, can be happily administered by ignorant or vicious men. You will forgive me, I am sure, for endeavouring to impress upon your minds, in the strongest manner, the importance of this great duty. It is the first concoction in politics; and if an error is committed here, it can never be corrected in any subsequent process: The certain consequence must be disease. Let no one say, that he is but a single citizen; and that his ticket will be but one in the box. That one ticket may turn the election.
In other words, no government, no matter how well conceived and designed, can function properly unless good, educated, and competent people — not “ignorant or vicious men” — are elected. The government is only as good as those elected to it. In my view, we lost that principal and fundamental element to good governance with the likes of Mr. Trump and Senator Cruz.
A Road Map For Success
Posted: November 2, 2015 Filed under: Uncategorized | Tags: Congress, Continuing Resolution, Debt Ceiling, Divisiveness, Partisan, Politics, Tea Party Leave a commentToday 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.
Perceptions Shape Reality
Posted: September 29, 2015 Filed under: Uncategorized | Tags: Partisan, Politics, Presidential primaries Leave a commentSo, did you hear this one? Donald Trump, Bernie Sanders and Pope Francis walk into a bar. The bartender looks up and — well I don’t really have a joke with a punch line here, although it would be fun to come up with something along those lines.
However, they all do have something in common, along with Carly Fiorina, Ben Carson, and in a way, John Boehner, soon to be the former Speaker of the House. I pledged to myself that I would not comment on the current state of affairs regarding the run up to the 2016 presidential election until sometime next year. It’s the silly season when marginal candidates make outrageous claims and promises and the field has yet to be winnowed to those serious candidates that have an actual chance to lead our nation. (For example, four years ago at about this time it was all about “nine, nine, nine.” How did that turn out?)
None-the-less there is a definite trend in the air. Together Trump, Fiorina, and Carson get over 50% combined in the current polls for the Republican nominee. Sanders, who when he started his campaign did not himself expect to get much traction, is giving Hillary Clinton a serious run in the early going. What does this tell us? I am not sure — but to state the obvious, I think it reflects a serious message to the other, qualified, candidates that the electorate is unhappy with the way things are going. I am not sure that it is truly a desire to “hire an outsider.” It is more a message to the current crop of politicians on both sides of the aisle that if they cannot, or will not do their jobs, then the electorate will look for someone who can.
To me, this is reinforced by the reaction to Pope Francis during his recent visit. Whatever one thinks of his religious views or whether or not he is too “political” (as I noted in an earlier post, I don’t think he is political but rather pastoral), one must agree that the outpouring of positive response to him as a man, by Catholics and non-Catholics, believers and non-believers alike, shows that a vast number of people are looking for someone who cares about them as individuals and for someone who brings a message of caring and hope. Hope for them in their daily lives and hope that our future can be better. Even Speaker Boehner has reflected this (look up his comments about the “jackass” in his party and the “false prophets” in his party), now that he is not bound by party duty and can speak his mind.
This paints a picture for me that the candidate that can provide a vision for the future that is positive, yet specific — enough with the vague platitudes! — has the best chance of capturing his/her party’s nomination and indeed, of capturing the presidency.
What I worry about is that we are reaping what we have sown over the last 6 years plus. In other words, politicians have been complaining about how bad, ineffective and dysfunctional government is these days. They have been complaining to such a degree that maybe people are beginning to believe it. The same politicians that barrage us with negatives about our government and our place in the world (which face it folks, if we are so bad off why are none of the complainers moving to another country) are not doing so well in the polls. They may have done such a good job painting a picture of disaster that they are now in the throes of having to recognize that maybe the electorate considers them as part of the problem. They have painted such negative perceptions of government that they are now living in the reality of being part of the problem. As Shakespeare said in Hamlet, they will be “hoist with his own petard.”
At the same time I do not understand why it would be a badge of honor — a selling point for gaining votes — to proclaim that as a candidate that they are complete outsiders with no government experience what-so-ever. I would guess that Trump and Fiorina as CEOs would not hire a new CEO for a major corporation that has absolutely no experience in business at all. And be proud of it. While I get the “outsider” appeal, I also believe in the American people. It is one thing to attend a rally, answer a poll question over a year before the election, and display other expressions of dissatisfaction with the status quo, and quite another to actually vote for one of the “outsiders.” I have no idea who will be the Republican or Democrat nominee for president, but I have a pretty good idea who it will not be.
There is a ray of hope. The politicians also should think about this. A recent survey done by the Democrat Party (don’t dismiss it out of hand — it was not just a survey of Democrats but rather a cross-section of voters) and obtained by the Washington Post indicates that most voters are not in favor of a smaller government. They are in search of a more effective federal government. Fifty-six percent of the respondents said that they were “very” or “somewhat” confident in the government to do the right thing. The top five answers to the question “what is wrong with the federal government” reflect that the electorate is most concerned that it is “corrupt” (23%), “inefficient” (18%), “out of touch” (17%), “wasteful” (14%), and “too big” (9%). To me this means that most people don’t worry about the size of government, they worry that it does not reflect the nation as a whole, and only is responsive to big donors and lobbyists.
Perhaps the cliché that the “squeaky wheel gets the grease” applies here. The factions that are currently making the most noise on the campaign trail are getting the most attention. But, I do not think that most voters are single issue voters. In the general election the voters take the full measure of the person running for office — their personality, knowledge, leadership and position on a full range of issues. The candidates that recognize this and put forward honest answers and specific plans as to how they will make the federal government more responsive will have the best chance to win. And to help our country.
Tom
Into The Fray 
Recent Comments