Electoral Score Card

This election is supposed to be about the economy but neither side has provided specifics on how they would improve economic performance if elected.  I was surprised that Obama did not bring up the major jobs bill that he sent to Congress; it provided a clear road map of his likely intentions.  The Democrats made a credible glass is half-full argument, but I wonder if anyone was listening.  If the Republicans have a plan, they are keeping it close.  I think Clinton’s ‘mathematics’ criteria comes into play here.  Also, since they are the party of ‘something new and different’ on this one, all they have to do is run against Obama’s record. 
  
The Democrats gain an edge on the ‘debt’ issue.  The idea of a tax cut, as proffered by the Republicans flies in the face of a need to balance the budget.  The Democrats make the case, unchallenged by Republicans, which any Republican ‘balancing’ will come through cuts in deductions that will fall heavily on the middle class.  The Democrats also pointed out that –with the military scheduled to get a major increased in Federal funding- the burden of the cuts will be borne by massive cuts to non-defense discretionary spending.  The Democratic answer, drawing on Simpson-Bowles, requires cuts in defense and non-defense spending along with tax increases, primarily on the rich.  To me the Democratic plan is more sensible and plausible.

The Democrats win the national security argument hands down.  T he Obama administration can point to one success after another in this area.  Romney’s talking points – we should not have left Iraq, we may need to invade Iran – raise the specter of a return to the neoconservative approach of President Bush.  Romney’s foreign trip yielded several vignettes of a naïve and simplistic approach.  The fact that he did not take the time and effort to become well briefed speaks volumes about where his interests lie and possible his arrogance that it didn’t matter.

The difference between Republican and Democratic approaches to economic safety nets is particularly stark.  Clearly Republicans will seek to cut spending and otherwise lower the burden on the well endowed to lend a hand to the less fortunate.  Clearly, the Democrats will continue to support, if not expand, medical coverage and aid to education.  If you share President Obama’s view of citizenship, than your choice is clear.  If you believe, instead, that government support to the less fortunate -by rewarding a lack of planning and personal industry- is counterproductive, than your choice is equally clear.

President Obama and the Democrats have not done well over the last four years dealing with Republic intractability: one of the traits of a successful President is the ability to marshal the political consensus required to get his programs passed and this has proven to be the President’s Achilles heel.  The Republicans have won the public relations war: most Americans think we are worse off than when Obama took office, and most Americans haven’t a clue about the full set of advantages offered by Obamacare.   It took President Clinton to make the case in a way they could understand. 

President Obama did not use his bully pulpit to punish the Republicans for their intransigence, despite the rampant evidence – including specific statements by Republican Congressional leadership- that denying him a legislative victory took precedence over solving America’s problems.   The fact that most American’s do not understand how they have benefited from Obama’s leadership is his problem and his alone.   It is neither necessary nor sufficient for a President to care about the welfare of the average American, it is necessary that the average American believe that they have benefited from the President’s stewardship.  Whether the President can make this case over the last several weeks of a four year term is problematical.

Limiting Federal Overreach

John Robert’s decision that Congress had the right to penalize individuals who choose not to obtain health insurance was viewed with dismay by many who felt the program to be a classic example of federal government overreach.    Overshadowed was the potentially profound impact of the second part of the Supreme Court’s ruling:  that Congress has no authority to order the states to regulate according to its instructions; that States must have a genuine choice whether to accept or reject any federal government offer.   Now that Washington could no longer threaten to cut off all Medicaid funding to states that did not go along with the increased coverage offered under Obamacare, some five states have announced their intention to say thanks but no thanks. Some 25 additional states are reportedly leaning in this direction.

The impact of the Supreme Court’s decision goes well beyond Obamacare.  The drafters of the Constitution took care to limit the federal government’s powers vis-à-vis the states: Washington was given the power to tax, borrow and spend, and control over interstate commerce.  All other powers were to reside with the states.  Beginning with Roosevelt’s New Deal and continuing with Johnson’s Great Society, Washington has used its taxing and spending powers to promote the ”general welfare” in road building, education, housing, unemployment benefits, and a wide range of social ‘safety net’ programs.   This has been true under both Republican and Democratic Administrations.  Constitutionally, states have the right to refuse these programs, but historically they have been enticed by Federal carrots  -the funding that comes with the program—and threatened by the stick -   loosing federal funds in other areas.

As the federal government’s footprint in state finances grew ever larger – some fifty percent of North Carolina’s revenues now come from Washington- Congress has become bolder in levying detailed instructions on how a state should or should not act.  In some cases these mandates were unfunded: states either accepted new intrusions and their costs or risk losing substantial Federal funds. 
The Bush Administration’s bipartisan legislation, No Child Left behind (NCLB), is the classic case:  without sufficient federal funding states were required to follow detailed instructions in school accountability and to implement parental choice to opt out of poor-performing schools.  Failure to do so would lead to a loss in all educational assistance from the Federal government, largely Title One funds to help the disadvantaged student populations.  If the recent Supreme Court ruling had been in effect in 2001, it seems clear that many states would have opted out of NCLB.   Even with all educational funding to their states at risk, some fifteen states reportedly were considering opting out of the program by 2005. 

The Supreme Court decision has effectively taken away the government’s stick when it comes to achieving state compliance to federal programs and policies enacted to promote the general welfare.  State acquiesce to environmental regulations has been achieved, in part, by the threatened loss of highway funding.  One wonders if states will now feel free to opt out of new, and tighter, clean air act standards. 

The long term effects of the Supreme Court ruling are problematical.  It will take some time, and probably additional Supreme Court cases, before the acceptable degree of Federal government coercion is determined.   In the interim one can expect state governments, emboldened by the ability to say ‘no’ to Obamacare, to decline to continue to participate in other federal ‘offerings’.  The federal government, for its part, will be far more attentive to state concerns when drafting legislation and far more likely to be forthcoming with the funding levels required to gain state acceptance.  One can expect to see significant differences among states in the acceptance and application of federal programs.  Such differences, I believe, are entirely consistent with the framers, which sought to limit the role of the federal government by giving all unspecified powers to state governments.

Although one may believe that a check on the federal government’s often abusive use of its spending powers is long overdue, one cannot help but wonder about the downside risks of greater state autonomy.   Will it matter if some states abide by federal educational guidelines while others do not?  If North Carolina agrees to Obamacare’s Medicaid expansion while Virginia and South Carolina do not, will the state see a population gain from people seeking medical coverage?  If North Carolina continues to follow clean air act stipulations, while Virginia does not, will North Carolina see some of its industry leaving for less restrictive pastures?  This country began as nation of states that collectively decided to cede certain powers to a national authority.  It has evolved into a nation with increasingly centralized power.  In deciding on the Constitutionality of Obamacare, the Supreme Court has opened the door for a significant reversal of this dynamic.  One can only stay tuned to see how it plays out.

Lest We Forget

We all remember the Colonial rallying cry “no taxation without representation”.  It wasn’t about taxes per see:  the Colonists believed –since they were not represented in England’s Parliament- they were not obliged to follow English laws.

A democracy exists when citizens combine to agree to follow the laws established by a government that they collectively vote into office.   The system is very imperfect, and there is often vehement opposition by those who have to abide by decisions they personally do not agree with.  At the end of the day, however, disappointed citizens comply with unpopular laws while holding out the hope of changing these laws in the future.  Witness the rallying cry of electing Mitt Romney to kill Obamacare.

It naturally follows that a democratic government would ensure that as many citizens as possible are eligible to vote.  Indeed, America has been defined by a continual broadening of the electoral base, providing more and more citizens with access to the voting booth.  Firstly, the burden of being a property owner was relaxed in most states early in the nineteenth century, allowing for the election of Andrew Jackson, the ‘people’s president’.  Constitutional Amendments were subsequently passed ensuring, in order, the voting rights of black men, women and all individuals over eighteen.   Pursuant to the Voting Rights Act of 1965, the Federal government monitors state actions that could unfairly restrict the right to vote.

Today felons constitute the largest class of citizens who are often denied the right to vote by their respective states. Currently almost six million individuals have thusly lost the right to vote. (The Supreme Court has upheld the rights of states to exclude their felons as long as the practice is not found to be racially discriminating.)

One can make a reasonable, albeit debatable , case of keeping felons out of the voting booth, but the spate of laws passed by of states to tighten voting requirements are another story altogether.  By cutting back on early voting, making voter registration more difficult, and insisting upon official photographic identifications, many state governments have recently sought to limit the participation of certain segments of society, segments that just happen to have a tradition of voting for democratic candidates.
 It is not coincidental that these restrictions have been put in place in states controlled by Republican legislatures and governors.   

By example, Florida’s 2011 law made it next to impossible for long-standing voter registration efforts - such as those by the League of Women Voters and Rock the Vote- to continue. The law also called for a purging of voter lists using data proved to be dated and erroneous.  In Pennsylvania, roughly nine percent of registered voters currently lack the appropriate identifications that –due to a March 2012 law- will now be required in order to vote in this fall’s elections.  Most of these individuals, it is believed, are traditional democratic voters who live in the city of Philadelphia.

The expressed rational behind such moves has been to cut down on voter fraud.  Importantly, however, there is no evidence that voter fraud takes place even at the minutest level.  Let’s be clear on this.  A movement to tighten up voting restrictions is based on a totally false premise.

 These restrictions could well make a difference in this fall’s presidential election.  Indeed that is their intent.  According to the Washington Post reporting, “Iast month, the state’s House Republican leader Mike Turzai included it in a checklist of conservative legislative accomplishments. As he told an audience to resounding applause: “Voter ID, which is going to allow. . . [Presidential candidate Mitt] Romney to win the state of Pennsylvania, done.”  But what does this say about the commitment of the Republican Party to a democratic government?  Are they willing to throw the baby out with the bathwater?

What is the commitment of almost six million felons to federal and state laws when they have no say in the process?  What will be the commitment of the disenfranchised voters who feel – should Governor Romney win the election by just carrying states where voters were excluded from the polls.   What will be the commitment of these same individuals to State laws enacted by legislatures who were voted into office without their participation?

Your political leaning should not matter on this one.  Democracies are legitimized by the participation of their citizens in the electoral process.  Cutting off the political participation of your political opponents is simply wrong.   It weakens our democracy.   At the end of the day, individuals prohibited from having a say in the making of laws have far less ‘ownership’ of the laws that are enacted and far less of a moral obligation to obey them.  Just ask our colonial forefathers.

Doing the Right Thing

 President Obama did the right thing in issuing an executive order to curtail deportation of illegals who have grown up in the United States, graduated high school and have not run afoul of the law.   My disappointment lies in the fact that he did not do it earlier.   The timing rightly taints the act with political opportunism: ensuing discussion has been focused on the politics of the move rather than the benefits to young Hispanic men and women who have grown up in the United States.

It’s about time something was done about this group.  Can you imagine your son or daughter, having graduated from high school and possibly college, not being able to get a job because of something you did fifteen years ago?  Allowing such individuals to remain on a work visa buys them time until the issue is settled by legislation.  It allows them to fully contribute to the American economy by taking jobs commensurate with their qualifications, and frees them from potential exploitation by employers.  It allows them to function legally in society.  In my view it is the least we can do.
The politics are not surprising.  Contrary to the protestations of the right, the Dream Act is not the product of the left, and President Obama’s actions do not constitute an imperial exercise of power.
Lest we forget, the Dream Act – which called for a path to full citizenship for such individuals- was introduced by Republican Senators in the first Bush administration.  To repeat, in 2001 an effort was launched by the Republican Party to deal with individuals who came to the US illegally as children.  Clearly, however, it was not high on President Bush’s legislative agenda, falling to wayside as many bills in Congress typically do.  John McCain was heavily involved in subsequent legislation on the same issue.  President Obama called for its enactment while running for office, and he worked actively to get the bill passed only –not surprisingly- to run into a Republican roadblock.  This, in my view, is when he should have acted unilaterally.
A number of critics have decried his use of executive authority in this matter.  Not being able to move the bill through Congress does not necessarily give the President the right to do his own thing.    However, Presidents have traditionally used, constitutionally, their executive powers to dictate policy in areas not specifically covered by Congressional legislation.  If Congress is displeased with this or any executive order, all it need to is pass legislation to the contrary.  By way of background, President Bush issued almost 300 executive orders while President.
Citizens need to decide on their own, whether America is better off as a result of President Obama’s decision to go easy on those illegals that came to this country in their youth.  Forget the politics of the issue for that is exactly what it is – politics.  Do you want to give such people a break or not?  How would you like your children to be treated?  Would you like to know where presidential candidate Romney stands on the issue?  Are you disappointed that he refuses to give an answer to the question?
In many regards, the hoopla around the immigration issue is reflective of the larger   imbroglio that characterizes the federal government and its leadership.    Even while advancing essentially Republican solutions, President Obama has been cast time and time again as an intransigent socialist who would not work with Congress.   The lack of movement due to Republican-manufactured Congressional gridlock (the same Republican senators who signed on to the grand bargain to fix the debt helped sustain a Senate filibuster that prevented it from happening), has caused many to question his leadership.
Only recently has the President’s frustration with Congress caused him to use his executive powers to move his agenda forward –gays in the military, recess appointments, non-support for the Defense of Marriage Act, immigration reform.   Now the same Republicans who refuse to work with the President in Congress take him to task for being imperial in undertaking unilateral actions in areas where Congress normally has a say. 
At the end of the day, this President has and will continue to be pilloried by Republicans no matter what he does.  As in the case of immigration reform – the news is all about the President’s values and leadership and/or Congressional stonewalling.  There is little discussion about the impact of the issue on the American people and the American way of life.  Voters need to get beyond the political rhetoric and personal political affiliations and focus on the facts.  They need to ask themselves, who is trying to advance solutions that work best for them.

 

 

My Dad Was a Union Man

 My father, a skilled machinist, was a union man.  I can still remember his participating in strikes in the 1950s.  For sure, no one in our family would cross a union picket line to shop in a store that was in the midst of a labor disagreement.  All else equal, we looked for the union label when shopping.

Unions were developed for a purpose – to ensure that workers were treated fairly by their employers and received a fair share in the corporate profits that resulted from their combined contributions.  Owners did not give in easily - increased wages and benefits came at a cost in corporate profits - and   mutual distrust came naturally to labor-management discussions.   Early on – before labor laws- management resorted to scabs and armed resistance to union organization: today their emphasis is on ensuring that state and federal laws are written and enforced to detriment of labor organization.  Tax credits to firms outsourcing manufacturing to lower-wage foreign countries are but one case in point.
Clearly, unions played a major role in leveling the playing field.  Union pressure ensured that the workers on the line received their fair share of corporate profits: the rise in real wages earned by union workers are a major factor behind the rise of an American middle class.  Just as importantly, unions curbed the natural tendency of managers to take advantage of their power to bully workers – unpaid overtime, faster work rates, shorter lunch breaks, poor working conditions and the like.  Unions thus provided workers with a means of self-respect and a guarantee of equitable treatment.
Worker benefits from unionization extended well beyond unionized factories.  Many new manufacturing start-ups have successfully resisted unionization pressures by providing wages, benefits, and working conditions similar to those enjoyed by union members in other factories.  Just as the presence of Wal-Mart lowers prices in all local stores, the possibility of unionization improves the lot of non-union blue collar workers.  Notably, private sector white collar workers, by in large, have not unionized in America.
It is no coincidence that the decline of union power in America has been paralleled by a rising income disparity among Americans.  When unions were strongest – in the1950s- the top ten percent of Americans claimed one-third of all income: todaythat percentage has risen to over half.  Union watchdogs kept a close eye on the distribution of pre-tax profits between management and labor, ensuring that the benefits of a successful corporation were distributed among all workers.
As unionized labor as a share of the workforce as dropped, It has become fashionable to focus on the darker side of unions – archaic work rules, feather bedding, intransigent resistance to modernization, refusal to take ‘necessary’ cuts to pay and benefits at a time when management salaries and golden parachutes were on the rise.  Increasingly, the premise of many Americans is that unions are an unnecessary evil.  (Many of these same individuals, however, have been known to respond to management decisions with statements along the line of ‘this would not have happened if we had a union’.  )
The pressure on Unions has intensified because of the traditional association of Unions with the Democratic Party.  At a time when corporate contributions to political activities have been unchecked by the Supreme Court,  states Republican  administrations have sought to break the back of public sector unions as a way of cutting off financial support to political races.  In Wisconsin, even when public sector unions met demands for cuts in pay and benefits, the governor pushed to eliminate collective bargaining rights for all public sector unions excepting those that had supported his election.  Clearly, there is significant public support for these endeavors.
 The reduced role of unions as a watchdog on the distribution of corporate profits has contributed to a major shift in the acquisition and retention of wealth.   Real wages of most American workers has been in decline for several years while corporate profitability rises and management salaries rise through the roof.  Secondly, the lack of union representation has made and ever increasing share of workers vulnerable to management decisions regarding benefits, working conditions and the like.   Indeed, unions have their ugly side, but so do corporate leaders.    At the end of the day, the key point, often forgotten, is that unions were created to provide the means for exploited workers to gain a measure of respect on the job and a fair share of the fruits of their labor: no one should be surprised to see American workers – union and non-union- suffer as a result of their demise.

 

 

 

Marriage as a Fundamental RIght

President Obama, while voicing his personal approval of gay marriage, has also stated that the legality of gay marriage should be left to the individual states.  This is not a politically motivated stand, as some might assert, but an expression of his belief that the federal government should not intervene in state decisions.  He has expressed this view before in stating that the Defense of Marriage Act –which states that marriage is the legal union   between one man and one woman -- is unconstitutional.  In Constitutional lingo, President Obama takes the position that marriage (or by implication gay marriage) is not a ‘fundamental’ right and thus the power to define marriage and marriage rights fall to the states and not the federal government.

Lest we forget, the Tenth Amendment reserves all powers to that states that are not expressly denied to them or which are expressively given to the United States.  Ultimately the Supreme Court justices draw, and often redraw the line between federal and state rights when it comes to individual liberties.  For example, a few years back the Court decided that it would not second guess Connecticut’s (or any state’s) view regarding what justified public purpose when applying the right of eminent domain.  (This decision resulted in a spate of state sponsored laws to clarify their respective positions on the matter.)  Similarly, for the longest time the Court side-stepped applying the second amendment to state actions. 

Over time it has come to be understood that only a citizen’s ‘fundamental rights’ demanded federal protection –and by implication- federal intervention.  Many of those in favor of gay marriage speak of future federal judicial actions that will effectively mitigate, if not eliminate, state prohibitions against same sex marriage and civil unions.   To my way of thinking we, as a society, are a long way from achieving a sufficient consensus on the fundamental right of an individual to marry whomever they want.  It’s hard to equate, for example, the right to marry anyone you choose to the right to be told why you are being arrested or the right to worship as you please.   President Obama’s view that defining legal relationships are best left to the individual states rests on sound legal reasoning as well as recognition of the wide split among the states on this matter.

 I would expect the Supreme Court to steer clear of this issue for some time, in large measure by finding that this is a matter best decided by the states themselves. It won’t be the first time this has happened.  Those counting on the Supreme Court to ‘right the wrongs’ of State laws and Constitutional referenda may have a long wait on their hands.

The Real Message Sent By Amendment One

I get it! There are a number of individuals in North Carolina, perhaps a significant majority, that wish to ensure that the only ‘marriage’ recognized by the State is one that unites a man and a woman. These same individuals want to make sure that future legislatures cannot change the current law outlawing same sex marriage: they want the issue settled once and for all. Given the historical context of ‘marriage’ as a religious as well as civil affair , I can understand the desires of those who wish to ensure that the state does not sanctify same sex relationships by allowing such couples to be married.

 But the Amendment we are voting on next week calls for more than a straightforward ban on gay marriage. It states that ‘marriage between one man and one woman is the only domestic legal union that should be recognized by this State’. As such it not only outlaws formal ‘civil unions’-legal understandings that provide the same similar spousal powers and rights that come with marriage- but also opens to judicial interpretation the legality of trusts, wills, and end-of-life directives [which are not private contracts] involving an unmarried partners. It will also invalidate domestic partner benefits offered by some North Carolina municipalities. Thirty states have passed marriage amendments. Ten State amendments only ban same-sex marriage, while another seventeen ban both same sex marriage and civil unions. Although not a lawyer, it appears to me that only two states have gone as far as North Carolina in banning any marriage-like contracts between unmarried persons.

 To my way of thinking, the proposed Amendment thus goes out of its way to send a message to gays and lesbians that they are to be considered second class citizens by the State and, by implication that their interests might be better served by living elsewhere. The Amendment was carefully worded. Its language, while subtle, is stark. What agreements between two men or two women that will be recognized as legal is problematical. Who would want to enter into ‘spousal’ agreements, not knowing whether these will found to be legally binding if challenged in court at some future date. If you want to send a message to gays and lesbians that they are not welcome in North Carolina than by all means vote yes. It is your right as a citizen. If you think the amendment is only about the sanctity of marriage than think again before you vote.