If You Can Keep It

The deliberations of the Constitutional Convention of 1787 were held in strict secrecy. And  citizens gathered outside Independence Hall when the proceedings ended in order to learn what had been produced. The answer was provided immediately. A Mrs. Powel of Philadelphia asked Benjamin Franklin, "Well, Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?" With no hesitation whatsoever, Franklin responded, "A republic, if you can keep it."

President Trump has taken a confrontational approach to long-standing norms and Constitutional provisions regarding the separation of powers. He has stymied the rights of Congress to exercise oversight by refusing to bring Cabinet level appointments for confirmation and to provide requested materials.  He has diminished judicial branch integrity by implying that judicial interpretations of the law are influenced by their demographic background or political affiliation. He has taken unprecedented steps to expand his executive powers by invoking emergency conditions to transfer monies to his projects after such spending was disapproved by Congress, and by invoking  national security interests to justify his imposition of tariffs, including on traditional allies such as Canada. 

The President’s promise of unconventional governing was part of his appeal during the 2016 election, and many applaud the way that it has played out in practice.  His authoritarian behaviors, however, call into question the continued viability of America’s ability to maintain the separation of powers created by the founding fathers to ensure that the ambitions of the executive could be held in check by the other two.

Most Americans give little thought to the importance of this dynamic.  Focused on their daily lives, many feel that this is just partisan politics in play.  Others, who see the problem,  feel that they can’t  make a difference.  That’s where being a republic comes into play.  We democratically elect representatives to keep informed, represent our views, and safeguard our Constitution.

This brings us to our whistle-blower, who understood the gravity of a presidential action that sought to influence a foreign power [and hence be subject to blackmail by this power] to provide dirt on a political opponent. This  individual came forward, at some risk, precipitating our current imbroglio. Not surprisingly this individual has come under attack as being unpatriotic when just the opposite is true. Would that those who provided him/her with the information also stepped forward to publically voice their concerns.

Political realities ensure the President’s characterization of the call will be supported by most Republicans.  The same was true during the Congressional inquiry into President Nixon’s cover-up of the break-in of the Democratic National Committee offices. In the past select Republican leaders worked to ‘keep our republic’ by putting their country before party.  Senator Howard Baker of Tennessee put facts before party during the Watergate hearings by asking what the President knew and when he knew it.  Keeping our republic requires the same courage this time around. 

It's Not About the Wall

The current standoff between the President and Democratic Congressional leaders is more about
establishing the power Democrats hold in a divided government than in building a wall.  
It is a battle Democrats cannot afford to lose. If they blink now, the President will use similar
‘my way or the highway’ ploys to bend them to his will for the next two years.

Democrats have carefully chosen their battle.  They hold the high ground in this debate.
Most Americans are against building the wall and the facts support their position. Illegal migration is
down some 80 percent from peak levels,  and the number of illegals residing in the United States
continues to decline, albeit slightly. Today’s border issue deals with the large numbers of families
seeking asylum, groups that present themselves to U.S. authorities at points of legal entry.  This issue
is best addressed by expanding US immigration courts to eliminate the backlog and/or passing
legislation that limits access to these courts: more walls would not make a difference.

Secondly, they can avert charges of partisanship by responding to bipartisan legislation passed under
the leadership of the Republican-led Senate in December.  All the Democratic House has done is split
this legislation into two parts, one to fund Homeland Security and the second to fund the rest of
government for the balance of the fiscal year.  All they are asking the President to do is sign the
legislation he had Mitch McConnell pass in December.

One should not underestimate the resistance of the Democratic leadership to expanding the wall.    
Nancy Pelosi, in particular, has staked out a position that makes compromise exceedingly difficult.  
She has stated emphatically that the wall ‘is immoral’ and that she views DACA legislation as an entirely
separate issue.  Unless she walks this back, any Republican overture to link the two is a non-starter,
a far cry from earlier this year when Senate Minority Leader Schumer offered $25 billion for the wall
in return for DACA legislation.

The President is equally committed to winning this battle.  The wall was his signature promise, yet
nothing has been accomplished in this regard.  He is further held hostage by ongoing clarion calls to
his base for a wall to protect a nation which he proclaims as increasingly threatened by illegal
immigration.  To this end, he posted several thousand US troops at the border as a stop gap measure.
Critically, the President has no sense of the Constitutional limitations placed on his power by a
Democratic-led House.   Frustrated by Democratic intransigence to his demands, he has raised
the specter of using emergency powers to get the wall built.

How, then does this end?  Holding the high ground, Democrats seem content to let
Republicans sort it out: the bills are back in the Senate awaiting a vote, and Mitch McConnell has
to decide whether or not to break ranks with the President.  Pressure to open government will
continue to mount, but Trump never,never accepts defeat. It will take some time before he does so
and it will be a bitter pill for him to swallow. He will not get his wall and will have to live with the
consequences of a divided government.  Elections do have consequences.

Leave Trump Alone

The first Democratic priority, if they take control of the House of Representatives, should be to move forward on legislative initiatives and not investigate Trump's malfeasance. Restoring citizen confidence in the value added of government will not be enhanced by political infighting.   This will be seen as government as usual, and will be subject to the false equivalence arguments put forth by the President and his cohorts.  The Democrats need to stand up to the President to be sure.  Perhaps more importantly, they also need to lay down legislative milestones- bills passed by the House of Representatives- that demonstrate what America can expect should the Democrats take control of the government in 2020.

It is not enough to talk tough.  To regain the Presidency and have a shot at a veto-proof Senate, Democrats in the House of Representatives have to provide concrete evidence of Republican intransigence -seen in the refusal of the Senate to pass bills passed by the House- in addressing national issues.  The 2020 political agenda would revolve around the merits of these specific measures as opposed to 'not Donald Trump'.   Moderates and independents need a reason to get to the polls in the numbers required to change the political balance.  They need to understand that their vote can result in a meaningful change in their lives.  Polling demonstrates that the majority of Americans want the changes favored by the Democratic party.

Specifically, the House should pass legislation that:

• Leads to a single payer system of universal health coverage.  Provisions can be included whereby existing insurance programs can piggy-back onto the system: everyone doesn't have to have the same level of health care coverage, but everyone should have access to basic health care.
• Brings an end to the debate over immigration. The 2013 Senate-passed bipartisan bill can be revisited, with changes to address issues of chain migration and border security.  We need to move forward on this issue,  providing an equitable, humane, and workable solution to those who have long been productive members of our society.
• Addresses the growing wealth disparity in America.  A bill should be passed that applies the same tax rate on unearned income - dividend and capital gains- as earned income - wages and salaries from one's labor.  This was true under the Tax Reform Act of 1986, a law championed by President Ronald Reagan. This bill should also tighten loopholes that work to the advantage of those with substantial wealth and salaries. 
• Provides for a livable working wage.  American taxpayers bear the costs of low minimum wages through payments to support housing, Medicaid, and the SNAP program.  It would be far better to have those who consume the goods and services provided by fellow Americans bear the impacts of higher minimum wage than the population as a whole.

These bills may go nowhere in the Senate: sobeit.  Their passage however will demonstrate to Americans that the Democrats mean business should they have the power to govern.  It will provide a concrete alternative to Republican policies put in place under the Trump administration.  It will give individuals a reason to go to the polls in 2020. Getting into the swamp with Trump does no one any good at all.

Driverless Cars and Trucks: Do we Need to go There?

Technological trends point to a fully viable driverless vehicle sooner rather than later.  Safer, cheaper, and more dependable than their living, breathing counterparts the replacement of drivers with automated systems seems only a matter of time.  Its probably useful - before the technology becomes perfected- to question the cost it brings in terms of lost career opportunities.  Technology progress has enabled the mechanization of farming and manufacturing: productivity gains have been substantial but so has the human cost as measured by lost employment opportunities.  Shouldn't we be addressing the human side of divorcing cars and trucks from drivers?  At some point should we embrace featherbedding, most recently associated with union instance on maintaining employment levels in areas where they were really no longer necessary, in order to avoid the human costs associated with massive technology driven unemployment?  Technological advances will continue to erode employment opportunities and societies need to advance accordingly in the way they treat those who desire to work but lack- through no fault of their own- the opportunities to do so.

A Middle Ground Exists in the Gun Debate

Battle lines have been drawn once again.  NRA seeks to arm teachers, increase the presence of armed resource officers, and harden the schools against an armed intruder while the far left wants to ban all semi-automatics.  Student involvement things may turn out differently this time around: something, in fact, may get accomplished. 

It seems to me that there is plenty of room for a compromise solution that goes well beyond the steps taken by the Florida legislature.  Compromise from the right entails a recognition that some steps need to be taken regarding weaponry.  Compromise from the left entails allowing the continued sale of semi-automatic weapons for hunting and target shooting.  These compromises can take place at the state as well as federal level.

Issue One: ensuring weapons don’t fall into the wrong hands.  Instead of having a background check conducted when the decision to purchase is made, insist that prospective buyers obtain prior-approval from the state.  Each state can establish its own criteria.  The bottom line is that weapons may not be sold, under any venue, to any individual lacking a state-issued permit.  Sellers who violate this rule will face a mandatory punishment, to include the loss of their ability to sell weapons for a substantial period of time.

Issue Two:  removing weapons from individuals deemed a risk to society.  Some states have enacted provisions whereby law enforcement are allowed to temporarily impound an individual’s weaponry based on reporting that said individual has demonstrated a predilection toward violence.  The weapons would be returned once the state has determined that said predilection does not or no longer exists.

Issue Three: limiting the ability of semi-automatics to be used in a combat like role (as opposed to hunting and target shooting).    A sensible proposal would be to prohibit the sale, purchase, or possession of large capacity magazines -bullet clips holding more than ten rounds. This would be reasonably sufficient for hunting and targeting purposes but limit the potential carnage possible with a semi-automatic weapon.  If done on a national level, a buy-back program would incentivize the return of illegal sized clips.   Punishments for possession would be severe, including –at a minimum- confiscation of all weapons owned by the individual in question.

Some states have already adopted these or similar proposals, including Connecticut, and California.  There is no reason why other states can’t follow their lead.  There is no need to wait for Federal action along these lines: it will be a long time in coming.

When You Rock the Boat Some will get Seasick

11/16

You can't have change without change.  Everyone is up in arms, legitimately, regarding Trump's seeming disdain for political norms.  refusing to divulge tax returns or provide fulsome health record, living in Trump Tower, security clearances for children, tweeting, picking highly controversial advisors and cabinet officers.  Others will focus on his inability / unwillingness to establish effective blind trust.

I believe America needs to let this play out, albeit within bounds.  People want change and it is important for these groups to recognize, first hand, that change is not necessarily what they expected. They don't believe the mainstream media, feel the government cooks the books, and that insiders control government to their detriment.  In order bring back the credibility of these institutions they have to see Trump fail:  alternatively, should he succeed the lessons will be learned by the establishment.  Either way let him try.

Presidential Tweets: The New Normal?

11/20

At first I was dismayed by Trump's continuing to tweet after winning the election.  I thought it was un-presidential by its nature and, to me anyway, the tweets were somewhat unsettling. ”That said, what's wrong with the President sharing his personal, as opposed to 'presidential' views on issues as long as the two can be sorted out?  Can you imagine how much more interesting Obama would have been over the last eight years if he tweeted out his personal feelings and views while taking the more deliberate and presidential stance when it was called for?  How funny was the WH correspondents' dinner skit with his 'anger manager'?

We all know that beneath the Presidential demeanor of relative detachment from the day-to-day happenings lies someone who is peaked at the news coverage, treatment by Congress or the like.  As President he  needs to take the reflective, big picture, high road: it's what is expected if not demanded. What if the President could also let his hair down and share his true feelings?  Sure, it will get him points with some and lose points with others, but it will provide information on what he is thinking and feeling even if no 'presidential' action or statement is forthcoming.  At a minimum it will provide good gist for pundits and social media. Historian Brinkley, for one believes “The words of this guy just don’t matter.”   “I think we’re going to have to wait and see what his actions are and judge him by his record.”

Vent away, president-elect Trump, on your success in keeping jobs in America, the wrongs done to the vice-president elect, the crappy coverage of the NY Times, your rationale for settling your Trump University lawsuit, and the quality of the SNL skit.  I can tell the difference between a personal rant and presidential decision.  For better or worse, I want to know what you're feeling.  It helps me understand the human side, for better or worse.