Two Bites at the Debt Apple

Negotiations over raising the debt ceiling effectively gives Congress two bites at the apple.  The President does not create debt.  The President has no Constitutional authority to spend monies not specifically appropriated by Congress.  If he did than President Reagan's team would never have resorted to selling weapons to Iran to fund the Contras after Congress cut off funding.

If Congress does not want to increase the national debt, than they should   pass legislation that either increase revenues or decreasing expenditures.  If they haven't the political will or power to do so via specific debated legislation- say by cutting back on entitlements while allowing military spending to grow - than they should not be able to do so by negotiation with the executive branch. 

Previous Congressess have understood that increased indebtedness was caused by their passage of legislation and thus routinely increased the debt ceiling limit.  Only this Congress has tried to have it both ways.  President Obama is correct in taking Congress on: he should have done so before.

Provocative Re-Post

Most of the problems in life are because of two reasons: we act without thinking or we keep thinking without acting.

It's Not Rocket Science

It's doesn't take much to ascertain the motivations behind Republican criticism of Susan Rice.  It's not that she is unfit to serve, although she is not necessarily the perfect candidate.  Clearly Ms. Rice's mis-statements pale compared to Condezela Rice's over Iran, and she was easily elevated to become George Bush's Secretary of State.   Perhaps, just perhaps, Republicans are trying to force President Obama into nominating John Kerry, the sitting Senator from Massachusetts.  Could all of this be over the opportunity to gain a Republican Senator in the election that would follow his selection?  Could it be?

Ethics is About Doing Not Training

The Secretary of Defense has ordered a review of ethics training for military officers in the wake of the Petraeus affair.  Ethical behavior, however, is not trained.  To be sure, everyone who takes the training will be able to cite chapter and verse of what is ‘expected’ of a military officer.  I'm also quite sure that officers will pay much more attention to the unwritten rules regarding behavioral expectations.

Sometime after the Iran-Contra affair, as the CIA’s Director for Training and Education, I was instructed by a senior CIA official to develop and ethics course of all CIA officers.  In reply I stated that the content of the 'ethics' to be 'trained' had to come from the seventh floor and that senior officials had to be careful in delineating the ethical guidelines they wished to be promulgated.  I pointed out that the first thing people were going to do was speculate whether the Agency’s senior leaders were walking the talk.  Not surprisingly, I never heard back from the requester.   In truth I would have loved to have received a mandate to oversea the generation of a set of ethical norms that could be blessed from the top.  In truth it is probably better to do without a set of written norms than to publish norms which are routinely violated without sanction.  Extramarital affairs by military officers would probably fall into this latter category.

 In the best of all worlds, organizational leaders would establish and maintain ethical norms by walking the talk and punishing transgressors.  Ethical norms do exist, and often these norms serve as the glue that binds and defines organizations.  These norms, however, are a subset of what is often put down on paper.  The review called for by the Secretary of Defense will likely be a paper exercise with little impact on the behavior of military officers.

The ethical rules governing the Petraeus are clearly stated.  The fact that General Petraeus sought to keep his position once the affair was exposed speaks to the divergence between ‘rules’ and acceptable behavior.  He decided to resign only after being told by another former general officer, James Clapper (The Director for National Intelligence) that ”resigning was the honorable thing for him to do", given his former rank and present position as Director of the CIA.

How Is America Looking in the Eyes of the World

 American “exceptionalism” was first trumpeted in 1831 by the French political observer Alexis de Tocqueville, who lauded our emerging nation’s unique ideology based on limited government, liberty, egalitarianism, individualism, and populism.   America became the destination of Europeans tired of being politically and religiously oppressed by theocratic despots and economically oppressed by the privileged ruling classes.  America offered the opportunity for economic progress based on effort rather than class standing.  It was the ‘golden door’ as immortalized on the base of the Statue of Liberty.

In European eyes, America’s promise continued well into the twentieth century.  In 1941 FDR articulated to the world America’s support for four fundamental freedoms– speech and expression, worship, freedom from want, and freedom from fear.  Subsequent Administrations, with bipartisan support, endeavored to mitigate economic and political discrimination against minorities and to provide economic safety nets to the recently unemployed and to families with dependent children.  Steps were taken to ensure health coverage to the aged, the young and low income earners.

Over the last decade, however, government programs to secure ‘freedom from want’ have been increasingly called into question.  Many now feel that government economic guarantees serve as a disincentive to the personal industry and accountability they considered critical to America’s successes.  Concomitantly, the rapid increase in the share of income going to richest Americans has resulted in increased attention to ‘class warfare’.  Conflicts over the appropriate role for government currently now take center stage in the political arena.

West Europeans, in contrast, have remained widely supportive of a different social compact.  They are accepting of higher tax burdens and a relative leveling in incomes in order to assure economic well being and economic opportunity for all citizens.  Individual liberties are protected by institutionalizing the tolerance of differences. Governments are trusted to do the bidding of the people.

West European governments walk the talk when it comes to personal liberty and tolerance.  Throughout most of Western Europe, abortion is legal upon request, or exceptions are made for rape, health, mental illness, and fetal defects.  All West European countries have either legalized  gay marriage or same-sex civil unions.

West Europeans consider it essential to ensure that all of their fellow countrymen have access to a basic standard of living.   Access to health care is considered as a right not a privilege.    Minimum wages are set at levels that allow workers to stand on their own two feet.  West Europeans see an American income distribution heavily skewed in favor of the richest classes, an American middle class under siege, and lower classes unable to gain access to basic necessities.

 West Europeans understand the importance of education to upward mobility, which studies have shown is now greater than in the United States.  The quality of public education is relatively standardized throughout each nation, while college tuition is either free or heavily subsidized:  many American students, however, are disadvantaged by inadequate public schooling or find themselves priced out of a college education.
Europeans look to and trust government to provide a wide range of services on their behalf, and accept a heavy tax burden to get the job done.  They view the American political system as being rendered ineffective by partisanship, noting that American confidence in its Congress is at record lows.  West Europeans also see the increased influence of American moneyed interests in engineering legislation and influencing electoral outcomes.  They read about actions taken by states to potentially limit voter access to the ballot box.
Americans tend to be dismissive of European attitudes across the board, and are loath assess our nation’s strengths and weakness vis-à-vis other countries.

Most Americans feel government has become too costly: many Americans believe there are limits as to what behaviors should be tolerated in order to maintain the American way.    The prospect of increasing taxes on the majority of Americans in order to address current financial problems, broaden entitlement programs, or substantially improve educational quality seems beyond the pale, regardless of the political party in power.

We are truly a great country, capable of great deeds.  We remain the richest and most powerful nation on earth. We are a warm, welcoming, and engaging people.  We are ‘can do’.  Although a 21^st century de Tocqueville would be quick to acknowledge America’s accomplishments and its unique role on the world’s stage, one wonders whether he would continue to characterize America as exceptional vis-à-vis West European countries.   West Europeans clearly have problems of their own, but –unlike here - they have resolved the conflicts over the appropriate role for government in ensuring economic security, educational equality, and individual choice.

The Right Misses a Key Point on Taxes

A number of pundits, particularly on cable TV, talk about the power shifting to a nation of takers.  The unstated part of this premise is that the rich will be burdened to satisfy the 'demands' of those who cannot fend for themselves.  Framed in this way it is all out class war.

There is, however, another paradigm.  Progressives believe that the state should ensure some standard of support to all citizens and they are willing to pay for this support in the form of higher taxes.  Although President Obama is currently pushing for higher taxes only on the rich, I do believe the middle class will also accept higher tax burdens.  This is a multi- step process (a) higher taxes on rich and cuts on spending, (b) tax reform which will, at worst, be revenue neutral, (c) review of Medicade, Medicare, Social Security, education with a decision as to the appropriate end state.

Tuesday's Choice

 President Obama’s performance over the last four years has been bittersweet:

• He did not take advantage of Congressional majorities when he had them.  Invoking reconciliation rules would have allowed the curtailment of the Bush tax cuts on the rich. 
• Simply put, he does not like conflict and the Republicans, sensing this, gave him more than he could handle.   He did not use the Bully pulpit to push through the programs he said he would push through when running for office.  The American people believe he would not compromise with the right to get bills passed:  why did he not trumpet the right’s intransigence at the time so he could run against Congress and seek a Democratic congress this time around.  Where was Lyndon Johnson when you needed him?  Did Obama put his passion in a jar once elected?  
• He did not explain things to the American voter: it is criminal that Obama care was so misunderstood.  He allowed the right to define his signature program.
• He did little to effectively end the misery of those whose houses were under water making them unable to refinance their homes at reduced interest rates.  Laws were passed, to be sure, but they clearly didn’t do the trick.  He should have stayed on top of the situation.  It would have been nice if the Federal government directly lent people funds rather than ‘work’ through recalcitrant banks who had little interest in refinancing high interest loans.
• He did not fight for the unemployed when his jobs bill became hung up in Congress.  This was an important bill and he should have taken his case to the American people.  People suffered because of his capitulation.

On the flip side, President Obama demonstrated his ability to make sound decisions, and accept the risk of political failure should things not pan out.   

• The Detroit bail-out was done quickly and effectively.
• He said he would be tough on terrorists and he was.  While restoring US credibility as a team player on most international issues, he was ruthless when it came to terrorists.
• He is well reasoned and calm when things get tough: witness the response to Sandy.
• I envision a re-elected Obama as taking a different tack with Congress, but frankly do not look for any landmark legislation over the next four years.  In order to get things done you have to be willing to go to the mat.  I think he will remain too cautious.  On the other hand, I am comfortable that things will not get out of hand internationally.  Washington’s central role in maintaining economic safety nets will continue.

It is hard to discuss Mitt Romney because I have no idea what he will do as President based on the total inconsistency of his rhetoric.

• Based on his Massachusetts experience, I see him as a moderate leader.  However, I am nervous about his ‘pliability’ and wonder whether he will stand up neoconservatives and those who call for major cutbacks in government roles. 
• I worry that pushing responsibilities back on the states will lead to permanent damage to the safety nets which have evolved.  [For me it is important that citizens be able to get medical care when ill and that children receive the support they need to develop the potential to succeed as adults.]  
• Lastly, Mitt Romney has demonstrated, at a minimum, an inability to relate to the concerns and needs of most Americans: at best he holds callous and dismissive attitudes toward those that struggle to make it.  This I personally cannot abide in a President.

 There you have it… Obama is the choice but not without some reservations.

Big Bird and the 47 Percent

Governor Romney’s statement that Big Bird would have to go, may turn out to have the same traction as his earlier discussion of the 47%.   There are a lot of government programs that may be of questionable value, but I don’t think Sesame Street sponsorship falls into this category.  Cancelling funding for PBS spotlights the depth of the Republican commitment to cutting government spending independent of any thoughtful cost-benefit analysis.  

President Romney’s comments about trickle down government stem from the right’s view that the national government role should be limited to national security – where a significant spending boost is promised- and to a limited set of functions required to ensure the effective operation of the private economy.  If people wish greater government involvement-say universal health care- than they should be addressing their concerns to their respective state governments. 

This narrow reading of the Constitution’s mandate for the federal government to “promote the general welfare” may have a philosophical attraction for many, but we are not starting from scratch.  For better or worse, people have come to expect the support of their national government when they are hit by disasters, or are having trouble in feeding, clothing, housing their families as well as obtaining adequate health care.  Until now, Republican and Democratic administrations have adhered to the social contract that has evolved out of President Roosevelt’s response to the devastating effects of the Great Depression.  

Suggesting that States should shoulder the burdens is, at best, naive.   It ignores the potential that stage governments will not choose to pick up the role currently played by Washington.  Just look at the number of States who choose not to expand Medicaid support provided by Obamacare, even though the federal government was picking up 90% of the tab.   Moreover, states do not have and will not be granted the ability to run deficits.  In the worst of times, when government is most needed, States will be forced to cut spending due to reduced tax revenues.

If the states are, in fact, united than perhaps it would be best to have national solutions to national problems.  Do we really want a country where people are treated differently depending on the state they live in?  Do we really want a country where states are loath to establish programs out of fear that the disadvantaged will be encouraged to relocate within state borders?  When our country was founded, moving between states was a life changing event, often requiring weeks if not months of travel.  Today most states are reached within three days of driving.

Big Bird will be safe no matter what.  The fact of the matter is that donations can make up the difference. The same cannot be said for the social contract that has evolved over the last century.    As much as they would like to, the right cannot walk back the clock.  It makes for a good sound bite and has the support of many who do not require federal assistance.  In practice it is impractical and incredibly divisive: the attempt would most certainly lead to a push back led by a populist leader focused on restoring if not expanding the federal safety net at the expense of the 53%.

What I wanted Obama to Say

President Obama seemed off his game last night.  I don't think he really enjoys conflict one-on-one in the first place.  He also forgot he was in a debate... facts don't win debates, debaters do.  If I were there I would have focused on a couple of provocations.

• Firstly I would have pointed out that Governor Romney plans to cut the Federal Budget by moving programs to the states.  The implication is clear: do you trust your state government to pick up the slack or are you afraid that once States have to pick up the bill that Medicare and Medicaid will fall fall short of what people will need and have come to expect.  I would have used examples of State Medicaid actions that have deprived individuals of certain types of health care, for example providing an otherwise healthy thirty-year-old with a Kidney transplant.  States cut budgets when times get tough: God forbid you get sick during a recession.  Provide evidence as to what states have done during this recession: laying off people, cutting services.  There is a point to be made here.   Bottom Line: who do you trust folks.
• Secondly, I would point out that national problems require national solutions.    States that are more 'generous' with Medicaid will find people flowing to their borders, business will migrate to non-regulated regions and the like.  At the end of the day 'competition' will cause a 'race to the bottom'.  
• Thirdly, I would have come up with a zinger, and repeatedly used it, every time Romney provided a solution that didn't add up.  President Obama slipped in a couple, but did not have the heart for it.  "There you go, waving your manic wand again, promising lower taxes, reduced deficits, increased defense spending, and substantially higher employment without one iota of evidence as to how all of this can be done. "  I did like the line about why -if their plans are so good- the Republicans are keeping them secret.  "Where's the beef" would also work for me!
• Lastly, I would harp on the fact that Romney doesn't get it when it comes to the average person.  Push the 47% issue, point out that he has no idea how hard it is for people to make ends meet, to struggle on a daily basis.

President Obama has to remember that he has to stand up to Governor Romney on behalf of the people he represents.  He may be disappointed in his performance during the first four years, but he can't show it.  

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.

The Two Sides of Liberty

The modern Republican Party has long associated itself with minimizing government participation in economic matters. After all, America was founded by those who had the self confidence to make something of themselves. Economic prosperity, if not actual survival, went to those who were best able to look after their own interests. America was no place for the meek nor lazy.
To many Republicans, today’s government safety nets serve as a disincentive to honest work – a crutch to those who lacked the will to put forward their best effort. It has created a self-perpetuating class of ‘takers’, they argue, who believe they have a right to expect continuing government assistance should they forego the effort to pull themselves up by their own bootstraps. This same assistance, moreover, comes at the expense of those who are willing to work hard and take risks to make the best use of their abilities. The New Deal and Great Society programs, to the view of many on the Right, were but euphemisms for a democratic socialism which they view as an anathema to the American way of life.
This view resonates with many independents, who question the efficacy of many government programs, and who seek limits to government spending and, ultimately, lower tax rates. The inability of the national government to effectively manage its programs or even pass workable laws has given increased traction to the Republican view.
There is, however, another side to the Republican coin, one which may cost the Party substantial support. Republicans do not extend the concept of ‘small government’ across the board. The Right – while trumpeting the economic opportunism and independence of the founding fathers – seems to have forgotten the other reasons leading strong willed individuals to risk everything in coming to America’s shores. Economic opportunity was certainly a factor. Perhaps equally important, was the opportunity to follow one’s personal conscience in making life choices. Americans were able to worship as they wished and to otherwise live their lives without government interference. Individual rights –the key word here is individual- were cherished and protected. Bills of rights were integral to all state constitutions: the Constitution was approved only after its drafters promised to incorporate a ‘bill of rights’ at the first opportunity.
Despite the emphasis of early colonists on ensuring individual liberties, many on the Right believe that America must adhere to a moral code if it is to maintain its core values. Critically, these same individuals believe they have the inside track in defining the ‘American ethic’ that must be protected. These individuals decry Supreme Court decisions that go against their precepts, and challenge the spirit of these rulings by enacting laws that impinge on the personal choices of those who do not share the Right’s view of the “American way”. The spate of laws, both enacted and proposed, to limit choices available to American women are a clear manifestation of the role government is expected to play in protecting (enforcing) the American way.
Europeans fled the paternalism of European princes in order to walk their own path in the new world. They enshrined their personal freedoms in the founding documents of their respective states and the United States. The unifying ethic of the late 1700s was individual liberty. Today’s Americans are not expected to appreciate, respect, nor even condone the life choices made by their fellow citizens. They are expected to respect-and not constrict- the rights of their fellow citizens to make these choices. Failing to do so may result in the irony of people leaving America for Europe in order to gain greater liberty in the conduct of their own lives.

The Religious Vote Goes To......

Rick Santorum has certainly heated up discussions on the proper role of personal religious belief and the church in governing. From wanting to ‘throw up’ when listening to President Kennedy’s 1960 speech on the separation of church and state to alluding to President Obama’s “phony theology”. Although he may regret his choices of words, Mr. Santorum has arguably voiced the views of millions of Americans who share his feelings that our government’s laws and actions should be grounded in Christian precepts.
One can make a persuasive case that extreme care was taken to ensure that America’s national government would not advocate for one set of religious views over another. The issues raised by Mr. Santorum were raised extensively during discussions over the ratification of the Constitution itself. In the end, state Constitutional conventions not only approved a Constitution that only mentions religion in the context of prohibiting religious tests for office, but concomitantly insisted that the first U.S. Congress amend the Constitution to specifically preclude a blurring of secular and religious affairs. They understood that when one mixes religion with politics one gets politics.
This is not to say, however, that governance should not be informed by the religious values held by its individual citizens. It precisely because of this dynamic that Constitutional limits were established regarding the ability of one religious faction to impinge on the expression of the religious values of another.
These limits, however, do not preclude the implementation of government programs that advance one’s religious values. President Bush, for example, was an ardent supporter of faith-based initiatives whereby religious groups partner with the government to provide services to the less fortunate. Analogously, one could argue that many government programs are but an extension of religious outreach. Government funding is used to ensure, for example, that charity –albeit funded by taxpayer dollars- is extended to broad segments of the population. As an example, the government’s food stamp program could be viewed as an admittedly imperfect extension of local religious group participation in food banks for the needy.
If this is the case, shouldn’t citizens vote for those who support government programs that align with their religious beliefs rather than those who argue for a greater formal role for religion in government?
To this end, in 2008 the National Council of Churches- representing over 100,000 local Congregations and some 45 million parishioners- published ten principles for evaluating candidates that it hoped “all Christians - from liberals to conservatives - will study and apply in this election year. These included: ‘foreign policy based on cooperation and global justice’;’ reducing the disparity between the rich and the poor’;’ promotion of racial justice and equal opportunity’; ‘champion environmental justice’; ‘pursue fair immigration policies and speak out against xenophobia’; ‘provide adequate, affordable and accessible health care for all’; and ‘advocate for equal education opportunity and abundant funding for children’s services’.
I would leave it to the reader to decide which political party agenda is best aligned with –in this case- Christian principles. My provocation rests in the belief that voters who are concerned with the role religion should play in government pay more attention to the degree to which government actions are aligned with religious values and less attention to the ‘need’ for closer ties between church and state.

Its Up to the People to Decide

Recently a Yuma Arizona Superior Court judge disqualified a candidate for city council from running for office because of a “large gap” between her English proficiency and that required to serve as a public official. The candidate- who reads and writes English- claims she can understand and answer in English albeit not fluently. As an aside, she graduated from Yuma’s public Kofa High School. But that –as they say- that is another story, entirely.
Where, exactly, does the state get to say who is qualified and who is not qualified to represent their constituents? If, indeed, Ms Cabrera is made less effective because of her language deficiencies in interacting with her fellow city council members, her fluency in Spanish and Hispanic heritage may make her may be more effective in interacting with and understanding the needs of her constituents. If it doesn’t work out then so be it. It seems to me the decision rests with the people regarding who they want to represent their interests –“warts” and all.
There is a reason why the Constitution establishes only three requirements for those who seek to serve in Congress – citizenship, age, and residency. The drafters realized that citizens should not have their rights to choose their representatives further abridged by state actions. The Supreme Court, in 1969, drove this point home in deciding that Congress had no authority to place additional qualifications on its members. Adam Clayton Powell, Jr was a thorn in the side of many conservatives in the House of Representatives, who ultimately refused to allow him to be seated following his 1966 re-election. In the special election subsequently called –while the case was being adjudicated- he was re-elected again by his New York City district, even though he had been stripped of his seniority power by the House.
We can argue about the wisdom of electing a person with limited command of the English language, but analogous arguments can be held about electing individuals lacking a high school diploma or individuals who have recently established residency and have little sense of the lay of the land. Same goes for electing convicted felons, or for individuals who are ignorant of how the government works and the contents of the Constitution. The point established over two hundred years ago still stands – the people should be free to chose the person they wish to represent their interests.

Bridging the Great Divide

David Brooks' recent op-editorial in the New York TImes discusses the great divorce between two tribes in America.

Although the divergence he discusses is distinct from the class distinctions bandied about by politicians, it is a major problem. According the the author, members of the upper tribe have low divorce rates, work hard, and are productive. Members of the lower tribe also work hard and dream big, but live in 'disorganized, postmodern neighborhoods in which it is much harder to be self-disciplined.

Mr. Brooks calls for a National Service Program that would force members of the upper tribe and lower tribe to live and work together. By this means, he opines, the two groups would work together to spread out the 'values, practices, and institutions' that lead to achievement.

I'm not sure that a national service program would be the best answer. I would argue, instead, for a movement away from the segmentation of public education by virtue of magnet schools, charter schools and the like. For much of America's history public schools served as the cauldron for spreading and sharing the values, practices, and institutions that led to achievement. This impact has been muted in recent decades by the growth of charter schools, magnet schools and the separation of students into standard and honors classes. As as former teacher I understand the impetus behind these trends, but - as pointed out in the article - separating out the tribes has put a rent into the American fabric that has long been characterized by a 'melting pot' or, more recently, 'a salad bowel'.

The Republican’s' Pyrrhic victory

In a recent op-editorial, New York Times columnist David Brooks attributes the decline in the attractiveness of liberal philosophy in America to the decline in trust in the government to deliver. As Brooks puts it: “Americans may agree with liberal diagnoses, but they don’t trust the instrument the Democrats use to solve problems. They don’t trust the federal government.” He effectively implies that Americans would opt for a bigger government role if the government could deliver the goods – effective oversight, better education, affordable health care and the like.
His solution is to seriously mitigate the role of special interest groups who unduly influence government decision making to their financial benefit. He suggests that Obama run as ‘someone who believes in government but sees how much it needs to be cleansed and purified’. If the Democrats begin to make processes more transparent and simple, he argues, faith in government will be restored. With faith restored, those who believe in the potential benefits of ‘big government’ will be willing again to vote for those who share these views.
As champions of the benefits of big government, David Brooks argues, it is up to the Democrats to make government work. He is silent on the contributions, or lack thereof, of Republicans to this issue. His observations on the correlation between the decline of Democratic support and the lack of confidence in government per see highlight the essence of the Republican strategy.
Simply put, the party of no has made sure that government does not work and will continue to make it impossible for Obama to make good on any cleansing processes he may propose. Unlike a parliamentary system, our system of government requires compromise in order to work. By refusing to compromise – by compromise I mean meeting the Democrats in the middle --and by abusing filibuster provisions by forcing a sixty vote majority on every Senate decision, the Republicans have effectively emasculated the ability of Democrats to demonstrate that government can be effective.
In the long run this approach may undermine American confidence in the way decisions are reached (or not reached) under our system, eliciting calls for a different form of governance, say one in which government acts in accordance with the expressed will of the majority of voters. In a parliamentary system, the party with the majority of votes controls government decision-making. Under current Senate rules, Senators representing a mere eleven percent of the national population, acting together, could stop any legislation.
Our national government is dysfunctional. Special interests do exert too much power. The Democrats did squander their electoral gains of 2008. The Republicans refuse to effectively cooperate in order to refuse Obama a victory, even when his proposals are consistent with long-standing Republican platforms.
The Republicans have the upper hand. They have muted liberalist support for big government, potentially paving the way for Republican victories at the polls next year where they can continue to downsize entitlement programs. This short-term advantage may prove pyrrhic. Amid all this wrangling, nothing is being done to resolve the nation’s angst over the unequal distribution of wealth and power, its concern over long standing unemployment, or the need to square spending with taxing levels.
It is too easy to put the onus on the party of big government. The blame should be shared with those who would see government fail in order advance their political interests. They forget that they are elected, in part, to stand above the fray and serve the greater, American, interest. Destroying American confidence in the role of government moves this country in a direction that is rife with unintended consequences.