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.

Leadership Not

The Republicans are quick to accuse President Obama of exercising a lack of leadership when it comes to passing legislation, most recently a bill to extend the reduction of payroll taxes. I personally have issues with President Obama’s leadership, but not in the narrow sense portrayed by his Republican detractors.
There are perhaps as many definitions of leadership as there are leaders. For the sake of this discussion I’ll go with Wikipedia’s definition: the “process of social influence in which one person can enlist the aid and support of others in the accomplishment of a common task".
One of the hallmarks of Presidential leadership is his ability to mobilize a political consensus to move his agenda forward. By his, I mean an agenda he feels is in the best interest of the country. To my way of thinking President Obama has failed to do so, in large measure by being unwilling to go directly to the people in a sustained fashion – using his bully pulpit to engage the citizenry and thereby put pressure on his political opponents. President Obama points out Republican alliances to big business, oil, and the uber-rich, but has lacked the conviction or courage to drive these points home.
Re-electing President Obama will do nothing for his agenda unless he has a Democratic Congress to work with. Even this situation, as evidenced by the first two years of his administration, is an insufficient condition for success. As an example, the Bush Administration avoided a Democratic filibuster of their tax cut package by ruling that the cut could be passed under reconciliation rules. When it came time to reinstate some of these taxes, Democratic leaders lacked the will to take the same tact. Think what would have happened had President Obama had the political instincts of Lyndon Johnson. I’m not sure we would necessarily have been better off, but the much of the agenda that President Obama ran on would have been enacted into law. Lyndon Johnson and Nancy Pelosi would have made a formidable team, much to the consternation of the right.
This leadership failing is not to be confused with the leadership failing called into question by the Republicans. The Republican leadership takes pride in being the party of no: no to any and all judicial and administrative appointments, no to any bills. Just look at the record. Even when the Democrats virtually cave into Republican demands in crafting legislation, the far right remains inclined to defeat the final bill just to deprive Obama of any sense of accomplishment.
President Obama has no influence with the Republicans on the hill and will never have any. His attempts at compromise were never reciprocated in any meaningful way. In fact, his personal involvement only complicates the problems of Congressional democrats in moving legislation forward. The Republican charge of a lack of leadership is without merit: you can’t lead when you have no chance in influencing Republican behavior. You won’t hear Republicans carp about his larger lack of leadership lest the sleeping dog awake and call for a House and Senate that is willing to work with him to address what he believes are the needs of the country.

Progressive Era Redux

The signers of the Declaration of Independence affirmed three unalienable rights –life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness – that were to be secured by the state based on the consent of the governed. Heady words, indeed.
Many question whether their personal ability to purse happiness is being held hostage to the inordinate influences of the top one percent of Americans upon the federal government. Most do not question the right of some Americans to earn and retain substantial wealth. Increasingly, however, they point to the unfair advantages bestowed upon the uber-rich by federal and state governments.
This was not always the case. From the end of the Second World War until the beginning of the Regan administration, a rising economic tide led to substantial increases in the standard of living of all income levels. The growth in family income ranged between 112% - for the lowest 20% of American family income earners – to 99% for the top 20%. The trends diverged beginning with the Reagan tax cuts and continued thereafter. From 1980-2007 the growth in family incomes ranged from 15% to 33% for bottom 80% of population as opposed to 95% for the top 20%. Family income levels for the top 1% of American families rose by a whopping 251%.
This marked shift in income distribution did not raise a hue and cry. Americans do not begrudge the rich, in part because they hope, however unrealistically, one day to be able to similarly enjoy the fruits of their hoped-for success. The banking crisis and subsequent recession has brought these disparities into sharper focus. What has become particularly galling to some, most notably the Occupy Wall Street movement has been the way these gains in wealth have been achieved. Specifically, they look at the influence of the uber-rich on state actions:
• The Bush tax cuts were focused on improving the lot of the wealthiest Americans by virtue of the sharp cuts on taxes for capital gains and taxes;
• Legislation was passed to reorganize the financial services industry and those appointed to oversee financial services were plucked from the very industry they were watching. Not surprisingly, regulators were loath to constrain poor banking practices or otherwise alert the public at large to the potential dangers of excessive bank lending to sub-prime borrowers.
• Legislation was passed that effectively bailed out many banks despite their poor practices: financial community managers were soon once-again collecting substantial financial bonuses.
• Legislation to improve oversight was slow in coming and has yet to be fully implemented because of Republican-led filibusters against Presidential nominees to head the new Agency.
Home ownership is the major form of wealth creation for many middle class families and, in marked contrast to their treatment of the financial sector the government has done little to help those whose property values plunged through no fault of their own. Those whose houses were under water, moreover, found it impossible to take advantage of the fall in interest rates to refinance. Moreover, economic revival is being constrained by the government’s newfound zeal in reigning in deficit financing. While hundreds of billions of dollars were authorized to rebuild Iraq, they find the government reluctant to extend unemployment benefits or lower income tax breaks.
In the late 19th century American citizens rallied behind the progressive movement. Upset over the greed of the Robber Barons and government sanctioned restraint of trade and union movements, they empowered their elected representatives to make fundamental changes to include anti-trust legislation, a highly progressive income tax, and the direct election of Senators (to remove the power of the upper class in the selection of Senators by state legislatures.) Currently President Obama is stirring the pot with progressive-sounding language. Whether he has the mettle or inclination to go forward with this platform is problematical. I would venture that a properly articulated progressive platform would find a willing audience.

Be Careful of What you Wish For

In a July poll conducted by CNN, nearly three-fourths of all Americans favored a balanced budget amendment. In fact, 49 state constitutions have long contained language requiring an annual balancing of the budget. Although specific Amendment language has not been crafted, Congressional Republicans insist that any amendment ensure (a) total expenditures do not exceed total receipts, and (b) tax increases must be approved by a two-thirds vote in both Houses of Congress. 

 
With the exception of financing WWII, prior to President Reagan past administrations were fairly effective in keeping annual deficits in check. Even FDR cut spending in the midst of the Great Depression – causing a double dip recession – in order to reduce annual federal deficits. 

 
While the proposed amendment may not have stopped the Reagan administration from cutting tax rates – in the belief that lower tax rates would boost the economy such that tax revenues would actually rise –it would have made it next to impossible for President Reagan, and later Presidents Bush and Clinton, from raising taxes to bring the resulting deficits under control. President Reagan’s substantial increase in defense spending- which arguably led to the end of the cold war- may not have been possible. 

 
If the amendment had been in place President Bush, would have to have (a) been forced to limit the size of his tax cuts, (b) found it extremely difficult to pursue wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and (c) been precluded from increasing Medicare coverage to include prescription drugs.
President Obama’s stimulus program would have been impossible. If fact, as the recession deepened, the federal government, like all of the states, would have been forced to cut back substantially on spending to cover the decline in tax receipts and increase unemployment outlays. Today unemployment would be substantially above current levels. 

Are Republicans – who strongly back this Amendment – throwing the baby out with the bathwater? The requirement of a two-thirds Congressional majority for tax increases is a game-changer when it comes to the role played by the federal government. It is one thing to argue that Americans must pay for the services they wish to receive, it is another matter altogether to tie the hands of future voters. The first argues for fiscal responsibility, the second locks in the social policy preferences of the far right. If future generations decide on a greater role for the federal government and are willing to pay for it, than they should be allowed to do so. The two-thirds requirement for tax increases makes this highly problematic.
I’m also against the one size fits all aspect of the proposed amendment. Many if not most economists ascribe to the principle that budgets should be balanced when the country is at full employment, running a slight surplus during the best of times when tax receipts are particularly high and a deficit when substantial people are out of work. Substantial borrowing would only be permissible when future generations – who must repay the debt- are made better off as a result. A defensive war could be financed by borrowed funds, for example, in order to secure America’s future. Government spending of borrowed monies to limit the impact of an economic recession would also be permissible since the impacts of substantial economic downfalls carry well into the future. 

Instead of pushing for an Amendment, why can’t Congress force itself to act responsibility? They actually sought to do so beginning in 1990 when PAYGO statutes were put into effect. PAYGO compelled that any new Congressional spending or tax changes not add to the federal deficit. Under PAYGO, if you wanted to pass a new initiative you either had to increase taxes or cut the budget somewhere else. Similarly, tax cuts had to be balanced by spending cuts. Seems to me this would work today as well, as long as there were allowances for defensive wars and dealing with economic downturns. Continued self-policing, however, requires continued resolve. In 2002 the Republican controlled Congress allowed PAYGO statues to expire, paving the way for budget-busting tax cuts, wars, and the Medicare prescription drug plan. Only in 2007 – when the damage was done – were PAYGO statues reinstituted by the now Democratically-controlled House of Representatives. (Notably, Obama-care meets PAYGO requirements.) 

 
The far right, in the name of fiscal responsibility, offers up an amendment that will also severely limit the ability of present and future generations to deal with challenges they may face and to put into place programs they may prefer. Before Americans embrace this Amendment they should be aware of its full implications. In so doing, they may opt for using the ballot box to hold Washington responsible.