The Choo Choo And The Caboose
I wonder if anyone has read the 10th Amendment
recently? “The powers not delegated to
the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are
reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” You might call this the “In Charge”
Amendment.
The Tenth is the favorite amendment of recalcitrant and
ambitious Governors who have decided that, in the immortal words of Frank
Hague, the late Mayor of Jersey City, “I am the Law.” The Tenth is also beloved by special
interests that chafe at Federal regulation when there are more sympathetic
state regulators. And the States Rights
folks especially admire the Tenth when the President is of the opposite
party. The Tenth is, pure and simple,
about who has power and what they can do with it.
This week, the Tenth is going to get a test, as the Supreme
Court will consider it in relation to Arizona’s SB-1070, Arizona’s new
immigration law. Governor Jan Brewer and
Sherriff Joe aren’t fans of Mr. Obama. So
when it comes to international relations between the United States and Mexico,
Governor Brewer wants to be in charge.
Meanwhile, the other news out of Washington is that Congress
has reconvened, with the same spirit of selflessness and cooperation it adjourned
with. And with Mitt’s nomination now
virtually assured, he might have hoped to tack back to the middle. Mitt lives to tack, but House Republicans
have put the kibosh on that. “We’re
not a cheerleading squad,” said Representative Jeff Landry, an outspoken
freshman from Louisiana. “We’re the conductor. We’re supposed to drive the
train.” In Washington, freshman
Representative Landry and his fellow “conductors” are in charge.
As
we continue our travels, we find that the Minnesota Vikings, whose storied
history includes the mighty defensive line known as the Purple People Eaters,
have been looking to munch on the taxpayers of the North Star State. Unless the legislature coughs up a $975
Million dollar stadium to replace the abject slum they are forced to perform
in, they may just be forced to “take their talents elsewhere.” True, Minnesota just went through a state
shutdown that involved gutting basic services in order to pay for tax breaks.
But the Vikings have needs that far surpass schools, cops, sanitation, etc. so
Minnesota either needs to pay up, or suffer the consequences. I suppose that makes the Vikings in charge as
well.
Takes your breath away, doesn’t it? Looming budget crisis, Afghanistan, Iran,
deficits, unemployment, crumbling infrastructure, and instead of leadership,
it’s become like blue light special time at the old Korvettes, except the
merchandise is money, access, and power.
If it’s not nailed down, grab it and put it in your basket. If it is
nailed down, pry it up off the floor and put it in your basket.
Anyone out there daring to think big? And, when I mean big, I’m not implying
something like the Brinks Robbery, where you make off with the whole armored
car? Big, as in genuinely and
realistically trying to plan for the nation’s long term economic needs and
challenges? Big, as in bargaining with
the other side to achieve some consensus so the deal can stick long term?
It’s not coming from the GOP, where the leadership excels
only in parliamentary tactics, robo-criticism of Mr. Obama, and a keen eye for
personal advancement. Come January of
next year, the GOP plans to be in charge, so why bargain now when you can take
what you want later?
And let’s not give Mr. Obama and the Democrats a free pass
either. Where’s the vision? Where’s the
seriousness? Simpson-Bowles, imperfect as it is, would have been serious. But, if the best thing they can bring to the
table is the Buffett Rule, then they have run out of ideas as well. Yes, we all know the GOP is dominated by
people who want to turn the country into a theocratic, kleptocratic
autocracy. But for policy, Democrats,
how about something more contemporary than a “Maude” rerun?
Tom Friedman of the New York Times just wrote a column
suggesting Michael Bloomberg run as a third party candidate. I’m for it. I live in this great city, and, hypercritical
(and Democratic) New Yorker that I am, I have to say for all Bloomberg’s many
mistakes my city is safer and cleaner, the schools are better, parks and
museums more beautiful and more accessible, the overall quality of life better
than it was during the Administrations of his predecessors, both Republican and
Democratic.
Bloomberg brings three things to the table that I see
completely absent elsewhere. First, he doesn’t make a party game out of
blasting the government-he accepts the fact that it has a role to play and
tries to make it work. Second, while
Romney talks about being a businessman, Bloomberg is a businessman. Romney was a moneyman and rearranger of
assets. Bloomberg is a builder-he put
together an empire by assembling it piece-by-piece, adapting to market
conditions, and taking different approaches to solve problems. He is results oriented instead of hidebound
to some sort of ideological purity-an approach we desperately need. Finally, Bloomberg loves his city, and he
wants to improve it-all of it, not just for the people who voted for him. That
makes him a rarity among contemporary politicians.
Run, Mike. I don’t
know if I would vote for you, but I’d love to see the debates-I’d love to see you
get between the two candidates and demand they do better. Right now, the Choo Choo always seems to be
led for the benefit of the winners, and the Caboose is packed with everyone
else. How ironic would it be if Mike
Bloomberg, multi-billionaire, ended up as the “Tenth Amendment” candidate-of
the people, or, in Friedman’s words, “an unpaid lobbyist for the country — and for the next
generation of Americans.”
Mike Bloomberg for Candidate? Not the snappiest of slogans, but I think it
can sing.
MM
