Nuclear Options Thermonuclear Egos

Nuclear Options, Thermonuclear Egos

“His mind has been so long used to unlimited applause that it could not brook contradiction…”  

 

While most of America was breathlessly awaiting the latest Andrew Weiner revelations (no, he's not the subject of the above quote) last week the Senate actually did some business by compromising on a slate of Presidential nominees, avoiding the filibuster, and, for now, allowing the Senate to stay out of their well-appointed “Nuclear Option” shelters.

The “Nuclear Option” gets trotted out every couple of years as a threat by the then Senate Majority Leader to change the Senate procedures to limit or even prohibit filibusters.  The purpose is to avoid the absurdity of the necessity for 60 votes for every piece of legislation and every Presidential nomination.  Why 60?  Because 60 is what is needed to invoke cloture, cutting off debate, and allowing the majority to move to an actual vote.

You might search the Constitution far and wide for the word “filibuster” and you will likely find it written in invisible ink, tucked in next to the Hastert Rule.  In short, it doesn’t exist as anything more than an ephemeral connection to the lack of limitation on the time for debate in the Senate’s original rules.  Like Harvey, the six foot rabbit, it is only real because people say it is. 

There is an interesting piece by Thomas Donlan, “No End To The Games” in this week’s Barron’s, in which he calls for bilateral nuclear disarmament.  No more filibusters, by either side.  Mr. Donlan is a very smart man, and he makes one very interesting point, “Ending the filibuster would help new Senators repeal unpopular legislation, and that would force constructive compromise more effectively that the Senate’s current rule.”

The essence of his argument is very reasonable; a law that is written in an extreme manner causes the electorate to swing in the opposite direction.  That should induce the leadership to make Presidential nominations less controversial and legislation more moderate so that both the new laws, and the Senators voting for them, have a better chance hanging around for the long term. 

I admire his optimism, but don’t see his model working, at least not right now.  The present political culture not only disdains statesmanship, it elevates the Wacko Birds by making them genius folk heroes.  They see no obligation to stick to their own word, much less the past promises made by their party.

To my way of thinking, filibusters have a place in unusual circumstances, such as an especially controversial nominee or piece of legislation.  But I also acknowledge that my argument lacks a logical consistency.  If a Senator, or a political party, lacks the integrity to stick to a deal they made on legislation, why would they stick to a deal they made on filibusters?

In the end, it comes down to people, warts and all, egos and all, to do the right thing.  And, even the best can be tempted.  Consider the following:

“And be it farther enacted, That if any person shall write, print, utter or publish, or shall cause or procure to be written, printed, uttered or published, or shall knowingly and willingly assist or aid in writing, printing, uttering or publishing any false, scandalous and malicious writing or writings against the government of the United States, or either house of the Congress of the United States, or the President of the United States, with intent to defame the said government, or either house of the said Congress, or the said President, or to bring them, or either of them, into contempt or disrepute; or to excite against them, or either or any of them, the hatred of the good people of the United States, or to stir up sedition within the United States, or to excite any unlawful combinations therein, for opposing or resisting any law of the United States, or any act of the President of the United States, done in pursuance of any such law, or of the powers in him vested by the constitution of the United States, or to resist, oppose, or defeat any such law or act, or to aid, encourage or abet any hostile designs of any foreign nation against United States, their people or government, then such person, being thereof convicted before any court of the United States having jurisdiction thereof, shall be punished by a fine not exceeding two thousand dollars, and by imprisonment not exceeding two years.”

That is the text of the last of the Alien and Sedition Acts, signed into law by President John Adams, July 14, 1799. 

Imagine that.  Criticizing the Congress, or the President, or opposing a law can get you sent to jail for up to two years.  Just think of the economic upheaval it would cause today (if nothing else, Fox is a Fortune 500 Company.)  You couldn’t build prisons fast enough.

And Mr. Adams used it.  25 critics (mostly aligned with Adam’s rival, Thomas Jefferson) were charged, tried, and, in some cases, eventually jailed.   It was a huge issue in the Election of 1800, allowing Jefferson to portray Adams as an elitist tyrant while he was the defender of the virtues of Republican liberty.   The Virginian celebrated his victory over Adams by promptly pardoning all those who were convicted and still jailed.  He then used the remaining period before the law’s sunset in 1801 to charge some of Adams’s supporters. 

By the way, that quote at the top of the page?  January, 1797.  Thomas Jefferson again, then Secretary of State, referring to George Washington. 

Pretty remarkable, isn’t it? We are talking about The Founders.  Lovers of liberty. Pledgers of their lives, fortunes and sacred honor. All those memorials, and marble busts, and heroic paintings--what could be more heroic than “Washington Crossing The Delaware”?

All intensely human.  Jefferson was ungracious when he spoke of Washington, but more than a little accurate. Adams didn’t lack for self-esteem; he had a genius for political theory but not always for politics.  Jefferson was, in the historian Joseph Ellis’s words, an American Sphinx, at once a great idealist and a more-than-occasionally duplicitous and self-serving politician.  We could talk about Hamilton, a proto-monarchist who switched sides at a crucial moment during the 1800 election, or Madison, who moved from the Federalist side of the aisle to ultimately drafting the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions, which supported nullification and came very close to advocating succession.

Still, put together this cacophony of idealism mixed with ego and ambition and somehow, 237 years later, we are still here, still bickering with each other. Maybe Mr. Donlan is right, and the system will self-correct.  

Of course, there are always people like Congressman Steve King (R-Iowa).  Mr. King isn’t a fan of immigration.  And he’s not a fan of Mexicans, either.  And he’s not terribly discreet.  In an interview with Newsmax, he argued against the Dream Act.  “for everyone who’s a valedictorian, there’s another 100 out there who weigh 130 pounds — and they’ve got calves the size of cantaloupes because they’re hauling 75 pounds of marijuana across the desert.”

I love fruit and vegetable references.  Very agrarian.  Takes you back to a time of yeoman farmers.

Congressman King is running for the open Senate seat in 2014.   He has a decent shot at winning.

Now, about that Nuclear Option……

MM

John Roberts Meets Big Julie

John Roberts Meets Big Julie

In the wonderful, funny musical  “Guys and Dolls” our slightly hapless hero, Nathan Detroit, finally is able to set up a crap game deep in the New York sewers.  Things are going rather well for him (he gets a cut of every pot) until a disgruntled Big Julie “who has lost a lot of dough” announces he’s going to personally shoot with Nathan.  Nathan demurs, saying he only arranges, he doesn’t play, but Big Julie, with the help of a beefy friend, convinces Nathan otherwise.

Big Julie’s rules are, shall we say, somewhat special to the institution.  He will be playing with his own dice.  Nathan, understandably concerned, asks to inspects them.  Very peculiar dice they are.  No spots.  So, how does one play craps when the dice seem blank? Simple.  Big Julie says that he remembers where the spots are.  Needless to say, his fortunes suddenly take an upturn

I don’t know whether Supreme Court Justices go to the theatre, but in two seminal decisions, Citizens United (written by Justice Kennedy) and Shelby County vs. Holder  (Chief Justice Roberts) the Court has become a spectacular impresario for the Big Julies of the political world.  Citizens United unleashed a torrent of dough that pervades every nook and cranny of virtually every election, allowing the well-heeled to make politics akin to shopping at Costco; walk in with your membership card, and lawmakers may be purchased in bulk.  And Shelby has erased all the spots on the voter discrimination dice.  Anything goes now in suppressing the votes of people who might possibly lean in the wrong direction.

Shelby is a truly fascinating case.  Like Citizens United, it is a classic example of when the Supreme Court might be correct on the law, in the abstract, but chose to completely ignore the practical implications of their decision.  The Shelby case was challenge by Shelby County, Alabama, to the Voting Rights Act of 1965, and specifically to Section 5.  That provision identified nine states (Deep South and Alaska) and assorted jurisdictions in seven others (including places in California, Michigan, North Dakota and five sites in New York City) to get “pre-clearance” from the Justice Department before changing their voting laws.   The idea was to prevent behavior proscribed by Section 2: discrimination in voting laws on the basis of race. 

The original Voting Rights Act was passed in 1965, and was reauthorized five times, the last in 2006 by a “squeaker” of 390-33 in the House, and 98-0 in the Senate.  There were literally thousands of pages of testimony showing continued voting discrimination in the legislative history leading up to the 2006 reauthorization.

But, it was clear that the Act had enemies on the Court.  Justice Scalia, even before the decision was rendered, called it a “perpetuation of racial entitlement.” And it had one clear vulnerability; the static nature of the designation of those States and localities that required “pre-clearance.”  Congress had never changed the formula since 1965. 

That Achilles Heel led to its downfall.  In a brilliant piece of advocacy, Roberts stitched together one fact (that minority voter registration and minority office-holding in the South was at historically high levels) and one crushing question to Solicitor General Verrilli, “Is it the government’s submission that the citizens in the South are more racist than citizens in the North?”

Game over.  No pre-clearance, because the designations had not been revisited.  The Chief Justice is sensitive to the Court’s place in history, and his own legacy, so he took great pains to remind everyone that discrimination under Section 2 was still forbidden.  He also suggested that Congress come up with a new definition of a “covered jurisdiction.”  Having found that high ground, he then simply eviscerated the enforcement mechanism.  States and local jurisdictions are now free to do what they want without any impediments, subject to later getting sued, after the election is over, of course, and the votes have all been counted.

I said I thought Roberts was right on the law.  I think he was, if you look through the narrow lens of a static definition of what a “covered jurisdiction” was.  But, in ignoring the legislative history, and the evidence of a continuing pattern of discriminatory acts, he chose not to recognize the practical implications of his decision.

Because the fact of increased minority registration and office holding in the South and the comparative level of racism in the South are substantively irrelevant.  Personal prejudice is both permissible and meaningless. Hate as much as you want in the privacy of your own home, so long as you don’t express it institutionally.   Voter registration and the number of minorities holding office is an interesting piece of data, but it is also irrelevant.  

Why? Because politicians have figured out how to play the game at a far more sophisticated level. Stuff minority voters into gerrymandered districts, and, presto, you have minority office-holders, while “cleansing” adjoining districts of them.  Farfetched?  Not really.  Name a state that Barack Obama carried by 6 points and a majority of the Congressional votes went to Democratic candidates?  That would be Pennsylvania, where the  Democrats hold exactly four of the eighteen Congressional seats.  Not exactly the will of the people.

And, registration levels aren’t nearly as important as voting rates. A registered voter who doesn’t vote because her polling place closes early, or doesn’t have enough voting booths, or enough staff, or changes locations three days before the election, is just another person who didn’t vote.  That is before a raft of voter ID laws, purging of voter rolls, and other less savory aspects of the voter suppression game are played.

Do I think Justice Roberts is a partisan Republican with a single minded, devious plot to undermine Democratic voting and insure GOP primacy for decades to come?  No, of course not.  I think he is a committed jurist who understands that the public expects him, above all other son the Court, to be fair.

But sometimes, when courts put their hands on the legislative scales, they can’t help but tilt them.  That is exactly what happened in this case. The results in Shelby, just as in Citizen’s United, were immediately pernicious.  The gong went off and the race to the bottom has begun.  Texas, North Carolina, Mississippi, Georgia and Florida have already enacted or are discussing new restrictions devised to suppress minority voting, and more GOP-controlled states have similar legislation in the hopper.

What do we say to the people who are going to be disenfranchised and the candidates who will lose close elections as a result?  To quote from Guys and Dolls, “Big Julie honors you with the taking of your stakes.”

MM

Joe, Eliot, and Anthony

Joe, Eliot and Anthony

I was invited recently to a breakfast gathering for Joseph Lhota, the likely Republican nominee for New York City Mayor. 

Now, before any regular readers think I was forcibly detained prior and made to drink some dark-arts potion made from kudzu, Texas mesquite and ground Palmetto bugs, I freely confess I went willingly.  I wanted to hear what “Joe” (according to his literature, regular guy, father was a cop, first one in his family to go to college, then transformed into rich, successful, powerful Republican) had to say.

I did this for three reasons.  The first is that I am simply a junkie for politics, at any level. The second is that I really believe that if you aren’t willing to listen to what the other side has to say, you might actually be missing something.   And the third is that I live here.  New York is my town, and it makes a huge difference to me how it is run.  So, I very much care about who the next Mayor is. 

People who live outside New York tend not to understand us.  We are a heaving, hot, opinionated, pushy, sometimes appallingly indifferent, sometimes overwhelmingly generous sprawling mess of greatness. We clearly repel a great many; a close friend has such an animus to the place that he routinely, when referring to any other city, will use “compares favorably to New York” as a suffix.  I fully expect him to say “Kabul?  Compares favorably with New York.”

Democrats outnumber Republicans by a six to one margin, and the City Council is completely dominated by Democrats, but we are also hardheaded and practical.  When it comes to the person at the top of the ticket, we will listen to anyone who has good ideas and seems to have a clue as to how to run the show.  The last elected Democrat was David Dinkins (nice man, not a good mayor) who succeeded Ed Koch twenty years ago.  We had Rudy, and now we have Mike.  Rudy stormed in and, like Hercules, cleaned the Augean Stables. Then, he was reelected, and indulged himself in power and other vices. Bloomberg, on the whole, has done a fine job, albeit with some missteps and some third-term excesses.  Personally, I have appreciated Bloomberg’s abilities.

So, why Joe?  I listened to him carefully; he was calm, he was rational, he was organized, he was very knowledgeable, and he had a very clever rhetorical trick of turning questions into opportunities to show that knowledge.  He was also quite emotionally intelligent; even in a room of deep-pocketed and influential people clearly ready to write a check, he knew there were certain hot buttons you don’t push.  We may be more than willing to cross party lines if we think the city will run better, but not for Rick Santorum or Wayne LaPierre.

Of course, no discussion of Joe is complete without one of his Democratic opponents, and he has picked a very opportune time to run.  This year’s group is particularly nondescript.  There is the well meaning-but-dull Bill Thompson, and the knowledgeable-but-often ham-fisted Council Speaker, Christine Quinn, and seemingly competent-but-bland Sal Albano, and tightly wound (and perhaps scandal-tinged) City Comptroller, John Liu, and the voluble  but profoundly old-fashioned Public Advocate (a job that doesn’t have a lot of responsibilities or authority) Bill DeBlasio. Each one of these folk has the endorsement of one public union or another.  We also used to be the diligent Manhattan Borough President Scott Stringer (more about him later) but he pulled out, and with the blessings of his mates, is now running for City Comptroller. 

With apologies to all those worthies, there was a certain lack of, shall we say, sex appeal.  Now, don’t get me wrong.  New York has had its glamorous Mayors, like John Lindsay, but most of the time, we pick them a little ehhhh.  Joe Lohta himself bears an unsettling resemblance to the late actor Peter Boyle. But, this is New York.  We are people of substance here.  A Bob McDonnell type just wouldn’t fly.  We aren’t hiring someone who looks like a host of Fox and Friends. 

Still, faced with the well meaning but dull (which, if you think about it, describes a very large percentage of Democratic politicians nationwide) it’s quite possible that Joe’s hulking presence could send shivers down the leg of an Upper East Side doyenne.

Until, of course, Anthony Weiner stepped in.  Yes, that chap, who had to resign his seat in disgrace (or something) because of a minor scandal in which he texted a picture of his underwear (while still in it) to a woman who was not his wife.  Anthony is back, and with him a little prurient interest.  Weiner has better hair than Sal Albano and John Liu, and it’s frankly no contest between him and Joe on that front. 

I’m not sure exactly what Anthony Weiner stands for, as the Weiner for Mayor website doesn’t actually say anything, but, pretty clearly, whatever it is must resonate. Weiner is now leading in some of the polls (I have to admit the reasons for that completely escape me) and one would think that the very worthy and hard working  Scott Stringer must be a very happy man these days, having made the choice to step aside and have a clear and unencumbered path to the Comptroller’s office.

Ah, the agony of counting one’s chickens.  Because, while I might not feel especially inspired by Anthony Weiner’s reentry into political life, others apparently were.  Most prominently, Eliot Spitzer, our disgraced (no question about it) former Governor.  Mr. Spitzer was brought down by his own sex scandal, which involved prostitutes and various other tawdriness.  If you are comparing scandals, Spitzer’s seemed a little more “adult” than Weiner’s, and perhaps that led him to run for a job with great gravitas, the very same City Comptroller’s spot that is the apple in the eye of Scott Stringer.

Stringer, however, is a New Yorker to his very core, and went on CNBC (and later Morning Joe) to say “he’s not going to cry.”  We are tough here.  Unfortunately, he was identified as “Spitzer Opponent.” And he, too, is trailing in the polls. 

You would be amazed at how many people are offended at this, especially among the Republicans.  Rupert Murdoch’s New York Post has been having a grand old time, and one waits with anticipation for Fox to carry special commentary on the issue from Newt Gingrich, an acknowledged authority in this area.  The Daily Caller, Tucker Carlson’s rag, is actually running an article “Spitzer Honed His Lust For Power As Princeton Student Body President.” 

Since you really can’t make any of this up, we will have to see how all these things shake out.  Spitzer may not make it on the ballot; he needs a last minute surge in signature gathering to get there, and Scott Stringer’s troops (and lawyers) are waiting for every smudge.  As for Weiner, I still have a hard time believing he can get the nomination.

And, what about Joe Lhota?  I am sure he is enjoying all this, and he has a well-deserved reputation for competence, but he has some vulnerabilities as well.  There is the “Ghost Of Rudy” Issue, as good old Joe was and apparently still is awfully close to our former Mayor.

And Rudy, despite his second life as a perennial critic, candidate, and money machine, just isn’t that popular back here in his home town.   He doesn’t seem to be all that fond of us either.  When asked by Huff Post if he thought Weiner or Spitzer could win, he said no, but first, he apparently “chuckled” and said "I don't know -- New York is a place that constantly amazes you."

I don’t know either, but the spectacle of Rudy Giuliani (the man who announced his divorce from his second wife at a press conference before mentioning it to either her or their children) opining on Eliot and Anthony’s behavior gave me a bit of a chuckle as well.   

I guess I just haven’t made up my mind in the Mayoral race.  I may not decide until I walk into the voting booth. 

And, as for Comptroller, while I will likely vote for Stringer, I’m half-rooting for Spitzer.  It isn’t just the sex appeal.  A friend who has worked in city government tells me Spitzer is hard-boiled enough to take no prisoners with the budget, and particularly, pension fund management.  That is probably a good thing.

I have decided to save the Daily Caller story on Spitzer’s reign of terror at Princeton until Election Night, if he gets there.  It’s like putting a bottle of Champagne on ice. 

MM

Comments:  Email the Moderator

Speaking For Us

Speaking For Us

A few years ago my wife and I were up in the Catskills, visiting our daughter in summer camp.  We stayed in a small fishing camp along the Delaware River.  I was out one morning when I ran into an older gentleman who was pulling on his waders.  He was probably in his seventies, great shock of white hair, weathered but handsome features.

He told me that this was the first year he was there without his wife.  She has passed a few months before, and he missed her terribly.  She didn’t much like fishing, but she always went along because she wanted to be with him.  He’d been a bit wild when he was younger, but she stood by him, even when he didn’t deserve it.  She was the one who went to church, and she was the one who kept things together.  Now she was gone.

He seemed very alone, so we talked a little bit.  I told him about my own father after we lost my mother, way too soon.  My Dad always thought he would go first.  He was the unhealthy one; the small stroke, the quintuple bypass.  They had worked and planned together all these years, they had their first two grandchildren and another on the way, and she had been stolen from him. After the shock of the funeral wore off, he kept coming back to it, the injustice.  Finally, we found something that helped.  My Dad, by his own admission, was not without flaws, and not always an easy man to live with.  When his time came, he would need someone to plead his case, someone who knew the inner good in him, someone who could not be denied.  My mother, about as gentle a person as you could possibly find, would speak for him.  

The old man with the nice white hair and the sad face looked up from his boots, shook his head and smiled at me.  He reached up with his hand and touched my open palm.

I thought about that man today.  July 4, 2013 is the 237^th anniversary of the signing of the Declaration of Independence and yesterday marked the end of the 150^th anniversary of the Battle of Gettysburg. We aren’t an old country at all.  I have a baby picture of me with my great grandmother, who was forty when she emigrated from Russia in 1912.  Born just a few years after Gettysburg, at a time when there were still people alive who came into this world as “Colonists.”  Becoming a citizen, she shared in the inheritance of the efforts and sacrifices of all people, great and small, who preceded her. 

Reading the whole text of the Declaration of Independence in an interesting experience.  1333 words long, it is as much a prosaic list of grievances; a lawyer’s bill of particulars justifying separation from the Crown, as it is an expression of great philosophical truths.  It is perhaps fortunate that what we remember of it is the essence; “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” 

Great and bold words for an uncertain time; 13 rag-tag colonies revolting against the greatest power in the world and demanding recognition as an independent republic.  We tend to forget that a great many colonists were either hesitant or opposed outright.  Jefferson, and the fifty-five other signers of the Declaration, assumed the right to speak for everyone, and in doing so, changed the world irrevocably. 

87 years later, in November of 1863, Lincoln rose at an event far less portentous, the dedication of a cemetery at Gettysburg to memorialize those who had fallen in battle.  He was preceded by the great orator, Edward Everett, who spoke for two hours.  In 273 words, in a time so short that no picture could be taken of him standing at the podium, Lincoln redeemed the promise of the Declaration of Independence. 

We are “a nation dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.”  We are tested, but the men at Gettysburg had proved equal to it.  “(F)rom these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion -- that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain -- that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom -- and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.”

The essential human dignity that only freedom can confirm was always in his thoughts.  In 1858, during the Alton debate with Stephen Douglas, Lincoln framed freedom in its most elemental way. “That is the real issue. That is the issue that will continue in this country when these poor tongues of Judge Douglas and myself shall be silent. It is the eternal struggle between these two principles -- right and wrong -- throughout the world. They are the two principles that have stood face to face from the beginning of time, and will ever continue to struggle. The one is the common right of humanity and the other the divine right of kings. It is the same principle in whatever shape it develops itself. It is the same spirit that says, 'You work and toil and earn bread, and I'll eat it.' No matter in what shape it comes, whether from the mouth of a king who seeks to bestride the people of his own nation and live by the fruit of their labor, or from one race of men as an apology for enslaving another race, it is the same tyrannical principle.”

At Gettysburg, when Lincoln rose to speak, not much was expected of him.  After Everett, perhaps not much was desired.  But he demonstrated again how much he stands apart from the common run of politician who whips you up, tells you what to think and how to feel, speaks at you.   

Lincoln knew us. He knew the “new birth of freedom” was the unbroken line from the Founders, to “the brave men, living and dead” at Gettysburg.  Ultimately, it is to my great grandmother, who led her family here for it, and to me.   

He knew the better angels of our nature, and, at a critical time, he spoke for us.

He still can, if we are willing to listen. 

MM

Farm Bill Follies

Farm Bill Follies

A friend said something that struck me as being particularly interesting.  He’s a Republican, although not hard right, and he was talking about Kirsten Gillibrand, New York’s junior Senator, who used to be his Congresswoman.  He was a little disappointed that Gillibrand was less conservative as a Senator than she had been in the House, but he said he understood.  A Senator had to represent the whole state, and downstate (New York City and suburbs) was surely more liberal than where he lived.

Obviously, whether you are moving left or right or center is in the eye of the beholder.  I see Gillibrand as a centrist, but my friend was picking up on something both seemingly obvious, and grossly out of date.  Statewide and national candidates don’t necessarily move towards the center anymore, and that means that the center is no longer the place for governing. 

Conventional wisdom is that you get the nomination by pledging absolute fealty to the base of your party.  After the obligatory pandering, you then tack to the middle to appeal to the broader electorate, particularly the prized independents.  If you win the general election you (sometimes) need accomplishments to stay there, so your own partisans understand that reverting to the doctrinaire places you (and your seat) in peril.

That is what we all thought, but that is no longer true.  A lot of this has to do with the rise of the conservative blogosphere and the Tea Party.  To get the Republican nomination in many states you have to satisfy the angry purists, and they can be completely ruthless.  Being an effective legislator is not necessarily seen as a plus; effective has been redefined as pushing a partisan agenda to the max.

Last week, I wrote about immigration, which has consumed much of the headlines.  But another fight, smaller, but perhaps even more illuminating, is what became of H.R. 1947, or, as it is more commonly known, the Farm Bill. 

The Farm Bill is always a perfect time for bipartisanship, because it is a Christmas tree of goodies:  subsidies, crop insurance, forest management, low interest rate loans for farms and Big-Ag, rural electrification funds, SNAP (food stamps), the National Sheep Industry Improvement Center (yes, that’s Section 12101) etc. etc.  Every five years there is some ritual grumbling, the usual paean to the “backbone” of the nation and some serious trading in pork-bellies (and all other types of pork.)  Then everyone holds a well-perfumed silk handkerchief to their nose, and “aye’s” it through.  Campaign contributions flow shortly thereafter.

Like everything else, this year’s Farm Bill was going to be tougher.  SNAP is by far and away the largest segment of the bill, and needless to say, the GOP isn’t in favor of it (helps the poor to eat, helps the grocers who sell to the poor stay in business.)  Compromises (including cuts to SNAP) were made in the House Agricultural Committee, and they voted out HR-1947 by a solidly bipartisan 36-10.  The Senate had already passed their (more generous) Bill and with the expected yes, the two would go to Conference, where some minor adjustments and compromises would be made, and then on to Mr. Obama for signature. 

HR-1947 runs to 620 pages and was carefully negotiated between the Chair of the Agriculture Committee, Frank Lucas (R-OK) and the ranking Democrat, Collin Peterson of Minnesota.  Peterson himself introduced it to the whole House.  Leaders in both parties privately said they expected passage with a healthy majority, even though most Democrats were opposed to the cuts in SNAP.

Done deal, right?  Not so fast.  Because, right after HR-1947 came out of committee, the GOP began running out the amendments, and while Peterson warned Lucas they could deep-six Democratic support, the GOP-controlled House voted in favor those amendments.  Eric Cantor himself stepped in to speak in favor of one (demonstrating, once again, how his integrity gyroscope needs some serious recalibrating.) Needless to say, these new amendments tilted the deal even further to the right, and the Democrats began to jump ship.  In the end, only 22 of a projected 40 Democrats voted for it, and HR-1947 died.  Cantor then found the nearest microphone to denounce Pelosi and a Cantor aide, Rory Cooper, added that the Democrats were “unable to govern.”

But wait, if you have been following closely, just exactly who runs the House?  That would be the GOP, right?  They have a 234 to 201 margin.   And they had the votes to pass the new amendments that the Democrats objected to. 234 plus 22 is 256, a winner? 234 plus 40 is a bigger winner.  But the final vote came out 234-195, against.  So, why didn’t the GOP have the votes to pass the whole bill?  

Because 62 GOP Congressmen voted no, including those who just voted yes on the Amendments that the Democrats objected to.  And those 62 weren’t just the odd bomb-throwing backbenchers.  No fewer than five Committee Chairman, Paul Ryan of Wisconsin (Budget), Jeb Hensarling (Texas, Financial Services), Ed Royce (California, Foreign Affairs), Bob Goodlatte (Virginia, Judiciary) and Jeff Miller (Florida, Veterans Affairs) also broke from Boehner and sent HR-1947 to a watery grave.  And, notwithstanding Cantor and his spokesman’s grandstanding, even if 40 Democrats had voted for it, it still would have lost. 

Bizarre, isn’t it?  The GOP wanted the bill, the Speaker gave his support, it was obviously unpalatable enough for the Democrats that most of them didn’t even like the version that came out of Committee, but that wasn’t enough.  Cantor and Co. had to extract just a little bit more pain, even when many of them had no intention of supporting HR-1947 even after the Amendments. 

To be clear, I am not even remotely suggesting that HR-1947 was a perfect piece of legislation. Spend fifteen minutes scanning it and you find plenty of eye-rollers, and maybe SNAP spending is too high.  But it’s the type of bill that has always been passed, because it largely reflects bipartisan wishes. 

Nor am I saying that the GOP is responsible for providing every last vote.  But it’s good politics to let the other side share a little.  Strict party line voting is a recipe for resentment and impermanent legislation.  Witness Obamacare and the 37 (to date) votes that have been taken to repeal it.  That is why you make a play for centrist and opposing party votes in the first place, and that is why Lucas and Peterson worked together.    

Given the result, they probably could have used more people like Gillibrand.  As a Congresswoman, she represented a rural and exurban district, and was on the House Agricultural Committee, so she would know a lot of the players.  As a Senator, she sits on the analogous Senate Committee.  As a Blue Dog, even one who has moved left a bit, she’s the perfect centrist who could have been a bridge-builder; knows the issues, not confrontational.   

But bridge building isn’t in vogue these days. Every vote seems to be an article of faith, or an opportunity to stick it in the other guy’s eye. What happened to HR-1947 is the new normal, and the new normal is really bad.

As a final aside, I should again note that Farm Bills come up for reauthorization every five years.  In 2008, the last time the Farm Bill came up, the Democrats controlled the House, it was more generous, and George Bush vetoed it.

Mr. Bush’s veto was overridden in the House in a vote that included 99 Republicans.  In the Senate (in case you were curious) the vote was 80-14.

But that was so…..2008?

There has to be a better way.  Kirsten, phone home.

MM

The Scariest Word In The English Language

The Scariest Word In The English Language

Immigrant.  Might as well get it out there as quickly as possible.

We have moved into Phase II of the immigration discussion, as the Gang of Eight compromise bill has now been properly strung up in the classic piñata position.  The sticks are out, and the swatting has begun.  I am not seeing any candy yet.

But, before we get to what’s inside the piñata, it is helpful to understand how a Bill becomes a Law.  The Senate passes a bill.  The House passes a bill.  If it happens to be the same bill, it then goes to the President for signature.  If it happens to be different, it goes to Conference; a compromise version is agreed to, then back to the respective chambers for ratification, and then, to the President for signature.   All very simple, and in normal times, the way things have been done for more than 200 years.  Some bills don’t make it out of committee, some bills fail in conference, some even get vetoed by the President, but, we have managed to accomplish this about 20,000 times.  There are good laws and some absolute stinkers, but the process has always gone on and the nation’s business (mostly) done.

However, let us not forget that past performance is no guarantee of future results.  Think of legislating now as a sort of game of Mad Libs, where the quotes and the parentheticals really tell the story.  So, “House” means “Tea/Limbaugh Block of not less than 115 to approve.” That’s just to get a vote.  And “Senate” means “Sixty Votes Because We Said So” for the same.  And just voting to vote doesn’t actually win.  There are a few old-fashioned types who will vote to vote out of respect for the institution, then vote against the bill itself.

Still with me?  The Founders likely wouldn’t be.  In Federalist 10, Madison wrote “If a faction consists of less than a majority, relief is supplied by the republican principle, which enables the majority to defeat its sinister views by regular vote.”  

Silly Madison.  How quaint.  He never had the privilege of meeting the people who really run things these days, the ideological nihilists like Ted Cruz, and the cold-blooded operators, like John Cornyn.

Cruz has been getting a lot of press, but it is actually Cornyn who is more interesting. He was a judge on the Texas Supreme Court for seven years, which would imply at least the ability to be impartial.  But he’s also one of the most conservative Senators, one of only three to vote against John Kerry’s nomination for Secretary of State, and an expert in the game of naked power politics.  Cornyn doesn’t care what a majority of the Senate would vote for.

And Cornyn has just delivered on the GOP’s most troubling issue, how to deal with that word, immigrants. The GOP is in a bind.  It has what are three essentially hormonal imperatives.  The first, very clearly, is to deal with the wing of its party that simply cannot abide non-white, and particularly Latino immigrants. The second is to satisfy the business and farm interests, who are major campaign contributors and who very much like cheap, undocumented labor to do dirty jobs and depress wages in general for American workers.  And the third is purely electoral; since Latinos (and other immigrants) voted for Obama, anything that keeps down their vote is considered a positive.   

So, while Marco Rubio’s dalliance with the Gang of Eight made many Republicans queasy, Cornyn has just provided the deus es machina.  The Gang’s bill is by no means a waltz into full citizenship—it couldn’t be.  Instead, it is a compromise two-step.  Undocumented aliens can gain provisional status, permitting them to remain in the country legally and work. Following that, there could also be a green card and even citizenship, but only if certain border security measures were met to trigger the second part of the plan and allow it to move forward.

Cornyn's amendment makes the trigger threshold essentially unattainable. The Gang’s threshold would require 90 percent apprehension of border-crossers and full operational security at designated high-traffic areas of the border, which was pretty formidable, and tougher than liberals wanted. But Cornyn's amendment goes further, by extending that to every place along the border, meaning, in effect, that you could theoretically be interdicting 99% of all border-crossers, but have one or two small trouble areas, and that would be enough to kill the entire second stage.  Cornyn also goes further than the Gang’s pilot biometric entry and exit system for airports.  He requires full implementation in all airports and seaports.  And, he adds 5,000 additional Border Patrol agents.

It is a huge tactical victory for the GOP.  It keeps the cheap labor in the country for their business and agricultural supporters, massively graces Red States with huge dollops of pork, and prevents Latino immigrants from ever voting Democratic, because they will never be able to vote.  It’s a trap for Democrats.  If they oppose it they are soft on enforcement, and will get the blame for not passing something.  Support it and they have doomed the possibilities for any normalization.  We will end up with a permanent underclass of guest workers and even more restrictions on legal immigration.

And, it makes Cornyn the key player on immigration.  Marco Rubio now works for Cornyn.  Despite his promises to the Gang of Eight that they move together, he’s now embraced what another Gang member, John McCain, calls a “poison pill.”  Whatever the Gang of Eight may be saying in public, they all know Rubio sold them out.  That may help Rubio with his Presidential ambitions, but it’s not likely to help him be an effective legislator.  Integrity, even among thieves, matters.  Rubio, by stepping away from his own compromise and his personal commitments, is showing he may have a deficiency.

But Cornyn’s coup may only be a tactical, albeit an important one.  Because there is one demographic fact that will not go away; for the first time, the death rate among whites in this country was higher than the birthrate.  The total number of whites increased because of white immigration from Europe, but the white “rootstock” is withering.  Population growth is coming entirely from the non-white populations, because of higher birthrates and immigration.

And that is a monumental problem for any Republican who isn’t driven simply by cultural fears. Because the face of the party right now is unwelcoming to immigrants in general and distinctly hostile to Latinos.  This doesn’t just come from obscure Congressmen from safe Districts spouting nonsense.  Romney himself, to my great surprise, went out of his way to be critical in a very personal way, even going so far as to criticize Sonia Sotomayor on a trip to Puerto Rico, where she is universally considered a hero.  Maybe he thought that the base’s baser instincts needed to be fed, but it was a very peculiar decision.  Romney is a very smart man, and if he didn’t get how people would take that, it is only because he didn’t care what immigrants think. He didn't think he would need them, and so he didn't want them.

The one person I am sure does understand it is Jeb Bush.  He tried to communicate it this week at the Faith and Family Forum (the new branding for Ralph Reed’s Christian Coalition.)  Bush went there to tell conservatives that immigration reform was really a conservative idea. "Immigrants create far more businesses than native-born Americans…. Immigrants are more fertile, and they love families, and they have more intact families, and they bring a younger population. Immigrants create an engine of economic prosperity."

It is unfortunate that one inelegant word (fertility) muddied the rest of his message because Jeb was clearly trying to show a path forward.  His own brother got 44% of the Latino vote in 2004, and Latinos are much closer to the GOP on social issues than they are to the Democrats.  Latinos are gettable, and so are Asians and South Asians, if only the GOP would try.  But the Faith and Family folk weren’t buying it, and neither, it seems, is the rest of the party.  That they don’t seem to want to, despite the urging of Jeb Bush and people like Haley Barbour, tells you about the stranglehold the extremists have.  They aren’t worried about demographics.  They obviously think that voter suppression, gerrymandering, and even changing the Electoral College will keep them in control.  After all, they still have the House, despite the fact that a majority voted Democratic in House races in 2012. 

I am betting they are right.  For the moment. 

“Immigrant.”  Not unlike saying “Frau Blucher” in Young Frankenstein.  

Boo!

MM

Takers and Trustees

Takers and Trustees

I grew up in a segregated Northeastern suburb. 

There weren’t separate bathrooms or water fountains, or any of the overt symbols you would have seen in the South in that era, but it was segregated nonetheless. Segregation was enforced geographically; there places, even whole towns, where certain people could live, and others where they couldn’t.  In my second grade class there was an African-American boy (Tommy) who lived on the other side of the four-foot fence that separated the back of my school yard from a development populated exclusively by African-Americans.  I was too young to notice anything unusual about that: it was walking distance from where I lived, and a couple of blocks from my parent’s pharmacy.  The cop who walked the beat was Irish, and nearby were the German deli that sold Schaller & Weber, the kosher deli with Hebrew National, the Chinese laundry, the Italian baker who snuck me sprinkle cookies, and the candy store owned by people with the decidedly un-trendy tattoos on their arms from the camps.

This was the world I lived in, with a lot of different looking people.  But by third grade, Tommy was gone, and so was his entire neighborhood.  The city fathers had decided to build senior housing on the other side of that fence, and the white-washed houses with the green trim and the laundry lines were now a large vacant lot. Like a palimpsest, they wiped it clean; without conscience, they took those people’s homes and tossed them in the street. 

I have no idea what happened to Tommy or his family. I don’t even know whether the land was owned or leased.  As an adult, it’s easy to see that his community was moved, en masse, because it could be.  They were powerless.  More than 100 years after Dred Scott, in my town, at least, African-Americans had "no rights which the white man was bound to respect." 

I was reminded of that story when I read an obituary in The New York Times of Bob Fletcher.  In 1942, FDR declared part of West Coast a war zone, and 120,000 Japanese were rounded up and placed in internment camps.  Mr. Fletcher was, at the time, working as an agricultural inspector for the State of California.  A member of a Japanese farm family from the town of Florin approached him with an offer: manage the farms of two of neighbors, pay the bills and take all the profits until they could return.

He accepted.  For the next three years, he ran the Tsukamoto, Okamoto, and the Nitta farms, living in a bunkhouse for migrant workers on the Tsukamoto farm.  When he married, his wife joined him in the bunkhouse: neither felt it was appropriate to occupy the Tsukamoto’s living quarters. When the Tsukamotos returned, they found their house cleaned and money in their bank account; Mr. Fletcher had only kept half the profits.

Many of the Japanese left Florin after the war.  Some had lost their homes and farms when they were unable to pay the taxes while they were interned.  Fletcher’s efforts saved the three farms.  He was not especially popular with his non-Japanese neighbors, before the war, Japanese children had been required to attend segregated schools, after, many local businesses didn’t want to serve them.  Apparently, he didn’t care.  He felt they were mistreated, and acted with courage and conviction.  Without the formal title, Bob Fletcher became a Trustee, someone who holds something for another’s benefit, and acts as a fiduciary, with integrity.  

Representative government is a form of Trusteeship, not so much in the way Edmund Burke articulated it, but as a form of legal Trusteeship, to follow the law and act prudently within that context.  We elect people to serve our interests.  We give them power over our persons and our property.  We expect them to exercise their best, unbiased judgment for all of us, not unduly benefitting themselves, or their party, unduly.

We have to be careful in the way we use the T word.  Trust can’t be situational; if you always distrust one of the parties on every single issue, then that is no longer an issue of integrity, it is one of ideological purity.  If you would trust Obama with the NSA snooping, but not Romney (or vice versa) then you are missing the point.  Because the power of the government is immense, like a stupendous machine, and unless you are comfortable with any sane person using one of the high-tech gadgets on it, then you should reject that gadget.  I just read polling numbers that indicated that roughly 80% of Americans support the installation of cameras in public areas, and facial recognition technologies with those cameras to root out terrorists.  I find that mind-boggling. Walk outside the confines of your home (or maybe stay in your home if the curtains aren’t drawn) and it’s OK for Barack or Mitt to say “Pull up Joe on screen 3, let’s see if he shaved this morning.”

In the end, trust has to be based on two concepts.  The first is that whomever is in charge will abide by the Constitution.  If they do that, then we can’t have a gripe with them in that context.  That is the covenant we all entered into 230 years ago.  The second is that, while we know partisan politics means that our elected officials will have their thumb on the scales, that thumb can’t be too heavy.  In short, they must be Trustees and not simply Takers.

But the temptation to be a Taker is great.   Power is intoxicating; a prize that people ache for, and few want to give up.  Inevitably, despite the best intentions of the best people, it can be abused.  The Barack Obama of 2007 opposed the massive surveillance by the NSA.  The 2013 version, freighted with the responsibilities of keeping the country safe, now sees the value.  The opposite is true of Republicans, who were more than happy to have it so long as Dick Cheney was getting the read-outs, but now rush to the microphones for ritual denouncing.

That reflects a troubling trend in this country, an intensifying situational ethics.  You can see it wherever there is single party (or single person) dominance—the Takers are carrying the day.  Whether it’s Mike Bloomberg (someone I generally admire) trying to legislate personal behavior, or Red States such as Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, Arkansas, and now even North Carolina, who are rewriting the tax code to benefit their contributors and re-writing the parts of the Constitution they disagree with, it is the same principle.  Get in charge, do what you want, ignore the wishes and even the rights of everyone who is not a member of your club.  Take. 

That has to be wrong.  It is irrelevant if two-thirds of New Yorkers support gun control laws that are greater than Heller allows.  And it is irrelevant if two-thirds of Arkansans would ban abortions, in contravention of Roe v. Wade.  In the end, it is no different than the people who took Tommy’s home, or herded the Tsukamoto, Okamoto, and Nitta families into the camps.   Power is not the equivalent of right.  We cannot be Vandals, sweeping in once elected and taking what we want, regardless of the law.

Gandhi once said, "A nation's greatness is measured by how it treats its weakest members.”  He might have added that a Democracy’s greatness is measured by how it treats those presently out of power.

Bob Fletcher obviously understood that.  And I would imagine his widow, Teresa, does as well. She was the person who cleaned the Tsukamoto’s house before they returned.

That, I suppose, at its most elemental level, is what being a Trustee is all about. 

MM