Month: February 2021

Living on the Edge 

So let’s have a discussion about the minimum wage.  Here in Ohio, it’s $8.55 per hour.  The national minimum wage is $7.25 per hour.  So let’s do some figuring, to find out what those numbers mean.

$8.55 an hour means a gross pay of $342 a week (for a 40-hour work week), $1368 per month, or $17,100 a year.  And that’s if you’re lucky.  Lucky to live in Ohio, lucky to work 2000 hours in a year, and lucky to not get sick or laid off.  

$7.25 an hour, the national minimum, obviously is less:  $290 per week, $1160 per month, or $14500 a year – less.   But an either case, it’s not credible to call the minimum wage a “living” wage.  

As a single person, to be 100% eligible for Federal assistance, you can only make $12,760 per year.   So even at the national minimum wage, someone working a fulltime job (2000 hours a year) would be way “over” the poverty line.  To quote the Parkland kids – I call “BS”.  

Let’s say you’re paying $600 a month for rent (that’s the cheapest here in Pataskala).   You manage to only eat $250 per month worth of food (that’s $62, or nine Big Mac value meals, a week).  And, in many places in the United States, there is no such thing as reliable public transportation.  A car, gas, insurance:  maybe that’s another $150, though one minor mechanical difficulty will blow that right out of the water.   So with rent, food, and transportation you’ve gone through more than one thousand dollars.  And you haven’t bought (or washed) underwear, or eyeglasses, or shoes.

One Expense Away   

In “real life”, neither $7.25 or $8.55 is a living wage.  It’s a wage guaranteed to require something else – another job, someone to help pay for things, or going into debt.  It also guarantees that the “Pathway to improvement”, the old “pull yourself up by your bootstraps” through education, isn’t available.  There’s not the time, nor the money, to get that done.  Living on the real minimum wage locks people into an essential struggle to survive.

What would a $15 per hour minimum wage do?  Run the numbers:  $600 per week, $2400 a month, or $30,000 a year.  It’s a wage that allows folks to actually live, instead of just survive.  It creates discretionary income, to pay for education, to put aside for retirement, to save for a future home or business venture. 

In 1978 I signed my first teaching contract for $8000 a year.  That small amount was able to take care of my $125 a month rent, $.75 a gallon gas, and a Big Mac value meal of $1.79 (though there wasn’t a McDonald’s in Pataskala back then).  I was able to pay for further education, and drive my 1967 Volkswagen – even pay for repairs at “Mike’s”.   And what is 1978’s $8000 worth in 2021 dollars:  $32000.  By the way, beginning teaching salary in the local school is still under $40,000 a year.  Teachers haven’t made much progress over forty years in getting above a minimal wage.

Dignity of Work

Ohio’s Democratic Senator, Sherrod Brown, speaks often about “the dignity of work”.  He recognizes that most Americans want to work, they want to “pay their way”.  But to make that “American Dream” available, there has to be a tangible result – a living wage.  We can’t define “living” as barely scraping by, one small expense away from disaster.  If we want folks to have that “dignity”, then we need to establish a “floor”, a base pay that will provide that dignity.  And that “floor” isn’t extravagant.  It won’t, by itself, support a family.  A family today requires both adults work, something that a half century ago wasn’t necessary.  That’s progress, I guess.

Currently 44% of American workers earn less than a $15 per hour wage.  So what does that do?  It forces 8% of American workers to work two jobs.  It also makes the average worker put in an extra five hours a week overtime.  That’s 250 extra hours a year – or the equivalent of more than four extra weeks of work.  So our 2021 era requires a big percentage of Americans to work far more than a forty-hour work week, for low wages – that’s our “American Dream”?  

 

Our Dream

We hear apocalyptic scenario of what would happen if the United States had a $15 minimum wage.  According to that vision, millions of Americans would lose their jobs, thousands of small businesses would fail, and inflation would spiral out of control.  But would it?

Any change in wage and salary rules will have a negative impact on some businesses – it would be foolish to deny that. There would be adjustments.  And the costs of some of those adjustments, including higher costs for goods, would be borne by those who buy those goods.  So a higher minimum wage is likely to raise costs for folks who buy more stuff, those who already are making more than that minimum wage.  It would cause some “income leveling”, by raising the floor for many, it would likely make those already way above that floor to pay some more.

And some Americans would lose their current jobs as businesses “sort out” a higher bottom wage.  So there will be some negative impacts for some people.

But for a large percentage of American workers, a $15 minimum wage would change their lives for the better, and give them greater access to the “American dream”.  It would create Senator Brown’s “dignity of work”, and also allow more Americans to have a life beyond work. That’s something many cannot have now.  A $15 minimum wage would allow American workers to live for more than just a paycheck.

Wisdom

Joe Biden is the 46^th President of the United States.  At seventy-eight, he’s the oldest man ever to serve in the office, edging out Ronald Reagan at the end of his term.  If age begats wisdom, then we have elected the wisest man ever to be President.  

But more importantly, Joe Biden brings a lifetime of legislative experience to the White House.  He was first elected to the United States Senate in 1972, actually twenty-nine years of age on election day and meeting the minimum age of thirty, two weeks after.  He served in the US Senate from that time until he took the oath of office for the Vice Presidency in 2009, thirty-six years later.  To say that Joe Biden is a “man of the Senate” is not just a turn of phrase:  he literally grew up in a body where legislative compromise was the “stock in trade”.

President Biden knows what the Senate was.  And he also knows what our current political climate is like.  As Vice President, Biden experienced first-hand the recalcitrance of Mitch McConnell’s Republican majority, climaxing in holding a Supreme Court seat open for more than a year in order to prevent then-President Obama from filling it.  The “stolen seat”, now held by conservative appointee Neil Gorsuch, is a bone in the throats of Democrats, and a “success story” for the now minority Republican Senators.

President Biden believes in a Senate of compromise, and sees as a major goal of his Presidency bringing the Senate and the nation back to its former self.  But he also knows that his Presidency  will ultimately be judged on how he manages the COVID crisis.  It’s the reason he was elected; Donald Trump’s ultimate failure, and the true “test” of Biden’s time.

Parliamentary Tricks

So when the goal of restoring the Senate runs up against the goal of managing COVID, President Biden is in the mix.  He has the power, right now, to pass almost his entire $1.9 trillion COVID relief plan without any Republican votes at all.  Speaker Pelosi in the House is already framing the legislation as a “budget” item.  The United States House of Representatives operates on a “majority wins” system, have one more vote than the other side, and you win.  And the Speaker has ten more votes than the Republicans, so she can do as she wishes.

But the Senate is tied.  There are fifty Republicans, and fifty Democrats.  The Democrats have “control” by the tie-breaking vote of Vice President Kamala Harris.  But for most legislation the Senate is not a majority rule body.  Current rules require sixty votes to end debate on legislation, a process called “cloture”. So even though fifty Democratic Senators and one Vice President will vote for final passage, they can’t get to a final vote without ten Republicans agreeing to end debate. 

Exception Makes the Rule

But there are exceptions.  Federal judicial and cabinet appointments are now under “the nuclear option”, that is, a simple majority.  No cloture votes are necessary.  And items that come under the heading of “budget reconciliation” are also under the “simple majority” rule. That’s something that Speaker Pelosi is very much aware of – thus the $1.9 trillion Biden COVID relief packaged as a “budget item” rather than a stand-alone legislative proposal.

So President Biden can ram through his big COVID relief package within the next month or so.  And he can do it without any Republican cooperation, as long as he can keep all fifty Senate Democrats lined up in his column.  Then Vice President Harris will fulfill her Constitutional obligation as President of the Senate, and cast her tie-breaking vote. 

Doing a Deal 

But the tie-breaking vote might not be the only thing broken.  It might also break any opportunity for Biden to develop some cooperation with the Republicans in the Senate.  That cooperation is the key to bringing American politics away from the polarization that led to a Donald Trump Presidency.  And Biden isn’t the only one invested in changing our political atmosphere.  So are many Republicans who see Trumpism as a danger to their causes, their Party, and their nation.  And of course, they recognize the need for some COVID relief as well.  

So President Biden’s attuned sense of Senate deal making is alert.  Ten Republican Senators have proposed an alternative to the Biden COVID plan at $600 billion.  There should be no surprise that the number is ten, the exact number needed to end the debate and bring any plan to a vote.  That gives them some power. And they went over to the White House yesterday.

There’s a far piece between $1.9 trillion and $600 billion.  But you have to have some offer to get in the door, or more colloquially, into “the room where it happens”.  Those ten Republicans don’t expect to come out with a $600 billion deal.  President Biden doesn’t expect to get his $1.9 trillion either.  And there’s more than just passage on the table.  Maybe some of those Republicans don’t vote for the final bill, but are willing to vote for cloture to bring it to the floor for final vote.  

All In

They all have more in common than not.  Both Republicans and Democrats recognize the need for COVID relief.  They all want to get legislation into law.  And they all want to proceed in a way that encourages future cooperation and deals, not just more side-taking and finger-pointing.  Neither wants to use anything that’s called a “nuclear option”.  Just as in real warfare, it’s beyond difficult to turn back once gone “nuclear”.

There are Democrats on the other side, from the “Progressive” wing of the Party, that will cringe at any Biden giveaway of COVID relief.  They will pressure him to stick “to the plan” and go nuclear if he needs to.  But it’s difficult to see where they get to negotiate this.  Are they going to vote against a compromise COVID relief plan?  It doesn’t seem likely, and their counter-pressure to the Republican moderates may not be enough.  Those progressives will end up accepting a Biden compromise, even if they don’t like it.

After all, it is the United States Senate.

Adversaries

Every defendant deserves representation.  That is a basic tenet of our legal system. No matter how “bad” a person might be, not matter how apparently awful the act the accused may have committed, they still deserve representation.  Even more, it’s how our system works.  The American legal process is “adversarial”.  One side presents a case, the other side presents their case, and the “adjudicating authority” determines which side is right.  It might be a judge, it might be a jury.

So while it’s easy to say that someone did something so awful, so heinous, that they don’t “deserve” a defense; it simply doesn’t work that way.  We need defense lawyers for axe murderers and child molesters – in fact, those defendants need them most of all. 

In the American legal system we have “pro-bono” attorneys.  They are appointed by the Court to defend those who can’t afford defense.  And in bigger court systems there are even government funded public defenders. We pay them to take on the defense of those who cannot pay private attorneys.

There is one exception to all of this.  A defendant can demand that they “defend” themselves.  Lawyers (and judges) all know the maxim:  a lawyer who defends himself has a fool for a client.  But in the end, a defendant who is competent, and refuses representation, can proceed on their own.

Impeachment

For the second time in as many years, Donald Trump was impeached for “high crimes and misdemeanors” by the House of Representatives.  In the first impeachment trial, Mr. Trump was represented by several lawyers. They included Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz, former Special Counsel and Judge Ken Starr, and television lawyer Jay Sekulow.

The Constitutionally mandated impeachment and trial process is a “political” process, not necessarily governed by the standard rules of legal procedure.  But Senate precedent has allowed for representation, and an opportunity to “put on” a defense in the trial.  It’s “part of the process”, and a way that Americans will perceive that the process was “fair”.  

Donald Trump faces an unprecedented second impeachment trial. All of American tradition and precedence assumes he will have representation and an opportunity to present a defense.  But he’s got a problem – his defense team just quit, one week before the start of the trial.

Legal Ethics

From a legal standpoint, there are particular achievements that stand out.  Arguing a case before the Supreme Court is one, and arguing a side (either side) in one of the four Presidential impeachment trials in American history is another.   Yet this weekend, the lawyers representing former President Donald J Trump quit, leaving him without representation in this high-profile case.  Lawyers above all understand the adversarial representation system.  They are dedicated to it – from day one of Law School it’s both “preached” and “practiced”.   To “abandon” a client before trial is a near breech of legal ethics.  So what happened?

There is no reason to try to defend the former President from “incitement of insurrection” charges, nor dereliction of duty charges, nor even encouraging election fraud.  Those may be the substantive charges that the House Impeachment Managers want to prove, and they are actions that may well be indefensible.  But Trump’s attorneys won’t fight those battles.  Better to stand on one legal point:  jurisdiction.

Slam Dunk

The legal argument for Donald Trump is very straight-forward.  It is the same “process” argument that earned forty-five votes in the Senate at the introduction of the House Impeachment resolution – that a trial of a former President, now a private citizen, is unconstitutional.  In short, the Senate doesn’t have jurisdiction.

It’s an argument that most Constitutional scholars disagree with.  Mr. Trump was still President, acting as President, when he was impeached.  And the penalty for conviction includes more than just removal from office, but also a ban from holding office in the future.  The Founding Fathers knew all about impeaching “former high officials”. It was done by the English Parliament they used as a model.  And they also knew that banning a post-term impeachment would give a “get-out-of-jail-free” card for the last months of a Presidency.  

But all of the Constitutional and precedential authority doesn’t really matter.  Attorneys for the President aim to win their case and get the President acquitted.  It requires only thirty-four Senators to vote for acquittal, and forty-five have expressed agreement with a “process” argument.  In legal terms: this case is a “slam dunk”.  The jury is already “rigged”.

Fool for a Client

We don’t know why these attorneys quit.  But I’m willing to make a guess:  their client, Mr. Trump, wasn’t willing to stand on the “process” defense.  He wanted a full-throated defense of all of his actions, point by point, from the Michigan, Arizona and Georgia phone calls, to the “perfect” speech on the Ellipse on January 6^th, to ignoring the frantic cries for help from the Capitol.  And most importantly:  he wants to make his claim that  the 2020 Presidential election was stolen from him by widespread voting fraud.

And for his attorneys all of those arguments put their “slam-dunk” case in jeopardy.  Republican Senators would be forced to face reality:  there is no evidence of voting fraud, the President pressured election officials to “fix” the election in his favor, and that he then sent a crowd to attack the Capitol to stop the electoral vote certification.  The evidence of Donald Trump’s guilt would be overwhelming, but more importantly, it would threaten the safe forty-five not guilty votes.

No attorney is going to use arguments that might convince the jury of the guilt of their client.  And if their client demands they do so, the only reasonable thing for them to do is resign.

Pro Bono Defense

So if Mr. Trump can’t find a defense team – what is the Senate supposed to do?  If they just go ahead and proceed with the trial, then it will be “unfair”, regardless that the lack of representation is the defendant’s own doing.  If they delay longer, then all Mr. Trump has to do is NOT get a legal team, or keep firing them, and he’ll never be tried.

But just last night, two more lawyers have taken up “the challenge” of defending the former President. One, was a lawyer on the team for serial child molester Jeffrey Epstein. He joins a line of Trump lawyers who were involved in the Epstein case, including Dershowitz and Starr. The other was the District Attorney of Pennsylvania’s Montgomery County. His claim to fame: he refused to indict Bill Cosby for his sexual predations.

They indicate that Mr. Trump will now fall in line with the “process defense”. But we know Donald Trump. Even when he “changes his mind” and seems to do the prudent thing, it doesn’t mean he’ll stick with it. Don’t be surprised to find this “Junior Varsity” legal group forced to argue that Trump was just trying to “Stop the Steal”.

Oh, and one of his new attorney’s is known for doing pro-bono work. After it’s over, whether Trump is convicted or not, the Senate or the attorney need to do at least one more thing: send Donald Trump a bill.  

He ain’t no charity case.