Category: Uncategorized

What Neighbors Do

Last week was incredibly stressful. 

Our neighborhood shares in the care of an elderly widow across the street.  For the past six months she hasn’t left the house, except for an occasional venture to the front yard to pick up sticks.  And since May she’s gotten worse. She wouldn’t let us help pay her bills, or accept the groceries we brought.  She looked starved and ill, phone calls were answered with “I’m in bed, I don’t feel well” and a hang up.  The County Adult Services weren’t much help, saying “…if she wants to starve to death, we don’t like it but it’s her choice.”

We’ve been reaching out to her family for months.  They also said there’s nothing they were willing to do.  Monday the neighbors got together: a “team meeting” as we struggled to determine our next move.  We were afraid that the only course was utility shutoffs and back to the County authorities. 

But, at the last moment, a niece stepped up.  The family kept her in the dark about what was going on;  but we were able to find her and reach out.  On Thursday our widow friend let  the niece call the ambulance, and she went to the hospital.  She was very frail, but still proud and tough. She wouldn’t be carried to the squad, she walked out on her own.

They’re working on getting her better, and though she looks tiny in a hospital bed, she’s smiling.

Our America

Last week was another week of turmoil and hate in American politics.  We are very tuned into what’s going on, sometimes too much so.  A steady diet of our current American disaster creates a constant surge of adrenalin.  After a while, it’s hard to stay angry.  It’s exhausting.

And then came the shooting in El Paso; and then Dayton.

Out of Dodge 

In my family the phrase is “get out of Dodge.”  It comes from the old Western movies; when the shooting starts it’s “time to get out of Dodge City.”  It was time to go, get away from the stress, change the scene, and simplify life.  

So we packed up the camper, the truck and the dogs, and headed to Burr Oak State Park.  It’s located in southeastern Ohio, the foothills of the Appalachians.  As retired folks, we’ve discovered that even in the summer you can have park campgrounds pretty much to yourselves if you go during the week. 

It’s not all leisure, but it’s different.  It’s an early morning hike with the dogs, and a campfire to cook dinner. We tried frozen fish patties for the first time last night – and maybe the last!! Brats tonight; can’t go wrong with them.

Disconnecting

But we aren’t fully disconnected.  I’m writing this essay sitting at a picnic table as the sun comes over the trees, my young dog Atticus (yellow lab) trying to bite the flies that try to bite him.

We have all of the electronic devices and MSNBC streamed, and we can keep track of the neighborhood by text and email.  But it’s still different, it’s more fundamental.  It’s a walk down to the shower house; better to go early, or the walk back up the hill will make you need another shower. 

It’s Trump country here and certainly our experience in other campgrounds has been the same.  But people are courteous, and they are aware that while campers may be close to each other, everyone is here for a little peace, a little nature, and a little relaxation.  And there’s beer on ice in the cooler.

Yesterday it was tough to even try to disconnect.  The debates were raging on Facebook and Twitter about guns, mental health, racism, and whether our Nation can ever find the will to prevent these horrific events. Try as we might to concentrate on the cicadas and the blue sky, the battles raged back and forth, and the signal reached all the way into the foothills and the woods.  We had lots to say, and put in more than our “two cents.”  

Today we’ll try to disconnect a little more.  There are books to read, and a lake to visit, and the dogs will absolutely demand another long walk.   Our camper is “out of Dodge.”  Now we’re working on getting our minds to follow.

I have a post all lined up, talking about how Democrats are trying to determine their Presidential candidate.  It’s good, and I’ll use it later.  But after the events of the last two days, it feels too soon to move on.  The news cycle is fast, and I know that we won’t be talking about El Paso and Dayton by the end of the week.  But it isn’t appropriate to let them go, yet.

El Paso

With the little information we know, we have a contrast in killers between El Paso and Dayton.  The El Paso shooter was driven by white nationalism, wanting to stop the “brown invasion” by driving eight hours from his home and opening fire.  He is, frankly, all that many of us have been fearing:  a young white man out on the edge of sanity, pushed off by the damaging rhetoric of the President, Fox News, and others.  

Are they to blame for the dead and wounded in El Paso?  No, not directly.  But we all saw this coming, the inflaming language, from “send them back” to the “infestation” of migrants.  To partisan Americans who could process the emotions, it was either disgusting or appreciated.  To Republicans forced to rationalize what the President was saying, it was probably humbling. From the number of resignations in the House of Representatives, most notably Congressman Will Hurd from the Texas border, it was far too much for some to swallow.

But to the shooter in El Paso, already on the edge of madness, it was enough to load his assault rifle in the car, and head to Wal-Mart to stop the “invasion.”  It was a white nationalist terrorist attack on those folks, and on our nation.

Dayton

The even younger white man is Dayton fits the “normal” mass shooter profile.  He was a disaffected white kid from an affluent Dayton suburb.  He may have been bullied in school, and from his postings we can tell he was struggling. There were rumors of “hit lists” and “rape lists.” He wanted to do just enough to “get by.”  He was two years into community college when he stopped attending. 

He is a lot like a school shooter; like Parkland and Chardon and dozens more we read about.  The other kids knew who it was before the authorities released the name.  Just the fact  that the shooter was a young man from Bellbrook was enough.  

The Causes

So what do El Paso and Dayton shooters have in common?  They are both young white men, disaffected from the “norm,” looking for their moment in a literal hail of bullets.  One was subsumed into a white nationalist fantasy, one felt so powerless over his own life that he decided to take many others.  We have an issue in our society, past assault rifles and high capacity magazines.  We have an odd epidemic of these messed up young white boys.  

Here’s a macabre trivia question:  name a black, or female; mass shooter.  While I’m sure there must be some, right off hand I can’t think of any.  The “odd one” is the Las Vegas killer, an older white man with a lot of money.  But most are these young white boys.  Whatever is happening to them, we need to start figuring it out.  We know that shootings breed more shootings and that the Columbine killers of twenty years ago are still “admired legends” to a certain sub-class on the internet.

The Guns

But it seems that all of these young white men start measuring their manhood by the length of their rifles.  We know the El Paso shooter got his assault rifle over the internet, online, delivered, and perfectly legal.  While we don’t know how the Dayton shooter got his yet, it’s a common feature in many of these shootings.  So I don’t blame many Americans for blaming the guns.

And they are right. We are the ONLY modern country that allows unlimited access to weapons designed for war to the general populace. And we are by far the nation most plagued with these grotesque mass shootings.  Norway had one, United Kingdom had one, Australia had one, and New Zealand had one.  We here in the United States, home of the free and brave, had our 250^th for just this year.

Just like the political rhetoric, we know that most Americans can handle these weapons.  We know that most owners of assault rifles have them because they enjoy shooting them, or because they feel they need protection, or maybe as a last safeguard against a wayward government.  

The Constitution

Most of those folks aren’t on the edge of sanity. But we don’t have a reasonable way of defining who is, and who isn’t.  So, yes it’s about the mental health issues.  The sane don’t do what those white boys did.  But it also is about the guns, the access to weapons that are specifically designed to fire fast and create devastating wounds.  We can’t turn our backs on that part of the problem, or hide behind the Second Amendment.

Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson stated that, “…the Constitution is not a suicide pact.”  The Second Amendment isn’t either; we already accept many restrictions on what kind of weapons can be purchased.  A Federal license is required to have a fully automatic weapon, for example; it’s been that way since 1934.  So it isn’t that we can’t change, it’s finding the will to do it.

The Pain Becomes too Great

We will accept these mass shootings until the pain becomes too great.  We will allow our political gridlock to hand these broken individuals the weapon of their choice, until we decide not to.  Most of the solutions aren’t hard to do, and they aren’t hard to agree on.  Background checks, mental health evaluations, and “red flag” laws:  almost everyone agrees to those.  Most can even agree to ban high capacity magazines.  

So let’s get on that, knowing that there is a looming fight over how much pain we are willing to take for the “right” to assault rifles.  We can at least start to solve the problem.

President Trump

Donald Trump:  you are the President of a nation where white supremacists walk into Wal-Mart and community festivals and murder innocents.  If you think Elijah Cummings is somehow responsible for Baltimore’s poverty, than you are most certainly responsible for this.

Donald Trump:  What have you done to protect our nation from mass shooters?  You haven’t improved background checks, you haven’t banned assault weapons, you haven’t supported “red flag” laws, you haven’t done anything more than send your “thoughts and prayers” to El Paso.  Soon you will add Dayton to that list.

Donald Trump:  the Bible says “as you sow, so shall you reap.” You have sown hate in our country. While you may not be directly responsible for these killings, you have created an environment where those on the fringes feel enabled to act.  This is an outgrowth of the hate and fear you have engendered for migrants, and for those who are not white, or otherwise “different.”  

Donald Trump:  like it or not, and I don’t; you are the President of the United States.  You were chosen by a minority of voters to lead us.  None-the-less, it is your task. This is the real test of your Presidency.  You have so far failed.

The Republican Choice

Governor Abbott of Texas: you so forcefully pushed away all questions about controlling gun violence.  “Bodies haven’t even been recovered,” you said, “it’s not time for politics.”  Governor, you already have dozens killed in the past couple of years in  mass shootings.  You spoke of the courageous the actions of the heroes who saved lives under fire.  Where is your courage to make the changes required to protect your citizens?

Former Republican Congressman David Jolly said:

“For my Second Amendment Friends, “well regulated” were the first words written by the same guys who wrote the rest of the sentence. It all goes together.”

Jolly has the luxury of not running for office as a Republican anymore.  The Party has abandoned all pretense of protecting citizens from the threat of mass shootings.  They have fallen back to the National Rifle Association slogan:  “A bad man with a gun can only be stopped by a good man with a gun.”   

But the reality is that the “bad man” can really only be stopped by McConnell and Trump.  They have multiple options to try to change the equation of mass shootings.  It can start with background checks for every weapons purchased, even those at gun shows. It can continue with Red Flag laws and mental health checks.  And it can culminate with banning weapons designed for modern war from the United States. 

Good Men with Guns

We already depend on “good men” with guns.  Some are my friends, and I know they would lay down their lives to protect others. Those police officers will do what needs to be done if the time comes.  They are trained, they are armed, and they are prepared.

But they can only act when there is action.  In Dayton, nine died before the police could put the shooter “down.”  In California, three died before they stopped him.  They are doing all they can to keep people safe. But they need help.

Last week, friends of mine who coach high school went to a normal “start of the year” meeting.   The first hour was forms, procedures and goals. The second hour:  training from a former Afghanistan veteran turned athletic trainer on how to treat traumatic injuries caused by gunshots; how to pack wounds and place tourniquets.  For the coaches, it was a scary, but seemed like something they might have to use someday.

America’s Choice

In 2012 a gunman went into an elementary school and killed 20 little children and six adults at Sandy Hook.  Then President Obama proposed legislation, but Congress was unable to act.  It was said at the time, if we couldn’t begin to contain our national addiction to weapons of war after Sandy Hook, nothing would ever change.  Now, seven years later, that’s true:  nothing has changed.

We are at war.  Here are the statistics since Sandy Hook (Vox):

• 2189 mass shootings 
• 2475  killed
• 9137 wounded.

I have been writing “Trump World” essays for two and a half years, 540 so far.  I’ve written dozens about mass shootings, guns, and our choice to accept this violence.  There is little new to say, but it must be shouted loudly, over and over again. This is our America today and Americans are choosing to let this happen.  We could choose differently. We look to our leaders to make changes, to lead us to a safer place. Their answer has got to be better than just sending “thoughts and prayers.”  

In every political campaign (at least the good ones) there is a “book”. It outlines the issues for the candidate, and his/her arguments and positions.  It puts everyone literally on “the same page” when it comes to any issue.  I’m not running for office, but I am presenting a series of issues for my “briefing book.”

History

There is a great advantage in doing something for the first time, rather than a “do over.”  You can solve “the problem” before there are winners and losers.  Everyone has something to gain, no one is giving up something they already have.

Health insurance became an important job benefit during World War II.   As part of the War effort, the Federal Government froze wages.   Employers needed incentives to keep their limited labor supply, they found a new way to compensate employees:paid health insurance.  After the War its popularity grew and became a common part of rewarding employees.  Insurance costs were low for the companies and most employees were fully covered without paying additional fees.

As late as the 1980’s it was common for workers to be fully covered.  At that time, I remember an insurance conflict in my teacher’s union. Teachers with families at the same pay step were getting more compensation over single teachers.  Today it seems like a foolish argument, but back then; everyone was getting insurance for free and salaries in education were low; so being “fair” was a big deal.

Of course if you didn’t have a job, your insurance wasn’t covered.  If your income level was low enough, you were eligible for Medicaid.  If you were old enough, you were eligible for Medicare.  And if you were in between jobs, you could get expensive COBRA insurance.  Otherwise, if you were sick and ended up in the hospital, you were paying out of pocket,  or you were simply a “charity case.”

Costs Escalate

Health care costs increased. Part of this was because of the sophistication of modern medicine; an X-Ray, penicillin and an aspirin were no longer the medical answers for most problems.  With the amazing amount of tests, devices, medications, and treatments; someone had to pay for development, availability, and use.  And, of course, insurance companies were publicly owned, and wanted profits for their shareholders.

And as medicine got better, and people lived longer, they got more diseases.  End of life care became extremely expensive, and that cost was shared across the insurance buyers.

Employers found that the increasing costs of insurance were prohibitive.  They passed on the costs to employees, who had little choice but to pay. It was either that, or “go bare” and risk personal bankruptcy for even non-life threatening medical situations.

The Answers Today

Which brings us to the present.   Many Democrats look to some form of universal health care as the answer, paid through taxes to the government.  This has the advantage of having the biggest pool of insured members; everyone.  The young adult just beginning a career, the healthy thirty-something’s, the lucky fifty year olds who never get sick:  all would pay into the health care system and help cover the costs of the sick.  “Opt-out” is not an option, nor is “tailoring” a plan.  Just like those single teachers who got less than the married ones, everyone pays in, and people that need benefits, get them.

This is little different than public education, or fire departments, or the armed services.  To call government run health insurance “socialism” is to deny all of the other public services that our governments provide; local, state and national.

  Just a note: Fire Departments used to be privately run businesses too – either you paid the company or they didn’t put out the fire.  Different companies would fight over who got what fire.  It wasn’t a good system for our cities, the town could burn down while the firemen brawled.  What’s burning down now??

So the easy answer is to switch over to government run health care.  But there’s a problem.

Americans Who Got It, Like It

First is the practical issue:  many Americans are quite comfortable with their current, private insurance. Moreover, many of those same folks are suspicious of government run plans.  While the Affordable Care Act helped millions of Americans get coverage, the botched roll out with overwhelmed online servers affirmed what many already believed, that the government would “screw it up.” And President Obama made the promise: if you like your doctor you can keep him.  That was true for those who remained on private insurance, but if they switched to the Affordable Care Act policies, if wasn’t necessarily so.   

But, almost everyone liked having insurance covering pre-existing conditions, and letting children stay on their parents’ insurance until they were twenty-six.  Most liked the increased “wellness benefits” required under the ACA, and many of the other requirements all insurers were mandated to offer.

The thought of additional government insurance intervention worries workers who gave up salary for health benefits. It also concerns those who can afford to buy “luxury” health insurance; they are afraid they are going to lose out on a government run program.   And insurance companies who will lose their profits are spending millions to lobby politicians and the general public of the “dangers of socialized medicine.”   

The Costs Grow

But what those opposed to more government involvement in health care ignore is that the costs are growing out of control.  Health insurance cost is rising at ten percent a year for many small businesses. They can’t pay it, and they can’t afford to pay their employees enough to buy it somewhere else.  Middle-income workers aren’t prepared to pay $20,000 or more for insurance a year, but if they are thrust into an individual market now, that’s the lowest likely cost.  The problem will only get worse if nothing is done; as more of the young and healthy “go bare” it makes the “insured pool” sicker, and therefore more expensive.

Solutions

The Republican Party has not offered a solution to the growing problem of health care costs.  They have promised to figure one out, somewhere, somehow.   Their advantage: with nothing on the table there is nothing to criticize.

Republicans and Democrats both agree that it’s past time to get control of the cost of prescription drugs. The “poster child” is insulin, with the cost going up 4000% in the past few years. The US Government gave away the ability to negotiate drug prices for Medicare and Medicaid, but they could legislate that power back.

Democrats are offering all kinds of health coverages.  The “moderates” like Biden, Bennett, and Delaney are all offer a “public option” in addition to the existing Affordable Care Act.  “Public Option” is a government run plan that those in the insurance market could choose to buy.  It wouldn’t impact those with private insurance.

Of course that means that the public option insured pool is likely to be sicker, and therefore more expensive to insure, than the “private pool.”   The cost of that expense would be shared across the government, taxpayers, rather than fully thrust on those insured.

And the more “progressive” Democrats want a total overhaul of the health care system.  They say it will create a lot more winners than losers, and that the winners will more likely be Democrats than Republicans (well, they don’t say the second part, but it’s probably true.)  What the total overhaul would do is make a serious effort to control medical costs, by removing the insurance company profits, controlling drug prices, and reducing the enormous paperwork required by everyone in the industry.

Right or Likely

That’s probably the “right” answer, but not the likely answer.  We are an America of moderation and incrementalism.  It is more likely that the moderate plans with public options will be the next step in government involvement.  Ultimately the controlled costs of government programs will overwhelm the private market, and America will make a de facto decision to use a government run health system.  But it will take time, not the “Revolution” called for by the far left of the Democratic Party.

Before the Nightmare

In October of 2016 I went to hear President Obama at Capital University in Columbus, Ohio.   We were all still confident that Hillary would win, even though the blows of the leaked emails and the Comey letter to Congress raised concerns.  But when President Obama walked into the room (I was in the “overflow” room, he came and spoke to us first) a world of hope lit up.  The theme of his speech was Donald Trump, and it should have been titled “Come On, Man.”  Obama laid out the case for not believing Trump to an accepting audience:  truer words were never spoken.

“Come on, man,”  you can’t fool us.  “Come on, man,” don’t buy his brand of BS.  

Second Debate, Part Two

I missed the second night of debates last night (I went to see the 80’s Rock group REO Speedwagon.)  It’s still sitting on the DVR,  waiting for three hours.  I’ll get to them soon enough.  

But I’ve now heard a couple of hours of analysis.  Vice President Biden is running for President, in large part standing on his eight years in the Obama Administration.  He is the frontrunner; for others to move up in the standings, they have to somehow raise their visibility.  A proven way to do so is to attack the leader; it worked for Kamala Harris in the first debate.

Biden has done an effective job in defending the Obama legacy.  He has wrapped himself in Obama, effectively locking in his leading status. Other candidates are finding that the only way to attack Biden is to do the unthinkable:  attack the Presidency of Barack Obama.

President Obama has a +90% approval rating in the Democratic Party.  He changed America as the first African-American President (an America that Trump is trying to change back.)   He was a President with compassion, brilliance, and class; quite a contrast to our current leader.  Can attacking his Presidency be a reasonable Democratic strategy?

Come on, man!

How the Sausage is Made

A key issue for all Democrats is health care.  Every Democratic candidate has a plan to improve health care in America, from Biden expanding the Affordable Care Act with a public option, to Sander’s Medicare for all.  Last night, the attacks came against the flaws and failures of the ACA, Obamacare, because that was how the candidates could get to Biden.

Come on, man!  

Senator Klobuchar said it best the night before.  It’s all-good to have great plans, or to claim you need a “revolution” to get your ideas put into law.  But, as she noted, it takes sixty votes to pass something in the Senate.  In our currently divided government, there seems little chance that a “Medicare for All” kind of program could get through Congress and it certainly wasn’t an option in 2010 when the ACA became law.  

The Obama Administration took the problem, millions of Americans without health insurance, and made the best deal they could to win over their own Democratic Congress, and those few Republicans in the Senate.  “How the sausage got made” was ugly, including Speaker Pelosi statement you’d find out what was in the law after you vote for it, but in the end the Affordable Care Act was a strong attempt to expand coverage to most Americans.  How strong was it?  It’s survived nine years of Republican attempts to destroy it.  

Who Should be the Target

It’s not good enough, it needs to be fixed, and it was a Republican plan in the first place.  But it was the best that President Obama could get, and attacking him to get to Biden is a mistake.  Democrats who attack their own to raise their electoral chances aren’t helping themselves become President.  They are giving away the championship win today’s game.

Come on, man.

It isn’t that Barack Obama should go without criticism.  His administration failed to resolve the problems of undocumented migrants in the United States, finally resorting to an Executive Order Band-Aid to protect the Dreamers.  But it wasn’t for lack of trying; it was from the absolute intransigence of Mitch McConnell and the Republican Senate.  Their goal was not the “good” of America, but to defeat a Democratic Presidency.  From their position, they were successful.  

And that’s what Democrats need to be talking about on the debate stage.  The motivating factor for the Democratic voters is Trump and McConnell and Tax Cuts.  It’s not attacks on the most popular President alive, nor is it on starting a “revolution.”  We’ve got a bigger challenge:  how to stop the “regression” into a racist, misogynist, and cruel new era.

Come on, man.  Get with it.

Under the Bed

Do you remember the “bogey man?”  When you were a kid, he was the one that would “get you” if you got out of bed at night. He was out there, waiting; going to do something terrible to you.  Your “bad” uncle would warn you about the “bogey man” under the bed, or behind the door, or up the stairs.  It scared you “straight.”

Last night I heard “the bogey man” invoked at the Democratic Presidential debates.  Jake Tapper, the CNN lead questioner, raised it by asking candidates whether they would increase taxes on middle class families to pay for health care.  It’s a “bogey man” question:  a candidate saying they will raise taxes creates a sound bite without context that’s tough to live down.  

Republican Question

I think Bernie Sanders called Tapper out correctly, saying he was asking the question in “Republican” terms.  The answer is actually relatively simple, sure taxes will increase, but payments for insurance will disappear.  The total costs for the middle class would go down.  Candidates talked about “net costs” but were forced to avoid the “bogey man” words of tax increase.  Remember Walter Mondale!  In 1984 he said he would raise taxes; it cost him the Presidency.

The healthcare question also had another “bogey man” to avoid:  the government.  Some candidates talked about “the government ripping away private health care and making health care decisions” as if that was a horrible, terrible, awful thing. “The big government bogey man” would decide what health care you could get!

What, a huge bureaucratic institution telling patients what healthcare they can have?  That’s a horrible “bogey man,” no one would want that. But wait, Blue Cross/Blue Shield, United Health Care, Kaiser; aren’t they all large faceless bureaucracies that determine your health care.  And they’ve got in even bigger incentive than your health, their goal is to make a profit. There’s a real “bogey man” for you. 

Who Pays

Congressman Tim Ryan raised another “bogey man:” don’t piss off the unions.  Ryan defended union contracts, and the sacrifices that workers have made to get good health care plans.  Ryan is running from Youngstown, Ohio; a union town losing its union jobs. Democrats need to win workers back from Trump; that’s not a made-up monster under the bed.

By the way, I did hear the candidates last night constantly saying how they would pay for their programs.  Warren and Delaney got into an argument about whether a “wealth tax” or a “capital gains” tax is better. Everyone wanted to take the Trump Tax Cut back.  It’s odd though, I haven’t heard President Trump say how he will pay for much, in fact, he’s willing to spend unlimited funds without regard for income.  When did Democrats become “deficit hawks?”  

Impeachment

The “bogey man” I didn’t hear a word about last night was Robert Mueller.  I blame CNN for that, they didn’t bother to ask the candidates about the biggest news of last week.  The debate got “a pass” on impeachment, instead able to focus their answers on who would be the best replacement for Trump.  That probably made the candidates happy, but leaves Democrats without guidance on their stand.

The Psychic Force

And then there is the “bogey woman,” Marianne Williamson.  She looked like Morticia from the Addams Family, but she raised a serious concern that Democrats need to address.  The current “right way” to run a campaign, according to Sanders and Warren and some of the rest, is to deal with structure and plans.  Here’s my plan, here’s how I’ll get this done: that’s seems to be the trend.  And it’s not the “black box” kind of plan like Nixon had to end Vietnam in 1968.  These are detailed, in-depth explanations.

Williamson warned that “wonkiness” won’t tap into the emotions of America.  Plans on paper won’t motivate voters to come out and create change.  Williamson spoke of a dark psychic force in America where racism and economic oppression creates hopelessness and leaves voters at home instead of at the polls.

This may have been her last debate; the popular and financial qualifications go up for September. And her emphasis on the “psychic” state of America might sound far-fetched in someone running for President.  But the “bogey woman” made an important point.

Not Just Plans

Trump taps into a visceral part of the American psyche.  He unleashes emotions, hate and uncertainty, that the US hasn’t seen in decades. Trump reveals these traits, but he didn’t create them.  Williamson’s warning to Democrats is that they must be more than just “plans.”  There must be more than just “electric car plants” and “wind turbine” farms.

They must present a vision of America that offers a positive alternative to the man in the White House, an alternative to racism, hate, and hopelessness.  It won’t be Williamson, but one of these candidates needs to confront the real ‘bogey man” in America.

Clinton Emails

It was the spring of 2016. The FBI counter-intelligence division was embroiled in the politically explosive Clinton email investigation.  They were analyzing whether the former Secretary of State knowingly and intentionally put classified emails on her personal email account.  Secretary Clinton had thousands of “work” emails on her personal server, located in the basement of her home in New York. When she left office, her attorneys arranged for thousands of them to be destroyed.  

The illegal act was there, putting government emails on a private server. The Secretary “demonstrated” knowledge of guilt by trying to “cover it up” by having the emails destroyed.  Members of her staff were “taking the Fifth.”  The sole factor preventing an indictment: proof that she had “the requisite intent” to violate the law.

There was disagreement within the FBI.  Many, including perhaps the Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, believed that if Hillary Clinton didn’t have “intent,” she still acted in such a reckless manner that indictments were warranted.  Others in the investigation, ultimately including FBI Director James Comey, could not find in her actions overwhelming proof of that final step.

And, of course, she was the presumptive nominee of the Democratic Party for President of the United States.  Beyond that, she was the overwhelming favorite to win.  So there was that.

Russian Connections

In the middle of this mess, the FBI counter-intelligence team began to get disturbing information about Trump campaign contacts with Russian intelligence.  The campaign designated Carter Page as one a foreign policy advisor. Page was the subject of FBI investigation in 2014 because of his involvement in a Russian spy ring. No charges were brought against him at the time, but the FBI was still watching him.

And Mr. Trump hired Paul Manafort as chairman of his campaign.  The FBI knew that Manafort was indebted to Russian oligarchs close to Vladimir Putin.  They also had concerns about Manafort’s actions in Ukraine, where he received millions of dollars for work supporting the Russian backed President.  Much of that money was not declared as US income.

A third advisor, retired General Mike Flynn, had travelled to Moscow. He went without the normal clearances from the military required of a former Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency.  Flynn literally sat at the right hand of Vladimir Putin at a banquet there, and received a $40,000 payment for speaking (eventual Green Party Presidential candidate, Jill Stein, sat at the same table.)  In addition Flynn was doing work for the Turkish Government while working for Trump.

Democrats Hacked

Also in the spring of 2016, the FBI discovered that the Democratic National Committee’s computers had been hacked. The hacking programs were of such sophistication that they could only be from a national military source (as opposed to a 400 pound man in a basement.)  The infection was so significant, that polling data, opposition research, financial data, and email archives were stolen.

But, while counter-intelligence alarm bells were going off, none of those actions were enough to become the “predicate,” or legal cause for an investigation of the Trump campaign.  It would take some evidence of them committing an illegal act.

Papadapoulos Brags

In May of 2016, another designated Trump foreign policy advisor, George Papadapoulos, met Alexander Downer, the Australian Ambassador to the United Kingdom.  In the course of their conversation, Papadapoulos told Downer that the Russians had DNC information and emails, and planned to release them in order to damage the Clinton campaign (National Review.)  Australia, along with the US, UK, Canada and New Zealand; is a member of the “Five Eyes” counter-intelligence community that shares information.  Downer reported the conversation to the FBI.

For the record, this conversation took place a month before Christopher Steele was hired by Fusion GPS to work on opposition research against Donald Trump. It was at least three months before Steele compiled his first report.

Predicate for Investigation

By July of 2016 the FBI knew that  the DNC computers were hacked, and Downer’s information said Russia did it.  They knew that a Trump advisor, Papadapoulos, had contact with the Russians and been told the Russians planned to use it against Clinton.  Other Trump advisors, Page, Manafort and Flynn, had more than questionable contacts with Russia.  All of this not only provided the “predicate” for opening an investigation into the Trump campaign contacts, but it raised the specter of Russian corrupting a US Presidential campaign. To not open an investigation would be dereliction of duty. 

Republican Response 

Recently Republicans have raised concerns about “Democrats and the Deep State Intelligence Community” spying on a Republican Presidential campaign.  Attorney General Barr intentionally used the word “spying” to characterize the actions of the summer of 2016.

Republicans used two issues to try to declare the “predicate” as invalid.  The first was that the Steele Dossier was somehow used as underlying information.  While the Steele Dossier was not available when the investigation was started, it was mentioned later on in a FISA Warrant extending surveillance of Carter Page. Republicans seized on that mention, claiming that “Democrat Opposition Research” was used to investigate the Trump Campaign.  

The Steele Dossier is a report compiled by former British intelligence agent, Christopher Steele. While it was intended for use as partisan opposition research, the information Steele discovered was so explosive that Democrats didn’t use it.  Steele himself was a trusted source for US intelligence; his work on the FIFA bribery scandal was used to help convict several of the organization’s officials.  To date, many of the statements in the Dossier have proven to be factual and none have been disproven (Lawfare.) 

Mifsud

But attacking the Steele Dossier wasn’t enough.  Republicans weaved a tale to discredit Papadapoulos, trying to remove the “predicate.” Papadapoulos eventually testified that he got the “tip” about Russia’s hacking from an obscure Maltese Professor, Joseph Mifsud.  Mifsud was a professor at the London Academy of Diplomacy, a representative of the government of Malta, and has a close relationship to the President of Russia, Vladimir Putin.  Former FBI Director Comey has testified that the Bureau considered Mifsud a Russian agent. 

Republicans have created involved theories portraying Mifsud as a double agent, working for the United States.  They suggest that the FBI had Mifsud plant the hacking information by talking to Papadapoulos, to create the “predicate.”  While there is little evidence to back this claim, it’s easy to make. Mifsud was last in the United States on February 11, 2017.  He disappeared into Europe, and hasn’t been heard from since (NYT.)

Republicans claim as “proof” for their theory the fact that Mueller didn’t indict Mifsud. They reason that he must be protected by US intelligence, but  there is a much less complicated explanation.  Muller’s team was only able to question Mifsud once before he disappeared.   To make a conspiracy indictment, the Mueller team would require a lot more evidence than they had from that one interview.

The Message

Republicans are sending a clear message to the US Intelligence Community:  we won, don’t investigate.  The leaders of the Russia investigation are now all gone from government service, driven out or fired.  The list is long:  Comey, McCabe, Ohrs, Strzok, Baker, Page, and others.  This week, the President accepted the resignation of the Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats, perhaps the last man in the administration who would speak the truth.  Trump’s replacement:  Texas Congressman John Ratcliffe, one of the leaders of the “Deep State Conspiracy.” It is just one more step in burying Russia’s intervention in our election.  Trump is saying: “Russia, if you listening, I could use your help again in 2020.” 

A Racist President

The President of the United States is a racist.  His supporters can rationalize that anyway they want.  They can say that “the Squad” earned the “go back where you came from” comment, and that Trump was defending the Border Protection Service when he went after Maryland Congressman Elijah Cummings.  But he used racist words and racist thoughts; however they try to justify it: he is a racist.

Mary Angelou said, “…when someone tells you who they are, believe them the first time.”  Donald Trump has told us over and over again,  and it’s far past time to believe him.

This may or may not be from a “racist” heart; who knows what the President truly thinks?  But it is a racist strategy, a well thought out political plan to win the 2020 election.  Racism isn’t new in politics; in my lifetime George Wallace ran as a third party candidate on a racist ticket, and George HW Bush used the “Willie Horton” ad campaign to put fear of the “black murderer” in the hearts of “white” people.  But not since even before Wallace has the racism been so overt, and so focused.

Doubling Down on Race

The Trump campaign recognizes that whatever they do, 84% or more of black Americans are going to vote for his opponent.  Their thinking: so what if they anger the other 16%, there really aren’t enough votes to matter.  

And the Trump campaign surely realizes that they are going to alienate some portion of the Hispanic vote. They hope that their Venezuela policy and pro-life stand will hold some of them, but the response to Hurricane Maria in Puerto Rico and the Trump actions on the Southern Border have probably determined that vote already.  A little overt racism won’t change many more minds.

I had the opportunity to watch a movie this weekend called “The Great Hack.”  It was a documentary on how Cambridge Analytica (CA) used psycho-analytics to target the “persuadable” voters.  Once they knew who those voters were, they gathered as much electronic data on them as they could; preferences, jobs, joys, fears, favorites and deletions. CA then used that information to tailor specific messages to those “persuadables,” using their own personal data to try to push them to vote one way or another.

Persuadables

The Trump 2016 campaign “threaded the needle” of the electoral college, eking out narrow victories in three key states, Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania.  We don’t know what the  now documented impact of Russian attacks on the voting processes were, but we do know that the campaign and CA focused on changing the “persuadable” minds to Trump. They were successful, particularly with white working men, and white women.

That’s where the “racist” strategy is focused now.  The Trump campaign knows they will get their 40% base, even if Trump “…shot someone in the middle of Fifth Avenue.”  What they are counting on, is that they can persuade more white men and women to vote, in fact, they hope to increase the white vote totals in those states through their racism generated fear.

The Trump campaign believes it can increase the size of the electorate, by bringing out white voters who have been sitting on the sidelines.  The “persuadables” are those who aren’t voting now, using the same “psycho-analytic” social media techniques to drive home the message. Increasing the turnout of white working men is the goal: 63% of them voted for Trump in 2016 (Guardian.)  It worked then, it might well work again.

The Backlash

Of course, using this radical strategy will have a backlash.  Not only is it likely to drive up the turnout in minority communities, but also among the more moderate “white suburban” groups, particularly women.  Post-election research for 2016 shows that 53% of white women voted for Trump, versus 43% for Clinton (Guardian.)  In 2018, 59% of white women voted Democratic (CNN.) While Trump wasn’t on the ticket, his impact on that election was significant.  Trump was driving the “caravan of migrants” argument all the way up to election day.  That argument drove white women voters away from the Republican candidates.

Where will these “white suburban” women go in 2020?  It’s difficult to see overt racism pushing them towards Trump.

Showing Up

There are other groups that Democrats could use to increase the turnout for them.  Younger votes traditionally don’t vote; a candidate that energizes that block could expand the voting pool, and change the election calculations.  But without depending on that, working with the “old” voting model, Democrats need to show up to vote.

The racist strategy will make the 2020 election about turnout.  Can the Democratic candidate do what Hillary Clinton failed to do: increase voter turnout enough to overcome the marginal advantage Trump has in the electoral college.  Two numbers to remember:  Clinton won the popular vote by nearly three million; Trump won Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania by a mere 77744 votes out of over thirteen million votes.   The Democratic candidate needs to get the vote out in those states like never before.

If that happens, then the racism “strategy” will fail.  

Friend:

Chuck Schumer and his liberal cronies are doing everything they can to take away the Republican Majority in the Senate, and they only need to flip 4 seats to do it. There’s too much at stake to give up now and let Democrats takeover, which is why we must reach our July fundraising goal!

If Democrats take charge of the Senate, President Trump’s judicial nominees wouldn’t get confirmed and tax cuts could be repealed to fund costly proposals like socialized medicine and the Green New Deal.
 
There’s an important fundraising deadline in just 5 days, and we’re in danger of falling short of our goal for this month. We’ve fought too hard to just roll over and let Democrats capture the Majority. 

Democrats aren’t wasting any time. This will be a highly competitive election, which is why it is critical that all grassroots conservatives do their part.

Thank You – Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky

Delete – Delete – Delete

I get about seventy-five emails a day. Sixty of those are Democratic fundraising emails. I receive emails from the Presidential candidates I’ve donated to:  Bennet, Biden, Booker, Buttigieg, and Harris. “Act Blue” the fundraising arm, must share lists because other Presidential hopefuls:  Yang, Warren, Sanders, and Moulton send their pleas; as well as several Senate candidates from Kentucky to Michigan to Oregon.  

It’s usually delete, delete, delete; but occasionally one Democrat catches my eye.  And then there’s the email lists that don’t represent me at all:  the GOP lists, the emails from Richard Viguerie, the chairman of “conservative.hq,” “The Turning Point” people and Hillsdale College. Those get deleted even faster. But sometimes I pause and wonder how I got this, like the “personal note” I received from Mitch McConnell yesterday.

What America Fears

Old Mitch highlighted the three issues we are going to be hearing a lot about in the 2020 election cycle.  The first is we need to be afraid:  Democrats will take back the Supreme Court!  All of the terrible things the Court used to do will be back:  women’s right to choose, gay marriage, religious and gender equality; all will be the law!  Donate your $10, to keep America from protecting personal freedom.

And the tax cuts – the Democrats will take back the tax cuts.  You’d better donate a whole lot more than $10 if the tax cuts helped you (because you have a whole lot more than $10 to give.)  But for the vast majority of Americans who gained little or even lost income on the tax cut, well, as Journey says, “…don’t stop believing!” The economy will be ‘soooo’ much better. Look at the stock market, in fact, please just look at the stock market.  All of the other economic indicators are pretty flat, so keep you eyes on the stock market.  Somebody’s making a whole lot of money there, and they won’t pay much tax on it.

SOCIALISM

And then there’s the magic word:  SOCIALISM!  See, it even looks like a word that we should hate, it’s got lots of “S’s” like FACISISM or NAZISM or CAPTIALISM (oops, not that one.)  Socialized medicine sounds awful, until you call it something else, like Medicare.  Then it’s something everyone seems to look forward to.  But we are going to hear a lot about Democrats and socialism in the next year.

But even worse is that mix of SOCIALISM and GREEN – THE GREEN NEW DEAL! What, take care of the environment?  But what will I do about my SUV getting fifteen miles a gallon? I like coal pollution, I like global warming, I like crazy weather –don’t I?  Or the battle cry of the Republican Party – we’re over sixty years old, all that global change stuff is someone else’s problem.  We’ll be gone!

The Democratic Face

And when you talk about the Green New Deal, you raise the “dreadful” face of “the enemy,” ¡Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez!  That’s what Mitch McConnell and the Republican Party want to run against, a twenty-nine year old New Yorker serving her first term in the House of Representatives.  She represents the “insurgent left” in the Democratic Party, a “squad” of four, but Mitch wants her to be the poster child for all Democrats. Finally, after years of running against Nancy Pelosi, he’s found another woman to pick on.  That shouldn’t be a surprise.  A woman in power, and a Latina at that; it should really appeal to the vast majority of older white male Republicans.

The River of Time

The great current of history is running against the Republican Party.  They are running against youth, against the future, against an America growing more diverse.  From Schumer being Jewish to Ocasio-Cortez being Hispanic, he is picking all of the “boogie persons” that might appeal to a group of Americans that are growing smaller. It’s a short-sighted plan, one that a party dominated by seventy-some “old white guys” would chose.  

But maybe “the Resistance” should take heart in Mitch’s letter.  Our current times seem so desperate, even the thought of four more years of Donald Trump makes me feel physically ill.  But over the long course of history, that is, by the end of the next decade, when even I will be an official “old white guy;” the Republican Party of Trump and McConnell will be gone.  They have “bet the ranch” on a short-term strategy that literally will not survive the next ten years.  Martin Luther King once said:

“…I may not get there with you. But I want you to know tonight, that we, as a people, will get to the Promised Land.” 

The “mountain-top” speech still applies today.  Us old white guys may not get there, but the currents of history will take America up to the mountain-top, and we will again be the promised land.  

In February of 2018 I published an essay We Are at War, about the vulnerability of our elections.  Little has been done in the year and a half since then to change the situation.

Rigged Elections

This is not my usual “political” essay.  It’s about elections, but not necessarily about who should win or who should lose. It’s about an attack on a core value of the United States democracy:  free and fair elections.  

American history is replete with “rigged” elections.  The $2 bill is unpopular still today because of election buying.  In the late 19^thcentury, American politicians used the $2 bill to “purchase” votes.  Voters who had that bill were assumed to have sold their vote. No one wanted that, so they stopped carrying them.  By the way, the $2 is still a legal and circulated currency, though the Treasury Department hasn’t printed new ones since 2003.

But today we are beyond politicians handing out money for votes.  America is faced with hostile foreign nations who are willing to use their advanced computer knowledge to attack the electoral process.  And it’s not just foreign nations, private companies have some of the same skills and abilities, and are putting themselves up for the highest bidder. 

Way Back in 2016

The 2016 Presidential election was fully attacked from multiple angles and sources.  Whatever you think about the Mueller Report or Mr. Mueller himself, his testimony to the House Intelligence Committee on Wednesday made one point very clear:  we were attacked, and we are being attacked, and we will be attacked again.  And we have done very little to be ready for it.

“Trumper” or “Resistor,” either way you surely must want the election system to be legitimate.  Protecting our electoral process is not a partisan issue. It is an American one.

Breaking In

The ultimate election “cheating” of my generation was the Watergate break-in in 1972.  Burglars working for the Nixon Presidential Re-Election Campaign broke into the headquarters of the Democratic National Committee in the Watergate Office complex.  They bugged the phones of the Chairman of the DNC, Larry O’Brien, and other high-ranking Democratic officials.  They broke in the first time successfully, and planted listening devices. One of those devices failed, and the Nixon operatives went in a second time to replace it.  That’s when they were caught, and the Watergate crisis began.

What did they hope to get from the bugs?   Strategies, inside information, and maybe some scandalous gossip, all to be used against the Dems. They wanted inside information, and they were willing to commit felonies to get it.

Stealing by Remote

Today it’s unlikely that one campaign would commission burglars to break-in and get information. Why would they do that, when all the information anyone would ever want is on computer drives.  From polling data to strategic planning, from gossip on emails and “chats” to the most secret opposition research files:  they’re not on paper anymore.   

When the Russian military wanted to find out what the Democrats were doing, they used sophisticated “phishing” attacks to gain access to the DNC computers.  They didn’t have to hurry, they had months to explore the files, rummaging around in the electronic depths to find information.  The operatives did so from the safety of their Russian headquarters. Just like the Watergate burglars of old, they weren’t interested in disruption, they wanted the information to just keep coming.  And it did, for months:  strategies, numbers, and ultimately the personal e-mails of the highest officials.

The Russian’s hacked the Republican computers as well.  But they didn’t use the data; that wasn’t their mission.  They aimed their attacks at the Democrats, specifically Hillary Clinton, and they were undeniably successful.

Today we hope that the computers are better defended, both Democrat and Republican.  We hope that the leaders and strategists of both parties have returned to making phone calls about the critical stuff, rather than writing e-mails.   But we are all so used to using electronic media, from emails to tweets, from computers to cell phones.  It will take a lot of “habit breaking” to keep important information safe from attack.

Pizza and Sex

The second attack was more insidious because it was an attack on all of us, or at least all of us who use social media.  The Russians, and private companies like Cambridge Analytica, used the “new” way we communicate with each other:  Facebook, Twitter, Instagram and all of the other “apps” to try to influence our thoughts.  

They pretended to be “Americans” (in fact they pretended to be the Tennessee Republican Party) and they created false stories.  Hillary was sick and dying, she sold children for sex from a pizza restaurant in Washington, and cheated Bernie Sanders in the primaries.  We were told over and over again about how bad, evil, awful she was. 

Did it change anyone’s mind, anyone’s vote?  Of course it did.  Millions of dollars are spent on social media advertising, aimed directly at us by using our data to target our likes and dislikes.  Of course it works and of course people are influenced.  If it didn’t work, no one would spend the money. Over 120 million American Facebook users saw Russian posts.  And that was just Facebook.

Facebook Friends

Did you support Bernie? Ads were aimed at you saying Hillary and the DNC cheated.  You saw posts from other “Bernie supporters” about how they weren’t going to vote for that cheater.  

Are you a factory worker? Hillary was sending your job to Guatemala and you’ll end up serving burgers at the local fast food place. That’s what happened, there was someone the same as you, on Facebook.  That the story came from a Russian troll farm in St. Petersburg, there was no way you could know.

The Russians invaded our “discourse.” The private companies did the same.  And, despite Congressional hearings and public outcry, the social media giants really haven’t done much about any of that.  Their “community standards” haven’t changed and there are still bots and trolls all around.  Facebook, Twitter and the rest make their money on data and readership; nothing encourages more people to join in than controversy.  That business model supports the invasion still today.

Counting the Votes

Hack computers and emails, and use the information.  Invade social media, and influence millions.  But the third line of attack was a direct assault on the US voting system.  We know that Russia hacked into voting systems around the country.  At present we are still told that, “…no votes were changed.”  But keep in mind, up till a few months ago, we were told only nine states were hacked.  Then it was twenty-one.  Today we are told that all fifty states were targeted, so it’s hard to know what the real impact of the incursions were.

Surely political campaign and parties are taking steps to harden their computer operations.  That will reduce their vulnerability to attack. But while there has been a lot of “noise” from the social media companies about “improving” their product, it doesn’t seem like much has really happened.  Our own awareness of influence campaigns and willingness to fact check may be the only way to prevent the broad influence attacks.

But there’s still the “black box” of election security.  No one is talking about it, not the Federal government or the state and local entities. We don’t know if they are preparing, or simply waiting for the next shoe to drop.  And it won’t necessarily be Russia; China, Iran and North Korea all are capable of attacks.  We may not know who is changing our votes.

Elections are America

This is not about politics; it’s about America.  We shouldn’t be concerned about Trump, Clinton, or whoever runs in 2020.  We need to worry about the sanctity of the voting booth.  America needs to protect it.  It’ll take more than $2, and more than just lip service from the government.

For the granular details of the Agnew story – listen to Rachel Maddow’s fascinating multi-part podcast – Bagman

The Vice President

Spiro “Ted” Agnew was the Republican Vice President of the United States from 1969 until his resignation in October of 1973.  Richard Nixon picked him to use as the “sharp end of the spear” against critics and enemies of the administration.  Agnew’s particular target was the press. He described them as those, “…nattering nabobs of negativism,” and “…effete corps of impudent snobs who characterize themselves as intellectuals.”

Agnew’s political career began as the County Executive of Baltimore County, Maryland.  Like many who held this office, Agnew quickly succumbed to corruption, taking bribes from some of the service and construction contractors.  When Agnew successfully ran for Governor of Maryland, the bribes continued.

Even when he moved to the White House in Washington, small white envelopes filled with cash continued to arrive.  Agnew was a corrupt politician.  In the old tradition of Tammany Hall and the “Boss” politics of the late 19^th century, he traded his influence for money.   

The US Attorney in Baltimore discovered Agnew while investigating systemic corruption in Maryland politics.  He took his evidence to the Attorney General, Eliot Richardson. Richardson was just recently appointed by Nixon. His two predecessors were embroiled in the Watergate scandal. One went to jail.  

Richardson realized that the Watergate scandal could ultimately reach Nixon.  Should the President be removed or resign, it seemed intolerable that the Vice President was a criminal as well.  But Richardson also was concerned that prosecuting the Vice President would create a Constitutional crisis that might effect both cases. The issue:  could the President and Vice President be prosecuted for crimes while serving in office.

Office of Legal Counsel

He turned to the internal lawyers in the Department of Justice, the Office of Legal Counsel (OLC), to determine what the law required.  Could they prosecute the Vice President of the United States for simple criminal offenses like bribery while he was still in office? Or was it required that the Congress impeach and remove him from office first?

Like any good lawyers, the Office of Legal Counsel understood what their mission was.  There is no part of the Constitution that states the President or Vice President is immune from legal prosecution.  But there was precedent, going back to President Jefferson. He refused to appear as a witness in the Aaron Burr treason trial, even when subpoenaed. That indicated that the President had at least some protection.

But the Department wasn’t going after the President, yet.  They were going after the Vice President, who given the course of the Watergate crisis, might soon be President.  So the OLC created a “legal” distinction between the two offices. The President, because of the immensity of his duties, gained legal immunity, while the Vice President with his lesser obligations was open to prosecution.

It was just an opinion of the Justice Department. It wasn’t a “law” or a “court precedent.” It gave the Department legal cover as they went after Spiro T. Agnew, the Vice President of the United States.

When faced with charges, Agnew’s lawyers argued the Constitutional issue.  But as the facts were laid out, it was clear Agnew was guilty, and he cut a deal.  He avoided jail by pleading “no contest” to tax evasion, and resigned from his office.  Under the 25^th Amendment to the Constitution, Nixon appointed a new Vice President. The Republican Minority Leader of the House of Representatives, Congressman Gerald Ford became the new successor.  When Nixon ultimately resigned a few months later, Ford became President of the United States, the only one never elected to a national office.

Mueller Speaks

Special Counsel Robert Mueller testified to the House of Representatives on Wednesday.  The Mueller Report laid out clear evidence of President Trump’s obstruction of justice, but in the report never concluded that he should face charges.  Mueller was stopped by the 1973 OLC opinion, still binding on the Department of Justice.  It has never been tested in Court, never affirmed in law.  It is simply the opinion of the Office of Legal Counsel, written for the purpose of removing a corrupt Vice President from office.  

The OLC opinion creates a blanket immunity from criminal prosecution for the President of the United States that the founding fathers did not intend.  He can literally “…shoot someone in the middle of Fifth Avenue.” It essentially raised the President “above the law,” postponing any legal consequences for his actions until after he leaves office.  It places the burden on Congress to decide if he should be removed through impeachment to face the legal consequences.

Exoneration

Mr. Ratcliffe, Republican from Texas, made the point:  how can Mueller state that the President was “not exonerated” when the President should “be presumed innocent unless proven guilty.”  Prosecutors in the United States are not in the “exoneration” business. Charge or not charge; convict or dismiss, guilty or not guilty: those are the choices prosecutors have. Exoneration is not a normal choice. And Mr. Ratcliffe is right, except that the President is far beyond “normal” business. He is protected by the OLC opinion. 

If the President cannot be prosecuted, cannot even be indicted, then he cannot be tried and found innocent or guilty. The Special Counsel was given the mission to investigate the President, but prevented from charging him.

In legal terms, if you’re not charged, your not guilty. But the President is not chargeable according to the OLC.   This is the ultimate conflict that Mueller faced in his investigation; he had to determine whether the President violated the law, but was constrained from actually charging him with those violations. 

We End Where We Began 

So we have spent a day listening to Democrats read the Mueller Report to Mr. Mueller himself, who then acknowledged their accuracy.  And we have listened to the same “wild hare stories” of the Republicans, from Jim Jordan to Devin Nunes, not denying Russian involvement, but somehow saying they were helping Hillary, and we shouldn’t have looked anyway.

And as for Mr. Mueller; he is a man of his word, or more exactly, his lack of words.  He said he didn’t want to testify, and he did his level best not to.  It could be argued that he is acting as a man of principle, or that he is avoiding more controversy, or that he is simply a tired man who wants to go home.  

Regardless, the Democrats are faced with a conundrum.  They have done all they could to demonstrate the need for impeachment, and, not surprisingly, they have changed few minds.  The people who agree that the President committed crimes want impeachment proceedings to begin, and those that do not agree demand we “move on.”

There are many factors for Democrats to consider, political as well as legal.  But the one thing Wednesday’s hearings show, is that most of the Democratic Congressmen believe the President has committed crimes.  Because of this, it is their Constitutional duty to act upon that belief.  They should proceed with impeachment, not because it is politically expedient, but because it is the right thing to do.

To quote Congressman Ted Lieu of California, “…we have a felon in the White House.” If that is true, or Congress thinks that is true, than they have a Constitutional duty to proceed.  

Chairman Nadler and the House Judiciary Committee should open impeachment hearings, now.

There’s A Deal

The House of Representatives is threatening to impeach the President.  The Senate continues to appoint Federalist Society members to the Federal Courts.  Former Special Counsel Robert Mueller will appear today in the House, FBI Director Wray spent hours in the Senate yesterday morning.  

But despite all of the controversy, the President and Congressional leaderships reached a deal yesterday.  They have all agreed:  raise the deficit ceiling by $320 billion and allow the government to keep borrowing money until after the 2020 elections. This will avoid a government shutdown, and allows increases in both the domestic spending programs the Democrats want, and defense programs for the President.

Almost everyone seems happy with the deal.  The only downside:  the United States will spend a trillion dollars more than it brings in this year. The US government debt is the total amount US government has spent more than it has brought in. It stands at $22.5 trillion  (here’s a website with a continually running total.)

No Good Guys

It’s not a story of good guys and bad guys.  The old saw; “Democrats spend and Republicans save” really doesn’t mean much anymore.  No one, on either side of the political aisle, seems to be interested in the debt. That is, with the exception of Senators Rand Paul and Mike Lee, who decided to make their “stand” on the deficit by opposing legislation to provide for first responders injured or sickened by 9-11.  

It’s great the Paul and Lee are “worried” now about the impact of the deficit.  But it’s too bad that both weren’t worried when the “Trump Tax Cut” lost $1.2 Trillion in government revenues by giving tax cuts to corporations and the wealthy.  Paul and Lee fell right in line with the Republican majorities on that one.  

It makes the “tax and spend” Democrats look a little more realistic.  At least they want to try to cover the costs, rather than just spend money that doesn’t exist yet.  So where does the “debt” go, who is the great “creditor” to the United States?

Who Owns the Debt

Part of the $22 trillion (27%) is intra-governmental debt.  Put simply, the Treasury Department borrows money from other funds already held by the government, intending to pay it back.  The most familiar fund involved is Social Security funds.  Social Security has almost $3 Trillion in reserves to back its obligations to retirees. That money isn’t “gone” and as many suggest, it wasn’t “stolen” by Congress.  The Treasury Department has invested that money, in part by buying US Government Bonds.  Those bonds are some of the safest investments available.

What do those bonds do? They help finance the US Debt, so to say that Social Security Funds are used to finance the debt is a true statement.  But those bonds are on a regular payoff schedule, just like the US Bonds many Americans hold.  So the Social Security money isn’t “gone,” it’s invested.  Should the US Government default on those Bonds, Social Security will be a relatively small part of the huge crisis the world would confront.

Another part of the US Debt is held by Federal Retirement Funds, invested in the same way.

The remaining 73%, or $15.6 trillion, is owed to “the public”.  A little less than half of that is owed to foreign countries, with China holding around $2 trillion and Japan a little over a trillion.  They are holding various types of bonds, just like the retirement and social security investments do.  By “investing in America,” China gains some control over the American economy.  But it also links China to America’s success.  If the US Government were to fail to pay it’s debt, China would be left holding bad investments.

That would have a dramatic negative impact on their economy as well.

So What

So, with all of this debt held by varying individuals, banks, governments and the US government itself, what’s the down side of more debt?

Just like an individual owning a lot of credit card debt, the US government has to pay interest on the debt to all of those bondholders.  Currently the government has to budget $319 billion annually to pay for interest.  This is out of a $4.4 trillion budget, or about 7% of the budget. As the debt increases, so will the interest.  Projections indicate that the interest owed will increase to over $900 billion per year in the next ten years.

So increasing amounts of money that the government could spend for all sorts of other programs, from defense to healthcare, will be spent to pay for interest.   Just like an individual owing lots of credit card debt, more and more of US income becomes payment on the debt, rather than for buying products.  

We are spending now to pay later.

Meta-Data

Don’t be surprised if you haven’t heard of “meta-data analytics” or a company that does it, Palantir.  It’s a highly financed, high-tech computer company in Silicon Valley, California. But you might recognize the “money man” behind it, Peter Thiel, who made his first fortune with PayPal, and was the first outside investor in Facebook.   He still holds a seat on Facebook’s board of directors and is known for pursuing his conservative/libertarian agenda. And he sure has the money to do it.  

Thiel combined with financier Joe Lonsdale to develop Palantir.  They found a “niche:” using meta-data analytics to aid the US Government.  The military, intelligence and police agencies use Palantir to sift through mountains of data.  They gather the information: searching for criminals, spies, and individuals inside and outside the United States. One big success:  Palantir’s programs helped the US military track down bin Laden.

Patriots or Traitors

There is nothing inherently wrong with a company helping the United States government achieve its mission. There are lots of companies doing it: Boeing, KBR, and General Dynamics to name just a few.  And while we can argue about how much they profit they take, it’s clear they serve a critical role in helping the Government do its job.  

Like many of these private contractors, Palantir’s role is controversial. The company has contracted with ICE, the Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency.  Their mission is to identify and locate undocumented aliens in the United States.  When ICE plans “raids” to roundup illegals, it’s Palantir that’s providing the data.   And they not only find the information, they developed programs to help ICE Agents easily track illegals.  Now there’s an “app” for that: ICE has it installed on their agent’s phones (WNYC Report.) It’s required.

Company founders Thiel and Lonsdale are proud of their government work. And now they have tried to “turn the tables” on the competition.  Thiel claims that competitor Google is “unpatriotic” by refusing to do AI (artificial intelligence) work for the US government.  Thiel goes even farther, claiming that since Google is doing AI research in China they are actually helping China against the US. In Thiel’s words, Google is “…engaged in a seemingly treasonous decision to work with the Chinese military.”

World Wide Web

It is the dilemma of a worldwide Internet economy.  

Companies like Google and Facebook have worldwide impact.  Facebook, with 2.38 billion users, reaches almost one third of the entire world.  Google is close behind with 2 billion.  The difficulty is in working across borders with different legal and ethical standards.  For example , Google’s flagship product, Google Search, is not allowed in China.  For Google to market in China, it has to censor search results to satisfy the Chinese government.   Google suspended the “Dragonfly Project,” a search engine designed to meet those Chinese demands, but the temptation and profit motive remains.

Working across national boundaries isn’t new.  General Motors, Nike, and Apple have learned to deal with differing regulations and governments.  But cars, shoes and even computer parts don’t have the same intelligence impact as data.  With the worldwide availability of meta-data, there is no guarantee that governments won’t use access to further their national goals.  And private companies are influencing nations as well:  Cambridge Analytica’s critical impact on the Brexit vote and the Presidential election in 2016 is just one company’s example.

No Rules

Protestors have targeted many US companies for cooperating with ICE.   Some, like Marriott and Choice Hotels, chose to prevent ICE from using their hotels.  Several airlines refuse to fly separated children. 

 Palantir is facing public pressure with protests outside their Palo Alto offices. In addition,  Amazon employees are pressuring their management to cut ties with Palantir, demanding an end to Cloud and Web services. 

The power of “data” has infiltrated our lives.  Google, Facebook, Amazon and dozens of other companies we don’t know; track our likes and dislikes, from products, to food, to politics.  There is no one “file” on us, but there are millions of bits of data that can all be sorted, correlated, and analyzed to reach conclusions. What we do and where we are; what we need, want, and believe are all available and up for sale. Palantir sells their information to the US Government.  Facebook sold their’s to Cambridge Analytica. 

Just because something can be done, doesn’t mean we should do it.  As a nation, we need to determine how much we should regulate the use of our information.  Today, the technology has far outdistanced the rules, norms and ethics.  Nothing seems to govern this multi-national information bonanza.  No one has decided what is patriotic or treasonous, right or wrong.   

Born in the USA

I am an American.  I was born in Cincinnati, Ohio.  My mother was an immigrant, a “war bride” to be exact, traveling from post World War II England with my Cincinnati born father.   They lived the American dream, worked their way up in business together and had a successful career and a wonderful life.  Though Mom never gave up her British citizenship, she was as proud of her adopted country as the nation of her birth.  When she died she got her wish, a “piece of England” here in the United States. 

American Upbringing

I am an American.  I was a Cub Scout, a Boy Scout, and an Eagle Scout with the Bronze Palm and the Medal of Merit (if you know what all that means, you were a Boy Scout too!)  Scouting taught me how to tie knots and hitches, save someone’s life, swear, and be a leader. It developed my interest in helping kids (and a career in education) and a lifelong love of the outdoors.  

Scouting let me hike along the Appalachian Trail in North Carolina and Tennessee, the White Mountains in New Hampshire, the Alleghenies in Pennsylvania, the Maroon Bells in Colorado and the Sangre de Cristo of New Mexico.  It gave me an appreciation of the grand scope of America, seeing the vast plains from a train, and canoeing the boundary waters in the North.  I learned to love America the land, as well as America the country.

 In Junior High and High School, I ran track, swam, wrestled and had a very short stint in football.  I was in the school plays and the school academic contests. After college, I became a schoolteacher and a coach in a suburban high school for thirty-five and a half years.  Does it get more American than that?

 Don’t Give Up the Flag

So don’t tell me that because I am a Democrat, a Liberal, and someone filled with compassion for those that my country is persecuting, that somehow I am not an American, a patriot. I do not concede my country, my mountains and plains, and my flag to those who would try to remake America in an old, outdated, monochromatic image of a discredited past.  

It is American to protest, older than the nation itself.  Thomas Paine, Samuel Adams, and Patrick Henry rose to speak against the monarchy and empire before Jefferson put his pen to the Declaration of Independence. There is nothing more American than to disagree with the government.

I concede nothing. It’s my flag, whether it has thirteen stars in a circle, or fifty stars in lines.  Martin Luther King Jr. marched under the American Flag, as did the Union soldiers at Gettysburg.  An American Flag covered my father’s casket; I display it still in my home.  The Boy Scouts taught me to honor that flag, to raise it quick, lower it slow, and fold it with dignity.  But they also taught me that the flag is not the sole property of one political view.  Even as a boy, there were Scouts who went to Vietnam, and Scouts who protested that their brother Scouts had to go.  They all flew the flag.

Protest is Patriotism

Some burned the flag in an ultimate sign of protest.  While that’s not what I believe, their right to do so is as American as the flag itself. Some athletes today are called to protest by kneeling during the National Anthem.  They are Americans, exercising their time-honored right to protest. They are highly aware of the costs, from the NFL players to the eighth grader girls’ basketball team in the next school district.  

Let it be known:  they are Americans and they are Patriots.  They are calling on the exact words of the US Constitution, our founding document.  Our goal in America:  “…to become a more perfect union.”  America cannot be further “perfected” without calling out the inequalities in American life. It might make us uncomfortable, it might seem “inappropriate;” but when is difficult change ever going to be “appropriate?”  When is it ever easy to say something is wrong?

When four women of color, band together as Congressmen to point out the inequities in America, we don’t have to agree with their conclusions.  Disagreement is as American as Hamilton and Jefferson.  But we must recognize that they are in fact patriots, working to improve the experiment started 243 years ago by flawed men in Philadelphia.  Those men were protestors, they were agitators, they were community organizers, and they were going against the establishment.  They were patriots, and so is the “the squad.”  And so am I.

Too Damn Early

Five in the morning is early, too early for the black nose of our yellow lab Atticus to be in my ear. But there it was:  five in the morning, and he’s ready for breakfast. While I love him, and he tries to be a “good boy;” he is relentless when he wants to get up.  There’s no denying him, and with the whispered words “let’s go” we are headed towards kitchen and his breakfast.

Our older dog Buddy, a collie/shepherd/whatever mix, would be perfectly happy to sleep in.  But he’s not passing up breakfast, or more importantly, carrots.  So he’s up too, sleepy eyes looking longingly at the refrigerator.  Sure, I can put breakfast in the bowl but it’s carrots man, carrots are the “thing.”

So we do our morning ritual of food and dog meds, and waiting for the next round of carrots. And finally with Atticus and Buddy satisfied for the moment, I announce:  “we are going back to bed.”  They, surprisingly, agree, and we all sneak back into the bedroom, making sure not to wake “Mom” up.

No Rest for…

Soon Atticus is snoring at the foot of the bed, and Buddy has crawled halfway under it.  They are asleep, but now I am wide, wide-awake: thanks guys.  So it’s onto my phone, to the morning read of the Washington Post and the New York Times.  The Times news headlines:  

• Opiate trial in Cleveland, 
• Iran seizes tanker, 
• Mueller hearings,
•  Moon Landing anniversary, and
• The Equifax data breach.

And deep down in the section, El Chappo sent to Supermax Prison in Colorado.

Not sleepy after the Times, so it’s onto the Post.  Their leading headlines:  

• Opiate trial in Cleveland, 
• Epstein,
• Trump looking for big spending cuts, 
• Trump attacks minority Congresswomen, 
• Iran seizes tanker, 
• Sanders defends salaries, 
• Judge halts Democrats Trump financial record subpoena. 

As is usually the case, reading all of that seems to make me more alert rather than sleepy.  So it’s now 6:15 am, what next?

In Other News

I keep the Fox News app on my phone.  Sometimes I want to see what the “alternate universe” of American politics is reading.  It often makes me angry, sometimes it’s funny, but it’s good to know, especially in “MAGA Country,” the news most folks are seeing.  It’s definitely a different world.  The Fox headlines were:

• Bernie bites back, defends treatment of campaign staff,
• Pelosi’s headache, two Dems will be generals in the party’s Civil War,
• Beauty queen claims she was dethroned for being “too pro-Trump,”
• Mom says she gets mistaken for being her child’s sister, 
• Star (Keanu Reeves) signs autograph after spotting lawn sign,
• Iran seizes tanker,
• Millions of gallons of sewage spilled into Puget Sound, 
• District tells parents to settle lunch bills or kids could be fostered,
• Democrat admits lying about being life-saving doctor, 
• Anniversary of Moon Landing,
• Billionaire Trump critic (Tom Styer) doesn’t see himself as wealthy.

Dig down further in the “news” and there are two articles about a t-shirt maker who is facing criticism for printing a “Don’t Tread on Me” t-shirt that actor Chris Pratt wore. And an editorial about how CNN is lying when they say their evening programs are “news” not political commentary.

One World – Two Universes

So let’s see:  that’s five articles critical of Democrats, two showing the failure of local governments (school lunch and sewage in Puget Sound) and one with actor Chris Pratt wearing a “Don’t Tread on Me” t-shirt. 

The Washington Post had a lot to say about Trump too.  Half of their headlines were about Trump; but only one of those would be considered critical (minority Congresswomen.)  The subpoena being halted, and cutting spending might just as well be positive stories.

I don’t read the Fox News app daily, but for millions and millions of Americans, this is the source for their “news.”  If I hadn’t read Fox, I never would have known about the T-Shirts (and figured out who Chris Pratt was) and about a pro-Trump beauty queen.  In Fox world, those who stand up for Trump seem to be victims, and Democrats are failing, arguing, and lying. 

Common Knowledge – Common Ground

As a high school social studies teacher student discussion was the foundation of my class.  My job was to develop the background knowledge and information so that students could intelligently discuss the issues of the day. I did my best to present an unbiased view of the problems, offering differing views and alternatives, and then let the class “have at it.”  The exchanges were lively, interesting, and involving.  The only rule:  you can attack the issue and the argument, but never the person making it.  Drop to insults or “ad hominem” attacks, and you were done.

But in our universe today, it’s no wonder we can’t have “discussions.”  There is no common basis of fact, no standard knowledge we all recognize.  We are told two completely different stories before we even begin in engage.  There is “our” world and “their” world:  two different universes of thought, and no foreseeable way to bridge the gap.

My Party

I am a Democrat.  I’ve been one since Mom pinned on my first campaign button, JFK for President in 1960.  Yes, I was a little young then for a fully informed decision, four; but as I grew up I found the Democratic Party represented me much more than my father’s business Republicans.  

I spent several years in the actual mechanism of the Party.  As a twenty something, I worked in Democratic political campaigns in the Cincinnati area.  I learned that “the Party” and “the campaigns” were two very different things.  As a campaigner, trying to get my candidate in office, I was single minded.  But the “Party” had a life of its own.  Candidates came and went, but the “Party” lived on.  My twenty-two year old campaign manager demands about a City Council race really didn’t make much of a dent in the old men, Mr. Weil and Mr. Wiethe, who ran the show.

There was never a lot of “order” in the Democratic Party.  Everyone was going in their own direction; they had their own priorities and commitments.  The Party didn’t “run” them, it simply was the structure they could use, or not, to help get elected.  

Dog Sleds

It’s a lot like dog sleds. There are two kinds of dog sled harnesses.  One has a single line going out from the sled, with the dogs harnessed side by side along the line.  They all pull in one direction, and they all are kept in line by the harness, and the dog behind biting them in the butt.  It’s the most power-efficient harness, but it has one major flaw.  If the lead dog falls in an ice hole, the entire team, and the sled go with it.  

The other kind of harness has each dog on an individual lead attached to the sled.  The dogs all are generally going in the same direction, but they all have their own “path.”  If one goes in an ice hole, the others avoid it, and the sled driver can pull him out. It’s less organized, chaotic, and freer spirited.  The sled eventually gets where it’s going, with a wider, more meandering path.

The Democratic Party is absolutely the second kind of dog sled.  Everyone is pulling, but each in their own individual direction.  Democratic candidates fall into ice holes all of the time. Sometimes the Party tries to rescue them, and sometimes the Party cuts the line.  But the Party goes on.

Falling in the Ice Hole

So it doesn’t surprise me that the Democrats in the House of Representatives aren’t a single, cohesive group; marching in lock step to Speaker Pelosi’s commands.  They are Democrats, and they are all pulling in their own direction.  The Speaker has them going down a similar path, but they are all headstrong, making their own decisions.  

Speaker Pelosi doesn’t make tactical mistakes on the floor of the House of Representatives, she doesn’t fall in ice holes.  When she spoke out against the President, calling him a racist for his tweets about four Democratic House members, she knew she was violating a long-established House rule.  She did this with purpose, to force Republican members to go “on the record” in support of the President’s racist statements.  She also got the House to set new precedent; if a President is a racist, they can now call him one “on the record.”

When Congressman Green of Texas prematurely pushed his impeachment bill onto the floor of the House, the Speaker let him fall in the ice hole.  Then she cut the lead, and the sled moved on.

Moving Left

New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman wrote last weekend about Democrats.  He sounded an alarm about the “leftness” of the Party, about how he felt many of the candidates for President were so radical that they would end up giving the Presidency back to Trump.  His statement:  “you can have a revolution, or you can beat Trump.”  He is a moderate Democrat, and he is afraid his Party is leaving him, and the nation, aside.

The national Democratic Party ranges from the Social Democrats of Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, to “progressive” Democrats like Sherrod Brown and Kamala Harris, to “old school” moderates like Amy Klobuchar and Joe Biden.  It shouldn’t be a surprise that twenty some candidates are running for President.  And it isn’t a surprise that we go from a former Vice President to a person who claims “love is the answer.”

President Trump is going to extreme lengths to brand the Democrats as “Socialists” who are so “unAmerican” that they should consider leaving the country. He is picking the farthest extreme of the Party, and trying to paint the entire group. While many Americans are appalled by his willingness to use racism, some are still falling into the ice hole of accepting his branding. Mr. Friedman and other reasonable people need to look beyond his words, and see what the whole Democratic Party is about.

One Big Happy

It’s the Democratic Party! The harness is huge, and it’s going in lots of directions, all generally headed, well, forward.  We “Dems” are a raucous, confused, argumentative, and determined lot. We will fall in the ice-holes; some will be rescued, and some will get cut off and sink to the bottom.  There will be a lot of “not pretty” moments, and times when it looks like the whole sled is going down.  It won’t.  In our messy, ugly, confusing way, we will find a candidate for President to determine the future of America.

Our mission is: beat Trump.  Democrats get it, we all know what to do in the end.  We are just going to do some arguing and wandering to get there. 

So stay on the sled.

Don’t Be Fooled

The new right-wing meme is:

LIBERALS WANT TO PAY FOR ILLEGAL IMMIGRANT’S HEALTH CARE, BUT NOT FOR VETERANS!!!!!

To this meme I quote the Parkland kids – “I call BS!!!”

Let’s take a careful look at healthcare for everyone in the United States.  We start out with the premise that no one, liberal, conservative, Trumper, Squad member; wants people to die.  The whole United States is against people dying in the streets.  And it’s the law:  if you go to an emergency room with a condition, they have to treat you.  Insurance or no, government funds or no, you are going to be treated.

Counting the Cost

So every American can access medical care if they can get to an emergency room.  The problem with that is, it is the absolute most expensive form of medical care there is.  Going to the family practice doctor for the flu costs around $150 from somewhere: insurance, Medicaid, Medicare, or out of pocket.  Going to the Emergency Room for the same problem: $500 or more.  

So who pays the $500 bill for a non-insured patient?  Well, the hospital will do everything they can to collect from the patient.  They are relentless, but after a couple of months of billing and dunning; it’s onto collection agencies.  Ignore them, and it’s onto the really bad collection agencies, the ones that will only pay pennies on the dollars they collect. They will threaten and badger by letter and on the phone, at home and at work, demanding “their” money.  

But in the meantime the hospital still needs to cover the cost, so they charge everyone else using the hospital.  Insured coverage in the hospital includes part of the cost of all of those folks that the hospital is required to treat, but who cannot pay.  You, and me, and the 240,000,000 plus Americans with health insurance are paying for the rest who don’t.  

No One Gets to Die

Don’t want to pay?  You going to let people die in the ER waiting room because they don’t have insurance?  Let’s assume the answer to that question is no, because we are human beings, not unfeeling money counting machines.  If you’re answer is, yes let them die, then stop reading here and move onto something else.  There’s no hope for you.

So the question then isn’t are we going to pay; the question is how can we most efficiently pay for medical care for everyone.  Right now we are paying for it, in the most ineffective, inefficient, and expensive way we can.  

Illegal Immigrants

A group of people who definitely don’t have health insurance are illegal immigrants.  Like it or not, they are here, eleven million or more:  they get sick, they get injured, they need medical care.  We are already paying for them.  So it would make sense to find a way to more efficiently take care of their medical costs, to allow them to use clinics, urgent cares, and family physicians rather than force them into the most expensive options.  It would be an efficient, appropriate, and humane way for all of us to save money to provide for their medical care.  If you don’t want to be humane, then look in your own wallet, and think about saving some money.

Veterans

And what about the veterans? Who’s paying for their costs?  We are already, through the Veterans Administration.  There are entire hospitals and clinics, large-scale medical care dedicated to veterans.   There are problems with the VA, delays and wasteful spending, but if you ask most veterans using the VA health system, they want to keep using it.  We should fix whatever needs to be fixed, but it isn’t necessarily an issue of money with the VA.  It’s a huge bureaucracy that needs to be streamlined and improved.  Money will help, but it will take greater efforts of administrators to make it right.

A False Choice

So to say we most choose between illegal immigrants and veterans is simply a false choice.  We are paying for both already.  The question that needs to be solved:  how can we most efficiently pay for the medical care WE ARE ALREADY PROVIDING for illegal immigrants, and how can improve the care veterans should and deserve to get.  

We are all “liberals” when it comes to saving lives.  We are all “conservatives” when we try to spend money efficiently.  There is no reason why we all can’t be rational about the way to do both, even in this age of polarization.  It makes sense for everyone.

Alternative Facts

The inventor of “alternative facts” has reached a new low.  She was attempting to defend President Trump’s tweets telling four new members of Congress to “…go back where they came from;” answering questions on the White House lawn.  This White House no longer gives formal press conferences, nor does it use the White House briefing room.

The sequence began with a question from reporter Andrew Feinberg, who works for Breakfast Media, an Internet news site.  

Feinberg:  “If the president was not telling these four congresswomen to return to their supposed countries of origin, to which countries was he referring?”

Conway: “What’s your ethnicity?”

Feinberg:  “Why is that relevant?” 

Conway:  “Because I’m asking a question. My ancestors are from Ireland and Italy,” 

Conway later stated: “a lot of us are sick and tired of this country, of America coming last to people who swore an oath of office.”

Feinberg has been a White House reporter since 2015. He has been “permanently credentialed” since March of 2017.  He is known for his aggressive questioning style, and has tangled with Conway before. Feinberg was the reporter who questioned Conway about her possible Hatch Act violations by supporting Roy Moore for Senate while in government employ and during employment hours.  Kelly Ann responded, “let me know when the jail sentence starts.” 

So Kelly Ann knows Feinberg.  And she knows he is Jewish.  

Was she looking for some point to make:  maybe we Irish, Italians and Jews belong in America; but Somalians, Hispanics, Palestinians and Blacks should “go back?”  Or something like:  “you’re Jewish, we love Israel and they don’t, you should support us.”

Or dangerously, “you’re Jewish, you should ‘go back’ too.”

Papers Please

It really doesn’t matter what point she was trying to make.  A legitimate reporter was asking her a legitimate question. Sure it was tough, but it was certainly within acceptable bounds given the multiple tweets the President made. And since there is no “standard” time to ask questions of White House personnel, no daily, weekly, or even monthly press conference, he was following current protocol asking questions on the White House lawn.

Instead of an answer, he got questioned about his own heritage.  Kelly Ann Conway, Senior Advisor to the President of the United States; demanded personal information from a reporter.  Whatever Kelly Ann meant to do with that information, she implied some kind of ethnic test.  Just like the President did in his own tweets.

One of the fundamental principles of American life, is that we don’t have a racial, ethnic, or religious tests for participation.  It is part of the American foundation of our nation; from the Declaration of Independence and Constitution to Martin Luther King’s “I have a Dream” speech.  It is such a basic concept that we grew up with it through Schoolhouse Rock’s “Great American Melting Pot,” and in the adventures of Fievel Mouskewitz in Disney’s  American Tail.

A New Standard

At least it was.  But when the President of the United States tells opposing members of Congress to “go back where you came from,” it not only breaks existing rules  (US Office of Equal Employment Opportunity Commission specifically defines that phrase as racial harassment.)  It also sets a new “standard” of what is acceptable for the nation.

The Democratic controlled House of Representatives passed a resolution of condemnation against the President’s tweets.  In that motion, they specifically called him a racist.  All but four Republicans in the House voted against the measure, saying that this was “…all just politics.”  In our polarized politics of today, the surprise probably is that four Republicans risked a “tweeting” by voting for the resolution.

Kelly Ann Conway’s question is just the first outgrowth of the President’s action. He has opened a door to a deep, dark time in America that we thought was gone.  We are looking back at a time of “no colored allowed,” “Irish need not apply,” and “without papers.”  The Democrats in the House stood up against him, but the President is powerful in social media.  The “dark side of the force” is strong in him.

After all of the tweets and comments, it shouldn’t be a surprise that most Americans are numb to the import of words from Washington.  We’ve heard it all so many times before.  But these words are fundamentally different, and totally obvious. “Go back where you came from,” means, “you don’t belong.”  The difference between the United States and the rest of the world is our concept of “belonging.” If we lose that, we lose our foundation.  

Time of Turmoil

It was 1968.  Martin Luther King and the civil rights movement was largely successful in achieving legal racial equality, with the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965.  But legal equality was different than social equality. While laws discriminating against minorities were illegal, but it didn’t change who got jobs, bought houses, or went to schools.  

Because those injustices were still rampant, many blacks looked for a different path to change.  The non-violent marches and protests, sit-ins and speeches that achieved the movement’s successes earlier in the decade weren’t effective.  More aggressive and confrontational actions by younger groups gained popularity. Demonstrations in the streets, leading to police confrontations and riots, were commonplace.

It was 1968.  The War in Vietnam raged.  The American war machine was fueled with draftees.  Every American male reaching eighteen years old entered the process; got a draft card, a physical, and most were declared 1-A, eligible to be drafted.  Students on campus were demonstrating, protesting, sitting-in, and sometimes rioting and burning; all in protest against the War. 

Fearing Change

Protest didn’t just mean marching on campus.  It meant long hair, “hippie” clothes, and music that “wasn’t their fathers’” Sinatra and Doris Day.  It also meant alternative mind altering drugs, marijuana and LSD.   Parents sent their kids to college and saw them come back – different.

President Lyndon Johnson was the prime author of the Civil Rights legislation.  He was also the prime proponent of the War in Vietnam.  In a nation torn by riots, protests and counter protests, he seemed unable to find a way to stop the violence.  He chose not to run for re-election in 1968.

Martin Luther King was assassinated.  So was Bobby Kennedy.  Some white Americans longed for simpler times, only a decade or so before.  Those times were still in view, in re-runs of Father Knows Best, My Three Sons and Leave it to Beaver.  Those Americans were tired of the disruption and violence.  They were exhausted from all of the change.  Their view was summed up by a bumper sticker: an American Flag and the words “America – Love it or Leave It.”

Segregation Forever

The Democratic Governor of Alabama George Wallace gained national fame by opposing desegregation. He blocked the door of the University of Alabama registrar’s office when Federal agents led black students to enter the school.  While he finally stepped aside (Federal agents were faced off against Alabama troopers) the words of his inaugural address were clear:

“In the name of the greatest people that have ever trod this earth, I draw the line in the dust and toss the gauntlet before the feet of tyranny, and I say segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever.”

Wallace didn’t start out as a racist.  He took up the segregationist stand as a way to enhance his political career in Alabama, after losing the 1958 Gubernatorial nomination.  It wasn’t a “childhood” belief, it was a cynical political choice.

In 1968 he offered Americans his “alternative” back to “simpler” racist times.   “America – Love it or Leave It” summed up his campaign program. When he was unable to gain the Democratic nomination (Vice President Hubert Humphrey became the candidate) he ran under the American Independent Party.  He gained the support of five Southern states, and also disaffected white workers in the rest of the country. 

A Political Calculation

Our Country is Free, Beautiful and Very Successful. If you hate our Country, or if you are not happy here, you can leave!

This is not a campaign statement from Wallace, though it certainly is something he would say.  This is Tuesday’s morning Tweet from the President of the United States Donald Trump.  Like Wallace, he is appealing to the basest instincts of American society, demanding that those who oppose him leave the country.

We will never be a Socialist or Communist Country. IF YOU ARE NOT HAPPY HERE, YOU CAN LEAVE! It is your choice, and your choice alone. This is about love for America. Certain people HATE our Country….

Trump claims that he is not a racist.  But perhaps he is even worse; like George Wallace he is making a cold political calculation.  His strategists determined that they can appeal to latent fear in enough white Americans, particularly white American men, to win the 2020 election. 

He appeals to the worst in America:  fear of “brown-people,” hatred of women in power, and the illusion that somehow America was better when it was segregationist, racist and misogynist. It is the underlying theme of “Make America Great Again” and the Trump rallies.  

Americans Are Better

It serves his political needs.  

America is in an era of change.  We now recognize the equality and value of all races, genders, ethnicities, and religions.  It happened fast, and change is happening even faster.  White people will not be the majority of Americans within twenty years. For some of those white people, it is scary.  They want to go back to the “good old days.”

But most realize that the “good old days” were only good for some. They know that America is better than the 1950’s, and George Wallace, and the future offered us by President Trump. We are a nation of hope, not of fear. 

George Wallace had some success, but ultimately was rejected by America.   Donald Trump’s return to Wallace’s themes will be rejected as well.

…and he (the President) shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States, whose appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by law: but the Congress may by law vest the appointment of such inferior officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the courts of law, or in the heads of departments.

The President shall have power to fill up all vacancies that may happen during the recess of the Senate, by granting commissions which shall expire at the end of their next session. – US Constitution, Article 2, §2, Paragraph 2-3

Vacant Chairs

The President of the United States has his Cabinet.   It is made up of the heads of the departments of the executive branch of government.  They act as the President’s formal advisors, and the structured way for him to carry out the main duty of the President, to execute the laws of the United States.  Of the twenty-two Cabinet members (including the President and the Vice President) currently five are “acting” members, not officially confirmed for their jobs. This includes the Department of Defense, now on its second “acting” leader, the Department of Homeland Security, and the President’s own Chief of Staff.

What is even more concerning is on the next managerial level down.  In the Department of Homeland Security alone with its “acting” secretary:  the Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), Citizenship and Immigration (USCIS), and the Border Patrol (CBP) all have “acting” leaders.  The entire top leadership of the Department is filled with “temp jobs.”  No wonder the Trump Administration seems to be unable to deal with issues on the border.

Dodging Accountability

The President has made it clear he likes “acting” agency leaders.  He says it gives him flexibility in decision-making. It also makes them more directly accountable to him.  But by refusing to send his appointments for confirmation to the US Senate, as required by the Constitution, he is avoiding Constitutional accountability.  The Senate confirmation process allows individual Senators the opportunity to question candidates, and it also presents the chance to voice their concerns with Administration policies.  And, it allows the Senators to say “no” to candidates who are unacceptable. They have no such voice with the “acting” administrators.

Imagine if the entire leadership of Homeland Security were brought under Congressional scrutiny today. Both Democrat and Republican Senators would demand detailed information about the border crisis, detention centers, and ICE raids.  The horrific decisions made daily at the border would be on display for all America. That’s not a drama the Trump Administration wants further out in the public.

Perhaps even more significantly, is the vacuum at the top of the Defense Department.  The current acting Secretary, formerly Secretary of the Army, Mark Esper, replaced the former acting Secretary, the former Deputy Secretary.  The last Senate confirmed leader, Jim Mattis, resigned in December.  In addition, the military itself is in a leadership transition, with the Chairman and Joint Chairman of the Joint Chiefs retiring. Two other four star generals are being forced into retirement because of their personal actions.

At this moment in history, as the United States is facing crises in the Middle East with Iran, in Asia with North Korea, and the ongoing interplay with Russia and China; who’s in charge at Defense?

Who’s Accountable

Acting Secretaries and directors allows the agencies themselves to avoid accountability.  The person in charge isn’t there “permanently,” and the agency can deflect criticism.  And should there be a failure, then the “acting” is gone, and another “acting” put in place.

In a larger sense, it’s Congress’s fault.  The Federal Vacancies Reform Act of 1998, passed by Congress and signed by President Bill Clinton, gave the President multiple options when a vacancy occurs. He can “follow procedure” and appoint a Senate confirmed first deputy to lead the agency until the Senate confirms a new one.  Or he can move a Senate confirmed person from another appointment to “act” in this one. Or, he can raise a senior employee of the agency to the role.

And of course, Senate confirmation is no guarantee of an accountable administrator.  Attorney General William Barr is proof if that:  his Senate confirmation sailed through, even though he continues to show his absolute willingness to subrogate the Department of Justice to the political needs of the President.

The Grand Strategy

Those acting leaders can only serve for 210 days.  How can these agencies make long term plans, set annual goals, and make systemic changes when they are led by “temps?” It places them in a permanent state of instability.  They deal with issues on a day-to-day plan, rather than a long-term approach.  And that seems to be the entire approach of the Trump Administration.  

They are running the nation from “the seat of their pants.”  These “temp job” agencies are just the most obvious examples of their “grand strategy:” not having a strategy.