The Election (Discussion)

I published "The Election" on August 30, 2012 and was gratified at the fact that I received comments from 18 people.

I was deeply disappointed, however, by the fact that except for Janet Cooke of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania none responded to my plea at the end of my post:

That means contributing money till it hurts. It means joining phone banks. It means doing all that is within our power to forestall the tragedy that looms for our country and posterity.

Janet simply wrote "I'll be volunteering for Obama."

I don’t believe it is enough to express concern about the looming catastrophe. In the end what counts is what we do to forestall it and while the fact that it isn’t mentioned doesn’t mean that my respondents are not doing anything, I fear that this may be so.

As for me, I do put my money where my mouth is. Since January, I authorized monthly charges to my credit card to Obama for America. On August 12, I made an additional contribution of $50 and on August 29 I decided I had better become serious and contributed $1,000 to the campaign. I expect to max out my contributions before November at $2,500.

In addition I have been contributing to the DemocraticNational Committee, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, Democratic Governors Association, Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, and liberal organization like People for the American Way, environmental groups such as the Sierra Club, the League of Women Voters, Planned Parenthood and countless others. All of these can be accessed by clicking on their name.

I do not expect my readers to match my zeal, but if you care about our country, you ought to do more than nod your head and say the right things.

Now here are a selection of exchanges that I had with my readers, starting with Herb Reiner of Cedar Grove, NJ:

While you and I have had some serious disagreements about Obama’s failings, I can only concur that your parade of potential horrors of a Romney-Ryan administration is no exaggeration. Republican legislatures in key states have passed laws that disenfranchise potential Democratic voters and the Republican Party of Texas openly opposes the teaching of “critical thinking”  -- a quality that is so essential to an electorate in a democracy. Then there’s the jingoism: Never hint of apologizing for America (Presumably we’re always right about everything) and you can never tout American exceptionalism enough. It scares me – but maybe another warlike authoritarian plutocracy is just what the world needs! 

From Nancy Vieira, of Bethesda Md:

HEAR! HEAR! SO glad to hear from you again! And, with such a power message, one that I share! I look forward to your formal post at your web site and I will forward the link to family and friends to get the message out! 

Thanks for picking up the pen again! Indeed, scary times are ahead if the Republicans win this election.

From Janet Wood of Toronto, Canada an expatriate from the US:

I have been watching from afar with dismay and wondering what you were thinking. I think you nailed it and I hope people respond. In general, Canadians are aghast at the criticism of Obama, which comes from all sides, and the inability of Americans to see the reality of the world as it is, including their own country, instead of how they think it should be.

Which led to this exchange:

From me:

I think you hit the nail on the head when you write about: "the inability of Americans to see the reality of the world as it is" and that is often true for the Left as much as for the Right. But on the Right there is a total disconnect and a refusal to even consider real facts as opposed to fantasy. Do you still vote in American elections?

From Janet:

You are right about the right. I confess I do not understand the "left.” They are holding Obama to a standard, which does not exist and makes no sense. They seem to feel he could execute his vision in the midst of a global financial crisis--and a US situation, which is not over yet. They also refuse to credit anything of substance. It is Yes, but... It's hard to believe, but they do not seem to understand the danger of the alternative...

Mike Cerrato Esq. of Westville, New Jersey chimed in with:

YES! As usual, you have succinctly (and brilliantly) put what is going through so many of our minds into words. For those of us who really missed your insights, our sincere thanks. And rest assured, I do forward your comments to as many people as I believe will appreciate them. And a few who I know won't, just to really stick it to them in return for ruining so many otherwise pleasant social occasions! Again, thank you.

Mike then added:

One thing I have been mulling over. Do you think it is going too far to accuse the Republicans of treason? I know it doesn't fit the legal definition, but the obstructionism of the last 4 years just to be able to lambaste the President for not fixing the mess they created sure seems to be a ploy to worsen and use the nations' problems for political gain. (And who can say this wasn't an economic war being waged against the country?) Sad to say, I am starting to believe the only way to win this election is to get as obnoxious as the other side has been since President Obama has been in office. 

Also, one other thing I feel needs to be pointed out to counter the notion that Obama had a two year "free pass" before the 2010 debacle. Let's not forget that when he was elected, the country was screaming for "bipartisanship." One of the most frustrating things for me to see was how far the President went to offer olive branch after olive branch to the other side, only to have them reject EVERY overture (including, thank God, some which gave away even more than they could have ever hoped to achieve on their own!) Now they want to crucify him for that as well? Just seems more than a little unfair. Curious to get your opinion on whether you think either of these positions has any merit.

To which I replied:

I can understand your anger and your feeling that what they have been doing is nothing short of treason. I never comment on campaign tactics because if there is one thing I don't pretend to understand is what motivates an ignorant electorate. However, I will say that for some reason Democrats have always been held to a much higher standard than Republicans. You will remember Joe McCarthy's charge during the Truman Administration of "twenty years of treason." What was worse is that when the Democratic led Tydings Committee "concluded that the individuals on McCarthy's list were neither Communists nor pro-communist, and said the State Department had an effective security program" and "labeled McCarthy's charges a "fraud and a hoax". Republicans responded in kind, with William E. Jenner stating that Tydings was guilty of "the most brazen whitewash of treasonable conspiracy in our history.” The full Senate voted three times on whether to accept the report, and each time the voting was precisely divided along party lines.”

But that is not even ancient history. Ann Coulter, a darling of Republicans recently, wrote: "Twenty years of treason hasn't slowed them down." and charged "50 years of treason.” 

Nixon running for Congress smeared his opponent as the "pink lady.”

But the media, which will denounce Democrats for any excess, always gives Republicans a free ride, so much so that Republicans have declared that they care little about the facts: "We're not going to let our campaign be dictated by fact-checkers," said Neil Newhouse, a Romney pollster." 

Compare that to the smear directed against Al Gore by the New York Times and the Washington Post - See my post "The Media II - Falsehoods about Gore" which you can access by clicking or double-clicking on the title and which I urge you to read, particularly since the Times as recently as today repeated the smear, ironically in an article entitled: "Facts Take A Beating in Acceptance Speeches" where the article asserted: 

"...falsehoods...hampered Vice President Al Gore during his run for president in 2000, when his misstatements on the campaign trail were used to stoke the perception that he could not be trusted in general." And in typical media attempt to seem even handed wrote: "The growing number of misrepresentations appear to reflect a calculation in both parties (emphasis added) that shame is overrated..."

Frankly I do think there have been some instances of treason on the part of Republicans, but it is not kosher for them to be accused of such things. Christopher Hitchens, not a partisan wrote:

“In the fall of 1968, Richard Nixon and some of his emissaries and underlings set out to sabotage the Paris peace negotiations on Vietnam. The means they chose were simple: they privately assured the South Vietnamese military rulers that an incoming Republican regime would offer them a better deal than would a Democratic one. In this way, they undercut ... the talks...”

I think to undercut an Administration's peace negotiations is treason.

I also think the Reagan Administration committed treason on the subject of the hostages in Iran. I can't prove it, though I think the media, if they had investigated, could have. Iran refused to release the hostages until right after the election. Why? I am convinced that Reagan emissaries offered them inducements not to. Had Iran released the hostages before the election, Carter, quite possibly, would have won.

But no, I don't think the present outrageous behavior, can by any stretch of the imagination, be considered treason.

Sally Share of Fort Lee, NJ expressed this view:

I agree with you 100%. It is so distressing. I don't understand how a nation can be persuaded to vote for a party that does not have it's best interests at heart. It is so Orwellian. Are we a nation of fools? Downloaded your posting. Would it be OK if I forward it to a few of my friends?

To which I readily assented and encouraged.

Roger Streit of West Orange, NJ questioned one of my assertions with:

A small point is that supply-side economics may not be touted in “textbooks of the Chicago school.” I don’t know either way. For a long discussion of supply-side economics, go here:

To which I replied:

I don't know whether the Chicago school still teaches Supply Side economics, but the article to which you refer me, mentions the Chicago School and Milton Friedman as, at least, one of its main sources.

Barbara Valentino Crowley Baptiste Moreus of Port St. Lucie, Florida expressed herself as follows:

This election is really p*ssing me off because I have an awful feeling that there is a very good chance they will get in (hate to even mention the party or names) .... I find it absolutely amazing....as their platform alienates:  Teachers, Women, Gays, Seniors, Hispanics...and, multi-cultural America on a whole....as evidenced by one look at the hundreds of faces in the audience filled, save for a few token ethnic "individuals," strategically placed! Great show for WHITE SUPREMACY rally! And, btw, I doubt of the milk toast Puritan Tea Partiers included Eastern Europeans...just the Western European roots of our founding fathers... OK Leaving the soap box.... Thank you for writing.

Eric Offner of Manhasset Hills, NY of set forth his view on this and I believe all elections with:

I really appreciate your view. I agree with your analysis. It is interesting that I reach a different conclusion for my vote. I will be told I am wasting my vote. The opposite is true.

And Sonya Leopold of San Augustine, Texas chimed in with:

So good to hear from you again and to read your intelligent, impassioned report on the state of affairs in this election period where you lay out so clearly what the real issues are. Thank you, again!!!

A contributor who wishes to remain anonymous wrote:

You have written an excellent well researched commentary on the election and I agree with your views almost 100%. Please keep up your good work at least until the election, and you can then go back to your personal tasks in November, December and in 2013. Probably the reason that Romney will not release his tax returns is because his evangelical supporters, many of whom believe that Mormonism is a cult, may be offended and turned off by the huge donations he has probably made to the Mormon Church.   

Here in Connecticut a Republican woman named Linda McMahon is running for the US Senate and she has no qualifications other than having been a founder of the World Wrestling Federation. However I am afraid that she has a good chance of winning because her Democratic opponent, Congressman Chris Murphy seems to be bored with the campaign, and is hardly visible. He has not even solicited a donation from me. I am hopeful, but not confident, that the Presidential debates will tip the election in Obama's favor.

Finally Leonard Levenson of Manhattan, NY wrote a long exposition of his views as follows:

I was moved by you recent letter about this election. I agree with you that this election is about the creation of an emerging Oligarchy in the US. The disparity between rich and poor in the US today is greater than at any time since the roaring 20's and far greater than the days of the war on poverty under Johnson. It is not an accident that the greatest jump in the stock market since WWII occurred in the 60's under Kennedy and Johnson and under Clinton in the 90s. We did well under Eisenhower but that was probably caused by the spending spree following the end of the war. 

The present Republican Party seems intent on limiting the vote of minorities by discouraging immigration, by passing burdensome laws dealing with voter registration and by excluding Felons from voting (in some states for life) no matter how minor the crime. The worldview of the present Republican Party harks back to meanest period of economic and social life in our history. It glorifies the Laissez Faire Capitalism of the Robber Baron era of the 1890s and the small mindedness of Victorian England. It begrudges aid to the poor even though all Federal and State aid for food stamps and welfare did not exceed $100 billion dollars last year in a Federal budget in excess of 1 trillion dollars and State budgets of an equal amount.  

Unfortunately, I have been discouraged by the lack of firm and vigorous leadership of Obama and blue dog Democrats. If Obama were Lyndon Johnson or TIP O’Neal or FDR, I believe the Senate would not have been able to block meaningful legislation by a small minority of senators. Obama's record on Civil rights has not been good and he has cow-towed to republican objections to closing Guantanamo. He has been responsible for vigorously deporting large numbers of illegal immigrants until just recently and has not used the "bully pulpit" effectively to push his program. However, these failings are as nothing compared to the disaster that would befall this country with a Romney win.   

I am chilled by the prospects of a Supreme Court made up of a majority of Alitos', Thomas' and Roberts' for the rest of my lifetime. I am depressed by the prospect of a cruel and insensitive Government which believes the answer to crime is more and harsher punishment; that the answer to poverty is for the poor to work longer and harder for less pay and the answer for the sick who cannot afford medical care is to die.  

However, in my more optimistic moments I think of other periods in our history when hysteria and hatred have taken over until the American people came to their senses. I think of the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1802, of the "know nothings" and anti immigration movements of the 1840s, of slavery from the early 17th century to 1865, of the robber barons of the post Civil War, of Jim Crow for 100 years, of the Palmer raids of the 1919-1920 period, of McCarthyism, of Vietnam and of Bush era politics. I think of Lincoln and his hope that "you can't fool all of the people all of the time". We survived all of these calamitous periods and I hope that we could survive a Romney Presidency if that disaster should befall us.

This required a response and accordingly, I wrote:

Good to hear from you, and I appreciate the contents of your remarks in most of what you say.

                       

However, I must take exception to your third and fifth paragraphs.

                       

As to the third paragraph, we have been over this in previous discussions and I am surprised and disappointed that you raise this again now.

           

I guess once a mindset gets set, it is hard to let it go. But rather than repeat all that has been said in the past, I refer you to my posts "The Trojan Horse - Comments," "The Trojan Horse – Comments II", and "The Trojan Horse – Comments II (continued)" where you graciously conceded, "You may have a point when you suggest that my anger at Obama is really disappointment at the lack of progress that I hoped for. Perhaps no Democrat could have made any substantial progress against the know nothing Republicans. I think I would have preferred a battle royale (even a losing one) than accepting a weakened Health Care Bill, an inadequate deficit reduction bill and the many other compromises, which Obama probably was forced to make."

                            

The problem of course is, and has always been the totally unreasonable expectations that the election of Obama aroused. I anticipated this and warned against it, when I posted my commentary "Obama Walks on Water"

I might add that even as early in the President's term as August of 2011 I wrote of his long list of accomplishments. Please see "The Achievements of Barack Obama."

But this is in particular bad taste when the point that I made in my last post is that this election is not about Obama. It is about the future of America and posterity.

Which brings me to the last paragraph of your comment. Yes the US survived other terrible periods in its history. But that totally misses the point. It is like saying that the Jews, as a people survived the Holocaust, or that African-Americans survived slavery and Jim Crow. Yes, the nation and the world go on, but the tens of thousands who die for lack of health care do not. Those who are denied an education are not only set back, but so are their children and often it is multigenerational. What counts is people, as people, as individuals and as groups. They suffer, even if the nation and they survive, and to make light of such suffering is unbecoming.

Even Syria will survive. But at what cost?

The Election

It has not been so long since I said "Adieu." The response was gratifying as can be seen from my post "Adieu (Comments)" but it did not solve either the problem of the small size of my audience, nor its consumption of an amount of my time that forced neglect of many of my personal duties and interests.

Nevertheless, I am back because I can no longer endure the apathy that seems to be greeting this campaign, and I cringe when I hear of people saying, “Well, I will vote for Obama, but will make no further effort. He has disappointed me.” So allow me to say, nay shout from the rooftops, this election is not about Obama. This election is not about you; this election is not about me.

This election is about the heart and soul of America!!! It is about the survival of the USA as a great power. It is about the future of our children, and our children’s children. It is about the survival of our middle class, which has been the source of the nation’s success, and the envy of the world.

Since the election of Ronald Reagan in 1980 there has been an inexorable decline of the Middle Class in America. There has been a steady redistribution of wealth upward. Slowly but steadily. First we found that families had to have two breadwinners to earn enough to stay in the middle class. We thought that this meant progress because we associated it with the Women’s Movement that allowed women their place in the workplace, and it was a good thing that women could now, for the first time make careers as lawyers, as doctors, and even to a limited extent as CEOs. What we didn’t see was that this had not become a freedom, a choice; it had become a necessity. Without two wage-earners it was no longer possible to stay in the middle class.

It used to be that every generation could look forward to the next generation doing better than the previous one. This is no longer true, except for people like Trump, like the Bushes, like Romney, who begin life with all the advantages of coming from the wealthy aristocracy. It used to be the landed aristocracy – now wealth is held differently, but it is no different.

Our tax code used to be graduated. During the last year of the Republican Administration of Dwight Eisenhower in 1960, there were 24 tax brackets ranging from 20% to 91% on all incomes over $400,000. To be sure $400,000 in today’s dollars is the equivalent of over three million dollars. But it used to be 65% on all incomes over $64,000, the equivalent of half a million in today’s dollars and as I have said 91% on incomes over three million dollars. No wonder the Federal government now cannot pay its bills without huge deficits or by decimating government services. But they tell us that high taxes on the rich (they have renamed them “job creators” - clever) keep the economy from thriving. Really? Was the Eisenhower economy bad? Was the Bush economy good? What about the Clinton economy? Even Reagan had high taxes and after lowering them too much, increased them by the largest amount in history according to the right-wing website The Free Market.

Our tax code now has Romney, with his hundreds of millions, paying a tax rate by his own account of 13%. I, like most middle class families, pay more than that, and if Romney wins we will pay more, he and those similarly situated, will pay substantially less. Where will the money to meet our needs come from?

Are we going to end up with a tax system similar to the one that existed under the French monarchy before the revolution, where nobility (read today - the wealthy) held the highest positions and were exempt from taxes?

This election is not about the deficit.  It is not about the size of government.  It isn’t even about jobs.

This election is not about the deficit.

These are phony issues cooked up by the Republican Tea Party, and promoted by our craven media echo chamber. According to the Tea Party's website the Ryan-proposed budget would balance the budget in 2040 or eighteen years from now. Does that sound like a plan that has real concern with balancing the budget, particularly when it is considered that at the beginning of the last Republican Administration the United States had a projected federal budget surpluses for the indefinite future and with Ryan’s support, put through policies that wiped out the surpluses and substituted deficits as far as the eye can see. Furthermore even the 2040 projection seems phony because to achieve them would require the elimination of tax expenditures, which have not been specified, and which appear to be nothing but pie in the sky, or worse, would further impact the middle class and the poor.

Is it about the size of government?

It is about the role of government The proposals are for increasing the military, doing away with Roe vs. Wade and increasing government intrusion into the bedroom of every married or unmarried couple, and even blocking access to contraception services. It is not likely to reduce abortion, since unwanted pregnancies would increase as contraceptive services decrease, but rather move abortion for desperate women from the offices of reputable physicians to the back alleys of yore.

It would increase surveillance of our citizenry while reducing their constitutional rights in the name of the war on terrorists and would continue the war on drugs, while taking us into what may well be perpetual war, in an effort to protect the profits of our defense industries and by creating a gun culture that feeds the profits of gun makers.

It is not about the size of government. It is about the role of government. It is whether government’s role is to protect us from the avarice and the dishonesty of the unscrupulous who inhabit too much of our banking and business sector, or whether government should become the protectors of these so called job creators, who have no interest in creating jobs, but whose object by definition is to maximize profits. It is whether government is to be the ally of the Gordon Gekkos of the world, or the protectors of their victims. The media has accepted without question that Staples was a job creator. But were they? For every job they created how many small stationery stores, the real small businesses of the USA, went bust. How many of the owners of these businesses were forced into bankruptcy and how many of their employees lost their jobs. How good are Staples' jobs? $8.92, $8.47, $9.35 an hour. See here.

  

It isn’t even about jobs.

It is about jobs in the minds of the public. But there is nothing in the Republican program that on the basis of experience is likely to improve the jobs picture. Just as The Democratic Clinton Administration handed the Republican party a positive economy and a good jobs picture which in eight years they decimated, so it is more than likely that a return to the policies that destroyed jobs and brought us to the edge of depression, would only exacerbate the jobs picture. High unemployment is not exactly something that makes employers unhappy. It puts downward pressure on wages, and cheap labor is something that our rich, re-named job creators, relish.

Their supply-side economics may sound good in textbooks of the Chicago school, but they have proven time and time again as fallacious in the real world. Jobs, as experience has proven, time and time again, are created when demand for goods and services exist. No employer will hire to create goods or services for which there is no demand. No matter how much money is on hand, no matter how low taxes, no employer hires, unless he/she needs those employees. All is circular. When demand falls because of unemployment, or low wages, or because consumers have over extended themselves, employers will reduce employees because they don’t need them. This loss of jobs decreases the ability to make purchases, further decreasing demand, which lead to further layoffs, etc. The reverse is equally true! When money is placed into the hands of consumers, by the only entity that can do so in a declining economy, the government, it increases demand, requiring the production of more goods, which requires the hiring of staff, which increases demand, etc. The only time this fails is when demand outstrips supply, which leads to inflation, not something that is a threat in the foreseeable future.

What is this election about?

This election is truly a class struggle. Republicans tell us by calling it that we are in some way preaching a communist doctrine. But calling something what it is, is never any doctrine. As I have indicated, we have had over thirty years of an inexorable decline of the middle class, which was exacerbated during 8 years of the last Republican Administration. The last time we had a chance to reverse this trend was at the end of the Clinton Administration. Clinton was hampered not only by Republican obstructionism, but by the deficit he inherited from the Reagan/Bush years, (and when we look at the record we find that despite the propaganda, the party of deficits is the Republican party) which made desperately needed expenditures undesirable. With our fiscal situation in order and improving further, the election of Al Gore could have ushered in a period of American constructive growth. At the same time with Republican Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor retiring, Gore could have swung the Supreme Court in a more liberal direction. Maybe that is why for the first time in American history the Supreme Court stepped in and decreed George W. Bush the winner.

Bush cemented the Republican majority on the court, which now decreed in the “United case” that money is speech, and that the right to use money to buy elections; to intimidate opponents; and to dominate the political landscape has constitutional protection.

And we had the Bush tax cuts, the war in Iraq, which has removed a counter-weight to Iran and created a Shiite state with a natural affinity to Iran, which together turned the Clinton surpluses into huge deficits and further undermined the middle class.

If Republicans win this election they will secure a majority on the Court that will be unchallengeable for decades, and will embolden the court further.

They will push through further tax cuts that will further empower the rich, who will push through further cuts. The circle works here too. Money leads to power – power to money – money to more power, to more money, etc.

Before the next four years are over, they very likely will have succeeded in making their vision irreversible. Medicare gone, not for us, but certainly for our children and grandchildren. Social Security gone –not for us, but certainly for our children and grandchildren. Continuing rising Health care costs, but the burden moved from society to the individual, and with that good health care only for the rich. Ever greater impoverishment of the poor and near poor as the minimum wage is, at the least, allowed to be decimated over the years by inflation, and quite possibly abolished, and the ladder out of poverty, and upward mobility, already shredded, disappears.

The despoilment of our air and water as the EPA is at least undermined, and very likely abolished.

I could go on and on and some will say I exaggerate. I don’t !!!! Most of what I warn will happen is in the Republican platform. They have said they will do it. Why would one doubt it?

Can Democrats stop all this with the filibuster? Not likely. Once the Tea Party people have control of all branches of government, they will end the filibuster, which they will no longer need and reign supreme.

What will happen to our schools? What made the US great was that we were the first to institute a class free educational system with high school free. In the 21^st century we need state colleges to be tuition free. Instead we already see a trend where private college tuition is skyrocketing and public institutions are not far behind. We need to reverse this. But a Republican victory will exacerbate it. Less and less money for public schools, larger classes and increasingly obsolescent buildings and plants, a trend already under way.

And our public schools will teach Creationism instead of Evolution, the Denial of Global Warming, and all about Adam and Eve. Maybe not in all states, but in quite a few!

All this does not even cover the many other areas that are threatened. Our prisons turned over to private industry so that prisoners can be used as profit centers, something akin to slavery. Increasing attempts to disenfranchise minorities, the poor, and the aged.

What about federal lands that have been owned by the nation since they were acquired. Romney has already proposed they be turned over to the states. And what will many states do? Sell them off so they can cut taxes!

I don’t agree with much of what Ryan says, but I do agree with him on this quote: “We're not just picking the next president for a few years. We are picking the pathway for America for a generation.”

Some will say I am playing Cassandra. I am afraid that I am, because like Cassandra who warned the Trojans of “the destruction of Troy (… about the Trojan Horse the death of Agamemnon, and her own demise), (but) she was unable to do anything to forestall these tragedies since no one believed her.” 

What can we do to stop this tragedy? We can start by taking the threat seriously. We can stop talking about our disappointments with the President, and we can start taking the election as the most important thing in our lives.

That means contributing money till it hurts. It means joining phone banks. It means doing all that is within our power to forestall the tragedy that looms for our country and posterity. And it means distributing this warning to all your friends, acquaintances, and anyone else who will listen.

Yes, it is that serious.

Control of the Weather (Discussion II)

In my last post entitled "Control of the Weather (Discussion)" that was posted and distributed on March 29, I set forth some comments made by Eric Offner Esq. of New Hyde Park, New York. To access those comments double-click on the title of the post above.

At the end of that post I promised that: “Next time I want to tackle a very important and complicated subject, i.e. the role that race plays in American life and politics. It will be entitled: “It’s All About Race.” But since the discussion emanating from the comments contained in that post continued, I want to share them with you.

In response to the comments I made as set forth in that last post, Eric Offner wrote:

Thank you. Please discuss the present Supreme Court hearings. It seems that we will get a 5 to 4 decision, as was the case in the decision that made Bush President. We can throw out the commerce clause, and cite pre new deal case law. By the way I did not realize that the price of gas issue is a left/right issue, but I do not intend to pursue this. Your scholarly articles are very much appreciated.

To which I replied:

I am sorry to say that the Supreme Court hearings on the Health Insurance Reform Act is not a subject I plan to address in forthcoming commentary. There are only so many subjects I can deal with, and as I have indicated, I am anxious to deal with the issue of race in our society and politics.  

I will say, however, that 5/4 against is not a foregone conclusion. Kennedy has been and continues to be the linchpin, so that we do not have a court of 9, but essentially a court of one. Kennedy decides. However, that does not mean a 5/4 if it is upheld. Some commentators have speculated that if Kennedy goes with the liberal 4, Roberts will join the majority for upholding the law, in order to appoint himself as the one who writes the majority opinion. That would make it 6/3 but assure a narrow holding, with concurring opinions.        

As for the Commerce clause - yes it has been under attack for some time. They are pushing for a pre-New Deal interpretation. Only Kennedy can stop it and if Obama loses, the Right wing Court majority will go to 7/3, when Ginsburg retires or dies, and Kennedy will no longer be the swing vote. It will lead to total Right Wing domination.    

As for the price of gas being a Left/Right issue, it is not. Rather it is a partisan issue. There is a difference. When Bush was President and the price of gas reached levels comparable to the price now, Democrats, including Obama, attacked Bush. I don't remember the details but my guess is that Bush was no more responsible than Obama is now.

But then, after listening to the NewsHour on PBS on Friday March 30, I felt further comments were called for. I wrote:

Since saying "that the Supreme Court hearings on the Health Insurance Reform Act is not a subject I plan to address" I have seen additional facts, particularly on the NewsHour on PBS on Friday that made me feel I had to comment. So here goes:              

In listening to the NewsHour on PBS yesterday I saw a clip of Romney on the campaign trail (See here at two minutes into the video) where he says: Obama Care “will directly control almost half the US economy.” There is a tendency to exaggerate on the campaign trail, but this is beyond all reason. The absurdity is evident when we consider the government will not control anything. It will regulate the health insurance industry. Regulate not control (Medicare or a single payer might be considered as controlling but this does not control, it regulates) and the whole Health Care Industry of which insurance is a small part, is 16% of our economy. See here.              

He then goes on to say, “if I am President I will repeal it.” Doesn’t he ever read the Constitution? The President can’t repeal an act passed by Congress. Only Congress can. 

At 55 minutes 22 seconds into the video we get a discussion between Brooks (representing the Right viewpoint and Shields representing the Left, actually they are both rather moderate) and they both are embarrassed to note that some of the justices during the hearing are actually expressing Tea Party talking points.  

It is difficult for me to understand why there is even a question as to the Constitutionality of the Law. It is no different from any other tax levied, i.e. you pay taxes on your income unless you choose to give money to charity, in which case you don’t have to pay a tax on that portion. Social Security taxes don’t benefit you directly and not immediately. They benefit another generation, i.e. those over 67.              

Talking about forcing people to buy broccoli is and was intended to be facetious. But of course Congress can tax people who don’t eat broccoli, if it is shown that there is a reasonable connection between that requirement and the regulation of Commerce, but that can only be decided when that issues is before the court. Even if such a regulation were ridiculous it would not therefore make it unconstitutional. Some of the justices are behaving like clowns.              

If the court, after the Gore case and the United Case goes down the same partisan ideological route it will discredit its legitimacy. Years ago, (at the moment I can’t pinpoint when it changed) one could not tell how a justice would vote by whether a Republican or a Democrat appointed the Justice. Now that is controlling.              

In Roe v. Wade a decision that was 7 to 2 (not 5 to 4) the majority consisted of Harry Blackmun, William J. Brennan, Chief Justice Warren Burger, William O. Douglas, Thurgood Marshall, Lewis Powell and Potter Stewart. (It was not the Warren Court, and by the way Earl Warren was appointed by Eisenhower, a Republican.)

Blackmun was appointed by Nixon (Republican); Brennan by Eisenhower (Republican); Burger by Nixon (Republican); Douglas by Roosevelt (Democrat); Marshall by Johnson (Democrat); Powell by Nixon (Republican); Stewart by Eisenhower (Republican). Of the 7 justices in the majority, 5 were appointed by Republican Presidents. Yet this has now become a partisan issue.              

When we know how a justice will rule by which party appointed him/her, then it is an extension of the party, and no longer a judicial forum.                       

I don't know what the answer is, but we cannot indefinitely allow a partisan body to have the power to overrule an elected legislature. Only a judicial non-partisan body can be allowed to do that.

And Irving Lesnick Esq. of Boca Ratan, Florida picked up on the issue of eliminating speculation in oil and other commodities, writing:

Your comments are interesting, as always. While I generally agree with them, I will mention a disagreement, or at least a query, since you prefer disagreement, with your statement that outlawing speculation would require banning all commodities trading. It seems to me that the situation here is somewhat like that which prevailed in the life insurance business in the 1700s or so in England. There people were buying what we now call term life insurance on the lives of public figures.  Reportedly, it became a bit of a bubble, and both because it was viewed as morally objectionable as gambling but probably more importantly because some of the public figures began worrying that allowing the wrong people to get into a position to profit from their speedy death, their death might become more speedy than it would otherwise be. The response was the imposition, I think by legislation, of a requirement of insurable interest in the purchase of insurance, which limits insurance purchases to situations where the purchaser would suffer a loss from the occurrence of the insured against event. There are non-speculative reasons for buying and selling commodity futures - a manufacturer who wants to be protected against a rise in the cost of raw materials, an airline who wants to be protected against too much of an increase in fuel prices or and farmer who wants to be protected against a fall in the price of his or her future crop. Requiring participants in futures markets to have these kinds of interest would bar speculation, without banning commodity trading. How to structure such a requirement is, of course, another question.

To which I responded:

Your analysis is worthy of one who was an editor of the Yale Law Journal.                 

You are absolutely correct that there is a way to outlaw speculation without banning all commodity trading, and the insurance industry, (your area of expertise) is clearly a perfect example. But that then brings us to the question of whether it is desirable to stop speculation. I would argue that it is not desirable. If you placed the kind of restrictions on the commodities markets as you suggest, the market would shrink to a degree where "legitimate traders" would have a hard time finding buyers when they were ready to liquidate their positions. Furthermore not all commodity traders can be defined in the futures market as your focus suggests. What about commodities like gold and silver? Traders in gold buy the metal to hedge against inflation. How do you limit this? Or do you limit the market to jewelers.

The problem becomes similar to the stock market, where one could argue that only legitimate investments in a start up business should be allowed, but without a secondary market, the primary market collapses. That is also true in commodities. When you get rid of the "speculators" you are getting rid of the secondary market.                 

Please advise if I am missing something.

And then added:

This reminds me of Revolutionary times. Since the Continental Congress had no taxing power and the states were very poor providers of money to fight the war, the Congress issued promissory notes that went unpaid and because it appeared they would never be paid, they became worthless. A secondary market of speculators arose ready to buy the notes at huge discounts, thus giving them some limited value to the relief of the primary holders. Jefferson argued that the notes should not be paid because that would unjustly enrich the speculators. Hamilton in turn argued that what was at stake was the full faith and credit of the US. Washington sided with Hamilton, the speculators were paid, and the Full Faith and Credit of the US was never in doubt thereafter. [Until the Tea Party (to all intents and purposes, the Republican Party) decided to threaten to prevent the US from paying its debts. For the first time since then, the US full faith and Credit has now been put in doubt.]  The bracketed portion is a bit of a digression, but the point is a secondary market, which usually consists of speculators, is vital to a functioning market.

Comments, questions, or corrections, are welcome and will be responded to and distributed with attribution, unless the writer requests that he/she not be identified.

The Media And Their Columnists – Discussion

On September 12, 2011 I distributed my last commentary entitled The Media And Their Columnists" which I hope my readers will re-read, for it once again alerts the reader to a subject to which I have been coming back again and again, i.e. that the media in general, and the New York Times in particular, along with their columnists must be read with a jaundiced eye.

On my trip to Russia the difficulty of this was brought home to me when one of my dinner companions exclaimed, “If not the New York Times, then where should I turn for my news?" I have thought about this and I guess the Times can be put in the same category as Democracy. In the words of Winston Churchill, which he gave in a speech to the House of Commons in 1947, “No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.” The same may be said of our media and particularly the New York Times and its columnists.

As bad as they are, they are better than nothing, and certainly better than what pretends to be news on TV, and I would certainly urge my readers to read and keep informed by the only media we have, but to do so with a jaundiced eye.

Having said the above as a preamble, I want to share with my readers a comment I received from Joe Kerrigan of Iselin, NJ which as well as anything illustrates why the New York Times can be a dangerously deceptive news source, and why reading my postings along with its source material can avoid major misconceptions. Kerrigan wrote:

Enjoyed your column, as always. Suggest that when you speak in absolute terms, you do so with Greater caution or more reflection, a la your reference to Al Gore . He did not invent the Internet. An agency of the federal government did. I believe it is commonly referred to as DARPA.

To which I responded:

(With respect to) …your recommendation that when I am speaking in "absolute terms" I do so with "Greater caution or more reflection, a la (my) reference to Al Gore", I can assure you that I exercise the "Greatest caution", and reflect carefully before I write. If there is one thing that I am meticulous about, it is making absolutely sure that what I state as facts, are facts.

The problem is not with my care, but rather with the care of my readers, who like most others, read carelessly, and often confine their reading to headlines, or at best to the first paragraph or two, making assumptions as to the rest.

Their is also a tendency to look upon the New York Times as the gospel, and so when anyone tries to expose them, to assume that those who would do so must be mistaken, or at least careless.

And so you have allowed yourself to continue to be misled by a superficiality of reading, and never took the time to refer to my blog posting "The Media II - Falsehoods about Gore," which if you had, you would not have been misled. (Article can be accessed by clicking on brown title)

You are quite right that Gore did not invent the Internet. What you overlooked was that this is not where the lie lay. The lie lay in the false and malicious charge that Gore had ever claimed that he did. He had not made such a claim!!!!

Now since I can't get you, or for that matter very few of my readers to go to the references, which are available with just a click of the mouse, I will quote from the referenced source:

"Here are the facts:

"In 1989, Gore introduced the National High-Performance Computer Technology Act, a five-year, $1.7 billion program to expand the capacity of the information highway to connect government, industry, and academic institutions. Signed by President Bush in 1991, the bill supported research and development for an improved national computer system, and assisted colleges and libraries in connecting to the new network. In 1989, when few public officials grasped the profound changes that new information technology would bring, Gore saw them plainly. "I genuinely believe that the creation of this nationwide network will create an environment where work stations are common in homes and even small businesses," he told a House committee in the spring of 1989.

"On this basis Gore said in an interview with Wolf Blitzer of CNN, “During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet.” As can be seen, this was entirely true. HE DID NOT SAY HE “INVENTED” THE INTERNET."

But once a lie is spread, it is almost impossible to erase it. The truth never catches up with the lie, particularly when the New York Times is one of the sources and refuses to issue a retraction.

I know that all myth have a life of their own and we live by them. I try to dispel these myths. As you can see from your own reaction, it is not easily done.

As a matter of fact this was not the only lie promulgated by the media in general and the New York Times in particular about Gore, which may well, have cost him his election, a result which has been haunting us long beyond that election, and which is and remains history. It may be that this election set the stage for all that has followed.

The Times and the media also spread lies about what Gore said about Love Canal and the “Superfund.” Please, Please read that posting "The Media II - Falsehoods about Gore" and while you are at it take the time to read: "The Media! (Watergate/Clinton)" and "The Media III - Falsehoods about Kerry."

Unless you read these articles you will be lacking an understanding of the extent to which the media could not and can’t be trusted. The truth can be found, but it takes work and dedication.

But our faith in the New York Times has been so ingrained that Leonard Levenson Esq. of New York responded to my criticism of the Times columnists with:

Do not confuse the opinions of op Ed or other writers for a particular editorial policy of a newspaper. The Times uses writers such as Brooks, Dowd, and Krugman who all have differing views on the economy and Obama. I am not quite as cynical as you are about the motives of all newspapers. Obviously, some tabloids are interested only on increasing circulation or are the mouthpieces for particular interests. I do believe that papers like the Christian Science Monitor, The Washington Post, and The New York Times are altruistically motivated.

I am astonished that you, of all people, are prepared to criticize those that criticize Obama. I say "you of all people" because I identify you as one who is an unyielding advocate of the free exchange of ideas and "let the chips fall where they may.” The Republicans do not need help from Democrats to criticize Obama. The difference is that the Republicans make no sense in the attacks. Democrats are thoughtful and balanced in their criticism and is not a rejection of his ideas but of his methodology. The Republicans are "know-nothing" obstructionists with no intelligent alternatives to most of Obamas very intelligent ideas.

To which I replied:

Do not confuse newspapers editorial policy with their news reporting. The Wall Street Journal has always had a terrible, even slanderous editorial page, but it’s reporting has been sterling. The Times has a good editorial page, but its news pages have become increasingly questionable, and I can give endless examples. But for now let us focus on what I wrote below which I am not sure you read, or at least not carefully. How do you explain Judith Miller who shilled for the Bush Administration in the pages of the Times by publishing selected and distorted facts in support of the Iraq war, or the facts set forth in "The Media II - Falsehoods about Gore" and "The Media III - Falsehoods about Kerry" and in criticizing Krugman et al., I am not doing so not just for opinions but for falsehoods, and I can cite other articles in the Times and other "good newspapers" that are misleading or out and out false.

Yes, I have become cynical but with good reason. In the cited articles about Gore and Kerry I cite both the Times and the Washington Post for misleading and slanderous articles about the Democratic candidates that may well have cost them the election. The Trojan Horse refers not just to Krugman but to just about everybody in the media.

But after all the New York Times carping, along with the rest of the “liberal media” about what a bad deal the President made with Republicans to avoid a default, the Times suddenly discovered the merit therein, writing in their editorial of October 1, 2011:

But that supposed victory has forced many Republicans into an equally tight corner. They are starting to realize that if they remain adamant, the resulting across-the-board cuts will disproportionately affect programs they support, starting with military spending.

The joint committee created by the debt-ceiling agreement is desperately groping behind closed doors for ways to cut at least $1.2 trillion from the federal deficit. Republican leaders want it all to come from spending cuts; Democratic leaders want a mix of cuts and revenue increases. If the two sides cannot agree, there will be automatic cuts, which largely spare social-welfare programs but would severely reduce military and security spending. (Emphasis added)

Better late, then never!!!!!

Perpetuating False Myths: The US Constitution - Discussion I

Dr. Louise Mayo, History professor emeritus of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania reacted to my post on "Perpetuating False Myths - The US Constitution" with this exposition:

Your history is largely right on, but I think that you are not entirely fair to the New York Times article and not as nuanced as the real story is.  The article does not really say that the founders wanted a weaker government than the Articles of Confederation, but it does, largely correctly, point out that there was fear about one branch of government becoming too powerful, hence the elaborate system of checks and balances.  Indeed the writers of the Constitution rejected (unfortunately in my opinion) a parliamentary system in which there is for the most part a single branch.  Under that system, which exists in most of Europe, the party that is elected has the power to enact the basic legislation it has promised the voters that it would. The minority cannot block the measures introduced by the majority. (Of course the fly in the ointment occurs when there are three or more parties, making compromises and deals essential.)  Had we such a system here when Obama and the Democrats won big majorities in 2008, they could have passed their program without any real problems or much compromise.  That is not to argue that the Republicans in the Senate are following constitutional precedent when they, while still in the minority, successfully block appointments and the executive's ability to carry out laws.  In the past, the unwritten understanding was that a president could have the appointees he wanted who reflected his point of view, with only occasional exceptions. I cannot remember a time in history when the opposition party was so single-mindedly determined to insure that the President fails and uses the bludgeon of threatened filibuster to block just about everything and everyone.

Which I tried to rebut with:

Thank you for your input. I am glad that I provoked you into commenting.

However, I question that the "elaborate checks and balances" were intended to cause gridlock. First I question whether the "Checks and Balances" that the Times and you both refer to were a concept at the convention. I can find nothing in the Constitutional debates that indicates that it intended the Supreme Court to act as a restraint. As a matter of fact, before Marbury vs. Madison was decided it was assumed by President Washington that the Court had no such power and that the veto power was to be used to reject what the President considered unconstitutional.

So aside from the bicameral legislature which I contend was the result of the compromise outlined by me, the only other check or balance is the President's veto. While my reading in this area, I am sure, is not as extensive as yours, I have found nothing to indicate that the bicameral legislature was intended as a check or a balance. I am sure that you are correct that the founders considered a parliamentary system, which I agree would be better than what we have, but I contend it was rejected, not because it would not be enough of a check on power, but rather because it did not satisfy the two faction at the convention, as I stated. Also there was precedence for it in the British system, which had the House of Commons and the House of Lords (bicameral) with the King being the Chief executive, the President in our system.

I keep hearing the words "checks and balances" but I am not even sure that those words were used at the convention. I believe, though, of course, I may be wrong, that this is a modern invention.

As a matter of fact there was great concern that the Constitution gave the federal government too much power; hence the demand for the Bill of Rights, which I grant you was intended to limit the power of the federal government, but that is different from the contention that the Constitution itself was intended to hamstring the government as a way of making sure it does not overstep.

Can you cite anything that would indicate that the bicameral legislature was intended as a check or a balance, rather than the need for compromise as I have argued.

As for doing an injustice to the Times, even if I was wrong here, and I don't concede that I was,  there are many, many instances of the Times feeding into the paradigm of the Right. For example its distorted writing by Judith Miller in support of Iraq war, its slandering of Gore and Kerry and its reluctance to report on Watergate, see e.g: The Media II - Falsehoods about Gore, The Media! (Watergate/Clinton) and The Media III - Falsehoods about Kerry.  I could cite many others and may return to that subject at a later time.

After further research I added:

Since dispatching the message below, I tried to search for any mention of checks and balances in the records of the debates at Philadelphia. I could find none.

I then went to the Federalist Papers where I did find a reference to checks, but not to balances in Federalist No. 51 and where Publius writes:

"First. In a single republic, all the power surrendered by the people is submitted to the administration of a single government; and the usurpations are guarded against by a division of the government into distinct and separate departments. In the compound republic of America, the power surrendered by the people is first divided between two distinct governments, and then the portion allotted to each subdivided among distinct and separate departments. Hence a double security arises to the rights of the people."

But I don't find that adequate or convincing proof that the bicameral legislature was intended as a "check and balance" even if possibly Hamilton or Madison used something close to such an argument on its behalf.

As you can see I am perfectly willing to prove myself wrong and will happily (well maybe not happily) concede that I was wrong if any evidence, other than that it is the conventional wisdom even among historians, can be adduced by you or me or anyone else. However, I am always suspicious of conventional wisdom, even if held by a distinguished group, absent convincing evidence.

The discussion concluded with Dr. Mayo's following observations which largely quoted further from Federalist No. 51. Her comments are in parentheses and bold.

So I think this discussion is going in circles.  Here are the relevant sections of Federalist 51:

It may be a reflection on human nature, that such devices should be necessary to control the abuses of government. But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions.

In republican government, the legislative authority necessarily predominates. The remedy for this inconvenience is to divide the legislature into different branches; and to render them, by different modes of election and different principles of action, as little connected with each other as the nature of their common functions and their common dependence on the society will admit. It may even be necessary to guard against dangerous encroachments by still further precautions. (Idea of 2 branches as checks on each other.)

In a single republic, all the power surrendered by the people is submitted to the administration of a single government; and the usurpations are guarded against by a division of the government into distinct and separate departments. In the compound republic of America, the power surrendered by the people is first divided between two distinct governments, and then the portion allotted to each subdivided among distinct and separate departments.

It is of great importance in a republic not only to guard the society against the oppression of its rulers, but to guard one part of the society against the injustice of the other part. Different interests necessarily exist in different classes of citizens. If a majority be united by a common interest, the rights of the minority will be insecure (this) method will be exemplified in the federal republic of the United States. Whilst all authority in it will be derived from and dependent on the society, the society itself will be broken into so many parts, interests, and classes of citizens, that the rights of individuals, or of the minority, will be in little danger from interested combinations of the majority.

(By the way this shows a realization of judicial branch's role) A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges as, a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body.

(The 2 branches of the legislature is not the central point, but it is also clear that one was to represent the people and the other representing the states, as you rightly point out, was also NOT chosen by the people deliberately to provide counter-weight to messy popular "passions.")

Let me conclude with, what has become a somewhat esoteric, though very interesting discussion, by pointing out that Dr. Mayo is unable to quote from the minutes of the convention itself (though of course there were no official minutes, only the recollection of participants at the convention) and neither she nor I can find any reference to this issue in the Federalist Papers except in one out of eighty-five, and this was in an attempt to sell the document, hardly a reliable way to determine the intent of the authors.

But I say the argument is esoteric, because the principal cause of the gridlock, is not the existence of the two Houses, but the use of non-Constutional means to obstruct, most particularly the filibuster and the willingness to cause untold damage to the country, unless its agenda is adopted. In this connection the Times article, whether having a basis or not, feeds into the false paradigm that the problems we have encountered are the results of the structure of our government, rather than the deliberate obstructionism by any and all means of one of our parties.