Archive for the Politics Category

Bill/Melinda and Warren, It Is Time To Get Into The Game (January 25, 2010)

Posted in Elections, Political Parties, Politics, Society, Supreme Court on January 25, 2010 by e-commentary.org

Now is the time for all good men and women to come to the aid of their country.  Bill/Melinda and Warren are still playing at the margins.  Now is the time to get off the sidelines and get into the game.  Funding vaccines is commendable in particular because preventive medicine is the exception in our society.  However, the body politic is sick.

The Supreme Court recently decided that democracy is a commodity to be sold in the market place to the highest bidder.  The United States of Exxon (USE).  You need to join the bidding.  The next presidential election will cost over a billion dollars.  Now is the time to invest $50 – $100 million dollars into each of six senatorial campaigns this year and elect half a dozen senators who commit to occasional independent thinking.  Political activities are not as tidy or as pretty as traditional charitable giving.  However, at this time, your country needs aid.

Bumper sticker of the week:

The best democracy money can buy.

Contemporary American Political Parties 101 (October 20, 2008)

Posted in Political Parties, Politics on October 20, 2008 by e-commentary.org

A “brand” is a story.  Promoters of products seek to “brand” them and concoct a story to attract the target customers/clients/viewers/fans/constituents/voters.  Some political commentators suggest that the two political parties tend to gravitate to the center to attract the widest swath of voters.  In America, however, the two political parties offer fundamentally different visions of the present and future that have remained consistent over the last few decades.  The two “brands” cannot be distinguished by analyzing their political platforms on jay walking or school uniforms or the like; the analysis must be more elemental.

At core, the “Republican Franchise” proclaims that “Government is big and does not work” and then sets out both to expand government and to make government not work while rewarding their friends with federal largesse.  The Republican Franchise has fooled enough of the populace for decades into believing that the Party is against spending and taxes and that deficits do not matter.  Deficits are taxes; on the unborn.

Democrats are war veterans (McGovern; Gore; Kerry; Cleland; Webb); Republicans are draft dodgers (Bush; Cheney; Giuliani; Ashcroft).  Democrats don’t like going to war unless necessary; Republicans don’t like going to war themselves but like to send others to war.

At core, the Republicans market fear; the Democrats offer hope.

True Tenets/Characteristics of contemporary Franchise Republicanism:

  1. Threaten fear over hope and market anxiety to anesthetize and dispirit the public while hinting that those who vote with the “Republican Franchise” can delude themselves into believing that they are part of the Beautiful People for a few moments on election day;
  2. Support free trade for their friends most of the time;
  3. Oppose almost everything else;
  4. Promote big government and massive federal expenditures–large armies and weapons systems and massive prison complexes (to kill others and to enslave the population);
  5. Engage in reckless spending and spending and spending and spending and spending;
  6. Spend Other People’s Money (OPM) to benefit themselves;
  7. Pursue unnecessary wars to maintain and expand the American Empire;
  8. Sport shallow “White Bling-Bling” such as jewelry with the American flag on their lapels but refuse to allow others to display their own flags and symbols in their own way;
  9. Circle the wagons to protect the Republican Franchise even if that means allowing an ideological infidel into the inner circle;
  10. Win.

True Tenets/Characteristics of contemporary Democrats:

  1. Offer hope over fear and inspire the public even if the public instinctively responds to fear and encourage a “big tent” but often pitch it awkwardly;
  2. Support some protectionist trade policies;
  3. Favor a wide variety of policies and proposals that are frequently inconsistent, anomalous, antinomic and occasionally fuzzy headed;
  4. Promote efficient government even though every institution—public and private—involves much inevitable waste, fraud, and mismanagement;
  5. Engage in pay-as-you-go legislation and yet privately desire to spend even more money;
  6. Spend Other People’s Money (OPM) to benefit others;
  7. Debate the use of force and use it when necessary to promote the nation’s security and well being;
  8. Prefer substance over fluff and allow others to display their own flags and symbols in their own way;
  9. Burn the wagons or drive them into the ditch if someone disagrees with them on any proposition thereby snatching defeat from the jaws of victory at every opportunity;
  10. Lose.

In the end, however, fear almost always trumps and triumphs over hope.  Thus, the outcome in elections in the last 30 years is not surprising.  The Republicans have circled the wagons; the Democrats have also circled their wagons after some missteps.  Could 2008 be different?

Bumper sticker of the week:

Wag more

Bark less

Looking Back and Ahead (December 31, 2007)

Posted in Economics, Law, Politics, Society on December 31, 2007 by e-commentary.org

The Mortgage Meltdown continues unabated.  Someone should collect a chronological list of the statements of the economists and businessmen in 2007 who predicted that the Mortgage Meltdown was “no big deal.”

The political pundits have voted.  ________________ is the Republican nominee. ________________ is the Democratic nominee.  No doubt about it, they proclaim.  Someone should collect a chronological list of the prognosticators’ predictions in 2007 and those yet to be made in 2008.  What do the tenth-graders say:  Faze the Nation; Beat the Press; Almost Broadcasting Company; Faux News; Useless News and World Distort; The Compost, etc.; those crazy kids.

The Neo-Confidence Men (“Neo-Cons” in ordinary parlance) have once again declared “Mission Accomplished” in Iraq.  The pundits seem to be bamboozled again.  More Americans died in Iraq in 2007 than in any other year.  World War III continues unabated.  The escalation surge has not advanced any fundamental interests.  The cauldron in Iraq and the Middle East continues to roil and boil and percolate.  Afghanistan and Pakistan and ________stan are roiling and boiling and percolating.

Someone observed that “’experience’ is simply the name we give to our mistakes.”  Now may be the time to call our recent experiences mistakes.

The sports pages are laced with steroids and punctuated with asterisks.  Turn off the tv and go biking, hiking, running, living.  The writing in the sports pages is still worth reading.

Global climate change/warming is heating up and is the subject of ordinary conversation.  Embryonic stem cells may now be available without controversy.

Resolution for 2008.  The Republic needs every citizen to commit to a private sector health care initiative.  Eat less; exercise more.  Exercise your mouth less and your feet more.  At least in January.

Prediction for 2008.  An ugly, vicious, amusing and expensive political campaign.  Something big will happen abroad (Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan, ________stan, Yemen, etc.) in Aug. – Oct. and all bets will be off.  Or what is happening at home in the economy will finally become clear to the electorate and command attention.

And Anna Nichole Smith, RIP.

Bumper stickers of the year:

If all economists were laid end to end, they would not reach a conclusion.  GBS

If all political pundits were laid end to end, they would not reach a clue.

If all climatologists were laid end to end, they would ___ would not ___ reach a consensus.

Experience is simply the name we give to our mistakes.  Oscar Wilde

Term Limits (May 14, 2007)

Posted in Politics, Term Limits on May 14, 2007 by e-commentary.org

Senators Byrd, Stevens and Inouye (and others) haul billions of dollars of pork to West Virginia, Alaska and Hawaii (and other locales).  Some say that the citizens of those states can exercise the franchise and limit their terms of office.  However, the citizens of these states want the pork.  The problem is that the citizens of other states cannot vote to get politicians from offending states out of office and away from the public trough.

Term limits are necessary to reduce abusive spending, among other public maladies.  Term limits of six two-year terms in the House and two six-year terms in the Senate balance the desires for institutional memory and new ideas.  The professional politician will be limited to two dozen years in the Congress.  The 22nd Amendment states in pertinent part that: “No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice . . . .”  The consummate professional pol is limited to three decades ((2 x 6) + (6 x 2) + (4 x 2)) at both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue.  Most individuals focus their careers on either the House (Sam Rayburn) or the Senate (Strom Thurmond) and would be limited by these limits.  These limits are hardly restrictive, yet they provide some outside parameters.

Bumper sticker of the week:

Stop Repeat Offenders
Don’t Re-elect Them

Who Is Your Big Bad Bogeyman? (March 26, 2007)

Posted in Book Reference, Political Parties, Politics on March 26, 2007 by e-commentary.org

In general, at a young age, individuals select, consciously or unconsciously, a Big Bad Bogeyman, either Big Government or Big Business.  All political views emanate from that fundamental decision.  Nock, Van Hayek, M. Friedman and their ilk don’t realize or acknowledge that Big Business can oppress as efficiently and mercilessly as Big Government.  Galbraith, Nader and their ilk don’t realize or acknowledge that Big Government can oppress as efficiently and mercilessly as Big Business.  For all but a few individuals, acknowledging two Big Bogeymen is intellectually and emotionally overwhelming.  F. Scott Fitzgerald is said to have said:  “The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in the mind at the same time, and still retain the ability to function.”  In politics, the few first rate intellects must challenge and confront the two Big Bogeymen who are equally dangerous.  John Dos Passos could handle it.

Bumper sticker of the week:

Question Authority, But Ask The Right Questions

Investigate, Impeach and Indict? (March 12, 2007)

Posted in Bush, Politics on March 12, 2007 by e-commentary.org

The I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby trial and conviction for lying and obstruction of justice provided a glimpse into the corruption and dishonesty in Washington.  The denouement–Bush will pardon him.  Congress should continue investigating the goings-on over the last seven years.  The statements regarding the firing and hiring of U.S. Attorneys are at least unethical if not illegal.  U.S. Attorneys are senior partners of the world’s largest and most powerful law firm and can inflict great violence and grief on the public.  In addition, the U.S. Attorney’s Office is an “on deck circle” if not the “batter’s box” for federal judgeships.  Capture the Offices and control the Judiciary.

Now may be the time for the House of Representatives to consider holding hearings regarding the impeachment of Bush and Cheney.  A prosecutor (or independent prosecutor) should investigate and consider indicting Bush, Cheney, Rove, Gonzalez and others.  Lying is perjury.  Lying to obstruct justice is obstruction of justice.  [See the e-ssay dated February 20, 2006 entitled “Perjury, the American Way”].  Using the passive voice (“Mistake were made.”) is usually an admission that one is actively involved in creating the mistakes.  Enough is enough; more than enough is enough.  Nixon should have been held accountable for Watergate; Reagan should have been accountable for Iran-Contra.  The situation in the world will get worse over the next 22 months under the best of circumstances.  However, the rate of deterioration can be slowed by purposeful action.  Cleaning house now is critical.

Halliburton, Cheney’s old company, is now fleeing the ship, the good ship United States.  The company is cutting and running and will be able to avoid paying what few taxes it is currently paying.  In addition, the company can hide assets and dodge any recoupment efforts for its overbilling of and fraud upon the United States taxpayer.  [See the e-ssay dated April 11, 2005 entitled “The ‘Ownership State’ and ‘Bush, Inc.'”].

Bumper stickers of the week:

Blind Faith In Bad Leaders
Is Not Patriotism

I Never Thought I’d Miss John Mitchell

Minimum Wage and Maximum Earners (July 31, 2006)

Posted in Economics, Estate Tax, Politics on July 31, 2006 by e-commentary.org

Raising the minimum wage to provide a livable wage is virtuous.  However, the economic evidence is almost irrefutable that a rise in the minimum wage leads to a reduction in employment.  The head says no.  The heart says yes.  Support the higher wage.

The Democrats are critical of the effort to raise the amount exempt from the estate tax.  However, raising the exemption to 10 million per couple would protect the assets of many hard-working members of the Greatest Generation.  [See the April 18, 2005 e-ssay entitled “Death and Taxes: $10 M and 33 1/3 %.”]  The more substantial figures suggested in the pending legislation are excessive.  Some who seek to eliminate the estate tax altogether may view this change as a start.  However, if reasonable legislation is adopted, the momentum to eliminate the estate tax altogether may dissipate.

Presidential Signing Orders (May 22, 2006)

Posted in Bush, Law, Politics on May 22, 2006 by e-commentary.org

High school civics classes teach us that the legislature passes laws, the executive implements laws, and the courts interpret laws.  Legislative bodies pass the laws and provide “legislative intent” that accompanies the actual language in the legislation itself.  Presidents in recent years have been trying to create “executive intent” by appending a “presidential signing order” to the legislation when it is signed.  The p.s.o. provides the Presidents spin on the legislation.  The President is giving direction to executive agencies such as Health and Human Services, Environmental Protection Agency, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, Labor, etc. to shape the interpretation of the legislation.

The various courts in the country employ a variety of tests to determine “legislative intent.”  To date, courts do not resort to “executive intent” to construe a law.  To date, law students are not taught to divine “executive intent.”  In the future, courts could be induced to resort to an analysis of the presidents twist.

The likely effect of a p.s.o is much more subtle and pernicious.  The p.s.o. directs an agency to undertake a different interpretation of a law than the legislature intended.  As an agency administers a law over the years, the agency’s interpretation becomes a generally accepted standard.  In a case, Udall v. Tallman, 360 U.S. 1, 16 (1965), the United States Supreme Court held:  “When faced with a problem of statutory construction, this Court shows great deference to the interpretation given the statute by the officers or agency charged with its administration.”  The same is true of the administrative regulations adopted to implement a statute.  “When the construction of an administrative regulation rather than a statute is in issue, deference is even more clearly in order.”  Thus, the p.s.o. exercises an indirect but nonetheless potent impact on the interpretation of a law.  A president who aggressively stacks the judiciary with ideologues and then redirects the interpretation of laws via p.s.o.s will have a far greater influence for many more years than an executive who merely signs legislation without comment.

There is nothing in the Constitution to incorporate the intent of the executive at any time.  Each incoming president may find it necessary to issue a series of revised presidential signing orders to reflect the current “executive intent.”  An incoming president may need to assemble a transition staff charged with redirecting the practice of the bureaucracy.  The first one hundred days of an administration may be marked not by new legislation but by new spin on extant legislation.  An incoming president could issue a report a week for each executive agency.

[Phillip J. Cooper author of By Order of the President:  the Use and Abuse of Executive Direct Action discusses presidential signing statements in more detail.]

The Arithmetic of Hope (April 3, 2006)

Posted in Economics, PATRIOT Act, Politics, USA PATRIOT Act on April 3, 2006 by e-commentary.org

1 Senator voted against the UnPatriot Act when it was initially passed.

36 Senators voted against the nomination of Alberto Gonzales.

44 senators voted against the nomination of Samuel Alito.

48 Senators voted against increasing the debt ceiling to nine (9) Trillion dollars.

(On August 7, 1964, 2 Senators voted against the “Gulf of Tonkin Resolution,” Ernest Gruening of Alaska and Wayne Morse of Oregon.)

California Prisons Explode Again (February 13, 2006)

Posted in Law, Politics, Prison/Criminology, Supreme Court on February 13, 2006 by e-commentary.org

Almost a year after Johnson v. California was issued by the Supremes, the California prison system exploded again.  [See the February 28, 2005 e-ssay entitled “The Courts, the California prison experiment and the Y Chromosome.”]  Prisoners fight and fornicate.  The legal issue is black and white (and brown).  Prisoners of all stripes uniformly requested to be segregated.  The jury has spoken.  Respect the jury.  Separate the prisoners.