Boehner – Does He Mean What He Says?

The immediate aftermath of President Obama’s announced immigration reform changes has boggled the minds of any logic driven person. John Boehner has been particularly indignant in his criticism, almost to the point of stammering. Obama has “poisoned the well”, “stuck his finger in the eye of the people’s House”, and “hurt the office of President itself”. Well why hasn’t the House already taken action?  Hmmm.

It is true that Boehner is in a tough spot. He uttered remarks weeks ago aimed at discouraging President Obama from taking this action. So to just let the issue pass would not be the signal Boehner would want to send.

Boehner also has some odd caucus members. This group endorsed shutting down the government and has recommended impeaching the President. This group’s views while out of step with most of America are well received in their home districts. Boehner’s problem, how to keep these (dare I say) extremists in line?

The plain facts are that the Senate passed a bi-partisan compromise immigration reform bill in 2013 and the GOP controlled House never brought the bill to the floor of discussion or vote. The House (or as Boehner says, the People’s House) chose not to act upon immigration reform. So does Boehner mean that the President needs to wait until the House is ready to act, or does he mean the President needs to wait until Boehner can get control of his extremist faction?

Those who claim that the President does not have the Constitutional powers to take these executive actions are mistaken. The House does have, however, the option of “defunding” the government agencies charged with enforcing Obama’s executive actions but that may prove far more difficult than it sounds.

The House has regularly said they wished to pursue immigration reform in a series of independent steps. The President has said “pass a bill” and replace the need for his actions. The GOP now finds itself in a tough spot. If it passes a piecemeal size reform bill, then President Obama can leave in place those parts of his order that the GOP bill does not cover.

If the House does pass a comprehensive bill, then the President must decide whether it is fair enough to sign and not veto. If he signs, this would represent real progress.  If the President vetoes the bill, then until a new bill is presented his executive orders remain in effect.

If, on the other hand, the House “hoots and hollers” and does nothing, Hispanics will have another chance to express their views in the 2016 Presidential election. Hmmm.

Is This About Boehner Being Speaker?

The Speaker of the House of Representatives is John Boehner.  On January 3, 2013, he might be reelected by his Republican majority, or he might not.  If not, Boehner will be just Representative Boehner, a smoker, a golf enthusiast, and a fan of tanning salons.

The alleged positions of President Obama and Speaker Boehner are so close even a first grader could find the middle and reach a compromise.  For some reason, these two can not.

Obama and Boehner are two men who also know the consequences, at least short term, of reaching no agreement by year end.  The general public will be mad and the stock markets will be furious.  Beyond the fiscal cliff issue, failure will signal two more years of total gridlock in Congress.  Public opinion on the value of government (not its services) will be in the toilet.

Here’s one take.

Suppose Speaker Boehner and the President announce an agreement.  Let’s say it is taxes up for those earning $500,000 or more, increase in dividends and capital gains taxes, and changes to Medicare and Social Security plus some other miscellaneous cuts.  The deal is about $2 trillion over 10 years.

The House votes on these measures and Speaker Boehner cannot deliver enough Republican votes for the measure to pass.  Come January 3rd, it will likely be Speaker Cantor.

From Boehner’s eyes, ending his Speakership for $2 trillion (roughly $200 billion a year) when we are sporting $1 trillion a year deficits might not seem a good bet.  Narrowly viewed, he is probably correct.  Viewed more broadly, the fiscal cliff is a surrogate for Americans believing their government can be effective.  Even a small step is important.

The 7/24 talking heads have told us repeatedly that we are watching Kabuki theater.  The ending is already known and what we are watching is the dancing that leads up to it.  I am beginning to think that is not the case.

Agreement by year end is a goal which can cement John Boehner’s legacy.  If he agrees to a compromise and gets it passed in the House, Boehner will clearly be seen as an effective leader.  If the compromise fails in the House, Boehner will be seen as a courageous leader who deserved better.

 

 

 

In Nature (and the Natural World) We Trust

Did you hear what the House of Representatives did this past week?  No, they did not debate President Obama’s jobs bill, nor did they propose any other plan that would (according to the CBO) generate 1+ million jobs.  And no, they did not propose legislation that would reduce the debt and deficit either.  Well, what did they do?

The House took time to introduce, discuss, and pass a measure to reaffirm the US motto, “In God We Trust”.

This feel good action, of course, accomplishes nothing.  It may appeal to a few bible thumpers but in term of the general health or security of the country, it was a zero.

I recently saw the play “New Jerusalem” by David Ives.  New Jerusalem is about the teachings of 17 century philosopher Baruch Spinoza and most specificly about his banishment from his Jewish community for what amounts to being a disbeliever.

What did Spinoza say?  He defined god as nature, and nature as god.  Scripture, he said, was nice, maybe at times helpful but it was not divine.  Scripture was man made and subject to all the frailties of man.  Natural law, that derived from what we can know about nature, is not subjects to whims or greed or arrogance.

Ironically the House which should have been spending its time debating serious issues facing the country instead, totally by accident, may have underscored an important truth.  Americans actually do put their trust in nature and the natural laws.  Think about driving a car, riding in an airplane, or turning on the electricity in your home.  Do you pray to god when you send a text message? It is, rather, this faith in nature that drives Americans and will lead America out of mess we find ourselves in (with no help needed from the religious communities).

The more I say it, the more it sounds just right.  In Nature We Trust.

Saving the Lemmings?

Next Monday, following a wise delay of Congressional proceedings in respect for the tragic Tuscon shootings, the “Congressional, Tea Party dominated, Republican lemmings” will begin their march toward the cliffs of irresponsibility.  Is there anyway to save them?

The answer, of course, is yes.  The real question is whether the lemmings will heed the wiser course.

Here’s what I mean.  Republicans have been given the reigns of government (well actually only the House) after having disgraced their last opportunity with George W Bush.  Why should they squander this chance when a good job may actually bring them control of both houses and possibly the trifecta, the Presidency?

There are three pieces of legislation that are important to the Country, and important to building the image that Republicans are worthy of governing.  They are:

• Real Health Care Reform
• Comprehensive Immigration Reform
• Significant Reform of the Tax Code

These are three pieces of legislation which do not need to have a conservative or progressive flavor.  They represent legislation which are fundamentally vital to growth and economic prosperity.  Here’s how.

• Health Care. After the Republican lemmings try and fail to repeal President Obama’s reform, a wise Republican leadership would bring forward their best ideas on how to reign in the current out of control health care cost picture and in that process propose ways to make Medicare/Medicaid solvent and sustainable.  Voters will see this as responsible leadership, not to mention a great relief for the ever growing costs they incur.
• Comprehensive Immigration Reform.  With an estimate 11 million or more undocumented aliens living (and working) in the US, there is no practical way to return them to their home countries.  Most of these undocumented residents are Mexican and represent a special problem due to the proximity of our two countries.  Stemming the tide of new, undocumented workers, can be made much easier if those already here have proof of their rights to be here.  A route to citizenship is a must.  Mexican immigrants represent a source of workers as well as much wanted customers, and come with hard working, strong family values.
• Tax Code Reform. The current US tax code should be reformed if for no other reason than it is too complicated for an average person to complete.  Taxes should be simple and today they are not.  A second and even more compelling reason is that by eliminating many deductions, it might be possible to either keep the Bush Tax cuts or even reduce rates further, while still increasing tax revenues.  The solvency of the US demands more tax revenues and this might be an interesting win-win.  Republicans could say they held the line on tax increases and Democrats could say they took steps to significantly reduce the deficit.

 

 

These three pieces of legislation will have non-congressional supporters and opponents.  The airwaves will be filled with dire warnings no matter what is proposed.  Never the less, there are not three more important and potentially politically advantageous pieces of legislation on the horizon.

 

No Help

On the first business day of the New Year, Republican Congressional leaders signaled clearly that their first priority was passing a House bill to repeal the Obama Health Care reform.  If that were to fail (and they know it will) in the Senate, then House Republicans would try to defund the reform piece by piece in House Committees.  How’s that for bi-partisan cooperation?

Most everyone over the age of reason knows that when someone says “I hate my job and I quit”, that is not the wisest or most responsible action unless there is another job ready for the taking.  What do the Republicans propose to replace the current reform?

Republicans certainly have points that are hard to argue with.  Putting constraints on malpractice law suits awards will help control costs (but in no way is a solution to the cost problems).  Allowing health insurance to be sold across States lines might help affordability insure more people, but interestingly they seem to be forgetting their States Rights stands in this case.

But what substantive ideas do they have to really reduce health care costs?  How do they propose to ensure anyone can obtain affordable basic health care coverage?  How do they propose to control the increase in health care costs?

The Obama health care reform, although far from perfect, at least made it possible for 30 million more Americans to gain health care coverage.  It did fall short of reducing health care cost and did nothing to prevent the continued escalation of health care costs.

There is enough room on this issue to drive a thousand 18 wheelers side by side through.  We need less rhetoric and more solid proposals.  Do you think we will get them?

 

The Peace of August

In August the world seems so peaceful. For one thing, the airwaves are quieter because Senators Fluster and Bluster are at home during the Senate recess. Representatives Pork and Barrel are vacationing too with only the interest that of attending a few fund raisers. Politics almost seems honorable and decent.

News makers are left with little to write about. Public opinion polls are often the best game in town. The problem is, “what do they mean?”

Across the polls, results reveal voter dissatisfaction with the economic recovery. The implication is that Democrats will suffer (read President Obama has not done his job and fixed the economy). Polls also describe the low opinion voters have for Congress and their desire to vote out the bums. Good copy, however, can be generated by predicting that Democrats will lose control of both the House and the Senate from these polls.

One can say that voters are simply not thinking or even worse are not capable of understanding. The restoration of economic growth and good jobs is a very complicated event, and the economic slow down happened during a Republican presidency. It should be no surprise that sound bites cannot convey the magnitude or complexity of what is involved. And while Congress is so compromised and special interests rule the ways, the underlying problem is less the Congress member as it is the current system in which they must work. Campaign finance and ethical standards are deadly traps and contribute the most to voters’ disgust.

The really big “hoot” in all this is, if the pollsters are correct, Republican candidates will sweep out enough Democrats to attain a majority and control of Congress. What do the polls say about Republicans? Their approval rating, as a party, is 20%!!! This is lower than Congress, lower than George W Bush, and approaching whale excrement.

Ethics or What?

The House Ethics Committee is dealing with two long term House Democrat members.  The unfolding process is baffling.

Representative Charles Rangel has chosen to contest his charges in an open trial and Representative Maxime Waters has similarly opted. What would these two representatives be thinking? Why didn’t they settle for the normal “wrist slap” and be done with it?

Rangel has admitted he was a little sloppy with the paper work (not reporting income from Caribbean vacation homes). Waters claims she did nothing to help a bank that her husband owned stock in. I wonder whether these two are judging their own actions by the standards they see around them.  (Senator Dodd accepted a “VIP” (read favorable interest rate) mortgage from a lender his committee was supposed to overseeing.) Is Rangel and Waters simply saying “why us?”

Ethics and political behavior seem today terms that are at odds with each other. With campaigns costing millions and for most Congress members there is no such thing as free time. When not in Washington, Congress members must raise money for the next election. If they worked as hard at the Congressional job, things might be better.  Instead they trade their vote for some special interest’s money.

The cat is out of the box, and short of resignations, the trials will take place. Since both members are african-american and democrats, there will be little sympathy in the broad public. These charges are necessary to have any chance at limiting misuse of office, but even convictions is unlikely to change the amount of similar behavior by other Congress members.

I am waiting for some clergy members to speak up as character witnesses for these two souls.

Leadership?

The question of the week is how does a President coordinate the legislative activities of a co-equal branch of government (Congress), and especially when each member of the House or Senate is deeply concerned with raising money for his or her next election?

In today’s papers there is another report of President Obama meeting with key Republicans seeking some bi-partisan efforts. His meeting, however, ended in polite but testy disagreements on the President’s efforts.

Republicans claim that the White House undercut compromises they were willing to accept and therefore drove the vote on Financial Reform to a partisan decision. It is very difficult to not believe there is some measure of truth in their claims.

As with health care reform, the White House never framed the Financial Reform legislation in end goals, principles to maintain, and specific strategies. Leadership was left to the overarching goal of “no more bail outs” and “never experiencing another near implosion”. This is something everyone would agree with but is not prescriptive on what should be done.

Large numbers of voters are discouraged with the type of behavior their Congressmen display. Larger numbers of voters do not like the work of Congress. It appears, however, Congress is stuck in a rut. As though out the ages, Congress tells their constituents what they want to hear, but Congress only delivers to those who pay the bills.

Financial Reform

There is a strange feeling circulating that deja vu is happening all over again. Instead of health care as the subject, Congress is now immeshed in placing some restraints on the sprawling and somewhat opaque financial sector. Months ago when most of the world’s financial sector almost imploded, the combined governments of Bush and Obama did what they could as quickly as they could to avoid a catastrophe they suspected was imminent. Except for a few forced mergers and the allowed failure of Lehman Brothers, there was little else in terms of consequences. Worse still, there has been no changes in the rules, so in theory everything could be repeated.

The political similarity of the two issues engages voter frustration with Congress. Republicans have decided to sit on their hands and simply bad mouth the resulting Democratic bill. “It doesn’t go far enough”. “It institutionalizes bank bailouts”. “We need to throw it out and start over”. Sound familiar?

The financial reform waters seem even murkier than those with health care. Banks are huge contributors to both political parties.  The Washington mall has seen more green backs than cherry blossoms. Who should one believe?

Financial reform differs from health care in that death panels and abortion rights, two emotive issues, do not apply. The language of finance is also a lot less familiar to most Americans.  Terms like mortgage backed securities or credit default swaps are extremely difficult to understand. Voters recognize greed (like the out of bounds bonuses) when they see it, but they cannot directly connect that to reform.

Representative Barney Frank describe the House bill as requiring credit default swaps (estimated as $50-60 trillion market !!!) to be traded in an open and regulated market, and that government agencies should have the power to intervene and take over any large bank considered likely to fail. The important provision, however, was that in that case, top management would be replaced and all share holders would loose their equity.

The recent charge of fraud against Goldman Sachs rests on the fact that it was not public knowledge that a hedge fund (Goldman’s client) was buying CDS on the basis that it felt certain mortgage backed securities (recommended by Goldman) would fail. Putting CDSs in an open market setting might have helped. The idea that a bank is too big to fail and if it needs Government intervention, top management will lose their jobs and shareholders will be wiped out, should put more governance responsibility back into play.

So why can’t Republicans step back on their objections, let the bill pass, and then introduce tougher legislation (especially if they should win control of the Senate in November)?

For quite different reasons (from health care), financial reform is very important to the US. Playing politics by not participating is a risky game. Americans will conclude the fair thing is to stand aside if you choose not to play. In the meantime, Democrats should get the sleeping cots ready for Republicans should they decide to filibuster.

The Morning After

In what can only be described as either a victory for the world’s greatest democratic process, or the sorry output of a corrupt, incompetent, and mean spirited Congress, never the less, the health care reform bill passed the House of Representatives yesterday and is destined to become law shortly. Which one is it?

As reforms go, it probably falls in the middle. As for what the Country needed, it is woefully short. But in the perspective of change, it is a giant step towards universal health care and bringing the US into the modern world.

Imagine for a moment that Congress had passed instead a reform bill doing away with all subsidies for health care. According to some, that would have been the right path for free enterprise and libertarian freedom. So there would be no employer provided health care, no Medicare or Medicaid, and no government supports of any kind. Everyone could choose for themselves whether they would purchase insurance, and every insurance company could set its own rules on what it would cover. This is America at its “free-ist”.

In this new free world, each household would be in the market trying to find coverage for themselves and their children, if they could afford it. Seniors would get to decide between food, heat, or medical insurance, if they could afford or get it. The truly poor would simply have to get used to going without any coverage since even Emergency Rooms would be under no obligation to provide care. Pretty picture?

So you might say, let’s add back some of the government support. Employer provided insurance seems logical (even though it is a tax in another name). Medicare and Medicaid seem necessary because Gramma shouldn’t be forced out of her home in order to pay for health care. And it seems cruel to punish some children because their parents are profoundly poor.

But why would you stop with just these subsidies we have known for years?

The cost of health care, before the passage of this bill, was already out of control. It will continue to be out of control until there is true health care reform. The good news is that when the next health care debate arise, the question will be how to reduce and contain costs, and not who should be covered.