ESSAY: The Congressional ACA Deal: Not An Exemption, Just More of the Same

Essay: The Congressional ACA Deal: Not An Exemption, Just More of the Same

-Christopher Carroll

Congress isn’t giving itself an ObamaCare exemption, but the deal recently reached with the White House isn’t doing the Affordable Care Act any favors.

Congress and their staffers, after a small measure of hysteria, do not need to worry that they will lose the health insurance coverage provided them by the federal government: the Obama administration has seen to that. With the deal came a collective sigh of relief from congressional offices across the country. It also came with a sense of resentment from many voters.

The issue arose when it was realized that Democrats had agreed to a provision written into the Affordable Care Act by Senator Charles Grassley (R.-Iowa) requiring Congress and their staffers to be covered by health insurance offered through the ACA exchanges. What at the time was perceived to be rather minor legislation has now seemingly overly burdensome for the Congressmen who wrote the law.

 

The difference between the old and new systems is by no means inconsequential. Right now, prior to implementation of the ACA on January 1st, members of Congress and their aides are covered through the Federal Employee Benefits Program, a program that covers 75% of premiums. Grassley’s statute, however, means that about 11,000 Congressmen, aides and staff would lose that coverage. Additionally, Congressmen and some staffers wouldn’t be able to qualify for other benefits provided by the ACA. “The Members – annual salary: $174,000 – and their better-paid aides also wouldn’t qualify for ObamaCare subsidies,” explains the Wall Street Journal. “That means they could be exposed to thousands of dollars a year in out of pocket expenses.”

The deal has expectedly been met with scathing remarks and scorn. Republicans on the Hill, including Sen. David Vitter (R.-La.), have not wasted time to make political hay, calling Obamacare “a train-wreck, even for Congress.” Many voters are angry as well, interpreting the deal as more back room dealings by untrustworthy Congressmen placing the burdens of unwanted laws on the people while exempting themselves.

Others, meanwhile, do not see the deal as an exception for Congress at all. Nancy Pelosi (D.-Ca.) believes that the deal resolves legislation that was meant simply to embarrass Democrats, “and the collateral damage was to staff.” Ezra Klein, the popular writer at Wonkblog, has pointed out that the deal is not an exemption at all and calling it one is misguided. Instead, the deal is meant to fix a problem created by the Grassley amendment.

Français : (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

The issue at hand isn’t about the cost the deal may or may not force on individuals. Instead, it is an issue of law, logistics and timing. As explained by Mr. Klein, “Grassley’s amendment means that the largest employer in the country is required to put some of its employees — the ones working for Congress — on the exchanges. But the exchanges don’t have any procedures for handling premium contributions for large employers” until 2017. In other words, because large employers aren’t allowed on the health exchanges, Congressional staffers and aides will not be afforded the same opportunities that most Americans will be offered under the Affordable Care Act. They will, in effect, be penalized for working for the government.

****

Americans angry at Congress are misdirecting their frustration; the public’s enmity should instead be directed towards Obama administration and the administration that should be embarrassed.

The President’s crowning achievement, the Affordable Care Act, was conceived with exemplary intentions. Free healthcare for all has long been an idea dearly held by many liberal lions throughout the decades and this bill was meant to get America closer to that ideal. However, the bill is crumbling around itself.

Earlier this year, the administration postponed the employer mandate of the ACA, weakening the law so as to buy time for businesses to implement the new requirements. Now, Americans hear of more band-aid fixes and backroom deals, necessary to rectify further failures to anticipate the needs of government workers.

The deal itself, is good. It is not an attempt by Congressmen to get out of a poorly constructed bill. It is simply an attempt to treat congressional aides fairly, giving them the opportunity to receive employer benefit options, similar to ones that are going to be offered to people not affiliated with Congress. However, Congressmen and aides should bare in mind that this fight has come at a political cost for Obama and the ACA in general. On the surface, the deal appears to be an attempt by Congress to avert being subjected to laws already imposed upon the people. The political ramifications of those feelings are dangerous during good economic times, even more so when felt during times of economic instability and high unemployment.  Congressmen would be smart to take time to explain this to their constituencies. The ACA is already an immensely complicated bill. Most people are misinformed about what it does and how it could help them and this deal is more bad press for a bill that has received precious little.

 

It is a shame that a bill that was viewed as progress towards universal healthcare, a passion for generations of Democrats from FDR to Teddy Kennedy, has have been so badly botched. Could ObamaCare do more harm than good on the road towards universal healthcare in America? With each passing failure, the answer becomes a more emphatic, yes.

Book Review: Walter Russell Mead, Special Providence: American foreign Policy and How it Changed the World

BOOK REVIEW: Walter Russell Mead, Special Providence: American foreign Policy and How it Changed the World

-Christopher Carroll

 

Walter Russell Mead’s Special Providence: American Foreign Policy and How It Changed the World, is a wonderful book that is easy to read, engaging and provocative. Published in 2001, it won the Lionel Gelber Award for the best book written in English on International Relations in 2002.

Mead theorizes that American foreign policy has been exceedingly successful and not the blundering mess that many consider it to have been. He defends this through examining four schools of international thought in American policies: the Hamiltonian, where protection of economic markets and American economic interests reigns supreme, the Wilsonian, where creation of a moral world order and governing system is key, the Jeffersonian, where protection of the American constitution is the primary interest of government and the Jacksonian, where populist opinions and American folk values rule international action. The interplay between these schools, according to Mead, is one of the reasons American foreign policy has been so successful.

Cover via Amazon

Mead’s writing and analysis are fantastic. His engaging style is easily comprehended, allowing his argument to take full effect. By turning to the American past, he is able to identify pillars of American thought and tap into his audiences’ sense of American history, lore and culture. This allows Mead to guide the audience through his description of the schools and how they have influenced American policy.

Though written before the tumultuous events that have followed the terror attacks on September 11, 2001, Mead’s analysis has been proven both correct and relevant to today’s readership. His argument that American foreign policy is in the most danger when the nationalist and globalist schools do not have a common goal or enemy has been realized of late. In these ambiguous times, though all four schools get a little bit of what they want, the country’s policy is often middling. The schools, which all play exceedingly important roles in policy making, must be able to agree on a common hegemonic paradigm (like during the Cold War) for American policy to function successfully. When it does, Mead would argue, American foreign policy is uniquely successful and powerful.

****

Though Mead professes to identify with the Jeffersonian school, he seems he writes most persuasively for the school he attributes to Andrew Jackson. Mead is right to stress the importance of a frequently overlooked and misunderstood portion of American society. Folk culture and interests have undeniably strong effects on domestic and foreign politics. Because of this, the Jacksonian and Jeffersonian schools will play major roles in American foreign policy in the near future.

The economic meltdown has brought resentment upon the Hamiltonians and the toll that the War on Terror has taken has made the country Wilsonian-weary. Already, the country’s reluctance to enter conflicts in Syria, Egypt and Libya are proof of the nation’s hesitancy to follow the moralistic preferences of Wilsonians. Instead, the minimalist nature of Jacksonian foreign policy, supported by Jacksonian populism, will lead American policy. The world will likely see a more hesitant America in the world of foreign policy. America will, for a short time at least, adopt a foreign policy that could be described as a  “what doesn’t hurt us, won’t concern us” strategy. This is likely to be sound strategy in a world marked by global economic insecurity and idealistic dissemblance.

ESSAY: The Importance of Trust in National Security: So Hard to Earn, So Easy to Lose

ESSAY: The Importance of Trust in National Security: So Hard to Earn, So Easy to Lose

-Christopher Carroll

It has been a busy couple of months for anyone who follows national security policy. This week has been no different. Yesterday, in a press conference, President Obama announced his plans to reform the National Security Agency’s surveillance programs, opening the door for further scrutiny of the NSA’s practices. This follows a whirlwind of recent surveillance and security debates, starting with Edward Snowden’s disclosures and culminating with this week’s closure of 19 American embassies and diplomatic outposts. That whirlwind has gotten our politicians and citizens to finally start asking the right question: How much surveillance and security do we need and what are we willing to give up for it? The answer lies in how President Obama will gain the trust of those he governs.

****

On Tuesday, the State Department closed 19 embassies, including those in Yemen, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Libya, and ordered that all non-essential, non-emergency personnel be removed from Yemen. The order came following American intelligence suggested that Ayman al Zawahiri, Osama bin Laden’s successor, and Nasir al-Wahishi, the leader of AQAP and a man believed to have been recently promoted to the second highest ranking official in the global organization, were planning a major attack.

The closure of the embassies has had mixed reception. House Homeland Security Committee chairman Michael McCaul (R-Tx.) called it a “very smart call” while Rep. Dutch Ruppersburger said it was based on a “very credible” threat, “based on intelligence.” Meanwhile, Yemeni Foreign Minister Abu-Bakr worried that the closures of U.S embassies was handing terrorists victories. NBC analyst and former director of the National Counterterrorism Center  Michael Lieter, criticized the State Department as well, claiming the threat is overblown “hyperbole,” coming from “reckless commentators or ill-informed or ill-spoken Hill folks,” said Leiter.

****

Regardless of whether or not the threat was appropriately responded to, the fact remains that American intelligence gathering practices have again been brought to the foreground.

American surveillance practices are by no means unique in the world. French newspaper Le Monde has reported has reported that the French DGSE has been collecting “meta-data” similar to the NSA’s PRISM program. Others, including former NSA General Counsel Stewart Baker, allege that European nationals are more likely to be watched by their own government than Americans are from theirs.

Obama’s speech marks just the latest turn of events. The Snowden disclosures and subsequent uproar that followed it, along with the criticism of the administration’s alarming prosecution of “leakers,” has forced the President to address the intelligence and security issue head on.

The President intends to make the nation’s surveillance policies more transparent. He proposed creating a public advocate, or ombudsman, charged with providing a barrier to any unnecessary erosion of privacy rights and the tightening of what is allowed by section 215 of the Patriot Act. These steps, he hopes, will help provide both Americans and the entire world with the ability to have “confidence in these programs. The American people need to have confidence in them,” said President Obama, as does “leadership around the world.” Will President Obama be able to gain that trust?

****

It will be very interesting to see whether these new proposals are effective and if they are even implemented at all. Some lawmakers, including Rep. Peter King (R – N.Y.) feel that the proposals are incredibly dangerous and, in the words of Rep. King, are “a monumental failure in presidential wartime leadership and responsibility.”

Transparency is always good in a democracy. The more transparent a program, the easier it is for both the implementers of the program and those affected by it know what is allowed and expected of them.  As was seen this week in As seen this week in Yemen, the world is more dangerous now than ever before. Like a snake in long grass, enemies and terrorists can strike unseen with incredible precision and power. The Atlantic Ocean is no longer the barrier that it was in 1772 or even 1942. There are now countless ways for a small group of individuals to wreak havoc on an entire nation half a world away. Though we outspend the entire world on defense, we are no safer than we were at any other time in our nation’s history. What are we willing to do to defend ourselves?

The President should be applauded for acknowledging the controversy surrounding these programs and for his desire to make them as transparent as possible. However, he and his administration must do a better job of communicating to the nation and the world what these programs accomplish. We need to know what has been done and, without compromising national secrets, how they have been done for one simple reason: trust. .

Trust is a trait that is impossibly difficult to attain and ridiculously easy to lose. The hyper-polarized nature of today’s politics and the unprecedented low-regard the nation has for Congress will not help President Obama gain trust, nor will the President’s poor policy communication skills, his inability to seem like one of the people or his lack of military service prior to his Presidency. Nevertheless, he must find a way to gain it so as to put the surveillance problems in his Presidency behind him. If Reagan, FDR or Eisenhower told the country that these programs were vital, the country would believe him and would stop asking questions. Obama needs to find a way to earn that trust.

The President bviously must do so without compromising the safety of our diplomats, soldiers or citizens. A public advocate is a good start and must be a person who is not only skeptical of the NSA in general but is also selected in a fashion that bestows public trust upon him or her. This will likely mean finding a person who dislikes both Congress and the President and is skeptical of government oversight and military power. Maybe this person is a former Supreme Court Justice. Maybe this person is nationally respected journalist.

Whomever is picked, maybe by finding the right person to protect the people, the President will gain the respect and trust of the people. Only then will he be able to tell those he governs that they can be safe in today’s dangerous world while retaining total privacy. Only then will he be able to tell the people they can have their cake and eat it too. Whether or not it is true won’t really matter.

Washington’s Best Kept Secret – A New Era for Newspapers?

Washington’s Best Kept Secret –  A New Era for Newspapers?

-Christopher Carroll

So much for a city unable to keep secrets. On Monday, the Washington Post Co. announced that it had sold it’s newspaper, the Washington Post to Amazon.com founder and CEO Jeff Bezos. The sale of what has historically been one of the most important newspapers has shocked journalists and audiences alike. After being owned for four generations by the Graham family, the newspaper that broke the Watergate scandal and more recently the IRS scandals is now a private entity, hopefully speeding towards a new era.

Image via CrunchBase

The Post, which will become a private company following Bezos’ purchase, was by no means impervious to the financial constraints felt by many news organizations. “They looked to the future and saw that they’d have to keep cutting,” wrote Ezra Klein, the popular Washington Post columnist and editor of the Post’s Wonkblog. The hope is that with Bezos’ incredible net worth, he will be able to refrain from cutting the newspaper’s budget or lower the level of quality journalism the paper’s audiences have grown to expect and appreciate.

The news has been met with excitement and uncertainty. Nobody knows for sure what will become of the influential newspaper. Carl Bernstein, one of the reporters made famous for his reporting on the Watergate scandal, said in an interview with POLITICO that sale comes after “recognition that a new kind of entrepreneurship and leadership, fashioned in the age of the new technology, is needed to lead not just the Post but perhaps the news business itself, in combining the best of enduring journalistic values with all the potential of the digital era.”

The Washington Post’s chairman and chief executive, Donald Graham, in an interview with the Washington Post, shared Bernstein’s hopes for the future, describing the move as not desperate but necessary for the strength of the newspaper. “The Post,” he said, “could have survived under the company’s ownership and been profitable for the foreseeable future. But we wanted to do more than survive. I’m not saying this guarantees success, but it gives us a much greater chance of success.”

Others, however, are less sure. Fears that Bezos’ ties with Amazon.com, one of the largest and most influential businesses in the world could influence the management of the Post are well taken. Some readers fear the Amazon’s political interests could dictate the journalistic priorities of the newspaper, skewing the journalism one direction or another. Though Bezos has said that the values of the Post do not need changing and that the “paper’s duty will remain to its readers and not to the private interests of its owners,”  who can say for certain what will happen five, ten, fifteen years down the road. As people grow accustomed to Bezos’ ownership, will the newspaper slant viewpoints, able to get away with framing issues once there is less public scrutiny?

 

****

        The Bezos purchase is exactly what the Washington Post and the entire industry needs. Though by no means the only recent purchase by an individual of a large and important news organization, his purchase and proclaimed appreciation for the Post’s values and standards is heartening and exciting.

Throughout history, the press has seen technological innovation. The penny press turned what was once an expensive endeavor operated by postal workers and rich politicians into a cheap mass messaging and educational tool, imperative to the strength of democratic governance. Digital technology have similarly transformed the newspaper’s place in America. As digital innovation has progressed from the radio, to television and the internet, the newspaper, the bulwark of democracy, has failed to keep up with increasingly cheaper and faster options. Newspapers as we have known them are dying. If anyone can open a new gate to a new role and life for these immensely important institutions, someone like Bezos can.

 

Taking Bezos’s professed intention to keep Amazon and the newspaper separate at face value, his investment in the organization will likely help keep this important “fourth estate” watchdog strong. Bezos, whose business, Amazon, was and still is an extraordinary example of market and technological innovation, will help bring an obsolete news machine into the new digital era. Perhaps he will find ways to keep newspapers not only priceless aspects of democracy, but also economically viable institutions. Until someone does, newspapers will remain in financial limbo, weakening their ability to provide services necessary to the health of our democracy.

With luck, this will mark a new age of philanthropy for organizations vital to the fabric of our communities and nation. Hopefully, Bezos’ purchase will mark a return to habits of old, when independently wealthy business owners across the country put money into organizations that they believe in. Hopefully newspapers and journalism will experience a rebirth similar to those seen in the past.

The Bleeding Has Stopped but the Job Market Is Not Recovering

The Bleeding Has Stopped but the Job Market Is Not Recovering

-Christopher Carroll

The most recent jobs report is further proof that the economic recovery is anemic. Not only is this not likely to change any time soon but if Washington fiscal policy continues, the “recovery” may never be realized. The United States may have to grow accustomed to middling growth and high unemployment rates.

The Department of Labor reported that the economy added jobs in July, cutting the 7.6 percent unemployment rate to 7.4.  However, this was lower than many expected and has given many people pause.

The seal of the United States Department of Labor (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Jackie Calmes and Catherine Rampell of the New York Times have pointed out that the number of federal workers forced to take unpaid time off has “soared this summer — to 199,000 in July, from 55,000 a year earlier.” This is directly attributable to the sequester, an attempt by Washington bureaucrats to rain in the national deficit by curtailing military and domestic spending.

This problem has not only been seen in the federal workforce. Nationally, the number of people working part-time involuntarily due to cut back hours, furloughs or an inability to find full-time employment was unchanged in July, remaining very high at 8.2 million people. Additionally, the number of long-term unemployed people remained at 4.2 million, roughly 37 percent of the overall unemployed.

The toll the sequester is taking on the economy is now widely recognized as a crippling hindrance on economic growth. Justin Wolfers, an economic professor at the Gerald R. Ford School of Public Policy, described the incompatibility gap between the economy’s needs and Washington policy as being “larger than any I’ve seen in my lifetime,” adding that “this is not the right time for fiscal retrenchment.”

The jobs report and overall economic trends certainly support professor Wolfer’s claim. While the unemployment rate has dropped consistently in the United States and the economy has slowly but consistently added jobs over the past year (0.8 percent and 1.2 million jobs), the employment rate has remained unchanged.

This has meant that because people are dropping out of the “actively seeking a job” category and are therefore excluded from consideration, the falling unemployment rate is deceiving. Not only are we adding mostly part-time and poorly paid jobs to the economy, but we are adding people to the jobs market at the same rate that we are adding jobs. The result: an artificially low unemployment rate and an essentially flat-lined employment rate.

Adults are taking the brunt of the poor job market. Before the recession, just over 63 percent were employed. Post-recession, just 58.7 percent of adults are employed (see graphs). As noted by Binyamin Appelbaum of the Times, this is partially because the United States is getting older. This may be the new normal. The American economy may never see substantial increases in the employment rate. So long as Washington continues to enact policies that damage growth and discourage job creation, the number of jobs added will continue to fail to stay in front of the number of people added to the market. Sequestration is hurting the economy, debates about raising the national debt limit terrify the markets and employers are left to guess when Ben Bernanke and the Federal Reserve will enact quantitative easing.

These numbers seem to suggest that economic recovery is just a myth. Rather than improving, the economy seems to have only stopped the bleeding. For now, Congress is at home for a month long recess. Millions of Americans are at home too.

Lower Loan Rates: Welcome Progress, But Only Part of What’s Needed

Lower Loan Rates: Welcome Progress, But Only Part of What’s Needed

-Christopher Carroll

In an all too infrequent occurrence, the House passed a bill that received sweeping bipartisan support and will be signed by President Barack Obama.  Students and families shouldn’t get too excited though. While a step in the right direction, the bill doesn’t address what is really ailing higher education: the cost of tuition.

The bill, which will reduce the cost of borrowing for federal student loans, passed 392-31 after having passed in the Senate with 81 votes. The rare bipartisan nature of the bill is a testament to the importance of lowering federal student loan interest rates and to the public outcry seen when rates doubled last month. However, even though it has the support of both sides of the aisle and the White House, it does not address the serious economic challenges facing our students and recent college graduates. The astronomical costs of college will follow these generations for decades.

****

 

The new bill ties federal student loan interest rates to the 10-year Treasury note.  Due to currently low national interest rates, the bill sets undergraduate Stafford loan interest rates at 3.86%, graduate Stafford loan rates at 5.4%, and PLUS loans at 6.4%.  While this is markedly lower than the levels last week, it is far from a perfect plan, as it these rates will rise in accordance with the economic recovery.

Though chairman of the House Committee on Education and the Workforce, Rep. John Kline (R-Minn.), described the bill as a “victory for students and taxpayers” (link#5), some democrats, including Rep. George Miller (D-Calif.), fear that “it does not solve the long-term student debt crisis.” Those fears are extremely justified, not because interest rates are prohibitive but because the cost of tuition is extraordinarily high.

Courtesy of CNN Money: http://money.cnn.com/2011/06/13/news/economy/college_tuition_middle_class/index.htm

As discussed in a July 30th post, recent college grads and those soon to graduate face immensely difficult challenges. Poor job markets and crushing student debts are, for many, going to dictate when and if students ever achieve their economic potential and experience an economic prime. This will become even more difficult as parents without enough retirement money saved lose pensions and become reliant on their children.

****

Reducing the cost of borrowing is a good start. But we need to reduce the amount of money families are forced to borrow in the first place. Many jobs in our economy necessitate an undergraduate degree to be even considered for a job. The President has said repeatedly how important it is for our students to go to college. But, as long as school is prohibitively expensive, the cost of loans will matter less than the actual price of tuition. Lowering borrowing rates is a great step, but it’s the sticker price that will kill you.

ESSAY: Home of the Brave, the Free, and the Invisible: how Detroit, pensions and new graduates are connected

Essay: Home of the Brave, the Free, and the Invisible: How Detroit, Pensions and New Graduates are Connected

 -Christopher Carroll

Last week, Detroit filed for bankruptcy. This was by no means a sudden disaster. The city has been going bankrupt for decades.  It wasn’t until now that the nation woke up to it. Americans working in the public sector are now acknowledging that their pensions are not guaranteed. Like a heart attack brought on by years of poor diet and exercise, Detroit has suddenly shown us that years of poor policy and neglect have taken their toll on us all.

Detroit has been mismanaged for years and the decline in the automotive industry has crippled the city beyond repair. However, the entry of foreign automobile companies with operations outside Detroit was not the only major problem. The city’s inability to effectively manage public pension funds was crippling.

 

The state estimates that Detroit’s defined-benefit pension and health care plans, which are based upon the service time of a public employee and that employee’s final salary, are about 73% funded. However, as was noted on July 27th by the Economist, that may be a very optimistic number, with the real number possibly being as low as 48%. While making promises to state employees, state and city governments were simultaneously failing to devote enough money to cover the commitments.

This problem is not unique to Detroit, or even Michigan. The difference between Illinois’ funded and unfunded pension commitments is equal to 241% of the state’s tax revenue, by far the worst in the country. The shortfall in Connecticut is the second worst, representing nearly 190% of tax revenue and Kentucky, New Jersey, Hawaii, Louisiana, Colorado, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts and Maryland all have pension gaps at, or exceeding, 100% of tax revenue.

Courtesy of the Economist: http://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21582282-pensioners-are-pushing-many-cities-and-states-towards-financial-crisis-who-pays-bill

Detroit’s problems could be coming to a city near you. Some estimates place the total pension deficit in the United States at 17% of GDP. Terrifyingly, that does not even include the deficits in programs for healthcare provided by local and city governments (deficits which shockingly manage to eclipse those of the public pension system). Clearly, the issue is of national importance. The future of both our young and old generations are at risk.

Edward Siedle, former SEC attorney and financial watchdog, explains that “75% of Americans nearing retirement in 2010 had less than $30,000 in their retirement accounts.” This is bad news, as current lifestyles in America are shockingly different to those of 40, 50 and 60 years ago. Americans are living longer than ever before. Medical advances and dietary and exercise awareness have meant that the average life expectancy in America is just over 78 and a half years, putting economic stress on an old fashioned pension system.

To make up for longer life expectancies and modern lifestyles, our pension system must be reformed. Doing so is imperative for our economy and for the 20 year olds just now entering the jobs market, struggling to stay above water on student debt, treading water while they miss their economic primes.

****

Politicians and the public must seriously engage questions regarding the way pensions are funded and executed. We must seriously discuss raising the retirement age. It is no longer strange for a man or women to work through their sixties. Additionally, we must address the way pension funds are protected. As Chris Tobe of Forbes Magazine explains here (link#2), private companies, and many non-profit organization pension programs are insured by the “Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation (PBGC) and regulated by the Department of Labor Employee Benefits Security Administration (EBSA), which operates under the law known as the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA).” However, local and state governments fail to allow the Federal Government to insure their pension programs. This has made them easier to leave unfunded and left the beneficiaries of those programs susceptible to retirement ruin.

Americans rely on their pensions. Making promises without following through and funding them is morally reprehensible if not altogether criminal. Not only are the people who have seen their promised pensions disappear overnight suffer, but so do their recently (or soon to be recently) graduated children. This has real repercussions today and in the future, especially in a fragile economy. It is possible that the slow economic growth seen over the past 4 years will in the near future seem like break-neck speed.

20-something year olds are leaving school drowning in student loan debt to find an anemic jobs market. These students will, for years, be saving every penny just to pay off the loans that for many will seem never ending. Add a poor paying job to the already heavy chains of student debts and rather than saving money, building strong credit and growing an economic profile through their 20s and 30s, these young people will instead be postponing the usual economic development typical of people their age. By the time they reach their late 30s and 40s, instead of starting a family, buying a home, car, new appliances and golf clubs, they will only have begun to develop their financial egg. Rather than experiencing their economic primes, 40-something year olds will be just beginning their economic journey. This spells trouble for economic recovery. Add the financial liability of caring for your parents? That spells economic disaster.

If pensions across the country do not provide what people are expecting, the elderly in our community will not only be forced into the margins of our society, but they will be forced, economically, to rely upon their children, the same children who didn’t begin to develop their economic egg until they were 40. These children, currently 20-somethings and younger, may never experience their own economic prime, resulting in the creation of an economically invisible generation. The weights of student debt, poor jobs markets and parents made financially reliant due to vanished pension promises will prove too much to bear. Generation Invisible will find itself constantly fighting against the tide, struggling to stay above water and never able to reach paradise island.

This is a vast, complicated and nuanced issue. There is no quick fix. But the first step to addressing it could be to address poorly funded pension systems across the country. We must stop the negligent treatment of our soon to be retirees. To treat them well is to treat all generations well. But if we continue to allow poor policy, corrupt politicians and neglect to plague our pension systems, America will become the home of the brave, the free, and the invisible.

A Government Shutdown is Bad Politics and Bad for the Country – Will the Lights Be Turned Off in D.C.?

A Government Shutdown is Bad Politics and Bad for the Country – Will the Lights Be Turned Off in D.C.?

-Christopher Carroll

It is that time of year. We are once again wondering if the debt ceiling will be raised and if a budget for the 2014 fiscal year (starting in October 2013) will be passed. Once again, we wonder if the government will be shut down. The question this time is, if it happens who will have turned out the lights?

It seems like every summer, Congress and the White House begin posturing and flexing their muscle, staring down one another in an attempt to intimidate the other into fiscal submission. This year, House Republicans seem especially eager to engage in the yearly schoolyard fight over the budget and debt ceiling. Meanwhile, President Obama and the White House seem eager to avoid a Washington brawl, yet are ready to strike back if the House throws the first punch.

As many readers will know, the debt ceiling debate is a misnomer. Having nothing to do with the amount of debt that Congress can accrue in the future, the ceiling simply gives the Treasury Department the ability to pay the debts already incurred. Yet prominent Republicans, including potential 2016 presidential candidates Sen. Marco Rubio (R – Fl.) Sen. Ted Cruz (R – Tx.), and Sen. Rand Paul (R – Ky.), want to link raising the debt ceiling to defunding Obamacare, a proposal that has drawn the ire of Democrats and even some Republicans. This perennial threat is frequently the strongest tool in the Republican fiscal tool-belt, providing them with the most leverage of any common threat to lower taxes and decrease government expenditure.

A full-fledged government shutdown is a less common and much more extreme threat. The damage that a shutdown would do to the economy would be drastic.  By failing to come to an agreement on a new budget or even a Continuing Resolution, the federal government would be forced to shut down on October 1st, something that has not happened since the Clinton-Gingrich standoff in 1995.

****

Republicans seem to feel that because they control a majority in Congress, they can hold President Obama, the White House, and the Senate hostage in all fiscal matters. While this is partially true (Congress constitutionally has the power of the purse), the strategy is dangerous.

Much to the displeasure of GOP leadership and Republican strategists, most Republican Representatives are not following their lead and are willing to push hardline fiscal policies in an attempt to prevent primary challenges in their home districts from the right. These Representatives are using the debt ceiling and the government budget to prove their disdain for Obamacare and boost their fiscal conservative credentials. As was discussed in a July 20th post, this strategy joins those of many recent House Republican policies that may be good for individual Representatives but bad for the Grand Old Party and for the entire country.

House Republicans must realize that the risks aren’t worth the rewards. A government shutdown and fight over the debt ceiling would add uncertainty to both the economy and to the election year. As it stands now, very few Republican seats in the House are at risk from democratic challengers and the chances that the GOP loses the House are zero. Maintaining that majority must be of the utmost priority for the GOP. However, letting the country default on debt or letting the Government fully or even partially shut down, would add a variable to the upcoming mid-term elections that could lead to disaster for Republicans. The only way Republicans will lose the House,” said Rep. Tom Cole (R – Ok.), former National Republican Congressional Committee chairman, “is to shut down the government or default on the debt.”

Democrats and the Obama Administration would surely be able to use such political battle against the Republicans in the public, showing that their obstructionism and failure to come to a workable agreement on the budget is hurting the economy and country. The President will not allow Congress to use the Affordable Care Act, the hallmark of his presidency, as a trading chip for a budget or ceiling agreement. It will be too easy for Democrats to say that Republicans shut down the government because they wanted to take health care coverage away from millions of Americans.

****

In the end, a shut-down is bad politics for everyone. The economy would suffer. Republicans would risk their large majority in the House. Democrats would benefit the most from a shutdown, but it would be at the expense of devoting time and energy to pressing debates over immigration, the farm bill and Obamacare’s implementation.

Worst of all, it would give the public even more reason to distrust their leaders. In a perfect world where cooler heads prevail, this discussion wouldn’t be an issue. Of course the debt limit would be raised, we must pay our bills or risk defaulting. Of course a budget or continuing resolution will be reached, the government must serve the country. But alas, this world is not perfect. Cooler heads don’t prevail. The lights could be turned off and the public and economy could be left to suffer. Republicans should be more afraid of the dark then they are letting on.

Obama’s Economic Pivot – Could it Save the Immigration Debate?

Obama’s Economic Pivot – Could it Save the Immigration Debate?

– Christopher Carroll

Obama’s pivot to towards the economy and away from addressing immigration reform is well timed. It may be the only way to shepherd the difficult bill through the ultra-polarized election season.

An inconsistent and leaderless Republican caucus and increasingly partisan rhetoric will doom immigration reform in the House. While hardly out of the ordinary, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D – Nev.) and House Speaker John Boehner (R – Ohio) are speaking past each other.  But this time of year, it is worse than ever.

As is to be expected, the approaching election season has brought polarizing political rhetoric and inconsistent leadership to Washington. Speaker Boehner repeatedly states that the Senate immigration bill will not be brought to the floor and Leader Reid repeatedly calls for comprehensive reform. Yesterday, Senator Reid termed the House immigration strategy “bite-sized” while going on to explain that if the Senate bill were brought to the House floor, it would pass “overwhelmingly.” Meanwhile, Boehner’s claim that “nobody has spent more time” on immigration reform than him has been scoffed at by White House Press Secretary Carney, further escalating tensions.

English: Jay Carney giving a press briefing. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Pressure on Speaker Boehner is coming from within the House as well. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi has called on the Speaker to encourage the Republican caucus to pass a comprehensive bill rather than pieces of legislation.

Pelosi, in a letter to Speaker Boehner, writes that “priorities for immigration reform are the principles laid out by the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, with commitments to secure our borders, protect our workers, unite our families, and provide an earned pathway to citizenship.” These priorities, she claims, receive bipartisan support. “We are ready to act in a bipartisan fashion,” continues Pelosi, so as “to afford all immigrants a fair shot at the American Dream, and to make comprehensive immigration reform the law of the land.”

Democrats are seemingly united in their call for an earned pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants already in the country. Republicans, meanwhile, agree that children of illegal immigrants should be allowed an opportunity to become citizens. But this variation on the DREAM act rings false for many, as it could further split families apart, forcing children to choose between separation from their family and risking deportation.

DREAM act (Photo credit: quinn.anya)

As these leaders become increasingly vocal about their disagreements, those who hope for any sort of immigration reform are left to shrug their shoulders and brace for inevitable disappointment.

****

The DREAMact disagreement and the disagreement in overall structure the legislation will take  is a result of divergent leadership styles and increased electoral season pressure. Reid has recently been very aggressive in his advocacy for President Obama’s agenda and his vision for the Senate. Speaker Boehner, meanwhile, employs a more hands-off approach, preferring to facilitate discussion while ensuring a Republican majority on all bills through the Hastert Rule.

However, in yesterday’s economic speech at Knox College, President Obama folded the immigration debate into discussion about the overall economy. This may save it.

By putting both Obamacare and immigration reform into a larger context that everyone in the country can identify with, the President not only removed pressure on those components themselves, but also provided the debate time to marinate within the minds of the public. He has linked the steady but stubbornly slow progress seen in the economy with the stubbornly contentious immigration issue.

Official photographic portrait of US President Barack Obama (born 4 August 1961; assumed office 20 January 2009) (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

This will help the public identify with the issue. Everyone has, to varying degrees, been affected by the recession. Progress has been steady. The economy is consistently adding jobs. The housing, industrial and energy markets are strengthening. However, there is still much to be done. More progress is needed. While the economy is creating jobs, most of them are low-paying jobs rather than the higher-paying jobs that were lost. Detroit has gone bankrupt. Families are still struggling.

 But, by linking the economic progress that has been seen and that must still be done with the progress that must be done on immigration, President Obama might have saved the bill, or at least productive discussion of it. By linking immigration to public understanding of the overall economic recovery, President Obama may successfully shepherd the issue through the polarized combative mid-term elections. If he does, he will have breathed life in an important issue currently gasping for breath.

An Abortion Storm is Brewing and It’s Heading for the Supreme Court

An Abortion Storm is Brewing and It’s Heading for the Supreme Court

-Christopher Carroll

A constitutional storm is brewing in America and it is heading slowly for D.C. On Monday, a judge in North Dakota blocked the most restrictive abortion law in the country. The law, passed in March 2013, was deemed unconstitutional on the grounds that it “is a blatant violation of the constitutional guarantees afforded to all women.” This law or one like it, could someday find itself argued before the Supreme Court of the United States.

This law was just one of many passed this year by Republican lawmakers across the country. Arkansas, Alabama, North Carolina and Texas state houses have all passed restrictions on abortions and all have, or likely will, be blocked in state courthouses.

The Court actions are not at all surprising. As noted by US District Judge Daniel L. Hovland in his decision today, the North Dakota law, while not outright making abortion illegal, would be so onerous on women and healthcare professionals that it “will effectively limit a woman’s ability to obtain an abortion to a single day during the pregnancy’s fifth week.” These laws may not make abortion illegal de jure because of the Roe v. Wade precedence, but they do make it de facto an impossible procedure to get legally.

 

It is not surprising that the states  have been pushing these laws. The Supreme Court has recently paid increasing deference to state sovereignty whenever State Law conflicts with Federal law.  If Republican state houses continue to push aggressive abortion legislation, we likely will eventually see them argued in Washington D.C before the highest Court.

While it is impossible to know when a case would finally make it that far and what the composition of the court may be by then, it is likely that the Court will be confronted with questions that put it between a rock and a hard place. Allowing extremely restrictive abortion laws to stand would keep in line with their recent preference for state power. However, in doing so, they would be forcing Women to withstand increased scrutiny and obligation, forcing them to adhere to laws unlike those of women in more liberal states and unlike any man in the country. Would the Court ignore their recent abhorrence for the creation of separate classes of people?

When the time finally comes, it will be interesting to see which direction the Supreme Court takes. Their aversion for different rules for different people has been splashed throughout judicial history, but old and new. Just this year, Justices Ginsberg and Kagan voiced their concern for inconsistent treatment of citizens in the DOMA case. However, as explained in a post on July 4th, the DOMA decision was simultaneously a deference to State jurisdiction, choosing to let the states handle the issue.

****

The Court’s were able to tread a very fine line in the DOMA case, managing to treat gay and straight couples the same way under the law while still maintaining their recent preference for a strong State. Will they manage to do that this time?

The fact that the new abortion restrictions are by design, and necessity, so specific will make it impossible for the Court to have it both ways. It will be extremely difficult to treat women in all states the same way and impossible to argue that men and women are being treated equally before the law. Unless men are going to be obliged to undergo X-rays and be restricted by law to certain places and times they can undergo vasectomy among other sensitive medical procedures, women and men will not be treated equally laws.  Though the states have passed these laws in a constitutional manner, the Court will have difficulty preserving their actions and power unless they ignore the inequality of the laws.

In the end, if these laws reach the Court, their constitutionality will come down to one question: which is more important, equal treatment before the law or state sovereignty. The answer surely is a rhetorical one: who are laws meant to serve?

Liz Cheney – Great News for the GOP; Great News for the Nation

Liz Cheney – Great News for the GOP; Great News for the Nation

-Christopher Carroll
The Cheney family has been intricately involved in much of America’s recent political history. It seems that the country has more to look forward to.

On Tuesday, republican Liz Cheney, the daughter of former House Minority Whip, former Secretary of Defense under President George H. W. Bush and former Vice-President of the United States Dick Cheney, is running for United States Senate from Wyoming. The catch? She is running to unseat long-standing republican Senator Mike Enzi.

This type of inter-party cannibalism has become surprisingly commonplace. The tea-party fervor of the past six years has resulted in incumbent republican losses from challengers on their right. This trend has been crippling in Washington D.C. Politicians, fearful of interparty challenges, have moved further to the right while republican freshman have been vociferous in their aversion to compromise. The result has been a hyper-polarization of the two parties, bringing governance in D.C to a screeching halt and making Congress one of the most hated institutions in the country.

Liz Cheney’s announcement may mark an end to these dark days. Many prominent Republicans are looking at her announcement with distaste. Former RNC chair Michael Steele fears that her campaign will open a fissure in the GOP. His disillusionment is joined by that of Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wy.), Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), Sen. Jerry Moran (R-Kan.), who chairs the Senate Republicans 2014 Campaign, and many other prevent political actors. The republican establishment seems to be resenting and actively fighting recent republican culture.

All of this comes after Republicans, led by Sen. John McCain (R-Az.), came to an agreement with Senate democrats to avert a filibuster showdown, agreeing to confirm controversial Obama nominations in a deal that was received with much displeasure from Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.). Suddenly, this doesn’t seem like the disciplined Republican Party of old. The unified GOP many have grown accustomed to is now fractured.
Liz Cheney’s announcement is great news for the Republican party and the nation in general. It’s not wonderful because she will bring change and progress to governance, but because the response to it has been unusually negative. As more Republicans denounce Cheney, who has said that the country doesn’t need people who compromise but those who are willing to oppose democrats “every step of the way”, and politicians of her ilk, the party will be purging itself of the dangerous extremism that has plagued it in recent memory.

Hopefully the GOP is changing. Hopefully the response to Liz Cheney’s announcement marks a new conservative trend. If the GOP does begin to reject extreme characters like Cheney, the party will regain some of it’s old credibility and strength. If the GOP does begin to reject extreme characters like Cheney, the nation will be better off.

An Energy Transition

An Energy Transition – The country needs to move towards renewable energy, and the manner in which that transition is managed will dictate whether it succeeds.

-Christopher Carroll

Lost in the fervor of this year’s political battles and the haze of a hot summer has been significant debate about the nation’s energy use. However, the implications of this nation’s energy policy are too vast to ignore. The right policy could strengthen the economy; the wrong one could weaken it. The right policy could reduce our environmental impact; the wrong one could do further harm to our planet. The right policy could make us more independent; the wrong one could make us more vulnerable. President Obama and his successor must be willing to engage in an energy debate and steer the country through an energy transition.

The horrific explosion of rail oil tankers that left dozens dead and injured in Lac-Mégantic has restarted a subdued national discussion about fossil fuels in this country.  Many people are once again discussing the best way to transport these dangerous but necessary energy sources, while others contemplate the necessity of fossil fuels in the first place.

Andrew Leach, an Energy Economist at the University of Alberta in Canada, explained in an Op-ed for Canadian Business that the fallout of the train disaster is bad news fossil fuel proponents in general. “The fallout from the Lac-Mégantic tragedy,” he writes, “will increase public consciousness of the dangers inherent in transporting oil and oil products” and lead to “increased calls for alternatives to oil rather than alternative means of transporting it.”

These comments come as hydraulic fracturing in America has created a domestic gas boom, pushing the country closer to energy independence while simultaneously lowering (link#4) the price of fuel.

The potential economic benefits of natural gas are vast. A transition towards more natural gas production will mean new American jobs in both the energy production and energy use sectors of our economy. American innovation will be fueled as new uses of the gas are found and technology is transformed to take advantage of the benefits that the cleaner fuel source provides to the environment, the economy, and energy producers (not to mention the opportunity more production affords American fuel exports).

However, environmentalists fear that the dangers posed by “fracking” outweigh the economic advantages. The Natural Resource Defense Fund (NRDC), a non-partisan environmental advocacy group, writes that current policies and techniques have meant that natural gas companies have resulted in “contaminated water supplies, dangerous air pollution, destroyed streams, and devastated landscapes.”

A beach after an oil spill. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Charles K. Ebinger and Kevin Massy of the Brookings Institution take an in between approach, believing that the short term advantages that new domestic oil and gas present are too strong to ignore. They propose adoption of a “black-gold-green” policy, using and exporting the resources that the country creates while simultaneously developing new alternative fuel technologies and batteries capable of powering the country.

****

Whatever direction the nation, President Obama, and the next president take, it must be decisive and coherent. The environmental ramifications of our dithering energy policies today are grand, while the uncertainty felt by the energy sector and laborers send shivers through the economy.

It is naive to hope that the United States and the world will transition quickly away from traditional fossil fuels like crude oil and coal. As developing countries industrialize and as China and India continue to grow, they will consume increasing amounts of fuel and create alarming amounts of carbon emissions. But, if America plays its cards right, we could lead a transition away from current methods and towards new energy policy while benefiting from the economic rewards. By continuing to export our newfound oil and gas commodities, the country could enjoy the economic rewards of higher exports, new jobs and new innovation while keeping an eye on a more renewable future.

The transition toward a renewable future will reap immediate rewards. The fact that natural gas is cleaner than other fuels, producing 30% less carbon dioxide than crude and 45% less than coal, will mean that the country’s carbon emissions will continue to drop. While coal miners and coal companies will be pushed out of the market, there jobs losses will be accommodated for with new production jobs and the innovation that must accompany new forms of energy.

Solar Panels Dutch Home (Photo credit: EnvironmentBlog)

Meanwhile, new American brainpower must be devoted to solar and wind power and to efficient and powerful ways of storing that energy. Someday, there should be a solar panel on every rooftop. Someday, there should be sophisticated wind-farms on land and sea, able to harvest the natural energy of Mother Nature while avoiding negative impacts on our environment and ecosystems.

Most importantly, President Obama and whomever follows him must not give our nation mixed signals. Our President must decide what direction our nation should take and indicate it with a steady hand. Is it time for a transition away from the old ways and towards new infrastructure and new energy priorities, or is it time to prop-up coal companies and invest in new pipelines and oil fields? The White House’s direction must be clear in the coming years, because if it isn’t, we will continue to shuffle down our current path. Where that path stops is unknown, but it probably isn’t pretty.

Essay: Harry Reid’s Nuclear Option – Good for the Nominees but Bad for the Senate

Essay: Harry Reid’s Nuclear Option – Good for the Nominees, but Bad for the Senate

The Senate is tossing and turning. Members are forced to weather the rough, churning waters left in the wake of the newfound battle between Majority Leader Harry Reid (D. – Nev.) and Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R. – Ky.). The Senate’s inability to pass legislation and refusal to confirm qualified candidates nominated to important government positions and judicial seats has resulted in a public battle between politicians who until recently have always shown respect and deference toward each other. While making interesting reading and watching, it only serves as a distraction. The turmoil only muddies the waters on an important question: Should the Senate change filibuster rules?

Official portrait of United States Senator (R-KY) (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

The relationship between the two has steadily crumbled during recent months. Reid’s recent threat of a “nuclear option” has led to McConnell’s mistrust of his counterpart, believing that he is not going to honor the agreements the two came to in 2011 and 2012 to protect the traditional role of the filibuster. This feeling has recently been exasperated by the Minority Leader’s perception that Reid, and his Super PAC, are trying to influence his re-election in Kentucky. Reid has said he knows nothing about his Super PACS actions nor should he. But the claims, if true, would constitute a breach of the traditional behavior between opposing Senate leaders.

Sen. Reid, meanwhile, is clearly fed up with McConnell’s and the GOP’s refusal to hold confirmation votes on nominees resulting in Ried’s “nuclear” threats and anger at what he sees as McConnell’s refusal to honor a filibuster agreement the two reached early this year. His “vows” to limit the filibuster have boiled over into public combat recently, following McConnell’s warning that Reid would be remembered as the “worst” Senate leader “ever” if filibuster rules were changed by a majority vote.

****

Drowning Out What Matters

Between fighting about confirmations and the filibuster, a lack of trust between the two leaders, and anger over public remarks and re-election involvement, it is little wonder that real discussion about the pros and cons of changing the filibuster have been drowned out.

The filibuster has long been an effective and important tool to protect the minority in government. It can be used to delay legislation and ensure that the views of a small group of senators are heard. Throughout American history, politicians have used it to great effect, and today, the traditional filibuster (as opposed to the silent variety), is an extremely effective way to voice opposition, especially passionate moralistic opposition, to a proposed bill of act.

The filibuster can be an effective tool, able to draw national attention to an issue, boost the recognition of a politician to the national stage, or simply delay an inevitable vote long enough to force additional debate in the public and on the Hill.

Most recently Sen Bernie Sanders (I – Vt.) drew national attention from media and sympathy from voters with his 8 hr. and 37 minutes filibuster of a proposed agreement between a tax cut deal between the President and Republican leadership. Similarly, Senator Rand Paul’s extraordinary 13 hour filibuster, calling attention to the American Government’s use of drones over American soil, brought him strong public support on social media and a resulting bump in national popularity.

But, conversely, the filibuster can cripple Senate action and grind even ordinary measures to a halt. Washington has been inculcated by this type of problem, with “silent holds” acting as filibusters in the absence of cloture. Famously, judicial seats are left unfilled (as of April, the NY Times was reporting that 10% of federal district and circuit court seats were empty) and no bill, no matter how seemingly uncontentious, can pass without a supermajority.

But what is the right thing to do? Should Sen. Harry Reid force through a change in the rules, or should the Senate try to amend the use of the filibuster without going so far as to kill it all together with a simple majority vote? The repercussions of such a “nuclear option” are vast, subtle and difficult.

****

The Nuclear Option: Danger, Danger Will Robinson!

Harry Reid’s “nuclear option” is dangerously extreme. As explained by Jonathan Weissman and Jeremy Peters of the NYTimes, “the majority leader, through a simple majority vote, would put new limits on the minority party’s ability to filibuster presidential nominees. Ordinarily changes to the rules of the Senate require a two-thirds majority; Democrats hold 54 seats.”

This option cannot be taken lightly as it may destroy many of the differences between the House and Senate, could undermine protection of the minority (regardless of party) and throw an important, oft-used traditional political tool into the trash heap.

It certainly is true that the Senate needs to vote on appointees to the various seats and positions that have for so long gone unfilled. It certainly is true that the filibuster has been misused over the last three presidential terms. But the misbehavior has not been saved for one party, faction or group of politicians. Democrats and Republicans alike have used the filibuster to their benefit, stalling and in some cases stopping bills disliked by the minority.

Aside from removing the ability of many lesser known or less powerful Senators a chance to voice exactly why they will not allow a nomination, scrapping the current filibuster system risks compromising the Senate on a fundamental level. Trashing this old tradition would obfuscate some of the uniqueness that makes the Senate the body we know today. Removing this system, especially in a “nuclear option” Harry Reid led manner, risks removing the trust and compromising nature of the Senate, making it simply another version of the House of Representatives. Senator Harry Reid cannot let that happen.

Washington, by all accounts, is broken. Legislation, regardless of how popular is rarely passed. Laws, regardless of how needed, are rarely written. Confirmations, regardless of how qualified the candidate, rarely take place. But, the Senate still manages to occasionally do it’s job, find compromise and attempt to govern the nation. By pushing through his nuclear option, Reid risks alienating both traditionalists, politicos and the Minority party, risking the very culture that makes the Senate more effective than the House.

****

Majority Leader Reid is right to be unhappy, annoyed and furious with the GOP and Minority Leader McConnell. Their actions recently, especially regarding confirmations, have been obstructionist to say the least. But by pushing through a “nuclear option” Sen. Reid will likely gain the 7 confirmations he is angling for at the expense of  the Senate’s culture, future credibility and the likelihood of future legislating. The Senate, in today’s Washington climate, has been a truly unique body, able to fail to find compromise most of the time, not all the time.

Harry Reid would do well to remember that the long term future of the Senate is more important than the short term prospects of Obama’s nominations. Rather than resorting to such a drastic rules change, Leader Reid should look to find a way to amend the current system. Maybe there is a way to make the “silent hold” practice truly impossible. In 2012, Democratic Senators signed a petition to agree to stop silent holds and filibusters, but it is time for this to be truly impossible. This would force Senators to publicly acknowledge their actions. Maybe there is a way to, with a simple majority, allow a confirmation process to start, but allow filibusters to take place during that process. This would allow the public to hear why a particular Senator doesn’t want an individual to gain a particular position, rather than hide behind the leadership and prevent the process from beginning at all.

If Senator Reid he uses a “nuclear option,” he will risk selling the farm to save his corn. The Senate would likely confirm important nominees, but would be crippled, robbed of a traditional process and a unique culture of compromise.

Gerrymandering, the GOP and Immigration Reform – Doomed to Fail

Gerrymandering, the GOP and Immigration Reform – Doomed to Fail – gerrymandering and GOP shortsightedness will kill reform and could kill the Republican Party.

-Christopher Carroll

 

 

The chances that the Senate immigration bill passes the House are zero. The chances that the House passes even a piece-meal immigration bill, while not zero, are pretty close.  Gerrymandering and poor foresight are to blame. Both Democrats and Republicans should be upset.

The chances of passage have never been very good. Though it passed with a solid majority in the Senate, Marco Rubio, the Republican champion from Florida and a likely 2016 presidential candidate was only able to convince 13 republicans to vote for the bill, even with the immense border security spending.

There seems to be growing sentiment among House republicans that, in the words of Tom Cotton (R-Ark.), any type of immigration legislation, even piecemeal legislation, could become a “Trojan Horse in a conference committee,” where a “package that puts legalization first and enforcement second” is written. The border security priority held so dearly by many Republicans is pointing immigration reform right into the ground.

Some seem to believe that immigration reform will not help Republicans regardless of whether or not they vote for the bill. “It would hurt Republicans,” Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa), a particularly anti-immigration bill member of Congress, explained. “I don’t think you can make an argument otherwise,” continued King. “Two out of every three of the new citizens would be Democrats.”

speaking at CPAC in Washington D.C. on February 11, 2011. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Republicans nationwide should fundamentally reject King’s stance. While recent history and Mitt Romney’s presidential campaign would seem to support King’s claim, hispanic immigrants have historically shared many conservative values. Additionally, the fact that Mitt Romney lost the hispanic vote by over 40% in 2012 should be perfect reason to go ahead and implement new laws, not reject a part of our national community altogether.

Many G.O.P leaders, Republican think-tanks and political analysts agree that it is in the best interests of the party to embrace minorities and immigrants. The Census Bureau predicts that by 2060, non-hispanic whites will account for only 43% of the national population. The GOP can’t afford to ignore changing demographics and expect not to go extinct as a major political party.

The in-roads President George W. Bush made in the hispanic community were seen in his re-election splits. According to the Roper Center, John Kerry won the vote 53% – 44%, by far the closest split of any recent election. Additionally, it can be argued that the traditional family, religious and economic values held by much of the hispanic community closely mirror those of many conservative voters and politicians.

****

We are witnessing the hostage-taking of the entire Republican party by their own gerrymandering. Republicans, afraid of being challenged from the right, won’t go near any legislation that may help President Obama (one reason he has been so silent recently on immigration reform) or Democrats in the slightest. They won’t go near compromise, for fear of seeming soft or otherwise insufficiently conservative.

This environment has brought Washington to a screeching halt and risks bringing the Party to its knees. The short-term fears that gerrymandering has put into Republican congressmen is causing them to ignore the long-term interests of the Party. This will cripple it for years.

Unless Republican leadership is able to convince their membership that they can and should pass legislation, immigration reform will fizzle-out and die. If it does fail, the GOP will be spurning an ever expanding, prevalent and important part of our community that will, in turn, reject the GOP. Republican politicians, for fear of their own jobs due to their own gerrymandering practices, will be protecting themselves in the short run while simultaneously creating a second class of people.

If Republicans can learn anything from the Marriage Equality movement, it should be that creation of a second class is politically dangerous and morally unacceptable and that the times will always catch up to you.

The Politics of Lifetime Appointments

The Politics of Lifetime Appointments – As people ask about Justice Ginsberg‘s retirement, the idea of Lifetime Appointment is no longer insulating the Judiciary from political gamesmanship.

– Christopher Carroll

Lifetime appointments are not insulating the Supreme Court Justices from politics.  We should stop pretending that it does. Unusually intense national attention on the Supreme Court, driven by recent high profile Court decisions, has left many people asking a question with serious political ramifications: when will Ruth Bader Ginsberg call it a career?

The 80 year-old Ginsberg has led the liberal-leaning Justices since her appointment to the Supreme Court in 1993. She has been the champion of liberal ideology on the Court since the retirement of Justice Stevens in 2010, himself 90 years old when he hung up the robes. But with a democratic president in his second term, many a questioning when the best time for Ginsberg to retire might be whilst ensuring a solidly left-leaning Justice takes her place. Many people are starting to think that this could be that time.

Justice Ginsberg, to her credit, vociferously disagrees, believing that she will not step aside to accommodate President Obama’s desire to fill her seat so long as she is still mentally and physically “equipped to do the job.” But, as Jamelle Bouie astutely discusses in a July 5th (link#3) Washington Post opinion piece, the questions over Ginsberg’s retirement raise an undeniable problem, the practice of lifetime appointment doesn’t seem to work anymore.

****

Lifetime judicial appointments have been a hallmark of American Supreme Court law ever since it was vociferously argued for by Alexander Hamilton in Federalist #78. The intention of the practice was to protect the Judiciary from the Legislative and the Executive branches of the government and the popular opinion of the public. Without strong systemic protection, Hamilton feared that Judicial Review would cease to be based upon the Constitution, compromising the important role the Supreme Court has played in the balance of power in American democracy.

Lifelong appointments have certainly contributed to the Supreme Court’s extremely stable, authoritative and legitimate history in American democracy. However, it is telling that very few nations around the world have followed the American example. Perhaps they foresaw what Hamilton and the Founders did not: that even with lifelong appointments, judicial review and judicial appointments are extremely political.

It must be noted that those people calling for Ginsberg’s retirement are making a political miscalculation. Those who believe that Obama, a centrist by the account of many liberals, will pluck a younger version of Ginsberg from the sea of qualified individuals have not been tallying recent political history and are wrong for two reasons. First, it won’t happen, and second, Obama isn’t the type.

First, passing Judicial nominations has been historically difficult for this administration due to the misuse of the filibuster. There are countless important seats on important benches left currently unfilled because nominees cannot get a vote. Harry Reid’s moaning and “nuclear option” threats have thus far fallen on deaf ears. Additionally, using the “nuclear option,” a method of changing filibuster rules in order to pass confirmations with a simple majority, would do more damage to the legitimacy of the Court than any other action.

English: Harry Reid (D-NV), United States Senator from Nevada and Majority Leader of the United States Senate (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Silent Filibuster – Senate (Photo credit: DonkeyHotey)

Second, President Obama has shown time and again that he is both a centrist and uncomfortable with controversial nominations. Every time he has picked (or even been rumored to pick) a high profile and polarizing figure to high office, he has backed off in the face of Republican outrage – see Susan Rice’s Secretary of State saga and the President’s failure to aid Sec. of State Chuck Hagel while in the confirmation process.

These two oversights aside, the debate over Ginsberg’s retirement is showing the nation that lifelong appointments no-longer insulate the Supreme Court from politics. Today, the President’s attempt to gain as much influence as possible by appointing the youngest judges they deem qualified, resulting in a highly polarized judicial body. Today, Justices are being asked when they will step down, not because their mental facilities are failing but because it is more convenient for one or another political party. Today, if Hamilton were alive, he would cringe. Today, though the Judiciary was meant to be a-political, it has become hyper-political.

Is it time to amend the Constitution and abandon lifetime appointments? Is it time to institute an age limit for Justices? Is it time to institute an age minimum for Justices? Whatever one’s particular feeling about these ideas, none are likely to be accomplished in the near or even distant future. Amending the Constitution is a uniquely difficult proposition (link#7), made harder by the hyper-polarized nature of the Senate and the House. But acknowledging that we have a problem is the first step.

Justice Ginsberg remains an extremely capable, intelligent and brilliant adjudicator who, with luck, will continue to serve this country with distinction. If President Obama and Democrats are worried about who will replace her, they should instead focus on Congressional and Senate elections and leave the Justices charged with checking the other two branches alone. When Ginsberg needs to retire, she will. Democrats shouldn’t try to force out a brilliant mind simply because this moment is easy. This moment, with this President and with this Congress, might be exactly the wrong time.