For All Flesh

Norman Rockwell's, The Right to Know

On this election eve, there was a typically provocative tweet from a certain Ms. Coulter that if only those whose four Grandparents were born in the United States were allowed to vote, the vote would be a landslide for Donald Trump. My father would not be able to vote under this rule as his Grandfather was born in Britain.

I responded on Facebook and Twitter, and I repeat here.

This is what needs to change tomorrow. A multi-cultural majority nation will take the place of a White, Anglo-Saxon, Christian dominated nation. The Constitutional principles were intended for the universe of mankind. We can do this. Go, Latino Citizens! And ALL of us! WE the PEOPLE!

Yes, we elected a President eight years ago of mixed-race. Part of his ancestry went back to the European immigrants to this country. His father was from Kenya. The President was born in the State of Hawaii. His wife and daughters are the descendants of Slaves brought to this country by force.

No Shutdown Update 2015

Told ya.

Storms still flash over the Capitol
[public domain from the Architect of the Capitol showing dome repair scaffolding]

Did Harry Reid just save the Constitution?!

Pretty much. I'm just glad I already declared him my hero a couple of weeks back. And my wife even called it a year and a half ago!

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada (note the halo above his head)

Senator Lee Schooled by Former Home Teacher

The Senate voted 68-31 for cloture on the tea party senators' latest grandstanding attempt to filibuster any gun legislation. That's sixteen (!) Republicans! Majority Leader Reid sent his most conservative Dem, Sen. Manchin of W. Virginia, to negotiate with one of the most bendable blue-state tea-partiers, Sen. Toomey of Pennsylvania. This helps establish the Constitutional principle that the Senate is a masterfully designed political body made up of scores of prima donnas. And that's a good thing.

The honor roll of Republicans (in respectful blue, this vote only) is as follows:

Defeat Obama: It's Personal (and Weird)

There is something that compels some to oppose the President as a person. And it seems to me it's just not because of his policies. We've had progressive presidents before, Jefferson, Lincoln, Wilson, and both Roosevelts. And sure, there were personal attacks. I guess it goes with the territory. It just seems rather severe and extra personal with President Obama. (Yes, a few people will argue that there was a lot of nasty stuff about Pres. GW Bush. But nobody asked for his birth certificate - or any other president's, for that matter.)

Election Day, 2008, I was in Provo for business and after that was wrapped up, I picked up my son and fiancé for dinner. As my son's intended, now spouse, is a vegetarian, I took them to a Chinese buffet as there would be meat and vegetarian options. It seemed to work out well. And as Obama supporters (two BYU students and I) we were quietly relieved if not exactly euphoric facing the future.

The news came in fairly early that evening that Senator Obama had won the Presidency. Or maybe it was even before that happened, but expected by most, that I heard a piece of Sean Hannity's radio show. He was pretty discouraged with the expected outcome of the election, but had a rousing segment as he signed off asking listeners to tune in the next day on the theme that "the insurgency begins here tomorrow!"

Are the President's Successes His Failures?

There was hope among so many that the election of our current president would help move us to a more post-racial, post-partisan nation. That was the promise and even the Hope of that campaign, wasn't it? Something went terribly wrong. Don't get me wrong, I still really like the guy and his political philosophies are so close to the ones that I have independently developed over the years I can't help but like him. The lack of anything but craziness and opposition in the opposition leads nowhere but to Romney, the obvious result as we ask what it is that they really stand for? Because, of course with Romney, it could be anything. But we'll deal more with Romney later.

And we'll put the "easy" issue to the side, at least for a moment. It's basic human nature in American politics that the current president is held responsible for the current situation of the economy. It’s a simple formula. If there is a big boom (unlikely) or even a stronger wind at the back towards a boom (possible), President Obama wins in a landslide. If the slowest recovery in history continues to eke (most likely), he has a chance. If there is a double-dip, even if on European debt or something else outside our borders (hard to tell), he loses and we can only hope and pray that Romney can run the country as well as he did the Olympics.

The President Is Playing the Lollipop Guild for Suckers

Yes. While it is an artificial and unnecessary crisis, it is a real crisis with significant risks. But it is not all as it seems. And it is certainly not as the Lollipop Guild (AKA tea party) believes or wants it to be.

"The Bigger the Government, The Smaller the People"

The Lollipop Guild

Republican Leadership:
McConnell, Boehner, Cantor 

You said it, John! So I'm thinking maybe they should I will now call it the "Lollipop Guild" rather than the "Tea Party."

To Tea or Not Debt Ceiling?

It's not that easy following the turmoil on the debt ceiling and deficit/taxes conflicts. I was out of touch for a week and that neither helped clear my mind nor confuse any worse than it was had I been around. So, I'm just going to ramble a bit and take a stab at it.

There are a few basic premises the way I understand it (besides the whole idea that money is all imaginary anyway). First, it seems to me that the President can only spend what the Congress authorizes the executive branch to spend. In fact, I know that to be the case according to the Constitution (and the Anti-deficiency Act) from my work experience of 28 years. And it is a little odd that the Congress has authorized the Executive to spend money we don't have - in some cases actually obligated the expenditure of funds we don't have. And remember, the Congress is the People's Congress ALL the people as in "of, by and for." (Well, to the extent it doesn't belong to the corporate interests of America, but that's still the people's problem as corporations are a creation of government, i.e., the people's government - there I go again!). So we have no one to blame but ourselves. (I know, I know, that's tough to take coming from a fed employee, but give it a whirl in the noggin). It ain't as simple as undeserved welfare to queens driving pink Cadillacs (that came out all wrong, but it's late). It is cause by unfunded wars, borrowing against entitlements (too bad we didn't elect that guy with the "lock box" in 2000) and general economic and political irresponsibility including that from many of those now posturing with the tea party. And even a tea party majority in half of one branch of government can't dictate terms to the rest of us -of, by and for ALL.

What's Up with the Budget?

The budget for 2012 proposed by the President doesn't seem to make any sense.

(Insert caveat - as a fed employee my comments here do not reflect any official position of the government or my office.  My office may be OK in the proposed budget. Other agencies of the Department will suffer which will increase our workload as they reduce staff and reorganize priorities. And we will likely not be able to backfill as some of our seasoned attorneys go out on retirement. The pay freeze is OK if not great. We expect to get whacked more in the current budget still not enacted but going to Continuing Resolution probably with across-the-board cuts. How much is the only question. And shutdown is still not out of the question.)

The 2012 budget is a milk-toast proposal. Maybe it's an opening position with much more to move as negotiations with the Republican House get tough. Maybe it's the President's dodge to avoid the hard issues of entitlements and defense in preparation for the 2012 campaign. But as I said in my analysis of the State of the Union Address, the Prez may be stepping to the side to allow the House to perform its constitutional duty to initiate spending (or savings).  It could be a cynical political ploy to force the Republicans to start the discussion on cutting Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare and appear bad before the electorate. There is much criticism among the pontificators, on cable and the net, that he is not taking responsibility as a leader. But once again, my theory of a Con-Law Professor attempting to readjust the modern emphasis on the Executive Branch to place more responsibility on the people's representatives in Congress might just fit.