Dangerous proposal for ‘national divorce’

Gordon L. Weil

Let’s get a divorce.

Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) has loudly proposed a “national divorce” for the U.S. There are what the law calls “irreconcilable differences” between the Red states and the Blue states, so we should split up. Silly as that sounds, her proposal offers the chance for remembering just who this “odd couple” is.

Former GOP Rep. Liz Chaney says the proposal amounts to a call for secession from the U.S. But national divorce is neither legal nor possible in this law-abiding country. That’s what the Civil War settled. So Greene, a right-wing extremist, is really proposing the impossible.

In her view, the Blue states, those under Democratic (though she insists on “Democrat”) control, are imposing their woke will on the rest of the country. Everything from Social Security to environmental protection are part of a Democratic plot to replace freedom with socialism in her view.

Because the country is so closely divided, she wants to stop the Democrats by political separation, which would prevent them forcing their policies on Red states. The barrier would be high. If a Blue stater moved into a Red state, they would be banned from voting for five years. The same would have to be true in the other direction.

Her proposal has historical roots that have been torn out. The original American deal was based on a compromise about slavery. The U.S. accepted both slave and free states, and the choice was left to each state.

At first, there was an even balance. But free states would outnumber slave states, which worried that a national majority would end the practice. So they wanted to pick up and move out: national divorce. President Lincoln proposed to guarantee their system even if it could not extend elsewhere. But the slave states did not trust him and, as Lincoln lamented, “the war came.”

When the dust settled, slavery ended. The victors amended the Constitution to ensure that the federal government would gain much greater control of the states. Congressional majorities, formed by either side, could make laws that applied to all states. That’s what Greene does not like – majority rule.

The U.S. was built on an ingenious system of government. It would produce the world’s first functional federation with power shared between the national authority and the states that had created it. The combination would produce a great world power, while keeping governments that were close to the people. This was the second great compromise that made America.

Over time, the powers of the federal government grew. The Great Depression of the 1930s was an economic catastrophe that had to be met on a national level after it was shown that the states and private business failed to resolve it. New institutions and policies were developed for modern times.

In the decades of prosperity that have followed, the original opponents of federal action, mainly the Republicans, have come to chafe under those institutions and policies. In effect, they would turn back the clock. In Greene’s theory, states ought to be able to opt out.

The system has been based on the belief that future political differences would be resolved through new compromises. But increased equal treatment of African Americans, culminating in the election of Barack Obama as president, after the deep division caused by the Vietnam War, led to hostility to government in the Red states met by self-righteousness in the Blue states.

For the system to work requires both sides to be willing to compromise. In some communities and in some states, that was possible. But in Washington, the sides hardened. Compromise has become so rare that what should have been a common practice became a rare achievement. Members seldom negotiate; they often bloviate.

Compromise has been defined as a deal under which each side is equally unhappy. It’s based on the concept of “win a few, lose a few.”

But when each side believes in “winner takes all,” compromise is impossible. This fact has been brought home by the belief that when the GOP took control of the House this January, the possibility for action by a divided Congress virtually ended.

Greene, a dangerous partisan, sees no hope for cooperation. For her, the Democrats are simply bad guys, out to crush freedom in the name of big government. Just free the Red states from federal control and they’ll be able to preserve their ways.

But “divorce” would not stop there. Red states could continue to confront blue states. For example, the conservative Supreme Court ruled that abortion policy should be left entirely to the states, as Greene proposes. Now, conservatives seek a national judicial ban on a long-used abortion medication, even halting its use in states opting to allow abortions.

Utah’s GOP Gov. Spencer Cox has an answer to Greene: "We don’t need a divorce; we need marriage counseling."

Has Putin's nuclear treaty move increased danger?

Gordon L. Weil

The Ukraine war came home to Americans when Putin quit Russia’s last nuclear arms control agreement with the U.S.  But the potentially renewed threat of nuclear confrontation, part of the Cold War between the U.S. and the Soviet Union, has been mostly ignored.   

To understand the new situation, I interviewed John Holum, former U.S. Under-Secretary of State responsible for arms control in the Clinton Administration, for an expert analysis.  Here are key points from that interview.

Weil: How important is Putin’s move to suspend the New START nuclear treaty?

Holum: There’s no way to know.  It could be purely Ukraine related, a way to add leverage.  The practical significance of this step in isolation is not great, because there haven’t been inspections since 2020 due to Covid and subsequently we were prepared to renew the inspections and he balked because of Ukraine. If it’s a change in nuclear doctrine, that would be a huge deal.  We have to treat it that way until we know for sure.

W: Should we be more concerned?

H: Yes, almost all the [arms control] treaties we were dealing with are gone.  The Bush Administration withdrew from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty.  Trump pulled out of the Intermediate Nuclear Forces Agreement and Open Skies Treaty. In invading Ukraine, Putin violated an agreement under which Ukraine gave up their nuclear weapons in exchange for an agreement by Russia to respect their territorial integrity.  Previous strategic arms control agreements have expired.  Now Russia is saying we’re going to abandon the last remaining one with the U.S. All that’s left are multi-country agreements. What has been carefully constructed going back to the Eisenhower Administration (1953-61) will be gone.

W: What about Russia?

H: It’s a pretty foolish step on Putin’s part. The Russian economy is one-tenth of the American economy to say nothing of Europe.  Many think the Soviet Union collapsed because it couldn’t keep up in the arms race.  Does he really want to do that again?  And it would further cement Russia’s status as an outlaw state, equivalent to North Korea.  It may be something Putin is doing; I don’t think it’s the consensus view of Russian leadership.

W: Does this bring back something like the Cold War?

H: Yes, it does. Remember that the technology both for monitoring compliance and for destruction have advanced dramatically since those early days.  We have the potential of hypersonic weapons that would eliminate early warning times. We can monitor launching vehicles like planes and missiles, but inspections remain necessary to monitor the number of nuclear warheads.

W: Are we now living more dangerously?

H: I think we are. If this is a major change by Russia, then I think we’re in a world of trouble. We need to hope that saner heads will prevail in Russia.  I want to go back to the possibility that this may be a minor step, but we are still in trouble for the reasons I’ve mentioned.

W: Though while we must treat this move as a change in the nuclear danger, we don’t automatically get support around the world from countries who question the U.S.

H: We may think we can reverse doubts about the U.S., but we have a world that can see that Trump pulled out of an Iran nuclear deal [the U.S. ended a multi-party agreement and Iran can now have nuclear weapons] and other agreements. Once that’s happened people can think it can happen again.  After Trump, our word is less valued.

W: What should the U.S. do in the current situation?

H: Intelligence may give us a better fix on what has just happened. Regardless of what’s said, we have to respond to what’s actually being done. When Putin threatens the use of tactical nuclear weapons, you have to take that seriously. You have to be planning now how to deal with it. If Russian doctrine is changing, we have to begin by rebuilding faith in nuclear nonproliferation with all nuclear weapon states agreeing to negotiate in good faith to reduce and then eliminate their arsenals. Preventing a weapons build-up is in Russia’s interest. By walking away from an agreement, Russia is rejecting that bargain, so the global community should join in the response.

We should, however, be wary of getting back into a reflexive arms race.  Instead of a tit-for-tat reaction, we should always determine whether our forces are sufficient to maintain an unquestioned deterrent. [Interview ends.]

After my interview with Holum, the Russian president seemed to be having second thoughts about his rash move.  But Holum’s worries deserve priority attention and U.S. readiness to deal with an irresponsible outburst  from the world’s second nuclear power.

American leaders need to take the situation seriously and not see Putin’s move as only an empty threat.   The world just became a more dangerous place.

  

Social Security brings clash on government's role

Gordon L. Weil

“Love Me or Leave Me.”

The title of that old hit movie could be attached to that old hit government program – Social Security.

Most Democrats, who invented it, love it.  Some Republicans, conflicted about it, would leave it and replace it with individual investing.  Both understand that, well past the usual retirement age, it needs updating.

Democrats see it as a major federal program on which tens of millions depend. In their view, touching any key aspect of the single most costly federal program could be politically fatal.  Republicans, believing that increasing taxes is never a good idea, even to allow it to survive, would replace it.

Democrats and Republicans agree that it will run out of money to maintain benefits; Democrats want to raise taxes and Republicans want to cut benefits. 

For Democrats, Social Security is the most successful and enduring part of President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal.  It assures older Americans of at least some support in meeting their living costs when they retire.

Originally, it was not expected to grow to its current size.  Though all workers and employers would contribute to it, there would be relatively few beneficiaries.  The retirement age was set at 65, higher than normal life expectancy in the 1930s when it began.  The population would grow and the accumulated funds and taxes on new workers would cover the cost.

But medical science extended the lifespan enough to produce many recipients.  The aging population began to reveal that contributing workers would decrease while retirees increased. It became evident that Social Security would not support itself out of the payroll tax.  Politicians and voters kept avoiding the inevitable shortfall, but it kept coming.

Making the issue more obvious resulted from rolling it into the federal budget process rather than keeping it apart from other programs.  At the time, though no money moved, it made the deficit budget appear to be balanced.  Now, it makes the deficit even worse.

Here’s how the federal budget looks.  More than half of outlays go to “mandatory” programs like Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.  The rest goes to “discretionary” programs like defense and all other programs.  Income comes mainly from individual and corporate income taxes plus payroll taxes.  In coming years, payroll taxes and reserves won’t cover mandatory programs.

Only two tools are available to fix the mismatch – raise taxes or cut spending – as they apply to mandatory programs. They must be used independently or in a mix.

The essence of Democratic proposals is that payroll taxes should be raised.  The most obvious method would be to lift the cap on earnings subject to the payroll tax, making it possible to collect much more from the wealthiest people.  Beyond that increase, income taxes on the rich should be increased in ways that their schemes cannot dodge.

Not only would those increases solve the cost-revenue mismatch, but they could support expansion of Social Security.  The country would admit what is already becoming true: Social Security is a national retirement plan.  Private employers would continue with their own plans, encouraged by the tax laws and to be used to recruit employees.

But financing Social Security by income taxes would virtually ensure that it would become as permanent a part of federal spending as defense.  As in other countries with similar programs, the tax burden could be expected to be heavier.

That’s what worries the GOP.  Money that goes to taxes is money that is denied to profits and investment. That shift could change the American economy.  Republican leaders seek ways to reduce payouts by raising the retirement age.  They also want older people to invest in the private market and use returns there to replace government payments.

In effect, under the Republican approach, older Americans will work longer and take on more risk, though many would avoid higher taxes needed to keep traditional Social Security solvent.  Some Republicans dislike big government, so shifting retirement from a government program to encouraging private investment would meet their concerns.

Congress and the country face a difficult decision on Social Security and other mandatory programs.  Until now, Congress has avoided any serious attempt to resolve the issue.  Appointing an expert commission, as some propose, would just be kicking the can down the road.

While the decision is difficult, the choice is not.  Voters will ultimately have to decide between bigger government to maintain and possibly expand Social Security or giving individuals more of a required role in managing their own retirements.

In a broader sense, this is the essence of the national political debate between the two parties and in a divided electorate.  Is there a common need justifying a greater role for government or is government an uncontrolled force that seeks to deprive us of personal choice?

It’s a debate worth having and one we must have.