Republican Right would bar compromise

Gordon L. Weil

It’s only a small issue, but it explains why talk about cooperation between the two parties is nothing more than a convenient myth, otherwise known as a lie.

The Maine House Republicans complain that the governor has “nominated a former Democrat state legislator” to be Public Advocate.  There it is: the persistent use by the GOP of the word “Democrat” when the correct word is “Democratic,” as in the official, legal name of the party.

The use of “Democrat” is meant as a slur, a way Republicans annoy Democratic legislators and to suggest that the traditional party has been replaced by an extreme liberal version.  The Democrats have not counterattacked with their own slur for the Republicans, though the traditional GOP has itself been replaced by Trump loyalists.

The almost total and persistent opposition to Democrats goes beyond the word.  The extreme right-wing Freedom Caucus in the House warned their support for Speaker Mike Johnson depends on his refusing to rely on Democratic support to pass bills.  Johnson’s version of bipartisanship occurs when the Democrats fall in line behind the GOP.

Susan Collins, Maine’s Republican senator, told a state university audience that she favors compromise over conflict. The result, she said, “would produce a very different legislative climate, one in which the objective is to solve the problem, not just to score political points.”  In her speech, she used the term “Democratic.”  That little “ic” may justify her moderate label.

But the Republican game, especially in Washington, is all about scoring political points.  If you score enough points, you win the game and can change the country. Standing in the way of GOP extremism might be a handful of loyal Republicans, including Collins, supporting good government over partisanship. That will take courage, which requires taking risks.

After a sound electoral victory and enjoying the first year of his term, Trump dominates.  He pressured Freedom Caucus members to support Johnson, allowing the peaceful January 6 electoral vote count.  But his political attacks replace the truth. Trump claimed the New Orleans slaughter resulted from illegal immigration, though the alleged killer was American-born.

The Republican extreme right is determined to play a massive blame game, attributing anything that goes wrong to the Democrats.  That is hardly the way to compromise, but guarantees conflict. 

The right can block decisions, if Johnson won’t allow any bills to pass that depend on Democratic support.   With a slim majority, the Speaker needs their votes to pass almost any bill with only GOP votes.

If the federal government has any chance for compromise, it’s up to the Democrats.  They need to stop agonizing over why they lost and try to respond to popular concerns.  Important as they may be, some social issues seem to be marginal compared with making government more responsive to public demands on spending and taxes.

The Democrats need to develop a platform containing an agreed agenda for government action.  It cannot offer something for everyone, and it must focus creatively on core issues like trade, Social Security reform, and immigration.

The party could start a platform development process now, involving the National Committee and people from across the country.  Presumably, the new party chair, who will not be the party’s visible leader, could manage this process.

The Democrats need a coherent and constructive agenda before the 2026 congressional elections.  They also need a leader. They cannot put off both decisions until the 2028 campaign.

The major financial backers of the Democratic Party could focus on potential standard bearers they would support.  While the ultimate choice is up to the party faithful, the Democrats’ menu could be prepared ahead of the 2028 primary wars. Meanwhile, they would have visible leaders with financial backing to speak for their platform.

The Democrats should be looking at issues on their own merits, reflecting the popular will, rather than simply opposing the Republicans.  That means they could support some Trump proposals.  If a GOP initiative could be improved, they should offer changes, but not lend their votes in return for political payoffs involving more spending.

Possibly the best way for Republicans to listen to Democratic ideas and for Democrats to make cooperation a reality would be to revive the tradition of an unofficial, bipartisan group of senators that would attempt to develop policies acceptable to a majority of each party in the Senate.  Four moderates from each party could do it.

If the Senate could agree on proposals backed by majorities in each party while the House produced distinctly partisan bills, another tradition could be revived.  Representatives of the two houses would meet in a conference committee where they might at least try to come up with a bill that could pass both houses.  The House could then be faced with accepting or rejecting the deal. 

Trump would bypass Congress, Court in TikTok case

 

Gordon L. Weil

We have front-row seats for a major fight, perhaps the constitutional Fight of the Century.

Three contenders are in the ring, each a heavyweight.  They are the Congress, the Supreme Court and President-elect Trump, who just got involved.  The outcome could reveal which of them wields the greatest power.

Last April, Congress passed with overwhelming majorities, including all four Maine members, and President Biden signed a law ordering ByteDance, the owner of the social media giant TikTok, either to sell it or shut it down.  The new unconditional federal law gave ByteDance until January 19 to act.  The president is ultimately responsible for carrying it out

China has a record of stealing or accessing U.S. data.  This week, the Treasury Department reported a “major incident” of Chinese hacking.  China has been formally designated as an American adversary.

Congress, Biden and former president Trump have all expressed concern about the control of ByteDance by China of a company that has access to personal information of millions of Americans.  While he was president, Trump tried to shut it down, but was blocked by the courts.

But ByteDance understandably opposed the law, so it challenged it on the grounds that Congress had exceeded its authority under the Constitution.  Because the First Amendment is meant to prevent government interference with freedom of speech, it claimed that Congress had gone too far.

If ByteDance did not divest, the requirement to end the millions of communications that take place on TikTok would amount to federal control of speech.  The company also stated that it is owned by international shareholders, not the Chinese government.  But Congress had decided that China controlled it, and that decision is not the key issue.

The case went first to a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington.  All three found that Congress had not violated the Constitution, because it acted in the interest of national security.  The judges had been appointed by presidents Reagan, Obama and Trump, making it difficult to call its ruling partisan.  ByteDance appealed to the Supreme Court.

The Court is trying to act quickly on the appeal.  It must decide whether Congress exceeded its legal powers, but it will not decide if TikTok must close.  That is a judgment for ByteDance, which could resolve the matter by selling, though the law requires it to have a buyer lined up by January 19.

If the Court decides that Congress acted constitutionally, then ByteDance must quickly act.  If it finds that Congress exceeded its powers, ByteDance may continue to operate TikTok.

President-elect Trump’s lawyers recently requested that the Court delay its proceedings until after he takes office on January 20. They claim that Trump is uniquely qualified to negotiate a resolution of the issue of China’s control.  In effect, Congress and the Court should back off and turn the matter over to him. 

Trump’s last-minute move seems to ignore the fact that the law takes effect if not declared unconstitutional.  He might try to avoid that point by quickly deciding that China is not an adversary of the U.S., despite earlier findings by Biden, Congress and himself.

During the 2024 presidential campaign, Trump became quite popular on TikTok and told voters that he would not let it close down.  This may be the reason why he has changed his views on its threat to America security and the privacy of its users.

Trump has put the Supreme Court and most of the GOP members of both the House and Senate on the spot.  In effect, he has asserted that both his role as president and his superior powers of negotiation should displace the normal legislative and judicial operations of the federal government.  On January 19, Trump will not yet be president, so can he now make this claim?

When the Court decided that the president has almost unlimited powers, it might not have thought he would want the Court itself to defer to him.  Now, the Court is on trial and will reveal how it reacts to his pressure to step aside and let him settle the matter.  If it gives Trump what he seeks, it would surely have to be seen as a partisan, political body.

He would ignore a law backed by his own supporters, who responded to his opposition to China.  That’s possible, since he has explored ignoring another long-standing law that limits presidential spending powers.  His unusual Court filing is extravagant in its self-praise, making it appear that he deserves deference not usually given to presidents.

The conflict is about whether Congress acted constitutionally, if the Court should suspend acting  when asked by the president-elect, and if the election empowers the president to rule rather than to govern within a system of checks and balances.

All that makes for a big fight.

Shutdown crisis left big problems

 

Gordon L. Weil

This person has painful feet, which only get worse.  They have three ways to reduce their aching feet.

They could get a new pair of shoes, uncomfortable until broken in, but with a good fit afterwards.  Or they can hop on one foot, leaving only one foot in pain.  Or they can jump off a cliff and have no pain until they land, whenever that will happen.

The name of this person is America.  And the painful problem arises, not from shoes, but from the U.S. government always spending more money than it takes in.  Its hurtful budget habit is a symptom of a national illness that has infected the entire political system.  America’s government could get new shoes any day, but it doesn’t, because its paralyzed.

The annual deficit is about six percent of the entire value of the national economy.  Deficits in annual spending accumulate into the national debt that now equals the production of the entire economy.  Obviously, this cannot go on endlessly.

The new pair of shoes would take the form of a balanced budget, financed by debt to pay for long-term purchases and taxes, including increases when necessary, to pay for current operations.  Increasing taxes might be uncomfortable for a while, but it would reduce the pain before the debt kills the economy or cripples future generations.

Hopping on one foot happens when the government relies only on debt, while trying to cut spending and hoping to cut taxes.  But hoping and hopping get harder as the costs of new promises mount.  America gets a bit wobbly on its feet.

Or America can neither cut costs nor raise taxes.  It simply jumps off the cliff, spending and borrowing with its eyes closed, not thinking about the hard landing.

The budget bill passed just in time to avoid a government shutdown is a clear case of jumping off the cliff.  It kept the government running by extending an earlier budget, some of it wasteful and poorly aligned with current needs.   Seemingly do-good items like emergency aid and farm funding were tacked on. 

By preventing a government shutdown, the bill has been celebrated as a bipartisan legislative success. It passed mainly because neither party wanted the blame for closing the government.  In reality, it is a policy failure, because the two sides could not reach any agreement on a normal budget, the most basic function of Congress. 

The entire process revealed that most in Congress did not get the message of the election.  People don’t respect Congress, because it ignores their concerns in favor of playing its usual political games. More House Democrats than Republicans were needed to support the GOP Speaker’s budget deal, revealing how badly Washington is working. 

The original bill and the final version were Christmas trees, decorated with goodies for both parties.  Instead of understanding that voters prefer a practical government over one that uses debt without discipline, Congress continues to believe that the best solution is to throw money at any problem.  No wonder it’s not popular.

In effect, many voters have decided that the federal government has moved on from New Deal-style government to at least a partial return to more traditional American conservatism.  The business-as-usual of the past nine decades should be updated.  But its handling of the budget bill shows that Congress won’t change.    

The Democrats, as busy as the Republicans in adding tinsel to the tree, missed a great opportunity.  They could have promptly agreed with President-elect Trump (and Elon Musk, apparently his prime minister) on a bare extension of spending with no add-ons.  Where would that have left the House GOP?  Any added spending would have been passed in a new bill.

Instead, the Democrats blocked Trump’s demand to raise the debt limit, believing a higher cap would permit him to extend and even increase current tax cuts.  They wanted the GOP to accept full responsibility for piling on more debt.  The debt cap was not in the final bill.

In reality, many Democrats, Trump and some Republicans agree that the debt ceiling is nothing more than an attention-grabbing tool to be used in budget negotiations.  Only hardline Republicans seem willing to push the U.S. into default, if that’s what it takes to reduce spending. 

The debt ceiling could be a clear violation of the Fourteenth Amendment requiring the federal government to make good on the borrowing arising from its spending commitments.   This would have been the moment to kill this troublesome financial gimmick.

Trump’s grandstanding and hostile behavior, the unrealistic Democratic hopes of restoring the old ways and the mindless Republican warfare against compromise come at a price.  They lead Washington to ignore popular demands for a well-functioning government that produces practical results.

The federal budget fiasco just proved that.