America has crisis of confidence

Gordon L. Weil

Welcome to this month’s crisis of confidence.

A bank failure, the debt ceiling conflict and the proposed Maine state budget have something in common. They all raise doubt about our confidence in institutions on which we depend.

The underlying cause is politics.  The effect of this loss of confidence in our government may be more important than how each issue is resolved.

The Silicon Valley Bank failed because of truly poor management.  Its executives invested their depositors’ funds unwisely, making it impossible for them to get their money out of the bank when they needed it.  What started with a trickle of withdrawals became a flood, and the bank failed.  Depositors in other banks panicked.  The problem spread, endangering the economy.

In 2008, banks got into trouble and some failed. The federal government shored up others. The lesson was learned, and Congress added new rules improving the chances that banks would hold enough available reserves to meet stepped up depositor withdrawals.

The biggest banks, the ones considered “too big to fail” because of the possibly massive effect of failure, are subject to “stress tests” to ensure their reserves are adequate.  So were other medium-size banks, but many, including SVB, disliked being checked.  The Trump administration backed off the scrutiny on all but the biggest.

The reversal was pushed by a dislike of what was claimed to be government overregulation. Unfortunately, the banking system turned out to need the safeguards.  Fortunately, there was a back-up.

To stop the panic right away, federal government regulators took over SVB and said depositors would get all their money.  Remember that little sign on the bank that says “Member FDIC.”  It means something. The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, funded by banks, has the cash to cover the crash.

Nobody complains when the FDIC and the Federal Reserve, both government agencies, save the banking system.  But Republican deregulators now warn against using tax dollars to bail out the banks.  The federal agencies are not using taxpayer money and don’t need to.  But, if attacking “big” government scores political points, the opponents of regulation don’t back off.

Similarly, the partisan battle over raising the debt ceiling calls into question whether Washington will do a backdoor reversal, this time of spending decisions it has already made.  That raises doubts about the federal government’s ability to pay its debts, and the world’s financial system loses confidence in the most important currency – the U.S. dollar.

The reason why the dollar is the world’s main money is that the U.S. has a long history of paying what it owes lenders.  Plus, it’s the world’s largest economy. That creates great confidence in the dollar and, as a result, in the U.S.

If the U.S. defaults on its debt, weakening confidence in the dollar, number-two China is ready to offer its currency as the alternative.  American world power probably depends as much on the strength of the dollar as on the strength of the armed forces.  It boils down to a question of confidence: can the world still rely on America?

President Biden might solve the problem himself and ignore GOP attempts to hold the debt ceiling hostage to reversing previous spending decisions. The Constitution says the U.S. pays its debts. So, there may be no need for a debt ceiling bill at all, and Biden could prevent a crisis of confidence.

This can even happen in Maine.

In a 2004 referendum, Maine voters decided that the state should pay 55% of basic school costs. In another vote, they raised taxes on the wealthiest to pay for the added state budget cost.  The Legislature promptly overruled the voters and reversed the tax increase but capped state spending plus making a start on reaching 55%.

Under Gov. Janet Mills, the state now has enough money to pay the 55% and stay under the cap, which it has observed aside from funding the school adder.  Now, as part of her budget, she proposes to break the deal that had been made.  Flush with funds, state government seems to believe the cap, now almost 20 years old, can also be flushed.

The Maine GOP says the state should keep to a deal that was made after the Legislature overruled two referendums. If Mills wants to bury the deal, she could either ask for a clean vote on the issue by the Legislature or send the question back to the voters.

The governor has the legislative votes to do what she wants. But the action, as in the other two cases, explains a frequently heard citizen reaction to government.

Some voters say that politicians don’t keep their word, abandoning promises meant to reassure voters when they think the voters aren’t looking.  Lacking confidence in government, why vote?

The real message: low trust in government can threaten democracy.

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.

 

On his birthday, George Washington attacked: racist or woke?

 

Gordon L. Weil

Was George Washington woke?

When I write my annual tribute to America’s great leader as his birthday is celebrated, he has come under attack from critics who find he was not woke enough.  He was a slave owner. 

That view overlooks much of his exceptional life.  Even by today’s understanding, Washington could qualify for being called woke, though it might not have mattered to him.

“Woke” as a label grows out of an effort to get people to accept the belief that the legacy of slavery remains present in virtually every part of American political and economic life. This belief is about “systemic racism” and the academic study of “critical race theory.”

The term “woke” does not mean the same thing to everybody.

For some, it is used as an accusation against leaders who have developed and benefitted from the American political system and economy.  They are charged with having abused their dominant position at the expense of slaves and their descendents.  The accusation goes back in history to revered leaders.

Washington is attacked for having excluded Africans from the Army in the Revolutionary War.  He owned slaves and sought the recapture of escapees throughout most of his life.  He would split up Black families.  He does not deserve our respect, the critics claim.

As a Virginian, he lived the life of his times.  The criticism of him assumes he should have exercised the wisdom of our times.  His actions anger his critics, leading them to ignore how unusual he was for his times.

They choose to overlook how his life developed.  As commanding general, he changed his policy and Blacks entered the Army, including 5,000 who saw combat for the American side.  That act was exceptional.  Only at the end of World War II were Black soldiers assigned front-line combat roles.  A friend of Washington’s reported that he resolved as president to support the North if the country split apart over slavery. 

He mandated that his slaves would be freed upon the death of his wife, but she freed them soon after his passing.  The U.S. did not abolish slavery until almost 70 years later and only after a raging Civil War.

With anti-Semitism growing in recent years, he assured the Jewish congregation of Newport, Rhode Island, of their equality with other citizens.  He understood that Jews had provided loyal support for the Revolutionary War.

Washington’s life shows “woke” is absurd when it would rewrite history by trying to erase people and their acts.  We learn from history.  What worked and what didn’t work?  How was progress achieved?  Did people gain mainly by exploiting other people?  There’s a record with answers showing success and failure. Both are worth understanding.

The Black Lives Matter movement is an expression of the effort to raise awareness of continued injustice in American society.  The shocking killing of Blacks who are alleged by police to have committed minor offenses fuels frustration and anger.  The “All Lives Matter” response is both true and intentionally misleading.

The BLM movement is meant to get people to understand that equal justice remains a goal, not an achievement.  It could focus more on where George Washington ended than on where he started from.

‘Woke” has become a negative word for some people.  They are not responsible for slavery, and they resent being accused of being its unconscious beneficiaries. They reject complicating their lives to deal with guilt they do not feel but sense could be imposed on them to pay reparations.

Of course, some people believe in their own racial superiority. To them, opposing “woke” may be a barely disguised way of expressing their discredited opinions. They see critical race theory as a threat.  To them, the election of Barack Obama was an affront, not a milestone.

Yet there are disadvantaged and deprived people in society, and it is fair to draw attention to their condition. “Woke” is an old word and it means to awaken.  It’s used to make people aware of the need to help the less fortunate so the promise of equal opportunity can be realized.

Today, right-wing Republicans have attacked “woke” as a way of attacking government’s role in helping poor and middle-income people improve their lives.  They blindly ignore how much government has helped them to attain their positions.  They often defend a past that cannot survive in a changing world.

George Washington provided a good example.  Like everybody else, he was not perfect.  He exploited others. But he did not cling to the unjust, old ways.  As a good general and an excellent statesman, he moved the country beyond its colonial origins in directions that could lead to greatness.  That looks easier now than it was then.

Washington should be remembered not only as a leader but for his ability to learn and change.    

Balloon: China’s dangerous mistake

Gordon L. Weil

Here’s a phone call that never took place.

“Mr. Secretary of State, this is the Ambassador of China.  I call to alert you that China has lost control of a weather balloon that may head toward American airspace, and we are trying to get it under control. We would appreciate your cooperation and understanding.”

That’s the kind of call one friendly country would make to another. The fact that such a call was not made and China was livid about the balloon being shot down over U.S. territory proves that it was engaged in spying.

Carl von Clausewitz, the great German military strategist, wrote: “War is a continuation of politics (policy) by another means.”  Today, it is common to talk about “competition” between the U.S. and China.  It is fair to conclude that competition is war by another means.  The balloon was a bullet in that war.

The balloon was a major mistake.  The Chinese failed to understand that an incursion on U.S. territory is unrivaled in its effect on the American people.  The threat stirs widely shared emotions, beyond reasonable concern, like the 1941 Pearl Harbor or 9/11 attacks.

Xi Jinping, China’s boss, believes that his country’s version of Communism is superior to American-style democracy. China attempts to gain power in the Pacific, the Middle East and Africa, financed by hard currency earned from manufacturing for the U.S. and European markets.  China also directly harasses and threatens the U.S. military in the air and at sea.

The U.S. has been slow to respond to this “competition.” It has finally gotten around to opening an embassy in the Solomon Islands, which it had liberated in World War II, but moved only after China had established a firm foothold there.  China built artificial, heavily armed islands in the South China Sea before the U.S. fleet showed up in force.

Other countries have begun to take notice of the U.S.-China situation.  Japan, South Korea, the Philippines, and Australia are toughening their stance toward China.  Even Mexico has drawn closer to the U.S., perhaps partly in hopes of replacing some of the Chinese exports. Europe has mostly chosen to follow the American lead.

At the same time, China has been helping transform Russia from a major power into a satellite, heavily dependent on it.  While it has taken on the aura of neutrality in the Ukraine war, it helps Russia by buying its oil and providing military technology.

Two blocs are clearly emerging, one led by the U.S. and one by China.  The U.S. connects NATO, which it dominates, with Pacific Rim allies.  This group includes the world’s leading economies and growing military forces. 

Facing them is China, which also boosts its military.  Linked to it are Russia, Iran, and Belarus.  The central issue between the two blocs, as Xi sees it, is whether governments under popular control can produce results as effectively as authoritarian regimes.  China seeks to make other countries economically dependent on it through its Belt and Road initiative.

The United Nations in which the U.S., China, Russia, the U.K. and France were to join in maintaining world peace is a distant memory. These nations have proven unwilling to cede any real military powers to an international organization.

Meanwhile, much of the rest of the world tries to exploit the situation by taking advantage of the supposed competition.  Turkey is the prime example.  Xi has made a major visit to Saudi Arabia.  This month, China, Russia and South Africa are holding joint naval exercises.

The outlook is for a prolonged conflict, though not directly military, between the U.S. and China. In the lengthy Cold War, the Soviet Union and the U.S. engaged in saber-rattling.  Today’s version of near-war is not as likely to involve armed threats, though they are possible.  The balloon shows surprises can happen.

The U.S. cannot rely heavily on the non-governmental outreach of American investment and commerce to carry the burden of meeting the Chinese challenge in developing countries.  Adequate and appropriate armed forces and an active foreign policy are required, not a new version of isolationism. 

To be effective, American policy must focus on selling fewer sensitive electronics to China and Russia and buying consumer products in other countries, denying dollars to Xi.  Such measures can reduce U.S. exports and increase prices.  No war, even one packaged as mere “competition,” comes without a cost.  And U.S. election integrity should be defended.

At the same time, the U.S. and China must talk with one another.  Diplomatic contacts can provide helpful intelligence.  Secretary of State Antony Blinken was right to cancel his trip to China, but he should find a way to meet soon with its leaders.  If there is any chance of improved relations, it depends as much on continued contact as on continued readiness.  

Murdaugh trial highlights lawyer's role; poor need counsel as good

 

Gordon L. Weil

The start of a sensational murder trial was almost lost in an avalanche of last week’s news from Memphis to Moscow.  Alex Murdaugh, a prominent South Carolina lawyer, is standing trial for the murder of his wife and one of his sons. 

Facing charges of stealing large sums from clients and under investigation in connection with another suspicious death, Murdaugh is alleged to have sought to make himself more sympathetic by eliciting pity after the two murders.  He may have even tried to have himself killed or at least have it look that way.

There are no witnesses to the murders.  The state has collected circumstantial evidence, and believes it has a strong case.  Murdaugh has hired an experienced and respected lawyer to represent him.  In a case lacking witness testimony, the outcome of the trial depends heavily on the ability of the state’s prosecutor and his defense lawyer to influence the jury.

The case highlights a key element of the criminal justice system.  It helps to have money. Murdaugh has been able to hire a lawyer who could put on the best possible defense.  He knows his way around the courts and is familiar with the ways of both the judge and the prosecutor.  His experience and reputation should help Murdaugh.

If Murdaugh could not have afforded his high-priced counsel, South Carolina would have to provide him with a defense attorney.  South Carolina has a public defender system and Murdaugh would have been represented by a professional defender, who is a state employee just like the prosecutor. 

This system goes back to the Sixth Amendment of the Constitution, which says that all criminal defendants have the right to a lawyer.  While that rule originally applied to the federal government, the Fourteenth Amendment imposed that same obligation on the states.

It was not until 1963 that the Supreme Court ruled this obligation applied to any criminal case from murder on down.  Almost any police procedural television crime show includes an officer reciting the notice that resulted from that case: “You have the right to an attorney.  If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be provided for you.”

California lawyer Clara Shortridge Foltz, one of the first woman attorneys in the U.S., is both historic and unknown.  In 1893, she delivered a landmark speech at the Chicago World’s Fair calling for the creation of public defenders.  She is considered the founder of the idea of professional defenders.

“Connected with the court is a public prosecutor, selected for his skill in securing convictions, strong of physique, alert of mind, learned in the law, experienced in practice ...,” she said. “[B]efore him sits a plastic judge with large discretion....”   Outspoken, she was.

She observed that defendants who plead poverty receive appointed counsel.  However, “the rule is that court appointees are wholly unequal to the public officers with whom they are to cope,” she said. Her solution? “For every public prosecutor there should be a public defender chosen in the same way and paid out of the same fund.”

In the end, lawyer Foltz’s proposal has brought results.  There are over 90 Public Defender offices for federal cases.  By law, their lawyers are paid like those in the U.S. Attorneys’ offices.  They have been rated as effective advocates.

States have public defender offices, sometimes administered through counties.  Many supplement the state employees with contract attorneys who may handle certain types of cases.  Panels of such contract counsel are established in advance, and they are often paid at comparable rates.

The state offices provide professional defense counsel that Foltz would have called “learned in the law, experienced in practice.”  Contract counsel often must demonstrate their expertise.  Together with the federal defenders, a national system for providing legal defense to the indigent has been developed since 1963.

Maine is the last state to provide professional public defenders to poor criminal defendants. 

Though Maine’s finances could support public defenders, it has customarily relied on attorney case hires that fall below the state’s need.  Governor Janet Mills has suggested using new law school graduates, not necessarily “experienced in practice” and lacking full staff support.  Their part-time pay is likely to amount to less than the salaries of prosecutors.  

Though Maine has recently approved five public defenders for rural areas, it continues to rely heavily on outside lawyers.  In other states, outside lawyers supplement experienced, full-time professional staffs. 

The Maine branch of the American Civil Liberties Union has brought a class action suit against the state, attempting to get a true public defender system off the ground.  When this happens, as seems inevitable, the constitutional promise in the Bill of Rights will have been kept all across the country.   Disclosure: I am a financial contributor to the ACLU case.

Parties fight over more muscle for IRS

 

Gordon L. Weil

Maine taxpayers won the lottery.

When the Maine Megabucks winner receives the $1.35 billion payout, Maine could receive as much as $96.4 million in taxes. Unlike other billionaires, the winner will have to pay most state and federal taxes before they get their money.

The wealthiest taxpayers do everything they can to evade paying taxes. Some of them cheat. Mostly, that’s never known. But a recent New Yorker magazine disclosed one classic story.

To try to get all households to pay their fair share as set by law, the IRS and Maine Revenue Services conduct audits and investigations. That’s the prime reason for their existence.

If they succeed, they could collect billions in legitimate revenue. That would reduce the tax burden on smaller taxpayers. And it should reduce the need for government to borrow money to cover approved costs. Borrowing means paying interest and taxpaying households foot that bill.

The money the Megabucks winner has brought to Maine was raised from players in other states and that cash will reduce the state’s need to borrow and its related costs. That saving will flow through into the calculation of just how much money is needed from taxes.

Maine taxpayers benefit when the tax bill is paid with OPM – other people’s money. It starts with everybody supposedly paying their fair share as required by law, and a lottery bonanza is a plus.

Not everybody is affected. The world of taxpayers is only a fraction of the total number of households. Right now, about 60 percent of households pay no federal income tax. Under so-called progressive taxation, each household is expected to pay more as its income increases, but many average people are exempt.

Ways of making money have become more complex as have ways of dodging tax payments. The wealthiest also have the most complicated incomes and they can afford to hire experts to help them thread their way around payments to the IRS.

Over time, the IRS’s ability to ensure that those with larger incomes pay their fair share has eroded. The number of taxpayers and the complexity of tax returns have increased, but the number of IRS agents available to review returns and conduct audits has decreased. Taxation is getting ahead of the tax collectors. The IRS’s computers are ancient and use outmoded systems.

If the tax collection agency lacks the tools to collect taxes from the wealthiest, they can avoid paying everything the law intended. If Congress understands that, then its failure to support the IRS amounts to taking it easy on the rich. It’s possible that such people could express their gratitude for benefitting from lax enforcement by contributing to the campaigns of those in Congress who made it possible.

The renewed effort to step up the collection of taxes is embodied in the Inflation Reduction Act passed last year by Congress with only Democratic votes. Opposition has come exclusively from Republicans.

After the GOP took control of the House this month, it passed a bill along strict party lines, repealing funding over the next ten years for new agents and for upgrading equipment. The GOP view was that the new law would add 87,000 employees who would go after middle class taxpayers. They ignored the exemption for most households or decided to see “middle class” income at new, high levels.

Some expressed the view that the rich always find ways to avoid taxes, so the IRS would end up targeting middle income families and small businesses. In short, there was no point in going after the rich, because the IRS was doomed to fail, and it would end up only getting middle income people to pay what they owe. That might seem unfair. Apparently, tax evasion for all would be preferable.

Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen, overseer of the IRS, stated that households with incomes below $400,000 would not be audited by the new personnel. Her promise was greeted with partisan disbelief. Opposition to improved IRS audits on the wealthy depends on convincing average people that they are really the targets of tougher enforcement rather than its beneficiaries.

At the policy level, the GOP opposition to improved tax collection from the rich is consistent with Republican policies aimed at cutting government spending by starving it for revenue and reducing taxes on the wealthiest households. Among programs targeted for cost cutting are Social Security and Medicare.

The Senate, under narrow Democratic control, and President Joe Biden will not go along with the House GOP. But Republicans seem to believe that their anti-IRS vote will create a winning issue in 2024. While IRS improvement is expected to take 10 years, the Democrats face the challenge of producing some positive results quickly.

House swing district members could control dollar’s fate

 

Gordon L. Weil

Five people hold in their hands the fate of the dollar as the world’s standard currency.  If they can do that, they could go a long way to boosting China in its competition with the U.S.

They may also force the federal government into a partial shutdown.  It won’t be able to keep its commitments or pay its bills.  That would lend support to China’s claim that its authoritarian style of government works better than  American democracy.

The situation arises because Congress faces a war over raising the limit on the federal debt. It’s crunch time, according to Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen.  Without the increase in the debt ceiling, the dollar, the economy and the U.S. standing in the world can soon suffer badly.

The five people who could settle the issue are Republican members of the House of Representatives, now controlled by the GOP by nine votes.  If any five Republicans break ranks, the ceiling could be raised.  Because the votes of both the House and Democratic Senate are required to lift the ceiling, the GOP House majority becomes critical. 

How did the Republicans gain their narrow majority, replacing a similar scant Democratic lead?  It was the payoff for efforts in state legislatures in redrawing congressional districts designed to produce more GOP winners.  This political gerrymandering, sometimes a way of preventing the election of African Americans, is left largely untouched by the federal courts.

In New York, however, it was a court with Democratic nominees who rejected the Democratic effort at gerrymandering, handing the design to the Republicans.  The Democrats lost four seats, three to the GOP possibly due to redistricting and one after the census cost the state a seat.

One of these seats went to George Santos, now the most celebrated liar in the House. His bio, ignored by both parties, made him a dream candidate in a somewhat newly designed district.  Only after he won could voters learn that his bio was pure fiction.  Santos is now so precious to the slim Republican majority that they ignore his creative writing.

With votes of both Democrats and Republicans, Congress voted major spending bills for Covid help and infrastructure, both consistent with policies of former GOP President Donald Trump and Democratic President Joe Biden.  An enthusiastic Congress gave Biden, supposedly a big spender, more money for defense spending than he had requested.

Now, the House Republicans want to pare back some federal spending, hoping that the debt limit would not have to be increased.  It’s really a backdoor way to repeal what has already been approved and partially spent.

On a broader level, the issue reflects the policy differences between the two parties.  The Republicans believe that the federal government has grown too large and the most effective way to reduce its size and scope is to reduce overall spending.  That might be easier than going after specific budget items.

One GOP House member has shown concern about the strategy.  Texas Rep. Tony Gonzalez was the only Republican to vote against the new House Rules that could lead to a refusal to raise the debt ceiling. He worried that reducing spending could mean cuts to the military budget.

The Democrats support expanded government programs that they see as meeting public needs. As people come to rely on agriculture payments or defense-related jobs or bridge repair, they do not want spending cuts.  Overall federal outlays grow.  With no political appetite for tax increases, borrowing must increase.

This domestic political war, conducted with an eye on the 2024 elections, could have consequences going far beyond the budget.   American economic power and world leadership depend heavily on the reliability of the dollar.  That in turn is based on the certainty that the country always pays its bills, including making debt payments.

The Republicans may simply want to force Biden to agree to limited cuts, before they accept any debt ceiling increase.  But reductions in already approved spending could harm GOP constituents.  Maybe that’s what the Democrats are counting on plus the GOP’s need to avoid political responsibility for a shutdown.

A few Republicans might accept symbolic cuts and approve the increase.  That could help several of them, including the three new faces in New York, who won narrow races in districts that could flip back to the Democrats.

Or Biden could try to ignore the issue.  The Constitution says: “The validity of the public debt, authorized by law, ... shall not be questioned.”   Spending has been formally approved without funding from taxes, so Congress understood it must come from debt.  The federal debt is now $31.4 trillion. Doesn’t refusing to raise the debt limit question already authorized debt?

Failure to raise the debt limit could cause major damage or just be part of a political game.  Or both.

House of Representatives in chaos, but not collapse

 

Gordon L. Weil

Ever heard of Henny-Penny?   She’s back!

The children’s tale character was hit on the head by an acorn, concluded “the sky is falling” and set out to warn the king.  Along the way she panicked her friends, who followed her, only to be tricked and killed by Foxy-Woxy.  Just in time, Henny-Penny heard Coxy-Loxy crow, stopped to lay her morning egg and promptly forgot the sky issue.

After House Speaker Kevin McCarthy made concessions to his hard-right GOP members last week, you might have thought the sky was falling.  “To save himself, McCarthy just destroyed the House,” a Washington Post columnist cried. 

I’ll play Coxy-Loxy.  The sky is not falling.  The House was not destroyed.

To be sure, McCarthy met demands of the right-wing so they would step aside and let him squeak into the speakership.  By conceding, he made at least three things happen.

First, he agreed to help them win some legislative battles.  The most significant is giving in to their demand to block an increase in the debt limit by paring down existing spending.  After Congress authorizes spending and appropriates the funds, the Treasury must be allowed to borrow what’s needed, along with taxes, to cover the appropriations.

McCarthy is allowing other jabs at Democratic policies, like their efforts at reviving the IRS, though their votes will end up as posturing not policy.  And he has added an investigating committee to harass and embarrass the Biden administration.

The Republican House will face a Democratic president and Senate that would hardly go along.  An impasse on the debt limit could lead to a shutdown of the federal government or at least severe cutbacks.  It is impossible now to know the outcome, and it’s not helpful to assume the worst on the strength of McCarthy’s deal.  It may have been an acorn.

Second, McCarthy agreed to some procedural changes that weaken the Speaker’s power.  The House Rules, giving the Speaker full operational control of the House, produce what is called “regular order.”  Changing “regular order” matters, but it’s not the end of the House.

Under the new system, a single member will be able to propose a motion to remove the Speaker.  In debates on spending bills, members will be able freely to offer amendments.  Appropriations for individual departments will be handled independently, not rolled into a single “omnibus” package.  All of these procedures have existed at some time in the recent past.

The problem with democracy is that it is intentionally inefficient. Giving all the power to the Speaker fixes that, but at the cost of the independent power of each representative.

Omnibus bills result from adding enough pet projects of representatives and senators to a spending package until majority support is obtained.  That’s called “logrolling” and the logs roll over those left out of the deal.  The right-wingers believe that smaller bills give them a bigger chance.

Pundits worry that the right will abuse the process and either block any action or force others to accept their extreme positions on pending bills.  While they may be able to prevent bills from being enacted, they cannot control Congress.  Stalemate might encourage President Biden to take as much unilateral action as he can, just what they don’t want.

The third change is historic.  In 1994, GOP Rep. Newt Gingrich, who would become Speaker, led House Republicans to adopt strict party discipline.  He promised that if they pledged total party loyalty, their power would grow.  It worked.  It was the same kind of party control as exists in the British Parliament but is not usual in the American Congress.  

The GOP right-wing grew increasingly restive in bending to the will of the party leadership and with the McCarthy election balloting, strict party discipline ended.  While the anointed leader was elected Speaker, he gave away enough control to ensure that no single person could control the House GOP.

The concern raised by these changes is that the GOP extreme right wing, only a minority of all Republicans, will be able to set the House agenda by threatening the Speaker.  Even worse, they could wreak havoc, causing what would amount to a new version of the January 6 insurrection.

If the Speaker’s election turned procedures back to an earlier time with greater power for individual members making chaos possible, the solution might be readily available to most other House Republicans.  They could shake off their dependence on Donald Trump and oppose the right wing’s ambitions.

They need not drop the party’s traditional conservatism, but take on the challenge of defining it for themselves.  Instead of making concessions to Trump for fear of facing primary challengers he favors, they have the chance to exercise leadership to renew their party.  We’ll see.

The American parliament just died.  Up next: the 2024 elections. 

Justices charge Supreme Court acts as legislature; uses 'shadow docket'

 

Gordon L. Weil

The Supreme Court is acting as a legislature – again. 

Two justices on the Court, a conservative and a liberal, just made that charge in a major case.

Here’s the story of how two presidents set policy and the Supreme Court overruled them.

When he was president, Donald Trump sought to protect the American public from excessive exposure to the Covid-19 pandemic that was sweeping the world.  His administration adopted a policy under Title 42 of the federal laws that would ban almost all immigration into the U.S., keeping out people carrying the virus.

This policy, based on the obvious need to protect public health from contagious disease, aligned with his well-known desire to prevent unauthorized immigrants from entering the country.   It had the desired effect and was favored by the governors of states supporting Trump’s effort to bar the illegal immigrants.

When he took office, President Joe Biden retained Trump’s policy because of continuing concern about Covid-19.  Ultimately, he concluded that, while the virus still existed, it was no longer the same threat to public health.  He ordered the end of the Title 42 immigration ban.

Governors of states receiving illegal immigrants opposed his administration’s move, fearing a massive immigrant influx.  Many refugees and asylum seekers were assembled at the Mexican border awaiting Biden’s action.  The states went to federal court to halt his move.

A district court faced the immediate decision about whether the governors of the complaining states had the right, called “standing,” to bring the case.  The Supreme Court has determined parties to a case must be directly affected.  Would the states be harmed by an action under a law dealing with public health rather than immigration?

Before the case could proceed further, the Supreme Court was asked to decide if the states could raise the issue.  The ban was due to be lifted on December 21, 2022, but just two days before, the Court halted it while it decided that question alone, though not the full case.

The Court ruled it would hear testimony in February but could make its decision as late as June. If it rules in favor of the states, a lower court would then decide on the merits of the case itself.   If it decides against the states, Biden can proceed.  All that could take months.  Meanwhile, the ban, probably no longer needed for health reasons, would remain in place.

In short, the Court overruled the president’s legal determination of the health situation.  And the effect of its decision could set national immigration policy for many months, if not years.

Justice Neil Gorsuch, a Trump appointee to the Court, objected, believing the matter was a policy dispute.   Joined by Justice Katanji Brown Jackson, Biden’s only appointee, he acknowledged concerns about immigration.

“But the current border crisis is not a COVID crisis. And courts should not be in the business of perpetuating administrative edicts designed for one emergency only because elected officials have failed to address a different emergency,” he wrote.  “We are a court of law, not policymakers of last resort.”

The Court had other options.  It could have quickly decided on standing.  Or it could have allowed the president’s decision to be applied, while moving to a prompt ruling. 

Gorsuch and Jackson believed the majority was influenced by immigration policy concerns.  But they could not know why the majority had made such an important decision, because five justices had said nothing.  Instead they simply ordered that Biden could not end the ban.

Two other justices – Elena Kagan and Sonya Sotomajor – also opposed the majority.  They gave no reasons, possibly because they had already expressed themselves strongly about the kind of ruling used by the majority.  It’s called the “shadow docket” – rulings made to look simply procedural, but which really decide major cases.

In an earlier case, Justice Kagan had written that the Court “barely bothers to explain its conclusion.” She continued, “The majority’s decision is emblematic of too much of this Court’s shadow-docket decision-making – which every day becomes more unreasoned, inconsistent, and impossible to defend.” 

In that case, Justice Sotomayor simply said, “The Court’s order is stunning.”  The Court did not suspend a state law, while it considered whether the law was constitutional, but allowed it to go into effect.   The immigration case used the reverse approach, though neither time did the Court provide legal justification.

Chief Justice John Roberts speaks of preserving respect for the Supreme Court and asserts that it does not play politics.  Yet he was in the majority in both cases, going along with “shadow” opinions in pending cases that allowed an anti-abortion law passed in a Republican state, but blocked the decision of a Democratic president.

“Equal Justice Under Law” is carved on the Supreme Court building.  Is this justice “equal?”  Where’s the “law?”

Trump and Russia decline, economy transforms: That Was the Year That Was

Gordon L. Weil

Some years are sure to end up in historical memory. 2022 is one of them.

Russia launched a land war in Europe long after people thought that the Second World War had ended such conflicts.

The economy underwent basic changes as people began to deal with the true costs of what they need and want.

And the dominance of one of America’s most disruptive political figures began to disintegrate.

Russia’s invasion of Ukraine came as a big surprise. With the end of the Soviet Union, Russia ceased to be seen as a threat to the rest of Europe. It was invited to join the club of the world’s major economies. But participation did not align with its desire to remain one of the world’s two superpowers, and it could not remain in the club.

Russia, whose main assets are nuclear weapons and a large population, sought to recover lost Soviet territory, capped by its Ukraine invasion. It apparently expected that its formidable army and lack of interest in the West would make a takeover easy.

Heroically defending their land, the Ukrainians were taught both Russia and the world a lesson. They revealed Russia’s military as a sham. Whatever the outcome of the war, Russia has little chance of recovering its superpower role. As Russia’s weakness became obvious, China emerged as the leading authoritarian power and the chief challenger to the U.S. and its allies.

American consumers are bargain hunters, and China enhanced its power by selling goods at low prices, collecting dollars to finance its world expansion. But the spread of Covid interrupted trade flows from China, and U.S. leaders became increasingly aware that American customers were financing the quest for power of their country’s chief rival.

Parallel to this development, the unmanaged influx of immigrants had become a major concern in the U.S. and Europe. Though millions sought unauthorized entry, the lost contribution of immigrants as workers and consumers became more obvious. Workers demanded higher pay, shortages developed and prices climbed.

Some may still believe that the world economy is merely passing through a difficult and stressful period, but that it will soon return to normal. Inflation will slow, but prices won’t retreat and business will not pick up where it left off. Such thinking misses some clear reasons that a new economy has been emerging in 2022.

Pay increases will not be rolled back. Many people have been seriously underpaid and they have implicitly joined an invisible national labor union. They withhold their labor unless they get better pay and working conditions.

Countries are getting more serious about climate change. Turning environmental damage around will make goods and services more expensive. U.S. production costs will initially be higher than were charges on imports from China, which despoils the environment while exploiting its workers.

Paying increased labor costs, less dependence on cheap Chinese imports, and environmental improvement action will keep prices from dropping back. People may have enough money to meet their needs but not to satisfy all of their wishes. This new economy could last for decades.

Donald Trump probably changed the U.S. and America’s world standing in a brief period more than all but a few previous presidents. (He would say more than any of them.) He has his MAGA supporters. Like a stopped clock that is right twice a day, he has some accomplishments. But they are byproducts of a destructive ego, and he has proved dangerous to his country.

His greatest faults have been giving comfort to bigotry and placing his own ambition and interests above the values and norms of the country he was elected to lead. He chillingly proposed the “termination” of the Constitution so he could seize the presidency he knew he had not won. He encouraged irresponsible officials to dismantle essential constitutional practices.

His combination of ignorance and arrogance came up short. In Maine, former Republican Gov. Paul LePage, an ardent ally of Trump, chose to challenge Janet Mills, the Democratic incumbent. His record, irresponsibly flaunting the will of the people, would be pitted against her record as a rightward-leaning, moderate.

Her victory was the hard evidence of Trump’s decline. Mills had a mainly positive, though not flawless, record to run on, but LePage was stuck with his Trump-like legacy. If he tried to distance himself from his previous positions, it only looked like opportunism, which did not help.

This year, Trump was losing in the judicial system and key Trumpers like LePage were losing at the ballot box. Mills showed that voters would support steady progress over chaos and controversy. In Maine and elsewhere, a brief political era was ending.

Valiant Ukraine and failing Russia, the emergence of a new economy and the descent of Trump combined to make 2022 an historic year.

Popular vote for president remains at risk

Gordon L. Weil

What was Mike Pence supposed to do?

Attention is again focused on the January 6, 2001, insurrection at the Capitol when the Vice President didn’t do what then President Trump wanted and stop counting the electoral votes that would make Joe Biden president.

Just specific action he should take was never clear.   At least one Trump advisor suggested the Constitution gave the Vice President the power simply to declare the winner, if he found enough defective votes, thus denying Biden the election.  That was a bit of a reach, even for the person who proposed it.

If that went too far, some Republicans said that Pence should kick the matter back to the contested states, particularly to state legislatures. That theory rested on a constitutional provision that gives state legislatures the power to direct how presidential electors are chosen.  That could mean the legislature would pick electors favorable to Trump despite a state’s popular vote for Biden.

Pence followed none of this dubious advice.  But the belief that the Constitution gave state legislatures total, independent power to determine the outcome of federal elections has survived.  It is now squarely before the U.S. Supreme Court.

The question survives, because it is part of the GOP playbook of voter suppression measures aimed at Democrats.  The favored plays include making it difficult to register and vote, limiting voting periods and easily accessible polling places, restricting mail-in ballots and segregating Democrats into as few districts as possible.

Drawing district lines to segregate voters by race is illegal.  But the Supreme Court will not rule against possible racial gerrymandering unless it can be shown that no other significant factor could have been the basis for the district outline.  That’s a tough case to prove.  Some southern states have managed to create a single congressional district to sweep in the state’s Black and presumably Democratic voters.

The Court will not rule at all on political gerrymandering, when a state draws congressional or state legislative district lines to pack as many members of one party into as few districts as possible.  The Court will leave that issue to the individual states as allowed by the Constitution.  That raises the question of who within a state has the power to decide.

The Constitution states that the “Manner of holding elections for Senators and Representatives shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof....”   Can the state legislature gerrymander as it wishes, unchecked by any other part of the government?

If so, a legislature could ignore the popular vote as well as the governor and the state supreme court.  Because its powers are mentioned in the Constitution, the legislature would consider itself a federal agency, lifted out of state government when it creates congressional districts.  That’s what North Carolina Republicans claim in a case now before the Supreme Court.

State legislatures cannot normally act outside of the limits of state constitutions.  But a state supreme court decision in line with a state ban on political gerrymandering might raise a conflict with the federal Constitution. In that situation, the U.S. Supreme Court could overrule the state court.

Article I of the Constitution makes the president part of the legislative process, because Congress can make decisions only with the president’s consent or by overriding a president’s veto.  State governors have a similar role. Despite the claims of the North Carolina Republicans, the Supreme Court long ago decided that governors could veto legislative districting.

The Court has already ruled that the people of Arizona, who mandated by referendum that a neutral districting commission should replace the legislature, exercised a legislative function allowed by the Framers. 

For state legislatures to gain absolute power, the Court would have to reverse two previous rulings and strip state courts of their own constitutional jurisdiction over elections to federal office.

The Court’s decision might reveal how partisan it has become.  If it rules for the Republicans, as some justices seem inclined to do, a state legislature under one party’s control at the moment the Court decides could always draw districts to keep that party dominant and in power. It would take a massive change in the electorate itself to redraw the lines.

If state legislatures are given total control over the design of congressional and legislative districts, they could similarly have unchecked power over who may cast electoral votes for president.  The popular vote could be ignored, especially if the losing candidate claimed there had been voter fraud.

Such a Court ruling might easily lead to the warped legal view that state legislators, not the people, can decide who wins federal elections.  It could also harm the Court’s already suffering reputation.

A Supreme Court decision for the North Carolina Republicans could end up requiring a Pence successor someday to do exactly what he refused to do. 

Ukraine becoming partisan issue

Gordon L. Weil

Opposition to Russia has been a core value of American policy for decades.  Under the Soviet Union and now as the Russian Federation, it has threatened world peace as it pursues its quest for domination.  The U.S. favors a system governed by agreed rules; Russia favors chaos.

Russia’s aggression against Ukraine is the latest example of its attempt to gain domination through force.  But the surprising ability of Ukraine to resist Vladimir Putin’s version of Russian expansion has given the U.S. and its NATO allies the chance to win their long struggle with a fading world power.

President Biden has led a successful response to Russian aggression without the loss of a single American life on the battlefield.  NATO was formed to block Russian expansion in Europe, and it has had to revive its mission as Russia’s attempt to take over its neighbor threatens other nearby nations, including Poland and the Baltic countries.

Ukraine stood up to Russian aggression on behalf of what was often called “the Free World” and the U.S. and its NATO allies backed its willingness to put Ukrainian lives at risk with some of the alliance’s latest weapons.

NATO has grown stronger as its member countries have been shaken from their mistaken belief that Russia, on which they had become dependent for oil and natural gas, would be a good citizen of Europe.  Finland, which shares a long border with Russia, and Sweden have moved off the sidelines to seek NATO membership.  The alliance has moved its forces closer to Russia.

The NATO countries also imposed possibly the toughest economic sanctions ever levied short of outright blockade.  Americans paid the price at the pump, but the cost to Russia will be higher and longer lasting.  Putin’s folly may have transformed the world economy for good.

Biden has had bipartisan support in Congress for his Ukraine policies of sending arms, training troops and easing the hardships of war.  Traditional GOP opposition to Russia coupled with Biden’s ability to lead a united Democratic contingent have been paying off in successful resistance to Russia, now revealed as a paper tiger, though still one with nuclear weapons.

But some Republicans oppose Biden’s policy.  Their numbers may be growing as the war wears on.  With GOP control of the House next year, they could try to undercut what has been a successful policy.  Ukraine aid is becoming an increasingly partisan issue.

There may be three reasons for the growing Republican opposition.  First, they don’t want Biden to succeed.  Second, they would revive traditional American isolationism based on ignoring much of what takes place in the world and focusing on our own concerns.  Third, some like Putin, because they see him as an efficient authoritarian.

Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky and his people may be fighting an unwinnable war, because Ukraine is restrained by NATO from launching a counterattack into Russia.  And the weak Russian military is propped up by Iran and must fight to hold its ground, but no longer advances.

Each side seeks the best possible positions before the negotiations that will inevitably end the fighting.  Russia wants to demoralize Ukrainians by attacks on homes, hospitals and energy facilities, so they will be ready to cede territory.  Ukraine wants to recover as much territory as possible before talks begin and relies on continued U.S. arms supplies.

The minute the war halts, it will be fair to say that Ukraine has won and Russia has lost. Russia, which could not take over Ukraine and turn it into a buffer against NATO, has not only failed to annex its neighbor but has seen NATO strengthened.  Ukraine has shown it can field a strong army.

The first step toward a negotiated settlement is a cease fire.  Ukraine must force Putin to conclude that he must stop fighting and start talking.  Zelensky needs strong NATO backing, which depends on the U.S.  It’s an illusion to believe that Europe can go it alone without American leadership.  Wishing for that won’t make it happen.

The risk is that partisan congressional opposition could reduce or eliminate critical American support and hand Russia an unearned victory instead of ending its great power myth.  If the U.S. maintains its support for Ukraine, the result will reduce or eliminate its Russian rival.  And it could send a message to China, possibly discouraging an invasion of Taiwan.

The American president is responsible for foreign policy, but Congress has the power of the purse.   A bipartisan agreement on foreign policy is a worthy goal.  Such an accord does not mean that other goals cannot also be pursued.

Ukraine policy should not come down to opposing a Democratic president with a Republican “America First” view.  Ukraine is both too important and winnable.

 

Trumps' Constitution statement could help GOP, Biden

 

Gordon L. Weil

Donald Trump may have made matters a lot easier for both Republicans and Joe Biden.

He argued for “termination” of the Constitution when it came to dealing with his claim that he had been cheated out of winning the 2020 election.

Whatever our personal views, all Americans are supposedly united in supporting the Constitution.  Even when we honestly disagree about some of its terms, we all agree that it deserves our allegiance and support.  Without it, we have no American Republic. Trump seems not to care.

Republicans will have narrow control of the House of Representatives.  Their majority gives them the chance to set the table for the 2024 elections by offering alternatives to the Democrats, even if they are not accepted, and agreeing with the Democrats when it suits them.

But some Republicans want to keep following Trump, despite his focus on himself rather than on his party or country.   They would try to harass Biden and discredit the January 6 committee, which places some blame on the Trump White House for the insurrection.  These right-wing Republicans prefer to be backward looking, not forward looking.

Trump’s dangerous statement gives the GOP the opportunity to cut its dependency on him and his hardcore backers by taking the high ground, defending the Constitution.  They can reject the Trumpers without being vulnerable to any charges they are RINOs, Republicans In Name Only.

Congressional Republicans have mostly been silent about Trump’s statement, perhaps fearful of losing the support of his core.  Yet, at the start of the new Congress on January 3, 2023, all of them must pledge to support the Constitution, as required by its Article VI. The Framers wanted to ensure that federal and state office holders remember they are subject to it.

If Trump backers favor him over respecting the Constitution, they clearly lean toward authoritarian government, where the leader means more than the law.  If they forgive Trump his foibles or fear the political price for defending the Constitution, they enable him and others in destroying it.

This Congress is likely to be a turning point for the Republicans.  They can obstruct or offer alternatives.  Their House leadership can cater to the party’s extreme right wing and continue on the path toward permanent minority status, taking a majority of the House GOP with them.

The right wing does not want the Speaker to allow any matter to come to a vote unless it has the support of a “majority of the majority.”  In other words, nothing happens unless a majority of Republicans approve.  There would prevent any bill to be passed by most Democrats and some Republicans.  The Senate, even under Democratic control, would be stymied.

In the 2022 congressional elections, 26 seats were rated by nonpartisan Politico as pure toss-ups. Only six of them went to the GOP, which also picked up one seat leaning Democratic.  Those seven new members must be moderates if they want to hold onto their seats.  Ignoring them could be fatal to Republican control in 2024.  The right wing would simply roll over them.

It’s questionable if that’s what American voters want. If they prefer a government that finds compromises and produces results, they need a Republican House that works.  It can put its stamp on legislation rather than only using its majority to attack Biden and his proposals and to rewrite history.  Ensuring nothing happens except partisan bitterness is not good government.

The Maine Legislature was rated as a toss-up this year.  But the GOP failed to gain control of either house.  Still, it did not adopt Paul LePage’s hostility toward Governor Mills.  The Maine Republicans set an example for their Washington counterparts.

They agreed with the governor that more funding is needed for home heating aid rather than simply demanding she cut tax rates.  Their support is essential so that the help will come when needed.  The two sides readily began talking about ways to get the aid moving, while giving the GOP influence on who receives it.  That presumably is what the voters want to happen.

How does Trump’s attack on the Constitution, revealing both his unbridled ego and his disloyalty to his oath, help Joe Biden?

My assumption has been from the outset that Biden has never intended to be more than a single-term president.  But he did not want to be seen as ducking a new contest with Trump, especially in light of the charges that he had somehow won previously by cheating. 

Now, nobody should worry about running against the American In Name Only, who would terminate the Constitution for his own benefit.  In decline, Trump may be out of the Republican nomination race much less the general election.

Biden can now decline to run again without appearing to dodge a real challenge by Trump.