Some GOP members seek to impeach Obama

Amid the partisan controversy in Congress, some Republican members of the U.S. House of Representatives say they will try to impeach President Obama.

Do they believe that Obama is guilty of what the Constitution calls “high crimes and misdemeanors?”  Do they believe they can be successful?

The answers to both questions is “no.”

They want to use the impeachment process for purely political purposes, mostly as a way of tying up the House so it cannot do any other business, like paying for Obamacare. 

And they seem to believe they could avoid any blame for bringing the unfunded federal government to a halt, because the Congress would be engaged in the serious business of trying to toss the president out of office.

Surely, the Founding Fathers did not mean that impeachment – the bringing of charges by the House – or conviction by the U.S. Senate should be used as a political tactic. 

It was intended to allow a president who was a criminal or who violated the express terms of the Constitution to be removed.  But it has never been used for the intended purposes.

Obama could find himself in line after the two presidents who were impeached, because a majority in the House thought they were usurpers and barely had the right to hold the office.

Andrew Johnson, who moved up from the vice presidency after Lincoln’s assassination, was the first president to be impeached.  He was a Democrat, chosen by the Republican Lincoln to create a national unity ticket.

His problem was that Congress was dominated by Republicans who disliked his willingness to go easy on the South after the Civil War and to deny help for the newly freed slaves.  They saw him as having distorted Lincoln’s legacy.

So the Republicans cooked up a law that probably was unconstitutional and then impeached him for disobeying it.  At the end of the Senate trial, he was not convicted because seven Republicans, including Maine’s William Pitt Fessenden, refused to go along with the ploy.

Bill Clinton was impeached by a Republican-controlled House for his problems in telling the truth about his sexual encounters.  Once again, the Senate did not convict, this time with a few Republicans, including Maine’s Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins, refusing to going along with the misuse of the impeachment power.

Though elected twice, Clinton, like Johnson, was seen by the GOP as a president who should not have held the office.   The presidencies of Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush had set the government on a clear conservative course, which Clinton had diverted by his elections. 

Congress tried to take control of the government, just as it has with Johnson, by dumping a president in whom it had no confidence.  Fortunately, there were enough people in Congress who thought the Constitution was more important than partisan games.

But Clinton showed the ploy was not entirely a wasted effort.  He sought common ground with the Republicans on some issues, partly because he was less liberal than many had thought and partly to appease them.  That’s pretty clearly the reason he went along with changing the name of the capital’s airport to honor Reagan instead of Washington.

Obama, too, is seen by conservative Republicans as almost an accidental president.  After the Democratic Party’s losses to the tea party in 2010, Obama should not have been re-elected two years later.  But he was.

Perhaps those GOP House members now seeking impeachment believe they can get Obama to yield on continuing with Obamacare and appease them to avoid nasty impeachment proceedings. 

The two historic impeachment proceedings and the current talk of one against Obama have something in common.  A disciplined majority in at least one house of Congress seeks to express its lack of confidence in the president.

In other words, the opposition would use impeachment in the same way the opposition in a parliamentary democracy uses a so-called “no confidence vote.”  It can embarrass the prime minister and, if successful, can cause a new election.

Of course, the United States does not have a parliamentary system.  But that may not stop some members of Congress from using impeachment to paralyze the president for the remainder of his term, as it did for Johnson, or to adopt some of their proposals, as it did with Clinton.

Still, it is unlikely that the latest impeachment talk will get very far.  The Republican House leadership seems to want to get on with a direct legislative struggle with Obama, probably fearing the political fall-out from misuse of the impeachment process.

Employment and stock markets send conflicting signals

New housing starts are down, and the stock market goes up.

Bad news produces new profits.  That’s kind of a “man bites dog” story.

Why does negative economic news stimulate the stock market? And why does the stock market rise to record highs when employment is recovering slowly and new jobs pay less?

Before you ask why you should care about the stock market, it is worth remembering that more than half of the American people have stock market investments, either through their direct purchases or through their retirement plans.

The stock market is supposed to reflect the outlook for the economy.  When prices rise, investors buy shares of companies that they believe will become more profitable in a growing economy.

Obviously, something different is happening now.  On Labor Day weekend, perhaps it is a good idea to consider the growing disconnect between the uncertain prospects for working people and what happens in the financial markets.

First, here’s the answer to the question why bad economic news causes higher stock prices.

In the absence of any economic stimulus coming from a deadlocked Congress and a frustrated president, the Federal Reserve, the government banker, has stepped in to provide the only boost to the economy coming from Washington.

The Fed has only a limited array of measures it can deploy to boost the economy.  Its main tool has been to create more money to make available at almost no cost to lenders allowing them to offer it at low rates to borrowers to buy new homes or invest in developing their businesses.

The nation’s banker is responsible for much of the recovery in the economy as the unemployment rate has continued to decline, however slowly.

From the perspective of investors, lending their money is not a great idea when interest rates are kept so low by the Fed.  Instead, they turn to stocks, pushing their prices up as funds flow from bonds, the usual form of lending to corporations, into share ownership.

The Fed wants to avoid inflation, with its rapidly rising prices, that could result from too much money flowing into the economy.  So it will slow down its creation of more money as soon as it is sure that the economy is on the path to recovery.

Its officials have been saying recently that they see signs the economy is coming back.  They have begun talking openly about cutting back on the Fed’s support for lower rates in the belief that private lenders will take over as higher rates make loans more attractive.

That sounds like good news.  As interest rates rise, investors are putting more money into lending and send less money into stock purchases.

So the stock market, sensing the coming change, goes down simply because the Fed sees the economy improving.

This simplistic view takes hold, even against data that shows stock and bond markets have in the past been able to grow at the same time.

There is yet another contradiction between the outlook for workers and increases in stock prices. 

How can companies be booming with so many people still out of work or forced to take lower paying jobs?

The answer lies in the nature of recession itself.  It was not simply a slowdown that is often the normal part of the cycle of growth.  It marked a major change in our economy.

Goods and services are increasingly produced by technological tools, like computers and robots, and require less hands-on labor.  And the labor-intensive production that remains is mostly carried out in lower-wage countries.

The most successful companies include many that rely less on labor and more on technology.  If they seek new employees, they want people who a better educated than in the past and who are capable of devising and using the tools of technology.

In other words, many of those companies that are doing well in the stock market depend less on labor or buy it abroad where it is cheaper than in the United States.

What can turn the situation around and improve the outlook for working people?

For one thing, workers need to be better educated and trained.  For many, a high school education will no longer be enough.  And training will need to become a life-time responsibility, not one that ends when a person gets a job.

For another, a sound immigration policy that admits more people who can be customers will at the same time create more jobs to serve those customers.

Labor Day could again be a day to celebrate jobs not a day to worry about them.

Government actions threaten innocent people

Efforts to fight terrorism and crime while preserving personal liberty are becoming increasingly worrisome.

Recently, stories have appeared about National Security Agency surveillance, New York City’s “stop and frisk” law, and some governments forcing innocent people to turn over their property.

Each of these reports raises legitimate concerns about striking a reasonable balance between protecting people without making them pay an unacceptably high price for the protection.

There is no question that Edward Snowden leaked NSA data that he had pledged to protect.  But for some people, he should lauded as a whistleblower who revealed that the NSA was snooping too deeply and unnecessarily into the communications of average citizens.

Ultimately, whether Snowden should be punished for leaks, praised for whistle-blowing or both may be determined in a court.  In the meantime, however, it is clear his actions have forced the NSA to admit some questionable activities.

The agency has now acknowledged that it tapped communications of Americans using an expansive definition of its authority and may go far beyond what Snowden revealed.  The Wall Street Journal reported this week that NSA can access the contents of most Americans’ Internet communications, both emails and phone calls.

Perhaps the NSA has been justified in some or all of the data collection that Snowden revealed.  But, before Americans are subject to such scrutiny, many feel that the agency’s actions should be reviewed more fully by Congress and under better control than is exercised by the secret court that authorizes searches.

For the moment, Snowden has at least raised the question if there is a satisfactory balance between government keeping a watch on people and people keeping a watch on government.

In the New York City case, a federal judge took a careful look at the police policy of stopping people on the street usually with no obvious cause and subjecting many of them to embarrassing or even abusive public searches.

The judge found that in about nine cases out of ten the police came up with no reason to stop a person.  And those subjected to “stop and frisk” were overwhelmingly black and Hispanic.

The police defense was that members of these groups disproportionately commit crimes in the city.  While rejecting that yardstick, the judge found the police overdid it even by that standard.

But the crime rate had gone down, the police said, since the policy was put into effect.  The judge did not ban the practice, but ruled the police would need to have better evidence to avoid violating the Constitution’s prohibition of “unreasonable searches and seizures.”

Like the NSA situation, the argument that invasive policies had worked might not be sufficient in a society in which a balance is supposed to be struck between well-intentioned government action and individual rights.

The scandal in some states of what is known as “civil forfeiture” was revealed by an article in the New Yorker magazine that has stirred widespread reaction.

Civil forfeiture works this way.  You are driving along a road, and the police pull you over.  They find you have a lot of cash in the car, which you claim to be transporting to the bank for your church.  The police consider the cash suspicious and say they will charge you with carrying drug money.

They may have stopped you acting under a federal-state anti-terrorism program, though they do not charge you with being a terrorist.

They take you into the station, where they have an interesting proposition.  If you simply turn the cash over to them, you will be free to go.  If not, a cell awaits you while they file drug-related charges. You pay.

Civil forfeiture is allowed in federal matters and in most states.  It was sold as a way to fight organized crime without having to go through a full criminal trial.

In some states, the police and local governments are allowed to keep some of the proceeds they collect.  That gives them the incentive to stop anybody they can and seize anything they can.

The magazine reported that in Texas, civil forfeiture can be routine, big business and relentlessly unjust.  In Florida, one small department seized $50 million and used the money to pay for police junkets and a fancy boat.  In Maine, the money goes into general funds, removing the incentive.

These stories make it easy to understand why liberals and conservatives, though they distrust government for different reasons, are concerned about government incursions on personal rights.

They worry that being innocent may not be enough to protect people from their government.

Congress: Liberal, Moderate or Conservative and the Case of Maine

Did you ever wonder whether Maine’s congressional delegation was conservative, moderate or liberal?

Or whether on balance Congress is conservative or liberal?

Well, so did I, and I developed my own system for getting answers about the political orientation of members of Congress.

Instead of using my personal view of how to determine who is liberal and who is conservative, I turned to two organizations that rate Congress.

The American Conservative Union measures the conservatism of members of the U.S. House and Senate.  A key part of the ACU ratings is its decision about what are the bellwether issues.

Similarly, the Americans for Democratic Action picks key issues for liberals and rates members by their votes on these issues.  There is some overlap with the ACU issue selection.

I combine the ratings of the two organizations into a single rating, the only one producing a neutral result without relying on the rater’s view of what issues to include. 

The rating covers last year, so it is important to recognize that the composition of Congress has changed.  For example, Maine’s Olympia Snowe is no longer a senator, and there is no rating yet for Sen. Angus King.  Initial voting suggests he will get a liberal rating

On the House side, Rep. Chellie Pingree, Maine’s First District Democrat, got a strong liberal rating, while Rep. Mike Michaud, the Democrat from the Second District, also scored on the liberal side, though less so than Pingree.

Their ratings probably reflect the political composition of their districts.  But it is important to remember that the issues on which the ratings are based were selected by national organizations and may not reflect the issues most important to Mainers.

These ratings suggest that in next year’s election, Collins could continue to draw support from Republican, Democratic and independent voters, even if she is too moderate for some conservative members of her own party.

Pingree probably well reflects her electorate.  Michaud’s voting record has made him a comfortable choice in his home Second District, and his ratings should help in the more liberal First District which he seeks to carry in his race for governor.

For the Senate and House as a whole, the ratings reveal what probably most people would have expected.  There are relatively few moderates in either house of Congress.

Of the 100 senators, 11 turn out to have been moderates, including both Snowe and Sen. Susan Collins.  They are Republicans as were nine of the moderates. In the House, with 435 members, most of the 46 moderates are Democrats.

Generally, the Democrats get liberal ratings, the Republicans conservative.

The Senate has more liberals than conservatives and has an overall average moderate liberal rating.  The majority is Democratic.

In the House, just the opposite is true.  With a GOP majority, the conservatives greatly outnumber the liberals, and the overall average rating is moderate conservative.

Among the state delegations, combining both Senate and House members, in 2012 Maine was the second most conservative New England state.  New Hampshire was more conservative, but   the Granite State rating will undoubtedly change this year as its two Republican House members have been replaced by Democrats.

Everything is relative.  Almost all state delegations in the Northeast tend to be more liberal than the country as a whole, with Vermont the most liberal state.

One surprising result is the rating of Ron Paul, the retired Texas Republican congressman who supported libertarian positions and inspired many Maine GOP conservatives.  He rated as a moderate.

A key finding is that GOP Sen. Mitch McConnell from Kentucky, the Senate minority leader, got a relatively rare, extreme conservative rating.

Recently, his conservatism led him into a conflict with Maine’s Collins, a moderate.  She was a leader in developing a transportation bill, which provides federal highway funding, and lined up enough GOP support to get it through the Senate.

But McConnell, who faces a tea party challenger in the 2014 Republican primary, decided to oppose it.  Loyal to their leader, who can dole out choice party jobs, all other GOP senators fell in line, leaving Collins the sole member of her party to support the bill, which could not overcome a filibuster.

When there is a strong core of moderates, both houses of Congress can produce results.  When either party is led by a person with strong liberal or conservative leanings, compromise can become more difficult to achieve.

Right now, the number of moderates seems to be dwindling, making next year’s election a potentially critical test of whether Congress will be able to again produce results.