Trump's free-wheeling made impeachment inquiry inevitable

Gordon L. Weil

For Donald Trump, the United States of America is his business.

He runs the U.S. government like a subsidiary of The Trump Organization, which he wholly owns and is designed to make him both wealthy and famous.

He has managed the federal government much as he manages his company – hands on, without a board of directors and staffed by family and people who enjoy basking in his attention.

In the narrow world of real estate, the most successful operators are not limited by a code of conduct. In privately held property companies, the boss sets the rules and goes as far as possible in bare-knuckle dealing.

Trump learned that exuding an aura of great confidence, even if that meant using "hyperbole" – his word for lying – intimidated competitors and created an irresistible sense of success. You might know you were not "the best," "the first," or the "the greatest," but you could get others to believe it.

The operation of government is based on a series of shared understandings about the Constitution and laws. With his business approach, he has seen no reason to observe them, if they get in the way of his objectives.

He misuses executive powers to the fullest, ignoring congressional intent in granting those powers. Just as he has no board of directors in his business, he avoids dealing with Congress as much as he can. Congress has seemed helpless to cope with his style of governing.

He has pushed the limits of acceptable government behavior, sometimes going too far.

Trump is the first president to engage in private business while serving in office. Though he turned day-to-day operations over to a son, he has not separated himself from The Trump Organization.

He touts his hotels and golf courses and encourages their use. He profits when people seeking government favors stay at his hotels. The constitutional prohibition on public officials receiving money from people who have business with government, the "emoluments clause," seems to fit Trump.

His campaign knowingly accepted from help from Russia, though he only solicited its support as a joke. No collusion.

It was important to investigate Russian involvement in the 2016 campaign, most of it unsolicited help. But Trump repeatedly sought to undermine all investigations. By blocking efforts to get at the facts, he interfered with the course of justice.

Special Counsel Robert Mueller found evidence of such interference and did not absolve Trump. Instead, he left any action to Congress, using the facts he had uncovered.

This summer, Trump tried to get the new Ukraine president to open an investigation of Joe Biden, a potential presidential opponent, and his son. There is no evidence against them. He took this action just after placing a hold on urgently needed anti-Russian aid to Ukraine.

Are Trump's actions less serious than Andrew Johnson's resisting Congress' attempt to block him from removing a cabinet officer or Bill Clinton lying about his sexual activities? Both presidents were impeached by the House, though the Senate did not remove them from office.

The United States of America is not a business. Impeachment, found in the Constitution, allows for an investigation of “misconduct of public men," Alexander Hamilton wrote. Without a board of directors, it is a way to hold the president accountable to somebody other than himself.

Hamilton, one of the drafters of the Constitution, recognized that impeachment was political and that charges would likely be brought by members of an opposing party. That's human nature. That is why a high hurdle was set for conviction. It requires a two-thirds vote in the Senate.

An impeachment investigation seeks evidence of alleged wrongdoing and does not force removal from office. The process itself educates the people and the Senate.

Impeachment should not be undertaken lightly. It can undermine government and popular confidence in it. The House should not impeach simply because it opposes Trump's policies or tactics. If issues are purely political, they should be left to the ballot box.

Trump's financial gains from his businesses while serving as president, Mueller's obstruction of justice charges and Trump's obvious and admitted request for political help from a foreign leader merit serious review. Congress has an obligation to the Constitution that matters far more than political allegiance or winning elections.

The impeachment process casts a shadow not only on Trump but over the country. No responsible person could have wanted it. But, if an impeachment investigation had not begun because of the clear issues Trump has raised, this constitutional provision would have become a dead letter.

Beware of polls, promises, and pundits in presidential campaign

Gordon L. Weil

It looks like the 2020 presidential election is just about over.

Much of the media seems to report that the pre-election polls tell us what we need to know about the candidates. The pundits forecast just what the winner will do after taking office.

Have polls, promises, and pundits settled matters more than 13 months before we vote? That would leave no chance for a candidate to stumble or any event in those months to change the result.

The outlook could be really boring. But there's good reason not to accept the political speculation.

Polls use a sample of the voting population to find out what voters think. To be reliable, polls should be based on a random sample of the whole population. But most people won't respond to polls. Pollsters adjust the results. In many polls, people select themselves, departing completely from a random sample.

A poll tells us what would happen if the election were held today. But the election won't be held for months, so why discount the effects of the campaigns and future events? Besides, who even knows if the questionnaire is fair? Few of us can see if the questions are neutral.

Despite all this, the Democrats use polls to screen out their debate participants. They also screen based on the amount of money candidates have raised. That virtually invites billionaires to run and exalts the role of money in politics.

How are voters supposed to judge candidates? By their promises and programs. If candidates differ on national health insurance or gun laws, voters are expected to believe that a candidate's promises are what we will get if they are elected.

That seems to be what the candidates want us to believe. We never hear them say, "This is what I will propose and, if elected, I will work with both parties in Congress to come as close as possible to achieving this policy." Of course, that's the most we can expect.

Recent history has shown a president will be lucky to make any progress, especially if the White House and the majority in one house of Congress are controlled by different parties.

We distrust government because politicians don't keep promises. But voters ought to remember that presidents and Congress need to agree, making keeping promises virtually impossible.

The myth that a candidate's promises produce presidential results is heavily promoted by political pundits. And they insert themselves directly by their analyses.

In a single debate statement, a Democratic candidate made the bold claim that he would seek to take back assault rifles. The pundits immediately concluded that all Democratic candidates would be negatively affected by that one candidate's promise. That may be the GOP line, but it's doubtful that anybody knows its effect, if any.

Sitting in their snug studios inside the Washington beltway, pundits profess to know immediately how voters from Maine to Hawaii will react to campaigns and candidates. If nothing else, such a snap analysis is an insult to voters.

Many people aren't yet paying much attention to next year's election. Others may remain open to persuasion at least on some issues. Right now hurricanes and home runs matter more than an election so far away.

That leaves the pundits free to make their picks. President Trump could win with a minority popular vote thanks to the electoral vote, they say. So his popularity with only 40 percent or less of the voters doesn't matter.

Pundits focus on the possible impeachment of Trump and its potential effects. That seems to go well beyond the interests of voters in having Congress get some work done in the remaining 15 months (out of a total of 24) for which it was elected.

The pundits are making their picks, dismissing many Democrats. Can a single debate miscue eliminate a candidate? Trump has shown that some voters will ignore significant defects if they like the results on issues that matter to them.

There are still months of political campaigning ahead. Campaigns take too long, but they cannot be prevented or ignored. Staying on the sidelines, voters are being treated more like sheep, led by so-called experts, than citizens. Voters cannot safely wait until the last few days of political campaigns to think about their choices.

In this historic campaign, voters should not leave it to the media minds. Question their predictions. It's never too soon to get involved, at least by focusing on the candidates and the issues.

Beware of giving too much weight too soon to the three "p's" -- polls, promises, and pundits.

Like British Tories, GOP turns hard right; moderate Collins should challenge Trump

Gordon L. Weil

The future of the Republican Party may be written in London.

The splintering of the British Conservative Party over Brexit looks remarkably similar to what might happen to the Republicans.

The Conservatives, known as Tories, were taken over by right-wing activists and tossed 21 members of Parliament out of the party after they refused to give the Prime Minister a blank check to take the United Kingdom out of the European Union.

U.K. voters had decided to quit the EU, mostly because they opposed more European immigrants and following EU rules.  Right-wing politicians seized on that vote, trying to force the U.K. to "crash out," while ignoring the economic cost and rebuilding barriers between the Republic of Ireland and the U.K.'s Northern Ireland.

They have an even more important political agenda.  They want to eliminate moderates and make the Conservative Party an anti-government, anti-immigrant party, seeking an impossible return to the past glories of the British Empire.  Boris Johnson, the colorful, former mayor of London, became their leader.  He had no Brexit plan.

Britain does not have a written constitution but relies on a collection of common understandings, developed over centuries, about how government is supposed to work.  The Tories split when Johnson abruptly overturned historic practices in a blatant grab for personal control, bypassing Parliament.

Some British wits have remarked that the unwritten constitution is now not even worth the paper it isn't written on.

Leading moderates announced they would put country above party and not support Johnson.  They were almost instantly expelled, meaning they could not run for office as Conservatives and probably ending most of their careers.  Johnson unsuccessfully sought a snap election in which he could seize control and win Conservative seats filled with new right-wingers.

The Conservatives face the opposition Labor Party, whose position is weakened by an unpopular leader, and several smaller parties, expected to gain from the collapse of traditional conservatism.  If enough Conservative voters are turned off by the next elections, Johnson's party could be reduced to a weakened hard-right force.

It's easy to see these events as a close parallel with the Republican Party today.

The GOP in the House of Representatives has been taken over by right-wingers.  The Senate often falls in line with President Trump, thanks to the tight control of Mitch McConnell, its Republican leader.  Like Johnson, he exercises power by overturning historic understandings about how congressional business is done.

At the heart of Republican strategy, thanks to Trump, is an anti-immigrant policy.  The U.S., like the U.K., would block new arrivals.  Like Brexit, his trade policy endangers the economy.

Trump also harks back to the past.  Under the guidance of historical right-wingers, he systematically strips the government of protections covering policies from civil rights to the environment.  He is changing the definition of what it means to be a Republican.

The GOP has also sought to drive out moderates.  Members of Congress must either line up with Trump or face primary challengers.  That can be a losing proposition, because many Republicans loyally support their party's president.

What will happen with traditional Republicans, pro-business and anti-big government, but who do not share the views or methods of Trump and the right-wingers? 

The party may slowly self-destruct as moderates are driven out and more non-whites and liberal youth become voters.  This is beginning to happen, and Democrats are gaining at the expense of Trump Republicans.  The party could survive as a minority, right-wing force.

Alternatively, traditional GOP leaders could try to recapture control of their party.  They could dump McConnell and show an increased willingness to compromise.  Of course, they might risk losing elections, a risk taken by the 21 British Conservatives.

Sen. Susan Collins could lead the resistance to a hard-right takeover.  She's the GOP's leading centrist, willing to seek workable compromises.  Instead of accepting the Trump party line, she could appeal to the endangered GOP mainstream.

Maine Sen. Margaret Chase Smith, Collins' proclaimed role model, courageously spoke out against a dangerous senator and his allies in her own party.  She later became the first woman to seriously seek the presidential nomination of a major party.

If Collins wants to run for office again, she might follow Smith's example and run against Trump for the GOP presidential nomination.  She is better known, with broader appeal, than Trump's three opponents.  A loyal Republican, she could provide a real alternative Trump could not ignore.

At this stage of her career, even losing by vigorously defying Trumpism, she would write more history than by running for re-election as a member of the current GOP.

Despite climate change, renewable energy not 'slam dunk'

Gordon L. Weil

When it comes to climate change and renewable energy, there's some good news, but a lot of bad news.

Most people would probably agree that if we could produce energy without harming the environment and at lower cost than the traditional fuels, we should do it. But we keep running into problems making that virtually impossible. It's no slam dunk.

After the G7 meeting, where he missed the environmental session, President Trump made clear why he opposes measures to deal with climate change. He knows there's a problem, but he has a higher priority than dealing with it.

"I feel the United States has tremendous wealth. The wealth is under its feet." he said. "We can't let that wealth be taken away." Cutting back on fossil fuel use to reduce global warming could undermine America's wealth. The wealth is for today; dealing with climate change is a "dream," left for a later day.

Trump's policy is deeply rooted in the past. He accepts environmental sacrifices as the price to pay for expanding the use of coal, oil and natural gas. This is one of the central elements of his presidency.

Part of that policy continues using the federal tax system to subsidize the oil industry, while cutting back breaks for renewable resources. That's big government at work. Under a conservative approach, the market would pit renewables against fossil fuels in a fair contest.

Another issue involving renewable resources arises in Maine. Central Maine Power proposes the "New England Clean Energy Connect." This transmission line is supposed to carry hydro power from Quebec to the Massachusetts market. Curiously, some of its supporters have opposed more hydro development in Maine.

By contributing to the reduced use of fossil fuels elsewhere, the project may have environmental merit. But the project, using its Maine corridor, also imposes environmental costs, which have not been fully evaluated. The decision thus far has simply been that its claimed benefits are enough to justify it.

In part, support for the corridor is an obvious reaction to Maine's loss of the major off-shore wind generation project proposed by Norway's Statoil, which then successfully moved it to Scotland. It was blocked by Gov. LePage. Now Gov. Mills has said of the new proposal, "We can't say no to every single project."

Maine is a national leader in environmental protection. But its position may be degraded if it looks like it is reducing its concern or can be induced to endorse a project by dubious payments from CMP's parent, which can expect large, ratepayer-funded profits extending far into the future.

CMP will be able to raise its rates at ratepayer expense over the next 40 years, while its annual payments to Maine are fixed and will lose almost all their value over that period.

Let's be realistic. Trump's view prevails while he is president, and oil industry subsidies are unlikely ever to disappear. Mills does not want Maine to be seen as opposing major private-sector projects, especially the first one of her administration, and the corridor could have some environmental benefits.

Besides, middle income people are not gaining in the American economy and renewables raise utility rates – or at least that's what people think. Even the thin CMP payments might help a little.

But look at Los Angeles. Its electric utility, a public power entity, has a large-scale, 25-year contract for solar power, including storage batteries to ensure reliability. According to press reports, customers would pay 3.3 cents per kilowatt-hour, less than half what Mainers now pay.

The city leadership hasn't yet approved the contract. A major labor union opposes it, arguing it will cost 400 jobs. It rejects statements by city officials that none will be laid off. Union leaders make the false claim that solar is unreliable, despite the batteries.

The Industrial Revolution itself was fought by this kind of objection. Of course, the utility should pursue a policy that does not displace workers. It should work with the union. But change should not be blocked by a backward-looking energy policy, wherever it occurs.

The common thread of Trump's policy, the Maine transmission corridor and even the L.A. solar project is that they are big. Politicians like to land big fish. And if a policy involves transmission, federal policy makes the rewards so great that big-scale projects are avidly pursued.

Yet the future is likely to depend on smaller, decentralized generators, closer to the customers served, probably renewable, less costly and more reliable.

This future requires policies going beyond fossil fuels, but also wisely evaluating big renewable projects.

Growing gaps in wealth, age raise long-term economic threat

Gordon L. Weil

How do you picture the typical American of the future?

A prosperous tech specialist, assured of a challenging and well-paid job in a thriving environment?

Or retired or nearing retirement, living on a tight budget in uncertain health?

Because of two widening gaps – between the wealthy and everybody else and the old and everybody else – the second alternative may turn out to be the more accurate vision of the future.

Maine may be one of the leading examples of at least one of those gaps, the one between a growing senior population and a declining population of young people.

It is the oldest state, based on median age. By next year, it will have more people over 65 than under 18. It is the first state to reach this point. The U.S. as a whole will get there by 2035. What's true for this country is also the case for developed economies around the world.

The reasons are obvious. With increased wealth, people have fewer children per family. Improved medical science helps extend life.

Historically, people had large families, with the younger generation able to support their parents when they aged and stopped working. With short life spans, the period during which such help was needed was relatively brief.

Support from children gradually gave way to employer pensions, Social Security and Medicare. These programs are financed by contributions from profits and taxes from a growing economy. Economic growth itself was driven by more people demanding more goods and services.

As the number of children per family approaches zero population growth – when people only replace themselves and not add to the total number of people – how does the population increase?

People in places where the economy was underdeveloped, forcing them to accept subsistence living, moved to places offering more freedom and opportunity and giving them hope for a better life. Massive immigrant populations moved within countries and among countries.

Large-scale immigration was eventually slowed by restrictive national legislation, aimed at cutting the flow. In the U.S., reduced immigration was offset by the post-World War II baby boom, whose effect is now disappearing.

The growth in the American economy and the country's leading role in the world economy led to greater prosperity. Federal taxation was used to promote economic development as well as to fund government programs designed to meet the needs of older people.

Even as high tax rates were lowered, opposition grew to government spending to ensure that seniors and low-income people could be helped to survive above subsistence levels. In the past three decades, taxes have been cut for the wealthiest end of the population, while workers continue to contribute to income support programs.

The gap between the most wealthy and everybody else has been justified on the basis of the claim that the rich will use their tax-shielded wealth to create new jobs. That theory works to a limited degree, but much of the tax savings goes simply to support the accumulation of increased wealth.

The income gap is a cause of increased political partisanship. While unemployment is now low, incomes have not grown to any significant degree. Because of the uneven rewards, thanks to the tax system, the rich get richer and the rest of the country gets frustrated. Tempers flare and both sides become more rigid.

With a stagnating work force, payroll taxes will not be enough to finance Social Security and Medicare. Wealthier taxpayers are reluctant to see their taxes increased to cover the inevitable shortfalls. Instead, many of them want even more tax cuts and less government.

They argue incorrectly that federal taxes are among the highest in the world. They provide no solutions to meeting the needs of lower-income workers and seniors with less government support. A mass economy like the U.S. cannot rely mainly on charity.

There are solutions. First, tax cutting must stop, especially for the wealthiest. Taxes, not more debt, should pay for what voters need and want .

Congress should adopt an immigration policy, allowing for more new Americans who can contribute to economic growth. The government can ensure that immigrants are capable of working and are not simply seeking public assistance.

Local centers should be developed for older Americans to obtain necessary support and dignity of life based on reasonable costs, pleasant surroundings and economies of scale.

Maine has already shown it can develop into such a center. But the national media reports that it lacks enough young workers to provide care services to the aging population. One obvious answer: immigrants.

States use courts to override president, Congress

Gordon L. Weil 

Last week, Maine joined other states in two federal court cases seeking to overturn Trump Administration moves.

By now, that's routine. States frequently team up to oppose actions by the executive branch. The party doesn't matter. States governed by Democrats challenge President Trump and states governed by Republicans are still chasing President Obama.

The result is a new form of government that they don't teach about in civics class. In fact, it is an entirely new layer of government not foreseen in the Constitution. States directly insert themselves in federal lawmaking and use the courts to approve, reject or even modify the law.

Here's how it works. First, Congress passes a bill, and it is signed by the president. That rarely happens unless the House and Senate majorities and the president belong to the same party.

The bill may allow regulators or an executive agency to issue rules to fill in the details not contained in the bill. Eventually, the rules are issued.

In a state under the control of the minority party in Congress, which had opposed the new law, its attorney general asks a federal court to decide that the law or its rules violate the Constitution. That state is likely to be joined by other states under control of the same minority party.

That action may prompt states supporting the congressional action to band together to enter the case on the other side. The congressional debate is transferred to court.

The case goes to a federal district court, composed of a single judge. The complaining state will try to select a district court where a judge will be sympathetic to its position.

While some may fear that judges make purely political decisions, its easy to forecast their decisions based on their known views or party affiliation. For example, a judge who generally defers to decisions made by the president makes predictable rulings about executive powers.

The district judge's opinion will be appealed. But the complainants may urge the judge to order a delay in the law's effective date until the appeals are completed. That could keep it from being applied for many months or even years. In short, a single judge can frustrate the will of Congress or the president.

Federal judges serve for life, and a president and supportive Senate will try to get people onto the bench who represent their partisan views. Remaining on the bench for decades, they can block laws adopted years later by the other party, when it is in power.

The case may eventually work its way from the district court through an appeals court to the U.S. Supreme Court. The nine justices, appointed for life, or really only a five-judge majority of them, have the last word on the law.

Take the decision on the Affordable Care Act. The Court ruled it is constitutional by a vote of 5-4. Some states are again challenging it in hopes that the Supreme Court, with a couple of new Trump appointees, might change its mind.

Justices are supposed to respect the Court's previous decisions to ensure that people can rely on them in the future. But as the political makeup of the Court changes over time, this principle is increasingly ignored.

Thus, federal laws may be challenged, suspended for long periods or blocked by states linked with the losing side in Congress. A law properly adopted by Congress may be overturned by the swing vote of a single Supreme Court justice, in office for life after having been confirmed by a Senate majority of as little as one vote.

The mere fact that Maine can join two multi-state federal appeals in a single week is a good indication of how routine this new form government decision-making has become.

This "states plus courts" decision-making can deprive the president and Congress of their constitutional roles. In effect, this process is an addition to the intended "checks and balances" of the Constitution. It overrides them.

Congress could limit the powers of courts, but that's unlikely. Voters have the only power to stop this process.

Few voters pay attention to how candidates for president or senator would handle judicial appointments, except perhaps positions on a wedge issue like abortion. Do voters recognize that a state attorney-general, elected either directly or indirectly, as in Maine, can have a major influence on federal laws?

This form of lawmaking usually escapes the public view. It's time for voters and the media to pay more attention to this almost invisible, but considerable, power.