Riding the “Other Third Rail”

Though it comes as no surprise that President Obama and his administration would have the opportunity to nominate a justice to the Supreme Court during their time in office, this particular opportunity comes sooner than expected.

It was presumed, by those in the know, and reiterated at length by the press, that Ruth Bader Ginsberg would be the next Supreme Court Justice to step down, creating an opening for the President to place a nominee on the bench. Unexpectedly, though, Justice David Souter announced his retirement, well ahead of expectations.

Regardless of how it came to be, however, the simple fact is that the President is now tasked with nominating a justice to the court. A task that these days I view as the other “third rail” in politics.

People, pundits and politicians all speak of Social Security as being the “third rail” in American politics. The meaning being that to touch Social Security in any way is equivalent to getting zapped with 1200 volts of electricity – so say goodbye to your eyebrows and your political career.

I contend, however, that the Supreme Court is the OTHER third rail in American Politics. Not the same voltage, perhaps, but such a tremendous strain on an administration and their image that it is perhaps an issue to be avoided to an extent.

A large part of the issue is that in our modern political climate, presided over predominantly by extreme positions and pointless bickering, it is completely and entirely impossible for an administration to choose a jurist who will both meet the criteria for the job (based on that administration’s standard for such) while gaining the approval of the public and Congress.

Additionally, given the Supreme Court’s limited time to consider cases and the ever-increasing caseload, it is impractical for a nomination to take an excessive amount of time for any reason (filibuster, losing a confirmation, etc.).

Thus, at the very least, nominating a justice to the Supreme Court of the United States in this day and age is a political high-wire act of mind-boggling proportions.

With the nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court, the difficulty is no different. In fact, I don’t believe that I’ve seen the mention of one’s race (or their purported racism) this often in press coverage in quite some time.

There are so many variables that present possible attacks on a nominee that, no matter how thorough and intense your vetting process may be, your nominee will have an uphill battle ahead of them. As will you and your administration.

Of course, first and foremost in any legislator’s mind should be the issue of whether or not the nominee will be a good, impartial and effective justice while serving on the Supreme Court. And while this sounds like a simple question to answer by merely reviewing the credentials and judicial record, the question of what constitutes “good, effective, and impartial” is open to some interpretation (in so far as politicians are concerned, anyway).

Though I know both sides are guilty of it, the Republican party (or, at the very least a handful of their most vocal representatives) have a knack for consistently, and almost constantly bringing up the point that they “don’t want someone who will legislate from the bench”.

Which is a notion that I fully and entirely support. At face value, anyway.

The issue comes in that, in spite of the rhetoric to the contrary, many legislators actually do want a justice who will legislate from the bench…just consistently and almost constantly in favor of their own views.

Yes, of course, one’s personal views will lead to a particular leaning one way or another on sensitive issues and topics. The point of being a judge, though, and particularly one who serves on a federal bench of any ilk, is that you must, MUST be able to separate your own views from the facts and figures presented to you, and make an informed, impartial ruling based solely on the information presented and the laws as they are presently structured/written.

I’ll grant you that you can’t always count on that, which is why you review the rulings and record of a nominee. However, if the nominee proves to be qualified, educated and impartial, then the confirmation should be swift.

Again, that’s simply not the way politics works in the States these days.

That point is evidenced by the fact that Senator Pat Roberts (R-KY) is already on the record as saying he will vote against a Sotomayor confirmation for the Supreme Court.

Which really takes all of the suspense out of the process, when you go ahead and give away spoilers like that.

In all seriousness, though, why even bother having the floor vote if Senators like Roberts can simply phone it in through the press, without allowing for a debate among his colleagues?

Yes, as mentioned in the previous article, Senator Roberts has already voted against Sotomayor once, when she was nominated to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in 1998.

Seeing as that was 11 years ago, don’t you think that times, and opinions, may have changed just a bit? And seeing that she was confirmed anyway, doesn’t that mean that there are now 11 more years of judicial records and decisions to review before making your final ruling?

Evidently not. Which is precisely what I mean when I refer to Supreme Court nominations as the “Other Third Rail” in American politics.

I suppose it’s foolish to hope for a nomination process that actually proceeds smoothly in both the Congress and the press. That’s just not meant to be.

Kudos, then, to the administration and the nominee who manage to navigate these tumultuous waters and do some good in serving their country. And regardless of the difficulty inherent in the process, I presume that just being nominated to the Supreme Court is a pretty significant honor.

At least it beats being nominated for a Grammy.

Back in the Saddle Again?

GOP members, voters, supporters and friends are less than pleased as of late, and perhaps with good reason. So displeased, in fact, that there are rumblings of rebellion coursing through the formerly cohesive Conservative movement.

Item one that has feathers ruffled in the Republican party (aside from the fact that they are “out of power” for the time being) seems to be that there is no voice. The GOP lacks leadership. There is no one to unify, to garner support, to provide the dissonant voice of critique for the current administration (I support the administration, but everyone in power needs someone to call them out every once in a while, if nothing else).

And frankly, I don’t think Republican voters have been satisfied with their leadership at all for the last 4-6 years. Ultra-conservatives, perhaps, but the moderate Republicans are nearly just as dissatisfied as the Liberals and Democrats were during Bush’s entire term in office. Aside from tax cuts (which benefited a select few) and a handful of maneuvers that placated the religious base, the majority of the Republican party no doubt feels that their 8 years in the limelight was wasted, having passed no substantial, lasting or impactful legislation.

I wouldn’t blame Republican voters for voicing their dissent, particularly at this time. If ever there was a time for them to start rebuilding (and, ideally, make an honest attempt at luring voters in the middle of the road rather than catering to the outliers), that time is now.

But there needs to be a voice. Someone who can put that derailed train of a party back on the tracks and focus the talking points on the core issues.

Judging by the glut of recent media appearances and testimony on the Hill, that voice could be Republican stalwart and present thorn in the administration’s side, Newt Gingrich.

Most recently, Gingrich gave testimony to the House Energy and Commerce Committee in regards to draft legislation regarding climate change and emissions, following former Vice President Al Gore’s Testimony to the same group . This in addition to his recent appearances on Sunday talk shows in order to issue criticism of the Obama administration and their legislative work thus far.

Gingrich was rebutting the legislation currently under debate with a 38-point environmental plan of his own (details of which I’ve been unable to locate as of yet).

Which makes for one notable distinction between Gingrich and other Republicans – At least he has a plan. As for the substance of the plan, I can’t say. But thus far he’s perhaps the only representative voice in the party who actually has items on paper that he can point to and garner support for.

Don’t get me wrong – I am not a Newt supporter. In fact, I have mixed feelings about Mr. Gingrich’s priorities and views. There are times when I’ll see him on a Sunday talk show or giving comment on a news story, and what he has to say is not that far from what I would say. But there are other times (many, in fact) where I couldn’t be further from his view on the issue/topic at hand.

I’m also not necessarily cheering the arrival of a uniting force within the GOP, but there is one good thing that could come of having a somewhat unified opposition party – The Democrats won’t get complacent.

Speaking as a Democrat, I think I’m at liberty to say this – The Democratic Party knows how to lose. Perhaps all too well. And, like many other categories in life, it often takes competition to bring out the best in each side.

As such, a healthy opposition party would (hopefully) only light a fire under the Democratic Leadership’s rear end, inciting them to action, and potentially resulting in better legislation, more legislative action, a unified party platform, and maybe, just maybe, reelection.

To that end, I say “Welcome back, Newt.” And to the Democrats I supported and/or voted for, I say “Get your a$$ in gear. We got company.”

Followup: Sen. Arlen Specter ditches the GOP and switches parties, precisely because the GOP actively stifles moderate Republicans.

Update: Listen to the Common Sense with Dan Carlin podcast from 04/22 for a similar thought on Gingrich becoming the only emerging voice of the GOP. (http://www.dancarlin.com/cswdc.xml)

Gaming the System

I feel as though I have been out of the loop for months or even years with all that’s gone on in the news recently. It’s funny how losing a job has actually made me more disconnected from what’s going on in the world. But such is the case.

While attempting to play catch-up on all of the stories that have blown by me  in the last few weeks, I fell upon an interesting piece about the Geithner-Summers plan for the banking industry over at Huffingtonpost.

And while I’ll grant you that the first “bailout” plan, the one with absolutely no oversight whatsoever, was pretty terrible, this one could create issues all its own.

As mentioned in the article linked above, it appears that the Geithner-Summers plan leaves open a tremendous loophole that, barring some miraculous display of patriotism and moral fortitude on the part of banking executives, they will most assuredly take advantage of.

The “Toxic Assets” that are referred to are most likely the package-deal bundles of mortgages and debt that have been defaulted on, foreclosed, bankrupted, and so on (not to be confused with toxic assets such as my 401K plan, credit rating, etc.).

The gaping hole in the plan is such that it would allow the banks to set up essentially shell corporations that would bid full, face value on the toxic assets, opening the door for essentially free money from the treasury and Fed. Since the assets are, in fact, toxic to the point of having absolutely no worth on the open market, the shell corporation has no choice but to file bankruptcy, while the parent bank (in Sachs’ example, Citibank) effortlessly makes off with a large chunk of taxpayer change.

Who’s really picking up the tab for all of this? It would have to be the middle class, of course.

When you make just enough money to live comfortably, but not enough money to qualify for huge tax breaks, you’re in the middle class. And the check you’re cutting to Uncle Sam in just under a week could wind up going to one of these failed banks that gambled little Timmy’s college fund on a mortgage boom that anyone could see was make believe.

A lot of people in our nation’s capital simply shrug and ask, “what else can we do?”

Well, it just so happens that there are a few other suggestions floating around out there. Why not have a look?

For instance, the Congressional Oversight Panel has suggested a plan wherein the managers of these banks, the ones who squandered little Timmy’s college fund, would be fired, and the failed banks (or those very near failure) would be liquidated.

I don’t know about you, but if firing a few executives and selling off the desk chairs from WaMu is a viable alternative to financing our economic recovery on money we may or may not have in 40 years, I’m all for it.

I would offer another suggestion, one where we start calling in the tab on countries who owe us money. Whether it be for food we’ve given, or weapons we’ve provided, etc.

The problem with that option is two-fold:

1. The recession is worldwide. So nobody’s got any money, and making the phone call as big bad bill collector is just gonna get us the answering machine,
2. We’re already borrowing money from the other countries that have any left.

You know who “owns” a big fat chunk of this country right now? China. And of course the heavy, heavy investments from Saudi Arabia as well.

Guess which two countries we may have to play real nice with for a while…

If the Federal Reserve, the Treasury and Congress don’t come up with some sort of workable, effective plan soon, you’ll be seeing pieces from the Smithsonian up on eBay within a matter of months.

Friends in Low (income) Places?

I’m assuming I may have missed a memo at some point, since the latest Republican line is that they are the “mighty protectors of small business”. Implying by extension, then, that Democrats must be the sworn enemy of small business owners, somehow.

As evidence of this, they have spent a great deal of time lately in front of the press espousing their belief that the administration’s stimulus plan is terrible, strictly by virtue of its lack of tax cuts. Tax cuts presumably being the savior of the economy, somehow, and benefiting small business in untold, near-miraculous ways.

But how much would the Republicans’ penchant for extensive tax cuts actually improve the economy for everyone, and how much would they actually benefit the average small business owner?

Mitchell Bard, writing for HuffingtonPost.com, sums up recent Republican statements as follows:

“It’s clear that Republicans have gotten their talking points. All over the media you hear the same terms over and over again come from their mouths: “tax credits,” “small business” and “more government.” On This Week, new Republican National Committee chairman Michael Steele talked about “tax credits” to help “small business” as being the key to stimulus. He even made a laughable point that the Democrats’ stimulus bill doesn’t create jobs, but only “work.” Steele explained that the government-supported projects would only be temporary (like 18 months), which is not a job. I’m sure unemployed workers will feel great relief that Mr. Steele is trying to save them from 18 months of wages, rather than the zero dollars they are making now.” (Full Article on HuffingtonPost)

Presently, this is one defining difference between Democrats and Republicans – One wants to jolt the economy back into form with extensive spending, providing liquidity and capital to the markets and (hopefully) stimulating the resumption of lending, spending and hiring. The other believes, for whatever reason, that tax cuts (mainly targeted at big business) will allow those businesses to resume spending and lending and perhaps even hiring.

However, if the last 8 years should have taught us, and our elected representatives, anything, it’s that tax cuts for the wealthy cause more problems than they solve.

There are a number of reasons for this, not the least of which being that if rich people can avoid spending money, they generally divert that money into investments, tax shelters, etc. And if that money that the Federal government, by virtue of those tax cuts, allowed the wealthy to hang on to doesn’t flow back into the system through spending, it only continues to exacerbate the problem that was to be remedied in the first place.

Where does all of this love for tax cuts come from, particularly for small business? The Republicans, as mentioned before, are singing the same tax cut melody that dominated Capitol Hill for the last 8 years, to no avail. But there are still those voters who believe that tax cuts are a wise idea.

The cause, as far as I’ve been able to surmise, is as follows: For whatever reasons, there are those in this world who are still falling for the old concept of the “American Dream” hook, line and sinker.

The love of tax cuts among certain constituencies, and the reason that Republicans continue to shill for such tax cuts, is in part the result of a pervasive belief, however subconscious, that we can all get rich. Doesn’t that sound awesome? Of course, it bears no resemblance to reality (particularly in an economic system that is based on financial hierarchy and with a built-in unemployment requirement in order to function properly). But none of that matters…We could all be rich!

Targeting small business owners is just the latest tactic that the Republicans have chosen in order to gain ground-level support for their scam.

In many respects, as a freelance copywriter, I am, technically, a small business owner. There is no office building or storefront, and my only equipment is an Internet connection and a desktop PC in dire need of an overhaul. As such, given the choice between the President’s concept of tax cuts for 95% of working families, or the Republican’s concept of a tax cut for small business owners, I would have throw my support to the former.

The reason is simple…I don’t pull in enough revenue to qualify for, or benefit from, Republican tax cuts. I make a little side money writing. That’s it. Beyond that, I still have to maintain a “real” job in order to have health insurance and to pay the bills on time.

Additionally, I have no illusions (or delusions) about making a fortune doing freelance copywriting, from home, in my pajamas, for just a few hours a week. No matter how many “work from home and get rich” ads you read on Craigslist and Monster.com, nobody’s making a fortune doing it.

But herein lies the problem, and the reason why there’s any support at all for the Republicans’ tax cut concept; There are plenty of deluded masses who believe that they’ll be able to turn their small business into an empire, or at least a small fortune.

I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but no one is going to come along anytime soon and offer to franchise the Country Thyme Tea Room in Tolono, though they certainly qualify as a small business.

Similarly, the only way that my friend’s business, Squadfitters, would benefit from a stimulus plan is if the money to spend were given to their customers – Local and regional law enforcement agencies.

That’s where the spending in the stimulus plan comes into play. To get the economy rolling again doesn’t require a lot of fancy calculations and tax maneuvering.

It requires money. Plain and simple.

What the Republicans fail to mention about their concept of tax cuts for small businesses is that, in spite of their rhetoric appealing to the entrepreneur in all of us, their tax cuts actually benefit “…big accounting firms, law firms and real-estate partnerships, and “businesses” that are really only sidelines – such as occasional rental income from a corporate chief’s ski condo.”

Just as you should have suspected – Republicans in the House and Senate have a very, very different definition of what constitutes a small business.

Of course, they also fail to mention that they actually loathe small businesses. But that’s another discussion entirely.

Many small business owners do pull in slightly more per year than perhaps your average salaried employee, but not a lot more. Particularly after expenses are factored in. And if you think the recession is hitting hard at major banks, lenders and brokerages, imagine the effect it has on the locally owned coffee shop or bookstore in your town (such as the liquidation and closing of Pages for All Ages, a bookstore here in Savoy, IL).

But maybe a hard look at some numbers will finally show that the Republicans are, in fact, better for business.

OK…maybe not.

The point is this – Don’t believe everything that you hear or read. When it comes to Republican economic plans, nothing is quite as it seems.

Coaching from the Executive Suite

It should come as no surprise that former VP Dick Cheney, he of the “if the president does it, it’s not illegal” ilk, should take time out from his busy schedule to fan the flames of fear by claiming that there is a real and heightened possibility of “catastrophic nuclear or biological attack in coming years…” (Politico Article)

It seems then that old politicians don’t retire…they merely take their show on the road.

Mr. Cheney’s county-fair level prognostication act is virtually unchanged from his days as Vice President, spouting off on Meet the Press and in any other outlet or venue about ambiguous and mysterious potential threats to American safety and security, all the while providing no detail on critical items like when, where, how, why, etc.

This latest round of fear-mongering seems only designed as a way of criticizing the new Obama administration and stoking the flames of fear that he, Rumsfeld and President Bush worked so hard to ignite during their tenure in our Nation’s capital.

Of course, Mr. Cheney cites an intelligence report that legal experts have disputed in terms of their claims of “recidivism” of Guantanamo detainees and recently released prisoners.

It’s rather unfortunate that Mr. Cheney couldn’t slip quietly into retirement, but rather chooses to spout off here and there in criticism of the new administration. Considering the damage done by the Bush/Cheney administration during the 8 years in office, it is highly likely that President Obama will be forced to spend the better part of his political capital and his first term in office trying to plug the leaks and mend the wounds to the legal system, the Constitution and the public’s perception of Federal government at large.

If I were a member of the Obama administration, I would not lose too much sleep over Mr. Cheney’s criticisms. After all, we are talking about a man who was an integral part of what I have to regard as the most paranoid and fearful administration in American political history – Nixon. Thus, it should come as no surprise that Cheney’s criticisms, judgments and actions while VP stem from this overriding fear of the shadowy, unnamed terrorists and assailants. Cheney and Rumsfeld both formed their ideologies in the Nixon Administration, where paranoia was not only the name of the game, but the proposed means to unbridled executive powers.

Each and every time I read about VP Cheney, I can’t help but ask the question – Is Mr. Cheney familiar at all with the structure of American government? Has he not heard of the separation of powers, of checks and balances? Does he not realize that the kind of power he sought for the President and the Executive Branch was exactly the type of power that the founding fathers sought to loose themselves from by creating the United States in the first place?

Hopefully the former VP will be headed off to his private, Halliburton-furnished island in Dubai soon to retire comfortably and perhaps work on his tan. He left us with a lot to clean up, so it would be nice if he could step aside and let us get to work.