Category: Conservatives

What is the Tea Party’s End Game?

I’ve been watching the news lately with a mix of fascination and horror. Many “Tea Party” conservatives are trying to kill Obamacare, and are threatening to shut down the government to do it. The latest tactic is to threaten to refuse to raise the debt ceiling. It appears that they may be willing to do anything to get their way, including damaging the government and harming the nation. This makes me wonder, what is their end game? What is their ultimate goal? They talk about “limited government” but what does that mean? Where does limited government end, and what is allowed under their view of limited government?

Conservatives used to talk about national defense, but many Tea Party members are isolationists and don’t think we should be involved overseas. Senator Rand Paul wants to eliminate nearly all foreign aid, and shrink the military. Conservatives used to believe in strong national defense, but apparently this new breed of conservatives doesn’t believe in that.
Conservatives also used to believe in “law and order.” But this new breed wants to strip the national government of much of its ability to engage in many domestic law enforcement activities.

Conservatives say they believe in Federalism, but then when a state enacts a policy they don’t like, they howl. But isn’t that Federalism in action? Isn’t the idea of federalism that states should be allowed to govern as they see fit, without interference from the national government? Isn’t it federalism in action when a state, say California, enacts strict green-house gas regulations, or another state, say Washington, passes a law allowing recreational use of pot? It is federalism at its finest (I want to day highest, but that would be a bad pun) but the Tea Party is incensed.

I think the reality is that they don’t want government to doing anything. They don’t like any external force engaging in communal activity that may impact their lives. Some conservatives seem to disparage any group or communal activity, and many Tea Party members share this view in spades. And that makes me wonder, what is their end game? If they win on Federalism, and government devolves to the states, will they then take their fight against government to the state level and try to devolve government to the localities? And what happens then? Will they stop towns and cities and counties from enacting legislation to benefit the community?

When does it stop? When they have eliminated all government? Is that the limit? Do they want to limit government, or eliminate it entirely?

Science and the Economy

Science is the foundation of the modern economy. Scientific advances fuel economic growth, and have since James Watt applied Boyle’s law to create a working steam pump. But today  conservatives are so opposed to any government spending that they will deprive the American economy of fuel.

Here’s a truly distressing news story that proves this point. Conservatives are leading the charge to cut federal support for scientific research for two reasons: first, they don’t like science, and second, they have no clue about the importance of government support of science.

Read it and weep:  Sequestration Ushers in Dark Ages For Science.

Nothing Funny About Nullification

State Senator Damon Thayer was on The Daily Show recently arguing that Kentucky had the right to nullify laws that it did not agree with. The show mocked Thayer, and plenty of other people have piled on, but it seems like a good time to actually address the issue of nullification.

Thayer’s argument was that the people of Kentucky did not vote for President Obama so they don’t necessarily have to comply with laws he supports. He also mention in an interview in the newspaper that he discussed the Tenth Amendment on the Daily Show, but that argument was cut.

The Tenth Amendment says “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.” Conservatives frequently argue that this amendment proves that the nation was envisioned as a federation, and that the states are equal to, if not supreme over, the national government.

The only problem with this argument is the Supremacy Clause, which says that “This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof … shall be the supreme law of the land …..” Courts, including the Supreme Court, have consistently held that this provision means that Federal laws supersede state laws, and that the states cannot nullify federal laws.

States have long sought to nullify federal laws that they don’t like. In the early years of the nation southern states attempted to nullify federal laws regarding slavery that they opposed. The first attempt was the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions, drafted and pushed largely by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison in opposition to President Adams’ Alien and Sedition Acts, that said the states had the power to interpret the Constitution and could not be forced to apply laws they found unconstitutional. Jefferson attempted to get other states to pass similar resolutions, but every other state rejected the idea.

There were numerous subsequent cases where the Supreme Court rejected the idea of state nullification of Federal Law. In 1809, in the case of United States v. Peters, 9 U.S. 115 (1809), the Supreme Court held that the state of Pennsylvania could not pass a law nullifying a federal court decision. In McCullock v. Maryland, 17 U.S. 316 (1819) and Osborn v. Bank of the United States, 22 U.S. 738 (1824) the Supreme Court held that states could not impose restrictions on the Federally chartered Bank of the United States. In Worcester v. Gorgia, 31 U.S. 515 (1832), the Supreme Court held that the state of Georgia could not pass a law making Georgia law applicable on Indian Territory, which is governed by federal treaty.

The “Nullification Crisis” involved an attempt by the state of South Carolina to nullify the Tariff of 1828 (known as the Tariff of Abomination) which imposed duties on imports of certain manufactured goods. The Tariff benefited the industrial Northern States, but hurt the South. South Carolina passed a law saying the Tariff was unconstitutional, and that the state would not enforce it. President Andrew Jackson, no friend of federal power, threatened to send in federal troops to enforce the laws, but the issue was resolved by a compromise Tariff bill.

The Court dealt with nullification and slavery in a number of cases, particularly involving the Fugitive Slave Act, which required free states to send slaves back to slave states. Pennsylvania tried to prevent enforcement of the law, but the Supreme Court said they could not nullify federal law, in Prigg v. Pennsylvania, 41 U.S. 539 (1842). The Wisconsin Supreme Court held the Fugitive Slave Law unconstitutional, but the U.S. Supreme Court overturned the Wisconsin decision, and also set out a detailed analysis of the idea of nullification. See, Ableman v. Booth, 62 U.S. 506 (1859).

The Civil War ended many arguments over the balance between state and federal power, but the issue arose again starting in the 1950’s, and the national government began to deal with civil rights for African-Americans. In Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954), the Court held that the ideas of equal protection in the Federal constitution superseded state laws segregating schools. Most Southern states were outraged, and they dredged up the theory of nullification. Arkansas passed a law that said that the state did not have to integrate its schools, and the federal government could not make them. The Supreme Court, in a 9 to 0 decision, said that the states had no power to nullify federal law. See, Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U.S. 1 (1958).

I find it troubling that conservatives are again trying to revive this long discredited legal theory. I also find it strange that conservatives, who are supposed to believe in and respect the lessons of history, are so ignorant of history.

A Tale of Two Programs

I was recently reading a blog post by a conservative commentator talking about using on line resources and on-line course to “fix” the “problems” with American higher education. Something struck me about this. There is no doubt that there are some problems facing the American higher education system, the main one being price, and certainly the availability of on line courses could provide greater access at lower cost. But the American higher education system is the best in the world. In fact it is the envy of the world. China and Saudi Arabia are trying to build new universities from scratch to mimic American universities. Students from around the world flock to the United States to attend our colleges and universities. And according to the Shanghai “Academic Ranking of World Universities” the vast majority of the top universities in the world are in the United States.

One could look at this and say that the market has spoken. The worldwide market for education has said that the higher education system in the United States is the best in the world. Despite this many conservatives hate it, and want to change it. On the state level many conservative state legislators are trying to strip funding from public colleges and universities. And at least two conservative governors, Rick Perry of Texas and Bob McDonnell have proposed plans to restructure state schools that most academics say will erode the quality of state universities.

So the United States has the best higher education system in the world, and conservatives want to change it.

Compare that with the American health care system. It is a system fraught with problems. Millions are uninsured and lack access to adequate health care services. They do have access to emergency health care services, but this drives up the cost of health care for everyone else. The cost of health care is rising far faster than the rate of inflation. The United States spends more per capita on health care than any other nation, yet we have a poor infant mortality rate and a relatively low life expectancy, particularly for a developed country. The cost of health care is a drain on the economy, and a competitive disadvantage for American businesses.

Despite these problems, conservatives oppose changing the system.

I’m baffled. Conservatives want to change the best system in the world, but don’t want to change a deeply flawed system. Weird.

The Barr Report July 21

The Uncertainty Edition

Representative Barr often says that uncertainly is one of the key problems stiffing economic recovery. This is a fairly standard conservative line, which says that businesses are unwilling to expand due to the uncertainty of future taxes or regulation. One of the key complaints by conservatives, like Rep. Barr, is that there is a great deal of uncertainly regarding Obamacare, or the Affordable Care Act. Businesses are afraid to hire, according to this theory, because they are uncertain about the impact of the new law on their health care costs for their employees.

What is Barr’s solution to this uncertainty? Create more. Barr has voted with the majority Republicans many times to repeal Obamacare. This week he voted with the majority to delay implementation of various aspects of Obamacare. In other words, delay and extend out the uncertainty.

Read Barr’s Press Release here.

The reality is that the only way to prevent uncertainty is to never allow anything to change. Change is the foundation of uncertainty. But change has been a constant in human history. (Perhaps some day I’ll address the irony of that statement, but not now.) The other way to deal with uncertainty is to get past it. Once you are past it you will no longer be uncertain. Once Obamacare is implemented there will no longer be uncertainty about its impact. All of the speculation, all of the dire warnings, will then have to be weighed against the actual impact.

The reality is that Obamacare will be implemented. Unless Obama is removed from office the law will move forward. Even if Republicans sweep out the Democrats in 2014, various aspects of the law will already be in effect.

The insurance exchanges (AKA the free market in action) will begin operating in October. By November there will no longer be any uncertainty about the impact of the exchanges. The individual mandate will go into effect next year. And so by the 2014 elections in November, we will know the impact of Obamacare, and there will no longer be any uncertainty.

So if you don’t like uncertainty it would seem that you would want to find out the reality. But it is possible that what conservatives really fear is that reality. We will find out in a few months.

 

The Barr Report, July 14

The – Da*n if you do, Da*n if you don’t – edition

In this week’s Sixth District Report Representative Barr spends most of his time talking about various Constituent services of his office. This is a very important part of being an elected official, and one that gets very little discussion during a campaign. From what I have seen and heard, Representative Barr takes these duties seriously, and has worked with people from across the district regardless of their views and political orientation. Barr has also worked on a number of bills dealing with industries with a major presence in the Sixth District, and this week he mentions his support of the most recent farm bill, which includes provisions to expand research on industrial hemp, which should be a good first step in the elimination on current restrictions on the production of industrial hemp in this country. I agree with Rep. Barr (and most of the Kentucky Congressional delegation, including Senators McConnell and Paul) on the need to eliminate current prohibitions on hemp production.

What Rep. Barr doesn’t mention is that his vote for the Farm Bill was also a vote against Food Stamps (actually SNAP). Republicans say that they simply want to vote on Food Stamps separately, and not as part of a comprehensive farm bill, but we shall see if they ever get around to actually voting on the issue.

Rep. Barr also takes the opportunity to criticize President Obama over the sequestration. He calls it “Obama’s Sequestration” even though the bill was enacted as a compromise by both parties to force both parties, and the executive and legislative branches, to work honestly to resolve budget issues. So it is disingenuous to call it “Obama’s Sequestration.” He then says that “the Department of Defense has borne more than its share of the burden.” This is also disingenuous since the sequestration bill specifically set out cuts on both the civilian and military side of the budget. So the DOD has borne precisely the share of the burden that was set by Congress in the Bill. In any event, he then complains that the sequestration would impact firefighters at the Blue Grass Army Depot, and notes that he worked with the DOD and the Army Depot to exempt firefighters from sequestration cuts.

Rep. Barr complains that the sequestration imposes across the board cuts (which is what it was designed to do), but I suspect that he would complain if President Obama tried to use some discretion in programming those cuts. Had Obama (actually his Treasury and OMB personnel) tried to go through the budget to target programs for cutting and saving, Republicans would be screaming that he was violating the law. So they condemn him for following the law, while holding out the threat of condemning him for not following the law. Pretty slick.

The Downside of Freedom

I’m always amused when I hear Republicans say that they are the “party of freedom” and then, in nearly the next breath, they talk about restricting the freedom of women and oppose freedom for gays and lesbians. I don’t know whether to laugh or to cry. What they’re really saying (but are not self-aware enough to realize it) is that they believe in a limited, truncated, me-first, form of freedom. They’re all about freedom for themselves, and for their “values” but for other people, not so much.

Perhaps they are just unable to appreciate that sometimes there is a downside to freedom. Sometimes, when you give people freedom, they do things you don’t like. Take the “freedom of speech.” You let people say what they want, and some people will say some pretty nasty, disagreeable, mean, hateful, hurtful things. And if you say that “speech” can include other forms of expressive behavior, some people will express themselves in ways that we don’t like.

Conservatives seem to think that freedom is a magic word; all you have to do is incant it a few times to create magic. Say it enough, and everything is good. Sort of like “Constitutional.” If something is “constitutional” it must be good. It’s the political equivalent of “Mom” or “apple pie.” (But of course some mothers are horrid, and too much apple pie will make you fat, harden your arteries, and kill you dead.) And freedom too, has its downsides, its negative aspects.

Once upon a time the word liberty was often paired (in dialectic) with the word licentiousness. Too much liberty led to licentiousness, which is an excess of liberty that tends toward depravity. Think Dorian Grey. It was understood that if you granted people liberty, some would abuse it and act without constraint. If liberty can be abused, so too can freedom. If we give people freedom, some people will use it to do things we don’t like. (Unfortunately there isn’t a word that I am familiar with that is similar to licentiousness and related to a depraved excess of freedom.)

Conservatives say that when they seek to restrict abortion, or limit gay rights, they are not limiting freedom, they are merely protecting life and trying to preserve the traditional family. Those may be their genuine goals, but there is no way to escape the fact that the only way for them to achieve those goals is to restrict someone’s freedom. If you restrict abortion you limit a woman’s ability to control her own reproductive function. You are choosing the freedom of the unborn over the freedom of the woman. That may be a valid choice, but there is no way to make that choice without limiting a woman’s freedom. Arguing otherwise is little more than sophism, rhetorical gamesmanship.

So Republicans believe in freedom, but it’s a truncated, me first, freedom: freedom for me but not you, freedom for businesses but not consumers, freedom for men but not women, freedom for heterosexuals but not homosexuals. And that is fine, but I just wish they were honest about it.

Immigration and Job Creation

According to a report issued by the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office, if the pending immigration reform bill (S. 744) is passed, it will have significant economic benefits for the country.  According to the CBO, new immigrants will generate enough new revenue to shrink the budget deficit by $175 billion over the next decade, and increase GDP by as much as two percentage points.

Here’s an article from Quartz

Here’s the link to the CBO report.

Here’s Ezra Klein’s take at the Washington Post

Conservatives claim that their main priority, above all else, is shrinking the deficit. So lets see how they interpret this report.

 

 

Politics American Style

I often wonder if politicians hear what comes out of their mouths, or if they are aware of how dumb their campaign commercials sound. Fortunately examples are never hard to find. There is a special election being held in the 56th Legislative District in Kentucky. There are three candidates, Republican Lynn Crews, Democrat James Kay, and independent John-Mark Hack.

The Republican, Lynn Crews, has been running ads attacking James Kay, and saying, among other things, that his first job out of law school was working in politics. Shocking. The only problem with that argument is that a number of prominent Republican politicians from Kentucky worked in politics right out of school. Senator Mitch McConnell, for example, worked for U.S. Senator Marlow Cook (R. KY) after graduating from law school. He then worked in the Ford Administration, and served as the Judge-Executive of Jefferson County from 1979 to 1985, before his election to the United States Senate, where he has served ever since. If McConnell has ever worked in the private sector, he doesn’t mention it on his senate web site biography. (http://www.mcconnell.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=Biography)

And then there is Representative Andy Barr. Barr worked as an intern form Senator McConnell, and then after graduating from college worked as a legislative assistant for Missouri Congressman Jim Talent. Barr then went to law school, and after graduating worked for about two years in private practice at a law firm in Lexington. He represented Ernie Fletcher’s one time running mate Hunter Bates in a dispute over his residency, and then after Fletcher’s election he joined the Fletcher administration, where he served in a number of positions. After Fletcher’s defeat he returned to private practice, until his election to Congress in 2012. If my math is correct Barr has spent nearly as much time in politics as in the private sector.

Why then is working in politics such a bad thing?

But the real question is whether Crews even thought about what his ad said. How could he, with a straight face, complain about a candidate with little or no real experience in the private sector without realizing that someone was going to point out that Senator McConnell has no appreciable experience in the private sector?

The Market Has Spoken

The market has spoken: tolerance is good for business.

Most major corporations have strong anti-discrimination policies. Most have active minority recruitment and retention policies. And increasingly, many support providing benefits for domestic partners.

According to DiversityInc.com, most major companies are committed to diversity it the workplace, though they admit that many companies do fall short. Most try because they understand the importance of a diverse workforce. Virtually all companies, large and small, have anti-discrimination policies, and increasingly those policies cover discrimination based on gender or sexual orientation. According to the Equity Forum, in 2012, 483 of the Fortune 500 companies specifically included sexual orientation in their anti-discrimination policies. (www.equityforum.com/fortune500)

A significant majority of Fortune 500 Companies now provide domestic partner benefits. According to the Human Rights Campaign, in 2011, 291 of the 500 companies offered domestic partner benefits. [http://preview.hrc.org/issues/health/domestic_partner_benefits.htm]

As the twin cases dealing with Gay Marriage were at the Supreme Court, a group of businesses, which included Apple Inc., Broadcom Corp., Citigroup Inc., Facebook Inc., Johnson & Johnson, Marriott International Inc., Microsoft, Orbitz, Starbucks, Twitter and the Walt Disney Co., signed an amicus brief opposing the federal Defense Of Marriage Act (DOMA), and therefor supporting both gay marriage and domestic partner benefits. [The briefs can be found here: http://www.glad.org/doma/documents/]

Many prominent local and regional companies also provide domestic partnership benefits, including Proctor & Gamble in Cincinnati, Lexmark in Lexington, and Toyota in Georgetown.
Many companies are proudly outspoken about their anti-discrimination policies:

HP, for example, states that it has long been committed to fair employment practices, and strives for a diverse workforce.
HP believes that this diverse work force helps the company realize its full potential. Recognizing and developing the talents of each individual brings new ideas to HP. The company benefits from the creativity and innovation that results when HP people who have different experiences, perspectives and cultures work together. [See, http://www.hp.com/hpinfo/abouthp/diversity/nondisc.html]

Here’s is what HP says is its diversity philosophy:

HP’s Diversity and inclusion philosophy

• A diverse, high-achieving workforce is the sustainable competitive advantage that differentiates HP. It is essential to win in the marketplaces, workplaces and communities around the world.
• An inclusive, flexible work environment that values differences motivates employees to contribute their best.
• To better serve our customers, we must attract, develop, promote and retain a diverse workforce.
• Trust, mutual respect and dignity are fundamental beliefs that are reflected in our behavior and actions.
• Accountability for diversity and inclusion goals drives our success.

HP’s anti-disciminatin policy, which it calls its “Global Non-Discrimination Policy” provides that we do not discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because of gender, color, race, ethnicity, national origin, religion, age, marital status, sexual orientation, gender identity and expression, disability, pregnancy, covered veteran status, protected genetic information and political affiliation. [Id.]

HP is far from alone. Walmart, America’s largest company has this non-discrimination policy:

The first of the three basic beliefs upon which Sam Walton founded our company is “respect for the individual.” Each of us is responsible for creating a culture of trust and respect that promotes a positive work environment. This means treating one another with fairness and courtesy in all of our interactions in the workplace.

We are committed to maintaining a diverse workforce and an inclusive work environment. Walmart will not tolerate discrimination in employment, employment-related decisions, or in business dealings on the basis of race, color, ancestry, age, sex, sexual orientation, religion, disability, ethnicity, national origin, veteran status, marital status, pregnancy, or any other legally protected status. We should provide an environment free of discrimination to our associates, customers, members, and suppliers.
[http://ethics.walmartstores.com/IntegrityIntheWorkplace/Nondiscrimination.aspx]

Major corporations do these things, not because of some weak-kneed liberalism, not out of a desire to be politically correct, or out of fear that they will be accused of not being politically correct. They do these things because it is good for business.

Companies know that they need to sell their goods and services to everyone to make money. In today’s highly competitive economic marketplace companies know that they can’t ignore any potential market. And they have found that the best way to compete in every market is to have employees that reflect every possible market. And so they actively recruit potential employees from every potential market, and once hired work hard to retain and promote that diverse workforce. Make no mistake, diversity is good for business. Make no mistake, tolerance is good for business.

Conservatives are fond of saying we should run government more like a business, and in this area at least, I agree.