Nothing like a little blood in the water to get the political sharks circling, hoping for more blood. My esteemed fellow TC.com blogger Bob Quasius of the Arizona Lincoln Republicans blog is already suggesting the “I-word” (Impeachment) and drawing comparisons of recent events to the biggest crook ever to occupy the White House, Richard Nixon. Never mind the irony of comparing President Obama to the most dishonest person to ever occupy the White House, who happened to be a Republican President. And never mind the irony that it was Richard Nixon who impugned the legacy of Abraham Lincoln in the Republican Party by pursuing the “Southern Strategy” of courting conservative, largely bigoted Southern whites still angry at Democrats passing the Civil Rights Act and Voting Rights Act to join the Republican Party. Let’s take a look at recent events that Republicans are decrying as “abuses of power” and “failures of leadership”, as they are really all much ado about nothing.

Justice Department Seizures of Ap Reporters’ Phone Records:

This all started when the AP ran this story on May 7 2012: CIA ‘foiled al-Qaida bomb plot’ around anniversary of Bin Laden death:

The CIA has thwarted a plot by al-Qaida’s affiliate in Yemen to destroy a US-bound airliner using a bomb with a new design around the one-year anniversary of the killing of Osama bin Laden, according to the Associated Press. US officials say the plot involved an “upgrade” of the underwear bomb that failed to detonate aboard a jetliner over Detroit on Christmas Day in 2009.

The AP notes in the article that they learned about the thwarted plot the week before but “agreed to White House and CIA requests not to publish it immediately because the sensitive intelligence operation was still under way. Once those concerns were allayed, the AP decided to disclose the plot Monday despite requests from the Obama administration to wait for an official announcement Tuesday.” The AP apparently had the story immediately after it happened, while US Intelligence operations were still underway. The AP clearly had some inside information on this, and as it highly unlikely Al Qaeda Arab Peninsula fed them the info, it likely came from someone inside the US Intelligence community. Yesterday U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder said that the national security information leak that prompted the Department of Justice to seize Associated Press phone records was among the most serious breaches he has ever seen. And Republicans agreed with him. Back in May-June 2012, when the story broke and politicians were gearing up for the November election, there was a chorus line of Republican criticism over the leak of intelligence information.

“Our intelligence people say this is the worst breach they’ve ever see. It’s very clear that this information had to come from this administration. It couldn’t have come from anywhere else.”

- Our very own Senator John McCain on CNN’s “State of the Union” program, Sunday, June 10, 2012. McCain encouraged a thorough investigation. And the Department of Justice (DOJ) did just that, conducting over 550 interviews and reviewing tens of thousands of documents, before seeking the phone records at issue. And the DOJ wasn’t investigating the AP because it was being critical of the President, like Nixon did, or like GW Bush did when he ordered the IRS investigation of church critical of the invading Iraq. No, the DOJ was only investigating because apparently someone high up in the Intelligence service was leaking classified information that compromises our efforts to combat terrorism. No phone records were recorded, they only obtained phone number records to try to determine who the individual was that was calling the AP, or the AP calling him, with this information. Freedom of the Press is one of our most cherished and important civil liberties. Just as is Freedom of Speech. But, just like Freedom of Speech doesn’t give you the right ot yell “Fire!” in a crowded theater, Freedom of the Press does not give you the right to publish information that compromises ongoing military or intelligence operations. Especially when advised that doing so would indeed compromise those operations.

IRS scrutiny of Conservative/Tea Party tax exempt applications:

The IRS controversy arose last week when Lois Lerner, the official in charge of overseeing tax-exempt groups, said the agency was wrong to pay special attention to organizations that used key words such as “tea party” or “patriot” or had policy positions on smaller government, and apologized for it. Somehow this has morphed into wild accusations that the Obama Administration has used the IRS to target and suppress political opposition. First of all, there is zero evidence that President Obama or his high ranking officials were even aware that this was happening, let alone instructing the IRS to do so. Indeed, the Treasury Department’s Inspector General released a report that lays the blame on the IRS for developing “inappropriate criteria” in focusing on conservative groups:

Early in Calendar Year 2010, the IRS began using inappropriate criteria to identify organizations applying for tax-exempt status to review for indications of significant political campaign intervention. Although the IRS has taken some action, it will need to do more so that the public has reasonable assurance that applications are processed without unreasonable delay in a fair and impartial manner in the future.The IRS used inappropriate criteria that identified for review Tea Party and other organizations applying for tax-exempt status based upon their names or policy positions instead of indications of potential political campaign intervention. Ineffective management: 1) allowed inappropriate criteria to be developed and stay in place for more than 18 months, 2) resulted in substantial delays in processing certain applications, and 3) allowed unnecessary information requests to be issued.

Well, there’s a reason why nobody likes the IRS – they can screw up things that should be so simple. But the specific tax exempt status these groups were applying for is 401(c), which is very specifically setup for charities doing primarily community improvement activities. It’s the IRS’s job to ensure that organizations applying for this special tax exempt status meet all the requirements. But one office, located in Cincinnati, took it upon themselves to setup screenings that targeted “Tea Party” and “Patriot” in the application to investigate if these organizations were instead primarily political organizations instead of community improvement organizations. That’s just plain wrong, you can’t use political leaning has a screen, the IRS has to be impartial. And while it appears this one office allowed inappropriate criteria to be developed, it was not system wide within the IRS. Other offices selected Democratic and/or liberal groups for additional scrutiny. But they didn’t use political terms like “progressive” or “liberal” to screen, they selected them using the objective criteria that should’ve been applied to all groups.

An article yesterday on Bloomberg.com details that other IRS offices sent the same letters requesting additional information to Democratic leaning organizations that they did to Tea Party groups. And while no Tea Party ground was ever denied their application, some Democratic ones were:

The Internal Revenue Service, under pressure after admitting it targeted anti-tax Tea Party groups for scrutiny in recent years, also had its eye on at least three Democratic-leaning organizations seeking nonprofit status. One of those groups, Emerge America, saw its tax-exempt status denied, forcing it to disclose its donors and pay some taxes. None of the Republican groups have said their applications were rejected.

Progress Texas, another of the organizations, faced the same lines of questioning as the Tea Party groups from the same IRS office that issued letters to the Republican-friendly applicants. A third group, Clean Elections Texas, which supports public funding of campaigns, also received IRS inquiries.

In a statement late yesterday, the tax agency said it had pooled together the politically active nonpartisan applicants — including a “minority” that were identified because of their names. “It is also important to understand that the group of centralized cases included organizations of all political views,” the IRS said in its statement.

There has been an explosion of applications for 401(c) tax exempt applications since the Citizens United case – Outside groups — including nonprofit social-welfare groups that don’t disclose their donors — spent $1 billion in the 2012 elections, three times as much as they did four years earlier. The IRS was obviously unprepared to deal with this influx of applications and fell way short in their efforts to ensure that those applying for tax exempt status actually do qualify, and do that in an impartial manner. Nothing more, nothing less.

Benghazi:

Why do Republicans keep talking about Benghazi? One word: 2016. While it’s still (thankfully) 3 1/2 years until the 2016 Presidential election, polls show that should Hillary Clinton decide to run she would be an overwhelming favorite. Polls show her running even with Rand Paul in his home state of Kentucky. Polls show her easily defeating either Marco Rubio or Jeb Bush in their home state of Florida. Republican politicians are rightfully concerned about their prospects in 2016, and are grasping at anything that might possibly tarnish her reputation and/or President Obama’s. There is no “cover-up” and nothing more to be told. A group of anti-American Islamic extremists attacked our diplomatic mission there and 4 Americans, including Ambassador Stevens died in the attack. We rushed a diplomatic mission into Libya quickly after the fall of Qaddafi  hoping to influence the fledgling new government and didn’t have adequate security in place to repel a full scale attack. Ambassador Stevens had a very good rapport with the Libyan people and government and relied on Libyan security forces to supplement our limited security. They didn’t, Libyan security forces protecting our diplomatic mission in Benghazi melted away when extremist attacked with mortars, grenades and automatic weapons. Defense Department officials nixed the idea of sending our limited additional security personnel in from Tripoli because there was doubt if they could arrive in time, and because we didn’t know then what we were up against. How many extremists were involved, and what kind of weapons did they have? A lot of sophisticated and powerful weapons disappeared during the Libyan civil war, including surface-to-air missiles. Sending in a rescue mission could have easily resulted in many more casualties.

Conclusion:

Much ado about nothing. Yes, we need to protect the Freedom of the Press, but it’s not under attack, and certainly not by the Obama Administration. Yes, the IRS needs to conduct it’s business with political impartiality. But thankfully, Barack Obama is no Dick Nixon. We need to learn from Benghazi and ensure we have adequate American security personnel to protect our diplomats. But the death of Americans at the hands of terrorists should unite our resolve to fight terrorism, not be used as a tool for political bickering.

I would ask Republicans this question asked in Shakespeare’s play “Much Ado About Nothing”: “Why, what is the matter, That you have such a February face, So full of frost, of storm and cloudiness?” But, I know the answer already: They hate to loose elections, and when they can’t win fair and square they just try to go around the voters. When they won control of Congress in 1994 they spent the next four years investigating Bill Clinton over Whitewater and found absolutely nothing. And then they thought they found gold in Monica Lewinsky and tried to Impeach Clinton under Constitutional provision for removing government officials for “High Crime, Treason, or Bribery” for his not telling the truth about breaking his marriage vows with another consenting adult. Now some Republicans are uttering the I-word, rubbing their hands in glee at the chance of trying to undo the decision of nearly 66 million American voters just 7 months ago. Some things – and politicians – never change.

Just over four months into his term as our newest U.S. Senator, our very own Jeff Flake has distinguished himself quite a bit – as being the most unpopular Senator in the country. A recent poll of Arizona voters conducted by Public Policy Polling (PPP) shows only 32% of Arizonans have a favorable view of Senator Flake while 51% have an unfavorable view (17% are neutral). Republicans largely still stand by their man with a 57% favorability vs. 29% unfavorable. And not surprisingly Democrats overwhelmingly dislike Flake with only 10% having a favorable view of Flake and 71% disapprove of him. But, most importantly in Arizona where Independents swing most political races, Independent voters disapprove of Flake by a 58-25% margin.

Senator Flake initially discounted the PPP poll, calling the firm “leftist leaning”. PPP does conduct polling for many Democratic candidates and organizations, including the progressive web site DailyKos. But it was also one of the most accurate pollsters of the 2012 election. In their final poll of Arizona in 2012 PPP predicted Mitt Romney would carry the state by 7 points; he actually carried it by 10 points, and other pollsters had Romney ahead by as much as 15 points. And in the U.S. Senate race PPP predicted Flake would defeat Richard Carmona by 5 points; Flake actually won by 4.6%. By the next day Flake was back peddling, agreeing the PPP poll was accurate. He wrote on his Facebook page:

“Nothing like waking up to a poll saying you’re the nation’s least popular senator. Given the public’s dim view of Congress in general, that probably puts me somewhere just below pond scum. Now, notwithstanding the polling firm’s leftist bent, I would assume that my poll numbers have indeed taken a southerly turn since my vote against the Manchin-Toomey background check proposal. It was a popular amendment, and I voted against it.”

Somewhere below pond scum? For once I can agree with Jeff Flake.  And yes, the Manchin-Toomey background check proposal is popular, even in the land of the Gunfight at the OK Coral and the town too tough to die. 70% of all Arizonans support expanded background checks, and only 26% oppose it. Democrats support it overwhelmingly, by a 92-6% margin. Even Republicans support it by a 50-44% margin. And Independents support it strongly by a 71-24% margin. So yes, Senator Flake, not only did you vote against something which has strong support in your state, it’s the way you went about it. In the days following the massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary, Flake vowed not to be swayed by the National Rifle Association. And then when the NRA announced its opposition to the Manchin-Toomey Background Check Bill and said it would “score” Senators on their vote on the measure Flake crumpled and voted against it. And just weeks before the vote Senator Flake responded to a letter from the mother of a man killed in the Aurora theater mass shooting. In his own handwriting he told her “While we may not agree on every solution, strengthening background checks is something we can agree on.” And then he turned around and voted against it. Senator, have you no shame?

Jeff Flake may have no sense of shame, be he thinks he does have a sense of politics – he thinks Arizona voters are stupid and that we’ll forget his shameful double cross on his vote for expanded background checks. In an interview with the LA Times Flake said he was “not concerned about gun-control groups who are vowing political consequences.  That’s the beauty of a six-year term“. The beauty of a six-year term, eh? You say one thing and then vote the other way because you won’t have to face the voters for another 5 1/2 years? Have it your way, Senator. But, Mark Kelly won’t forget.

Mark Kelly, husband of former US Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, says the gun-control organization the couple has founded will work to defeat Sen. Jeff Flake (R) in the next election if the Arizona senator votes against expanding background checks to include more gun buyers. Mr. Kelly said Senator Flake is “a good friend” of Ms. Giffords. But he gave this warning Tuesday at a Monitor-hosted breakfast with reporters: “You know friendship is one thing … saving people’s lives, especially first-graders’, is another.”

And don’t count on us Arizona voters forgetting either, Senator.

UPDATE:

The group Mayors Against Illegal Guns released a report today stating that the 45 senators who voted to block expanded background checks have received a combined total of $8,165,490 in lifetime contributions and independent expenditures from the NRA. They list the individual NRA contributions for 14 Senators, including Jeff Flake. Senator Flake received a total of $362,616 in contributions from the NRA.

Credit: Mayors Against Illegal Guns

Mr. Flake did pretty well for himself, which may well explain his flip-flop on claiming to support “strengthening background checks” but then voting against it when his NRA patron opposed it and said they would “score” his vote on the bill. By comparison, the only Democrat on the list, Max Baucus of Montana received only $28,780 in NRA contributions. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky received $162,545 in contributions. Ted Cruz of Texas, also just elected last year with Flake, received  $79,329 in contributions. Senator Rob Portman of Ohio seems to have undying loyalty to the gun manufacturing lobby, receiving over $1,314,279 in contributions.

The best Senators money can buy.

If you’ve been paying attention to the news this week – or even worse had to fly – you know that the forced “sequestration” budget cuts forced the FAA to furlough around 11% of it’s flight controllers on a rotating non-paid forced day off. That has resulted in hundreds of flight delays with aircraft sitting on runways burning fuel waiting their turn to takeoff. Then, once finally in the air, some planes had to divert their landing to another airport as they didn’t have enough fuel to stay in the air long enough for their slot to land at their planned destination. The result has been chaos for the airlines and huge inconveniences to the flying public. And the inevitable finger pointing in Washington. Republicans accuse the FAA and Obama Administration of “playing games” to cause the disruptions in air travel to increase opposition to the sequestration budget cuts. The Obama Administration responded with a “Nope, read the bill you passed” – The Budget Control Act of 2011 requires all federal departments and agencies to cut $92 billion from their budgets this year, equally, across all levels of operations. Even if an agency has excess funds in other areas it cannot use those funds to prevent cuts in other areas. The intent of the law was to tie the hands of the Obama Administration so it could not “pick and chose” it’s priorities. All federal agencies are required to apply the cuts equally, across all levels of operations.  That’s why the law is so stupid. But the Republicans required those budget cuts, to cut federal spending dollar for dollar for the amount of the increase in the federal debt limit in the budget fight in the summer of 2011 that brought us to the brink of default. Many of the same Republicans who voted to increase the debt limit with no strings attached, no questions asked, under Republican President George W. Bush, to cover his unpaid for tax cuts and two wars.

Well, the U.S. Senate came to to the rescue last night, just before they were to scheduled to head to the airports themselves for a 10 day recess. The bill passed by unanimous consent without even a roll call to authorize the FAA  to transfer up to $253 million from accounts that are flush into other programs, to prevent reduced operations and staffing through the Sept. 30 end of the fiscal year. In addition to restoring full staffing by controllers, Senate officials said the available funds should be ample enough to prevent the closure of small airport towers around the country, including four here in Arizona. The House is expected to take up the bill this morning and pass it under expedited procedures.

Great! I’m all for ending this totally unnecessary disruption of air travel and inconvenience to traveling politicians, business people, and other air travelers. But what about the others who are being more than “inconvenienced” by this stupid sequestration budget cuts that threatens to stall our economic recovery? How about the 70,000 children will be kicked out of Head Start under sequestration cuts? How about the Four million fewer Meals on Wheels for seniors? How about the delays in processing retirement for disability claims, Social Security retirement claims, and VA benefits caused by furloughs required to meet the sequestration cuts?  How about the emergency unemployment insurance cut for two million out-of-work Americans? Does their “inconvenience” mean nothing to Congress?

So, enjoy your week off Congress men and women, and Senators. But meet and talk with your constituents, learn and understand what is important to them, not what is important to your lobbyists. I think you’ll find your constituents want a bi-partisan approach to fine tuning spending and taxation to resolve the long term solvency and health of our federal budget and debt. We want a bi-partisan revamp of our tax code to lower tax rates while raising adequate revenue to address deficits and debt in the long term by removing loopholes and unnecessary tax subsidies. And we can tweak Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security to ensure the long viability of those programs. As someone who will start drawing on his Social Security benefits later this year I’m not wild about President Obama’s proposal for to tie SS payments to a “chained CPI”, which will lower monthly payment increases due to inflation. Seniors and Social Security didn’t double the Federal Debt under Presidents Bush and Obama – unpaid for wars, tax cuts for the wealthy, and the greed of Wall Street in reeking havoc on our economy did. But I’m willing to consider the sacrifice of chained CPI as long as others – especially those much better positioned financially – make some serious sacrifices as well.

So, come on Congress – if you pass something so quickly and with bi-partisan support to ensure your flights back to Washington next week aren’t inconvenienced with delays, you can git ‘r done with tax reform and sensible, responsible spending reform.

This week the United States Supreme Court will hear two landmark cases that will will dive into the biggest civil rights issue it has faced in a generation — whether same-sex couples have the right to marry. On Tuesday, the court will hear arguments in a challenge to California’s ban on same-sex marriage, known as Proposition 8. On Wednesday the court will hear arguments challenging The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), a federal law passed by a Republican Congress in 1996 and signed into law by Democratic President Bill Clinton. DOMA denies any federal recognition of same-sex marriage and denies them the many federal benefits and rights accorded to married couples.  The attorneys making the argument for same-sex marriage are an odd couple: Ted Olson,who represented George W. Bush in Bush v. Gore, and David Boies, who represented Al Gore. While they argued before the Supreme Court against one another back then, in these two cases they are on the same team, and are passionate supporters of the right of anyone to marry the person they love.

While David Boies has long been a champion of liberal causes, he hasn’t been a lifelong liberal. He was president of the Young Republicans club while in college in the 1960s, but says he realized he “was on the wrong side” of the battle for civil rights, in which he soon became deeply involved. He left the party soon after graduation, became a Democrat, and honed his skills on civil-rights litigation and defending civil-rights workers who had been arrested, in Jacksonville, Miss. Boies sees his current advocacy for gay marriage as a natural extension of the civil rights movement of the 60s. “I think this is the most important civil-rights issue in the country now,” says Boies. “There has been enormous progress in women’s rights, and for ethnic minorities, the major group now singled out for discrimination are gays and lesbians.” Mr. Boies argues that the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause  requires each state to provide equal protection under the law to all people within its jurisdiction. Boise argues:

“The whole purpose of the 14th Amendment was to take away from individual states and their voters the right to discriminate … You can’t just say we’re going to allow every state to wait as long as it wants to recognize basic constitutional rights.”

It’s a powerful argument.  This clause was the basis for Brown v. Board of Education (1954), the Supreme Court decision which stated that any racial segregation in education is unconstitutional. And it was the basis for Reed v. Reed (1971), where the Supreme Court ruled that laws arbitrarily allowing sex discrimination was unconstitutional.

Ted Olson always was and still is a conservative, and supports same sex marriage from a conservative point of view:

“We’re talking about an effect upon millions of people and the way they live their everyday life and the way they’re treated in their neighborhood, in their schools, in their jobs,” Olson said. “If you are a conservative, how could you be against a relationship in which people who love one another want to publicly state their vows … and engage in a household in which they are committed to one another and become part of the community and accepted like other people?”

Homosexuality, Olson argues, is much like race. It is not a matter of choice. “We are what we are“, he says. He likens the Proposition 8 case to Loving v. Virginia, the 1967 case in which the Supreme Court unanimously struck down a law that made interracial marriage a crime. If a man and woman of different races attempted to marry in the state of Virginia prior to that Supreme Court decision they would have been committing a felony. Today, almost 50 years later after that decision, the child of a mixed race marriage has been elected President of the United States. Twice.

Most legal scholars believe the challenge to DOMA is the most clear cut case and it will me stuck down, by as much as a 6-3 decision, with only Scalia, Alito and Thomas supporting it. Normally it is the job of the Executive Branch and the Solicitor General to defend federal laws. But the Obama Administration (and former President Clinton who signed it into law) oppose the law, saying it is unconstitutional. The lawyer who will argue in support of DOMA is a guy hired by House Republicans and Speaker Boehner. And the Supreme Court has previously ruled that individual lawmakers can’t challenge laws they don’t like.  And his argument will be that marriage isn’t a fundamental right, but rather an institution the government created to serve the goal of promoting procreation. Excuse me? I know personally that is completely false. Governments in two different states granted me the legal status of marriage, and I didn’t procreate either time. Both times we decided we would wait to have any children until we were more economically and solidly prepared as a couple for the responsibility of bringing a child into the world, and we chose wisely.  And there’s no law against infertile couples from marrying, just like their isn’t any law prohibiting post-menopausal women from marrying.  The case challenging DOMA was brought by Edie Windsor, an 83-year-old woman from New York who married Thea Clara Spyer in 2007 after some 40 years together as a couple. When Spyer died in 2009, like most married couples she left her lawful spouse her entire estate. As required by DOMA, the IRS said their 40 year relationship and their status of a legally married couple didn’t exist, and we’re going to tax your inheritance like you just won the Powerball lottery. They sent Ms. Windsor a $363,000 tax bill. Edie Windsor said No, I’m going to stand up for my rights and the rights of millions of others.

The challenge to California’s Proposition 8 outlawing same-sex marriage is more complicated, and their are a couple different possible outcomes. The first is the most simple, that the court upholds Prop 8, saying the Constitution does not trump the ability of California voters to make this decision themselves. While that voters should be able to make their own decisions regarding laws in their own states sounds nice and democratic and all, voters come and go and younger generation voters may have a different opinion than the older generation that passed on. Opinion on whether same-sex marriage is a right vary widely by generations – those under 30 support same sex marriage by a large majority, while a majority of those over 50 oppose it.  Already, only four years after Prop 8 passed, polls show a majority would now vote to overturn it. And frankly, voters don’t always get it right. When the Supreme Court struck down laws prohibiting mixed race marriage a majority of voters opposed mixed race marriage. And if the Thirteenth Amendment, which outlawed slavery, had been put to a vote I’m pretty sure a majority of voters in at least 11 states would have voted to overturn it. The second possible outcome, however the court decides, is that the decision applies only to California. That the basis of the Federal Appeals Court which voted to overturn Prop 8. That decision said that the situation was unique to California because gay marriage was already legal in California when Prop 8 was passed. The existing rights people already had were taken away, and the state had no compelling reason to take away those rights.  The third possible outcome is that the Supreme Court goes for it all and declares that the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment ensures the right for all couples to marry, in every state, and no state can interfere with that right. And like it did in the Loving v. Virginia which struck down any state laws prohibiting interracial marriage, declares that any state law prohibiting same-sex marriage is unconstitutional.

I’m betting on the latter, because I always bet on America recognizing and reinforcing it’s role as the freest, most equal society the world has ever known. America, land of free, home of the brave, where everyone is equal and enjoys the same rights and privileges. America, land of the excellent adventure.

A recent report from the Center for Investigative Reporting is getting a lot of well deserved attention. The report reveals that the backlog of veterans waiting for the Department of Veteran Affairs to act on their claim for benefits will top one million by the end of this month.The average backlog of a response from the VA is 320 days – over 10 months, but can be over one year in large population centers – 642 days in New York, 619 days in Los Angeles and 542 days in Chicago. That is a national disgrace. These courageous men and women raised their hands high when asked who will answer the call of duty, and they deserve to be treated with respect and dignity, and compassion. There are many reasons for the increasing backlog of processing claims for veteran benefits – the return of all combat troops from Iraq and draw down of forces in Afghanistan is a large reason. Another large reason is that Congress, the courts, and the executive branch continue to increase conditions that are covered by the VA. For example, in 2010 Secretary of Veterans Affairs Eric Shinseki announced that three diseases — ischemic heart disease, Parkinson’s disease and b-cell leukemia — would be considered the result of Agent Orange exposure for veterans who served in Vietnam. More than 240,000 claims for those diseases have been filed since that announcement. Well, Vietnam vets more than deserve treatment and benefits for their exposure to Agent Orange. But if you’re going to expand VA coverage shouldn’t you plan for it? Well, they tried – the VA spent 4 years and $537 million on a new computer to streamline the claims process. It was less than a resounding success; 97% of veteran’s claims are still filed on paper, and that’s the single biggest reason that stands out for the backlog – they VA is literally being buried in a mountain of paperwork.

That’s the mountain of paperwork at the Winston-Salem NC VA office, the weight of all that paperwork compromised the structural integrity of the building – they were worried the floor would collapse. Filing a claim for veteran benefits can be complicated, and can require a lot of documentation. Department of Veterans Affairs employees are urged to be advocates for veterans. Yet those same workers are also required to be stewards of the taxpayer money, required to distinguish the truly needy from the less needy from the fraudulent.  Is that traumatic brain injury from high school football or a roadside bomb in Iraq? Is that back injury a 10 percent disability or 30 percent? Is that post-traumatic stress disorder real? Medical questions without simple answers must be settled by overworked bureaucrats and doctors attempting to apply black-and-white rules to very gray ailments. Their decisions mean the difference between monthly checks of a few hundred dollars versus a few thousand. When veterans are not happy with the results, as is often the case, they can appeal, or reapply, submitting new documents and diagnoses to bolster their claims — and adding years to the process. But does documentation support a claim need to be submitted on piles of paper? Of course not, this is not rocket science. Here in Arizona we have an excellent AHCCCS medicaid system, and once covered you need to need to re-qualify every six months. You need to submit proof of income (or lack of), bank statements, proof of residency in Arizona, an accounting of your living expenses and proof of that. So, do you send them a 9×12 envelop 2″ thick with documents twice a year? No, you go to  HealthEarizona.org, fill out your application/re-qualification online and upload your documentation which is attached to you application, so when the state employee reviews your application/re-qualification they have everything they need right there to make a decision in minutes.

Secretary of Veterans Affairs Sinseki says they have “a fix”. That fix is the department’s “transformation plan,” which calls for a new training regimen that Mr. Shinseki says will improve speed and accuracy in processing claims; creation of special teams to handle complex claims; and new digital technology that will replace the current paper-choked system. When all those pieces are in place by 2015, Mr. Shinseki says that every claim will be processed in fewer than 125 days, with almost no errors — a pledge that veterans’ advocates view skeptically. I’m skeptical as well, and even if “the fix” is successful. I think 4 months is still too long. Because this backlog has a very tragic human toll.

All gave some, and some gave all

The Center for Investigative Reporting report details the story of Lincoln Capstick, an unemployed Iraq War veteran in Indiana, where the average wait for new claims is well over one year – 612 days. Capstick said his electricity was cut off three times while he waited for the VA to grant a disability claim for traumatic brain injury, headaches and a variety of leg and knee injuries sustained when a military contractor’s SUV ran him over in the desert near the Iraq-Kuwait border. Capstick said there were periods where he thought of killing himself because he felt so hopeless.  According to the VA, 22 veterans commit suicide every day.

Credit: IAVA.org

A group of Iraq and Afghanistan veterans met with senior White House officials yesterday to express the urgent need for the Obama Administration to fix the current backlog in Veterans Affairs disability benefits claims. Members of the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America (IAVA) presented a petition to White House Chief of Staff Denis McDonough, calling for President Obama to “keep the promise we made to the millions of veterans who have served and sacrificed to defend our nation” by ending the benefit backlog. Over 36,000 American citizens have signed that petition, including 23 members of Congress, including Senator Joe Manchin, Democrat of West Virginia, and the Republican Chairman of the House Veteran Affairs Committee and the ranking Democrat member of the house committee.  But NOT a single Congressman or Senator from Arizona. I urge every single member of Congress from Arizona to sign this petition and support the IAVA’s call for action. But I especially urge our two Congressmen from southern Arizona to do so, Congressmen Ron Barber and  Raul Grijalva.

Former Illinois legislator Robin Kelly, who campaigned trumpeting her “F” rating from the NRA and her support for an assault weapons ban, won 52% of the vote in a crowded 16 candidate race for the Democratic nomination in the special election to replace Jesse Jackson Jr. in Illinois CD02.  Her closest competitor, former Congresswoman Debbie Halvorson, won only 25% of the vote. Havorson touted her “A” rating from the NRA and her opposition to nearly all forms of gun control. While Ms. Kelly is black and Halvorson is white, race was not considered a factor as Kelly won 56% of the vote in the part of the district predominately black within the city of Chicago and she won 58% of the vote in racially mixed portion of the district in suburban Cook County.

The issue of improved gun control and the NRA clearly was a factor. New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg targeted the race, with his Super Pac Independence USA pouring more than $2 million into the race by airing anti-gun ads in her favor and against Halvorson. After casting her ballot in the snowy weather that pelted the area Tuesday, Halvorson warned that if the ads were successful Bloomberg would try to “buy seats” across the country. Well, (former) political mastermind Karl Rove poured over $300 million into the November election and he wasn’t able to “buy” many seats. But if Mr. Bloomberg and others want to put money into races to highlight the candidate’s position on improved gun control and let voters decide, I say please do!

The NRA is very fond of saying “Guns don’t kill people, people kill people”. Perhaps, and people can kill other people with other things. Like a knife. But a knife has many other uses – it’s very useful in food preparation and eating food. And people can kill people with axes or hatchets, but those are also very useful in cutting trees and branches. And people can kill people with a hammer, but a hammer is also very useful in pounding nails – just watch the thumbs! But a semi-automatic assault rifle with 30 round ammo clip? Not a single other use, except inflicting maximum casualties on a field of battle – which is exactly what they were designed for. And our current level of background checks are very useful in preventing convicted felons and others prohibited from owning a firearm from purchasing a gun. Except all they have to do is go to a gun “show” and buy them from an unlicensed gun dealer with no background check, no questions asked.

Universal background checks and assault weapon ban are important and reasonable steps to take to curb our increasingly horrific gun violence. If that can’t pass our current Congress, we need to -and will – elect more Robin Kellys.

“Heaven has no rage like love to hatred turned, Nor hell a fury like a woman scorned” – author William Congreve  in The Mourning Bride,1697

John McCain led the Republican Inquisition against Defense Secretary nominee Chuck Hagel yesterday, demanding his former best friend give him a Yes or No answer if the “Surge” in Iraq was successful or not. Former Senator Hagel said  he deferred to history to be the judge of that.  Our Senior Senator was not amused.

What happened to the friendship between John McCain and Chuck Hagel? Here they are in happier times:

That was John MCain campaigning for his friend in Chuck Hagel’s first run for the Senate in Nebraska in 1996.

And here is Chuck Hagel returning the favor, when he was Co-chair of McCain’s 2000 Presidential Campaign:

Chuck Hagel was intimately involved in McCain’s 2000 presidential bid, and was in New Hampshire the night the Arizona Senator won the New Hampshire presidential primary. But by the time McCain ran for president again in 2008 Hagel was much less enthusiastic. Not only did he not endorse McCain, Hagel also didn’t entirely dismiss the idea of serving as then Sen. Barack Obama’s vice presidential nominee. And Hagel’s wife endorsed Obama in the 2008 race. Then, in 2012, Hagel endorsed the candidacy of former Nebraska Democratic Senator Bob Kerrey in the Cornhusker State’s open seat Senate race, a move that badly rankled McCain – he had endorsed Kerrey’s opponent — Republican Deb Fischer — and campaigned with her the day after Hagel made his endorsement of Kerrey public.

What happened to their friendship? Chuck Hagel never forgot the lessons he learned as a “grunt”, an enlisted man, on the ground in Vietnam as he earned his two purple hearts. Chuck Hagel knows first hand the terrible consequences of war to those who actually have to do the fighting. John McCain, the son and grandson of Naval Officers who entered military service as a commission Ensign and pilot, never learned those lessons.  He assured us we would be greeted as liberators by cheering adoring Iraqis, eternally grateful for us devastating their country with “Shock and Awe” 24/7 bombing. When it turned out that even if people don’t like their dictator ruler very much they like a foreign country invading and devastating their country even less, John McCain was the Bush Administration’s chief cheerleader for the “Surge” in more troops. And that’s where John McCain and Chuck Hagel parted company. Chuck Hagel, who had initially voted with McCain, most Republicans, and (too) many Democrats in authorizing the use of force in Iraq, now called the Iraq war a “quagmire” and the war the “most dangerous foreign policy blunder in this country since Vietnam”. And a John McCain never forgets when someone – anyone – crosses him.

That’s the video of McCain’s questioning Mr. Hagel yesterday in the Senate confirmation hearing. And here’s the exchange:

McCAIN: Let me begin with your opposition to the surge in Iraq. 2006, we lost — Republicans lost the election, and we began to surge. And you wrote a piece in the Washington Post called, “Leaving Iraq Honorably.” 2007, you committed — you said it’s not in the national interest to deepen its military involvement. In January 2007, in a rather bizarre exchange with Secretary Rice in the Foreign Relations Committee after some nonsense about Syria and crossing the border into Iran and Syria, because of the surge, then — and a reference to Cambodia in 1970, you said, quote, “When you set in motion the kind of policy the president is talking about here, it’s very, very dangerous,” quote, “Matter of fact, I have to say, Madam Secretary, I think this speech given last night by this president represents the most dangerous foreign policy blunder in this country since Vietnam. If it is carried out, I will resist it.”

And then, of course, you continued on and on for months and months talking about what a disaster the surge would be even to the point where it was clear the surge was succeeding. In march 2008, you said, quote, “Here the term quagmires could apply. Some reject that term, but if that is not a quagmire, then what is?” Even as late as August 29, 2011, in an interview with the Financial Times you said, “I disagree with the President Obama, his decision to surge in Iraq as I did with President Bush on the surge in Iraq.” Do you — do you stand by that — those — those comments, Senator Hagel?

HAGEL: Well Senator, I stand by them because I made them. And…

MCCAIN: Were you right? Were you correct in your assessment?

HAGEL: I would defer to the judgment of history to sort that out. But I’ll…

MCCAIN: The committee deserves your judgment as to whether you were right or wrong about the surge.

HAGEL: I will explain why I made those comments, and…

MCCAIN: I want to know if you are right or wrong. That’s a direct question. I expect a direct answer.

HAGEL: The surge assisted in the objective. But — but, if we review the record a little bit…

MCCAIN: Will you please answer the question — were you correct or incorrect when he said the surge would be the most dangerous foreign policy blunder in this country since Vietnam? Were you correct or incorrect? Yes or no?

HAGEL: My reference to the surge being…

MCCAIN: Are you going to answer the question, Senator Hagel? The question is, were you right or wrong? That’s a straightforward question. I would like to answer whether you are right or wrong and then you are free to elaborate.

HAGEL: Well I’m not going to give you a yes or no answer.

MCCAIN: Well let the record show he refuses to answer the question. Now please go ahead.

HAGEL: Well If you would like me to explain…

MCCAIN: No, I actually would like an answer, yes or no.

HAGEL: Well I’m not going to give you a yes or no. I think it’s far more complicated than that. As I’ve already said, my answer is, I’ll defer that judgment to history. As to the comment I made about the most dangerous foreign policy decision since Vietnam, that was about not just the surge, but the overall war of choice going into Iraq. That particular decision that was made on the surge, but more to the point, our war in Iraq, I think was the most fundamentally bad, dangerous decision since Vietnam. Aside from the cost that occurred in this country to blood and treasure, aside what that did to take our focus off of Afghanistan, which in fact was — was the original and real focus of the national threat to this country, Iraq was not, I always tried to frame all of the different issues before I made a decision on anything. Now, just as you said Senator, we can have differences of opinion. But that’s — that’s essentially why I took the position.

MCCAIN: A fundamental difference of opinion, Senator Hagel. And Senator Graham and I, and Senator Lieberman, when there were 59 votes in the United States Senate, spent our time trying to prevent that 60th. Thank God for Senator Lieberman. I think history has already made a judgment about the surge, sir, and you’re on the wrong side of it. And your refusal to answer whether you were right or wrong about it is going to have an impact on my judgment as to whether to vote for your confirmation or not. I hope you will reconsider the fact that you refused to answer a fundamental question about an issue that took the lives of thousands of young Americans.

That’s it??? Was I right and weren’t you wrong? (about the Surge in Iraq). That is what will determine if John McCain will vote to confirm his former good friend as President Obama’s Defense Secretary? No questions about how Mr. Hagel will ensure our military readiness in face of the largest cuts to the defense budget since the end of WWII? No questions about how a Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel would try to contain the eminent collapse of Syrian President Assad from spreading turmoil throughout the Middle East? No questions of how we would deal with the very real possibility of Islamic fundamentalists taking control of Syria and Assad’s chemical and biological weapons? No questions about how we ensure Iran never possesses nuclear weapons? No questions about Mr. Hagel’s commitment to ensuring the end of ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” and recent opening of combat roles to women results in full equality throughout all branches of our military? No, the most important thing to John McCain is for Chuck Hagel agree that John McCain was right.

I’ll agree with Chuck Hagel and let history judge if the Surge was successful in turning the tide in the Iraq War. But John McCain demanding a ‘Yes, you were right’ is like a heavy smoker demanding a pat on the back for his decision to undergo quadruple bypass heart surgery to unblock his coronary arteries – Intelligent decisions to begin with would have eliminated the need for drastic action to avoid a bad ending. Like not smoking 2 packs a day for 40 years, or not going to war with a country that had nothing to do with 9/11 and posed no threat to us or Israel. And as a recipient of two Purple Hearts, Mr. Hagel deserved far more respect than was given to him in the confirmation hearings yesterday by John McCain and many of his fellow Republicans. Mr. Hagel would be the first enlisted man to ever serve as Secretary of Defense, and I think that says alot. He knows first hand the consequences of going to war, and believes that going to war should always be the very last resort. John McCain has never met a war he didn’t like. He complained loudly when President Obama wisely didn’t send in ground troops to help overthrow Ghaddafi, but relied on NATO airstrikes to support the Libyan people in overthrowing Ghaddafi themselves. McCain has complaining long and loudly that we aren’t in the middle of Syria’s civil war. And, God forbid, had McCain been elected President in 2008, I have no doubt we would be in the midst of a  terribly costly and long war with Iran.

Chuck Hagel will make a very good Secretary of Defense. John McCain, loser of two Presidential campaigns, who lost 3 airplanes as a naval pilot, and who dumped his first wife – a former model – when a car accident left her disfigured and confined her to a wheelchair, has never been very good at anything. Except maybe at holding a grudge.

The Republican Party is in a quandary -  they’ve lost the popular vote in 5 of the last 6 Presidential elections. So, what to do? They could change and not promote such hard right policies. But naw, that’s not the Republican way. Besides, any success they’ve had in the last few years has been largely due to the fringe far right Tea Party. And there’s a simpler way: If you can’t win the hearts and minds of voters, just change the way their votes count.

We already have an illegitimate Congress – Democratic House candidates received over a million more votes than Republican House candidates received,with Democrats wining a majority of 50.5% of the vote to the Republicans 49.5%. But the Republicans control the House with 53.7% of the seats belonging to Republicans. How? Simple – gerrymandering. You pack the densely Democratic areas – mostly urban centers – into a select few districts, and then mix the more evenly divided suburban areas in with heavily Republican rural areas, and voila! You have a majority of congressional districts favoring Republicans even while statewide it’s a Blue state. The Tea Party wave of 2010 swept Republicans into control of state legislatures and the Governorship of a number of Blue states such as Wisconsin, Michigan, and Michigan, and into control of a number of swing states such as Florida, North Carolina and Virginia. And they went right to work gerrymandering the hell out of their Congressional Districts. Just look at the 2012 election results: President Obama carried Michigan by 9 points, but Michigan’s Congressional delegation? 9 Republican Congressmen and only 5 Democrats. Obama carried Pennsylvania by just under 5 points, while its Congressional delegation is 13 Republicans and only 5 Democrats. And Ohio? Obama carried it my just under 3% (much to Karl Rove’s disbelief), while its Congressional delegation is 75% Republican , 12 Republicans to only 4 Democrats. Such a disparity in the results for President and the resulting makeup of the Congressional delegation is due only to gerrymandering the vast majority of districts to favor Republicans. And that’s I call  it an illegitimate House of Representatives – because it doesn’t represent the will of the voters, it represents the dirty tricks of politicians. And yes, to be fair, the Democratic dominated legislature in Illinois returned the favor and gerrymandered a couple Republican districts, causing a couple incumbent Republicans to lose last November. I’m against gerrymandering, whoever does it.

Compare what happened in those Midwestern states carried by President Obama but the congressional districts were gerrymandered by Republican controlled legislatures to the election results here in Arizona, where districts are set by an Independent Redistricting Commission (IRC) instead of by politicians. Romney carried Arizona 54-45%, but our Congressional delegation is 5-4 Democratic. Aha! you say? That proves Republican claims that the  IRC drew maps to favor Democrats? No, look again: Here in CD2 Republican Martha McSally came within 2500 votes of defeating Ron Barber. In CD1 Republican Jonathon Paton came within 9200 votes of defeating Ann Kirkpatrick and in the new CD9 Republican Vernon Parker came within 10,400 votes of defeating Kyrsten Sinema. Those 3 districts are swing districts, and in a Republican year such as 2010 all 3 could swing to the Republicans, resulting in 7-2 Republican delegation. The IRC drew 4 “safe” Republican districts, 2 safe Democratic districts, and 3 swing districts, and that’s pretty much in line with our statewide voter registration of 36% Republican, 32% Independent, and 31% Democrat. While President Obama isn’t terribly popular here, Democratic Senate candidate Richard Carmona did much better, losing to Jeff Flake by only 3%. Swing districts are fair districts because either major party can carry them, and the current Congressman or Congresswoman had better pay close to the needs and views of his or her district, because if they make very many unpopular votes in Congress they can easily wind up on the losing side in the next election. Gerrymandered districts are far from fair – in most of those gerrymandered Republican districts the current officeholder fears a primary challenge from the right far more than they fear a Democratic opponent.

But back to the Republican quandary of how to win the Presidency. They were so sure they could defeat Obama that they even put up a rich guy moderate that nobody liked but were sure could beat the pants off that Obama guy. And they still got their butts kicked, by over 5 million popular votes and a landslide 62% of the Electoral vote. And then they had what they though was a stroke of genius: let’s change the way those Electoral votes are awarded! Instead of all the state’s electoral votes going to the winner of the statewide vote, they want to award by winner of those gerrymandered congressional districts. But not in Red states, of course! That would only help Democrats. Red states like Texas where Obama won 42% of the popular vote but got 0 of it’s 38 electoral votes. No, if the electoral vote was awarded to the winner of congressional districts in places like Texas Obama would have walked away with at least 12 electoral votes. We can’t have that! So, in true Republican tradition they want to change the rules only when & where it favors them, so want only only those swing states to award votes to the winner of congressional districts – Virginia, Ohio, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. A bill has already passed a legislative committee in Virginia that would award the 1 electoral vote to the winner of each Congressional district, and then the remaining 2 electoral votes to the winner of the most congressional districts. Yes, you read that right – not to the statewide winner, but to who wins the most gerrymandered congressional districts. We’ve got to stack this in our favor as much as possible! Had that been effect in the 2012 election, President Obama would have defeated Mitt Romney 51-47% in the statewide vote, but Romney would have won 10 of it’s electoral votes and Obama only 3. In fact, if this plan to award electoral votes by congressional districts in these swing states only (an in none of the Red states) had been in effect in 2012, it would have been Mitt Romney taking the oath of office last Monday, despite losing the popular vote by 5 million votes! Only a Republican politician could come up with such a truly anti-Democracy idea.

First of all we need to defeat this anti-Democracy plan. It may be a bridge too far for even some Republicans, with influential Republicans in Virginia and Florida coming out against the plan. But watch out Michigan and and Pennsylvania. Secondly, we need to do away with this Electoral College system of electing our President. When our Constitution was written our Founding Fathers were leery of citizens directly electing the President. And with good reason – a significant portion of the population had no formal education and couldn’t even read or write. And with such a small population with many poor, votes could be bought. In this Age of Information, there is no reason our citizens shouldn’t directly elect our President. And as a Republicans have demonstrated, 538 Electoral votes can be much more easily manipulated than the votes of hundreds of millions of citizens. And thirdly, we need to put the task of redistricting into the hands of Independent Redistricting Commissions like we do here in Arizona. Politicians have proved over and over again that when they draw the maps they consider their own reelection first, election of fellow members of their political party second, and the needs of the voters dead last.

//

A surprising poll was released today by Fairleigh Dickinson University, polling Americans on whether they believe any of the four most recent conspiracy theories:

• President George W Bush knew in advance of the 9/11 terrorist attack, and the attack was planned by the U.S. Government
• President Bush’s supporters committed significant voter fraud to win him the 2004 Presidential election in Ohio, and accordingly, reelection
• President Obama is hiding information about his background and early life, including possibly his place of birth
• President Obama’s 2012 reelection was the result of voter fraud by his supporters

Sixty-three percent of registered voters in the U.S. believe at least one conspiracy theory is true: 56 percent of Democrats and 75 percent of Republicans say that at least one is likely true. That President Obama is hiding information about his background and early life is by far the most popular conspiracy, with 36% of all Americans thinking this is likely true. But that total is skewed by 64% of registered Republicans believing this is true; only 14% of Democrats believe this. Dan Cassino, a professor of political science at Fairleigh Dickinson University offers the theory that this conspiracy is the most believed because it’s been so widely covered. “This conspiracy theory is much more widely believed mostly because it’s been discussed so often,” says Professor Cassino. “People tend to believe that where there’s smoke, there’s fire – so the more smoke they see, the more likely they are to believe that something is going on.” The birther nonsense certainly was covered ad nauseum after Obama’s election in 2008, and even repeated often as recently as last year by people as well known as Donald Trump.

Believing in political conspiracies is not limited to those on the political right, however – 25% of registered voters think it’s probably true that President Bush knew about the 9/11 terrorist attacks before they happened. Thirty-six percent of Democrats are “truthers”, and 37% of Democrats believe that President Bush’s supporters committed significant voter fraud to win him the 2004 Presidential election in Ohio. Overall only 23% of all voters believe this.  And 23% of Americans think that President Obama’s supporters committed significant voter fraud in the 2012 elections. Thirty-six percent of Republicans think this is the case, but only 4 percent of Democrats do.

So, the “surprise” in this poll? Republicans tend to believe in conspiracies involving shenanigans by Democrats, and Democrats tend to believe in scams done by Republicans. Is it any wonder we’re so polarized as a nation? Although I wasn’t born in Missouri, I’ve always been a ‘Show Me’ kinda guy. As a pre-teen I told my Methodist parents that I didn’t want to go to Sunday School or Church anymore because I’d decided it was all just a bunch of nonsense. So I also don’t believe that in 1961, when lunch counters and public drinking fountains across the South had “Whites Only” signs, that Stanley Ann Dunham (Obama’s mother) was so convinced that the half black child she was carrying that she planned to give the name Barack Hussein Obama would one day be President that she carried out an elaborate hoax so that people would believe he was born in Hawaii instead of Kenya. And while I do believe George ‘Duya’ Bush was one of the worst Presidents ever and he was hopelessly under the influence of neo-conservatives in and out of government, I think the 9/11 attacks were planned by Osam bin Laden and carried out by his supporters, and Dubya didn’t have a clue. And while I believe former political mastermind (see 2012 elections) Karl Rove did some pretty dirty tricks in the 2004 election, including putting constitutional ban on gay marriage on the ballot in Ohio to turn out religious conservatives to the polls and then also getting Ohio election officials to short change voting machines in heavily minority precincts, that was political maneuvering and dirty tricks but NOT fraud, voter or otherwise. And I don’t believe any amount of political maneuvering or dirty tricks could result in a 5 million vote victory in 2012.

This poll only tested recent, mainly conspiracy theories. It would be interesting to see how many folks still believe the 1969 and subsequent moon landings were all a hoax by NASA and was actually filmed in Area 51 in the Nevada desert. And I’d be very interested in seeing how many folks believe in the one conspiracy theory in which I do believe: I will never be convinced that Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone in the assassination of John F Kennedy. I think his assassination was the result of either retaliation by right wing elements over Kennedy’s failure to support the Bay of Pigs invasion, or retaliation by the Mafia for Attorney General Robert Kennedy’s aggressive prosecution of Mafia leaders. Oswald was exactly what he said he was” a “patsy”.

Well, we all have to believe on one good conspiracy theory. So what do you think? Chime in!

//

//

//

The Republicans in Congress are at it again, threatening a government shutdown in order to get a Democratic President to do what they want. Remember the fun and excitement of the federal government shutdown in 1995 when President Clinton wouldn’t do what Newt Gingrich wanted and he followed through with his threat to shutdown the government? It was wild and exciting times here in Arizona! With the Grand Canyon National Park closed for business Governor Fife Symington threatened to use the Arizona National Guard to take over the park by force if necessary an re-open it. The Pentagon warned the head of the Arizona National Guard against the use of force and raised the possibility that if necessary the guard would be federalized and brought under the control of the White House. The governor decided to carry out his bluff and, accompanied by the Speaker of the House, fifty unarmed National Guard troops, twenty-five state Park Department employees, and other people, traveled to the canyon. When Symington’s group arrived, Symington beat on the park gates in front of the media. The park remained closed anyway, until Newt relented and passed a budget funding the government.

Well, they’re at it again. Stung by their failure to use the poor and middle class as hostages to protect the tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires, Republicans in the House and Senate are threatening the need to raise the debt limit to extract revenge with demands that Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid all be “put on the table” for spending cuts. House Speaker John Boehner re-emphasized today that he plans to use the debt limit as a chance to force President Barack Obama to cut spending. Sen. John Cornyn of Texas, the Republican whip in the Senate wrote in an op-ed in the Houston Chronicle: “It may be necessary to partially shut down the government in order to secure the long-term fiscal well being of our country”. Shut down the government for it’s own good???  A government shutdown would throw our economy back into recession and rock global financial markets. And these are the same guys who voted routinely to raise the debt limit under George W Bush, with no questions asked, to fund his wars of “regime change” and tax cuts for the rich.

And then there’s that pesky Constitution. The Constitution stipulates that all federal government spending originate from the House of Representatives. So it is the House that has authorized current spending but now wants to say it won’t authorize the borrowing needed to cover the checks they wrote? The 14th Amendment to the Constitution says “the validity of the public debt of the United States . . . shall not be questioned“. (full text via Wikipedia)  Some have interpreted this as giving the President the authority to ignore Congress’s inaction to raise the debt limit and continue to issue new bonds to cover the Government’s obligation. What the Constitution and 14th Amendment does is explicitly dictate that the executive branch of the government (which includes the Treasury and the President) is obligated to carry out all appropriations authorized by the Congress. What it doesn’t say is what happens if a Congress is crazy enough to tell the President and Treasury to spend the amount it has told them to spend, but then doesn’t give them the authority to borrow as much as needed in order to carry out that spending.

Well, some politicians and pundits such as Josh Barro at Bloomberg and Business Insider’s deputy editor Joseph Weisenthal have suggested an alternative: for the U.S. Mint to make $1 Trillion Platinum coins. It works like this: The Treasury Department has a bank account at The Federal Reserve. When the Treasury writes a check it is “cashed” at the Fed. When the Treasury needs money it sells bonds in an auction, and the proceeds of those bonds go into the account. So the U.S. Treasury simply instructs the U.S. Mint to issue a platinum coin with a face value of $1 Trillion and then deposit it in its bank account at the Federal Reserve, and voila! The U.S. Government now has $1 Trillion more in it’s bank account to cover its checks. Stuff it Speaker Boehner, you’re now irrelevant.

But wait, some critics cry – that would lead to hyper inflation! If that $1 Trillion was immediate pumped into the U.S. economy, sure. But it wouldn’t. It’s the same as when Congress votes to raise the debt limit by $1 Trillion – the Treasury auctions off bonds to raise the money, deposits the proceeds into its Federal Reserve Bank account, and gradually spends it to cover spending authorized by the U.S. Congress. But wait, some critics cry – a $1 Trillion coin would destroy the value of the U.S. dollar! Nope, same as the first argument – if the government just started printing $1 trillion bills, declared them legal tender, and then dropped them into banks across the country, yes, the buying power of a single dollar bill would be zilch. But because the coin isn’t a direct injection into the economy, but rather a stopgap that lets the government continue to spend on various services, you don’t have that inflationary effect.

Is this idea of a $1 Trillion platinum coin a crazy, silly idea? Yes, of course it is – but so is the idea of Congress authorizing spending and then not giving the President the means to carry it out! How crazy is the idea of some hard core, highly partisan politicians threatening to destroy the good faith and reputation of the United States Government and its debt, threaten to destroy the U.S. economy and global financial system just to force the duly elected President and Democratic Senate majority to accept their terms, and their terms only? That isn’t democracy, that’s hostage taking – and the hostages are we the American people. Many argue that since the Constitution does explicitly say that the President and Treasury is obligated to carry out the spending authorized by Congress, the President has the authority to tell the Treasury to ignore the debt limit and simply instruct the Treasury to sell enough bonds to have the funds to pay for what Congress has instructed them to pay for. But that would lead to a Constitutional crisis with the Supreme Court called in to resolve, in addition to all the economic carnage. The $1 Trillion coin is but one proposal to avoid all that until Congressional Republicans come to their senses.

President Obama and Democratic Congressional leaders have said they will not negotiate with Republicans on the debit limit. They need to stand their ground! Does a long term solution addressing our deficits and debt need to happen? Absolutely! Congressional Republicans and Democrats and the White House need to sit down and find common sense compromise to their positions to reach a “grand bargain” with the framework of the Simpson-Bowles Deficit Reduction Plan as a starting point. Our deficit and debt financial situation is the result of failure to address the problem by many years of Republican and Democratic Presidents, it is the result of failure to address the problem by many years of Republican and Democratic Congresses. It needs to now be addressed by this Democratic President, this Republican House, and this Democratic Senate. But not through the threat a Constitutional crises, not through questioning the validity and of the public debt of the United States and good faith of our government, and not through the threat of a global economic crisis. If that is what it takes they ALL should resign and let voters elect responsible leaders who do have the honesty and integrity to work together and to compromise for the good of our country and our future generations.

No negotiation over raising the debt limit. Congress wrote those checks, Congress needs to cover those checks.

//

//

//

//