Has Trump Never Heard of the Veto Override?

The President seems to think that he has the final say over whether the government will be open or shut down if he doesn’t get his wall.  Not surprisingly, he does not seem to understand the constitution’s careful structure of checks and balances among the three branches of government.

If Congress passes a bi-partisan spending bill that does not provide for Trump’s wall and Trump vetoes it, Congress then has the ability to override his veto if 2/3 of those voting in each chamber so vote.  That means 67 Senators and 290 Representatives.

If roughly a third of the Republican members of Congress finally show some spine, the override would pass.  It would require 20 Republican Senators and 55 Republican Representatives.

Given the recent behavior of Republicans in Congress, it’s hard to imagine that many bucking the President.  However, many have become nervous about the shutdown, of the effect it was having on their constituents, and thus on their future electability.  After just having gone through the ordeal of a 34-day shutdown, they do not want to be tagged with supporting another one.  So it is possible.

It would be heart-warming to see democracy in action again!

The other way out that both Republicans and Democrats are actively discussing is to categorically prevent future shutdowns by continuing funding at current levels when there is a dispute that prevents funding legislation from passing.  That would not have the “beauty” of an override, but it would do the job of keeping government open and end the history of cliff-hangers that we have experienced so often over the last decade or more.

An Open Letter to Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi: It’s Time to Stop Protesting the Wall

Ok.  You’ve made your point that the wall, as opposed to other types of increased border security, is not a good idea for various reasons.  And you’ve made clear that you are not going to let Trump roll over you and the new Democratic majority in the House.  As a liberal/progressive I have supported your position.

However, in week 3 of the shutdown the issue is a different one.  The issue is the welfare of the 800,000 federal employees who are not being paid, even some who are working, as well as the impact of the shutdown on the welfare of the country.

In this context what do you as leaders of the Democratic Party in Congress do?  You say you’ve passed funding bills to open the government while border security is negotiated, but Trump won’t sign them and Senator McConnell will not even schedule them.  Both sides are intransigent over funding for the wall.

We all agree, I think, that immigration should happen in an orderly manner, in accordance with the procedures and numbers set forth by Congress.  No one, not even the most fervent progressive, is in favor of illegal immigration.  This is completely separate from the issue of what we should do with the illegal immigrants who are already here and have become part of the fabric of their communities.

What is it then with the wall?  It has become a symbol of resistance to Trump and to his stand on immigration policy.  He not only wants the wall, but he has vilified illegal immigrants throughout his Presidential campaign and his time in office.  The wall has been made repulsive because it has been tainted with his offensive language.  

But even given all that, is this something over which you draw the line in the sand?  The answer should clearly be, no.  The issue of the wall does not rise to the level of importance that would lead to a lengthy shutdown.

Now of course once could ask, why should the Democrats blink?  Why doesn’t Trump back down.  And that’s a fair question.  But this is not a game of chicken.  It’s not even a question of right or wrong.  We are talking about the welfare of our country and the livelihood of millions of Federal employees.

Some Republican Senators have suggested combining the $5 billion for the wall with legislated protection for the Dreamers and other immigration reforms.  But these are not easy matters to legislate and you quite rightly don’t trust Trump to follow through with any commitment he makes.

You should therefore hold a press conference to announce your decision to give Trump his $5 billion for the wall, stating strongly that while a wall, as opposed to other increased security measures, is not in the country’s best interest, you are at this point more concerned about the welfare of the 800,000 federal employees going without pay and the overall welfare of the country which the continued shutdown is impacting in many ways.  Make clear that you have tried passing legislation to open up the government while negotiating this issue, but Trump and McConnell won’t budge.  This is the only way left for you to act responsibly as leaders of the Democratic Party in Congress and protect the interests of the country.

You will come out of this smelling like roses.  And if your fervent resist base has a fit, which undoubtedly they will, it’s time for them to act like grown-ups and not be blinded by their hatred and disgust of Trump.  You have fought the good fight; now it’s time to do what is best for the country, even if means having to listen to Trump gloat about his “win.”

Reflecting on 75 Years

Yesterday was my 75th birthday.  Usually I treat my birthdays just like any other day, although a cause for some celebration.  I have always felt good about birthdays, as opposed to the way many people feel.  I’ve never felt myself “growing old.”  

But at 75 years, it does seem to warrant some reflection.  I have lived through 3/4 of a century.  That sounds like a very long time, and yet it doesn’t seem long at all really.  Yes, my childhood, even my 30s seem like a long ways back, but not 3/4 of a century.  That concept is hard to wrap my head around. 

Our concept of time seems to vary depending on whether it is personal experience or whether it's historical.   When it’s personal, we don’t feel like we are part of history, that we are part of the march of time.  And yet we surely are.  If I think of all the periods I’ve lived through … Vietnam, AIDS … to name just a few, I have been witness to a lot of history.   But I don’t feel like I’ve been part of this vast moving scope of humanity and the cosmos, ala watching an American Experience episode.

The other thing is that on reflection, I’m aware that I almost feel distant from this historical period, probably because I don’t or didn’t feel part of its sweeping movement.  And I don’t feel like it’s a period I’m particularly proud to have been part of.  Quite the contrary, it has been a period filled with pestilence of one sort or another, whether war or disease or various forms of inhumanity and dysfunction.  

We tend to look back at past epochs with nostalgia, at the great things, the transformational things that happened.  Even the disasters are remembered with nostalgia, again think of American Experience.  

WWII is always held up as something that people were very proud to be part of, which is great.  But was WWII uplifting?  Not really.  It wasn’t fought to save the Jews … hardly.   African-Americans were segregated and treated shamefully in the armed forces.  It was entered into by the American leadership because they wanted to save Europe, and ultimately save us; so it was largely self-interest.  

But for most people it was an exercise in patriotism, answering the call of the country.  And since almost everyone was involved in one way or another and everyone pulled together, it was something people honestly could feel proud about.  In this sense it was uplifting … people were ready to sacrifice even their lives for a larger cause.  There was a sense of community.  

The cataclysmic events of my historic period had no such upside.  Some would say that within the gay community AIDS had an upside, but that was I feel very limited; there was far more fear and distrust than caring for your fellow man.  

Even the often-cited coming together of the country after 9/11 only lasted perhaps a few days.  The potential was possibly there, but the people were never asked to sacrifice, other than their privacy.  The main drumbeat from the government was one of fear, not duty.  The period’s wars impacted mostly our disadvantaged class who enlisted as a way out of their dead-end lives.  Yes, some enlisted out of a sense of patriotism, but they were isolated in our society.  For the returning troops there was little support at home, not even among those who supported the wars.

When one looks at these cataclysmic events, past and present, one sees clearly how our sense of community, of our all being fellow citizens of our country, has deteriorated if not vanished.  That is not good for America.  And that is the root cause why I feel distant from the period in which I have lived, why I don’t feel part of its sweeping currents.

But aside from these cataclysmic events, life is not really different now than in the past, viewed objectively.  There have always been and will always be bright spots, inspirational things that man has achieved, random acts of kindness, but they always occur in the larger context of overwhelming misfortune, suffering, and pestilence.  

Truly such is life, and all I or anyone can do is to live his life as well as he can by offering himself and others joy … meaning this in a spiritual, not hedonistic, sense.  To the extent that there have been bright spots over the millennia in the midst of so much suffering, it has been because of those individual spots of light.  I have certainly been blessed to have received such light and love from many people throughout my life.  The truth of the old proverb is revealed: better to light a candle than curse the darkness.  That is our purpose in life, our only purpose.

Sen. McConnell's Dereliction of Duty

Senator McConnell’s refusal to consider legislation that the President will not sign is a dereliction of duty and a betrayal of Congress’ role under the Constitution.  

Our democracy is justifiably famous for its then-novel system of checks and balances.  The three branches of government check each other.  Simply put, the executive checks the legislative through its veto power.  The legislative checks the executive through its power to override a presidential veto.  And the courts have the power to overturn executive or legislative action if it is either unconstitutional or if it doesn’t conform to the authority under which it was taken.

But we now have a Senate majority leader, Mitch McConnell, who has stated very bluntly that he will not put any measure before the Senate that the President will not sign.  So much for the legislative check on the President by overriding his veto.  It is the President who now calls the tune.  

This is no small matter.  It goes to one of the most basic aspects of our system of government.  If the Senator insists on maintaining this kowtowing to the President, then he should be removed from his office of majority leader.

What’s With the Wall?

As a liberal/progressive, I think the wall is a bad idea for a variety of reasons.  It’s also a terrible image that the United States should not be associated with.

But is funding for the wall something that Democrats should shut down the government over?

We all agree, I think, that immigration should happen in an orderly manner, in accordance with the procedures and numbers set forth by Congress.  No one, not even the most fervent progressive, is in favor of illegal immigration.  This is completely separate from the issue of what we should do with the illegal immigrants who are already here and have become part of the fabric of their communities.

As a result, Democrats are in favor of increased security, improving fencing, etc.  But Democrats and the leadership in Congress draw the line at money for the wall.

Why?  I don’t think it’s primarily because of the negative image or it’s being a bad idea.  But it has become a symbol of resistance to Trump’s stand on immigration policy.  He not only wants the wall, but he has vilified illegal immigrants throughout his campaign and time in office.  The wall has been made repulsive because it has been tainted with his offensive language.  

But even given all that, is this something you shut down the government over?  I think that if it wasn’t for the revulsion that most Democrats/liberals/progressives feel towards Trump on a daily basis, the answer would clearly be, no.  The issue of the wall itself does not rise to the level of importance that would lead to a shutdown.

Now of course once could ask, why should the Democrats blink?  Why doesn’t Trump back down?  And that’s a fair question.  But this is not a game of chicken, or at least it shouldn't be.  It’s not even a question of right or wrong.  We are talking about the welfare of our country and the livelihood of millions of Federal employees.

The Democratic leadership should hold their noses and give Trump the initial funding for the wall, making a very strong point as they do so about their commitment to the welfare of the country and a reformed immigration law.

It’s the Trade War, Stupid!

It was no surprise that Donald Trump is clueless about what’s happening in the stock market, because the blame falls directly on him and he never accepts responsibility for anything.  But recent reports in The Times ("Stocks Extend Their Slide," December 24) indicate that Treasury Secretary Mnuchin is similarly clueless.

Investor unease has nothing to do with the liquidity of banks or the underlying strength of the U.S. economy.  They are both strong and investors know it.  (Although Mnuchin’s reassuring statement about liquidity could make them nervous about something that isn’t an issue.)  It’s true, investors don’t like the Fed’s increase in interest rates, but that’s not the big problem either.  

The big problem is Trump’s self-imposed trade war.  This has created huge uncertainty for investors as to the future strength of not just the U.S. economy but also China’s and the world's.  Secondarily, his erratic behavior on all subjects, including his recent actions in the Mideast, add to the dynamic of uncertainty.  And then, his ego-driven Twitter feeds that routinely undercut any reasonable action his administration takes compounds investor uncertainty.

Given that no one has the ability to sit Trump down and explain the facts of life to him, this does not bode well for the future. Investors will probably shrug off the latest jitters and the market will rebound, but volatility will remain. The market’s only real hope is that his mania for self-preservation will force the conclusion, hopefully soon, that he must end the trade war for the market to regain its strength.

(A shortened version of this post has been published by The New York Times as a Letter to the Editor.)

ATTN: Liberals and Conservatives - What Is the Role of Government?

In these days of enraged people on both sides of the political spectrum, it would be helpful to take a deep breath, step back from the battle, and ask the question, “What is the role of government?”  Specifically, our government.  In answering this question we look to our founding documents.

According to the Constitution the purpose of government is to "establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our posterity.”  If we look at the Declaration of Independence the role is defined more broadly, which is “to secure” the unalienable rights to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”  I say more broadly because everything stated in the Constitution is necessary if one is to be able to pursue life, liberty, and happiness.

Clearly the role of government is an active one.  Words such as “insure,”  “provide,” “promote,” and “secure” are all verbs denoting an ongoing active responsibility.

There are two aspects of the role as stated in both these documents that deserve focus.  First the Constitution refers to promoting the “general Welfare.”  This is clearly a statement that government must look to the welfare of all its citizens, not just some.  It is the general welfare that is important, not just the welfare of some segments of society.  Taken together with the Declaration’s statement that “all men are created equal” and have “unalienable rights,” our founding documents clearly stand for the value and the rights of each and every citizen, of all segments of society.

The second aspect I will focus on is that both documents state that the role of government is to “secure” what the Constitution broadly characterizes as “the blessings of liberty,” and which the Declaration more particularly describes as the rights to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”

To what extent has our government lived up to its responsibilities as set forth in our founding documents?  

First, let’s get one thing straight … regardless the political party in power or the era, the United States has harbored huge inequality, not just regarding wealth but well-being.  This is true despite all the social welfare programs that were enacted in the 20th century.  While one can talk about the poor being worse off or better off under a particular administration, and one can say that materially the poor are better off in modern times than ever, their state of well-being remains a negative one.  (Perhaps this is why so many of the poor don’t vote; why they say it doesn’t make a difference who is in power, which liberals find maddening.)  

Why is life for the poor degrading?  Widespread discrimination, unequal access to quality education, substandard housing to name perhaps the most important factors.  This negative well-being has in turn spawned an environment of gangs, violence, and drugs which haw made a bad situation that much worse.  Note:  it is not poverty itself that makes life degrading, it is these attendant factors.

This is true regardless whether one is looking at people of color or whites, urban or rural.  And, to counter a widely held perception, while the majority of those living in poverty are people of color, 44% are white.  In 2018, the figures were white - 44%, black - 23%, Hispanic - 28%, and Asian - 5%.  Yes, blacks disproportionately commit more crimes and engage in drug trafficking, but they also suffer disproportionately more discrimination, bad education, and substandard housing.  Many whites blame blacks for inflicting the drugs and violence environment on themselves, but such accusations totally overlook the role of the white-imposed reality of life for blacks in America.

Bottom line.  Government has not promoted the general welfare.

From the foregoing, it is also clear that government has not secured the “blessings of liberty” for a large proportion of Americans (40 million people live poverty, 12.3% of the population).  The charge is not that government hasn’t provided these blessings, because that is not government’s role.  

It’s role is to secure the “right” to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.   What does that mean?  It means that government has the responsibility for insuring that all citizens have an equal opportunity to pursue their right to life, liberty, and happiness.  What an individual makes of that right is his or her responsibility.  

So for example, it is government’s role to insure that the education provided in all schools is of equivalent quality.  That is sadly far from the case.  It is government’s responsibility to insure that there is no discrimination by educating children and adults about equality, passing appropriate laws, and vigorously enforcing them.  It is government’s responsibility to insure that no one lives in substandard housing through building codes, etc. that are vigorously enforced.  Then there is the right to vote.  Before the Voting Rights Act of 1964, Blacks were routinely denied the vote in much of the South.  In recent years, Republican forces have been attacking this right in a deceitful way which primarily impacts poor people of color in order to reduce Democratic voter turnout.

While government has certainly made advances in addressing these issues, most have been half-hearted.  None have come even close to fundamentally changing the status quo.

The one area where government’s effort to secure a right has been to a large extent successful has been in the area of access to health care.  Through Medicaid, the vast majority of people living in poverty have health insurance.  There are still problems of health care access, especially in rural areas, but this nevertheless has largely been a successful effort.  And it has been made even more so with the passage of Obamacare and its expansion of Medicaid.

So what do we do with the basic fact that our government is not truly fulfilling its role.  It’s doing many things it should be doing, and probably very little of what it does is unnecessary, outside the area of defense.  But when it comes to promoting the general welfare and securing the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness for all its citizens, it has barely scratched the surface.

Why not?  It isn’t for lack of resources.  But it is a matter of priorities.  What I’m referring to is not really even on the list of priorities.  And that is for two very different reasons.  

For conservatives, they just don’t see the role of government as being more than providing for our defense, insuring domestic tranquility (i.e. order), and letting business and people be free to do pretty much what they want to do without government “interference” (that’s their definition of the blessings of liberty).  They are comfortable with government subsidizing business and farmers (a subset of business) in many ways; it’s individuals that they don’t think deserve government support.

For liberals, while they see the role of government very differently, as a source of help for those who need it, changing the fundamental status quo is not on their radar.  Whether that’s because they don’t see it as a viable option, or because it’s not something that has even entered their thought process, it’s just not there.  They are mentally and spiritually limited by the world as they know it.  They are not visionaries.  And what this country needs is visionaries.

How do we develop visionaries in the population and in our politicians?  It starts by not accepting the status quo, by understanding that there is something basically wrong with the way things are and have always been.  That what is going on is contrary to the basic tenets of our founding documents.  It means going back to the content of our education system as it pertains to civics.

But that is not going to happen.  And one reason why is that, as noted, you have such diametrically opposed intellectual approaches to our founding documents.  For example, on the one hand you have the thoughts expressed in my book, We Still Hold These Truths, published in 2004, which present our founding documents as primarily liberal in spirit.  On the other hand, you have Mathew Spaulding’s book of the same title, published in 2009, which argues for a conservative reading of those same documents.  And he castigates progressives for perverting those documents.

I don't think there is anything one can do to convince a Spaulding or any of his followers that the liberal interpretation of our founding documents is correct.  However, one can focus liberals/progressives on the fact that their position is supported by these documents.  And one can educate independents.  

I find it amazing not only that the Democratic Party has never taken my book to its heart and used it productively, they’ve never really taken notice of it, but that they haven’t come up with anything to counter Spaulding’s argument.  They have walked away from our liberal birthright and left this elemental source of strength to the conservatives.

This is what must change if there is to be any hope of bringing the force of our founding documents to bear on this central issue of social justice.  Only then will we have a chance to end discrimination, provide equal access to education, end the blight of substandard housing for the poor, insure voting rights for all, and correct many other wrongs.