Category Archives: Public Policy and Governance

Sermon for a Sunday Morning

Last week, Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders renewed his call for “shared sacrifice” in addressing the budget deficit.

In remarks made after it was reported that some of this nation’s largest and most profitable corporations paid no U.S. taxes despite posting huge profits, Sanders said it is grossly unfair for congressional Republicans to propose major cuts to Head Start, Pell Grants, the Social Security Administration, nutrition grants for pregnant low-income women and the Environmental Protection Agency while ignoring the reality that some of the most profitable corporations pay nothing or almost nothing in federal income taxes.

Sanders has previously advocating tax reform to close corporate tax loopholes and eliminate cushy tax breaks for oil and gas companies. He has also introduced legislation to impose a 5.4 percent surtax on millionaires that is calculated to yield nearly $50 billion a year. The senator has said that spending cuts must be paired with new revenue so the federal budget is not balanced solely on the backs of working families. “We have a deficit problem,” he said, “and it has to be addressed. But it cannot be addressed on the backs of the sick, the elderly, the poor, young people, the most vulnerable in this country. The wealthiest people and largest corporations in this country have got to contribute. We’ve got to talk about shared sacrifice.”

So many people insist that this is a “Christian nation.” Wouldn’t a truly Christian nation follow Sander’s advice?

Comments

Abuses of Power

For the past couple of months, I have been watching the political shenanigans in Wisconsin, Indiana, Ohio, Michigan, Maine and elsewhere with increasing disbelief, trying to figure out what has prompted such disdain for civility, democratic process and  individual rights.

In the latest bizarre twist from Wisconsin, the Governor and GOP leadership simply ignored an order of the federal court. The court had issued a stay of the law repealing collective bargaining rights, pending an evidentiary hearing on whether it had been passed in a manner consistent with the state’s open door law. The legislature could have abided by the order, or it could have held another vote, after proper notice. Instead, those in charge decided to thumb their noses at a court order.

The belligerent and tone-deaf Governor of Maine unilaterally decided to erase a mural that he didn’t like. It was on the walls of the state’s Department of Labor, and portrayed the history of the labor movement.

In Michigan, the Governor has proposed–and the legislative majority has apparently approved–a bill that gives him unprecedented, nearly dictatorial powers of the sort not seen in the United States (probably because those powers appear to conflict with our constitutional system of checks and balances).

In Indiana, the Republicans who now control both houses have been indulging in some of the most vindictive lawmaking we’ve seen. (A former student of mine who has been lobbying this session recently characterized the chamber as “the Hatehouse.”)  They are busily passing measures to marginalize gays, harass immigrants, and make it difficult if not impossible for women to control their own reproduction. (During arguments over the imposition of a three-day waiting period before women can obtain an abortion, a woman legislator asked that an exception be added for cases of rape; the sponsor angrily responded that such an exception would be a ‘major loophole’ because women would all claim to have been raped! The proposed amendment was then voted down.)

I could go on and on, unfortunately. But the larger question is: what is going on? What explains this epidemic of bullying?

I don’t know if I can explain the “why” of all this, but I think I can characterize the “what.”

One of the goals of this nation’s founders was memorably related by John Adams, who explained that the Constitution was intended to establish a nation of “laws, not men.” We would have a country where the rule of law trumped the exercise of raw power. No one was to be above the law, and the purpose of the law was to limit the ability of those in power to abuse that power. What we are seeing is what happens when people elected to office behave like thugs, using their positions for personal and political aggrandizement rather than for the common good.

The people elected in 2010 talk a lot about the constitution, but their actions betray their absolute ignorance of its central purpose.

Comments

Why It’s Harder Than It Looks

I was listening to NPR as I was driving to work this morning, and heard a (pretty typical) news item that seems to me a perfect example of the perils of public policy–or why, as I continually tell my students, “it’s more complicated than it seems.”

The U.S. Defense Department has cut funding for an engine  being developed by Rolls Royce and G.E. Robert Gates, Defense Secretary, has called the project a waste of taxpayer money. But some 400+ Indiana jobs are directly tied to the continued development of that engine, and–predictably–scrapping it has generated opposition from both Andre Carson and Mike Pence.

I have no information that would allow me to comment on the merits of this project, but it is a textbook example of the problem we face cutting public budgets. Even apparent “no brainers”–attempts to cut programs that are self-evidently unnecessary or wasteful–run headlong into the reality that the cuts will cost some people jobs or money. Those people vote. They make campaign contributions. Thus the protests from Carson and Pence.

Pence’s objections are particularly illuminating: he has been a reliable opponent of government spending, even spending that most of us would consider appropriate. He talks incessantly about the need to make the “hard” decisions. But when those decisions affect his constituents or donors, his tune changes considerably.

Pence is not alone. We have legislatures filled with folks who want to make the “hard decisions”–so long as those hard decisions don’t require them to make any sacrifices or take any electoral risks.

Comments

The Death of Satire

I can now officially announce that satire is no longer possible.

It was difficult enough with Sarah Palin–in her famous impersonation, after all, Tina Fey merely recited Palin’s actual responses to questions posed by Katie Couric. Efforts to satirize other political figures of our times–Michelle Bachmann, Peter King, Newt Gingrich et al–are doomed by the fact that their unselfconscious buffoonery is already so far over the top.

And just when I figured we’d reached the outer limits of embarrassing–voila! I give you the Governor of Maine!

From the Lewiston, Maine Sun Journal, we learn that  “Gov. Paul LePage has ordered the removal of a 36-foot mural depicting Maine’s labor history from the lobby of the Department of Labor.”

Evidently, acting labor chief Laura Boyett emailed staff on Tuesday about the mural’s pending removal, “as well as another administration directive to rename several department conference rooms that carry the names of pro-labor icons such as Cesar Chavez.” According to LePage spokesman Dan Demeritt, the administration felt the mural–a pictoral representation of Maine’s actual labor history–and the conference room monikers showed “one-sided decor not in keeping with the department’s pro-business goals.”

That should teach those union goons a thing or two–we’ll just paint out the image of “Rosie the Riveter” and rename the board rooms after the Koch Brothers.

At Political Animal, Steve Benen notes that Governor LePage has been working hard to earn entree to the (ever-growing) ranks of our most ridiculous public figures:

But facts that Paul LePage don’t like apparently have to be shuttered away. Celebrating working people is now, apparently, the kind of thing that might bother business interests. We’re approaching an odd sort of political correctness that restricts messages that might somehow bother the wealthy and powerful.

All of this comes on the heels of the buffoonish, far-right governor vowing to pursue a Wisconsin-like plan to undercut Maine’s public-sector unions

Which was preceded by LePage trying to roll back Maine’s child-labor laws.

Which was preceded by LePage paying for tax cuts for the rich by cutting services for Maine’s middle class.

Which was preceded by LePage picking a fight with the Maine NAACP in which he said, “Tell them to kiss my butt.”

The antics of our elected officials are making me seriously question whether democratic self-government is really possible–not to mention the theory of evolution.

When historians look for an appropriate label for our era, they might consider “The Age of Embarrassment.”

Comments

Checks, Balances and Legislative Absences

Yesterday, my sister asked me when I was going to blog about the Democratic “departure” from Indiana’s legislative session. She was the fourth person to ask me that.

I haven’t addressed our legislative impasse, largely because I am conflicted about it.

The walkout as a tactic has much in common with the U.S. Senate filibuster; both are intended to provide a check on the power of majorities to ride roughshod over the interests of a legislative minority. Both are legitimate IF–and it’s a big if–they are properly and judiciously employed. In the case of the filibuster, I support the “old-time” version (the Jimmy Stewart version, if you will), where Senators actually stood up on the chamber’s floor and talked–and talked. Filibustered. I do not support the current version, where the minority party simply says “If you do that, we’ll filibuster,” and the majority caves if it can’t count on sixty votes to override.

This iteration, it seems to me, is worse than lazy–it gives positive encouragement to those whose sole purpose is to deny the majority an opportunity to accomplish anything.

In the state legislature, my calculus is much the same. If negotiation fails, if the majority is being dictatorial and unreasonable, if it is attempting to take actions that the minority is convinced would cause significant damage, the minority may legitimately withdraw in order to bring the chamber to a halt and focus public attention on the arguments involved. The use of such a “nuclear option” should be rare, however, and judiciously employed.

A couple of additional observations: these “rules” should apply no matter who is in the majority or minority. And as Doug Masson observed in his blog post yesterday, legislative absence does not necessarily equate to “not working.” Most of the work of legislative bodies occurs outside the chamber even when everyone is present, for one thing, and keeping bad laws from being enacted is also “doing legislative work.”

There are certainly arguments to be made about the propriety of any particular use of drastic tactics, but the tactics themselves serve a purpose when appropriately used. When I look at the current assault on working people, teachers and women, and the potential consequences of the measures the Democrats are trying to block, I think this is an appropriate response.

If the use of such tactics at the state level becomes a routine part of our toxic and gridlocked political environment, as the abuse and misuse of the filibuster has, I might change my mind.

Comments