Tag Archives: constitution

All Posts, American Foreign Policy, budget, Congress, Constitution, donald trump, immigration

THE WALL IS INSIGNIFICANT

originally published 1/16/2019

Benjamin Franklin supposedly described our new form of government to a citizen as “a republic, if you can keep it”.  A republic is a sovereign nation where power resides in elected individuals representing citizens, and where government leaders exercise power according to the rule of law.  The debate over whether to build a wall along our border with Mexico is no longer about the wall.  It is about whether we are still a republic. Continue reading THE WALL IS INSIGNIFICANT →

All Posts, civil rights, Congress, Constitution, justice

LET’S CONTINUE ARGUING

It was on July 4, 1776 that representatives of the people of every colony unanimously announced themselves as member states that would form a new nation.   Before there was a constitution or a president, there was our Declaration of Independence.

In just one eloquent sentence that declaration laid the philosophical foundation for the United States of America, its Constitution, laws and traditions.  “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”  That sentence provides glimpses of the shining city on the hill that Americans aspire to build.  As each generation adds to the city, there are debates and battles over laws, the role of government and our vision for the future. Continue reading LET’S CONTINUE ARGUING →

All Posts, Congress, Constitution, justice

REREADING THE CONSTITUTION

4 Comments

When I’m confused and disappointed by the actions of our elected leaders, I sometimes get the urge to reread our Constitution.  Here are thoughts from a recent rereading.

From Article 1 Section 4: “The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations…”  Our Congress has the authority to standardize how and when we elect its members.  It seems reasonable to conclude that Congress could prohibit partisan gerrymandering.

From Amendment 14 Section 1:  “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall…deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the law.”  Legislative districts are created by state law.  Here in North Carolina, the Legislature’s stated purpose in gerrymandering the districts was to elect Republicans to 10 of the 13 seats even though nearly half of voters actually vote for Democrats.  They achieved that goal.  The law that created gerrymandered districts seems to deny equal protection to citizens who disagree with Republicans.

From Article 2 Section 4: “The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”  Bribery would apply if a President accepted a bribe. Would it also be bribery if a Presidential candidate or his team agreed to not implement sanctions on Russia in exchange for information useful to their campaign?

The US Supreme Court has received gerrymandering cases from Wisconsin, Maryland, North Carolina and Pennsylvania.  The lower courts are so politicized that news reports generally include whether the judges were appointed by Democrats or Republicans.  The implication is that a judge is likely to rule in favor of the party that appointed her or him.  That is an awful but sadly credible assumption to make about our supposedly independent judiciary.

If the court rules against gerrymandering, that is likely to result in Democrats gaining seats in the House of Representatives.  In addition to being the body that originates federal budgets, the House is the body with authority to impeach a President – an action which a Republican led House might be more reluctant to consider.

If the Senate had approved President Obama’s nomination of Judge Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court, there would be a 5-4 split of Democrat vs Republican judges.  Instead, the Republican controlled Senate refused to even consider the nomination for months – in hopes of winning the presidency and getting a Republican nominee.  They succeeded in that; and with the confirmation of Judge Neil Gorsuch there is a 5-4 split favoring Republicans.  What will it say about our Supreme Court if a Gerrymandering decision is decided by that margin?

The Presidential election of 2000 may well have been swung from Al Gore to George W. Bush by a party-line 5-4 Supreme Court decision that stopped the Florida vote recount.  We’ll never know.  Nor will we know whether the US would have invaded Iraq and Afghanistan after 9-11 under President Gore.  Such decisions change our history in profound ways.

Underlying many of the suspicions, malfunctions and failures of our government is the increasingly bitter partisan divide. Note however, that political parties are not even mentioned in our constitution.  Only individuals, not political parties, have a constitutional right to be on a ballot.  To protect their power (and the President), Republicans are now attacking the credibility of important institutions including our FBI, CIA and Justice Department.  Russian agents have effectively used social media to discredit those same agencies.  How ironic is it to find Republican leadership and Russian espionage agents on the same side?

President Washington warned, in his farewell address, that political parties, “…are likely in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion.” It’s an apt description of current events.

Nations succeed and become great when most of the people support them and feel fairly treated.  When a large proportion feel mistrust and mistreated, nations fail.  Rather than “becoming great again”, our nation is in jeopardy due to citizen mistrust of elected officials.  My conclusion is that it’s up to voters to save the union. No one else can do it.

All Posts, civil rights, Constitution, justice, religion

WHO MAKES YOUR DECISIONS?

2 Comments

There is a rising chorus of threats against the rights of Americans to make decisions about their own bodies.  Yes, I’m writing about abortion, not because I want to but because we now have a President and a Republican congressional majority who intend to impose their version of morality on every individual.  It’s un-American.  It’s dictatorial.  It’s patriarchal.  And they will absolutely do it unless freedom loving people stand up to them.

As preface, let’s acknowledge that consideration of abortion arises at a very difficult time in a woman’s life.  Our question is, “Who will make the decision, the woman or the government?”  Our judgments about her choice or her conscience are merely opinions.   Who decides?

For historical perspective, abortion is recorded in the earliest human histories.  Plato, for example, noted the ability of midwives to “…cause miscarriages if they think them desirable…”  Herbs, drugs and physical procedures for abortion have been generally known and widely used in every culture.  There is occasional documentation of moral or religious objections but historically, abortion was widely accepted without legal regulation or intervention.  The greatest concern was the risk posed by procedures and toxic herbs used to induce abortions.

In colonial and early America, abortion was common practice.  In the 19th century it was openly advertised and it was estimated that 20-25 percent of pregnancies were terminated by abortion.  Birth control options were limited; and at least half of abortions were among married women who had children and didn’t want or couldn’t afford more.

American religious objections evolved into attempts to ban abortion in the late 19th century, spurred by opposition to the emerging women’s rights and suffrage movements.  One notorious example of that radical religious movement is the Comstock Law of 1873.  It banned publication and teaching (even in medical schools) of any information regarding birth control, abortion or prevention of venereal disease.  Religious extremists had taken charge of the congress but clinics offering abortions continued to operate in many American cities.  Abortion continued to be available (often illegally and often dangerously) across the nation until the 1973 Supreme Court decision that overturned anti-abortion laws.

Since that time, misogynists and religious zealots have been fighting to re-impose their will on pregnant women.  Our Republican President and Congress are among them.  They certainly have the right to believe and teach whatever they choose; but they have no right to limit a woman’s full control of her own body.  That is where the battle line is drawn.

It is the nature of freedom that a person may do things – even make mistakes – which the majority of society disapproves.  For example, we allow parents to feed their children so much junk food that they are grossly obese, diabetic and destined for a life of disability before they start school. We don’t put the parents in jail for it.  Meanwhile religious zealots, obsessed with other people’s pelvic morality, insist on controlling one singular and personal aspect of a woman’s life – her pregnancy.

Among the zealots are those who put a velvet glove on the iron hand of tyranny by saying that they would allow abortion in cases of rape, or when the woman’s life would be endangered by the pregnancy. Their self-righteousness leaves them with no doubt that they know better what is right for her and her body than she does. They reserve to themselves the right to judge her motives and to require that if her sexual encounter was consensual then she will be denied an abortion.  Can you think of any other issue where laws might delve so intensely into personal matters?

Invariably we wish that whatever problem caused a woman to decide for abortion had not occurred.  With that in mind, we should acknowledge and celebrate the fact that the abortion rate in America is now at or near the lowest level in our history.  That success is due in large part to good information about birth control and inexpensive access to it.  But our nation is divided, even on that.

Abortions will continue because the reasons why some women choose them have not changed since Plato’s time.  But if Republicans have their way, abortions won’t be legal and safe.  If religious zealots are allowed to impose their will through force of law, they won’t stop with abortion, and you need not bother ask for whom the bell will toll.  It will toll for freedom.

All Posts, budget, Congress, Constitution, taxes

It’s time to balance budgets

1 Comment

Although our election decided who will hold public offices, the issues that divide Americans remain unsettled.  Our political battlefield is strewn with social, economic, religious and geographic landmines ready to explode.  And it’s too early to know what a Trump-led Republican administration will be like.  Besides, election “winners” achieve mostly temporary victories because the “losing” side returns to fight another day.

In that unfortunate climate, vital responsibilities of government often go unattended.  Perhaps the best example is our decades-long and increasingly urgent need to balance federal budgets.  The last time we balanced our budget for more than two consecutive years was the eleven year period from 1920 through 1930.

If both conservative and liberal voters push for it, this might be a time when we could pass a constitutional amendment requiring a balanced budget.  With that in mind, here’s my Balanced Budget Amendment idea.  It would force decisions on some issues that divide us, most notably taxes, health care and defense spending – maybe even uniting conservatives and liberals in support of practical ideas.  Here is the concept:

IDEAS FOR A BALANCED BUDGET AMENDMENT

The President must propose a balanced budget to the congress at least five months before the beginning of each fiscal year.

  1. Congress must pass a balanced budget and send it to the President for signature at least three months prior to the beginning of each fiscal year.
  2. If the President vetoes a budget approved by the congress, the president and the congress must confer, agree to and sign a budget at least 30 days prior to the beginning of each fiscal year.
  3. Failure of a President to meet the responsibilities described above on a timely basis constitutes voluntary resignation from the office of the presidency.
  4. Failure of the Congress to meet its responsibilities described above on a timely basis constitutes ninety day notice of resignation from office by all members of the congress. Each state will elect new members of congress within 60 days to take office 30 days later.
  5. A balanced budget must include all projected expenses plus any unplanned deficit from the prior year and retirement of at least one percent of existing national debt.  It must also include projection of sufficient tax revenue to fund the budget.
  6. An unbalanced budget with expenses exceeding revenue is permissible during a  time of war or other national emergency declared by the congress and approved by the President.  An unbalanced budget requires approval by sixty percent of the members of each house of congress.
  7. Trust Fund programs operated by the Federal Government which have their own dedicated revenue streams may accumulate surpluses and loan them to the Federal Budget at the discretion of the Congress and the President.  Timely repayment of such debt is the highest priority claim on federal revenue.  (Social Security is the main program of this kind.)

The specific language and content of constitutional amendments requires extreme care and scrutiny.  I’ve only tried to describe principles for an amendment, not the exacting language that would be needed.

My prediction is that it will be difficult to get legislators from either political party to consider an amendment because few, if any, are willing to make the decisions required to balance budgets. Facing a deficit, legislators from both parties are generally more willing to raise the debt ceiling than to raise taxes or cut spending.

After all the partisan shouting is done, the necessary compromises usually involve increasing our debt.  The burden is borne by voters and taxpayers.  With this amendment, if officeholders fail, they lose their jobs to someone who is willing to actually do the work.  Holding new elections to replace a failing legislature is not a radical idea. Numerous parliamentary democracies do exactly that.

This column lays out an ambitious vision for solving an urgent national problem.  It’s a good first step toward more effective government because it will also force more responsible decisions on all other federal priorities.

Is it unrealistic to think that our congress, president and voters would actually do this?  Maybe…  But if congress is unable to balance a budget, how can they expect to find success on other contentious questions like immigration, health care, war and civil rights that sit atop their agenda?

If we can’t make such decisions, our future as a viable nation is in doubt.  Let’s get started.

All Posts, Christianity, Congress, Constitution, islam, randolph county north carolina, religion

In which God do we trust?

2 Comments

Before 1954, our pledge of allegiance described America as, “…one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all…”  Then Congress added “…under God…”    Two years later, they adopted “In God we trust” as our national motto. Now a movement is under way to place that motto on public buildings and patrol cars.  Why?  And why now?

Congress was clearly motivated by a desire to distinguish us from the officially atheist and communist USSR.  Their trust didn’t extend to national defense.  They were simultaneously building an arsenal of nuclear weapons to assure that we could destroy the Soviet Union if they attacked us.  Although congress didn’t specify which god they trusted, it was a conservative Christian initiative.  The reason seemed to be that many Americans took comfort in the idea that God would protect a Christian nation.

Previously, the unofficial motto of the United States was “E pluribus unum” which translates as “One from many”.   It referred to one nation emerging from thirteen colonies which had diverse values, religious traditions and laws.  It has also been used to describe American national unity among people of various races, cultures, beliefs and religions.

Today’s environment seems similar to that of the 1950s.  Fear that Muslim and Latino immigrants will bring terrorism and crime is front and center in our political discussions.  A second, and perhaps more powerful concern is that many Americans see the US as a “Christian nation” and they fear that we are becoming something else. The Christian Action League which lobbies to have the motto placed on patrol cars and public buildings obviously thinks the motto refers to the god of evangelical Christians.  So do many of the local groups who get financial support from the In God We Trust Action Committee.  It has national and state organizations that encourage and pay for the signs and decals.10997332_1007764762586557_3133498777921262665_n

It seems appropriate to ask, “How is trust in god visible?  What does it mean on a public building?”  If the nation trusts a god, what is it that we are trusting that deity to do?  Regardless of belief (or non-belief) I’d bet that most of us will call for help from a skilled law enforcement officer in a crisis rather than waiting for one deity or another to fix the problem.

I went looking for answers in holy books of the world’s two largest religions.  The Christian Bible has a great many admonitions to trust God and live by his rules. Beyond that it is unclear what trust means.  The texts that I found are about living life with trust in God – fearlessly.  None suggested advertising trust on money, buildings or law enforcement chariots.

In the Quran I found similar messages.  Since few Americans are familiar with that book, here are a couple of examples, [3:159-160] “… GOD loves those who trust in Him.  If GOD supports you, none can defeat you.  And if He abandons you, who else can support you?” “[11:123] To GOD belongs the future of the heavens and the earth, and all matters are controlled by Him. You shall worship Him and trust in Him.”  As with the Christian Bible, trust seemed to be about living life with trust in God – fearlessly, not about public displays.

What then, is the motivation for public displays?

Until I hear a more convincing rationale for the signs and decals there are three possibilities that come to mind.

  • Perhaps proponents hope that signs or decals will convince their God to intervene in the world to protect them.
  • Perhaps they want to offend non-believers and those who worship a different version of God.  Maybe they think they can discourage other beliefs by posting their own on law enforcement vehicles and public buildings.  (That kind of thinking is exactly why we have a constitutional amendment prohibiting government preference for any religion.)
  • Another possibility is that the proponents lack sufficient trust in their own God so they seek validation and support in the form of government-approved signs.

Maybe there are other reasons that are best stated by those who have made decisions to put the motto on display.   I prefer “E pluribus unum”.  It describes the confidence of a nation that will be great in the future as it has been in the past rather than the fears of a nation whose faith is weak.

 

All Posts, civil rights, Constitution, ethics, north carolina, race

Should we stand for our national anthem?

After months of complaints from the political right about PC limitations on speech and discussion, it is ironic that those same right wingers see a national scandal  in Colin Kaepernick’s refusal to stand for our national anthem.  Like Muhammad Ali and Olympic Athletes of 1968, he is using his celebrity status to bring attention to what many see as American racism.

Kaepernick’s voice is but one in a crescendo criticizing the “land of the free”.  Leaders from African American and Latino communities have politely spoken their minds on voting rights, law enforcement, criminal justice, public education and income inequality.  Not much happened.  If quiet and polite voices are ineffective, louder ones are to be expected. Whether it is an NAACP Chapter, a Latino Coalition, Black Lives Matter, the American Civil Liberties Union or  some other organization, their list of unaddressed concerns is long.

Since passage of civil rights laws in the 1960s, many Americans, believe that we live in a post-racial society.   We don’t.  Our problems extend to the heart of democracy, consent of the governed.

It is with those thoughts in mind that I looked into the controversies surrounding North Carolina’s new voting law as one example among many concerns.  For a more complete account, read Appeal-16-1468 published by the Fourth Circuit United States Court of Appeals.  It overturned portions of the law because of its discriminatory intent.

The court found that the law was specifically designed to target African Americans and said, “…by 2013 African American registration and turnout rates had finally reached near-parity with white registration and turnout rates. African Americans were poised to act as a major electoral force. But, on the day after the Supreme Court issued Shelby County v. Holder, 133 S. Ct. 2612 (2013), eliminating preclearance obligations, a leader of the party that newly dominated the legislature (and the party that rarely enjoyed African American support) announced an intention to enact what he characterized as an “omnibus” election law. Before enacting that law, the legislature requested data on the use, by race, of a number of voting practices. Upon receipt of the race data, the General Assembly enacted legislation that restricted voting and registration in five different ways, all of which disproportionately affected African Americans.”

The court also found that, “Although the new provisions target African Americans with almost surgical precision, they constitute inapt remedies for the problems assertedly justifying them and, in fact, impose cures for problems that did not exist. Thus the asserted justifications cannot and do not conceal the State’s true motivation  … the State took away [minority voters’] opportunity because [they] were about to exercise it. … Faced with this record, we can only conclude that the North Carolina General Assembly enacted the challenged provisions of the law with discriminatory intent.”

Here are a few examples of discrimination that the court found in the law.  In deciding which forms of identification would be acceptable for voting, the legislature used racial data to select IDs that whites are more likely to have than minorities.  They used racial data to eliminate voting opportunities that were used more heavily by African Americans than whites.  Similar processes were used to determine early voting days,  eliminate same day registration, and eliminate out-of precinct voting.

North Carolina’s law was crafted by Republican leadership in secret sessions with advice from consultants employed by attorneys so that documentation of their work would not be available to the public.  The court found that “… after the General Assembly finally revealed the expanded (law) to the public, the legislature rushed it through the legislative process…in three days: one day for a public hearing, two days in the Senate, and two hours in the House.”

The law passed by party line vote.  Every Republican legislator supported it.  I don’t think they are all racists.  Instead, I think they are much like the Democrats who passed racist laws in the Jim Crow era.  They bowed to pressure to win elections and one way to win elections is to keep the opposition from voting.  That’s what they did, and it is an example of 21st century racism in operation.

Because of laws like this one and other grievances, some people don’t honor our national flag and anthem.  Would you honor the flag of a nation that did such things to you? I’ll continue to pledge allegiance because our courts generally overturn unjust laws and because we’re free to replace those who passed a racist law at our next election.  It’s time to have a record voter turnout.

 

All Posts, American Foreign Policy, campaign finance, Congress, Constitution, justice, north carolina, war

PRESIDENT WASHINGTON’S ADVICE TO AMERICAN VOTERS

4 Comments

CLICK HERE to read George Washington’s full farewell address

I’ve invited an old friend of our nation to compose most of this column.  George Washington served with great distinction as leader of our military forces in the war for independence then gave another eight years of service as our first President.   Approaching the end of his second term in 1796, he published a farewell address that included his assessment of our history and his advice about the future.  Here are some of his words and some questions to ponder.

“The unity of Government, which constitutes you one people, is also now dear to you. It is justly so; for it is a main pillar in the edifice of your real independence, the support of your tranquility at home, your peace abroad; of your safety; of your prosperity; of that very Liberty, which you so highly prize”… “For the efficient management of our common interests, in a country so extensive as ours, a government of as much vigor as is consistent with the perfect security of liberty is indispensable.” That hasn’t changed but our perception of who is entitled to the benefits of liberty has expanded to include people regardless of race, sex, or other personal characteristics. Why do so many among us now see government as our biggest problem?

President Washington said that by maintaining our national unity, we could “…derive from Union an exemption from those broils and wars between themselves, which so frequently afflict neighbouring countries not tied together by the same governments…” thereby avoiding … “the necessity of those overgrown military establishments, which, under any form of government, are inauspicious to liberty, and which are to be regarded as particularly hostile to Republican Liberty.”  Why do we have armed forces stationed all over the world and why have we been at war so long?

Regarding relationships with other nations, he said, “nothing is more essential, than that permanent, inveterate antipathies against particular Nations, and passionate attachments for others, should be excluded; and that, in place of them, just and amicable feelings towards all should be cultivated…The great rule of conduct for us, in regard to foreign nations, is, in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connexion as possible…”  Why are we continuously involved in trying to change the internal affairs of other nations?

Washington wrote, “In contemplating the causes, which may disturb our Union, it occurs as matter of serious concern, that any ground should have been furnished for characterizing parties by Geographical discriminations, Northern and Southern, Atlantic and Western; whence designing men may endeavour to excite a belief, that there is a real difference of local interests and views.”  In North Carolina, Republicans designed legislative districts to guarantee their continuous hold on power.  To benefit themselves, they divide citizens rural and religious against urban and secular.  The situation in Washington is similar.

Speaking of associations and political parties, President Washington said, “…they are likely, in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people, and to usurp for themselves the reins of government; destroying afterwards the very engines, which have lifted them to unjust dominion.”  Could anyone better describe how political parties and PACs serve the interests of the very wealthy, huge corporations and other special interests?

Still speaking of factions and political parties, President Washington told us that “The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries, which result, gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of Public Liberty. It serves always to distract the Public Councils, and enfeeble the Public Administration. It agitates the Community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms; kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection”

Please think about it.  Need I say more?

CLICK HERE to read George Washington’s full farewell address

All Posts, Constitution, justice

POPULISM VS THE CONSTITUTION

Image 1 Comment

“The Constitution says what it says, and it doesn’t say anything more.”   “The judge who always likes the results he reaches is a bad judge.” –  Recently deceased Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia

“(The President) shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Judges of the Supreme Court…(and)  shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.” –  US Constitution, Article II, Section 2

“Except when it would make us unpopular with our constituents or donors” – This is not a quotation.  It is a conclusion based on the behavior of elected officials.

President Obama says that he will follow the constitution and do his job by nominating someone to fill the Supreme Court vacancy created by Judge Scalia’s death.  Senate Majority Leader, Mitch McConnell says that he will not allow a vote on any candidate nominated by President Obama.  McConnell is backed by other Republican leaders who have pledged not to meet with nominees or hold hearings to consider them.  They argue that the nomination should be delayed until after the next Presidential election so that voters can influence the matter.  But voters have already spoken.  We elected a Republican majority to the Senate and a Democrat as President (twice).

In this matter the President is following the Constitution and Senate Republicans are not.  Republicans accurately respond that Democrats have done similar things, including seeking to delay nominations to the Court until they had a chance to win a Presidential election.  We could reasonably ask leaders of both parties, “Didn’t your parents teach you that two wrongs don’t make a right?”

Which ones have been doing their jobs and serving the nation?
Which ones have been doing their jobs and serving the nation?

The behavior of both parties is particularly onerous when they attempt to manipulate the composition of the Supreme Court in order to influence its decisions on specific issues.  Most Republican officeholders interpret the Constitution as allowing state or federal laws that ban all abortions while Democrats think it protects the rights of women to make decisions about their own bodies.  The battle lines over marriage equality, regulation of gun ownership, immigration and other social issues are drawn in approximately the same place.

On each side of our hot social issues there are powerful advocacy groups with vocal supporters demanding that elected officials do whatever it takes to win the day.  They often insist that office holders ignore constitutional obligations if that will help their cause.  Anyone who doesn’t comply is likely to face well-funded opposition in the next primary election.  That is how populism works.

Populist behavior is as old as our nation and its constitution.  President Andrew Jackson and the Congress provided an early and extreme example.  The United States agreed by treaty that The Cherokee Nation was independent, with its own legal boundaries but white settlers (illegal immigrants) persisted in occupying Cherokee land.  When Cherokees removed some white settlers forcibly, they demanded military protection. Then gold was discovered on Cherokee land and the problem quickly escalated.  States passed laws banning meetings of the Cherokee legislature and argued that the federal government had no right to intervene in state affairs. The US Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Cherokees but American voters and powerful interest groups wanted the gold and the land.  President Jackson, with support of the Congress, defied the Supreme Court and allegedly said of the Chief Justice, “John Marshall has made his decision.  Now let him enforce it.”  Jackson dispatched the Army to remove the Cherokees from their land, sending them on a journey to Oklahoma that we now call the “Trail of Tears”.  If ever there was a time when a Congress should properly have impeached a President and removed him from office, this was it.

When you hear the word “populist” used to describe a politician, it may refer to someone who will do whatever it takes to implement the will of his hard-core constituents, even defying the Constitution, courts, and laws to the extent that he can.  Andrew Jackson, George Wallace, Joe McCarthy, and Donald Trump are a few examples.  They are very dangerous because they are willing to sacrifice the principles of a free nation on the altar of one special cause if that will get them elected.  If you notice one of them running for office, I hope you’ll vote for someone else.  I plan to.

CLICK BELOW

to hear Harold Thom and the Cumberlands sing the story of Cherokee Chief Junaluska,  who saved Andrew Jackson’s life then lived to regret it after walking The Trail of tears.

All Posts, budget, Congress, deficit, taxes

NEW IDEAS FOR A BALANCED BUDGET AMENDMENT

3 Comments

Our elected officials in Washington congratulate themselves for avoiding a government shutdown and argue about which non-budgetary legislation to tack onto “must-pass” short term spending bills while we limp from month to month with no long range financial plan .  This column is my attempt to persuade readers of all political stripes that we should pass a constitutional amendment requiring a balanced budget – not because I like the idea but because nothing else seems to work.

First, a dose of reality – Social Security is not the problem.  In 66 of its 77 years Social Security has brought in more money than it spent. That includes the most recent 34 consecutive years.  Because we are living longer and have the large baby-boom generation retiring, Social Security will need some combination of delayed retirement, increased taxes, and reduced benefits; but if congress will act soon, the changes will not be massive.

The real problems are in other areas of the budget.  Our deficit for 2015 was $439 billion despite a $19 billion surplus by Social Security.  Historical data from the US Office of Management and Budget show only two recent balanced budgets: 1999 and 2000 (President Bill Clinton’s last two years).  Prior to that it was 1960, the last year of President Eisenhower’s term.  We have had budget deficits for 53 of the last 55 years and our Congress seems more interested in cutting taxes and increasing spending than in balancing budgets.

Federal spending prior to WWII was typically 10% or less of the value of all the goods and services produced in the nation (GDP).  Since then the US has emerged as a world military power and has developed our social safety net.  As a result, Federal spending has been about 17-20% of GDP since 1975.    Data from the Federal Reserve Bank demonstrate that our serious debt problems emerged in the early 1980s when the Reagan Administration began cutting taxes for corporations and the wealthy without cutting spending.  Historical data from the Office of Management and Budget show that deficits became consistently large around the same time.  Total tax collections have actually remained fairly stable at 17-19% of GDP but the corporate share has been cut in half and capital gains taxes have been reduced while payroll taxes increased.

That is the background information.  Here are some ideas for a constitutional amendment:

  1. Congress is required to pass a budget and establish taxes to fund the budget for periods of time that are not less than one year.  The budget and taxes must be passed and sent to the President at least three months prior to the effective date.
  2. If the congress fails to pass a budget on time there will be a new election 90 days later to replace the entire congress.  The prior year’s budget and taxes will be automatically extended for one year or until they are changed by the new congress.
  3. The debt of the nation is limited to the sum of values of trust funds established by the congress (Social Security for example).
  4. The requirement to balance each budget may be waived during a state of emergency declared by a 60 percent majority of both houses of Congress.  The declaration is valid for not more than one year but can be renewed as many times as the Congress thinks necessary.
  5. At any time when there is no declared state of emergency, 2% of non-trust fund tax revenues will be set aside for reduction of excess debt.

The amendment will:

  1. Force the Congress to do its job.
  2. Protect Social Security and other trust funds that provide pre-paid benefits.
  3. Allow enough flexibility to deal with genuine emergencies and wars.
  4. Gradually pay down existing debt.

The amendment would force serious debate about priorities.  We will be less likely to go to war if we have to raise taxes for it.  There will be more pressure to eliminate wasteful spending and tax loopholes.  There will be pressure to raise taxes for infrastructure, research, and human services.

I was taught in high school that “Economics is the science of meeting unlimited human wants with the limited resources available.”  A balanced budget amendment will require our government to help us do exactly that.