As GM Goes...

...So Goes the Nation:



That old saying is starting to get more and more eerie by the day:



Sigh...

Comic Relief: Competence

More brilliance to add to the Tea Party nonsense going on (from crooksandliars.com):



Something about protesting... regardless of party or agenda (link NSFW)... sometimes puts a wee bit too much dumb out on display. We can add this to the previous post along these lines: Impeachment Idiocy Jumps Party Lines

Lordy!

Comic Relief: Earth Hour

Someone talking about "Earth Hour" the other day said it should be "Earth Hour" all the time. Got me remembering a place that instituted policies that accomplished just that.

Every day is "Earth Hour" in North Korea:

Comic Relief: Signs

Is it just "the money you could be saving by switching to GEICO?"



Or are greater forces at work here?



"See what you have to ask yourself is what kind of person are you? Are you the kind that sees signs, that sees miracles? Or do you believe that people just get lucky? Or, look at the question this way: Is it possible that there are no coincidences?" - Mel Gibson as Graham Hess in Signs

Comic Relief: Blame Game

And a slightly altered budget deficit graph from the last post:

Deficit Spending and Artful Dodging

A recent comment on Illini Pundit highlighted this graph being touted by the Heritage Foundation (a conservative think tank), but originally published in the Washington Post and based off of Congressional Budget Office figures:



SOURCE: CBO, White House Office of Management and Budget | The Washington Post - March 21, 2009

With all the blame games going on in Washington right now obscuring the larger problems that led to this mess, I'd like to take a moment to break down this graph and time line from an independent perspective and how that plays a role in my strong reservations about the massive deficit spending proposed/projected in the coming years.


The Clinton/Bush Transition:



There's little argument that the final years of the Clinton Administration ended on a high note when it came to the federal budget. The arguments often come in to play on what played the strongest factor... whether it was primarily due to increased revenues from an economy driven by the tech bubble, financial restraint due to interparty fighting between Congress and the White House, or purely partisan credit taking over Democratic leadership in the White House or Republican budget makers running the Congress. Such arguments tend to be ideologically driven in their cherry picking of helpful facts or dismissal of less helpful ones. So I'll bypass all that.

The economic front during the transition was that the tech bubble had reached its peak in job growth in the summer of 2000 and began it's long decline afterwards. Other industries driven to then all time highs followed and a recession resulted. Partisans will use the timing of when downturns began or when things were officially called recessions to credit/blame who they want. In the end I see this as economic factors mostly beyond either's control.

That downturn made the 10 year surplus projections little more than wishful thinking, but this should not, as many Clinton detractors try to paint it, be used as proof that there were no annual budget surpluses. There absolutey were.

Bush's grand scheme to help get us out of the economic slump was to use his proposed tax cuts from the campaign to stimulate the economy back out of recession as opposed to his original justification (essentially using the surplus as proof we're being overtaxed). This quickly sent the federal budget into deficit spending on the hopes that it would spur economic growth and revenues would eventually grow, even at lower rates, to ensure long term gain at the expense of the initial added debt.

What you won't hear during this transition is anything in the campaigns, the major parties, the media, etc...

Anything about some bill, introduced by a Republican, passed with bipartisan support (including our current VP and the last Democratic Party presidential candidate, and the current Democratic Senate Majority Leader), and signed into law by Bill Clinton, that is now infamous in it's repeal of FDR era restrictions on banks in the Glass-Stegall Act.

Not a peep. Perhap's they took notice when the results became more clear?

Moving on...


Bush's First Term:



As would be expected when lowering tax rates while revenues would have already been on the decline... the revenues dropped off sharper, and spending only increased, creating growing deficits. Throwing on wars in Afghanistan at the end of 2001 and in Iraq early in 2003 helped grow these deficits to record high levels. Saving the endless debates on the causes, necessity, etc of those wars is outside of the scope of this particular post. From a purely budgetary outlook, they played a major role the expanding deficits.

Those deficits also played a strong role in the 2004 presidential campaigns as Bush promised to cut the expected massive deficit of that year in half over the upcoming years and his opponent John Kerry chastising the President for his reckless budgetary management that was creating debt at alarming rates.

At that time the 500 billion dollar deficit was lambasted as untenable and dire outcomes were prophesized by Bush's detractors on the other side of the aisle and raising the ire of many on the right who highly prioritize fiscal conservative values. Bush eventually won a second term, but exit polling and media coverage seems to suggest that his strongest base of support came from so-called "values voters" primarily concerned with social conservative platforms and national security minded folks who still retained confidence in his foreign policy agenda.

But what about that Gramm bill that repealed that Glass-Steagall provision that is so important now? Perhaps the ramifications still hadn't become clear? At this point though, Bush had a fairly solid rubberstamp congress, and his first term was notable for making the only thing more rare than a veto threat was a veto pen sighting. Regardless. The responsibility to take notice and do something would be falling heavily on his Republican Party.


Bush's Second Term:



By the time Bush officially began his second term, the "jobless recovery" that Kerry spoke of had become a bad prediction. We weren't enjoying the full joys of the tech bubble wages or unemployment rates, but the indicators had improved back into what appeared to be a more realistic equilibrium. Tax revenues were rising to the point that they overtook the last revenues under the older tax rate due to the economic growth having a bigger economy to tax at lower rates.

And key to this particular post: the deficits began retracting and soon looked to make the claims of getting it under control appear plausible.

Now unbeknownst to the average joe and even most political wonks, there was a growing outcry in Republican ranks against a now infamous couple of organizations intertwined with the government: Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. What made this outcry in otherwise ignored c-span footage of hearings interesting was that it was Republicans, notorious for less government intervention and thus less regulation, calling for more oversight of these agencies. Meanwhile, Democrats, notorious for supporting more oversight and demanding investigations into shaddy corporate dealings, defending them with zeal.

These odd hearings and proposals faded away into internet archives until they became a major campaign issue years later as proof that Republicans warned about how these corporations could destabilize the entire financial markets while Democrats defended them almost to the point of absurdity... some even arguing of their stability within weeks of their collapse.

Partisans from both sides argue on this issue, just as with the Gramm bill, how influential it is in the financial collapse. On this particular issue though, Republicans for all the archived c-span footage they can find, cannot fight the fact that they controlled both the White House and Congress at the time, and while their dire predictions in them seemed pressing, their actions did not follow suit. The issue died out into oblivion.

Their excuse? They believed Democrats would paint them with an anti-poor/anti-minority brush effectively enough that their hands were effectively tied. To me this sounds as lame as the excuse that Democrats are unable to vote on national security issues that believe strongly on because they may be get the unpatriotic brush. As if preventing financial collapse of America or sending troops into harms way takes second fiddle to their convictions, because it might involve criticism and namecalling.

Gimme a friggin break.

By the end of 2007 this stuff was a distant memory at best. The economy was growing, the indicators were good. The primary campaigns were kicking off... and the economy, while an important issue, wasn't the issue it was about to become. It seemed the parties and politicians, just like the mortgage brokers, the house flippers, the banks, and investors, etc etc... were all making the same bet... the economy seemed to be pretty blatantly building itself on a housing bubble, and the bet was to make as much as you could as long as that lasted.

Drastic reforms in government or the private sector carried far too much personal risk at the time. Getting blamed for upending the economic growth and losing elections. Or missing out on all the money to be made. Meanwhile, those who could were constructing parachutes. The executives made theirs out of gold. The politicians made theirs out of bullshit.

Moving on...


The Bush/Obama Transition:



2008 being a campaign season was full of strange rhetoric on the economy. It started off in relatively decent shape to anyone watching the indicators... and then it began a steady march into chaos by the end of the year. Republican rhetoric, especially early on attempted to downplay the negative news, which is par for the course for an incumbent party. Play up the good, dismiss the bad. The competing party of course does the opposite for the same opaque rationale.

What changed with 2008 is that as the news got progressively worse, the years upon years of comparing the economy (which had to that point yet to fall beyond Clinton era indicators) to the Great Depression stopped sounding like so much Chicken Little. The 2004 election's most named president outside of Clinton was Herbert Hoover. But after the big crash in 2008, it finally sounded justified to the American public that finally had some basis beyond allegiance to a party letter to think the sky might be falling.

And it was after this crash that wonks and political insiders began digging to see how they could blame anyone but themselves for letting this happen. And to their credit, the terms "Glass-Steagall" and youtubes of Republicans fighting Democrats over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to thwart the otherwise inevitable collapse of the financial markets were zoomed to households across America.

What America is left with though is a whole lot of excuses to blame the other guys:

• 1999: A bipartisan bill used to blame Republicans who introduced it, supported by current and former Democratic leadership.

• 2000-2004: Years of both parties doing little to nothing related to that. A non-issue in the campaigns.
  

• 2005-2007: A sideshow of outcry not backed by action over what many blame to be central players in the fiasco. Still years of both parties doing little to nothing related to what the others blame for it... even after a switch of party control of Congress.

• 2008: The most recent political campaigns entirely devoid of tackling either of the primary focuses of blame until after the collapse.

• 2008 - present: Massive spending proposals put forth and passed by both parties to repair the problem as the blame games continue.

It is entirely accurate to claim that Obama is inheriting this mess from his predecessors. It's a bit more difficult, especially if one takes the typical Democratic train of thought on the creation of this mess, to not include among those predecessors members of his own party along with the Bush Admin and Republican leaders. All of whom did nothing on issue they consider the focal point of this mess and many of whom supported it, including his Vice President.

In his brief years as a US Senator during this time, he certainly didn't use his rising star status to highlight the impending doom and attempt to get action taken to stop it. As such, he's also inheriting this problem from himself, at least in part.


What We're Left With:

But let us flash back to 2004 when those Bush deficits were going to destroy us. The Chicken Littles even had me fairly convinced that such spending was unsustainable beyond the near-short term. Where are all those Kerry supporters who candidly believed such fiscal policy was going to cause irrepairable harm these days? Deficits and the economy in general were such a large part of his argument. It's hard to believe that these concerns vanished overnight.

Right now Obama is promising to get deficits to dip to levels that put those to shame years from now... but still be higher over the long term. The CBO not only finds his projects to be a conservative estimate at best in many years, but by trillions of dollars over those years.

How do you convince an independent that Bush's 2004 deficit would have dire results over the long term, and tell that same independent four years later that far worse deficits can be sustained for the next decade (White House projection)... or convince him that what may be the more realistic CBO figures of unfathomable deficits can be sustained over that same decade.

It leaves me wondering three things:

1. Where's the money going to come from? Other nations are already in recession and printing up extra trillions risks all sorts of equally unfathomable consequences.

2. If the economy begins to recover with what has been done thus far, will the powers that be use it as an excuse to go full steam ahead off this budgetary cliff? Or will restraint be supported and/or possible among them?

3. Social Security and Medicare crunches are coming and the first baby boomers are retiring. All major reform initiatives in the last decade, from Clinton to Bush have met with fierce opposition... with their talk of insolvency disregarded as irrelevant fear-mongering. After all, with the proper budgeting we should be able to fully fund those crunches when they come...

With this budget and its associated projections its hard to come away feeling like it is a realistic approach on the short term, but especially unrealistic for the long term. I suppose the real question one must ask of his or herself:

If we could spend like this without any negative consequence, why haven't we been able to fully fund the VA for veterans care, spend oodles to streamline all sorts of government agencies that aid the poor and disabled, and why is it such a laudable accomplishment of the Clinton Administration to have budget surpluses when none of these and other issues had been resolved?

The obvious answer, as far as I can tell, is that because this kind of deficit spending comes with a multitude of dire consequences, many of those probably mentioned by Kerry supporters now attempting to justify far worse under the Obama Administration.

Convincing an independent is going to take a bit more than, "Oh yeah? Well Bush started it!" this time around.

Impeachment Idiocy Jumps Party Lines

From a left-wing blog complaining that the right is doing what the left-wing had been doing for roughly 8 years:

The Orlando Sentinel quoted one attendee saying, “They need to shove that bum out,” referring to Obama. The signs that were distributed said “Obama Bin Lyin’ IMPEACH NOW”:

The “tea party” protests nationwide are being coordinated by the conservative public relations firm Freedom Works, which is run by former Majority Leader Dick Armey (R-TX). The tea parties are also being supported by Newt Gingrich, through his organization American Solutions For Winning the Future. Members of Congress, such as Rep. Jean Schmidt (R-OH), have appeared at previous rallies. In addition, Fox News’ Glenn Beck promotes the protests, and has launched a website publicizing the events.

Of course as the post makes clear, they still feel fully vindicated in their prior support of the impeachment of Bush which helped bring out all sorts of weirdos and trend setting equations to repugnant figures:



(all pictures from zombietime.com's collection)

So I guess that just leaves me to do what any lazy blogger would do... rehash my argument about the absurdity of impeaching Bush and apply it to Obama:

Even more problematic for the theory is that while the judicial system is normally charged with the guilt or innocence of a man, Constitutional questions of this nature would be normally handled at the appellate or Supreme Courts that merely resolve questions of law, not guilt. A President who commits an action that is authorized by Congress may be forced to cease that action if the judiciary finds that authorization to be unconstitutional. This does not mean however that the President is guilty of a crime as the Constitution specifically empowers him to execute the laws, even if it is later determined that those laws and his actions were incorrect. Currently this is a non-issue because as of today, neither the laws nor the actions of [President Obama] have been found to be contrary to the Constitution or contrary to our treaty obligations. I only explain it as others may look to other issues that have been ruled upon such as those involving detainment camps and wrongly believe they found a loophole.

...

The President is charged with executing the laws of the United States passed by Congress, the representatives of the People and States of the Union, it would be amazing to see the complex and absurd construction of arguments required to claim that carrying out that authorization was somehow a crime.

...

And even if you convinced some that this convoluted theory of [Obama somehow committing a high crime or misdemeanor is sound], the difficulty of getting over a few hundred politicians to agree would be staggering. Beyond the [partisan Obama detractors], the support for such a highly politicized move would be fractured at best, minute at worst. Of all the proposed reasons to attempt to impeach the president, this [sheer political disagreement] would probably get [little to no] support.

Until Obama perjures himself, beats up his mother-in-law, or commits some other actual high crime or misdemeanor worthy of impeachment, is it too much to ask for people to grow up and act like adults for a minute and stop pulling the, "But MOM! He did it FIRST!" crap with schoolyard politicking?

And no neither committed treason either (for those that pull that nonsensical attack out of their butts). From Article III, Section 3 of the Constitution:

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.

And before you start saying, "but but..." take a careful observation of where the 'and's 'or's and commas are. If you still think what either did so far fits the definition, then you need an English class and perhaps a refresher course on the Federalist Papers that note the intentionally limited scope of the offense, and of the federal government as a whole to help limit the abuse of its powers.

</end of rant>

Obama: Bonus Tax Unconstitutional

From the Associated Press account:

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Barack Obama wagered significant political capital Sunday, signaling opposition to a highly popular congressional drive to slap a punitive 90 percent tax on bonuses to big earners at financial institutions already deeply in hock to taxpayers.

Obama defended his stance by saying the tax would be unconstitutional and that he would not "govern out of anger." He declared his determination, nevertheless, to make Wall Street understand it must shed "the old way of doing business."

The related Politico article expounded on this a bit more:

Still, Obama would not endorse legislation moving through Congress to tax nearly all the bonuses of executives at AIG. Asked if the measure is constitutional, the former law professor said: “Well, I think that as a general proposition, you don't want to be passing laws that are just targeting a handful of individuals…And as a general proposition, I think you certainly don't want to use the tax code—is to punish people.”

“So let's see if there are ways of doing this that are both legal, that are constitutional that uphold our basic principles of fairness, but don't hamper us from getting the banking system back on track,” Obama said.

The key words here are "targeting" and "punish" which is the basis of the strongest Constitutional argument against this tax that troubled me from day one:

It's hard to say with any certainty what the final language of this proposal may be, if it even gets off the ground to begin with, but from the attitude and descriptions thus far it seems set to become a legal battle over whether it violates this part of Article I, Section 9 (the section that states specific limits of legislative authority) of the Constitution:

No bill of attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.

For a quick refresher for those who may have forgotten (perhaps Dodd himself?)

bill of attainder: a legislative act that imposes punishment without a trial

In other words: this could get interesting.

Obama seems to at least recognize that this legislation is on shaky ground, even if he may be able to eventually win in drawn out court battles finding loopholes in precedent, that the precedent being set could be a dangerous one. I've always found one of the sure fire ways of testing whether one truly believes a government power is necessary is to contemplate how it may be abused by your political opponents when the election cycles change to their favor again.

With Bush setting the precedent on signing statements that essentially pass what he felt were unconstitutional provisions of bills into law as "advisory" now being fully executable by the Obama Administration, would his die hard supporters still defend the practice? Will they, only now, hypocritically criticize Obama for doing the same thing with signing statements? What good would it do? People would treat it as partisan posturing, as laughable to their political opponents as their born again faith in fiscal responsibility... after years of self-serving pork projects and funding their own agenda with mass deficits while in power. Now the other guys have the ball and they claim they've 'seen the light' when all it comes off as is wanting to block the other side from doing the same stuff they'd pull if they hadn't gotten the boot.

Unfortunately for independents who prefer a stricter adherence to the Constitution, both major parties in our country are far too self-serving to come off as much more than hypocrites vying for power and changing their tune endlessly to that end at the expense of the document they swear to uphold.

In a rare example, President Obama is bucking the trend and asking the mob to simmer down and respect the founding document, as he puts it, at the expense of some political capital. It's more than a bit sad that such a notion should cost any of our elected leaders political capital.

Thank you, Mister President for the reminder, as unusual and probably brief, it may be.

Comic Relief: Vetting

It's not just for cabinet posts anymore

Biden walks a day in the shoes of a union worker... makes propaganda video... then the worker gets busted for pickpocketing at the state capital:



(h/t redstate.com)

Obama Abandons Idiotic Vet Move

From the Washington Post:

President Obama today abandoned a proposal to bill veterans' private insurance companies for treatment of combat-related injuries after the measure prompted an outcry from veterans service organizations and members of Congress.

The proposal would have authorized the Department of Veterans Affairs to charge private companies for treating injuries and other medical conditions related to military service, such as amputations, post-traumatic stress disorder and other battle wounds. The measure was intended to save the VA about $530 million a year, but the administration's pursuit of third-party billing sparked resistance from leaders of powerful veterans groups, who met earlier this week with Obama.

In a statement released this afternoon, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said the president has "instructed that its consideration be dropped."

From what I've seen so far, the decision to finally drop this boneheaded idea that would threaten to have disabled veterans fight with their insurance companies on care that is clearly the responsibility of the VA has been greeted by veteran organizations with high praises that Obama is sticking to his campaign rhetoric of the sacred trust to support veterans that we as a nation owe so much to.

But why was it being considered in the first place? Why the hell would it be put into his budget plans? And why the hell didn't he drop it like a stone once someone pointed out that it was there (assuming it was just some budget staffer using it to pad the budget numbers and Obama was just unaware)?

Instead he had his administration, including his Chief of Staff, meet with the leaders of veteran organizations to discuss the issue and persisted in keeping it as part of the budget. In a heated response to that meeting the American Legion representative noted:

"I got the distinct impression that the only hope of this plan not being enacted," said Commander Rehbein, "is for an alternative plan to be developed that would generate the desired $540-million in revenue.

The Obama Administration was actually pushing them to come up with money saving schemes in order to be convinced to have the government pay for the war wounds of the veterans they represent. Could they have sunk any lower?

So what's the other side of the argument? What was the rationale used by supporters of this plan? Well so far I haven't found any. On the left... on the right... the middle... mars... nobody in their right mind thought this was a good idea. The Daily Show talked about it in their "That Can't Be Right" segment the other day:



It wasn't until yesterday, after further denunciation by other party leaders (yes his own) in Congress, in the media, by everyone who heard about it... that Obama finally had his spokesman declare the proposal dead. Is the administration so desperate to scrounge every last penny from every last place possible that they'd risk this kind of backlash? Should veterans feel too comforted by that? What about the next attempt to nickle and dime them that gets less attention?

I know Obama said that everyone would have to sacrifice to deal with this economic meltdown... but I think it's safe to say that disabled veterans already have their sacrifice credits paid in full.

I argued during the campaign that Obama's stances on veterans issues were strongly favorable to veterans, even when I thought that doing it this way or that way would be better. This indefensible week has thrown any confidence I had with him on veterans issues completely out the window. And while various veterans organizations seem content for now with the way this situation ended, the fact it existed in the first place should give them significant pause. Especially when that approval is based on funding increases that, while always beneficial to the VA system, may not be enough to match plans to increase enrollment or meet current shortfalls, especially beyond this year's budget. As veterans advocate Larry Scott notes:

While the "insurance" proposal may disappear, there is another proposal that shouldn't have disappeared... and that's "advance appropriation" for the VA budget.

It is nowhere to be found... and that's a big problem.

While campaigning for the Presidency, Obama promised to support mandatory funding for VA healthcare. I even have a copy of the signed pledge. Then, he backed away from that and talked of full funding. Then, he said he supported the "advance appropriation" concept (where VA gets its budget a year in advance), and now he's backed away from that.

This is an issue where we must hold Obama's feet to the fire.

Stop waffling and fund the VA without any gimmicks or nonsense, Mr. President... please.

There seems to be ample reason to believe there will be more fights ahead given some of the unresolved (and less covered fights) still in progress.

Comic Relief: Soundly Weak

Fun moment in political absurdity noted on the right-wing blog RedState.com the other day via an AP article and youtube:

WASHINGTON (AP) — The economy is fundamentally sound despite the temporary "mess" it's in, the White House said Sunday in the kind of upbeat assessment that Barack Obama had mocked as a presidential candidate.

...

During the fall campaign, Obama relentlessly criticized his Republican opponent, Sen. John McCain, for declaring, "The fundamentals of our economy are strong." Obama's team painted the veteran senator as out of touch and failing to grasp the challenges facing the country.

But on Sunday, that optimistic message came from economic adviser Christina Romer. When asked during an appearance on NBC's "Meet the Press" if the fundamentals of the economy were sound, she replied: "Of course they are sound."

"The fundamentals are sound in the sense that the American workers are sound, we have a good capital stock, we have good technology," she said. "We know that — that temporarily we're in a mess, right? We've seen huge job loss, we've seen very large falls in GDP. So certainly in the short run we're in a — in a bad situation."

Just a week ago, White House Office of Management and Budget director Peter Orszag declared that "fundamentally, the economy is weak." Days later, Obama told reporters he was confident in the economy.

Obama's press secretary was able to explain this inconsistency as only a White House Press Secretary can... hilariously:



The Daily Show helped shed some light on the sad realities of the White House press corps and of course the the secretaries themselves:

The Daily Show With Jon StewartM - Th 11p / 10c

White House Press Corps

At least one thing is certain in this economy, "change" is hard to come by.

Faux Outrage Over AIG Bonuses

Outrage, outrage... everybody is outraged over AIG bonuses! From CNN:

President Obama on Monday expressed dismay and anger over the bonuses to executives at AIG.

"This is a corporation that finds itself in financial distress due to recklessness and greed," Obama told politicians and reporters in the Roosevelt Room of the White House, where he and Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner were unveiling a package to aid the nation's small businesses.

Obama said he will attempt to block bonuses for AIG, payments he described as an "outrage."

"Under these circumstances, it's hard to understand how derivative traders at AIG warranted any bonuses, much less $165 million in extra pay. I mean, how do they justify this outrage to the taxpayers who are keeping the company afloat?"

And from Fox:

Lawmakers outraged at bailed-out American International Group's move to pay $165 million in executive bonuses are turning their fire on the Obama administration, asking why top officials didn't act to prevent the pay-out earlier.

Though President Obama pledged last month to crack down on executive pay for companies that take "exceptional" amounts of federal bailout money, the administration now seems to be struggling to take action to retrieve the bonuses AIG says it is contractually obligated to pay.

This, despite the fact the government, with its $170 billion in assistance, holds about an 80 percent stake in the company, and just pledged another $30 billion.

"It seems like they are an administration in disarray," House Minority Whip Eric Cantor, R-Va., said Tuesday.

Sen. Richard Shelby, R-Ala., suggested Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner does not have a handle on the AIG matter.

The chatter around the interwebs seems to show that supporters of both parties are joining in the outrage and pointing fingers at the other side for either "protecting their rich republican buddies" or the Obama admin doing too little too late.

Of course neither side feels too inclined to point the fingers at themselves in spite of their bipartisan support of the Bush bailout bill (though both sides seem to be happy to disown that one along with Bush himself) and the Democratic party support of the Obama stimulus bill... both of which specifically protected prior bonus contracts. Given our system that emphasizes the role of government to uphold and certainly not to impede the obligations of private contracts, this isn't as outrageous as is now being depicted... even if the contracts themselves are outrageous.

So now that everyone is all outraged again over what they apparently couldn't do much about before, people are coming up with new creative ways to make it look like they're doing something about the situation they clearly did nothing about before and codified into law. From the same CNN article above:

Senate Democrats want to tax the controversial bonuses doled out to AIG employees who work for the division that led to the company's downfall.
Congress is looking at ways to deal with the outrage surrounding AIG's controversial bonuses.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid announced on the Senate floor Tuesday that the tax-writing Senate Finance Committee will pursue a legislative fix in such a way that the "recipients of those bonuses will not be able to keep all their money -- and that's an understatement."

Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, D-Montana, will propose a special tax within the next 24 hours, Reid said.

"I don't think those bonuses should be paid," Baucus said Tuesday.

AIG has received $173 billion in U.S. government bailouts over the past six months. The provision would help the government get back the money in the form of tax revenue.

The special-tax idea was first floated Monday by Sen. Chris Dodd, chairman of the Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs.

"We have a right to tax," the Connecticut Democrat told CNN. "You could write a tax provision that's narrowly crafted only to the people receiving bonuses."

Of course what is noteworthy about this is that Dodd is the Democrat who included the language protecting these contracts in the Obama stimulus bill:

Senator Chris Dodd (D-Conn.) on Monday night floated the idea of taxing American International Group (AIG) bonus recipients so the government could recoup the $450 million the company is paying to employees in its financial products unit. Within hours, the idea spread to both houses of Congress, with lawmakers proposing an AIG bonus tax.

While the Senate constructed the $787 billion stimulus last month, Dodd unexpectedly added an executive-compensation restriction to the bill. That amendment provides an “exception for contractually obligated bonuses agreed on before Feb. 11, 2009,” which exempts the very AIG bonuses Dodd and others are seeking to tax. The amendment is in the final version and is law.

It's hard to say with any certainty what the final language of this proposal may be, if it even gets off the ground to begin with, but from the attitude and descriptions thus far it seems set to become a legal battle over whether it violates this part of Article I, Section 9 (the section that states specific limits of legislative authority) of the Constitution:

No bill of attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.

For a quick refresher for those who may have forgotten (perhaps Dodd himself?)

bill of attainder: a legislative act that imposes punishment without a trial

In other words: this could get interesting.

Even More Change We Can Be Confused In

This is just blatant. From the Associated Press:

Obama issues signing statement on spending bill

WASHINGTON – Two days after criticizing his predecessor for issuing guidelines on how to put legislation into practice, President Barack Obama issued such a directive himself.

Out of public view Wednesday, Obama signed a $410 billion spending bill that includes billions for items known as earmarks, the targeted spending that lawmakers direct to projects in their districts. Obama promised during the presidential campaign to curb such spending.

He also issued a "signing statement" in which he objected to provisions of the bill that he said the Justice Department had advised "raise constitutional concerns." Among them are provisions that Obama said would "unduly interfere" with his authority in the foreign affairs arena by directing him how to proceed, or not to, in negotiations and discussions with international organizations and foreign governments.

And from a related AP article:

On another potentially controversial matter, the president also issued a "signing statement" with the bill, saying several of its provisions raised constitutional concerns and would be taken merely as suggestions. He has criticized President George W. Bush for often using such statements to claim the right to ignore portions of new laws, and on Monday he said his administration wouldn't follow those issued by Bush unless authorized by the new attorney general.

This is an issue I criticized Bush on in the past:

Secondly if the provisions of the law are being mislabeled as advisory because he believes they are unconstitutional then he is also not upholding his oath to defend the Constitution by signing unconstitutional provisions into law. Sure he's not implementing them so one might claim he isn't himself violating the Constitution, but he's not going to be President forever, next time it could be Hillary or Obama or somebody else who might actually start executing these unconstitutional provisions that Bush himself signed into law.

As much as I'd love to see a line-item veto amendment I just can't bring myself to advocate interpreting the Constitution as what I wish it said as opposed to what it actually says. Bush is not upholding his oath on this subject and I'm going to join in with some of the other Constitutionalist folks and say it needs to stop. We need a real line-item veto, not some back door violation of the Constitution in its place.

All part of the ongoing series "Change We Can Be Confused In":

• Change[ing into Bush]: Daily Show notes that Obama's Iraq policy is indistinguishable from the policy Bush left off with.
  

• Hope Floats?: Economic woes, hero status, and some eerily familiar deficit promises and other Bush imitations.
  

• Change We Can Be Confused In: On all sorts of foreign policy and few other policies.

• Non-Believers Too: On reaching out to non-believers.

• More Change We Can Be Confused In: On the inauguration and McCain being tapped by Obama for advice.

• A Tale of Two CnCs: On reaching out the Islamic world.

• Comic Relief: Windows Error: Obama proving that it isn't just Bush who can have embarrassing moments.

Welcome to Bush's 3rd Term:



Yikes!

Durbin Kicking Obama Kids Classmates Out?

Chicago Tribune on this interesting conundrum:

A cruel school move

We wrote last week about Democratic efforts to strip 1,900 low-income Washington children of $7,500 "opportunity scholarships" to attend private schools.

It's an experiment in school vouchers, an experiment with little potential downside. But it's an experiment that was launched in 2004 by a Republican-controlled Congress. Today it's on the verge of extinction because the Democratic-controlled Congress wants to do the bidding of public-school teachers unions. The unions see vouchers that let poor kids go to private schools as aiding the enemy.

Language passed by the House as part of a massive $410 billion spending bill would effectively doom the federally funded program. The 1,900 kids would have to leave their schools and re-enter public schools in Washington, which has some of the worst schools in the nation.

The measure, by the way, is referred to as "the Durbin language" for sponsoring Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois.

The article goes on about the hitch, which was laid out by the Wall Street Journal earlier in the week:

Dick Durbin has a nasty surprise for two of Sasha and Malia Obama's new schoolmates. And it puts the president in an awkward position.

The children are Sarah and James Parker. Like the Obama girls, Sarah and James attend the Sidwell Friends School in our nation's capital. Unlike the Obama girls, they could not afford the school without the $7,500 voucher they receive from the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship program. Unfortunately, a spending bill the Senate takes up this week includes a poison pill that would kill this program -- and with it perhaps the Parker children's hopes for a Sidwell diploma.

Sarah and James Parker attend Sidwell Friends School with the president's daughters, thanks to a voucher program Sen. Dick Durbin wants to end.

Known as the "Durbin language" after the Illinois Democrat who came up with it last year, the provision mandates that the scholarship program ends after the next school year unless Congress reauthorizes it and the District of Columbia approves. The beauty of this language is that it allows opponents to kill the program simply by doing nothing. Just the sort of sneaky maneuver that's so handy when you don't want inner-city moms and dads to catch on that you are cutting one of their lifelines.

There was a debate over these issues during the campaign on a local blog, Illini Pundit, a while back over the hypocrisy of Obama's words versus actions on public versus private education:

"But what I do oppose is using public money for private school vouchers. We need to focus on fixing and improving our public schools; not throwing our hands up and walking away from them."

versus his own walking away from public school (long before his move to D.C.):

OBAMA: My kids have gone to the University of Chicago Lab School, a private school, because I taught there, and it was five minutes from our house. So it was the best option for our kids.

The big question is whether he'll kick out some of his own kids' classmates while being a long time hypocrite on whether the poor deserve the same opportunities his kids have.

Fastest Growing Religious Category

None!

From USA Today:

Most religious groups in USA have lost ground, survey finds

When it comes to religion, the USA is now land of the freelancers.

The percentage. of people who call themselves in some way Christian has dropped more than 11% in a generation. The faithful have scattered out of their traditional bases: The Bible Belt is less Baptist. The Rust Belt is less Catholic. And everywhere, more people are exploring spiritual frontiers — or falling off the faith map completely.

These dramatic shifts in just 18 years are detailed in the new American Religious Identification Survey (ARIS), to be released today. It finds that, despite growth and immigration that has added nearly 50 million adults to the U.S. population, almost all religious denominations have lost ground since the first ARIS survey in 1990.

...

Among the key findings in the 2008 survey:

• So many Americans claim no religion at all (15%, up from 8% in 1990), that this category now outranks every other major U.S. religious group except Catholics and Baptists. In a nation that has long been mostly Christian, "the challenge to Christianity … does not come from other religions but from a rejection of all forms of organized religion," the report concludes.

And some revealing graphs on how religion has been trending down in the states while those with no religion have been trending up (click to enlarge):

Catholic:



Other Christians:



Other Religions:



No Religion:



Don't know/refuse to answer:



For a detailed breakdown of the national figures they also had this chart:



Times they are a changin'...

Hill-arity Ensues

Hillary Clinton continues to inspire "as a breath of fresh air" to the international community:

Tongue-tied Clinton gets warm EU welcome

BRUSSELS (Reuters) - Hillary Clinton raised eyebrows on her first visit to Europe as secretary of state when she mispronounced her EU counterparts' names and claimed U.S. democracy was older than Europe's.

...

A veteran politician, Clinton compared the complex European political environment to that of the two-party U.S. system, before adding:

"I have never understood multiparty democracy.

"It is hard enough with two parties to come to any resolution, and I say this very respectfully, because I feel the same way about our own democracy, which has been around a lot longer than European democracy."

The remark provoked much headshaking in the parliament of a bloc that likes to trace back its democratic tradition thousands of years to the days of classical Greece.

Add this mind boggling bit of grade school level ignorance to the embarrassing "red button" incident with Russia:



As the Politico article on this noted:

“We worked hard to get the right Russian word. Do you think we got it?” Clinton said as reporters, allowed in to observe the first few minutes of the meeting, watched.

“You got it wrong,” Lavrov said, to Clinton’s clear surprise. Instead of "reset," he said the word on the box meant “overcharge.”

Hell, the whole thing could have been written off as a mere typo, but instead she pointed out that they worked hard to look that incompetent to the entire planet. Wonderful.

The current display of just absolute ignorance on the roots of our own democracy, let alone on European soil, makes the "red button" incident seem tame in comparison. Sure the name goof ups can be written off as simple mistakes of someone who is not an experienced diplomat... wait... she's essentially the nation's top diplomat below the president... perhaps some diplomatic experience would be handy? Perhaps some foreign policy education? Or experience beyond photo-op tea parties?

Nah!

How about as a law student who almost certainly would have had to have taken at least a Constitutional Law course... at least read the federalist papers once... at least would have had some US history or world history course to know the origins of democracy?

Nah! Understanding the historical roots of democracy is too much to ask of our top diplomat who happens to be a member of the DEMOCRATIC FUCKING PARTY!!!

Apparently all that got smoked away into oblivion in her hippy days. Hopefully that intro to international relations class didn't get completely smoked away too.

My gawd!

No wonder she's getting such warm receptions from everyone she meets. They probably think it's a safe bet that they can play her like a fiddle to get exactly what they want in spite of any U.S. interests. Friggin wonderful. A recent cartoon seemed to sum up the general difference between Bush's diplomatic relations and Obama's:




Change!

Three Takes On Button Typo

My previous post on Hillary's Russian meeting that had the red button with the embarrassing typo also got covered on the front page of all three major cable news websites. As of this posting the current articles played out like this:

Fox News made the red button goof the headline of the article.

CNN had a more general headline and instead mentioned the goof early in the article.

MSNBC's article never mentioned the goof at all.

Funny how that played out, eh?

Comic Relief: US / Russia Push the Button

It's stuff like this that would almost make someone miss having a Secretary of State with some foreign language skills, specifically Russian, and with an education and distinguished career in foreign policy:

Russian media teases Clinton over 'reset' button

MOSCOW (AFP) — Russian media has been poking fun at US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton after she gave her Russian counterpart a "reset" button with an ironic misspelling.

Clinton's gift to Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov at their meeting in Geneva on Friday evening was meant to underscore the Obama administration's readiness to "to press the reset button" in ties with Moscow.

But instead of the Russian word for "reset" (perezagruzka) it featured a slightly different word meaning "overload" or "overcharged" (peregruzka).

Daily newspaper Kommersant put a prominent picture of the fake red button on its front page and declared: "Sergei Lavrov and Hillary Clinton pushed the wrong button."

The popularly linked Politico story on the meeting mentioned the bumbling, but then went a bit further by implying an accomplishment where there wasn't one:

Despite the shoddy translation work on the U.S. side, Clinton and Lavrov emerged from their meeting a few hours later saying they had accomplished their initial goal—reducing the frostiness in U.S.-Russia relations that had taken hold by the end of the Bush administration.

...

They each emphasized that major disagreements and disputes remain on matters such as U.S. support for Georgia, the former Soviet republic invaded by Moscow last year, and on an announced sale by Moscow of advanced air defense missiles to Iran. The improvement in tone was unmistakable compared to the icy encounters that Lavrov used to hold with Clinton’s predecessor.

But in a meeting largely devoid of concrete accomplishments, Clinton’s gift became a source of continuing amusement to everyone except her staff, who realized that flubbing a foreign language hardly made their boss, the nation’s top diplomat, look good.

The "icy encounters" with Russian expert Condoleezza Rice were specifically over Russia's intimidation and even invasion of neighboring countries who have been considering joining NATO. It was because of their support of Iran that has helped, as the IAEA recently reported, get them closer to being a nuclear power while also aiding them with conventional weapons against possible attacks by the nations that those weapons could threaten.

We've basically just let the Russian's know that the new Administration is more interested in appearing to get along than actually protecting our interests. No wonder the atmosphere was far more cordial. From the Russian perspective it seems like their stick shaking policies with Cuba, Iran, and Venezuela paid off and the new administration is effectively rattled enough to give them what they want for little in return and possibly nothing of any significance.

But I suppose when our Secretary of State has no foreign policy education, nor any foreign policy background, nor even diplomatic experience beyond photo-op tea parties while doing the obligatory media friendly events for her spouse... I guess that at least getting on a first name basis is about all we can expect from nations belligerent to our allies and aiding nations who are belligerent to us.

For what it's worth to Obama's supporters, this is at least a change. But to the folks living in regions endangered by this appeasement, this is one joke that just isn't funny.

Change[ing into Bush]

From Tuesday night's Daily Show:

The Daily Show With Jon StewartM - Th 11p / 10c

Mess O'Potamia - The Iraq War Is Over

Daily Show Full Episodes
Important Things With Demetri Martin

Political Humor
Joke of the Day

Now, if you're still reading this I'll assume you've made it through the video without facepalming yourself into a concussion...

So what's this SOFA agreement? It's the Bush "time horizon" that was established in December.

The Daily Show has stumbled on a fact generally ignored by every major news outlet: Obama's Iraq policy continues to be indistinguishable from Bush's Iraq policy beyond parsing words... wait, no even parsing the same words.

For more in the "Change we can be confused in" posts:

• Hope Floats?: Economic woes, hero status, and some eerily familiar deficit promises and other Bush imitations.
  

• Change We Can Be Confused In: On all sorts of foreign policy and few other policies.

• Non-Believers Too: On reaching out to non-believers.

• More Change We Can Be Confused In: On the inauguration and McCain being tapped by Obama for advice.

• A Tale of Two CnCs: On reaching out the Islamic world.

• Comic Relief: Windows Error: Obama proving that it isn't just Bush who can have embarrassing moments.

Welcome to Bush's 3rd Term:



Yikes!

Rush Fools In?

From the Politico:

Rush Job: Inside Dems' Limbaugh plan

Top Democrats believe they have struck political gold by depicting Rush Limbaugh as the new face of the Republican Party, a full-scale effort first hatched by some of the most familiar names in politics and now being guided in part from inside the White House.

The strategy took shape after Democratic strategists Stanley Greenberg and James Carville included Limbaugh’s name in an October poll and learned their longtime tormentor was deeply unpopular with many Americans, especially younger voters. Then the conservative talk-radio host emerged as an unapologetic critic of Barack Obama shortly before his inauguration, when even many Republicans were showering him with praise.

Soon it clicked: Democrats realized they could roll out a new GOP bogeyman for the post-Bush era by turning to an old one in Limbaugh, a polarizing figure since he rose to prominence in the 1990s.

Now conservatives may think any plan to use Rush to hurt the Republican party is just absurd on its face since most of them think that if the party was closer to Rush's hard line on ideology the party wouldn't be in the dire straights it is in right now.

The problem with this perspective is that it assumes that Rush appeals to some vast swath of the American electorate beyond hard line conservatives. And while the US may be arguably a right of center nation, it is not a hard line right-wing one by any stretch of the imagination. The Politico article summed up the dilemma for Rush fans who may consider his popularity among themselves as indicative of his popularity among anyone else:

“His positives for voters under 40 was 11 percent,” Carville recalled with a degree of amazement, alluding to a question about whether voters had a positive or negative view of the talk show host.

Paul Begala, a close friend of Carville, Greenberg and White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, said they found Limbaugh’s overall ratings were even lower than the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Obama’s controversial former pastor, and William Ayers, the domestic terrorist and Chicago resident who Republicans sought to tie to Obama during the campaign.

Rush's penchant to be a bit of shock jock with his political views probably doesn't help Republicans much if they go for this cheese and dismiss the well marked trap it's being dished from. He is an invaluable rabble rouser for multitudes of conservative voters, but his vitriol against almost everyone else shouldn't be the public face of the party, unless they truly want to extend their minority status in government and be otherwise irrelevant in shaping policy.

How can I say that? Because even when Republicans win, they can't be scaring off the people in the middle. From CNN's 2004 exit poll page (national results):



As is evident, moderates and independents and even cross-over Democrats played a fairly large role in an otherwise narrow GOP victory in 2004. At the link one can also see the strong support among Latino voters who were encouraged by Bush's moderate policies on immigration reform... a voting demographic that was effectively run off by the rabble that was roused by some of the more incendiary talk radio nitwits out there.

The 2004 election's fate ended up on Ohio, a modern bellwether State (Ohio-only results):



Now the GOP lost in 2008 for a variety of factors, and while talk radio folks like to blame that primarily on McCain's moderate stances, they also have themselves to blame for discouraging any base support for their own candidate that drove GOP turnout rates to modern lows. But that is neither here nor there. What should be important to them, is that when they do win, they must appeal beyond hard line conservatives, even if their candidate is a hard line conservative.

Allowing someone so dismissive of any other point of view to be framed as the figurehead of their party by their political opponents isn't something they should be rushing into. It may be nearly impossible to convince an ideologue to compromise on his views... but to deny the reality of voting demographics when presenting your case to American voters is just plain dumb.

Rush on Racism, Sexism, and Homophobia

Rush Limbaugh, early on in his diatribe, noted for the audience there and at home:

You know what the cliche is, a conservative: racist, sexist, bigot, homophobe. Excuse me, ladies and gentlemen of America, if you were paying attention, I know you were, the racism in our culture was exclusively and fully on display in the Democrat primary last year.

Now an objective person probably agrees that there were some shady dealings in the Democratic primary along these lines... but also has enough experience under his belt to know that both parties have their problems with these issues with both supporters and sometimes even their elected leaders.

So how did Rush go about making his case that these problems were primarily a Democratic issue?

On race issues:

Oh, by the way did you hear about Joe Biden? Joe Biden was mystified how Bobby Jindal got his shift off at 7-Eleven that night to make the speech. Wait a minute. Wait a minute. Time out. Suspend speech for explanation. People watching at home. I'm glad this happened. Glad this happened. You think I just made a joke, an ethnic joke about Bobby Jindal, don't you? I didn't. I made a joke about the bigotry of the Vice President of the United States, Joe Biden. It was Joe Biden while walking through the train station he knows so well because he's such a real guy, that he made a comment that you can't go into a 7-Eleven without seeing some Indian guy behind the counter. They're all over the place. Now, let a conservative say something like that and he's brought up before John Conyers' committee with Pat Leahy wanting at you next.

At least he qualified it... that it's okay to tell racist jokes if your political opponents make racially insenstive remarks in the recent past.

On Sexism:

Joe Biden, ladies and gentlemen, was watching CBS -- when did you start here? Thursday. You might have seen this. The days run together. It might have been Wednesday, but Biden was on the CBS Early Show. And he was asked -- the anchorette -- sorry. I'm trying to change my ways. I've been doing women summit programs so not to offend women.

Now perhaps it was just me, but it seemed odd to make the case you aren't being a sexist by mimicking Nick, the neo-nazi, gay bashing, sexist, from the movie Falling Down:

Nick: Why don't they call you guys officer-esses?
Sandra: I beg your pardon?
Nick: You know, like actress. Something to signify... You know.
Sandra: Oh. I guess they feel a police officer is a police officer. Not a... You know.
Nick: Okay then. Sorry I couldn't have been helpful, Officer-ess.

Okay, okay... perhaps that's just a coincidence I picked up since I enjoyed that movie. Who knows. But let's move on...

On homophobia:

That's like saying -- this is the voice of the New Castrati, by the way, guys who have lost their... [pause]... guts. You can't say Mr. Limbaugh that you want the President to fail because that's like saying you want the country to fail. [emphasis added by noting blatant pause and imitation of stereotypical gay lisp voice in italics]

I suppose that settles that. The cliche of conservative being a "racist, sexist, bigot, homophobe" has had the final stake in the heart thanks to Rush's sense of humor that makes light of such issues in a way that make him seem absolutely oblivious to how absurd he sounds to people who are concerned about it.

Bravo.

In related news the speech has caused a great deal of upheaval about who is really leading the Republican party. Michael Steele, the RNC's first black chairman, has been accused of colluding with the liberal media (ie the enemy) for agreeing with some of the criticisms of Rush and of the party's white dominated image. It appears that an even newer "New Castrati" is the RNC chairman according to the drudge headlines on the subject:

LIMBAUGH DOWNLOADS ON RNC CHAIRMAN...

Steele to Rush: I'm sorry...

Steele still claims to be the guy in charge of the party though.

All I can say is, "Good luck!" The "true conservative" types are out for blood, even against their own "moderates" and put anyone who gives an inch on anything as traitors... even recent candidates who spent years in POW camps for their nation. Just sad.

Comic Relief: White People

From America's finest news source:

WASHINGTON — A majority of African-Americans surveyed in a nationwide poll this week reported feeling "deeply disturbed" and "more than a little weirded out" by all the white people now smiling at them.

First witnessed shortly after President Obama's historic victory, the open and cheerful smiling has only continued in recent months, leaving members of the black community completely unnerved.

"On behalf of black people across this nation, I would like to say to our white brethren, 'Please stop looking at us like that,'" said Brown University psychology professor Dr. Stanley Carsons. "We're excited Barack is president, too, and we're glad you're happy for us. But giving us the thumbs up for no reason, or saying hello whenever we walk by, is really starting to freak us out."

....

"If you could all stop acting like you're generally pleased to see black people walking around, out in the open, that would be better for all of us," NAACP president Benjamin Jealous said to a smiling and misty-eyed press corps that was "just thrilled" to have him there. "It's very kind of you to be so enthusiastic about our achievements, but if it's still on the table, we'd like to return to the times when your reactions varied between unfounded apprehension and complete indifference. To be honest, you people are kind of terrifying when you're happy."

The full article is available here.

Unconstitutional Representation

A current bill making its way through congress provides for a voting member in the House of Representatives for the District of Columbia. The problem of this well-intentioned bill is that it is blatantly unconstitutional and must be addressed via a Constitutional amendment in order to accomplish legally. From the text of the bill:

SEC. 2. TREATMENT OF DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AS CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT.

(a) Congressional District and No Senate Representation-

(1) IN GENERAL- Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the District of Columbia shall be considered a congressional district for purposes of representation in the House of Representatives.

(2) NO REPRESENTATION PROVIDED IN SENATE- The District of Columbia shall not be considered a State for purposes of representation in the United States Senate.

The problem is that the Constitution limits the House of Representative members to the people of States to elect and specifically prohibits members who are not inhabitants of those same States from being seated. From Article I, Section 2:

The House of Representatives shall be composed of members chosen every second year by the people of the several states, and the electors in each state shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the state legislature.

No person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the age of twenty five years, and been seven years a citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an inhabitant of that state in which he shall be chosen.

The obvious no-brainer solution is a Constitutional amendment that would, as this bill attempts to do, make an exception for Washington D.C. just as Amendment XXIII did for presidential elections.

Unfortunately some folks, including D.C.'s current non-voting delegate to the House, Eleanor Holmes Norton, seem to think that good intentions are actually the 'supreme law of the land' and often are on record as hypocritically criticizing others for not respecting the Constitution as such on other matters. Funny how that works.

Unfortunately for her and other well-intentioned folks, the Constitution couldn't be much more clear on the issue and is looking to be easily squashed by the Supreme Court once it becomes law (which appears likely at this point). The district was intentionally given a non-state status by the founders and clearly delineated it as such in Article I, Section 8:

To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings;

Madison in Federalist #43 clearly describes what is intended by this section and specifically what this cession would mean for the residents of the area in giving up their ties to their State.

Eleanor Holmes Norton disregards both the blatant conflict this bill has with the Constitutional provisions for the makeup of the House of Representatives as well as the non-state status of the District of Columbia in the Constitution. She has argued as recently as this morning that the District is generally treated like a State by other provisions, using the income tax amendment as one example. But Amendment XVI does nothing to put D.C. on par with States:

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

In fact the only reference to the States is removing a prohibition on federal direct taxes from Article I, Section 9:

No capitation, or other direct, tax shall be laid, unless in proportion to the census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken.

This obviously didn't put D.C. on par with States in any way shape or form. It merely made all income taxable... which applies to income made in territories or foreign nations as well. That hardly treats Estonia as another American State either as far as the Constitution is concerned.

The one part of the Constitution that does treat D.C. like a State specifically gives it bottom rung treatment. Amendment XXIII makes an exception to the rule by treating D.C. "if it were a state" but then goes on to ensure that it can never have more presidential electors than the least populous State. The only things put on par with each other are the electors themselves who get the same vote as electors appointed from the States.

It made no further exceptions for D.C. and did not put D.C. on par with States. Most striking in this debate is that it required an Amendment to make the change. The same holds true with the current push for a voting House member from the district.

It may be the right thing to do, but it must be done by amendment.


The Bright Side:

This bill will likely die in the Supreme Court and help create some sympathy for a Constitutional Amendment to do the same thing anyways. The current bill that passed the Senate also has provisions to prevent federal regulation of political content in the media as well as ending many of the useless gun control policies in Washington D.C...

Being pro 1st Amendment and pro 2nd Amendment that's a good thing. One might ask then why I'd still consider it part of the bright side that the Supreme Court will throw this D.C. voting thing out on its ear?

Severability clauses, that's why:

SEC. 212. SEVERABILITY.

Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, if any provision of this Act, or any amendment made by this Act, or the application of such provision or amendment to any person or circumstance is held to be unconstitutional, this title and amendments made by this title, and the application of such provision or amendment to other persons or circumstances shall not be affected thereby.

In other words, in the grand scheme of things... D.C. voting will get thrown out by the Supreme Court (forcing an Amendment process instead) and the Constitution will be upheld... but ending absurd gun control laws will stay, prohibitions on regulating political speech in the media will stay.

Win-win as far as I see it. The big task now is to ensure the amended provisions stay in the conference bill, otherwise it'll just be an exercise in good-intentioned futility.