The No Labels Problem Solvers played a vital role in bringing consensus to major legislation including the Biden Infrastructure Plan, The Chips Act and Inflation Reduction Act.

Without the Problem Solvers, it is unlikely Kevin McCarthy and Mitch McConnell would have been able to find enough Republican support to pass the 2023 Debt Ceiling legislation.

But I part company with No Labels over it’s plan to offer voters a third (party) option during the 2024 Presidential General Election in the event of a rematch between current President Joe Biden and former President Donald Trump.

I agree with 70% of my fellow Americans who have told pollsters they would prefer a different set of choices.

But, if as we fear, the political apparatchiks manipulate the primary process to bring general election voters to this sad choice, history suggests adding a third option could have unintended consequences.

Polls Don’t Determine Election Outcomes Voters Do

If faced with a Biden/Trump rematch, No Labels intends to nominate a Unity Ticket – one Republican and one Democratic – at their April 2024 Convention in Dallas. They claim the goal is to prevent a second Trump presidency.

Democrats are working overtime to prevent No Labels from gaining the required 50 state ballot access needed to put their “strategy” into play.

I agree with the assumptions these warring political organizations are making.:

• A second Trump presidency would have disastrous consequences for all of us.
• But No Labels might siphon off enough disaffected Republican and Independent voters from President Biden to allow Donald Trump to regain the presidency with 40% or less of the popular vote.

No Labels points to a Monmouth Poll released this week concluding their “Unity Ticket” would draw support from both Biden and Trump but leave Biden atop a healthy point spread.

But what they ignore — the poll points to November 2024 election remaining a Biden versus Trump contest despite a “respectable” showing from No Labels.

A national poll may be comforting to No Labels supporters but fails to measure the No Labels “effect” on the Electoral College distribution of votes state by state nor the impact of fourth or fifth party candidates.

In the End, the Electoral College Votes from Each State Will Determine the 2024 Winner.

Bill Clinton won the 1992 Electoral College with 370 votes to George H.W. Bush’s 168 while earning only 43% of the popular vote – after Russ Perot siphoned off 18% of the popular vote from Bush.

The Monmouth Poll projects a No Labels ticket of Joe Manchin and Jon Huntsmen would earn 16% of the vote if the election were held today.

Equally important, the last several election cycles have proved that polls do not accurately forecast actual votes cast.

Polls don’t count. Votes do.

Common Sense

The No Labels E Booklet pretending to be a presidential platform document is a clear demonstration of just how shallow and opportunist their efforts are.

Common Sense is nothing more than a rehash of every issue the last quarter century of Congress’ and four presidents have been unable to tackle.

Just two quick examples prove the point.

First, we all agree that our immigration system is “broken”. While No Labels references ohmage to secure national borders and needed reform of the system — their solution is limited to granting “legal status” to Dreamers. The very same plan George W. Bush, Barack Obama nor Joe Biden have not been able to push through Congress.

Second, we are all alarmed by a $31 Trillion (and growing) National Debt. The debt was a mere $10 Billion in 2008 — when newly elected Barack Obama established the Simpson Bowles Commission to design a path to a balanced budget in 10 years. Despite the historic fact Simpson Bowles never received a single Congressional hearing – let alone an up or down vote –the No Labels solution is creating another blue ribbon commission Congress would similarly ignore.

Forging A New Political Center

It is critically important to re-establish a more centrist, reasoned, minimalist approach to our government – to minimize the extremes on right and left.

But a political divide — decades in the making — cannot be resolved in a matter of months by an unelected body of political consultants.

The presence of New Hampshire Republican Governor Chris Sununu at the No Labels Saint Anselm College (NH) “Town Hall” speaks volumes about the solid, center right political electorate in his state and across the country.

Similarly, Joe Manchin’s ability to make everyone in Washington crazy while achieving real results for West Virginia and the nation’s middle class, speaks to the existence of a sensible center left in the American heartland.

2028 Presidential Primary

No Labels can play an important role in 2024 even without the risks inherent in running a third party “Unity Ticket”.

First, establish themselves as a national party by gaining ballot access in all 50 states.

And building a thoughtful platform of practical government reforms focused on sustainable economic growth: the necessary precondition to strengthening our national security and protecting our social safety net. No pandering, no poppycock, no fantasies.

A platform of government reforms and modernization — speaking to the aspirations of the political center rather than pandering to their fears. Achieving such a platform would require political courage.

Bi-partisan thought leaders, including (but not limited to) Sununu, Manchin, former Utah Governor (and Ambassador to both China and Russia) Huntsman, economists, business leaders and academics should be engaged in this process.

Early ideas should become part of the 2024 dialogue between major party candidates even as the work continues toward defining the total reformist platform.

In 202(7)8 No Labels would invite aspirants who support the No Labels platform to engage in an open presidential primary contest where voters pick the “winners”.

The ‘top two” finishers – one Republican, one Democrat – would become the No Labels 2028 General Election “Unity Ticket”.

General election voters are far more likely to support a “Unity Ticket” made up of candidates they have chosen in primaries – rather than one chosen by frustrated “volunteers” and out-of-work political consultants — in the ballroom of a Dallas hotel.

Rather than the “spoiler” in 2024, No Labels should focus their efforts on developing the new majority political party of 2028.

Our democratic republic desperately needs fresh thinking, a less Washington centric government and younger politicians to maintain and improve our nation as it passes 250 years on the way to it’s fourth century of global leadership.

Like rape, sexual assault, and sexual harassment, these laws are not about sex and procreation — they are about power.

Former President Trump admitted as much in his deposition in the Carroll defamation suit.

These extreme laws are just restatements of the power and control white men have secured and exercised in these United States since well before ratification of the US Constitution.

More than 100 years later, in 1872, Susan B. Anthony was convicted of the crime of voting in a federal election. Birthright citizenship did not grant her the power or authority to control the circumstances of her life – simply because she was a woman.

Similarly, just last week – in 2023 — Republican men in the South Carolina State Senate voted to deny the five women members in their own midst (three of them Republicans) – as well as Republican Congresswoman Nancy Mace — aegis over their own bodies.

Talk about “insult on top of injury”.

But gentlemen you’ve made a mistake in South Carolina – actually, a mistake wherever Republican men are in charge today.

We, and I include many of your wives in that “we”, first in the courts and, later, at the ballot box, are going to teach you multi-generational lessons about compassion, economics, equality and power.

THE WOMEN OF AMERICA ARE NOT GOING BACK TO 1920

When the ratification of the 19^th Amendment to the US Constitution gave women the right to vote.

Or to 1940 — before the Second World War propelled women into work outside the home in support of the war effort. Rosy the Riveter demonstrated that anything “you” (guys) “can do, we can do better”.

Perhaps that’s why, today, there are more women than men enrolled in our colleges and universities.

All that virtue signaling about the sanctity of life, personhood at conception etc. – poppycock! Regardless of the slight variations in the various state bans – there is only one possible conclusion.

Compelling women to bear the physical, social and economic risks of pregnancy, regardless of the circumstances, is the last terrorized gasp of men who can’t compete on a level playing field with women.

PIETY OR POWER

Want more proof the actions of these men are not acts of faith or Godly charity? Name a single state that has passed legislation protecting the child instead of punishing the mother or the medical provider?

In which abortion ban is the “father” held even partially responsible for the pregnancy or the (unborn) child in any manner? In zero states is the father held equally responsible in the event of an abortion?

Where is the extension of a state level “child tax credit”?

Where are the improvements to state maternal health programs?

In which state is the “father” compelled to be a parent or pay child support?

Not in a single state.

But by supporting legal attempts to ban abortion medication Mifepristone nationwide, you guys have outfoxed yourselves.

MIFEPRISTONE COURT FIGHT

Most abortions in the United States over the last 20 years have been so-called “medical abortions” using a drug combination of Mifepristone to block progesterone needed to maintain the pregnancy and misoprostol which softens the cervix and allows the embryo to be expelled.

The drug cocktail, approved and monitored by the Federal Drug Administration (FDA), has been on the market for more than 20 years with few reported side effects.

A Texas judge recently ruled the Federal Drug Administration exceeded it’s authority in approving Mifepristone for this use.

If sustained, his ruling would affect a nationwide ban on safe, first trimester abortion in the United States. A ban opposed by as many as 80 percent of Americans.

The crux of the legal argument is that pregnancy is not an illness but (rather) a condition and, therefore, beyond the authority of the FDA.

The counter argument is that pregnancy is a medical condition and, therefore, within the authority of the FDA.

After a stay granted by the US Supreme Court, the Texas district court ruling is now being appealed at the Fifth Circuit in New Orleans. The Fifth is as conservative a federal appeals court as the Ninth is liberal. The three judge panel (including one woman) has allowed the drug to remain on the market, pending further litigation – but with certain restrictions.

Eventually, whether the FDA has authority to approve medicine to treat a condition rather than only an illness will be settled by the Supreme Court of the United States.

But why should women stand around holding picket signs waiting at least two years for that fateful decision?

LADIES, SEIZE THE INITIATIVE

The Texas initiated Mifepristone case has the potential to become a crisis for women all over America – let’s not waste it.

It is time for us to fight “fire with fire” – lawsuit to lawsuit — court to court.

What is “good for the goose” is, also, “good for the gander”. Erectile dysfunction, like pregnancy, is a condition not an illness.

VIAGRA

SCOTUS could find Mifepristone is to pregnancy, as Viagra is to erectile dysfunction — beyond the authority of the FDA?

No Viagra, no penile erection, no coitus, no pregnancy, no need for abortion.

Beyond merely the similarity of condition to condition, statistics show the risk of death from use of Viagra is 10 times higher than the risk posed by the use of Mifepristone in abortions.

Planned Parenthood could save male lives if it filed — either — an amicus brief to the Texas case in the Fifth Circuit or a new lawsuit in New Orleans challenging the FDA authorization of Viagra and similar drugs. Their argument: if pregnancy is a condition — not an illness — and thus, beyond the authority of the FDA — erectile dysfunction is, similarly, a condition, also, beyond the authority of the FDA.

Just imagine the umbrage, the apoplectic reaction of these power hungry, arrogant men “in authority” when they realize the tables have been turned on them?

The rush to the microphones by the likes of Lindsey Graham and Tommy Tuberville. The podcasts by Ted Cruz. The screeds from Truth Social and Twitter.

The picket signs in 2023 must simply read: “what’s good for the goose is good for the gander” against a background of blue pills.

The recent shaking of the earth, thundering of the wind – could it be our Founding Fathers whirling in their graves as the country careens from representative democracy toward oligarchy and, daresay, authoritarianism?

When did the elected representatives of this nation stop being servants and become our overseers?

When did public service morph into personal aggrandizement and an outsized sense of power?

When did the thrust toward consensus building end and continuous confrontation become the obligatory norm in our local and national politics – as well as our public discourse?

Lest you think that I am railing, here, about the House Freedom Caucus or, for example, the Ohio Republican dominated legislature – nope:

EXTREMISM DOMINATES ON BOTH THE LEFT AND THE RIGHT

Whether it is Modern Monetary Theory on the left or a right wing threat to default on the USA National Debt for the first time since 1796 —

• 59% of Americans surveyed want members of Congress to work together, thoughtfully, to address the size of the USA Budget and slow the growth of debt and deficits. But there is no evidence that members of Congress have any interest in solving our growing debt problem rather than using it to demagogue the other party.

Doesn’t matter if it is pundits applauding parents taking their child to Drag Queen Story Hour at the local library or governors and state legislators banning books from classroom and school library shelves a parent (or two) find controversial —

• According to a Fox News Poll taken only two months ago, 77% of parents are concerned about book banning, they’d rather the choice of reading materials be left to teachers with parental guidance.
• The same survey found 73% of parents were concerned about what is taught in school.

When only 26 percent of 8^th graders in USA test “proficient in math, 100% of parents should be hugely concerned.

Shouldn’t our elected representatives at all levels of government be urgently investigating the root cause of such an epic educational failure and addressing needed reforms, instead of worrying about student pronoun preferences?

After more than 200 mass shootings in the first four and half months of 2023, Americans – of all political persuasions support stricter gun registration, licensing, and security legislation but the Republican controlled legislatures have recently voted to do just the opposite. More states are enacting “open carry” laws resulting in more people to possess more guns with little or no scrutiny.

• This is not a new disconnect between our representatives and we, the people. Even the majority of Texans polled have consistently supported stronger gun legislation over the past decade – yet their state legislature and their governor have moved in the opposite direction with horrific consequences.

THE POLITICAL CENTER IS IGNORED

All of this is happening because the “80 percent of Americans who live in the middle” have allowed themselves to be ignored by those who – every two or four or six years – promise to “represent them”.

An American Psychological Association survey commissioned in 2022 found Americans were “disheartened” – I’d say exhausted by a “barrage of external stressors that are mostly out of personal control. The survey found a majority of adults are disheartened by government and political divisiveness, daunted by historic inflation levels, and dismayed by widespread violence.”

As a result, for too many the responsibility of voting seen as futile – “doesn’t matter what I think”, my representative doesn’t listen to me”.

Those who crave power rather than seek to serve the public are more than happy to assure constituents that, indeed, they don’t listen and, more importantly, don’t care.

Laws making voter registration more difficult and voting, itself, less convenient have been introduced in almost every state capitol since the 2020 election cycle.

Shouldn’t all of us be outrage by the brazenness of Trump lawyer, Cleta Mitchell? Addressing a Republican donor retreat a few weeks ago, she responded to the 2022 general election results by asserting new laws were needed to make it more difficult for college students to vote. Her argument, and I paraphrase, is that if college (younger) voters vote, Republicans can’t win!

Ms. Mitchell could get her way even without new legislation.

The youth vote is one of historic “underrepresentation” accelerated in the 21^st century by a lack of public school civics education and a related growing disbelief in the power of representative democracy among Gen Z and beyond.

Too many have turned their time and attention to other pursuits because they don’t feel they can have an impact on how the nation is governed – an impact on their own future.

But they are wrong.

Their vote does matter. Where and when they use that vote is what makes it matter.

IT’S ALL ABOUT THE PRIMARIES, STUPID

It is in the primaries that voters from both the left and the right select the final two candidates for the November general election.

Appearing on ABC”s “THIS WEEK, former Congressman Will Hurd (R-Texas) – incidentally a former CIA operative — pointed to an alarming statistic.

Only twenty three (23) percent of registered voters voted in 2022 primary elections across the country.

That is down from 2016 when 26 percent of registered voters, combined, voted in the Democratic and Republican presidential primaries.

Stands to reason the small number of voters are voting in primaries are the most motivated and ideological of voters. They represent the extremes of their parties.

These low primary participation numbers go a long way toward explaining the extreme views candidates espouse. Candidates are catering to the voters who matter.

As a consequence, when the November General Election comes around, the forty to fifty percent of registered voters who come out to vote for president or governor, or both, already bad/worse choices from top to bottom of the ballot.

The degree to which Congress and the various state legislatures represent the political extremes of their populations, is determined the smaller number of voters who continue to vote down their ballot after choosing one or the other candidate on the top of the ticket.

Sadly, the further down the ballot, the fewer voters will cast a vote. That means winning a primary in a gerrymandered district, is tantamount to election – or re-election — in the general election.

SAVING THE REPUBLIC IS EVERYONE’S RESPONSIBILITY

If the too silent majority of America wants it’s children to inherit a free, independent and self-governing nation: a representative democracy – in fact – as well as theory it is time to set your disillusionment aside.

If enough of us join the battle for the future of our children—and the nation they inherit, we can still make the 21^st the second great American century.

But to make it happen, the so-called 80 percent majority must get off the couch.

Democracy is a participation not a spectator sport.

Encourage reasonable, younger, consensus-driven candidates to “get in the race”. They are out there but they need popular encouragement to run.

Donate to their campaigns.

Demonstrate support by volunteering for campaigns.

Be willing to engage friends and co-workers in intelligent discussion of the issues and where the candidates stand.

KICKING POLITICAL EXTREMISM TO THE CURVE IS EVERYONE’S JOB

It happens when every eligible voter vote in every eligible 2023 and 2024 primary election even if it means standing in long lines or parking and walking into a building to drop off your ballot.

It is our individual and collective responsibility to use our franchise wisely, and at every opportunity, to ensure our 240 year old experiment with representative democracy continues.

The world is watching. The world depends on us to do our duty.

George Santos sitting in the House of Representatives is a national crisis.

Generic “Congress” enjoyed a measly 21% approval rating in January 2023 public opinion polls — after a 15 ballot whooping of the new Speaker of the House.

Who — in their right mind — believes the House of Representatives, specifically the GOP House Caucus, can expect their approval rating to improve while George Santos’ ever widening scandals provide fodder for late night TV comics? 

78% of George Santos’ NY-03 constituents told pollsters he should resign amid the now more than month-long drip, drip, drip of allegations – lies, exaggerations, and suspected criminality. That number includes 71% of the Republicans in the district.  

Voters, also, disapprove of Speaker McCarthy appointing Santos to House Committees: Science, Space and Technology and, especially, the Small Business Committee.

That is the same House Small Business Committee set to investigate fraudulent Paycheck Protection Plan payments amounting to hundreds of billions of dollars.

Only more recently did the Speaker conclude that putting the Con Man on the team charged with investigating the “Con” sent the wrong message.

Can’t Take the Con Out of the Con(gress)man

On the day Santos told an OAN reporter while he lied his way into Congress, he was going to reform and not lie as a member of Congress – he ran from other reporters saying he had “decided to step away from his committee assignments so as not to be a distraction”.  A claim refuted by others who attended the GOP Caucus meeting.

Reporters who went to his so-called district office found it unmanned. The former representative’s name still on the door.

Santos’ constituents feel defrauded, and his colleagues embarrassed. Every day brings new revelations of his perfidy.  

Why hasn’t George Santos done the honorable thing and resign from Congress?

It’s the paycheck. George Santos is enjoying $174,000/YR salary plus expenses, health care, and retirement benefits. The most money the man has ever “earned”, and he is not going to give up until he is forced.

The notoriety, also, attracts Santos like catnip to a cat.  The man is utterly shameless. 

His unhappy, duped constituents can do nothing about it until November 2026!  Not even if he is convicted criminally!

Article One of US Constitution Does Not Provide for Recall of Member of Congress

Article One, Section One of the US Constitution sets out the qualifications to be a member of the House of Representatives as having attained the age of 25, be a resident of the state represented and elected by the voters of that state.

Once elected, the representative cannot be recalled by those same voters. They must wait two years and then vote for another candidate at the next election.

Only three conditions allow for the replacement of a member of the House of Representatives during the two-year term: death, resignation, or expulsion by a vote of 2/3 of the members of the chamber.

The Founding Fathers did consider the issue of recalling a representative during their deliberations and the drafting of the Constitution. In the end, they decided against a recall remedy fearing, after their experience with the Articles of Confederation, “too much democracy” might not serve a positive civic purpose. 

Just in case, however, in Section Five of Article One – they did allow for the “expulsion” of a member of the House (or Senate) by a 2/3 vote of the chamber but only “under the Rules of the House”. 

Amending the House Rules Solves Problem

The Constitution does not permit the expulsion of a member for illegal or immoral behavior the voters knew of when electing the member to Congress. Expulsion can only happen after an Ethics Investigation found bad behavior the representative had concealed or misrepresented to voters during the election. Referral for such a probe is at the discretion of the Speaker and — to date — Speaker McCarthy has not made such a referral.

This is creating a dangerous precedent. Voters have learned over the last decade one bad act by an elected official that is allowed to stand — leads to two more.

Congress need not wait for commencement of legal proceeding against Mr. Santos or a long and drawn out Ethic Investigation to end this unnecessary distraction from the people’s business.

The House GOP Caucus wrote the House Rules for the 118^th Congress only a month ago. Nothing prevents them from amending those rules to impose the same condition of employment on themselves that (New York) state and federal law impose on their constituents.

The Speaker should immediately bring an amendment to the House floor adding to the Rules a simple clause found on every private sector employment application – just above the applicant’s signature.  “Any false statements regarding education, special licenses, and/or previous employment (history) are grounds for immediate termination”.

A two-thirds vote to expel Mr. Santos for lying to voters about his personal and professional qualifications to represent them would send a strong signal to other would-be Con(gress)men or women and might just raise Congress’ approval rating a point or two.

It is the fulfillment of a campaign promise blatantly intended to bring more “grateful” young voters to the mid-term polls this November.

Young voters are traditionally not a significant demographic in mid-term elections.

Increasing low propensity — but grateful — voter turnout in November is only one of the many potentially flawed assumptions in the President’s plan.

AN EXECUTIVE ORDER IS NOT A LAW

An Executive Order is a temporary measure intended to allow the President to act in an emergency when the Congress is not in session and/or the need for action immediate and urgent.

Created with a stroke of the President’s pen, any EO can be (and usually is) undone with an equal flourish by the next President.

Student loan debt has been a known and growing problem in this country since I was a college student. Where is the emergency?

Congress has the “power of the purse” under the Constitution. Congress legislated the existing student loan program and only Congress can legislate a “fix” to it.

Student loan forgiveness was one of the initiatives included in $3.3 Trillion Build Back Better Plan. Not just Republicans but Democrats in the Congress rejected the plan.

DOES PRESIDENT BIDEN HAVE THE CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY?

If Congress fails to ratify and fund a presidential policy initiative, isn’t that the end of the discussion?

Under the last several Presidents, the answer has been somewhere between maybe and, this past Wednesday, a clear ‘no”.

After asserting last year and earlier this year that he lacked the legal authority to order student loan debt forgiveness through an Executive Order, President Biden suddenly discovered he did, indeed, have such authority.

He does or he doesn’t.

Even as my fingers race across the keyboard, I am certain there are a group of enterprising lawyers shopping for the right federal district judge to obtain a nationwide injunction preventing the Department of Education from implementing the president’s order.

It could become a Supreme Court test case determining the limits of unitary executive authority under the Constitution.

Article One of the Constitution grants the sole “power of the purse” to the Congress.

Does President Biden have the authority, with a flourish of his pen, to add as much as $1T to the national debt after Congress has specifically rejected his proposed spending?

HOW WAS THE “BENEFIT” CALCULATED?

Obama Administration economist, Jason Furman (Harvard Professor) is just one of a series of prominent Democrats to speak out against the Executive Order.

Professor Furman argues that one time debt relief for some without significant reform in the college cost structure is insufficient and unwise.

He continues, in an Atlantic Magazine interview, that if one time relief was offered, it should be much more targeted, i.e., concentrated on the “80% of borrowers” who need relief the most.

The President, himself, during his press conference, argued 90% of the loan forgiveness would go to borrowers with an income under $75K a year.

Begging the question why was the benefit extended to borrowers with individual incomes of $125K and couples with an income of $250K?

Professor Furman points out under the EO a couple earning $250K — who started out with Pell Grants — will receive as much as $40K in debt forgiveness. Pell Grants, he argues, propelled these borrowers well into the middle class. If they need debt forgiveness, at all; why should it be twice the benefit of other borrowers in the same income bracket?

To put the professor’s question in context, an “adjusted gross income” of $217K puts the taxpayers into the top 5% of all US taxpayers.

The same question applies to the single professional earning $126K a year.

IS THE DEBT RELIEF FAIR?

There are those who argue that the purpose of government is wealth transfer but those are, generally, elite academics such as Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren, who is all too eager to take credit for the Biden Executive Order.

Most members of Congress and the vast majority of Americans do not agree with wealth transfer concept.

Some have tried to argue the “whataboutism” of the TARP bailout of the US auto industry in 2009 or the bank bailout following the 2008 housing bubble (burst).

The difference is one of stabilizing the overall US economy — hundreds of millions of jobs — versus improving the purchasing power of 43 million of 330 million Americans.

It’s apples and oranges.

WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE?

Short of a legal injunction, this one time student loan forgiveness for some borrowers is a “done deal”.

Republicans will rail against it in the weeks before the mid-terms and Democrats will try to avoid the debate.

I am more worried about where we go from here.

The Executive Order limits the blanket debt forgiveness to existing borrowers. It excludes any loan made after June 30,2022.

Still, this year’s entering freshman college class will expect similar relief when entering the work force. What is fair for one is fair for all, wouldn’t you agree?

If past is prologue, colleges and universities will see this loan forbearance as a “green light” to increase tuition arguing it won’t (really) cost students more.

President Obama warned about ratio of more generous student loans to rising tuition costs in 2010.

He threatened action against colleges that raised student costs as a result of the new, more generous government backed loans enacted by Congress.

But neither he nor President Trump nor President Biden nor five (5) Congresses made even modest gestures toward addressing the escalating costs of a college education – even as we’ve experienced year over year declining enrollments.

Nor did they (before the CHIPS Act) even give thought to the societal or economic costs of failing to educate the 21^st and 22^nd century workers required to maintain our global technical and industrial leadership.

With his EO, President Biden backdoored a student loan crisis.

Now Congress must act before student loan forgiveness morphs into yet another “entitlement”.

Congressional leadership must take a bi-partisan approach to investigating the underlying reasons for the escalating cost of a college education and force reform on the college and university system rather than haphazardly bailing out some of their customers.

We’ll have more to say about academic reform in coming episodes.

Even before the sun rose in Silicon Valley Thursday morning, the US Department of Commerce announced second quarter 2022 GDP had contracted at an annualized rate of .09%, the second consecutive quarter of negative growth – a traditional signal of the start of an economic downturn – a (dreaded) recession, if you will.

But by 7 o’clock the princes and princesses of Silicon Valley were sipping $20 glasses of wine out of plastic cups while promenading and dancing away the last evening of summer music in downtown (toney) Los Gatos.  There were no, zero, outward concerns about a slowing economy.

ECONOMICS or POLITICS

These summer evening revelers had spent the day producing economic activity rather than listening to the stampede of experts on all things economic rushing to the microphones and keyboards to pontificate:

• Is the USA in recession?
  • Well that depends if the economist believes the GDP number – .09% negative or the gross domestic income number 1.8% positive – which in theory should be two sides of the same coin. In the current quarter the average of the two turns to be roughly zero.
• Will the USA soon be in recession?
  • Before the November mid-terms?
  • By the end of the year?
    • In 2023?
    • Or the first half of 2024?
• How will third quarter GDP be impacted by Wednesday’s Federal Reserve interest rate “hike” of 75 basis points?
  • Going to slow the economy just enough to beat down annualized inflation to just under a sustainable 4% (annualized)?
  • Or will it be too large a correction — increasing the likelihood of recession ahead?

ALL OF IT IS “JUST A GUESS”

Don’t take my word for it, that’s a direct quote from Obama era Chairman of the White House Economic Advisers Jason Furman.

A statement of refreshing candor and realism from an economist.

Furman explained his conclusion — during an appearance on CBS Face the Nation. The unique economic circumstances of the past two years make it difficult to predict how the economy will perform going forward:

• 100 year pandemic
  • $4.5 Trillion government stimulus was pumped into the economy by Congress in 2020 and 2021 to keep businesses and consumers afloat.
  • Aggressive action by the Federal Reserve to maintain money supply and consumer confidence.
  • Rapid contraction of the economy as pandemic set-in followed by a rapid “snap back” of employment and spending as restrictions were lifted.
• Differing national responses to the global pandemic continue to interrupt complex transnational supply chains. Logistics patterns past, present and into the future have/are/will change.
• The unexpected outbreak of war in Central Europe and NATO’s intense response have led to global shortages of food stuffs, fossil fuel, global transport and munitions. As demand exceeds supply prices are rising.
• Flight to the US dollar from a basket of developed country currencies – has driven the dollar to unprecedented levels https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-07-28/how-a-strong-usd-dxy-is-pushing-the-global-economy-to-recession
  • Increasing the cost of goods around the world –
  • Making US exports more expensive and, in turn, reducing demand.
• Mother Nature coupling disease with natural disasters of heat, cold, wet and dry – in a phrase: “climate change” causing economic and social disruption.
• Unprecedented flow of refugees from war, climate and political instability cannot be absorbed quick enough – in USA and in Europe.

CLOUDY REARVIEW MIRROR

There is just no available economic model similar enough to our recent past and current reality to reliably predict the near or medium term future.

All of us: employees, entrepreneurs, industrial titans, politicians and consumers need to proceed with caution until a clearer picture emerges to guide our purchasing, saving and investment decisions.

Flashing caution lights ahead are realistic but warnings of economic catastrophe appear to be too pessimistic.

While second quarter earnings reported are “healthy”; they’ve have fallen quarter over quarter as the economy is decelerating.

Following almost a year of post-pandemic “snap back” isn’t a slowing of geometric economic growth to be expected, deflationary and realistic?

Economic realism may not be politically “sexy” in the run-up to the midterms, but may well prevent the economic ship from crashing on the breakers, while pessimism could sink it on the rocks.

PLANNING REDUCES UNCERTAINTY

In a period of potential economic (and geopolitical) uncertainty, pessimism is avoided by planning.

Planning begins with assumptions:

• Long-term success (a sustainable business) is based on profitability (the bottom-line)
• If the top-line (revenue) number declines, the cost of revenue must decline in ratio (and vice versa).

When the future remains as murky as the recent (complex) past, sustainability means “being ready for anything” – planning for what is expected, anticipated, or unanticipated.

When the unanticipated happens, it’s too late to “make a plan” to survive it!

Recent headlines pointing to slower hiring in the technology sector as a harbinger of doom are dead wrong. It’s a plan to protect current and long-term investments in anticipation of falling revenue as the economy decelerates.

Equal, if opposite, Amazon and Shopify announcements of layoffs are not a harbinger of doom. They reflect a failure to test management’s planning assumptions during the COVID crisis. Recently departed managers never asked themselves “what if” the geometric growth of online shopping was driven by COVID fears and lockdowns not changing consumption patterns?

Consumers are social animals. Shopping malls are hubs of social activity. It’s as simple as that!

A SOFT LANDING IS POSSIBLE

The national goal remains to manage inflation down to an annual average of under 4% this year without tipping the total economy into recession.

Hiring patterns, a positive manufacturing index report in Q2, and reasonable action by the Federal Reserve indicate that is an achievable goal.

The path to get there will not be straight and swift but rather a roller coaster ride that must be managed realistically and conservatively over time.

Every quarterly and annual plan must include the assumption the unexpected can and probably will happen.

Planning for the dips can mitigate loose talk of recession from becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy — slowing the dance to a limp.

• 59.2 percent of registered voters (nationally) participated in the 2016 Presidential Election.
  
• 66.9 percent of registered voters (nationally) participated in the 2020 Presidential Election.
  

A difference of 7.7 percent.

If 7.7 percent more registered voters had turned out in 2016– it is likelier than not, Hillary Clinton would have been the first woman president of the United States,

• Mitch McConnell’s obstruction could not have prevented a President Hillary Clinton from elevating Merritt Garland to the Supreme Court.
  
• Neither Brett Kavanaugh nor Amy Coney Barrett would have been nominated to the Court.
  

If Over 18 in 2016 and Didn’t Vote

You share part of the responsibility for the Dobbs V Jackson decision.

I don’t want to see your placards or hear your plaintive cries of “woe’s me”.

I only want you to redeem yourself through ACTION.

Overcoming Dobbs V Jackson — State by State

SCOTUS pushed the issue of abortion rights from the federal to the state level.

Don’t like antebellum, misogynist, downright cruel laws giving your state power over your (or your child’s) body?

Don’t think 21st century women should be punished merely for being born female?

Well then, the mission is to REPEAL THE LAWMAKERS who wrote, passed, or resurrected these draconian laws.

And the governors with whom they’ve conspired.

130 Days To Repeal the Rascals at the Ballot Box (Election) Day

The further down the ballot — say state assembly person versus congressional candidate — the fewer voters vote in the specific race — that’s a fact.

As a result increasing the turnout in a specific state legislative district by just a handful of votes, either way, can change the winner of a legislative seat from smug incumbent to pro-choice challenger.

Time is of the essence. Every day must be a day of old fashioned, local, political activism at the state legislative district level.

• Knock on doors, send texts, make telephone calls.
  
• Set-up voter information tables at local fairs, farmers’ markets, etc..
  
• Invite your neighbors for a coffee, tea, or wine to meet and mingle with pro-choice state legislative candidates
  
• Use every contact with a potential voter to raise a few bucks for literature, lawn signs etc.. A few dollars make a huge difference at the local level. 
  • Donated dollars increase the likelihood a contact will turn into a vote — they’ve committed.
    

Smart “politicking”

Can change a state’s political landscape in one or two election cycles.

The (mainly) men who passed these sweeping, punitive state anti-abortion laws foolishly believe women will react rather than ACT.

By the time the rascals realize they’re wrong, it will be too late – too bad, so sad.

Fundamental to conservative thought among liberal democracies are the founding documents of the United States of America – the oldest living democracy.

Those documents argue every individual has the right to “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” and to “the Blessings of Liberty” (capitals from the original).

I readily acknowledge the authors’ hypocrisy as their quill pens crossed the parchment – but still argue the history of this country has been a slow but relentless march toward their vision.

The Supreme Court of the United States has led that march for nearly two centuries — until June 24,2022.

On that day,  a bare majority of the Court said “Stop”. Stop the post Civil War inexorable march toward greater individual liberty (and equality).

No New Facts or Science Forced Dobbs Decision on the Court.

Fifty (50) years of SCOTUS precedent, science and simple reality argued for a more measured decision.

SCOTUS’ decision to overturn Roe is radical in its scope; hypocritical in its dependence on post-medieval history rather than contemporary precedent; cruel and mean spirited in its denial or easy dismissal of the rights of victims – those it ignores and those it creates.

I am going to leave to others the moral arguments of a so-called “right to chose” whether, when and how to terminate an unplanned pregnancy.

Or the validity of the argument that a woman can surrender a newborn, for adoption, without lifelong consequences.  Nor challenge the assumption there are enough potential adoptive parents to fill the need?

The Unintended Victims

My concern is for the unintended victims– the now vulnerable, voiceless victims of rapists, of incestuous parents and of nature, itself.

In the 21st century it is inconceivable that a state legislature and — or a governor — would deliberately revictimize victims of sexual assault (rape or incest).

But 10 states have already made abortion illegal in these cases — with several more expected to follow in the coming weeks.

These laws are medieval — akin to drowning a woman to prove she is/is not a witch.

Not all Fetuses are Created Equal in Nature

Millions of American women experience natural miscarriages every year.

If pre-Roe history is our teacher, in states where abortion is restricted, most of these women will be denied necessary 21st healthcare during the natural course of their miscarriage because their doctor fears potential prosecution.

The consequences of withholding care women have depended on for half a century will be unnecessary maternal suffering, potential subsequent infertility — even unnecessary death.

Next imagine, if you can, the anguish of a mother (and father) who now has no choice but to carry to term a fetus even after exhaustive modern medical testing and ultrasound warn of a child who will die at birth, shortly after, or endure a short lifetime of severe disability.

These narrowly defined state abortion laws are cruel to mother (father) and child.SCOTUS’ decision to overturn Roe without considering the unintended consequences is antithetical to conservatism.

It is radical in its scope; hypocritical in its dependence on post-medieval history rather than contemporary precedent; cruel and mean spirited in its denial or easy dismissal of the rights of victims – those it ignores and those it creates.

Still the damage done can be undone — state by state.

Repeal Cruel State Statues by Repealing the Lawmakers

Rather than march in fruitless protest, outrage must be turned into action.

Put away the picket signs and start knocking on the doors.  Telling the stories.  Asking if it were your child or your wife or your life?

Stopping the cruelty now depends on turning low propensity (state election) voters into votes — one door at a time.

There’s not a day to waste.

A week and half ago, 10 Americans were shot to death by a mentally unstable 18 year old — while shopping at their neighborhood grocery store.

Yesterday, it happened again, in Uvalde, Texas. A mentally unstable, 18 year old high school dropout, shot and killed 20 Ross Elementary School children – all under the age of 10 — and two of their dedicated teachers

Like many of you – I’ve lost count of the number of horrible moments of pain and carnage that have been broadcast across our television screens in the intervening decade. To name just a few —

• Parkland, Florida
• Marysville, Washington
• El Paso, Texas
• Santa Fe, Texas
• Gilroy, California
• Las Vegas, Nevada
• Sutherland Springs, Texas
• Aurora, Colorado

Add to this the Political Violence we’ve Eperienced.

• The attempted killing of Gabby Gifford in Tucson, Arizona – while meeting with constituents. The assailant was a mentally unstable 19 year old college student.
• Or the attempted killing of Steve Scalise in Alexandria, Virginia –while practicing for a charity baseball game.

Not even these two events touching Congress, itself, have moved enough members of the Senate past whispered “thoughts and prayers” — while attempting — to flee cameras and reporters.

Universal background legislation, an inadequate step to be sure, passed in the House in early 2021 but has not seen the light of day in the Senate.

Why should Senators risk re-election or NRA political contributions by taking up such legislation – they ask themselves — when the national reaction to the shooting of 20 elementary school children has been reduced (by repetition) to “business as usual” by their constituents?

• In 2012 – after Sandy Hook – ball games, concerts and holiday events were paused for a few days of national mourning.
• In 2022 – after Ross Elementary – the Warrior / Mavericks basketball play-off game went on in nearby Dallas before the dead were even identified. Proceeded, of course, by the obligatory “moment of silence”.

Senators, It’s Not Time for Business As Usual

I don’t accept the death of 22 people at the hands of a deranged 18 year old – better armed than the police who confronted him – as business as usual.

There is an absolute minimum that our Congress should do and do it now!

Pass a national universal background check bill that covers all commercial and private gun sales.

But background checks are not enough. The fact is that three fourths of the crimes I listed above were committed by males under the age of 21. And all but one involved the use of a legal purchased so-called “semi-automatic long gun”.

Congress must pass a national universal background check bill that makes juvenile criminal and mental health records available to backgrounders and gives backgrounders the time necessary to investigate those records before releasing a purchased weapon to the applicant.

But expanding the background check process is not enough.

Congress must Raise the Age Limit to Purchase a Weapon to 21

Mark Esper, in his recent book, remarks that 74 percent of 18 year old(s) are not eligible for military service because of physical condition, mental health or inadequate educational achievement (high school diploma or GED).

Government does not consider a “youngadult” mature enough to buy a beer until reaching age 21.  It’s “illegal”.

If most 18 year old(s) are not qualified for basic military training or mature enough to buy a beer, is it rational that an 18 year old can purchase a “weapon of war”?

You Can Vote

Call your Senators and urge them to support modest federal legislation to keep these weapons our of the hands of the unstable and the immature.

Then watch what they do. If you Senators (or your Representatives) fail to act with alacrity – then, in November, vote for someone who will.