Straight Out of Centerfield

The Government Shutdown of 2019

2019-01-17T11:30:00.001-06:00

The U.S. Government is currently in the midst of the longest shutdown in American history. Why is the government (or part of the government) shut down? Like most things political, the answer is both complicated and simple. In this particular case, I think the simple answer deals with fight for power (the politics), and the complicate one deals with the real world implications (the policy).

The simple answer is - because the politicians think it is to their advantage to shut down the government. President Trump has made the border wall his primary message. He needs to "win" something on the wall in order to make his supporters happy. Speaker Pelosi, and the Democrats, have made opposition to the proposed border wall part of their core message. They need to oppose it in order to keep their supporters happy.

As to the politics, the more difficult part is figuring out who is right. It is unlikely both sides are gaining an advantage from the shutdown, so someone is making a mistake (or both sides - it is easy to imagine the voting public blaming everyone).

President Trump has two primary political points in his favor. One, historically Presidents win government shutdown fights. This was true even with President Clinton, who was also facing possible impeachment at the time. Two, the wall was his signature campaign promise from the start and he did win the Presidency. There is an argument to be made the voters put him in office specifically to build the wall.

However, the Democrats have a few things in their favor. First, in general Presidents may win shutdown fights but this specific Presidency has been all about upsetting conventional wisdom. This may be another area where the conventional logic does not hold. Second, President Trump did win the Presidency, but not the popular vote. Further, almost every poll has shown support for the Wall is below 50%. In June, 2018, Gallup asked voters if they favored significantly expanding construction of a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border.41% of those surveyed were in favor, 57% opposed the idea. In January, 2019, the Pew Research Center asked nearly the same question, this time asking if voters favored substantially expanding the wall. This survey was conducted from January 9-14, during the government shutdown, and there was almost no change. 40% of those surveyed favored a substantial expansion of the wall, while 58% of those surveyed opposed it. As a result, it is difficult to make a credible argument that President Trump has an electoral mandate to build the wall. Finally, the Democrats swept to impressive victory in the House races in 2018. They can point to their electoral mandate to oppose the wall just as easily.

The real world issue of the government shutdown (the policy) can be boiled down to two questions. First, is the wall itself a good idea? Second, is this (the government shutdown) the appropriate way to deal with funding for the wall?

There has been some spirited debated about whether or not the wall is a good use of resources. I think that debate is both necessary and healthy. As a country, we should debate (calmly, respectfully, and rationally) these important issues. I personally disagree with the extremes of both sides here. I do not think a wall along the border will solve all the problems for which it is proposed. I have concerns specifically about areas where the border is defined by the Rio Grande River. A solid wall will literally cut off the land from the water. However, I also disagree that the idea of a wall is somehow immoral, as Speaker Pelosi has claimed. There may very well be places a wall can be an effective tool. There are likely other places where it is not. These issues should be debated in Congress. Experts should be called to testify about various proposals. Congress should work to find some common ground. It does not seem too much of a challenge to develop a plan for increase border security which includes wall or fences in place, more patrols in others, and technological solutions elsewhere. Additionally, a comprehensive plan should address the need for more immigration judges, better screening of cargo at ports of entry, and the plight of the Dreamers, among other things.

However, as to the second question, I do not think there is a single good argument for shutting down the government in this manner. The issue of immigration, and that of border security, are important matters which should be debated and addressed in a thoughtful, intentional manner. Shutting down the government is not appropriate. Federal employees, their families, and the business who rely on them, should not be punished in this manner. It is important to remember this issue could have been addressed any time over the past two years. Republicans controlled both the House and Senate, as well as the Presidency. If this issue was truly an emergency, as some now claim, they had plenty of time to address it. They choose not to do so and decided to wait until Democrats took control of the House of Representatives. As a result, there will need to be concessions on both sides. That is what the Constitution envisioned, and what the voters have demanded.

A Sermon Too Far

2012-06-01T12:38:00.000-05:00

In America we cherish our freedoms, especially our freedom of speech. The idea that we can express any opinion is hard-wired into our political DNA. We also cherish freedom of religion. So religious speech is doubly protected. If you believe your god requires you to dance naked around a bonfire at midnight every third Wednesday, so be it. The result is there are numerous variations of Christianity practiced in America. Just this week a snake handling pastor from West Virginia died after being bitten by a rattlesnake.

In America we, unfortunately, also cherish our ignorance. I personally do not know the difference between the beliefs of Sunni and Shia Muslims. I know the distinction is based on differing claims as the true heir to the prophet, but I am regretfully ignorant beyond that speck of knowledge. I cannot recall which countries belong to which branch (Iran? Shia, I think. Saudi Arabia? Maybe Sunni? I honestly am not sure). I suspect the vast majority of America is in the same boat.

Americans intuitively understand there are many variations of Christianity in the religious marketplace. As a result we tend to ignore the versions we disagree with and write them off as wrong or misguided or inconsequential. But, because we do not understand the wide variety of other religious nearly as well, we tend to lump them all together. As a result we are far less tolerant of extremist views from those other religions. Instead of assuming the extremist speaks for a tiny sliver, we incorporate their view into the majority position.

To see what I mean, try and imagine what our reaction would be if a radical Muslim cleric in Yemen argued that the government should start killing all homosexuals. Or if a Hindu priest in India called for the forced imprisonment behind electric fences of all "lesbians, queers and homos". Or if a prominent Sikh came out and stated he personally liked the idea of killing all homosexuals (even if he acknowledged it was not ordained by the scripture and probably shouldn't be done).

The United States would demand the leaders of those religions object to these radical, wrongheaded, vile statements. We would expect the moderate voices of these communities to shout down the hatred. And if they did not immediately and convincingly decry the statements, we would use that inaction as proof that all of the religion accepted those positions.

Unfortunately all of those things have been stated in the past few weeks. But not by Muslims, Hindus or Sikhs. And not in far away lands. All of those comments, and more, have been issued by "Christian" leaders. Here in America. You can find the details here http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/31/maryland-pastor-dennis-leatherman-killing-gays_n_1559998.html?ref=mostpopular if you are interested. Even more unfortunately, the most extreme, most disgusting, least defensible statement came from a pastor in Kansas.

These individuals are entitled to their views. As an American I understand they are allowed to believe whatever they choose. But I would hope that most Americans, by a huge majority, would find these statements offensive, regardless of how you feel on the political issue of gay marriage. And because we would expect others to condemn these statements as perversions of their faith I believe those of us who are Christian must do the same. It is not enough to simply ignore these statements as representing fringe elements. Even if you personally believe homosexuality is a sin you should also recognize the God reserved the right to judge for him or herself. And Jesus would not agree with enslaving or murder a group of people, any people. As Christians we cannot ignore these statements and hope they go away. We must strongly, forcefully, vigorously and loudly condemn them or we, too, are guilty of allowing the lunatic fringe to speak for us.

I understand there are lots of good people who believe homosexuality is wrong. I respect your belief and will defend your right to it. But I also believe these recent comments are abhorrent and do not reflect the views of mainstream American or Christians. I also understand that a majority of America is not directly impacted by these statements. I personally am not; as a happily married straight man the issues of gay rights and gay marriage have almost no direct impact on me or my life. But I cannot allow these extremist to espouse vile hatred and not speak out against it.

The Freedom Dilemma

2012-02-20T15:02:00.000-06:00

I came across an interesting quote today, which got me thinking about a rather interesting aspect of freedom. The quote is from John Locke, who said "Where there is no law, there is no freedom." What makes this quote so interesting, to me at least, is the current climate seems to view law as a restriction on freedom, rather than the guarantor of freedom.

Much of the presidential campaign seems to center on who will do the best job of freeing American from the tyranny of unnecessary rules and regulations. The dominate theme of the Republic campaign has been who would capture the "TEA" party vote (remember the TEA stands for "Taxed Enough Already" - a demand for a drastic reduction in the size of government). President Obama (and Governor Romney) have come under fire for government health insurance programs which, it is argued, reduce personal freedoms. Government is seen as the enemy of freedom and not its defender.

It is clear government can go too far - we need only look at the repressive regimes of Syria, Iran, Libya and Egypt, who have all been in the recent news. In each of those situations government repressed freedom in an attempt to consolidate and maintain power. Similarly North Korea, Russia and China have repressed their people in an effort to maintain control.

The dilemma is, as John Locke rightly pointed out, without government there is no freedom either. We can look at Somalia to see what happens to a society with no working government or rule of law. After decades with no effective civil government the country has devolved into a lawless frontier ruled by warlords. No one is free because everyone is in constant danger. Anything you have can be taken at any moment on the whim of the local thug. Anything he has can be taken if a more powerful thug comes along. Or, closer to home, we can look at the current problems in Mexico. Drug cartels war openly for territory and power. Judges, police and citizens are caught in the crossfire and the government is seemingly powerless to stop the violence. As a result, there is no freedom for the people.

Far too often we forgot how good we have it in America. The freedoms we cherish - life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness - are protected by a strong but relatively unobtrusive government. Around the world we can see what happens when there is too much or too little government. In either case freedom withers. In America we argue and sling mud over questions of whether 15% is a high enough tax rate for the rich or if we should be required to purchase health insurance (or should we let our fellow citizen die if they don't have coverage). In Syria people are dying as a repressive government tries to hold on to power and in Mexico people are dying because an ineffective government has lost power. We live in the sweet spot between the horns of the freedom dilemma, even if we don't take the time to appreciate our good fortune.

On to New Hampshire

2012-01-10T11:06:00.000-06:00

Now it is time for the first primary of the 2012 election cycle. New Hampshire is typically a wild ride, so predictions are a fool's errand. I think I qualify, so here goes: Romney in first, Perry in last seem to be all but locks at this point. Romney owns a home in New Hampshire, governed next door in Massachusetts, announced his campaign there and generally expected it to be his firewall against a disappointing showing in Iowa. Suddenly, he won Iowa with only a couple of months effort and now is playing from a position of strength. Perry, on the other hand, expected a dominant performance in Iowa to give him the lead going forward. Instead, he stumbled to a fifth place finish and abandoned New Hampshire to focus on South Carolina in hopes of capturing the conservative vote there.

The latest polls I saw had the middle group going, in order, Paul, Huntsman, Santorum and Gingrich. However, they were very close and it is tough to gauge momentum (look at Santorum's surprising finish in Iowa). Romney has taken a few lumps lately, which will not be enough to keep him from winning. But they may breath life into Huntsman's campaign. The former governor and ambassador to China skipped Iowa to try and build his own firewall in New Hampshire. He has come under attack for serving as ambassador under a democratic president but that sort of bi-partisanship may help in New Hampshire. He is the moderate alternative to Romney while the other three fight to be the conservative alternative. If Romney is hurt by the recent attack ads, the Bain Capitol issues, or anything else, independents and moderates may swing to Huntsman, who really needs a strong finish to stay in the race. I think he finishes a close third, behind Paul, with Santorum in fourth and Gingrich in fifth. Given my success in predicting last weeks caucus, you'd have to be fool to think I'm right.

Iowa Recap (Political Junkie Boxing Day?)

2012-01-04T09:23:00.001-06:00

Time for a quick recap of the Iowa Republican caucuses from last night, especially in light of my predictions from yesterday. First, what I got right - umm, well, Romney won (8 votes is still a win, right?). What I got wrong - everything else. Literally everything else, including my description of the caucus process. I described a caucus where the votes were counted by a head count. Iowa uses a paper ballot format. I actually participated in a paper ballot caucus in Colorado in 2008 so I have seen the process up close and personal. (I also participated in a head count type caucus in 1988, so I have seen that as well, the memories are just a bit hazier). There is less opportunity to switch candidates with the paper ballot, and your ballot is private so less pressure as well. But, having participated in a hotly contested caucus in a swing state in 2008, I can tell you it is very easy to read the temperature of the room. The county divided into voting district and each district met in a classroom at the local high school. There may have been 40 people in my room and I could easily predict the order of finish and relative vote count before the balloting began. This is because the process allows voters to make a supporting speech for their preferred candidate. These speeches draw audience response and you can tell who is supporting each candidate from the reactions to the various speeches. As a result my original point still has some viability, though less than what I originally proposed. Mainly, evangelical supporters of one of the three lesser candidates (Perry, Gingrich, Bachmann) may have switched late to Santorum after realizing their candidate was not going to win.

The rest of my predictions were absolute rubbish. Santorum finished ahead of Paul (and nearly won everything) with an even stronger late surge than I thought possible. Paul actually faded one or two points below what I thought he would receive. Gingrich really surprised me - I thought his statement "we are not going to win Iowa" was tantamount to a surrender and, combined with his fall from the top of the polls, I expected him to crumble into sixth, meaning I expected Perry to finish stronger than he did. Rick Perry's announcement that he was "going to reevaluate his campaign" is tantamount to surrender and I expect him to be out, possibly before South Carolina. My biggest misjudgment, however, was Michelle Bachmann. I thought she would be able to rally some support given her family connections to Iowa, her extensive time in the state and the fact Newt was admitting defeat in advance and Perry had lost luster. I thought she would possibly pick up some undecided votes or get some people from the anybody but Romney camp to return to her at the eleventh hour. Instead she had a dismal showing and is not a contender anymore, barring a miracle comeback in South Carolina.

Most of the stories I have read take the slant that Santorum was the big winner and Romney took a (small) defeat. The logic is straightforward - Santorum was polling sixth just a few weeks ago and suddenly jumped up to a virtual first place tie. All with limited funds and infrastructure. This is true but it ignores three essential facts, in my opinion. First, Romney essentially ignored Iowa until about two months ago. While Santorum has spent massive time and energy in Iowa, Romney has focused on other states. Romney was able to come in late and equal Santorum's months of efforts. Moving forward, Romney has a much stronger network and much, much deeper pockets. Second, Romney was able to win despite a very strong Anyone But Romney segment in Iowa. The right-wing had months to pick one candidate, galvanize behind that candidate and defeat Romney thereby forcing him into a must win in New Hampshire and making South Carolina key. Given the fact that nearly half of the voters (47% according to the last poll I saw) identified themselves as evangelical or born again, and those voters were, in general, strongly opposed to Romney, I think the right wing took a defeat. They had months and months, a strong base, limited opposition from Romney himself, and still could not carry the state. Third, and this point seems to have been lost in the shuffle, Santorum is not on the Virginia ballot and there is no write in process - only Romney and Paul are going to be on the ballot. Assuming Romney wins New Hampshire, and his lead there is fairly large, he will have victories in the first two states and have Virginia in his back pocket, at least as concerns Santorum and Gingrich. (One note - all of the stories I could find highlight that Perry and Gingrich failed to make the Virginia ballot, they do not even mention Bahcmann or Santorum. This highlights how quickly Santorum jumped up, he was a non-factor a few days again when the Virginia ballot story broke. However, the stories go on, uniformly, to say the ballot will have two candidates - Paul and Romney. It may be the case than Santorum is on the Virginia ballot and all of the stories overlooked him, but the best information I have been able to find is that only Paul and Romney are on the Virginia ballot. Interestingly, Newt Gingrich leads the Virginia polls 30-25 over Mitt Romney, but he failed to get enough signatures to qualify. If Santorum is on the ballot, I would assume most Newt support will switch to Santorum and he will be in a position to win Virginia. Virginia votes on Super Tuesday, March 3.)

Finally, I said yesterday that a Romney-Paul or Paul-Romney finish were the two best outcomes for Mitt Romney. Well, I think a Romney narrow win followed by the all but withdrawal of his most troublesome rival (Perry) may have been even better. Perry had the resources, infrastructure, and star power on his side. In fact, it was assumed when he entered the race he would walk away with the nomination. Now, he may not even survive through New Hampshire. Every other candidate seems to pose a lesser problem for Romney. Even the base coalesces around Santorum I think that the defeat of Perry serves Romney very well. His advantages in networks and money, especially money, will most likely overwhelm Santorum on a day like Super Tuesday. They might not have been able to overwhelm Rick Perry.

Political Junkie Christmas

2012-01-03T09:46:00.001-06:00

Since it is a new year I feel I should have a resolution. In the real world I have resolved to complain less and enjoy more. But here in the cyber world I thought I should have a more concrete goal. Something like resolving to actually post a few blogs on my blog.

Today is like Christmas for political junkies because it is Iowa caucus day! And even better than that, it is totally unpredictable Iowa caucus day! By my count at least six different candidates have been in the lead during some portion of the Iowa campaign season (Bachmann, Cain, Perry, Gingrich, Paul and Romney) and a seventh (Santorum) appears to have the momentum now. So anything might happen. I think the most interesting dynamic is the fact that 41% of likely voters who already have a first choice candidate say they could be swayed to change their pick. That does not include the sizable number of undecided voters.

If you have never participated in a caucus, just know it is very different than regular voting. The polls are not open all day for you to drop off an anonymous ballot. Instead, everyone shows up and the same time and sits in cliques for their candidate. You actually see who is supporting which candidate. This means peer pressure can play a huge part in the decision making process. If you show up intending to support Michelle Bachman but then notice your boss, your father-in-law and your best customer all sitting with the Ron Paul group, and the Bachmann group is pretty small and insignificant anyway, well, maybe you go ahead and switch seats just to be safe.

There is also always the chance for a last minute deal, either by a candidate or by a candidate's supporters at a local level. Again, suppose in a couple of caucus sites it is very close between Paul, Romney and Santorum, as the polls suggest. Now suppose the Bachman and Gingrich groups realize they are too small and their candidates are goners. But Gingrich is in a war of words with Romney (calling him a liar on TV this morning) and Bachmann supporters are mad at Paul for stealing campaign staffers, so they agree, amongst themselves, to support the candidate who is socially conservative and can cause the most problems for Romney and Paul - Rick Santorum. so, just before the final count they all move and declare their support for Santorum who suddenly wins that caucus site. Given how the social conservative wing has flailed about in an attempt to find an ABR candidate (anybody but Romney) I would not be surprised to see those types of switches happen. I don't think Romney will lose too many people - he is seen as a moderate and his supporters are less likely to tack to the right, I would guess. Paul supporters seem fanatically loyal so I do not expect him to suffer losses of this kind. But the supporters of the other four candidates seem less loyal to any person and are more about an agenda, so I could easily see huge swings as the voters try and find a candidate who can beat Mitt Romney.

As it is, the Iowa caucuses are shaping up to be better than Romney could have ever hoped for when he started his campaign. Until recently he did not think he could do well enough in Iowa to justify time or money. Instead he concentrated on New Hampshire where he is expected to win convincingly. But the ebb and flow of the campaign has left him an opening to win Iowa, have Ron Paul (who cannot win the nomination or the general election) finish second and the social conservative of the moment, probably Santorum, third. Romney's fear has always been that one social conservative candidate would emerge, draw in the support and money of that wing of the party and he would have a long, bloody battle to the finish. Instead, the four main conservative challengers remaining have swapped the mantle amongst themselves (and Herman Cain) with no one emerging. Ron Paul is far too extreme for most voters and could not gather enough support to win, so having him finish second just hurts the social conservative candidate more. In fact, Romney's second best scenario is a Paul win with Romney second. Given Romney's lead in New Hampshire, and the news this week that only Paul and Romney qualified for the ballot in Virginia, a win tonight would essentially give Romney a 3-0 lead in the early states against BGPS (Bachmann Gingrich Perry Santorum), and maybe enough momentum to coast to the nomination.

My prediction (for what it is worth, given how fluid things have been), Romney wins narrowly over Paul with Santorum a very strong third, Perry a distant fourth and Bachmann edging Gingrich for fifth. Bachman will probably bow out after New Hampshire, Gingrich and Perry may try to hang around for South Carolina in hopes of winning the very conservative, religious block there and jump starting their campaigns.

Happy New Year and Merry Political Junkie Christmas!

Opposition to the Kansas Income Tax

2011-10-28T15:17:00.000-05:00

There is an old Saturday Night Live mock commercial I have been thinking about lately. The commercial was for "First Interstate Change Bank" as I recall, and it featured employees and customers extolling the virtues of the bank who's sole function was to make change. If you need four quarters and you had a dollar bill, they can do that. If you need a crisp new twenty to give a grandchild as a birthday present and only have a couple of wrinkled tens, they can do that. The commercial featured Phil Hartman explaining the bank's business philosophy. "People ask me how we make money doing this and I tell them 'Volume'".

This week a new Kansas political group called Kansas For No Income Tax (headed by a former Kansas Republican party executive director, Ashley McMillan) was created to oppose the Kansas Income Tax. This seems in line with the push nationally to radically change the taxing mechanisms in this country (e.g. Herman Cain's 9-9-9 plan; Rick Perry's support for a flat tax, etc.). Of course if you eliminate the income tax you have to find a way to replace the income it generated because the need for government services will not disappear. This mostly likely means a switch to a sales tax based system. But that is not what the news report said when announcing the new group. Rather, the report stated the loss in income could be made up for by economic growth and closing loopholes.

Phil Hartman would explain this new tax strategy as "volume". But, no matter how many loopholes you close, no matter how much the tax base grows, you cannot bring in any income tax revenue if you have zero income tax. Zero times any amount is still zero. There is an argument to be made that a flat tax with no loopholes could replace the revenue of the current progressive tax system. That argument may or may not be persuasive but at least it is a valid argument. Conversely the idea that you can close loopholes and gain revenue after you eliminate the income tax is incredibly misleading, false, wrong, stupid you name it. Once the tax rate is set to zero there are no loopholes because there is no tax. End of discussion.

I also have grave concerns about the idea that cutting income taxes will produce jobs. First, wages are deductible for businesses presently. I fail to understand how lower tax rates on businesses will spur job growth - if the tax rate is such a concern the business could hire more employees and increase its deductions. I suspect it is not the tax rate that is keeping hiring down. Second, when you really study why businesses start up or expand you discover taxes are a very minor consideration. Does anyone remember the big push for enterprise zones in the late 1980s and early 1990s? It was the same idea - if you cut or eliminate taxes in impoverished areas you will release a latent entrepreneurial spirit which will produce business and jobs and lift the area out of poverty. Only they didn't work. The hurdles to business are very high. Taxes are way down on the list and cutting or eliminating those taxes had basically zero effect on business growth. Making capital more available at a lower cost, perhaps by expanding the Small Business Administration, would have a much greater impact.

I hope to discuss the pros and cons a sales tax or property tax based system as these proposals move forward. For now I just wanted to make the seemingly obvious point that closing income tax loopholes will not make up for revenue lost if you completely eliminate the income tax. I just wish that point had not been lost on the new advocacy group focused on influencing Kansas's tax policy going forward.

State of Kansas v. Planned Parenthood

2011-10-21T17:02:00.000-05:00

The Kansas City Star is reporting today that some key evidence in the State of Kansas's case against Planned Parenthood has been destroyed. At issue is the original documents Planned Parenthood filed with the state department of health. According to reports the records were probably destroyed during a routine document purge in 2005. My guess is this will mean the end of the state's criminal case against Planned Parenthood as I will try to explain.

First, some background. I have not been following this story particularly closely so I do not know all of the details, but a basic overview will hopefully suffice. The case was initiated by Phill Kline when he was the Kansas Attorney General. During his investigation of abortions performed by Planned Parenthood he made copies of the original documents filed with the Department of Health and, apparently, returned the originals. At some later point Planned Parenthood again submitted documents regarding its abortion practices. According to the Attorney General the documents contained materially different information than what was in the copies he made and so criminal charges followed. The accusations of the charges essentially boils down to whether PP maintained sufficient records as required by law and whether PP knowingly submitted false information to the state. The case is finally making its way to trial and the Johnson County District Attorney has notified the court the original documents maintained by the Department of Health have been destroyed. (Phill Kline lost his bid for re-election as the Kansas AG and was appointed to fill the unexpired term of the Johnson County DA. Kline brought his files with him and initiated the criminal case as the Johnson County DA).

In a normal criminal case the loss of the original records would not be crippling to the prosecution. Photocopies of documents are almost always admissible, especially if the originals were destroyed inadvertently by the record keeper. But this is far from a usual case. Just this month a disciplinary panel recommended Mr. Kline's Kansas law license be indefinitely suspended (one step short of being disbarred) because he lied to judges and the grand jury about this investigation and other related investigations. The Kansas Supreme Court has not yet ruled on the recommendation but it usually accepts the recommendation of the panel or increases the punishment - it seems unlikely Kline will not be severely punished by the Kansas Supreme Court. As a result the original documents are crucial. Because what the prosecutor is faced with now is one set of documents maintained by the defendant, Planned Parenthood, and another set maintained by an attorney who has been found to have repeatedly mislead the court about this very case. Planned Parenthood will argue the state's documents are forgeries crafted by Kline to falsely implicate them and, without the originals, it will be impossible to prove they are not.

Usually when the defendant claims the police or prosecutors tried to frame them they sound unbelievable. The state does not have to prove they are not telling lies or forging documents because the public does not believe the state does that, generally speaking. But, because of Kline's documented misconduct in this case, it is the prosecutor who will be difficult to believe. That is why the current prosecutor wanted/needed the original set of documents from the Department of Health - so Kline would not be an issue in the case. If the originals were different than the second set of documents provided by Planned Parenthood, the case would be about those inconsistencies. If the originals were consistent the case would be dismissed. Without the originals the case comes down to who do you believe. It will be virtually impossible to prove to twelve people beyond a reasonable doubt that the documents maintained solely by Phill Kline and his office are genuine since he has been shown to lie to the court in this very case. That is why I believe the prosecutor will eventually have to dismiss this case.

Of course the message boards are all a twitter with accusation about who destroyed the records - did Planned Parenthood order their puppet governor Sebelius to destroy them? Did the evil Attorney General Kline order them destroyed because he knew he had forged documents? Did the Illuminati destroy them to keep the Catholic Church from electing a new pope?

Actually I would guess he answer is much simplier, with no grand conspiracy. I expect Phill Kline did not instruct the Department of Health to maintain the originals because he had his copies. The Department of Health, because the records were old, destroyed them in the usual course of business. Phill was a career politician not a professional prosecutor. I would guess this was a simple oversight on his part. He should have subpoenaed the records or obtained a court order requiring them to be maintained. I think he just made a mistake. A mistake which will ultimately mean the prosecution he was so desparate to bring about will ultimately be dismissed. That is not to say he did or did not forge the records. I have no way of knowing, although I would not put it past him at this point. I just don't think he would had the foresight or authority to either have the records destroyed or to know they would be inadvertently destroyed in the routine course of business. As much fun as it would be to imagine the records destroyed as part of a vast conspiracy theory I think it was just boring incompetence.

Presidents and Military Service

2011-10-05T10:43:00.003-05:00

If you asked someone to describe the duties of the President of the United States, no doubt one of the phrases you would hear is “commander in chief”. The role of the President as commander of the military forces is one of the most important roles of the office. Given the importance of the “commander” role you might expect we look for military service when selecting Presidents.

President Eisenhower was a bona fide war hero for his role in World War II. President Kennedy gained fame for his naval career from his biography in PT-109. Both those Presidents, one from each party, served the U.S. Military during conflict and gained fame and popularity. But since Kennedy’s election in 1960 our selection of President has taken a different path. Johnson and Nixon were known for political, not military achievements. Ford never won an election and Carter was viewed as a pacifist and political outsider who was elected in response to the Watergate scandal. Reagan was famous as an actor and governor. Only George H.W. Bush was known for military service, having been a fighter pilot in World War II. Clinton avoided service in Viet Nam and protested against the war while in England. George W. Bush used every means available to him to avoid service during the war and spent some time in the Nation Guard on stateside duty, where he may or may not have partied more than he served the military. Finally, President Obama came of age after the Vietnam War and did not face the dilemma about service that Clinton and Bush faced.

By my count eleven of the past twelve elections have been won by a candidate with little to no military background. For nearly half a century the voting public has decided military service is not a mandatory requirement to hold the office of President. But, of course, we have elected many Presidents without a military background. Washington and Lincoln are probably the two most beloved Presidents; one was a General and one was a country lawyer. Teddy Roosevelt was a war hero, Franklin Roosevelt was a Governor. Military service has probably never been a requirement in the minds of the voting public. But what I find most interesting about the very recent past is not who won the election, but who lost. Let’s look at the last five “runners up” in Presidential elections because there may be something different at work now as compared to previous elections.

1992 – George H.W. Bush. Decorated World War II veteran. Lost to Clinton despite an aggressive campaign to portray him as a draft dodger. Clinton used some influence to avoid military service and actively protested American military involvement while he was a student in London.

1996 – Robert Dole. Decorated World War II veteran, suffered critical, life-threatening injuries in invasion of Italy. Lost to Clinton.

2000 – Al Gore. Enlisted in Army despite having some political pull – his father was a sitting U.S. Senator. Gore spent approximately five months in Viet Nam in an engineering company working as a journalist. His record sparkles by comparison with his opponent, George W. Bush, who used his political pull to avoid any and all overseas service.

2004 – John Kerry. Decorated Viet Nam War veteran with a Bronze Star, a Silver Star and 3 Purple Hearts. His military record was vigorously attacked to the point it became a liability during the campaign (remember the swiftboat controversy?) Again, his opponent actively avoided service.

2008 - John McCain. Military POW and decorated veteran. He survived years of torture at the infamous Hanoi Hilton before returning home and beginning his political career.

For the past five elections the American public has elected a person with no military exploits (other than George W. Bush’s stateside Guard duty). In each case the losing candidate had a military track record and three of those candidates wee combat wounded (Dole, Kerry, McCain). Gore has the least impressive military resume of the five, but it still stronger than any of the three winning candidates during the same time frame. In fact, it could have been a compelling campaign angle – son of privilege from an Ivy League school who enlisted and served a tour of duty in Viet Nam against a son of privilege from an Ivy League school who pulled strings and did not serve overseas.

I do not know what it means that we, as voters, have made this series of five straight choices for our “Commander in Chief”. I find it very interesting, especially since it has crossed party lines. Clinton was a draft dodger who defeated two republic candidates with strong military backgrounds. Bush was a draft dodger who defeated two Democrats with strong military backgrounds. It does not appear to be a party issue, just an unusual one. One thing appears certain, however, the streak will end in 2012. Neither Obama nor any of the major republican candidates have strong military backgrounds.

A Piece of Steel

2011-09-01T13:48:00.000-05:00

Recently a piece of steel from the World Trade Center made its way to Kansas City. I understand it will be part of a permanent display honoring firefighters.

My wife and I went to see this artifact while it was displayed at the Sprint campus, and we took our four year old. While we were there a reporter came up and ask me a few questions. In particular she wanted to know what I hoped my son would take from the experience. I mumbled something about bringing history alive, making past events more real, and the interview ended. Although that is similar to what I wanted to say I did not do a very good job of expressing my point. With some time to think about my answer, I would have said this:

I was born in 1970. In 1964 Congress passed the Civil Rights Act and outlawed discrimination in public accomodations. Even though only six years separate those two events the idea of legal discrimination, of separate water fountains and exclusive lunch counters, seems like a different world to me. I never saw the other world and I cannot fathom how it could have ever come to be - it makes no sense to me that some people were denied basic freedoms and that it was legal. Now I am not saying I discrimination has vanished in my lifetime or that all of America's racial issues are solved. I am simply saying that landmark event, only six years before my birth, is a relic of ancient history to me and six years may as well be six hundred. Refusing to allow black Americans to sit in the front of the bus is as distant to me as Columbus's voyage.

My son was born in 2007, six years after 9-11. Although the events of 9-11 are the defining moments for my generation, my son knows nothing of that world or of the one that existed before that Tuesday morning. The same six year gap exists for him. I fear that 9-11 will seem as distant to him as "No Blacks Allowed" seems to me. It will be something to be studied but not truly understood. And that thought troubles me. So I wanted to make history seem more alive for him, I wanted the past to move somewhat into the present. Because, although I don't want him to know the horror of that day I also don't want him to feel disconnected from what happened.

The Case Against a Balanced Budget Amendment

2011-08-18T15:00:00.003-05:00

The recent debt ceiling “crisis” in Washington focused a great deal of attention on our national debt. Currently the United States owes a debt of more than $14,000,000,000,000, a number so staggering it defies understanding. America has maintained a self-imposed limit on borrowing (the “debt ceiling”) which, because it is self-imposed, we have increased dozens of times over the years.

One idea thrown into the debate over the most recent increase to the debt ceiling was the so called “cut, cap and balance” proposal. The general idea was that the increase in the debt ceiling would be linked to an amendment to the U.S. Constitution requiring a balanced budget. The proposal passed the House but was defeated by the Senate. Which led many commentators and politicians to wonder who could possibly oppose a balanced budget amendment? The answer is really anyone with even a basic understanding of economics, as I will attempt to explain.

A balanced budget amendment has problems of both a political and economic nature. Politically, it is a “pass the buck” move by current politicians who want to look like they are taking responsibility without actually having to take responsibility. The amendment does not specify HOW the budget will be balanced. Someone else will have to decide, for example, whether to slash defense spending or social security benefits, or raise taxes. The favorite metaphor used by supporters of the balanced budget amendment is that American families have to live within their means so the government should, too. (Note: this overlooks the large amount of debts Americans incur for housing, cars, etc., but that is another issue). Well, supporting a balanced budget amendment is the equivalent of the head of that household looking at the income and expenses and saying “I have solved our budget problem, from now on we will not spend more than we earn,” without providing any explanation of how the family will accomplish this goal. Someone else will have to decide what bills don’t get paid.

Economically it is a bad idea to require a balanced budget because governments are not just like a household. Rather, we have decided that the government plays an important role in providing a safety net for society. When the economy stumbles, as it has recently, the government takes in less in taxes but there is a greater need for government spending. A balanced budget amendment would, therefore, require the government to either raise taxes or cut benefits, or both, during a recession thereby making the recession worse. The problem also happens in reverse if there is an economic boom. The government takes in more taxes and spends less on social programs, meaning there is excess revenue. Economic booms lead to higher prices, known as inflation, because the increase in economic activity creates wealth faster than it creates goods – people doing well spend more money. A balanced budget amendment would require the government to cut taxes or increase spending during a boom, which would fuel even higher inflation. In other words, a balanced budget amendment forces the government to take the exact opposite action appropriate for the economy in either a surplus or deficit situation.

The current debt is drastically too high, and there should be broad consensus to cut that debt. But a balanced budget amendment is absolutely the wrong way to go about it. If you still don’t believe me I will offer this final thought. Herbert Hoover was known as the “great humanitarian” for his work in Europe after World War I. He coordinated private relief efforts for the war torn continent. But he steadfastly believed government could not spend more than it earned – he was wed to the idea of a balanced budget. When the stock market collapsed during his presidency he did not use the resources of the government because it required deficit spending. As the economy sank into the Great Depression his reputation as a humanitarian sank with it. In fact, the shanty towns that sprung up for the homeless and downtrodden earned another nickname in honor of the President, “Hoovervilles.”

Politics as Volleyball

2011-08-03T11:06:00.000-05:00

Political Volleyball

My last post discussed the sometimes confusing and changing meaning of political labels. The terms “conservative” and “liberal” mean different things in different contexts. If we are talk about the size of government, a conservative would favor less government and a liberal more. But if we talk about certain specific social policies a conservative favors more political restrictions and involvement and a liberal wants less government. The labels themselves do not tell us very much, we need to know the context.

With this post I want to tackle another issue I have long found strange, the role of logic in political decisions. I don’t mean whether Congress is logical or not, I mean the relationship of a logical framework for analyzing a position with an individual’s political views. It is often said that politics makes strange bedfellows. I think this example can help show just how strange we can be when it comes to our political beliefs.

I am going to start with two different sets of three logical arguments. The first set of arguments goes together and supports a general viewpoint of individual freedom. The second set of three goes together and, broadly speaking, supports a viewpoint of government action. The logic statements are:

Individual Freedom

1. I should have the right to make this type of important decision for me and my family.

2. The government is not well suited to make this type of decision, should not micromanage and it is an abuse of power to interfere here.

3. The individual right being discussed is a long-held right and it would be confusing and disruptive to try and restrict it now.

Government Regulation

1. The so called “right” potentially harms innocent bystanders and it is appropriate to restrict or deny this right to protect them.

2. The government has a moral obligation to protect the vulnerable who cannot protect themselves.

3. Times change and we should not be held captive to old ideas.

Look at those two sets of logical arguments and decide which set appeals to you when discussing the issue of gun control. Most of us are quickly drawn to one set of arguments or the other. If you think it is appropriate to restrict gun ownership you probably start with the idea that more guns leads to more gun deaths and many victims are innocent victims – individuals who played no part in the decision for someone to obtain a gun (children who played with a gun and accidentally get shot, bystanders caught in the crossfire, etc). Conversely, if you are opposed to gun control you might argue the right to own a gun has long been law of the land and individuals are in a better position to make this important decision than the government.

Now, looking at the two sets of logical arguments again but this time decide which set of arguments is persuasive to you when thinking about the issue of abortion. Again most of us can quickly and easily find the set of arguments that speaks to us. But something very interesting happens – most people now switch sides. Social conservatives will usually opt for the individual freedom arguments on gun control but pick the government regulation arguments on abortion. Likewise, social liberal will identify with the government regulation arguments on gun control and the individual freedom arguments on abortion. In fact, I have often thought about these issues as a giant game of volleyball. The teams separate into two sides and the referee yells “abortion”. Team conservative yells out the logical arguments for government regulation and team liberal responds with the arguments for individual freedom. After a few minutes the ref blows a whistle and yells “gun control”. The teams switch sides and make the same arguments only in reverse. Team liberal shouts out the arguments for government regulation and team conservative volleys back with the individual freedom arguments. Of course this is not true for everyone. There are likely lots of people who support restrictions on both gun ownership and abortion or support freedom of choice on both issues. But I suspect the vast majority of Americans fall into one of two “contradictory” camps – restricting abortion/allowing guns or restricting guns/allowing abortion.

I think most of us would describe ourselves as logical creatures. We believe we logically consider an issue, analyze various positions and reach a logical conclusion. But, for a great number of us, I strongly suspect we decide these matters not on logic but on emotion. We have an emotional reaction to the issue and then pick a logical framework which supports our position. The framework can freely shift as the issue changes, and, for most of, this seeming contradiction does not cause any inner turmoil. It is yet another example of how confusing politics can be and how difficult it can be to have a rational discussion.

The Confusing Business of Political Labels

2011-07-30T08:51:00.002-05:00

I have been thinking for a while about political labels and how they often make issues more confusing. Part of this is because labels are always shorthand for something more involved and, by relying on labels, we lose nuance and subtlety. Juliet may have realized that “a rose by any other name would smell as sweet”, but we seem to rely on labels as a crutch.

Political labels are more confusing, I think, than other stereotypes because we use the same labels for many different things. The political spectrum is usually described in terms of conservative to liberal (or right to left). But what is conservative in one sense is liberal in another and vice versa. Further, what we consider moderate may be, in some senses, more consistently conservative or more consistent liberal than what we consider staunch conservative/liberal positions! If it seems utterly confusing, it is. And my writing is probably only making it worse, so maybe we can diagram my point to show what I am trying to say. Let’s look at two issues and show a conservative to liberal spectrum for each (keeping mind the fact that we are greatly simplifying these matters for purposes of illustration, despite my opening paragraph complaining about that very sort of thing). If we look at government regulation/spending as one issue and gay marriage as the other, we might get diagrams such as these:

Conservative                               Liberal
Less government/spending             Bigger government/more spending
Restrict/eliminate gay marriage       Allow gay marriage

I don’t think there is much controversy or confusion so far. As a general (simplistic) rule we say people who are for smaller government (less regulation) are conservative and people who are for a larger governmental (more regulation) are liberal. Likewise people opposed to gay marriage are conservative and people who support the rights of gays to marry are liberal. To help understand how the positions relate to each other let’s count each conservative position as 1 and each liberal as 0 (there is no winning or losing, this is just a mechanism to sort the results along a conservative to liberal).

It gets confusing, however, when we try and put these two ideas (size of government and a specific social policy) together and analyze them simultaneously. For simplicity’s sake I will use four very stereo-typed categories of the political population – each of these is really being used as a stand in for a wide variety of ideas. I apologize if anyone thinks these are too simplistic but the purpose is to illustrate how confusing the business of political labeling can become, not to pigeon-hole anyone. The four groups are: religious right republicans, “moderate” republicans, Catholic democrats and liberal democrats. A two dimensional issue grid might look like this:

                         Restrictions on Gay Marriage
           More                                       Less
   Catholic Democrats (0,1)         Liberal Democrats (0, 0)
   Religious Right (1, 1)                Moderate Republicans (1, 0)

The left vertical axis represents the size of government, with more on top and less on the bottom. (I actually had a nice table prepared but my text box won't copy over from Word, sorry for my blogger inexperience! I hope the table still makes some sense).

All we have done is take our two political lines and merged them into one two-dimensional graph. We can also add up the scores and they seem to confirm what we would have guessed going in. The Republican religious right scores as the most conservative, the liberal democrats the most liberal, and moderate (pro-choice) republicans and conservative (pro-life) Catholic democrats are in the middle.

But now the political labels of “conservative” and “liberal” get confusing. The Republican religious right is the most conservative group, yet they favor more government regulation than moderate republicans (restrictions against gay marriage). Likewise, the liberal democrats score most liberal on the scale and the graph, but they favor fewer government restrictions than “conservative’ Catholic democrats and have actively opposed government intervention on the issue of gay marriage. And it gets more confusing if we consider the position of the two “moderates”, especially moderate Republicans. They are consistently for less government regulation – be it regulation of business or of marriage. In this sense they are “conservative” (smaller government) on both issues, but they lose the label “conservative” on the gay marriage issue because it is claimed by the religious right. Similarly, a devout member of the Catholic Church is often considered a “conservative” democrat, even though they consistently argue for a more active role of government, regulating both business and marriage. In this sense they are more “liberal” than the liberal democrats who sometimes want more regulation and, in this case, want less. Finally, the two groups most likely to be called moderate in the political spectrum are the moderate Republicans and the Catholic democrats, but they disagree on both issues! They each are more likely to agree with the more “radical” element of the other party than the moderate one. In other words, the most conservative quadrant (religious right) has more in common with the “moderate liberal” quadrant (Catholics) than the “moderate conservative” does; likewise the extreme liberal position (liberal Democrats) is more closely aligned with the “moderate conservatives” than the “moderate liberals” are – the “middle” positions of the two parties are more like polar opposites!
Of course the answer to this seeming confusion is that “conservative” and “liberal” are more than one context. If we are talking about fiscal or regulatory policy “conservative” means favoring small government/less regulation and “liberal” means favoring more regulation/government. If we are talking about a social issue such as gay marriage, however, “conservative” and “liberal” mean something different. A “conservative” would align with “traditional values” and a “liberal” would be in favor of individual freedoms and “progressive” ideas. In other words, the confusion from our chart comes not because of the positions people take, but because of the labels we give those positions. This is why you will often here terms like “social conservative” or “fiscally liberal” to try and point out what context is appropriate for applying the labels.

One final example of how these labels can add to the confusion of our political dialogue. Again looking at the idea of gay marriage note it is entirely possible to reach either position on the issue from either political viewpoint. For example, a fiscal/policy conservative position on gay marriage would sound very libertarian – small government is important and this is not an appropriate area for government involvement. A liberal position on the issue would focus more on the individual rights of the participants and the need to treat everyone the same regardless of sexual orientation. The same result, support for gay marriage, is reached from opposite ends of the spectrum. Likewise a conservative argument against gay marriage would focus on traditional values and limiting rights to those enumerated in the Constitution, or on religious objections to homosexuality. A liberal argument would be that the government has a role to play in determining familial relations and it is important to regulate who is or is not allowed to be called a family because, if we don’t, we will have to permit all forms of marriage including bigamy, etc. Again, either side of the spectrum can reach the same conclusion through very different logic. As a result it is entirely plausible that a “moderate” republican, favoring a smaller governmental role and being in favor of gay marriage, would see herself as consistently conservative if she focused on the role of government definition. A religious right republican, however, would not see her in that light because they would apply both a governmental definition and a social policy one.

Please note this was a highly, severely subjective example. There are a great many people in each quadrant who likely would dispute my descriptions – in fact I am sure there are many Catholic Democrats who support the rights of gay to wed. I am speaking more of official church position than individual member views and, again, the intent is to highlight the confusing nature of political labels and not to offend anyone. Further, there are many issues where this confusion would not happen – if, for example we substituted gun control for gay marriage, the “conservative” position would have consistently favored less government and the “liberal” position would have favored more regulation. Finally, there are all sorts of nuanced, thoughtful positions to be taken on these issues which I am glossing over here.

My hope is to discuss political issues at a level that will allow for nuance and subtlety and not rely on labels.