Recently in Politics/Government/Law Category
Bill Clinton* was right, you know. Few issues have the ability to sway voters as effectively and in many cases I think that is a good thing. For me, it’s the biggest reason I cannot be a Democrat; the party just doesn’t get this stuff at all, and it’s funny and shocking.
By all accounts the poor Dems have lost their way (so have the Republicans, honestly) since 2000. They have stumbled from one issue to the next, lacking any cohesive ideal for America. In fits and starts since the 2004 election they seem to have found at least part of one though, and it is too bad. I am going to call it economic populism, even though I don’t really know if that is technically correct. But you know what I mean, don’t you? Issues like:
*the dangerous threat of outsourcing (actually good thing) *raising the minimum wage (also a good thing) *bashing Wal-Mart
Yes, that’s right: if you are a Democrat you now hate Wal-Mart. According a New York Times article at least six Democratic presidential hopefuls attended rallies specifically targeting Wal-Mart’s low wages and lack of benefits for workers.
Supposedly this is part of a larger populist economic message, but like any recent Democratic messge, it’s a bit muddled. For example, the Dems want to raise the minimum wage to over $7. An excellent idea. But Joe Biden recently complained at an anti-Wal-Mart rally that “they talk about paying them $10 an hour. That’s true. How can you live a middle-class life on that?” Well, obviously you cannot. So what? Not every job in America is a career and not every job should be required to put you straight into the middle class. People take low-wage jobs for many reasons, and these jobs ensure that at least parts of the American economy stay competative.
What I find more telling about Biden’s comment, however, is that he seems to demand wages higher than $10 and hour, but his party does not propose raising the minimum wage higher than $7.50. Who can live a middle class life on that?
So, while they are busy bashing the largest private employee in the country for supposed sins, thousands of other companies are commiting the same sins without any outcry. But Wal-Mart is easy to hate and it is well-known. But let’s give them the benefit of the doubt and say they want all workers to earn more than $10 (I do too, I just don’t think it is realistic). That would seriously destabalize the economics this country relies on, I think. Which would force most jobs overseas, except that won’t be allowed because outsourcing is bad.
I just don’t get the Democrat economic message. Can someone please explain it to me?
You have the right to defend yourself if attacked, including license to use deadly force in defense of your life. Much precedent and common sense unpins the notion of self-defence. Fifteen states have now enacted legislation that expands this idea, giving people the prerogative to shoot first, essentially. And not just to protect your self or your family from impending harm — now you can shoot to protect your property as well.
In Florida you are now within the law if you shoot an intruder who has entered your home or car by force, even before determining danger or trying to retreat. The notion that one should attempt to retreat before exercising deadly force is long established, although recently this has become a disused prerequisite in courts.
My concern is that a change in the law will lead to deaths that could be avoided if people tried first to get away from danger before acting with deadly force. No doubt supports of the change will make many arguments, including that people may not have time to fully determine the danger or that I am soft of crime and don’t want support crime victims. Both are specious arguments because a judge and jury should be sufficient to determine the motive of a crime victim’s self defense. Furthermore, just because I do not support the immediate execution of car jackers and thieves does not translate to being soft on crime or insensitive to its victims.
Let’s look at a few examples:
A cab from Florida shot and killed a man after driving him to his destination. The fare was “reluctant” to get out of the cab so the driver used a stun gun on him. The fare got out and started to “come at” the driver (who was still in his car), at which point he fired warning shots at the man’s feet and them at his body, killing him.
Why did he just drive away? The fare had no weapon, although the driver claimed he had a knife.
A second incident involved an argument between neighbors over the number of garbage bags left at the curb for collection. This ended up with one man shooting the other in the chest. He was not charged because of the new statute on self defense.
The shooting victim had no weapon, and the other man had to enter his house and fetch the weapon in before coming back out to shoot his neighbor.
Over trash bags? Really?
The NRA is, shockingly, supporting the law wherever possible on the argument that it “empowers good people to make good decisions,” which is clearly demonstrated by the above examples. I would argue that it empowers no one, and allows good people that make bad decisions to get away with crimes. This doesn’t reduce crime, it multiplies it by turning victims into criminals.
This afternoon I ran across an article on Newsvine discussing the president’s efforts to consolidate power to the executive branch and limit the ability or efficacy of efforts by the other two federal branches to limit his power. The piece isn’t written by a professional journalist, but it is very well documented, with links to FindLaw discussions about the relevant main topics. The main ideas sound on their face to be very doom and gloom and slightly paranoid, but the evidence is damning and striking.
Everyone knows that when President Bush took office there was a federal surplus of 2.4% of GDP or about $235 billion. It is also common knowledge that the surplus promptly disappeared during the recession caused, at least in part, by the burst of the dot-com bubble. But were you aware that at the same time, in 2000, the federal debt of the United States was at $5.7 trillion while today it sits at $8.3 trillion and is expected to reach $10 trillion by the time the president leaves office in 2009?
Among its several other distasteful failings, the GOP has proven that it cannot control spending when it is control of the executive and legislative branches simultaneously. In the period between 1948 and 1980, when Reagan took office, the federal debt held steady at about $1.7 trillion. It has since risen steadily, except during the tenure of President Clinton and the concurrent Republican congresses.
And it’s only going to get dramatically worse from here on out. For years presidents and politicians have been screaming about Social Security’s huge future shortfalls. Eventually the program will have to be saved, modified, or scrapped. And that’s true, it does need to be fixed, and soon. But here’s something I did not know until this morning:
According to the 2005 Medicare trustees report, the future unfunded liability for Medicare Part A is 2.5 percent of G.D.P. in perpetuity (page 64). The unfunded liability of Medicare Part B is 2.7 percent of G.D.P. (page 101). And the unfunded liability of Medicare Part D, the drug benefit, is 1.9 percent of G.D.P. (page 112). In other words, we would need to increase taxes by 7.1 percent of G.D.P. immediately and forever just to pay for all the Medicare benefits that have been promised — an amount close to what is now raised by the individual income tax.
By the way, the 2005 Social Security trustees report says that the unfunded liability of that program, which Mr. Bush told us over and over again was in dire need of a fix last year, has an unfunded liability of just 1.2 percent of G.D.P. (page 60) — virtually nothing compared to Medicare’s problems.
Remember that huge Medicare bill President Bush rammed through congress a few years ago? The changes to Medicare made then will cause mandatory spending (the money that congress must spend each year on entitlement programs like Social Security, Medicare, etc., and does not include defense, education, etc.) to rise to 21% or GDP from 9.8% today. Where are those revenues going to come from if we are now only paying 7.1% of GDP in income taxes? New taxes folks, and big ones.
It is time for regular Americans to listen up, shack off their disgusting apathy and disinterest in the details of what happens in Washington and pay attention. It will do us all some good for more people to realize that our politicians are selling us down the river today, tomorrow, and for as long as we allow them to continue.
My friend Bob Fancher is a good sport and always up for a healthy, heated political discussion (I don’t like to call them debates). While I was home for Christmas and New Years I visited the Fanchers and brought up the issue of Snoopgate. Not surprisingly I expressed my disgust with the program, particularly the prospect that the NSA or other Executive Agencies would use the program to spy on Americans domestically.
My ultimate argument was that it was illegal for the president to order such a program because it violated constitutional prohibitions on searches without due process (universally agreed in America to be mean a court ordered search warrant). I further argued that the program was unnecessary because a special FISC (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court) court exists specifically to provide warrants for secret surveillance of foreign agents/nationals inside the United States.
He counter by arguing that the president essentially changed the law when he issued the Executive Order authorizing the program. He claimed that that Executive Order superseded constitutional protects against illegal searches. Essentially he gave the president unlimited power to do whatever he wanted by executive order. In my ignorance I failed to note that the executive order is not provided for by the United States Constitution. According to Wikipedia:
Presidents of the United States have issued executive orders since 1789. There is no United States Constitution provision or statute that explicitly permits this, aside from the vague grant of “executive power” given in Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution and the statement “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed” in Article II, Section 3.
Executive orders do not have legal force by themselves. Most are simply orders issued by the President to United States executive officers to help direct their operation, the result of failing to comply being removal from office. Some orders do have the force of law when made in pursuance of certain Acts of Congress due to those acts giving the President discretionary powers.
I did correctly claim that no executive order has the power to override explicit provisions of the constitution. The only legal means for this would be an amendment.
As for the FISC court, well, according to Bob the court is incredibly slow and, in line with official arguments, these warrants sometimes need to be issued within seconds. A slow-moving, deliberative body like a court cannot be expected to move that quickly. Well, it’s a good thing you can request a surveillance warrant post facto. It also only takes a single judge to approve a request. In the entire history of the court, only four requests have been denied out of over 18,000 submitted. That seems pretty efficient to me.
The backlash continues to build over President Bush’s illegal wiretap authorizations. I just hope that he isn’t allowed to wriggle out of responsibility for his poor choice. The Drudge Report helpfully reminded us Tuesday after the original New York Times article ran that Presidents Carter and Clinton also issues similar authorizations by executive order as if to mitigate the blame by spreading it around to some Democrats. Well, that just doesn’t cut it for me. I don’t know the circumstances of Clinton’s EOs, nor did Drudge expound of the details of their scope, calling them “similar” to Bush’s. If they are in fact similar then I am equally appalled with Clinton. But the point is Bush is the president now and he needs to be held responsible.
Now we find out that last month President Bush summoned the publish and executive editor of the Times to the Oval Office to discourage them from running the piece, after a year of additional investigation to ensure the story was accurate. What hubris, but that is par for the course. The president was desperate to avoid the at last persuasive evidence of his law breaking.
I am disgusted by Bush’s utter contempt for the rule of law and for the constitution that he claims to value so highly and swore to protect. He has done nothing to fulfill his obligation to defend the constitution against fear, overreaction, and power grabs.
The president has gone too far in authorizing an obviously unconstitutional wiretapping program. George Bush has repeatedly taken his position as the President of the United States to mean that he is essentially omnipotent, with far reaching powers over the Congress, Judiciary, and citizens. He disregards, manipulates, bullies and cajoles the congress to get what he wants and when he knows he won’t get it, he circumvents it entirely.
According to Gen. Michael Hayden, director of NSA when the program was authorized, “we have got information through this program that would not otherwise have been available.” Well, I have said it before and I will say i again, I don’t care how much information you got that you think that otherwise would not be available, it is not worth it. The constitution was brilliantly designed to allow the government to protect it’s citizens from external threats while at the same time protecting citizens from the government. The constitution protects people inside the US from unauthorized search and seizure, and that authorization must come from the court, not from executive branch.
The AG now claims that the war powers congress gave President Bush when the US invaded Afghanistan also gave him power to perform secret surveillance without any judicial oversight. That sounds like grasping at straws. Now that the cat is out of the bag the administration is searching for justification for something they know is not only utterly distasteful to the congress and the public, but is also illegal.
Senator Arlen Spector, a Republican from PA says he will hold hearing in the New Year. Thank goodness the congress, especially including Republicans, aren’t willing to let this pass or, even worse, to try to justify it somehow.
I am appalled and disappointed, but this simply reaffirms my long-held belief that the present administration is at best misguided and at worst outright dishonest. President Bush is unwilling to work within the limits of the already expansive powers granted to the President and he is using the excuse of “protecting the American people” to inappropriately expand his authority.
Read more
They have, finally. The Senate has refused to reauthorize expiring provisions of the USA PATRIOT Act. This is a big win for those of us who have always felt that the Act did too little to protect American’s at the expense of our civil liberties. I am not willing to give up the things that epitomize America to save America. I is unnecessary and it erodes the essence of American freedom.
read more
In response to Bob Fancher at Xanga.
>It is disappointing to hear you say that you want more division among our elected officials. The requirement that a politician’s beliefs be easily discernible from his or her party affiliation is exactly why our representatives in Washington are filled with such rancor, bitterness, and devoid of any remnants of statesmanship or true bipartisan cooperation. Instead of making up one’s own mind regarding an issue, you ask that a politician merely consult his party’s platform, which if you look at either major party’s platform you will find two complete heaps of trash. The Republican party has degenerated into a party of moralizing, controlling old biddies who can’t find there way to shut the purse. On the other hand you have the democrats who are falling all over themselves to attack and whine about any policy or program a Republican might have even considered proposing.
> During post-primary election periods our political landscape does seem to blur, but that is because the 60% of the country that makes up the middle of the political spectrum doesn’t buy the need to protect the flag in the constitution or keep the retirement age artificially low.
> We need more John McCains (although fewer Zell Millers — he’s just crazy), more sensible pragmatists, willing to play fair, talk straight (relatively), and do what’s right for the country regarding any given policy, not call up Howard Dean for a pep talk on the wonders of overweening unions.
My feel is that the public’s desire for clear cut, black and white answers from government is one of the many reasons we get unreasonable, ineffectual solutions from Congress and the rest of them. Finding answers becomes more about politics and ideology than about fixing problems and improving the lives of citizens. Most questions in government are complex and nuanced (I know many conservatives fear that word, but it’s true) and the answers our representatives develop should be likewise nuanced, if not too complex.
