Actividades Misteriosos

Last Friday, I told Tom Burke “the story.”

-         It all began in 2^nd grade when my grandmother trained me to deliver the “Mustard Seed Sermon.”

-         On my 15^th birthday, Renee Gaters hired me to work in her law office.

-         Life went into overdrive after I stopped by then-Rep. Mark Sanford’s office to see if he was willing to hire a high school intern.  His receptionist gently suggested that I instead apply to be a Page.

Bottom Line:  The reason why I’m a politically-obsessed lawyer is because of all of the above.  My vocations and passions aren’t popular, but I am who I am and try my best to do right. And outside of my profession, I’d like to think that I’m a better person because of – among other blessings – my grandmother, Ms. Gaters, and having served as a Page.

In the days since I shared those memories, I learned that the most pivotal experience of my life, the United States House of Representatives Page Program, has been discontinued.  I’m despondent.  But I understand the decision.  After 200 years of technological advances and changes in the character of Congress, employing a select cadre of 16-year-old messengers is simply redundant, cost-prohibitive, and difficult to justify in today’s political environment.  Few things last forever.

Before August of 1996, I never before visited Washington, DC.  By June of 1997, I had stood 10 yards away from the President of the United States as he delivered the State of the Union address.  My family saw me on TV.  My mother cried and praised God.

As House Pages, we attended school in the attic of the Thomas Jefferson Building of the Library of Congress, one of the most ornate and beautiful buildings in the world.  Classes and assemblies were often distracted by unobstructed views of the sun rising over the entirety of the nation’s capital, brilliantly reflecting from the limestone, granite, and marble of memorials, monuments, and museums.  Our coveted floor privileges became mundane.  One day we’d watch a world leader address Congress or attend the Inauguration, the next we’d stroll over to the Senate and show off John Kennedy’s desk. We’d often count down the minutes to school being cancelled because another impassioned House debate stretched well into the night. I often had the glorious honor to stand on the roof of the Capitol and hoist up the American flag (signifying whether the House is in session), which was an especially stunning experience on a windy night. What a life.

But we were also 16-year-old kids from all over the country living in a dorm; kids who became friends, best friends, some lovers, others eventually spouses.  We roamed Metro stops and universities, sipped alcohol and skirted curfew.  There was a prom… in the Ways and Means Committee Room.

Sure, it was distressingly non-egalitarian to permit less than 100 high school juniors to roam the halls of Congress.  But that’s easy for me to say now because I was one of the lucky few.  The elimination of the Page Program won’t eliminate life-changing experiences for wide-eyed kids, those events so unreal that one wonders if they ever really happened.  That’s why us former Pages can’t help but be sad that no one – even a small few – will ever again do what we did.  But it all happened, it was real, I did it and I’m forever grateful.

Don’t Tread on History

“They [tax cuts] are essential for the long run, as well — to lay the groundwork for future growth and future prosperity.  That growth will bring the added benefit of higher revenues for the government — revenues that will keep tax rates low, while fulfilling key obligations and protecting programs such as Medicare and Social Security.”  George W. Bush, January 7, 2003.

The once pristine full faith and credit of the United States is spiraling towards denigration and default for no reason other than to appease those whose visceral hate of President Obama supersedes any sense of responsibility.  Their puppeteers obdurately re-write American history into a false Founding Father – World War II – Ronald Reagan narrative, while demanding that people like me forget the most obvious and proximate historical cause of our current predicament: The George W. Bush Presidency.

I will not forget.  I will not get over it.  George W. Bush is certainly not exclusively responsible for our collective failure to prepare for globalization, anticipate the evisceration of blue collar jobs by better training the workforce, or our boom/bust obfuscations of reality.  Nevertheless, the policies of his lost decade hastened rather than cushioned the blows.

While George W. Bush and Republicans in Congress destroyed surpluses, ran up the national debt and routinely increased the debt ceiling, their White Citizens Council begat John Birch Society begat Christian Coalition begat Tea Party “conservative” cohorts looked the other way.  When the country should have railed against rampant deficit spending during the Bush years, instead this is what we talked about:

Why my head is spinning over the tax cut issue.

1. No one likes taxes, wasteful spending, and ridiculous deficits, but everyone (from all political parties and independent) demands government to address whatever their personal priorities might be (schools, roads, national security, protecting financial system, research/development, safety regulations, reduce health care costs/abuses, trade promotion, protecting environment, tackle unemployment, etc.). All (especially voting public) talk good game, but few are brave enough to accept real across the board (that includes defense) spending cuts necessary to reduce deficit. Can’t have it all ways, people.

2. The “starve the beast” theoretical crowd pisses me off. It’s certainly no fun when government confiscates wealth for any purpose. And it’s not crazy to want a smaller government. So, those who hate redistribution and want a skeleton government should look the public in the eye and honestly explain exactly what services should be eliminated, rather than tricking the people into thinking that the same level (or more) governmental services can be paid for with less tax revenue.

3. After decades of hearing that supply side/trickle down can simultaneously grow the economy, create tax revenue, and cut deficits, the theory has yet to be proven and pretty much disproven. Makes for great sound bites and has political appeal, but – again – we can’t have it both ways. If the public wants government to do stuff, the public must pay for it somehow.

4. 1990s tax rates: surplus and growth. 2000s tax rates: broken promises, negative growth, deficits, unemployment, and excuses. Taxes can be both too high and too low. There is such a thing as a level of taxation that sustains growth… and perhaps the 1990s rates were sustainable.

5. GOP (while crying deficit crocodile tears) is holding continued tax cuts for 99% hostage to prevent increases for top 1%, saying that small businesses within the top 1% will use difference to create jobs. True small business job creators can be easily carved out of top 1% increases. Political spin taxes like “marriage” tax and “death” tax can also be carved out. Capital gains and alternative minimum taxes are ripe for compromise. So, what’s the issue?

6. Objective accounts say more personal income for top 1% will be hoarded, sheltered, or splurged rather than used to grow the economy and hire people. Sure, if I were top 1%, I’d fight like hell for my personal income, and I don’t fault them at all for protecting their interests. But I’m not in the top 1% and won’t fight like hell until I am, so why are those who aspire (yet are no where close) to being rich so happy to carry the water for the rich? Hell, the consumption of the masses is what makes the top 1% rich, and plenty of rich people know it’s good for them when more Americans have money to spend. Yet somehow it’s “class warfare” when others do what the rich have perfected: fighting for their own economic interests.

7. Democrats are sorry negotiators, that is if they (i.e. Senate Democrats) even believe what they espouse. They’re negotiating from what should be a most enviable position: defending tax cuts for 99% against increases for the top 1% (screw the easy-to-solve “small business” job creators mumbo jumbo), and have nothing to lose because they just lost almost everything on Election Day. Yet, somehow this is still subject to debate; people among the 99% who would keep their tax cut somehow think their livelihood is on the line if taxes go up for the very rich in order to pay for all the stuff we all say we need government to do. Wow.

8. How about stare Mitch McConnell in the eye and say: “You keep on fighting for the top 1%. 100% of taxes will go up on Jan. 1, it will be your fault, and we’re going to explain why it’s your fault every single day. Bye bye.” Sure, two years of more impassioned “tax and spend liberal” spin is will be fun for the GOP, but that’s going to happen anyways and I doubt (if taken to task) they’ll find worth in two years of explaining their responsibility for higher taxes for everyone. And the treasury would have the revenue, which is a sad but real consolation.  Nevertheless, if history is our guide, Dems will capitulate and still get all the blame. #headspinning

Anyone who thinks unemployed people would forgo a job in favor of $200/week for a finite period of time has never been forced to collect unemployment.

Politics and The Blah Blah Man

A few years ago, I was suddenly overcome by a noteworthy tourettic spasm:

“Blah blah blah blah blah, said The Blah Blah Man!” I shouted to a group of incredulous Hoyas.

The Blah Blah Man, my best imaginary friend and key element of my repertoire, has often comforted me during the last two years of American politics, possibly the silliest period of public discourse ever.

I’m as inspired by soaring rhetoric as the next guy, but for me one president’s “hope and change” is as “blah” as another president’s “compassionate conservatism” or “shining city on the hill.” Rhetoric is always displaced by reality.  I don’t need pep talks.  Rather, I’m looking for leaders who would intelligently and soberly manage our government and aim to “do the right thing” (whatever that means) on an everyday basis.  In the case of President Obama, his public speaking prowess is an added bonus.

However, many other Americans were apparently convinced that – despite rabid opposition – President Obama’s verbal pronouncements would instantly cure the most confounding of generational crises, including an unemployment crisis created by the three-plus decade collapse of the manufacturing sector.  The system is obviously far too broken and far too partisan to accommodate quick fixes.  No politician is able to – or should be expected to – fix everything.  We’re all going to get through life, sift through right and wrong, and solve public and personal problems as best we can with what we have.

Rather than impatient flapping to the winds of the loudest voices, I would rather Americans finally demand a truly intelligent and sober public discourse.  Why do we find it so difficult to reject the outrageous patronizing catch-phrased political narrative we’re constantly force-fed?

In the right corner: Patriotic God-fearing Constitution-loving Americans awoken by a sudden power grab by socialistic job killers, who salivate at the prospect of raising taxes and over-regulating Mom and Pop small businesses, running up the deficit handing out money to pregnant immigrants, and permitting Osama Bin Laden to unplug granny’s respirator.

In the left corner: Patriotic altruistic Constitution-loving Americans battling the decay of the 2000s, when war-mongering greedy big business special interests (aided and abetted by hateful rubes) destroyed jobs, the social safety net, safety regulations, and civil liberties, and ran up the deficit by handing money to rich defense contractors.

In the middle: Everyday hard-working middle class citizens who hate both parties (yet mysteriously can’t organize a third one), and just want to work somewhere and send their kids to good schools.

Meaningless blather, piled on by senseless distractions like the “Beer Summit” and obsessions over the next election rather than this one.

“Blah blah blah blah blah, said The Blah Blah Man!”

I dream of a day when voters ignore the next “my opponent shamelessly tortured and murdered a nun’s pet bunny rabbit” advertisement and simply reflect on their values, check their bank accounts, and actually go out and vote for the candidate with the background, intelligence, and agenda consistent with their needs.  Sounds easy, doesn’t it?

But I can guess how The Blah Blah Man would respond.

Judicial Experience: What’s Good Enough for the Gander?

Moments after President Obama nominated Solicitor General Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court, the right rushed out with silly spin that Ms. Kagan is not qualified because she has never served as a judge.  Predictably, my home state’s senator, Jim DeMint, jumped right in:

“I’m concerned that she has no judicial experience to give Americans confidence that she will be impartial in her decisions,” DeMint said. “However, I will withhold judgment until she has the opportunity to present her views and the Senate has time to fully examine her record in academia.”

The list of Chief Justices and Justices who were never judges is damning enough.  Not to mention the fact that the Solicitor General represents all of us before the Supreme Court.

To help further douse this dustup, I looked into the experience brought by all current members of the Court:

Justice Sotomayor:      10 years, 10 months, U. S. Court of Appeals (2^nd Cir.), 6 years, 2 months, 1 day, U. S. District Court, Southern District of N.Y.

Justice Alito:               15 years, 9 months, 1 day, U. S. Court of Appeals (3^rd Cir.)

Justice Breyer:             13 years, 7 months, 23 days, U. S. Court of Appeals (1^st Cir.)

Justice Ginsburg:         13 years, 1 month, 22 days, U. S. Court of Appeals (D. C. Cir.)

Justice Kennedy:         12 years, 10 months, 24 days, U. S. Court of Appeals (9^th Cir.)

Justice Scalia:              4 years, 1 month, 9 days, U. S. Court of Appeals (D.C. Cir.)

Justice Roberts:           2 years, 3 months, 27 days, U. S. Court of Appeals (D.C. Cir.)

Justice Thomas:           1 year, 7 months, 11 days, U. S. Court of Appeals (D.C. Cir.)

Senator DeMint railed against Justice Sotomayor, the most experienced justice, yet adores Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Scalia and Thomas, the least experienced justices.

How typical.