The Lighter Side of SOTU

The State of the Union for 2013 is now another part of history, or at least it should be.  While a well-delivered piece of political rhetoric, it wasn't a particularly ground-breaking or inspirational bit of speech writing.  Now for those of you who would like to pick the nits for a bit more, I have a recent column in the Toledo Free Press in which we can do it together here.  For the rest of us:  as the old Chad and Jeremy song from 1962 says, "That was yesterday, and yesterday's gone".

Before we leave it completely however, I would like to touch on some of the lighter bits that I noticed during the days during which it was broadcast. (What, it was only a little over an hour?  You've got to be kidding me!)

• Would somebody please disconnect the APPLAUSE sign and stop treating the SOTU like a puppet show.  If this is as an important as they would like to make us think it is, they need to treat this speech like a school awards banquet where everybody is told to hold their applause until the end.  Not only would this take the pressure off the speechwriters to produce so many of the spontaneous 'scripted' moments required in good theater, but it would avoid those awkward moments when the audience stops paying attention and either jumps the gun or misses their cue to clap.  It would also stop making this gathering of the nation's leaders not look like they were bobbing up and down like a talent night puppet show.
• VP Joe Biden seemed awfully pre-occupied with some paperwork during the speech.  Oh, he managed to applaud whenever the little light came on, but it sure looked like he was checking over his tax returns or catching up on some briefing notes instead of listening to the boss right in front of him.
• Speaking of the guys behind, John Boehner had a look on his face that made it appear as if he hadn't had a bowel movement recently.  The other thing apparent was that a guy that represents Ohio and works in Washington DC looked like he was sporting far more melanin than he had any right to.  Fortunately, John's making pretty good money as Speaker, so I'm sure he can probably afford the new Obamacare taxes involved with tanning booths.
• I noticed that the Supreme Court was in attendance again this year, though not all of them.  The President didn't call them out this year, so the cameras didn't spend much time focusing on them during the speech.  They did pan across at one point late in the effort however, and Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg looked to be 'chin on chest' and down for the count.  Justice Breyer sitting next to her likewise seemed to be doing a chainsaw imitation, so he wasn't going to be able to help her.  Then again, most of the Justices are no longer kids, so being out after 9PM EDT is probably way past their bed time.
• OK, I get the fact that Senator Mark Rubio needed a drink of water while delivering the Republican response and had to reach well off-camera to grab a bottle of water while suffering from dry mouth; somewhat spoiling his performance.  Many saw this as a chink in his armor.  I saw it as a Republican who was working with Union stage hands who wouldn't give a member of the party of evil a drink if they were dying in the desert, but wouldn't mind making one look foolish by placing a drink just out of reach. 
• The beginning of the SOTU is a fairly well orchestrated bit of pomp and circumstance.  The Sergeant at Arms makes the introduction and the President walks down the aisle to the podium, shaking a few notable hands and exchanging greetings on his way; in a bit of ceremony well worth following with the cameras in the room.  The President's exit however, breaks down in a series of handshakes and autographs that cheapens much of what has gone before.  Giving an hour long speech is tiring, doing it in front of a jaded audience is even more so.  Having to hang around and sign programs like the paid talent at a baseball convention makes it downright silly.  I think that they either need to turn the cameras aways and spare the President, or tell the Secret Service they need to put on their dark sunglasses and remind the crowd that they've got guns and aren't afraid to use them.  Let's get POTUS out of the room and let him have the drink he probably needs by then.
• You know what, let's just go back to the days of Thomas Jefferson, who simply had a written form of the SOTU delivered to the members of both Houses.  Not only would it eliminate all of the issues previously listed, but it would keep from messing with the mid-week television schedule. 

A Big (and Maybe Bad) Week for SCOTUS

The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) announced its immigration decision on Monday, pretty much gutting the Arizona law of the ability of charging those that they discover to be in country illegally and enforcing 'their' and the nation's border with Mexico.  Incongruously, it did so while simultaneously allowing State and Local law officials to check for proper immigration status while arresting people on other non-related charges.  The federal government immediately followed that announcement with one of its own, basically telling AZ that they (or anyone else) catching someone who's in the country illegally and not a wanted felon is not going find the Feds coming to get them or do anything about it.  

Now bank robbery is a federal and not a state crime, so one cannot but wonder if under SCOTUS legal logic, local police shouldn't bother much about it either.  (Besides, with the true value of money continuing to decline, the line between felony and misdemeanor bank theft is increasingly fuzzy.)  Kidnapping is also mostly escalated to a federal crime, so this may provide another rather gray area for local law enforcement's relationship with its federal brethren.  For those of you who capitalize both United and States when writing it, this can be read as nothing less than casting aside the Tenth Amendment, which should probably now read:

"Those powers not delegated to the United States (and of no real interest to them) nor prohibited by it to the States (or by Executive order, federal regulation, or the whim of the resident in the White House or his minions in Homeland Security or the DOJ) , are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people (until such time as the federal government shall take notice of them and decide otherwise)."

It's been a long time since State sovereignty has been dealt such a crushing blow, with the courts telling States in effect not to attempt to enforce federal laws created for their protection which were passed by both Houses of Congress and signed by the President (even if the Federal law enforcement  doesn't) and those Feds thumbing their noses and telling States "Nyah, Nyah, Nyah".  

Now I know that the President is in full campaign mode these days, and that perhaps making up percentage points in Hispanic districts might bolster the support that he's apparently lost from other groups in recent months.  I find it difficult to understand however that such a savvy campaigner as the President doesn't remember that Texas, Arizona, New Mexico, and California have about 104 electoral votes and might not be happy to see their States remain open battlegrounds (and not just for votes). 

Now coming from Chicago, it's possible that the President has likewise forgotten that dead people (which the DOJ is simultaneously attempting to block being removed from voter rolls in Florida) and those here illegally are not allowed to vote (at least in theory); and so cannot help him, except perhaps with improperly documented campaign contributions. (Anybody checked lately to see what La Raza has kicked into the coffers?)

______________

SCOTUS will likewise be releasing its decision on the Patients Protection and Affordable Healthcare Act on Thursday this week, with those on both sides of the issue salivating over the potential of demonizing a 'political court' and their political opposition.  While this may be a harder case to make for the federal government after getting their way in Arizona and regardless of the decision; the repercussions of this yet-to-be-released decision will begin and not end the process of what will come later.   No matter which way the decision falls, the fight will go on.  Few if any are talking about the fact that what has become known as Obamacare has a couple of provisions worth keeping if it's struck down, or a few that demand dismantling if it's retained.

That's the damn problem with these omnibus bills like PPAHA however.  Political parties get so wrapped up in having scored 'the big win' that they too forget the impact of their actions.  Bills with thousands of pages will never be fully read or understood until long after they've been signed into law.  By the time SCOTUS gets around to them (if they ever do), they have become like a diagnosed but untreated cancer, and have infected so much around them that their damage can never truly be reversed. 

Unfortunately, many of the same positive results of this unfortunate law could have been achieved if they had been sought through reform legislation specifically designed to address the most egregious issues only; and it's likely that they might have been accomplished with bi-partisan support.  That wouldn't have achieved the 'in your face' political victory for whichever political party is in power over their opponents however.  Besides, as they tell themselves by way of disingenuous apology, it's OK to throw all this shit onto the wall and see what eventually sticks.  After all, there's always SCOTUS to sort it all out. 

I don't know about you, but that kind of thinking is not only cowardly and a disgrace to the oath of office that each legislator took upon election, but is a shirking of their responsibilities on a scale that can only be responded to by chasing them out of office at the first available opportunity.

While we're at it ....  

Call me cynical, but it also seems almost cowardly of the nine Justices, all of whom sit with a lifetime appointment, to release such monumental decisions (decisions whose legal precedent will impact generations to come) only days before skulking out of town for their summer break.  I'm not saying that these decisions would likely have been more palatable if they had not come out until August or September, but I might have felt better about the Supreme Robes if I knew that they were sweating them out (literally and figuratively) in the heat and humidity of a Washington DC summer.  Considering the pain that's being handed out by this court of last resorts, I for one would feel better if I knew that they had suffered over the conclusions that they've come to.

Yes it's a big week indeed for the Supreme Court of the United States.  How bad a one it is for the citizens of this nation, we have yet to understand.

The "Stuck on Stupid" Dictionary #34

The normally lazy lexicographers working on the "Stuck on Stupid" dictionary have decided to become more productive without further physical motivation exercises (ending practices that violated the Geneva Conventions and have mostly been banned by the UN).  Apparently they've decided that the regular release of efforts for the SOS dictionary are far more likely to improve their working conditions and perhaps even rate them a better long-term compensation plan.  (Personally, I just think they're jealous of the Cheetos and AC that we supply to the DJBSS in their attic Command Center.)  Senior staff will continue to evaluate not only the quantity of their efforts, but the quality before re-opening negotiations (Kansas is after all, a right to work state).  Besides, we're already spending more in our Cheetos budget than we can reasonably afford.

Now for those of you who have somehow managed to miss previous postings in this area (shame on you, now go back and read all of the postings under the label of dictionary), the SOS dictionary is a reference guide to terms which nominally mean something to the rest of the English speaking world, but appear to mean something entirely different when looked at in a political context, especially to those us who have come to understand the often peculiar vernacular of politics in Toledo, Northwest Ohio ... and sometimes even the nation as a whole.

Campaign Contributions

1.  Money raised for political purposes usually only mentioned these days in conjunction with "Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission".   This was a landmark US Supreme Court case in which, by a 5-4 decision, the Justices essentially held that money and speech could be considered the same thing when it came to campaign expenditure and that according to the First Amendment; the government was therefore prohibited from placing restrictions on such independent expenditures.  The restraint of this prohibition was held to be true whether you were an individual, a corporation, or a union.

2.  Money raised in a particularly evil form of 'election buying' and considered a travesty by the political left about the political right when they are outspent and lose the issue that had been placed before the voters. (ie: The Governor Scott Walker recall vote of 2012 in Wisconsin, where the right apparently outspent the left by a ratio of 7 to 1, though some numbers are in dispute.) 

3.  Money raised in a particularly evil form of 'election buying' and considered a travesty by the political right about the political left when they are outspent and lose the issue that had been placed before the voters. (ie: The Ohio "Issue 2" vote of 2011 (also known as SB5) in which the left apparently outspent the right by at least a ratio of over 3 to 1, though some numbers are in dispute.)

4.  Money raised by major party presidential candidates, the amounts of which are only released when they can do the most good to themselves and the most harm to their opponents.  The candidate raising the greater amount attempting to prove (incorrectly) that the ability to raise campaign money equates to the ability to lead.  The candidate raising the lesser amount of money usually thanking contributors for their cash before citing the 'Citizens United' decision as the reason that there is too much money in politics.

5.  Money raised which has apparently led to a great deal more discussion of political issues, candidates, and elections around the country.  It has likewise performed the function of no longer leaving the message delivered on these elections in the hands of representatives of the two major political parties, allowing independent voices from all sides of politics the opportunity to get their own messages across.  While the results of such discussion are far from in, the increased level of discussion has been generally seen as a good thing, and the level of spending on campaigns while increased, has had no demonstrably negative effects on the electoral process.     

SCOTUS v Patients Affordable Healthcare Act

The Supreme Court has now heard testimony and has probably even reached a judgment regrading the “Patients Affordable Healthcare Act”; though we're going to have to wait to know what it is until they finish writing their learned opinions on the subject. We're told by our President that it would be wrong because of the current crisis in healthcare in this country (a statement he later performed the Olympic backpedal on), for SCOTUS to even consider striking down the law.

There are a great many things wrong with this statement however, and that makes it hard to know where to begin responding to it. But let me try this simple one … Bullshit! I've spoken before about the responsibilities of the highest court in the land to address Constitutional issues, but let's at least get the facts straight.  The law currently under review by the court is not one designed to provide universal health care to citizens in this country and by its authors admissions, it does not. It was instead one passed in order to provide universal access to health care 'insurance' in this country. We could even say in this law's case, provide is far too tame a word; and that it's design is to mandate that everyone in this country be covered by some form of health insurance. (If not by private insurers, then by the government.) This law has far less to do with whether health care will be accessible than with who will pay for it.

Oh sure comes the response, but stop nitpicking and confess that there is in fact a crisis in healthcare in this country that must be dealt with. In fact, I do not concede this. If health care in this nation were so bad, then why does every national leader in world come to this country to receive treatments for serious illness, rather than stay in their own? Why are most medical breakthroughs made in this country rather than in others? There is no crisis of care in this country.  

There are however inequities as to access to treatments in this country based on their cost. (There are similar inequities to home ownership, automobile ownership, and luxury items.)   Where healthcare is concerned, we know that not everyone can get access to treatments that their doctors deem necessary to their continued health and perhaps even survival. Part of this has to do with health insurance industry, as issues of pre-existing conditions, approval of the treatments for general use, or cost vs efficacy continue to remain in a field filled with miracles and patent medicine. As often happens where such weighty issues where constant change is involved, there are invariably stories (some true) of seeming injustice and personal tragedy that go along with them. The question we should be asking ourselves however, is whether those in government are best suited to provide the answers to any of the questions. It's government after all, that got us into this mess in the first place.

During WWII, progressive saint President Franklin Delano Roosevelt imposed wage and price controls on the nation, in the misguided thinking that any one man or government could actually control a national economy. It and he couldn't of course, and clever employers who wanted better workers and could no longer offer them more in the way of wages, instead began to circumvent the spirit if not the letter of the law by offering benefit packages that included health care insurance to attract them. Forced by a competitive employment market, their competitors soon followed suit and another well-intentioned law was effectively bypassed, while reaping a full harvest of long-term, unintended consequences.

Skip forward some 20 years and we find ourselves in 1965 and see government enter into another well-intentioned effort, this time to provide health care insurance to seniors who were now unlikely to have it after leaving the employer who had provided it during their working career (because of the previously mentioned govt intervention). Congress therefore passed Title XVIII of the Social Security Act, better known these days as Medicare to address the issue. Not content with the scope and scale of the program however, it sought further redress and addition through program expansions in 1972, 2001.

Since providing medical insurance for our aged only (regardless of income), would be unfair to those younger who couldn't afford it, and whose employers didn't provide it, we at the same time added Title XIX to that same Social Security Act in order to provide even more potential government protection to yet another group. Of course the program known as Medicaid would be managed by the States, but with the Federal government monitoring.

These programs have existed now for some forty-seven years, and in typical government fashion their often obvious ineffectiveness is met with bureaucratic cries that the only way to fix the problem is to expand the programs. Having become the medical insurance provider for our elderly and impoverished, we must double down and make government the primary health insurance carrier for the nation. We must likewise turn control of the type and level of health coverage to what Congress believes is best for us; in spite of the fact that they will not be participating in the program.  Legislators it seems, have once more exempted themselves in favor of their own program of health care (much like they did with Social Security).

Having been told that it's wrong that we should have to deal with faceless insurance company employees and program managers, we're told that we'd be better off dealing with faceless bureaucrats instead. Having been convinced that evil insurance companies have and will provide little competence in serving our medical needs, we should instead turn our health care over to those whose efficiencies in the DMV and Post Office are legendary. Seeking to save us from being abandoned by the evil and unfeeling capitalists in the insurance industry, we should instead turn the quality of our very lives to the same government that has provided the kindness and compassion shown by those of the IRS.

Can anyone, with a straight face and a clear conscience point to something in its past or present that the government does better than the private sector in a truly free market environment? (And don’t point to national defense on me, as the limited efforts to sub-contract minor bits of even this have proven just as successful and often more cost-efficient than the government version; even with the normal graft and corruption of such contracts involved.)

No the Supreme Court should not rule against the “Patients Affordable Healthcare Act” because it extends the power of the Federal Government far beyond the limits placed on it by the Constitution.  Neither should it rule against the Act because of the current so-called health care crisis, because of the slim majorities and lack of bi-partisan support for the issue in the legislature, or because the President doesn't want them to rule his signature bit of legislation Unconstitutional (especially in an election year). Beyond all of these reasons, some more Constitutionally valid than others, they should rule against in order to save us from a government that's long proved itself incompetent under either party's rule to run such programs, and especially one that will forever place our health in its hands.

Silly Bits III

Having all but exhausted myself with a rant earlier in the week, I was reticent to attempt to annoy everyone with another bit of nonsense this week.  There were however, a couple of things continuing to annoy me like an itch that I couldn't scratch.  There are therefore going to be two weekday efforts this week (and don't you feel fortunate that this is so).

As I mentioned earlier this week rather briefly (he offered sarcastically), the President was doing a bit of public prodding of the Justices of the Supreme Court for doing their job in reviewing the Constitutional nature of the 'Patients Affordable Healthcare Act' (which of course, he and his spin masters are now hinting never really happened).  While I believe that I probably said enough about most aspects of that subject, I would like to add a couple of related comments to the previous effort, since as the week has developed the President has added even more to his list of those who he's apparently not happy with.

Oil companies were early on the list, as the President once more attempted to attack subsidies and tax breaks granted 'by law' to companies that seem to be rather profitable.  It seemed strange that he wasn't demonizing car companies that had likewise returned to profitability, and that continue to owe the government considerable sums of money, but perhaps it's because high priced cars never kept an incumbent officeholder from being re-elected, but high priced gas most surely has.  It was also curious that the President wasn't demanding that Congress remove the subsidies from Corporate farmers or institutions of higher education who are likewise dining at the government trough while maintaining their profitability.

I also found it interesting that while he was more than willing to chide SCOTUS (Supreme Court of the United States) for fulfilling its Constitutionally mandated responsibilities, he seemed unwilling to castigate a Democratically controlled Senate for failing to do theirs.  The Senate is after all supposed to be submitting an annual budget, but has failed to do so for over 1000 days.  I suppose that he might be holding back in doing so, lest the Senate take up the question of the President's most recent recess appointments.  Such backroom agreements between the President and Senate Majority Leader, both Democrats, call for (as Secretary of State Hillary Clinton once said as a Senator to General Patraeus about the Iraq War) "a suspension of disbelief".

On a completely separate but equally important note, I find myself continuing to be dismayed at the diminution of freedom in this country that has apparently fallen off the radar screens of the media and citizens.  We continue to expand the government's ability to do warrant-less wiretaps and searches, apparently have no problem with deploying federal troops to perform law enforcement functions in violation of the Posse Cumitatus Act of 1878 (as long as it's done on Federal Interstate Highways), see little problem with deploying unmanned drones to perform surveillance on its citizens, see less of a problem with killing US citizens overseas without due process (or even filing charges), and preventing citizens from speaking freely within zones of 'protection' provided by the Secret Service.

Perhaps never in this country's history has the Bill of Rights been so grossly infringed upon.  Oh sure, Lincoln suspended habeus corpus during the Civil War, shut down newspapers and exiled Congressman who said things he didn't like.  Sure FDR rounded up and imprisoned US citizens whose ethnic background he felt threatened by.  But you could at least you could say that we were in a 'state of war' declared by Congress.  And while many will try to make the case that the war on terrorism is just as much a danger as those previous conflicts, no such war has been legally declared by Congress (and certainly not one on US soil).  Beginning with the Patriot Act, and with continued assault on the Bill of Rights in what may be the only current example of continuing bi-partisan support, this nation can be said to have entered no less than a de facto state of martial law.  It seems, at least according to Democrats and Republicans in our current ruling class, that the only way to protect the freedom we hold dear is to surrender it a piece at a time.

If this were not despicable enough on its face, our current foreign policy is one demanding sanctions against those in other nations seeking to infringe upon the freedoms of their citizens in the very ways our own government is doing to us.  That it goes largely unnoticed by the mainstream media is tragic.  That it goes unmentioned and unchecked by leading members of both major political parties during an election year is criminal.  That it goes largely uncared about by the citizens whose freedoms are being compromised is .... just more Silly Bits.

Presidential Rewrite

You know, I really had a couple of other things that I wanted to write about this week (and maybe I'll get to them as it progresses), but this one simply won't go by without comment ....

The president gave a speech in the Rose Garden of the White House today that could and should best be described as nothing more or less than a 'rewrite'. No other term can adequately describe something that in so many ways attempts to rewrite parts of the past.

To begin with, it appears that the President would like to rewrite the definition of 'Judicial Activism', which normally defined as a judge or court using their ruling to make new law based on personal bias or political considerations rather than interpreting that law.  In fact, the Supreme Court duly waited for the "Patients Affordable Health Care Act" to properly work its way through the judicial system.  During their extended three days of testimony, their questions seemed exactly on point with regards to issues of law, whether eliciting interpretation of the 'Commerce Clause' or considering points of this law relating to the taxation powers of Congress.  They did not ask how much it would cost or what good it might do.  So in fact, it could instead be said that the Justices used Judicial 'restraint' rather than activism.

Second, it certainly appears to be a rewrite of his own past for a former 'community organizer' to decry the process of "judicial activism" when describing whatever the result of the Supreme Court's decision is. Was it not these very community organizers (along with progressive political counterparts) that were crying out for such activism in the name of 'fairness' and 'justice'?  Haven't they for years sought such judicial activism in order to redress the inequities of this country (real or imagined) as they saw it.  Why then should they fear that which they demanded, unless of course they felt that they had failed to make their case to the Justices (much as they have to the American people). 

Third, having redefined terms and his own early days of 'public service', the Editor in Chief was far from complete in rewriting history; this time where the law in question was concerned.  As quoted in the UK Guardian article, the President has said "it would be wrong for the "unelected" supreme court to take the "unprecedented and extraordinary" decision to strike down his signature health care legislation when it was passed by an elected Congress."  (Though he did get the part about the Supreme Court being 'unelected'.)  He was in fact quoted in the article as saying, "I am confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress".  By what editing tool does the president call the passage of this law a "strong majority."    

Oh it's true enough that it passed by a majority of both Houses of Congress, and while (at least according to our friends at Wikipedia) the Senate passed the bill that became this law by a 60-39 majority.  In this decisive majority, note was taken however that vote was strictly along party lines and barely escaped a no-vote from filibuster.  Every Democrat and two Independents voted for it and every Republican against it.  It's in the House however, that this alternate rendition of history becomes farcical.  The vote there was 219-212, with all 178 Republicans and even 34 Democrats voting against it.  Certainly neither of these votes could be called by the magic word we've heard so often lately ... "bi-partisan"  (unless we note bi-partisan rejection of it in the House).  As for 'strong majority', a margin of 7 can only be called one if we not only rewrite history, but redefine the term itself. 

(And we won't even bring up that no one in either House of Congress actually read the entire 1990 pages of the bill before voting on it, or the procedural gymnastics that were involved with bringing it to a vote.  Oops, I just did ... sorry.)

Perhaps most interesting in all of this however, is the attempted rewrite of the Constitution that the President would like to make, which as ratified says in part:

Article III, Section 1 - "The judicial Power of the United States shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish."

Article III, Section 2 - The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made ..."  

Evidently now according to this President however, who's a former Constitutional Law professor by the way, it's no longer the responsibility of the Supreme Court to pass on whether laws passed by Congress fall within the limitations placed on government by that document; even when they're legitimately challenged.  It's also apparently now acceptable for a majority to rule without respects to the rights of either the minority or the Constitution in the passage of laws.  Further, it appears that it's no longer acceptable for that minority to challenge what our Constitution was designed to avoid, a tyranny of the majority which many think this particular piece of history reeks of.  Constitutionally, the Supreme Court is not obligated (nor should it in any way) consider how a law passed by Congress; even it's done so by unanimous acclimation.  It's only liable to consider whether such a law fits within the limits defined by the Constitution for the federal government and which created their positions to do so.

You will note here that I have not spoken about whether I think that the law should or will be overturned by those in the Court, since the decision has no place in this discussion; only that it's the Supreme Court's obligation to make the very considerations that they are currently taking on, and that the President should allow them to do so without political interference.  It is likewise the duty of a President who swore to uphold and defend the Constitution to recognize (as any true Constitutional scholar would) that the 'Separation of Powers' is a defining principle in that document, and not one to be cast aside lightly, even in the name of retaining an office through blatant pandering and electioneering.

Oh I know that it's an election year, and as such Presidential podium pontificating is to be expected as an incumbent President seeks not only to defend his Administration's signature piece of legislation, but to unofficially poll for issues that can be used in the coming days for stump speeches.  I know that his opponents will likely attempt to use the Court's decision (not due for release until July) in the campaign as well.  This is the second time in three years however, that this President has publicly castigated or taunted the Justices of the Supreme Court in their attempts to fulfill their Constitutional obligation however.  He has likewise recently remarked in public statements that if Congress would not do that which was necessary, he would do it without them.  

With all due respect to the President, he might well wish to consider that if he wants to have his own authority respected that he needs to likewise respect the power and authority of those co-equal branches of government. He might also want to recognize that in his current Constitutionally limited position, he is not granted the power of Presidential Rewrite.

The Level Playing Field

There has been a lot of talk in recent days about the Supreme Court ruling in the "Citizens United v. The Federal Election Commission" case. By a margin of 5-4, the court decided that provisions that were part of the McCain-Feingold Act were a violation of free speech, and therefore Unconstitutional. According to a recent Wall Street Journal article, the president responded negatively to the ruling, stating that it "gave a green light to a new stampede of special-interest money in our politics," particularly "big oil, Wall Street banks, health-insurance companies and the other powerful interests" that "drown out the voices of everyday Americans." 


Perhaps he is right that every one of those groups will take advantage of relaxing regulation on political contributions in the upcoming election cycles. On the other hand, he appears to have ignored some other groups that likewise find it worthwhile to contribute to politics. No one can deny the significant amount of money spent by unions in this country to influence government. SEIU contributed significantly to the 2008 Obama campaign and its president Andy Stern is quoted in a Las Vegas Sun article as saying that they contributed some $60.7 million to the Obama campaign. 


Without taking the time to document every one of them, I would likewise feel safe in saying that significant contributions to campaigns and politicians were made by most Unions during the last election cycle. Many then suggest that corporations put such contributions up to a vote of the stockholders, obtaining their permission before supporting a person or program. 


Should then not similar rules apply to the contributions of their labor counterparts, with members rather than union management deciding who or what gets the money and how much? Some will make the case that the 5-4 majority of this decision was split down partisan lines, with justices appointed by Republican presidents supporting the ruling and those appointed by Democratic presidents dissenting. I would say in turn that this should be considered small surprise. 


I would in fact expect that judges appointed by more conservative (and therefore probably Republican) presidents should take a more constructionist view of the Constitution and Bill of Rights than their more liberal counterparts, who might share the view of many progressive thinkers that the Constitution is a living document that should answer more to the times than the language. 


None of this even touches on the ability of the print media, TV, and movies attempting to influence policy through the non-monetary means of positive or negative portrayals of political offices, plot premises that are based on the concept of man-made global disasters, or "documentaries" on subjects that carry the political prejudice of the director, the network, or the movie studio. Where is the hue and cry over legislation to monitor and regulate this potential abuse of freedom of speech?

The truth of the matter is that even with the McCain-Feingold legislation, there was still plenty of money in politics. The Obama Campaign spent more than the Bush and Kerry campaigns combined in the previous election cycle, and since the President did not accept matching government funds, he was not obligated to share contributor lists or amounts in the same way as his competitor was with us. Ignored, and far more important than the influence these groups have in campaign finance however, is what they have in crafting legislation. 


Groups on the left and the right spend far more money attempting to influence (or even write) any legislation that might affect them than they do on candidates. Lawyers keep tort reform from entering the health care discussion, environmental groups get potential sources of oil protected as national parks, and the recent negotiations over Cadillac health care plans that would exempt unions until 2017 are but the latest example of the pressure that unions can bring to bear on legislators. 


Meanwhile agribusiness fights to keep farm subsidies and bio fuel legislation in place, and banks and Wall Street fight to keep their rights to legal gambling with government backed funds. No large organization is innocent of playing the system and many survive only by a combination of legislator coercion and nursing at the government teat. 


It has long been understood that money is speech in this country when it comes to elections. It appears that at least five members of the Supreme Court acknowledge that fact and understand that this freedom is guaranteed in the First Amendment of the Constitution. It also appears that they likewise understand that if the document on which this country's government is to mean anything, that allowing all sides to participate on an equal footing in the process is little more than leveling the playing field.

Judge Ye Not Chrysler, Lest GM Also Be Judged

Justice Judith Bader Ginsburg issued a writ today, stalling the sale of major assets by Chrysler to Fiat. This writ was issued based on a case brought before The Court by a group of pension and construction funds in Indiana who stand to lose millions of dollars from lost investment in Chrysler secured bonds (or loans).  
Normally such secured credit holders are the first to be paid off in bankruptcy proceedings, but in the case of Chrysler, these bond holders were in fact placed at the end of the line (or not in the line at all). The interesting part about the action brought on behalf of these pensions funds is the two-prong attack:  

1. Why were normal bankruptcy procedures bypassed in this situation by the lower courts, and was it do due to improper pressure brought to bear by the government?
2. The funds used by the federal government to prop up Chrysler prior to bankruptcy and the reason that the federal government has had so much to say about how reorganization would work were taken from the TARP funds.  

For those of you who can't remember all the way back to the last months of the Bush Administration, TARP funds were originally designed to buy toxic assets from banks (hence the name Toxic Asset Relief Program). While actually never used to buy any toxic assets, the funds were generally understood to be used for the bailout of the banking industry. Congress, recognized that TARP funds might not be able to be used for bailing out automobile makers however when that situation appear imminent, and tried to get a separate bailout package passed for that purpose. They were unsuccessful in doing so. 

Ignoring the legislative defeat however, the Administration at the time simply decided to take the money from TARP anyway. Since the fund had no real Congressional oversight in place, they were able to apply it where and how they saw fit. If the Supreme Court now rules that TARP funds were used improperly for one bailout, then obviously they would have been used improperly for both. 

If this turns out to be the case, how will both companies give back money that has already been spent to a government that doesn't want it? An equally interesting part of this is case is not just what happens to these bond holder pension funds and to Chrysler as a result, but what impact this could have on the bankruptcy re-emergence of General Motors, whose bond holders were likewise given short shift when asset reallocation was performed and approved. Not only could this case re-establish the rule of law where these auto bankruptcies are concerned, it could also prove a serious roadblock to the Obama Administration's continued attempts to take oversight control of operation and reorganization of private sector companies. (Can you say medical insurance?)  

We will all be waiting and watching with great interest ...  

Update:

The Court turned down hearing the petition and more's the pity. There seems to be no brakes on this runaway train of government.