March 30, 2017--What's Up With Devin Nunes?

An otherwise nondescript congressman from the scorching Central Valley in California, Devin Nunes is now perhaps the best known of his 434 colleagues.

He of course is the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, a plum assignment for someone without any intelligence work on his resumé or much political savvy. Running the committee until now he played the game in the traditional bipartisan way operating out of the spotlight and rarely interviewed by the cable news channels. Your basic congressional hack.

Then something snapped.

He's on TV all the time, mostly racing through the House of Representatives fending off reporters hanging out in what appears to be Congress' underground boiler room, junior media types hungry for any snippet from him about his midnight sleuthing on "the White House grounds," his one-on-one meeting with President Trump, his unwillingness to share with committee members new information about the administration's alleged Russian Connection, or why without consulting other committee members he has suspended routine meetings and hearings. In effect shutting down the committee.

No one seems to have a handle on what's going on with him and why he either went James-Bond-style rogue or finds himself overwhelmed by the sudden scope and importance of his work.

In an effort to figure things out, I trotted out my trusty Ockham's Razor to see if that can bring insight to this mess of a situation.

Ockham would say there are at least three explanations for all the seemingly contradictory behavior--

(1) Nunes is way over his head and his underlying incompetence is being exposed. What he up to is not well thought out or strategic.
(2) As an early supporter of Donald Trump's he is striving to protect his leader from being harmed by whatever his committee might unearth.
(3) As a member of the Trump transition team, bedazzled by exposure to the glittery Trump life style and, wanting more of it, he is willing to sacrifice his reputation in order to become a member of the inner circle.
(4) All of the above.

I am inclined to say "all of the above." But with some new spin from what has already been reported and speculated about.

Invoking Ockham here's what I think is going on--

Nunes was born and raised in Tulare right in the middle of the San Joaquin Valley, a town of about 60,000, nearly 60 percent of them Hispanic farm workers. His father owned a modest cattle ranch and young Devin early on thought he would become the third generation of Nuneses to own and run it. So he went to the local community college and studied agriculture.

For someone even half smart--and he is at least that--Tulare was a good place to get away from. Almost 200 miles distant from both LA and San Francisco, he opted to stay close to home and seek ways to escape. After some local politicking he managed to get elected to Congress in 2003 and has been reelected six times, most recently, unopposed.

He was spotted by Speaker John Boehner as an effective fundraiser and was rewarded by being named chair of the Intelligence Committee. When Paul Ryan took over from the deposed Boehner he reappointed him, in part, I suspect, thinking Nunes is Hispanic. And since there aren't a lot of Latinos among the Republican congressional delegation, there he still sits and presides. That is, when the committee meets.

Nunes is in fact of Portuguese dissent, but for the GOP, this is close enough.

Then there was the invitation to join the transition team and with that came his exposure to the Russian Connection explosion.

Can you imagine what it must have been like for someone like Nunes from Tulare to be welcomed into Trump's gilded world?

Walls literally of gold; a wife and daughter looking like Melania and Ivanka; the opportunity to talk with the legendary Midas about potential cabinet appointments; and, closer to the current situation, to assist son-in-law Jared in talking with dozens of foreign leaders calling into Trump Tower to congratulate the Big Guy and to begin to seek diplomatic deals.

These apparently were Nunes' transition assignments. Heady work for someone who had never before been in any spotlight or seen the lights of Broadway.

Soon thereafter he and we learned from FBI director James Comey that there is an on-going investigation about potentially improper relationships between Trump associates, Russian oligarchs and diplomats, and Russian intelligence officers.

He and we also learned that there may have been collusion between some Trump associates and Russians who were busy hacking into the Clinton campaign in a effort to tip the election to Trump.

But as chair of the Intelligence Committee, Nunes likely learned a lot more than this barest of outlines about the investigations that are underway. He likely knows the unmasked names of those Trump associates who were picked up incidentally during FBI surveillance; he may have seen that Trump himself is a target; and, most perilous from Nunes' perspective, he may have learned that his own name appears in some of these investigative intercepts.

He, after all, might have spoken with people from Eastern Europe and, who knows, if he was used by Trump people as a dupe, even to a Russian or two. Maybe even a spy.

To get him implicated this way would assure he wouldn't be eager as Intelligence Committee chair to look too closely into what was really going on with and among Trump and his people. A compromised Nunes could provide some insurance or cover for implicated Trump operatives.

In the aggregate, especially his own potential involvement in things he shouldn't have been exposed to could easily explain his erratic and panicky-seeming behavior.

Too conspiratorial minded? Perhaps.

But who would have thought the Russians were up to sabotaging Hillary Clinton's campaign and who would have imagined that Trump's campaign manager was on a key oligarch's payroll to the tune of $10 million a year?

At the moment, I like Ockham's answer.

November 17, 2014--Co-Equal?

Flipping channels the other morning in search of anything other than the local weather forecast and reports about gridlocked traffic, I paused for a moment on MSNBC to see how their post-election post-mortem was proceeding.

They had already concluded that there was no chance of anything bipartisan happening between a cranky Republican Congress and an equally grumpy Barack Obama, who was about to issue a series of executive orders to deal in part with our immigration mess.

John Boehner was sputtering that if the president did this the GOP would fight him "tooth and nail," some of his members gleefully chiming in in the background that this could lead to Obama's impeachment; while over in the Senate, about-to-be Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said that if Obama signed those executive orders it would "be like waving a red flag in front of a bull" and could easily lead, McConnell threatened, to yet another government shutdown.

Boehner I ignored--he has his Tea Party members to contend with; but I took McConnell at his word because if there is anything he knows about it's bull.

One of the MSNBC panelists pointed out that Obama acting as promised would assure nothing gets done since, "in our system," the federal government is made up of "three co-equal parts" and unless there is some semblance of working together it will mean that more than the traffic will be gridlocked.

Really, I thought. Have the MSNBC folks read their Constitution recently?

In fact, in great detail, whatever we think of it, the Constitution goes to great length to make certain that the three branches of our government will be anything but equal or, if you prefer, co-equal. And to assure that the Congress, which at least theoretically most represents "the people," in fear of European-like monarchal tyranny or dominance by corrupt and unrepresentative courts, our Founders took care to structure things so that Congress would be preeminent.

Not the executive branch and not even the Supreme Court. In fact, creating the Supreme Court was an afterthought on the part of the Framers. That's how much they despised and feared the potential power of a corrupt judiciary. And so they severely limited its powers. As they did the presidency, again, for fear of tyranny.

Congress has the exclusive power to enact laws (forget executive orders which by their nature are constitutionally questionable--something we may see tested if Obama does his immigration thing) and once passed and approved the executive, like it or not, the president must enforce. Indeed, though bills passed by Congress must be approved by the president, if they are vetoed, the Congress still has the ultimate authority to enact them by voting to overturn that veto. And if the president refuses to follow the Constitution he can be impeached and removed from office. By Congress. As can Supreme Court and other federal judges. Again, solely by Congress. Only voters can get rid of even felonious or demagogic congressmen.

This doesn't sound co-equal to me.

What about the president's constitutional prerogatives as Commander in Chief? Doesn't that make him preeminent? Not really.

When the Constitution was written in 1787 the new republic didn't have a standing army and so there was very little for the Commander in Chief to command. In fact, the Framers were reluctant to agree to a standing federal militia or navy. That too they saw to be a threat to representative government. Again, looking toward Europe, it was the last thing they wanted.

It is only since the Second World War when, because of the advent of nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles and the speed with which they can be launched, that so much retaliatory power has accrued to the presidency. But, again with the necessary acquiescence of Congress. It is felt that the national security state that we have become requires such powers be granted to the president. But, if Congress disapproves of presidential military ventures it has the exclusive power of the purse--only Congress can authorize governmental spending.

This doesn't sound co-equal to me.

And when it comes to the Supreme Court, it too is a bit less than supreme. True, for the most part, when they rule it becomes the so-called "law of the land." But they rule about very little and even if and when they do, if Congress does not like a ruling it can pass other similar laws designed to get around SCOTUS rulings and, if that fails, amend the Constitution. Admittedly this is a rare and arduous process, but still the power resides with the Congress (and the states) to change if they wish our most sacred document.

Again, this doesn't sound co-equal to me.

Like it or not, the structure of the government we have is not as viable as it was in the sleepier 18th, 19th, and even 20th centuries. But it is what we have. Governmental gridlock was not something to be avoided, but was a desired part of the process. A relatively weak and unintrusive federal government is what our Founders intentionally framed for us and though we now know how intrusive an unfettered government can be, because of checks and balances, an ineffective government with a dominant Congress is what we have. Just what was intended.

November 6, 2014--What Won On Tuesday?

It is much easier to understand who won on Election Day than to think about and describe what won.

First, the who--

With the single exception of Pennsylvania's's gubernatorial race, every governors race, every Senate race in which an incumbent was defeated went to Republicans.

Of the gubernatorial contests, again except in Pennsylvania, 4 of 5 incumbents were defeated--all Democrats, including in traditional Democratic strongholds such as Massachusetts and Illinois.

And in the Senate, where two additional incumbent Democrats could still be defeated in a runoff in Louisiana and at the end of the vote count in Alaska, of those not reelected, all seven were Democrats. Republicans held on to all their seats, mostly easily, and thereby ran the table.

And now what won--

The conventual, instant-analysis wisdom has it that this tide of victories for Republicans is the result of Barack Obama's unpopularity. That this midterm election was a referendum on his presidency.

True, but not the whole truth.

Added to the widespread frustration and anger at Obama's incompetence (less, his race), anyone with a sense of history knows that on average, since 1946, incumbent presidents' parties lost on average six Senate seats; and so, losing at least seven this time, is pretty much the norm.

True, but not the whole truth.

And then, inside-the-Beltway-think has it that more than anything else, this election revealed the breadth and depth of voter anger and frustration with Washington and, more broadly, government in general. It was a throw-them-all-out election.

True, but not the whole truth.

Not the whole truth because this analysis fails to note that both the governor who was most controversial in his governing and the senator up for reelection who most symbolized Washington and congressional gridlock, won handily.

Governor Scott Walker in Wisconsin, targeted for defeat by traditional Democrat constituencies, got 54 percent of the vote and soon-to-be Senate Majority Leader, Mitch McConnell in Kentucky received a whopping 56 percent.

That in a state where Bill and Hillary Clinton made a huge personal commitment to elect his opponent. Take note Democrats as you think about 2016.

If this was an anti-incumbent election, McConnell and Walker would have been among the first to go.

What then is going on? What then won yesterday?

The short answer--a certain kind of governing.

The kind that wants government to get governing out of the business of governing.

The big victors at the state and national level have at least one thing in common beyond party affiliation--a skepticism that government can or should be involved in people's lives (except their reproductive lives), a resistance to the country's involvement in overseas ventures (except to exterminate  with drones ISIS forces), or that government should look to solve social problems. Even to the point of denying that the problems Democrats embrace as problems are problems. These, most Republicans believe, should be left to the invisible hand of the market to sort out and resolve.

In addition, the form resentment and fear take that explains what won yesterday is the resentment that government selectively chooses who to take care of--poor people, minorities, immigrants, and incompetent union-protected government workers. This is at the heart of Governor Walker's appeal. As it is with two of my three governors--Scott in Florida and LePage in Maine, both of whom were reelected. At a time when middle-class people are struggling, they have little empathy left over for others who they perceive to be lazy and undeserving. And so they vote for those who promise to do little or, better, nothing.

Obviously, there is much to be thought about.

Minimally, freed of Tea Party pressure (this was an election that saw the resurgence of the current version of the Republican establishment), expect to see Mitch McConnell and John Boehner actually make some small deals with Obama to show that they can govern at least enough to retain their majorities, and expect Democrat candidates other than Hillary Clinton to emerge as it sinks in that she could easily lose in 2016 to a Jeb Bush, Rand Paul, and even more likely, Mitt Romney.

August 30, 2013--Cruzcare

I'm slow so it took me some time to understand why Republicans can't stand the Affordable Care Act, better known as Obamcare.

During the past two years John Boehner has had the House of Representatives vote to overturn it 40 times. Literally, 40 times. It was passed each time in lockstep partisan fashion but has never been taken up in the Democrat-controlled Senate.

But every Republican who can't say no to an invitation to be on TV and, more significant, every Republican who sees himself (thus far there are no women) as the GOP nominee to run against Hillary in 2016, is basing his campaign primarily on the promise to get rid of Obamacare.

Never mind that it is based on Republican ideas and practices, from Romneycare in Massachusetts, when he was governor, to the healthcare recommendations of the conservative Heritage Foundation.

But when Obama endorsed these policies in his own version of expanding healthcare for the uninsured, everyone on the right who was for it suddenly was against it.

And now during their August recess town meetings back in their home districts, in the embrace of their apoplectic Republican base, the talk by congressmen and presidential aspirants is almost exclusively about this abomination--Obamacare. They can barely get the word out without becoming physically nauseous.

The opposition is so viscerally agitated that one has to wonder about the source of this aversion.

Thus my belated insight--it's because the Affordable Care Act is popularly named Obamacare. After him!

Forget for the moment that it is the very same Republicans who can't look him in the eye and are made physically uncomfortable when in the same room with him who labelled it such, thinking that in itself would doom it--who would want to see a doctor and have that intimate experience tainted by an overt association with him? This in itself, it was thought by conservative political strategists, would be enough for the masses to rise up and demand it be overturned.

But now that even Tea Party folks are seeing their parents' and grandparents' medications paid for by Obamacare (the donut-hole is closing), their adult children covered by their existing insurance policies, and more and more states agreeing to participate, their strategy is backfiring.

Like Medicare, which at first was passionately opposed by the same right-wing elements but quickly became one of our most popular safety-net programs, how awful would it be if the ACA followed the same trajectory and forever was named for Obama?

There's nothing equivalent for Franklin Roosevelt. The Civilian Conservation Corps could have been called the Roosevelt Conservation Corps, we could have had the Kennedy Peace Corps, and the Johnson Voting Rights Act, or the Reagan Tax Cuts--well, we did have them and look where that got us: trillions in debt.

Yes, there is the Monroe Doctrine and the Bush Doctrine. And there is the Hoover Dam, the JFK and Reagan Airports, and the Eisenhower Interstate Highway System.

But to have a substantial portion of our basic healthcare coverage named for the Kenyan-American president is too, too much.

Canadian-born Texas Senator Ted Cruz, the reincarnated Joe McCarthy lookalike, who has been in the Senate for just a few months and is already running for president, is basing his entire campaign on opposition to Obamacare. Just as Michele Bachmann did the last time around.

Maybe if we can solve the name thing the issue would go away. If Cruz manages to get nominated (unlikely) and elected (get your passports updated)--calling it Cruzcare would detach it from Obama and the millions covered could feel confident that they would not be thrown off the books and left to fend for themselves.

May 30, 2013--Dow Wow!

Though stocks gave back some of their gains yesterday, the Dow Jones Industrial Average is at an all time high. Even pessimistic bears on CNBC are looking less dour, even suggesting that maybe, just maybe this is not another blip or bubble but reflects a much stronger American economy.

Looking for explanations about the positive economic news, some are saying that U.S. investments are doing well because everywhere else--from Europe to Japan and China--things are heading in the opposite direction. South Americans, the French, Russian oligarchs, Middle East sheiks are all looking for safe havens, and America is pretty much it.

No one, of course, is giving Barack Obama any credit, even though the Dow has more than doubled during his watch; housing prices are dramatically rebounding; and Obamacare, though not yet fully rolled out, is already significantly cutting the cost of health care. And we know that if things were doing poorly here he would be getting all the blame He can't win for losing.

Thus I've been wondering again why this is true--why Obama (who has many leadership faults) is so vilified. Listen to late night talk radio if you want a taste of who is living under rocks. The stuff they spew is borderline seditious.

One reason is that he likes to be the smartest person in the room, especially when with Republican members of Congress. At those times there's not that much competition for who's brightest. You've got Mitch McConnell, John Boehner, Paul Ryan, Michele Bachmann, and Barack Obama. Not much of a contest. But if Obama were really smart--I mean politically smart--he'd tone it down to see if there might be some way to get some things done.

And then they also know, in addition to rubbing their faces in their--how to put this--ignorance, he also can't stand them as individuals. He even hates having a very occasional drink or dinner with Republicans. To cite Maureen Dowd, he seems to be missing the "schmoozing gene."

He has those few people he likes and then there is everyone else. Being so obviously contemptuous of his congressional colleagues (including most Democrats) is a huge impediment to working together on some of our really big problems.

Then, of course, there is the problem that he's cool and they're not. Even their children and grandchildren think Obama is cool, and one can only imagine how that makes Mitch and company feel.  Old, cranky, out of touch. Not a good basis for a relationship.

Finally, there is the unspoken issue that probably for many in the GOP trumps all the others--Obama's otherness. His "foreignness," the way he grew up in Indonesia, and the fact that he's . . . black.

It's probably too late for Obama to mend any fences or forge a few good relationships--like the one he clearly has with his bromantic partner Chris Christie--but I would like to see him give it a try. For our sake or, if that is not sufficient motivation, for his place in history

April 12, 2013--Debt

There is a great deal of misinformation in circulation about debt. It intensified two days ago when President Obama presented his budget "blueprint."

In it he calls for an additional $1.4 trillion in debt reduction over the next ten years; but at the end of the decade, the U.S would still have to borrow hundreds of millions annually to balance its books. This debt, however, is not necessarily a bad thing.

Republicans in Congress, in any case, are up in arms, ignoring the fact that Obama conceded in advance significant cuts in Social  Security and Medicare--outraging his supporters on the left. Speaker of the House John Boehner, raced to the microphones to condemn Obama's proposals, even though they are the kind of budget cuts for which Republicans have been clamoring. Once again we are seeing that whatever Obama proposes, even if it is a Republican idea, once he proposes it, GOP leaders, in knee-jerk fashion, rise to oppose it.

But one thing Boehner said in opposition is striking in its ignorance of even personal economics--he said, that like families, the government should be required to pay its bills on time and not go into debt.

If we expect families to ante up, pay all their bills on time, and not go into debt--as Boehner insists--our economy would be devestated.

Pretty much every American family is in significant debt--mortgages are debts, car loans are debts, student loans are debts; and all of these debts are essential to fueling a modern, vibrant economy. If everyone was required to pay cash for a house, car, or college education, the housing industry would collapse as would the auto industry. In addition, perhaps half the students currently enrolled in college would be forced to drop out.

Debt, as it was thankfully invented centuries ago, is what enabled our form of capitalism to develop because unless individuals, businesses, and national economies are allowed to borrow money, we would still be living in a subsistence, barter economy.

I doubt that Speaker Boehner or Congressman Paul Ryan would like to see that. They might like to roll the clock back to the good-old-days, but not those old days.

Yes, neither governments nor families should be wasteful and roll up irresponsible levels of debt, just manageable ones. Ones that can be afforded. Our deficits are too large and thus our national debt has been growing at too rapid a pace. But in the judgement of most credible economists, our national level to debt if viewed as a percentage of GDB is still manageable. But to be cautious and wise we should be prudent and chip away at it.

During the Obama years, with Republican help, the annual budget deficit has been cut nearly in half; and if his proposed blueprint is given careful consideration (don't hold your breath), it will be cut much further. So let's cool the partisan rhetoric and get to work.