Obama's Debt-Reduction Plan: Has The Lion Found Courage?

Early reports of President Obama's debt-reduction bill reveal signs of courage in the proposal. According to the New York Times, for example, Obama has promised to veto any bill that does not include a tax increase. Also, the plan would increase taxes paid by the upper .03 percent of taxpayers. It would also allow the Bush-era tax cuts (extended by Congress during the Obama administration) to expire. Furthermore, conceding to the demands of liberals in Congress, Obama's plan does not include a change to the minimum age needed to qualify for Medicare or Social Security (see also, this article in the Washington Post).

Obama has frustrated many of his supporters by repeatedly conceding the center in his negotiations with Republicans and conservative Democrats. This proposal defies Republican threats and manages to deliver something that is worthy of support -- at least as the details have emerged so far.

I suspect that this plan has a lot to do with Obama's reelection bid than a sudden passion for more progressive economic policies. Well, politics is not for the faint of heart of the idealistic. Stay tuned for more updates.

UPDATE: Yes - he is in full-blown campaign mode. Too bad he does not exhibit such passion and leadership too often.

Game Time: Name One Leading Country That Follows the Tea Party Model of Government

The Tea Party and conservative Republicans -- including Ron Paul -- continue to scream about the perils of the national government. Anything that comes out of Washington is horrible, oppressive, and -- undoubtedly -- unconstitutional.

They seemingly want the nation to return to the type of country it was under the Articles of Confederation. Well, the Framers believed that this was a bad idea. So, as much as the conservatives lament the passage of a imagined fantasy land when the states, as provided by the Constitution, were all-powerful, history has involved an expansion of federal powers. And each generation has inscribed this expansion in the Constitution.

After the Constitution replaced the Articles of Confederation, the next expansion in federal power came with the Civil War. Although conservatives want the states alone to determine the scope of important rights (e.g., Paul saying the states should decide abortion and sexual orientation issues), the Fourteenth Amendment explicitly limits the power of states with respect to substantive liberties, due process, equal protection and privileges and immunities. The Constitution also expands federal power with the Sixteenth Amendment, which gives Congress the power to tax income.

Conservatives have blatantly lied about history. Although they argue that the country was always -- until recently -- one of a very limited national government, the historical record shows that people in each generation of American history have generally favored more government due to the benefits that it brings to the People.

Rather than debating "whether" the government has a role in our lives, we should work together to identity issues that are suitable for governmental support and involvement. Instead, conservatives basically abhor anything at the federal level -- except for the military. While many liberals tend to think that a government-private sector collaboration is inherently suspicious - even though some of the most heralded liberal policies (like Medicare) involve a partnership with private entities.

This stalemate is extremely frustrating - particularly for those of us who have actual knowledge about history. The stalemate is also troublesome because it wastes precious time that we could spend mending the poor state of the country. And -- yes -- the government has a role in this as well.

So, here is a challenge to conservatives: Please name ONE (just one) country that has relative wealth, a democratic government, a good healthcare system, an educational system that provides basic early education for all residents, and a system of government that at least formally values due process, equal protection and civil liberty --- while at the same time having a central government that provides no services to the public -- except for national defense, that does not spend money to assist states with social services, and in which the people believe that government services are unhelpful, wrong, harmful to society, and a sign of totalitarianism.

TAKE A MINUTE. THINK. AND GET BACK TO ME.

Ron Paul Supporters: Fighting Mad!

Related Post: Game Time: Name One Leading Country That Follows the Tea Party Model of Government



Huffington Post has reprinted my article, Five Reasons Why Ron Paul Should Never Become President. Although the article generated buzz on Dissenting Justice, it has caused quite a stir at Huffington. Over 450 persons, primarily fans of Paul, have expressed their opinion on the article (and the number of posts grows even as I complete this essay).



The responses generally fall into the following categories:



1. "This article is garbage, horrible, disgusting, terrible, blah blah blah blah blah."

2. This article completely misrepresents Paul (without citing to one word in the article that is an actual misrepresentation).

3. Paul does not oppose abortion; he just wants it to be decided by the states.

4. Paul is not a racist. He opposes the Civil Rights Act of 1964 because it is unconstitutional. Besides, it is no longer needed.

These posts are pretty silly. The first two categories are completely nonsubstantive. Perhaps these individuals are frustrated beyond all reason because it is highly unlikely that Paul, who first ran for president in 1988, will come close to winning the GOP nomination in 2012.



The third category distorts my blog post. Regardless of Paul's personal views on abortion, his belief that only the states should decide the issue would transform abortion from a constitutional right (which it presently is) and turn it into an option that women could exercise only subject to the laws in her state.

By contrast, constitutional rights apply throughout the country; states do not get to limit or expand them. Leaving this issue to the states implicitly means that it would no longer be a constitutionally protected right. There is no way to dispute this. It is a completely accurate statement of constitutional law.

The fourth category is dead wrong on the law. The Supreme Court has repeatedly upheld the constitutionality of the civil rights legislation. Furthermore, Paul's arguments are simply a modern rehashing of the Dixiecrats' views in the 1960s -- regardless of whether he is a bigot or not. Also, many studies demonstrate that racial discrimination in employment continues -- despite the legislation. Removing it would free companies to do so without a legal deterrent. Finally, if the legislation is unnecessary, then why repeal it? If companies are no longer discriminating, then they should not worry about the existence of the law.



To their credit, other individuals (only a few) agree that the blog post fairly presents Paul's past statements. Nevertheless, they say this is precisely why they support him. In other words, they agree with Paul's positions on the issues without accusing me of some conspiracy to misportray him. At least these individuals are intellectually honest. I commend them.



To the rest: thanks for bringing attention to the article. As a result of your efforts, more folks than I ever expected have now read the article. Many have emailed me and thanked me for the post. Now, a lot more people have a clearer understanding of Paul and his ideas. I suspect a lot of them will also decline to vote for him.

Update: There is one additional strand of analysis from Paul supporters: As president, Paul could not implement many of his ideas that you find threatening because the president cannot enact or repeal legislation.

This is probably one of the most troublesome -- but easily refuted -- claims. Of course presidents cannot enact or repeal legislation. Nonetheless, they are influential in the legislative process. Conservatives know this; they describe the healthcare legislation as "Obamacare," rather than Congress-care.

Furthermore, the president is the legal head of the executive agencies. The agencies have a tremendous amount of power to interpret and execute federal statutes. Thus, Paul's view of statutory enactments and constitutional text is extraordinarily important. This is such a basic part of our political system. I am shocked that Paul's supporters would even make this style of argument.

Five Reasons Why Ron Paul Should NEVER Become President

[NOTE: I have published a new Ron Paul article on Huffington Post: Dear Washington Post: Ron Paul Is NOT a Champion of Civil Liberty]


[Related post: Ron Paul Supporters: Fighting Mad!]

Fans of Representative Ron Paul have recently begun to criticize the media. Paul's supporters believe that the media has unfairly neglected his perpetual bid to receive the presidential nomination for the Republican Party.

Perhaps Paul's supporters should reconsider their criticism of the media. For, if Paul actually received substantial scrutiny, his ideas would undoubtedly frighten most voters.

Paul is charismatic. He also comes across as a straight shooter. Some of his ideas -- like his opposition to militarism and the War on Drugs -- appeal to many voters, including liberals. His arguments about lower government spending and taxation sound good to folks who worry about budget deficits.

Paul's arguments, however, often lack an empirical basis. History has already demonstrated that many of Paul's proposed solutions will never work. Thus, while some of Paul's ideas sound solid in the abstract, they crumble once they are subjected to widely accepted theories about government and society.

Because Paul's ideas are faulty and dangerous, he would make a terrible president. Here are five reasons why Paul should never become president.

1. Paul would restrict abortion based on anecdotal "evidence," rather than science.

Ron Paul is pro-life. He says that he developed his views on abortion during his practice as an OB/GYN. Paul's official website states that: "[D]uring his years in medicine, never once did [Paul] find an abortion necessary to save the life of a pregnant woman." Paul's statement, however, is troubling for two reasons.

First, medical science -- as opposed to Paul's anecdotal "evidence" -- proves that abortions are sometimes necessary to protect the life of the mother. Second, Paul's statement also contradicts the constitutional test articulated by the Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade and many subsequent decisions. According to established Court doctrine, states generally must make abortion available to protect the life and health of the mother. Even if Paul never witnessed a scenario where a woman needed a life-saving abortion, it is not difficult to imagine a situation where a woman needed an abortion to preserve her health.

Furthermore, conservatives have been trying to eliminate the health exception, which they believe amounts to "abortion on demand." According to the Supreme Court, however, a health condition means a psychological or physical condition which the doctor and patient decide warrants an abortion. While many Republicans want to limit abortion to life-saving procedures, Paul believes even this extreme exception is unnecessary based on anecdotes.

2. Paul has dreadful views regarding personal liberty and fundamental rights

Because Paul opposes abortion and everything done by the federal government (except the payment of his salary), he has proposed a bill called the "We the People Act." This bill, if passed, would prohibit federal courts, including the Supreme Court, from deciding whether state or local laws violate the "the right of privacy, including issues of sexual practices, orientation, or reproduction. . .or. . .the right to marry without regard to sex or sexual orientation where based upon equal protection of the laws."

Essentially, Paul wants to remove federal courts from the business of deciding whether state laws violate the federal constitution! Contrary to Paul's vision of government, the Constitution secures certain rights enforceable against the national government and states. The Supreme Court has an important role in protecting those rights against invasion.

In the context of fundamental rights, Paul, however, wants to transfer this important federal judicial role to state courts exclusively. Undoubtedly, many state courts would sharply curtail liberties currently recognized by the Supreme Court. Furthermore, this proposal would produce a system where the substance of federal rights varied state-by-state.

In addition Paul wants to "repeal" Roe v. Wade. Since Roe is a judicial opinion, rather than a statute, he really wants a constitutional amendment reversing the ruling. Regardless, Paul's horrific proposals would endanger several personal liberties secured by the Constitution, including the right to terminate a pregnancy.

3. Paul would threaten the independence of the federal judiciary.

Paul's proposals show a striking disregard for the independence of federal courts. Although public opinion and the actions of the political branches influence court decisions, the courts do not operate as representatives of the electorate. Instead, the Framers envisioned a court system that would operate as a check against unlawful action by the government.

Paul, however, would remove a lot of substantive issues from the jurisdiction of the courts (see above). The We the People Act, which Paul has proposed, would also prevent the federal courts from "issuing any ruling that appropriates or expends money [or] imposes taxes. . . ." Supreme Court precedent, however, already prohibits courts from imposing taxes or expending money of the states. So Paul's proposal is unnecessary.

But Paul wants more than this. He also wants to prohibit any court ruling that "otherwise interferes with the legislative functions or administrative discretion of the states." This sweeping passage would virtually negate judicial enforcement of federal law -- including the Constitution (not to worry - this is what makes the proposal unconstitutional).

If a state passes a statute that mandated racial segregation in its public schools, a decision by the Supreme Court that enjoined enforcement of that law would interfere with the "legislative" and "administrative" function of the state. It does not take much analysis to discover the danger in this proposal.

4. Paul wants to repeal historic legislation that was responsible for curtailing racial and sex discrimination in the workplace and for prohibiting racial discrimination in places of public accommodation.

Ron Paul opposes the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The legislation prohibits employers from discriminating on the basis of race, color, religion, sex and national origin. Paul believes that the legislation violates the Constitution. Specifically, he argues that Congress lacks the power to pass the law and that the law violates the rights of employers.

The Supreme Court disagrees with Paul; so does the public. Americans have decided that they want a society in which employers cannot use race and sex as a basis for exclusion. Contrary to Paul's assertion, this vision is absolutely consistent with the Constitution, via both the Commerce Clause and the Fourteenth Amendment.

Furthermore, Paul is simply rehashing the same arguments that Dixiecrats made as they struggled to maintain Jim Crow and white supremacy. People who lack knowledge of history might find Paul's statements about freedom to contract and association appealing, but they are simply a contemporary version of arguments that prevented women and persons of color from having economic opportunities. Paul would seek to reverse over five decades of social progress.

History proves that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was instrumental in achieving racial integration in southern schools. Until that act was passed, only about 1% of southern blacks went to school with whites -- despite the fact that the Supreme Court had decided Brown v. Board of Education ten years earlier. The legislation, however, tied federal funding for schools to antidiscrimination principles. The southern states sluggishly chose to integrate, rather than lose vital federal education assistance.

On the one hand, Paul opposes federal court enforcement of constitutional rights. At the same time, however, he opposes congressional remedies for racial and sex discrimination and enforcement of equal protection. Paul essentially wants to turn racial and gender equality over to the whims of the private sector and states. His ideas regarding civil rights are unsound, and they would undermine the nation's unfinished project of social justice.

5. Paul wants to erode the power of voters by repealing the Seventeenth Amendment.

Over the course of history, the American people have amended the Constitution to provide greater power to voters and to enhance democratic participation. The Fifteenth Amendment allows people to vote regardless of race (although it took nearly a century to make this a reality). The Nineteenth Amendment allows people to vote regardless of sex. The Twenty-Sixth Amendment allows persons who have reached the age of eighteen to vote. Furthermore, the Seventeenth Amendment allows individual voters of each state to elect US Senators directly. Previously, the Constitution delegated this authority to state legislatures.

Paul and many other conservatives want to repeal the Seventeenth Amendment. Although their arguments are not entirely coherent, most conservatives in this camp claim that repealing the Seventeenth Amendment would help protect the states against the national government. Others blame the growth of the national government on the inability of state legislatures to elect senators.

This position is flawed for several reasons. First, the Seventeenth Amendment is an important tool of individual liberty and democracy. Repealing it would contradict important values of American political life.

Second, the connection between the Seventeenth Amendment and growth of the federal government is sheer speculation; it is also incorrect. The government has grown because voters have decided that they need the government to deliver important services that states alone cannot secure.

Furthermore, most of the spending programs that Congress creates for the nation are voluntary. If states do not want to comply with federal regulations tied to spending programs, they can refuse the money. But state lawmakers do not want to anger voters by depriving them of important benefits, like school funding, healthcare, and safe roads.

Repealing the Seventeenth Amendment would undo a major element of America's move toward democracy. For this reason alone, Paul is unfit for president.

Final Thought

I applaud the efforts of Paul's fans to attract media attention for the candidate they support. This attention could lead to greater awareness of Paul's views among the electorate. If people actually hear the policies that Paul supports along with critical analysis, they will undoubtedly disapprove of his candidacy.

Please note: There are so many other reasons why Paul would make a terrible president. I hope to explore those issues in a future blog.

UPDATE:

I changed the first point (regarding abortion) to correct my inadvertent description of Paul as "pro-choice." I also made other stylistic changes. I regret any inconvenience.

Governor Perry's Dangerous Ideas for the US Constitution

Texas Governor Rick Perry recently entered the race to become the GOP's 2012 presidential candidate. Although many early reports regarding Perry have focused on trivial issues like his "Texas Swagger," some media are now beginning to give him serious scrutiny.

Today, Chris Moody, a Yahoo News blogger, analyzes seven ways that Perry wants to change the Constitution. Perry set forth these ideas in his book: Fed Up! Our Fight to Save America from Washington. He also mentioned them during interviews and while campaigning. If implemented, Perry's ideas would dramatically curtail the exercise of individual rights and liberties. They would also dramatically restrain the ability of Congress to engage in sound fiscal policy.



Perry wants to make seven changes to the Constitution:

Abolish lifetime tenure for federal judges by amending Article III, Section I of the Constitution.



Congress should have the power to override Supreme Court decisions with a two-thirds vote.



Scrap the federal income tax by repealing the Sixteenth Amendment.



End the direct election of senators by repealing the Seventeenth Amendment.



Require the federal government to balance its budget every year.



The federal Constitution should define marriage as between one man and one woman in all 50 states.



Abortion should be made illegal throughout the country.

If You Want to Destroy Liberty -- Kill the Courts

Perry's ideas would imperil individual liberty. Particularly frightening are Perry's proposals for the Supreme Court. The Framers of the Constitution created the Supreme Court to act as a check against the other branches of the federal government -- and as a guardian against state governmental infringement of federal law. Perry would water-down the Court's important role in two ways. First, he would seek to eliminate lifetime tenure for judges. He would also seek to empower Congress to reverse Supreme Court rulings by a 2/3 vote.



Critics of judicial power often argue that the Court is antimajoritarian because federal judges have lifetime tenure. A lot of academic research has demonstrated that these fears are highly overstated. Regardless, lifetime tenure immunizes judges from retaliation by the political branches. If judges were subject to reappointment or -- even worse -- elections -- to keep their jobs, this would diminish the extent of their autonomy from political institutions.



Perry's proposal for a congressional override of Supreme Court decisions is also dangerous. Presently, Congress can reverse the Court's interpretation of statutes by a simple majority vote (it is unclear from Moody's post whether Perry knows this). The Court's rulings on the meaning of the Constitution, however, are final, unless the Court later reverses them --- or, unless "the people" amend the Constitution.

Congress can propose Constitutional amendments by a 2/3 vote, but 3/4 of the states must ratify the proposal. Perry would allow 2/3 of Congress to reverse the Court's interpretation of the Constitution without the involvement of the states. This proposal, which would make the Court vulnerable to the whim of Congress, would erode judicial autonomy that the Framers built into the Constitution.

Direct Curtailment of Individual Liberty

Several of Perry' other proposals more directly restrain individual rights. Perry, for example, favors constitutional amendments banning abortion and same-sex marriage. These are fairly standard Republican positions.



Perry, however, also favors a repeal of the Seventeenth Amendment, which allows for the election of US Senators by popular vote in each state. Recently, several other conservatives have advanced this proposal. The Seventeenth Amendment gives voters the right to elect Senators; previously state legislators had that power. The Seventeenth Amendment expanded the representation of the American people in Congress, and it gave voters more power to influence the actions of their representatives. Perry, like other conservatives, wants to take this power away from the people and give it back to state lawmakers. This would represent a serious erosion of individual political power.

Fiscal Nightmare



Perry's remaining proposals are fiscally unsound. First, he wants to amend the Constitution to prohibit Congress from taxing income. This proposal appeals to people who believe -- without any evidence -- that taxation has ruined the country. Perry's idea would make the notion of a functioning national government virtually impossible. A balanced budget amendment, which Perry also favors, would have a similarly disastrous impact on federal fiscal policy (see prior blog post).



Final Thoughts



I am pleased to see that some media have begun to scrutinize Perry. His Texas swagger -- whatever that is -- should not even occupy space in public discourse. It is unimportant.

Instead, the media needs to focus on Perry's ideas and proposals -- which he has detailed in a book and in numerous campaign speeches and interviews. Hopefully, Chris Moody's analysis of Perry's dangerous ideas for the Constitution will lead to even more analysis of his policy positions. This is not the time for Hee Haw journalism.

UPDATE

Chris Moody published the article scrutinizing Perry's views of the Constitution. This blog post has been amended to give attribution to Moody, rather than the Associated Press.

FYI: Recession Has Contributed Greatly to Federal Debt and Deficit

Even though the Republicans love to blame government spending alone for the deficit and debt, they are distorting reality (in other words - lying). As I have argued in prior posts, the recession has contributed greatly to the federal deficit and debt for several basic reasons.

First, tax revenue plunges during recessions because more people are unemployed and business activity declines. Consequently, individuals and companies have less tax liability. Also, during a recession, the government spends more money. The government has spent money to strengthen the economic safety net (extending unemployment benefits, etc.). It has also allocated money to rescue the financial system.

Increasing spending while taxes are falling will lead to a budget deficit. In order to pay the bills the government needs to borrow money. The tax cuts passed during the Bush administration has also contributed to declining tax revenue -- and consequently -- to the deficit and debt.

Although the foregoing arguments draw from basic economic concepts, Republicans refuse to acknowledge this fact in public debates. By emphasizing spending instead, they hope to gain political support for cutting social programs to assist the elderly and poor. Surprisingly, Democrats often fail to acknowledge the relationship between the recession and the national debt and deficit, even though that argument could help them rebut the Republican arguments about spending. In sum, both sides are miseducating the public.

For more on this issue, see:

FACT CHECK: Recession is culprit in high US debt (Associated Press)

Fiscal FactCheck (Factcheck.Org)

Debt Ceiling Deal: Preliminary Observations on the Deal AND Obama (Dissenting Justice)

Blacks And President Obama: End the Love Affair?

Houston-based writer Michael Arceneaux urges blacks to end their love affair with President Obama. In an article published by The Root, Arceneaux contends that blacks treat Obama like a "boyfriend," rather than a president. He urges blacks to become more critical of Obama's policies and to accept reasonable arguments from other blacks who criticize the president.

Black support for Obama remains relatively high. While the overall public support for Obama has fallen below 40 percent (a number which shows erosion of happiness among Democrats), black approval ratings for Obama remain around 85%. Nevertheless, despite these high approval ratings, the economic conditions within communities of color are quite dreadful.

The recession has wiped out all of the gains in black wealth over the last 20 years, and black unemployment is about 3 times the rate for whites. Yet, Obama has agreed to a debt-ceiling compromise that will reduce government spending and make an economic recovery even more difficult.

Furthermore, while Obama frequently talks about the plight of the "middle class," he rarely mentions the poor or working poor in his speeches. When Obama wants to talk about unemployment and jobs, he travels to Ohio, but he does not go to East St. Louis or SE Washington, DC to hold a similar conversation. Although the disappearance of jobs in the industrial Midwest has definitely affected blacks, black urban poverty is a different social structure than poverty in the rust belt (see update below this blog post).

In the past, I watched with amazement the emotional reaction that Obama generated in people. I often described myself as a "designated driver," or someone who approached him soberly as a politician -- rather than a larger-than-life symbol of greatness and progress. When other blacks, however, criticized Obama, they often received condemnation. Persons ranging from Revered Wright, Tavis Smiley, Maya Angelou and Cornell West have received fervent criticism from blacks for either taking issue with President Obama or, as in the case of Angelou, supporting his competitor Hillary Clinton.

I believe that Obama raises a lot of complex issues for blacks. First, he is a symbolic figure of racial progress; accordingly, blacks feel happy about his presidency. Second, he is also often a victim of racism, which causes blacks to act defensively on his behalf (even exaggerating some claims in my opinion).

Despite these facts, racial allegiances should not cloud blacks' judgment about social and economic betterment. The fact that Obama is a symbol of progress means very little for persons who live daily in poverty, crime-ridden neighborhoods and whose children attend the most neglected schools in the nation. Moreover, defending Obama against racism from rightwing bigots will not change these substantive conditions of inequality.

So, I recommend a more sophisticated usage of race politics by blacks. Race remains important in American society -- as a battery of social statistics reveals. But an amorphous sense of racial pride should not render blacks silent in the face of policies that ignore their most pressing interests.

Unless blacks begin to treat Obama as a politician, then he will have no incentive to change his approach on issues related to race and poverty. If he can maintain nearly unanimous support among blacks simply by being a symbol of racial progress, then he need not take any political risks in order to deliver concrete -- rather than symbolic -- change.

UPDATE

I discovered an interesting proposal by Senator Gillibrand that addresses one of the issues discussed in this blog post: urban poverty. Gillibrand has proposed the Urban Jobs Act, which, if passed, would allocate money to help "at-risk" youth in Americas large cities obtain jobs. Gillibrand cites statistics showing the extremely high unemployment rates among black and Latino youths. The article does not mention whether President Obama supports the legislation. It also does not indicate that he had anything to do with proposing it.