Posted on

“Joe Biden’s Inflation” – and Other Idiocy

Election Day marks the merciful end of a silly season in the US that starts around Labor Day. It’s a time when we watch television at our mental-health peril. The years of presidential elections are the worst; mid-terms, like 2022, are the next worst.

Bombarded with screeched messages, we develop coping mechanisms. We may wear out the “mute” button , or record everything on a DVR to fast forward through political ads. Perhaps we simply try to tune out most of the noise. Unless we stop watching or listening altogether, though, some particularly obnoxious idiocy breaks through to our beleaguered consciousness.

For me, the worst has been the notion that we’re experiencing “Joe Biden’s inflation”.

Too Much Credit or Blame

Let’s start with a fairly obvious general point: Presidents usually get too much credit for good current economies and too much blame for bad ones. Determinants of the state of an economy are numerous and complex. Policies emanating from a president vie with those from other forces, especially the markets and Congress.  Those market forces at work are increasingly international in scope. Any big event anywhere affects everything, everywhere.

While it’s not impossible for an announced policy to have some immediate impact on the economy, it takes months and even years for most initiatives to move the economic needle significantly.

In this case, the foolishness of “Joe Biden’s inflation” goes well beyond merely overstating a president’s immediate impact on the current economy, however. The reasons could hardly be clearer; there are two major factors and two subtler ones, in place before the major factors, that set the table for inevitable inflation, or worse.

Obvious Cause #1: Covid-19

In General

Who thought we were going to get out of the worst pandemic in a hundred years without significant inflation, at the very least? Preventing financial collapse was the goal; inflation was inevitable. (As an aside, complaints about stimulus programs are rich, aren’t they? First, almost everyone supported them and lined up to take credit. New designs were required when a certain president’s name had to appear on the check. It wasn’t Biden’s. Second, stimulus checks deserved support. Third, the notion of Biden’s predecessor being a financially responsible conservative is hilarious.)

Consider fuel as one example. (It’s the best single factor to discuss because it affects the price of everything, like food, it is used to transport.) One of the very few advantages of the pandemic was that traffic disappeared overnight. There was no such thing as rush hour. Anyone with a reason to drive reached their destination in record time. Millions discovered stars in their night sky.

With the collapse of demand for fuel, prices dropped. Producers had to cut back production dramatically to avoid ruin. Emerging from the crisis brought not only restoration of more normal demand, but also two to three years of pent-up demand. Ramping up production involves far more than flipping a switch. Such high demand and low supply meant prices could do nothing but skyrocket.

As prices begin to settle back down, in fits and starts, should that be attributed to Joe Biden’s taming of inflation? If so, we’ll be re-assessing that every minute as the market for crude shifts. In a recent trip through parts of Europe, gas ranged from 1.90 to 2.20 Euros/liter. That’s $7.18 to $8.32 per gallon. Boy, that Joe Biden has enormous influence on global markets! Since it’s up again since I got home, it’s undoubtedly higher yet in Europe.

An intelligent discussion on the merits of Biden’s action on the Keystone Pipeline is possible, if anyone is interested, but it had nothing to do with the prices we’ve been paying at the pumps.

Handling of the Pandemic

First there was portrayal of Covid as a liberal hoax. When its existence became undeniable, next came denial of its severity – just another flu, if that. Keeping a safe distance was for sissies, even though experts had determined that the virus spread by people breathing on one another. It was somehow unpatriotic (?!) to wear a mask. Doing so to protect others was for losers.

In The Infodemic (Columbia Global Reports, 2022), Joel Simon and Robert Mahoney examine the ruinous approaches to Covid employed in two groupings of countries. The subtitle serves as a summary: How Censorship and Lies Made the World Sicker and Less Free. The first group was of authoritarian states like China, Iran and Russia, where censorship of truth is a blunt instrument. Those telling the truth about the virus were silenced by any means necessary.

In the second grouping, referred to as populist-led democracies, the authors say “governments relied on a more sophisticated and increasingly effective means of censorship, drowning the truth in a sea of lies.” (11) This they dub “censorship by noise”. Thus, “alongside the Covid-19 pandemic, there was an infodemic, a deluge of lies, distortions and bungled communication that obliterated the truth”, (10) with catastrophic consequences for public health and genuine freedom.

The three countries in the group of democracies whose similarly terrible handling of the crisis is described in detail are Bolsonaro’s Brazil, PM Modi’s India, and Trump’s USA. While aspects of Brazil and America’s responses were so similar as to suggest some coordination between Trump and Bolsonaro (sloughing off responsibility to more local officials being one example), some of the most bizarre behavior of any of the three countries came out of the White House. Historical analysis of American behavior for the years 2016 – 2020 will place us in relentlessly unflattering company.

Why Handle a Pandemic So Badly?

Donald Trump always knew he could not beat Joe Biden in a fair election in 2020, and behaved accordingly. That’s why he was so furious with Elizabeth Warren for not bowing out earlier (after disappointing primary showings), and throwing her support to Bernie Sanders. Trump believed he had a chance to beat Sanders.

Similarly, Trump was at his projecting best when he declared so long before the election that someone would try to rig or steal it. He knew that because he was planning to rig or steal the election. Step one was to declare victory early election evening. He went ballistic when thwarted by Fox News correctly projecting Arizona for Biden.

To have any chance against Biden, Trump knew he had to have an economy going gangbusters. So, he tried to deny the virus away, then minimize it. Then he was desperate to push ridiculous miracle cures. He ordered a hundred million doses of the vaccine while it was being developed, considering it his chance at re-election. He lost all interest in vaccination when clear it would not be ready before the election, other than getting it quietly for himself.

Some of the most heartbreaking stories from the whole ordeal were from caregivers relating how patients used their dying breaths to deny the existence of the virus that killed them.

Obvious Cause #2: Putin’s murderous rampage in Ukraine

It’s often called a “war”, but, as conducted by Vladimir Putin, it seems more a series of war crimes. While Putin devises ways to kill civilians with the evident hope of persuading them to give up, it becomes more evident that most Ukrainians would rather die than re-subjugate themselves to Russia. Meanwhile, the lack of enthusiasm Russian soldiers exhibit for the conflict seems understandable.

In any event, the economic effect is to lessen or negate each country’s participation in various global markets. Either or both are major players in a number of important markets – from oil, to wheat, to neon. (Europeans are wondering how they’ll stay warm this winter.)That last one, neon, is interesting. Ukraine is, or was, the world’s largest supplier: 70% of neon gas and 90% of highly purified semiconductor-grade neon used in chip production. Guess what happens to prices when supply of oil, wheat, neon and other essentials goes down suddenly and drastically.

Now, there actually is a president who spent every day in office giving aid, support and encouragement to Vladimir Putin’s every interest in the world. At the top of that list was destruction of NATO. Putin’s fondest aspiration is to be The One who restores Russia to its USSR glory, at least. The Mueller Report documents in exquisite detail the extraordinary lengths Putin’s Russia went in support of Trump’s 2016 bid for the White House. No effort or expense was spared.

Meanwhile, amid the chaos of American policy for those years, the one objective Trump worked on effectively and consistently was the evisceration of NATO, which had managed to keep peace in Europe since the last World War. Not a day went by, seemingly, without doing something to further alienate one or more of our allies. The traitorous quid pro quo could not be clearer.

The American electorate scuttled Vladimir and Donald’s plans in 2020, leaving Putin to do it the hard way. Startled, and perhaps a bit unnerved, by the speed and effectiveness with which Biden was resurrecting NATO and re-establishing America’s stature in the world, Putin invaded. Disastrously. The results are death, destruction, and yes, massively inflationary market disruptions – all done with the fawning approval of Donald Trump for his favorite “genius”.

The Inflation Table Was Already Set – Tariffs and Worker Shortage

Having written about this before, and cited the full-blown analysis available in the December 2019 edition of Fortune magazine (“Why Trump Is Bad For Business”), we’ll keep this relatively brief. Before anyone had ever heard of Covid-19, there were clear signs the economy was headed for trouble due to two flawed policies.

The irony is that Covid might have provided cover for these missteps, by taking the blame for a broken economy. An honest and competent attempt by an average president to encourage people to distance themselves sensibly and mask up would have gotten us to the vaccines in much better shape. Then, vaccines and boosters taken by all (other than the hard core 1-2% anti-vaxxers) would have provided finishing touches on a course that saved hundreds of thousands of lives and greatly lessened the economic impact.

It’s doubtful that such an approach would even occur to Donald Trump.

Trump’s Tariff War With China

As many have said, “Somebody had to do something about China.” Yep, somebody did, and still does. That something is not a tariff war. What’s needed is something tied to China’s piracy of intellectual property.

Tariff wars serve mainly to increase prices across the board to consumers. To the buyers of raw materials and finished goods, tariffs function very much like an enormous sales tax. It’s not impossible but it is rare for tariffs to help a US manufacturer or industry, or to hurt a Chinese competitor. More often, tariffs hurt more American companies than they help.

And, by the way: so cowed was China by this “getting tough” with them that they became more belligerent regarding Hong Kong, Taiwan, and the entire Pacific.

Trump’s Immigration Policies Choked Off Supply of Labor

Because he has employed so many of them over so many years, Donald Trump knows better than most that immigrant workers are as likely as anyone to work hard and behave well.  The “murderers and rapists” nonsense is the red meat upon which his base feeds, however. So, people seeking asylum are “illegals”. Immigrants are taking all these jobs from our college kids who were hoping to pick turnips in the hot sun all summer. And so forth.

The truth is that the number one thing holding back our economy is a lack of workers across the board. Help Wanted signs are everywhere. The labor shortage is a double whammy; not only is it stifling growth, but it’s also raising prices. Scarce workers cost more, obviously.

Meanwhile, we still await serious discussion, by adults, of whatever changes are needed to develop immigration policies we believe in enough to enforce.

In Short

There was a president who made the inflation we’re facing longer lasting and more severe than it had to be. It isn’t Joe Biden.

Other Idiocy

Out of all the other harmful and dangerous idiocy out there, let’s briefly address one more: Election denial.

I’ve seen estimates that over half of Republican candidates for office across the country in 2022 are election deniers, and that about 60% of American voters will have an election denier on the ballot. Recognizing there can be some divergence in how the term is defined, the point here is not to get mired in definitional disputes or statistics.

The point is that support for the notion that the 2020 election was stolen from Donald Trump should be disqualifying from holding public office for any candidate by reasonable voters of any political persuasion. Yet an incredible number of such candidates are on the ballot.

There has never been any basis for such a belief. For those with lingering doubts, despite the loss of 64 cases and the absence of any evidence, there is Lost, Not Stolen (https://lostnotstolen.org/). A group of leading, life-long conservative Republicans produced this exhaustive, documented study of all the baseless allegations of a stolen election one might hear. They categorically obliterate every argument made about the results in Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. They conclude: “In fact, there was no fraud that changed the outcome in even a single precinct.”

Anyone arguing the 2020 election was stolen at this point is either (1) psychotic; (2) truly stupid; or (3) simply lying.

Let’s be clear on what’s at stake here. In many US jurisdictions, there are a number of Republicans hard at work to change the outcome the next time Donald Trump, or someone of his ilk, makes the call he made to Georgia Secretary of State Raffensperger. In response to “Find me 11,780 votes!” they don’t want to hear “That’s not how we do things in America.” No, they want to ensure the answer next time is “Sure. In fact we’ll ‘find’ a few extra hundred to make it look better.”

Conclusion

I yearn for the good old days when “liberals” and “conservatives” argued about taxes, too much vs. too little regulation, big government vs. small, and the like. Indeed, I miss the day when one could have any discussion on the merits.

The argument now is whether basic American principles like checks and balances, the rule of law, and free and fair elections are worth preserving. Not content with “mere” voter suppression and grotesque gerrymandering, some now have voter nullification as the goal.

In a saner time, it would be safe to assume that anti-democracy, un-American cretins would be routed off to political oblivion. How we vote today, and perhaps in the next election or two, will determine whether our votes will continue to matter.

Ken Bossong

© 2022 Kenneth J. Bossong

Posted on

Senate Republicans, I Know What You Did Last Winter

Dear Senate Republicans not named Mitt Romney,

You did this. You did this to us. Your craven dereliction of duty enabled the nightmare to continue and, predictably, get worse. We have almost four and a half more months before the voters pick up after you and seven months of peril to endure. Whatever evil Donald Trump perpetrates as a desperate candidate and then as a bitter lame duck is on you. This will be on top of the immeasurable harm he has done since you emboldened him with your vote on February 5 not to remove him.

It was right there before you: a lock-tight, unassailable two-article impeachment. It could have been twenty-two articles or two hundred and twenty, of course. Was the House’s inclination to keep it a simple, manageable, straight forward two articles understandable? Yes. I would have included more, the Mueller stuff at least, however, because it too was right there – fully developed, consistent, and equally compelling.

The Articles of Impeachment

The second article, for obstruction of justice, was particularly straight-forward. President Trump flatly and publicly forbade anyone in his administration from cooperating at all – with documents or testimony. Indeed, he boasted about obstructing justice. Retaliation for anyone who properly responded to lawful subpoenas was swift and severe. That these witnesses undoubtedly knew what the consequences would be for telling the truth not only makes their devotion to duty more laudable, but bolsters their credibility.

There were no material facts in issue. The obstruction was a blanket refusal to cooperate, or permit anyone else to cooperate, with the Congress in fulfilling its oversight duties. Nixon’s cover-up in Watergate, which Republican congressional leaders assured him was indefensible, was trifling by comparison. Your failure to convict weakened the Congress as a co-equal branch.

The first article was no less compelling.  The backdrop was a new president of the Ukraine, Volodymyr Zelensky, desperately seeking US assistance in fending off Russian aggression. Official US policy to provide it was clear; an appropriation was in place. Zelensky was most anxious for two things, a meeting with President Trump to affirm to Russia and the rest of the world America’s support, and disbursement of the military aid. Each was withheld by a President Trump bent on benefiting himself.

Quid Pro Quo

The two main defenses, if they can be called that, seem to be that (1) There was no real quid pro quo and (2) Trump was concerned about corruption in Ukraine. Which of these is more laughable is a close contest, but I vote for (2). In fact, the depiction of Donald Trump as a crusader against corruption may be the single funniest thing ever said about him – unintentionally funny though it may be.

That is to take nothing away from the absurdity of the quid pro quo argument. In the infamous phone call of July 25, 2019, there comes a point where Ukraine’s President Zelensky brings up the topic of US military assistance for Ukraine. He refers specifically to the need to acquire more Javelin anti-tank missiles. President Trump’s reply is “I would like you to do us a favor though because our country has been through a lot and Ukraine knows a lot about it.”

The favor sought by President Trump: Zelensky was to announce and conduct investigations of two preposterous notions: (1) Ukraine, not Russia, interfered in the 2016 presidential election and (2) Joe Biden sought the removal of Ukraine’s Prosecutor General Victor Shokin because he posed a threat to a company (Burisma) whose board included Biden’s son, Hunter.

Anyone in Trump’s administration could have told him how ridiculous and thoroughly discredited these theories were; many in fact did. Russia’s massive interference in the 2016 election was a matter of voluminous, detailed record. And the truth regarding Shokin’s removal was exactly the opposite of Trump’s narrative. Biden’s position on Shokin as Vice President was official US policy, and that of America’s allies, precisely because Shokin did NOT prosecute corruption in Ukraine.

Hunter Biden may have been guilty of attempting to ride the coattails of a well-known father. This is something Donald Trump knows more than a little about – as both a son and a father.

When I hear that asking for a “favor” in return for desperately needed aid is not quid pro quo, a reverie comes to me. It’s a mashup of scenes from old gangster movies: [An Edward G. Robinson-like figure has a rival gangster tied up in a chair.] “Yeah, listen here, you, see? I unnerstand you got a pretty little daughter. If ya ever wanna see her again, you’re gonna do me a little favor, see?” For some reason, the point is clear without needing to add, “That’s the quid pro quo, see?”

Briefly, on Some Legalities

The hold itself was illegal under two federal statutes, regardless of reason, as increasingly frantic emails between OMB and DOD make clear. The Department of Defense realized it was becoming impossible to properly spend the money appropriated in the fiscal year ending on September 30. The Office of Management and Budget knew this, of course. They also knew the legislature holds the “purse strings” and the executive branch can’t just say “screw it”, but was not in a position to explain the hold or to comply with the law’s formal requirements to rescind. (See the Appropriation Act and the Impoundment Act of 1974.)

The reason for the hold was much worse; no wonder no one wanted to explain it in writing. It is a serious violation of federal law for (a) a person to (b) solicit, accept or receive (c) a contribution or donation of money or other thing of value, (d) in connection with a Federal election (e) from a foreign national. (52 USC 30121) If it’s illegal for anyone to receive anything of value from a foreign national in connection with any election, what is it for a president to solicit dirt on a political rival in an upcoming presidential election from a foreign nation – all in return for release of aid to which that nation is already entitled?

On Mens Rea, or “Guilty Mind”

I’ve heard it argued that Donald Trump could not have committed high crimes and misdemeanors because he is too dopey to form the requisite criminal intent. Among the serious problems with this, three stand out. First, being stupid and being evil are not mutually exclusive; one can be both. Second, what kind of defense is this for a president? Third, Mr. Trump has many serious flaws on constant display, but stupidity is not one of them. He is colossally and willfully ignorant, but not stupid. For years, he has said and done any number of stupid things – not because he doesn’t know any better, but because he wants to say and do them. The fact that he has gotten away with them so far makes him one of the greatest con men of our time.

Trump knew exactly what he was doing with Zelensky, alright. We all know exactly what he was doing. So did Zelensky, of course, who was loathe to becoming a pawn in US politics. In the build-up to the phone call of July 25, the single biggest point made by Trump’s people to Zelensky and his people was this: If he ever wanted the aid disbursed or his White House visit, he had to convince Trump in this phone call that Trump would get his investigations. In fact, it was critical that Zelensky make clear he was about to publicly announce the Biden investigation. The announcement mattered  more than an investigation everyone knew would yield nothing.

Another reverie: I find myself wondering whether Vladimir Putin was miffed to learn that his favorite protégé believed Russia alone wouldn’t be enough to overcome Biden in 2020. After all Russia did for him in 2016? While that weird Putin/Trump thing undoubtedly endures, it had to rankle a bit that Trump resorted to asking Ukraine.  Then again, Trump even asked China to investigate Biden. (Didn’t need Bolton for that; we saw Trump say it on TV.) When all is known, countries Trump has not asked to investigate Biden may feel left out.

Consequences of Your Vote

There will be many books, but it will take a treatise, someday, to adequately recount the harm that has resulted from your vote to acquit. For now, this brief summary will have to suffice.

Balance of Power

President Trump’s relentless attacks on checks and balances, and any restraint on his power whatever, have intensified. Two of the many troubling examples are letting inspectors general go when needed most and the ongoing politization of the Department of Justice.

An agency has an inspector general to have someone relatively independent of politics ensure that the agency conducts its affairs properly. They are on the lookout for the proverbial fraud, waste, and mismanagement. Honest leadership welcomes such overview. Firing IGs for looking into matters uncomfortable to those doing the firing is more than a bad look.

Trump said while letting intelligence IG Michael Atkinson go, “He took this terrible, inaccurate whistleblower report and he brought it to Congress”, thus setting in motion the impeachment. In other words, he did his job – one of two unforgivable sins in this administration. (The other is telling the truth.) The removal of Glenn Fine, Christi Grimm, Steve Linick, and Mitchell Behm all make for interesting reading, especially given what they were working on, including (for Fine and Behm)  oversight of the largest stimulus package in American history. 

The politization of the Department of Justice famously includes interference in actual cases (Michael Flynn and Roger Stone). Hot off the press, the firing of US Attorney Geoffrey Berman was a typical Trump operation. First AG Barr lied that Berman had resigned. Then he said Trump did it. Then Trump said Barr did it. There is no suggestion that Berman was doing a bad or even mediocre job in the Southern District of New York. With the merits nowhere to be found, speculation that Berman was doing too good a job fills the void, with talk of Ruby Giuliani or a state-owned Turkish bank and another international bad-boy buddy of Trump, President Erdogan. This should be great for sales of Bolton’s book.

The American Bar Association for years has been promoting the Rule of Law all over the world. It seems the focus should shift to the United States.

Pandemic

Petrified by what a pandemic might do to the economy and his prospects for re-election, President Trump resorted to denial and an absolute refusal to lead in any respect when it mattered most. The mind boggles at what might have been accomplished by way of coordination, information exchange, adroit use of the Defense Production Act, and so forth, to maximize an effective response.

Not content with mere inaction and epic mismanagement of the crisis, Trump went out of his way to make up or pass along dangerously false information, undermine medical experts and his own CDC, and “lead” by atrocious example. Just listing by bullet points the examples would take up an entire post on this blog. You knew better when Trump called COVID-19 a hoax by liberal Democrats, then later said the Democrats politicized the pandemic. You, too, had to cringe listening to such pronouncements as it’ll just go away, you could even go to work with it, and you’d benefit from ingesting disinfectant.

For those who find it amusing to have a POTUS say outlandish things, there is a recent CDC poll of 502 Americans representative of the US population. Thirty-nine percent reported intentionally engaging in at least one high-risk practice not recommended by CDC… including application of bleach to food items (e.g., fruits and vegetables) (19%); use of household cleaning and disinfectant products on hands or skin (18%); misting the body with a cleaning or disinfectant spray (10%); inhalation of vapors from household cleaners or disinfectants (6%); and drinking or gargling diluted bleach solutions, soapy water, and other cleaning and disinfectant solutions (4% each).

As mystifying as it is how anyone could believe a word President Trump says about anything at this point, you know as well as I that thousands more have died in the pandemic than needed to. From bemoaning cruise passengers docking to get treatment because it would “hurt his numbers” months ago, to creating a perfect pandemic storm with Saturday’s rally in Tulsa, Trump couldn’t be clearer. His only interest is in himself and his numbers. The irony is that doing the right thing right away would have lessened the economic carnage, as well.

The Economy

Ah yes, the economy. Donald Trump says he created the greatest economy ever, but COVID-19 ruined it. Unfortunately, there is good reason to believe that his policies had the economy heading for a downturn before the pandemic hit.

One of the cover stories in the December 2019 issue of Fortune magazine, not exactly a leftist rag, was “Why Trump Is Bad For Business”. The piece is a comprehensive analysis of how business’s gains from lower taxes and deregulation had been more than wiped out by two policy disasters. First, Trump’s immigration policies deprived the economy of badly needed workers. Second, his tariff war with China just made everything more expensive, hurting business. As demand dampens, recession ensues. The measurable confidence of CEOs, purchasing managers, and consumers had all hit the skids. Trump is said to have “lost the C-Suite” in 2018.

Similarly, in a 12/23/19 piece by Dan Clark in Law.com’s Corporate Counsel, Altman Weil’s survey of corporations’ top lawyers (general counsel and chief legal officers) indicated widespread planning for recession. Again, this was before the novel coronavirus was a factor.

Then there’s the national debt. What this “conservative” had already done to the national debt before anyone heard of COVID-19 involves truly incomprehensible numbers.

Presidents get too much blame and too much credit for swings in the economy, anyway. But things weren’t nearly as rosy as Trump’s campaign would have you believe.

Racism, the Police, and the Military

This part all but writes itself. It’s hard to imagine a worse person to be POTUS after the horrific killing of George Floyd than Donald Trump. He specializes in divisiveness while appealing to his base’s basest instincts . We all know what MAGA means to some of his followers. Not for nothing do white supremacists love him. Before leaving the topic, though, it’s worth saying something about the police and the military. That’s because the president managed to misuse both with one episode on June 1.

Trump set the police on peaceful protesters exercising the very sort of freedom of assembly and speech rights the First Amendment was created to protect. This for a chance to stand in front of a church and hold aloft the one document he apparently knows and cares even less about than the Constitution of the United States. To recap, the Bible and the First Amendment were abused as the police were misused to violently roust a peaceful protest against race-based police violence.

General  Mark Milley was in Trump’s entourage strolling across the recently-cleared Lafayette Square that day. His apology for participating seemed both deeply felt and carefully considered. As Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, he knows the dangers of politicizing the military in a free democracy. Anyone in Trump’s vicinity must be prepared for a request or demand to engage in activity that is illegal, immoral, or both.

Trump and some of his wackier supporters refer to the impeachment as an “attempted coup”. Since the impeachment inquiry was brought in accordance with the constitution, due process, and precedent, it was the antithesis of attempted violent or illegal overthrow. There is someone itching to set the military on US citizens, though. At times, he seems almost giddy at the prospect.

Consequences In Sum

Much of what really does make America great is under siege. When considering the many reasons for pride in America, at the top of the list is the Constitution. And among its ingenious virtues, at the top of that long list are these: checks and balances of the three co-equal branches of government; the First Amendment freedoms; Equal Protection of the Law under the Fourteenth Amendment; and Due Process under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.

The president you would not remove has remarkable animus toward each of these first principles, and undermines them at every turn. This is a different kind of coup attempt.

Back To You

Deep down inside, you know as well as we do how despicable Donald Trump is as a person, and how dangerous and unfit he is to be president.

Some of you said these things, and more, publicly when he was merely a candidate, and you were correct. Many more of you have said so privately to your closest confidants – and to yourselves late on a sleepless night – since the 2016 election, as the certainty of such assessments became undeniable.

You also know, deep down inside, how meritorious the impeachment inquiry was.

Despite the compelling case for removal, everyone, literally everyone, knew Trump would be acquitted. The simple reason was the majority you Republicans had in the Senate. It was simply a given that you would not vote in good conscience. The only interesting question was whether any of you would.

Thank you, Mitt Romney.

Perjury?

Senators take office with an oath. Nonetheless, at the start of the impeachment trial, Chief Justice Roberts administered the following specific oath to each senator: “Do you solemnly swear that in all things appertaining to the trial of the impeachment of Donald John Trump, President of the United States, now pending, you will do impartial justice according to the Constitution and laws, so help you God?” 

One would think it impossible to overstate the gravity of the duty undertaken. In the weeks leading up to the impeachment trial, though, some of you made it clear you had no intention of doing impartial justice. Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell seemed particularly intent on getting the point across. A December 18, 2019 Vanity Fair article by Alison Durkee contained a gathering of quotes from McConnell – and Lindsay Graham: “I’m not an impartial juror,” McConnell said. “This is a political process. There is not anything judicial about it. Impeachment is a political decision . . . I’m not impartial about this at all.” That wasn’t all. “Everything I do during this, I will be coordinating with White House counsel,” [indicating there would be] “no difference between the president’s position and our position as to how to handle this.”

 “This thing will come to the Senate, and it will die quickly, and I will do everything I can to make it die quickly,” Graham said… “I am trying to give a pretty clear signal I have made up my mind. I’m not trying to pretend to be a fair juror here.”

Clear signal received. Now, under what conceivable argument, Senators Graham and McConnell, was your oath administered by the Chief Justice anything other than perjury? It’s acceptable to take a false oath in a proceeding if it’s not judicial? Lying in a “political process” is a given for you?

How many of you Senate Republicans did the equivalent without being so brazen about it in public? Are you emulating the president you enable?

Meanwhile, the Fallout Is Actually Even Worse

Note that in the high crimes and misdemeanors charged and chargeable, plus the malfeasance since the failure to remove, the facts are generally clear and not in serious dispute. Witnesses are scoffed at and called names, but the facts stand.

Consider that all of the above wrongdoing is limited to what we know about, matters of public record. Imagine what we don’t yet know.

What does all this portend? If THIS wasn’t enough to remove, impeachment is a nullity when either the Senate or the House is controlled by the president’s party. If so, then the president really will be above the law most of the time. Or as The Donald likes to say, “I can do anything I want!”

In Closing

I know what you did last winter. Instead of giving a real-life horror movie the ending it deserved, you made it even worse. Whatever good you may have done in your career, your legacy is now tied inextricably to that of the worst president in history – the most incompetent, the most dishonest, the most hateful, and the most corrupt.

You’d be wrong to dismiss me as from the far left, by the way. Electorally, I’m your worst nightmare these days – a centrist/moderate who considers candidates and issues on the merits, who pays attention, and who votes. Millions of Americans who are more-or-less like me decide elections.

In addition to two special elections, thirty-three Senate seats are up for election in 2020. Twenty-three of them are held by you Republicans.

Whether or not you are up for re-election this year, I have a suggestion. If you’ve died a thousand deaths since February 5, and have come to regret your vote to acquit, you might want to share that sentiment well before November 3. Indeed, you should do it while staunchly and publicly opposing whatever constitutional crisis or other outrage Trump has in store for us next. It won’t be long in coming.

Respectfully,
Kenneth J. Bossong

© 2020 Kenneth J. Bossong

Posted on

Opening Up While Shutting Down

The noise of everyday life is the noise of being perpetually busy. The shutdown imposed by the coronavirus pandemic provides a chance to open ourselves up.

Too Busy – Usually Real, Sometimes Less So

The frenetic pace of our lives is something we all bemoan at times, often with good reason. There is no time to think, or to reflect, plan, organize, or to reach out to neglected friends or family. We know the drill: job(s) leaving us exhausted; clutter that begs to be cleared; sleep deficits; the good book we’ve wanted to read, but don’t start because it’s “too long”; food wolfed down without really sharing a meal. How many marriages or other relationships suffer from inadequate time to really listen and share unvarnished thoughts and feelings?

Being “too busy” isn’t even limited to the employed. Since retiring, one of my pursuits has been to seek a new excuse for being less effective than I should be. That one’s not going well.

Now Comes the Pandemic

It looks like our bluff is being called. For many of us, lack of time will not be a problem for a while.

As one enterprise after another (sports, theaters, museums, businesses, schools) shuts down, all events (games, tournaments, conventions, concerts, cruises, flights, meetings) are cancelled or postponed. For fans who wait all year for March Madness, as an example, no basketball is indeed madness. The list of what’s not happening is mind-numbing. The announcements should be for what still is happening.

This virus is taking away all the good distractions that give us relief from the bad stuff in life – you know, like illness.

That’s not the only irony. It feels unsettling that our normal reaction to adversity – to gather together for support and camaraderie – is the very thing we can’t do in this crisis. Meanwhile, all this shutting down is happening amid weather (in Jersey, at least) that announces Spring’s rebirth.

Here’s a weird thought: What will the nightly news or the newspapers have left to cover? [“And now for the Sports, with Bob Skiffle. Bob?” “Thank you, Allison. Nobody’s playing. Back to you.”] A news broadcast will consist of the three C’s: Commercials , Crime, and Coronavirus, with a bit of weather thrown in at the end.

What Will We Do?

Forget what the reporting will be, though. What will we actually do with our time? How will Americans spend their time in a shut-down country? Even people whose jobs continue unabated during the shut-down will find most normal free-time activities unavailable. Imagine those whose jobs go away temporarily or (please, no) permanently. We sometimes say there’s nothing to do even when there’s everything to do. We know what we really mean at those times; what happens when it’s true?

We can read that good, too-long book or catch up on TV programming that we usually regret missing. Of course, we can also binge watch re-runs and endless drivel. There are other possibilities, some of them good.

To be clear, this is not to downplay the harm. There will be plenty. The worst harm, obviously, is to individuals who contract Covid-19. Beyond that, however, will be damage to people’s confidence and finances. There is no shortage of pundits telling us what all this means for the stock market, jobs, and the economy. The layoffs have already begun. State and federal tax revenues will plummet, even as the need for government assistance spikes. Yet…

Once we’ve cleaned all the stores out of disinfectant and secured more French-toast ingredients (bread, milk, eggs) than we could ever consume, there is opportunity here as well. If we can pause and take a deep breath, it might occur to us that we have time to think. The first thing to think about is Time itself.

Time Not Always On Our Side

Time is an artificial construct invented as a way to order our lives. Generally, it works. Time facilitates coordination of activity in a way similar to money facilitating commerce. It’s “midnight” at midnight because we agree to call it that.

Consider:  The next credit card payment is due (let’s say) April 1, with a ten-day grace period, because that’s the agreement. Investors in the lender expect profits from payment of loans and collection of extra fees when late. All of which is fine, as far as it goes. None of this is cosmically ordained, however.

If furloughed borrowers do their best to make payment but come up short, how could lenders justify waiving late fees to their investors? Well, by saying, “We all know what happened here. Profits will be a bit down this quarter, but we’ll all be fine.” If the investors’ creditors in turn take a similar tack with them, and so forth, we smooth out the path to recovery.

In choosing to share the pain, within reason, we can lessen it to the benefit of all. (Being the creditor to a  debtor in trouble is no fun, either.) This assumes, of course, that those able to meet their obligations will do so, rather than take advantage. Our system always depends on overall good faith. Also, when the economy comes back, we can make a point of hiring those who lost their jobs blamelessly.

All of this is to illustrate the bigger point: We can all give each other a break for a month, or longer if needed, and not just financially.

Wouldn’t it be great if, after this unwanted hiatus, we re-engaged with each other as a better people?

Becoming Better

Which brings us to the second, more important, thing to think about: we, ourselves, as individuals.

Whatever makes us better – introspection, honest self-assessment, meditation, study, prayer – this might be the chance to re-establish some good habits. Perhaps we can open ourselves up to new possibilities, or to abandoned aspirations, while the noise is shut down.

Maybe we acknowledge the good in each other that we take for granted. Say the things that “go without saying”. Learn something new. Bury a stupid grudge. Do some good where it’s needed. Gain insight. Rededicate ourselves to something worthwhile.

Maybe we find ourselves knowing, and liking, who we see in the mirror a little better next month than last.

Ken Bossong

© 2020 Kenneth J. Bossong

Posted on

Immigration – Governing With Nods and Winks

Dichotic Listening

One of my memories from college days at Rutgers a long time ago is of occasional participation in studies for nominal pay. One in particular that I recall was conducted by the Psychology Department involving dichotic listening. Through headphones were piped audio tracks from two different sources. The content in the left and right channels had little or nothing to do with each other. I would listen for a while and then answer written questions about what I had retained. Then there’d be more. This went on for an hour or two. It was an interesting enough way to grab a little pizza money.

I mention this because it reminds me of what I experience when listening to the debate we are having, if you can call it that, about immigration. Immigrants are hordes of rapists, murderers and thieves. Turn them away and expel the ones already here.  No, no, they are virtuous, law-abiding, victimized saints. All must be welcomed unreservedly. What’s the problem? As someone with no ties either to the left or the right, as such, I don’t need this dichotic listening. You can’t pay me enough.

Meanwhile, the most important big-picture issue is not being addressed: the disaster that ensues when governing with nods and winks. Refusing to say what we mean and mean what we say when formulating and implementing public policy leads to major, if predictable, problems in this or any area of law.

Nods and Winks

The mess we are in is most attributable to the intellectual dishonesty with which we have approached immigration for decades. We have been governing in this field with a series of nods and winks, which is always a bad approach.

“So, the harvest is over. Before you go back home, do you think you could stick around for a little while? OF COURSE, we all believe in obeying the law [wink, wink] but you’re a good worker and I’ve got this other little project I’d like you to help me with. If you’ll do that for me [nod, nod], I’ll take care of you.”

Then there’s another little job, and another. The next thing you know, it’s harvest time again. Hey, the work got done well, inexpensively, and on time; the workers fed their families; and everyone behaved themselves. Where’s the harm? Let’s do it again.

It’s my understanding that the great majority of “illegal aliens” are people who entered legally but overstayed their visas, rather than those who sneak into the country. As a people, we are less than eager to enforce the letter of the law – until something embarrassing happens. (Those presenting themselves to seek asylum aren’t illegal anythings, by the way, unless they’re turned down and stay.)

One of America’s great contributions to the world is the Rule of Law encompassed in our Constitution. Saying one thing and meaning another in governance is inimical to the Rule of Law.

It is not easy to get a green card legally, and attaining citizenship is downright arduous. Indeed, one of the arguments against creating a shortened path to citizenship is “What about all these good people who took years to do it the hard, but legal, way?” This concern is far from frivolous. It needs to be part of a serious, detailed discussion on the Immigration Policy that is best for the United States.

The problem is that no one seems interested in having the debate we so badly need. Arguing the merits on the complexities of immigration policy is hard work. It is for adults. Expertise would help.

I am far from an expert on Immigration policy. Good arguments can be made on both sides of its many complex issues; that’s what makes it a tough area.

Honing in on Some Realities

General Principle

Like any country, America has a right to determine a policy on immigration in its own best interests, to secure its borders, and to enforce its laws. “Let ‘em in!” is not much of a policy.

Yet, I also agree that we are a nation of immigrants. I’m pretty sure there were no Bossongs on the Mayflower. And, by the way, those on the Mayflower were immigrants.

In truth, we have allowed people to stay because we want them to stay, kinda. We don’t really believe it’s in our best interest to kick these people out, regardless of our stated immigration policies – except when it’s convenient to pretend we do. Then, it’s Law ‘n’ Order, damn it. The nods and winks do not amount to precedent; they can be withdrawn at any time. That’s why they are the opposite of the Rule of Law. What makes nods and winks tempting is what makes them wrong. The phrase “arbitrary and capricious” comes to mind.

The Economy

Our actual collective opinion seems to be that immigrants are good for our economy. The cost of planting, harvesting, cleaning, preparing, and serving food has been considerably less for all of us than it might have been, for example. I gather that there are industries that would verge on collapse in the absence of undocumented workers. For years, I’ve heard people joke that if the (then) INS drove down the middle of Main Street in Anytown, USA with a bullhorn announcing their presence, the town’s restaurants, hotels, dry cleaners, and construction and landscaping businesses, among others, would empty out each business’s back door.

It’s hard not to notice that the President’s business holdings are in industries particularly dependent on such labor for both construction and ongoing operation: hotels, country clubs, restaurants, etc. He is not alone.

While there may be some jobs for which the undocumented provide unwanted competition, the notion of Americans clamoring for the chance to, say, pick fruits and vegetables in the hot sun strikes me as far-fetched in an amusing sort of way. [How’s your son? He’s home from college for the summer, but he couldn’t get that job picking turnips that he wanted.] The job market is generally not the zero-sum game (see post of April 2) presumed to exist at times.

Interestingly, two different columnists in the April 14 edition of the Philadelphia Inquirer, one conservative and one liberal, made the same point: Our economy is being held back right now by a scarcity of labor at all levels of skill that, given our birthrate over the last few decades, can be satisfied only by immigrants. Trudy Rubin and Marc Thiessen would not agree on much, and they wrote their columns that day for very different purposes, but they agreed completely that the country is not “full”.

Crime

Then there is the criminal behavior issue. Most studies indicate that immigrants are somewhat more law-abiding on average than American citizens. This is hardly surprising, if for no other reason than immigrants are looking to avoid deportation. “Tell that to the family of a person slain by an undocumented immigrant” goes the argument. “Any crime by an illegal alien should not have happened because the perpetrator should not have been here.”

One problem with such argument is that it begs the question of whose presence in the country should be legal. My thesis is the need for policy we believe in enough to enforce. Illegal status is a relatively minor count in the indictment of a murderer – in a minuscule percentage of our senseless murders.

The Discussion We Really Need

Give all interests a seat at the table. Invite the best and the brightest, not the most extreme. Hammer out an Immigration Policy we can enforce with a straight face. It won’t be perfect, and not everyone is going to love it. If it is fundamentally fair and (can I dream?) even a bit wise, we’ll all be better off.

Here’s a proposed outline for an agenda:

  • In general, turn what we really believe and really want into fair, clear, coherent, and enforceable laws and public policies. Sweat the details.
  • Arrive at some reasonable level of consensus on the following: How many new people can this country do a good job of absorbing? Are the categories and priorities of persons considered for admission to the US in the best interests of this country? [Same questions for staying and for ultimately attaining citizenship] What is a fair, humane, and appropriate approach to considering requests for asylum? How arduous should the conditions and process of attaining citizenship be? What are the facts about the danger posed by criminal behavior of immigrants? Is there any reason not to deport or deny admission to genuinely bad actors? (Where do we draw the line between significant and trivial misbehavior?)
  • (Assuming we change laws substantively) create a smooth and rational transition from the old ways (the nods and winks) into the new laws
  • Anticipate, prevent, and solve problems inherent in enforcing the law.
  • Effectively address any genuine security concerns at the borders, or anywhere.
  • Determine if there is ever a reason to separate families. Indeed, is there reason to insist we deal only with entire families when possible?
  • How can we assist newcomers with assimilation (which, notwithstanding the rough ride given to Joe Biden on this subject, remains desirable for all)?

The Discussion We Really Don’t Need

See “Dichotic Listening”, above.

Worth the Effort

If the policies inherent in our current Immigration laws are found to be the best for our country after careful expert consideration, so be it. Let’s set about enforcing them in a fair, even-handed way. That result would be surprising, though, given that our collective behavior has evinced a need for immigration reform for years.

There have been some bad episodes in America’s past regarding immigration. Two immediately come to mind:

  • Being, inarguably and inexcusably, insufficiently open to European Jews seeking asylum from certain death in the 1930s and 40s; and
  • Our mad scramble to handle the Mariel Boatlift in 1980, when Castro unexpectedly announced that any Cuban who wanted to leave could do so. The perception that Cuba emptied its prisons and mental health facilities may have been overstated, but the impression persists that Castro badly outmaneuvered President Carter.

If doing the right thing for its own sake is not enough to motivate us, at least we should look to avoid deep future regret.

We have behaved as if we do not believe in our own Immigration laws for decades. Perhaps we’ve been too busy enjoying the benefits of inexpensive, reliable labor to worry about the niceties of governing with integrity. Or maybe we just haven’t gotten around to fixing this mess we’ve created. Make no mistake, though: the real issue is whether we are going to govern with integrity. However irresistible the posturing may feel, we need to stop this “Us vs. Them” nonsense (February 19 post). Now.

There’s too much at stake.

Ken Bossong

© 2019 Kenneth J. Bossong