Mr. Smith Retreats into the Cloture

It was never my intention to venture forth into the current Supreme Court debate because I hold positions that are almost impossible to reconcile.

However, I have read too many Facebook posts in the days since Judge Neil M. Gorsuch’s name has been put forward for the job of Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States that are so incorrect they boarder on hysteria. 

The background of the histrionics I believe to be two-fold. 

First, the election of Mr.  Trump as President of the United States.  This was a shock to the system from which one might recover were it not for the Tweets that force us to conclude with the editorial board of The Los Angeles Times:

What is most worrisome about Trump is Trump himself. He is a man so unpredictable, so reckless, so petulant, so full of blind self-regard, so untethered to reality that it is impossible to know where his presidency will lead or how much damage he will do to our nation.1

Gorsuch suffers from guilt by association and is being punished by how unfairly the Republicans treated Judge Merrick B. Garland, a superbly qualified candidate who happened to nominated in the last year of the Obama presidency.

I firmly believe that elections have consequences from the first day to the very last and therefore Judge Garland should have not only been given a hearing but should have been confirmed.  It is not just the presidents  prerogative it is his or her (someday?)  duty to nominate judges taking only the  advice of the Senate into consideration.

The second reaction seems to be based on the belief that the so-called cloture rule has been around since the days of the Founding Fathers.  It hasn’t.  It is sometimes used interchangeably with the word filibuster - as in - “We are going to filibuster this nomination.”  That is not correct either.

“The term filibuster -- from a Dutch word meaning "pirate" -- became popular in the 1850s, when it was applied to efforts to hold the Senate floor in order to prevent a vote on a bill.  It offers the right to any senator to speak for as long as necessary on any issue.”  Think "Mr.  Smith Goes to Washington."

“Three quarters of a century later, in 1917, senators adopted a rule (Rule 22), at the urging of President Woodrow Wilson, that allowed the Senate to end a debate with a two-thirds majority vote, a device known as "cloture." 2

In 1975, imposing cloture was made easier by requiring a vote of three-fifths of the entire Senate, a change the importance that derived from what Majority Leader Mike Mansfield, D-Mont., did in 1970: He created the “two-track” system whereby the Senate, by unanimous consent or the consent of the minority leader, can set aside a filibustered bill and move on to other matters. Hitherto, filibustering senators had to hold the floor, testing their stamina and inconveniencing everyone else to encourage the majority to compromise. In the 52 years after 1917, there were only 58 cloture motions filed; in the 46 years since 1970 there have been 1,700.  3 

To stop the ease of Parliamentary obstruction on both sides I propose we let Mr.  Smith out of the Cloture.

If you want to Filibuster a bill you have to do it the old fashioned way - by speaking at length for hours on end.

Senator Jeff Merkley, Democrat of Oregon, recently held forth on the Senate floor for more than 15 hours in protest of the nomination of Judge Neil M. Gorsuch to the Supreme Court. 

New Jersey Sens. Cory Booker and Robert Menendez in June of 2015,   spoke as part of a filibuster on the Senate floor to get the U.S. Senate to address the issue of gun violence.

In 2013 Senator Rand Paul, fueled only by water and Snickers bars, spoke for 14 hours against the National Security Administrations blanket collection of data on American citizens.

And who could forget Senator Ted Cruz’s 21 hour filibuster in 2013 against Obamacare where he read from Dr.  Suess and made references to Star Wars. 

A filibuster can also be ended by nature’s call forcing to Senator Paul to conclude his with these words: ““I would try to go another 12 hours and try to break Strom Thurmond’s record, but there are some limits to filibustering and I am going to have to go take care of one of those here.”4

A real filibuster would test not only the metal and bladder control of the opponents but their commitment as well.

Then there is this arcane but helpful rule that “simply requires the Senate to remain in the same legislative day until the filibustering members have exhausted their ability to speak on the nominee in question. This is the point at which those members who are committed to blocking that nominee’s confirmation have given the two floor speeches allotted to them under Rule XIX.” 5

Think of how much time 49 senators who were really committed to a cause could take up.  Think of how much commitment it would take for a senator to stand up and speak instead of hiding behind a procedural vote.  Think about it and forget it.

The filibuster would always be an option on any bill and any nomination at anytime.  But now it would require a courage that congress has rarely shown.  It would require the courage to stand for something.  It would require belief in a cause so great that the believer would have to risk their personal political future by holding up the business of the senate until they ran out of gas.  It would require putting a name on the impasse.   It would require a measure of bravery and, therefore, it won’t happen.

Mr.  Smith, wherever you are, come out of your cloture.

__________

1. "Our Dishonest President," Los Angeles Times, April 2, 2017, accessed April 3, 2017, http://www.latimes.com/projects/la-ed-our-dishonest-president/

2. "Fillabuster and Cloture." United States Senate. Accessed April 3, 2017. https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/Filibuster_Cloture.html

3   George F.  Will. "Busting Up the Fillibuster." Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, March 30, 2017.  Accessed  April 3, 2017. http://www.post-gazette.com/opinion/Op-Ed/2017/03/31/George-F-Will-Busting-up-the-filibuster/stories/201703310169?pgpageversion=pgevoke.

4. Philip Ewing,  "Rand Paul pulls plug on nearly 13-hour filibuster." Politico. June 3, 1913. Accessed April 6, 2017. http://www.politico.com/story/2013/03/rand-paul-filibuster-john-brennan-cia-nominee-088507.

5.   James  Walner and Ed Corrigan. "A Rules-Based Strategy for Overcoming Minority Obstruction of a Supreme Court Nomination." The Heritage Foundation. January 23, 2017. Accessed April 6, 2017. http://www.heritage.org/political-process/report/rules-based-strategy-overcoming-minority-obstruction-supreme-court.
 

That Was What We Waited For? An Epic Fail

Every one of us who spent a moment in school knows that assignments are due when assignments are due.  Even in kindergarten we knew that when the teacher told us to put our crayons down we better have something to show for it.  Apparently Republicans never learned this lesson.

For seven years they told us that if they just got control of the House they would repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act.  (aka Obamacare).  They did in the elections of November 2010 and produced nothing.

So the mantra began, “If we just get control of the Senate we will repeal and replace Obamacare.”  In November of 2014 they did and still nothing.

“Now,” said they, “if we just held the Presidency we could repeal and replace Obamacare.”  Mr.  Trump promised that if he was elected President he would do so “on the very first day.”

It appears that the Republican Party was absent on the first day of school.

It was like they didn’t really expect to win the White House in this election (Who thought they would?) and figured they could put off doing their homework for another four years.  To put it directly they were not ready.

Is it any wonder that real conservatives were deserting the party in droves.  Here is how Shepard Smith of FOX News (Yes, FOX News!)  summed up the situation moments after the President and Speaker Ryan had to pull the bill.

Republicans voted to repeal Obamacare more than 50 times when they didn’t have a president in the White House who would ever sign it. And now that they have a president in the White House who will sign it, they can’t get the one thing they’ve been screaming about for seven years done.

This is an obvious indication that it’s much easier to be the ‘no’ vote than it is to govern. 1

For seven years they could have learned and taken notes from the national social experiment that was going on before them.  The Affordable Care Act was too cumbersome to administer but people grew to like it because it gave them the things they wanted.

We like the idea that there would be insurance available to everybody when they needed it.  We like that we couldn’t be denied coverage because of a pre-existing condition.  Parents and their “children” who could grow to the age of twenty-six liked the idea that the kids could have insurance through their parents policies.  They didn’t like the idea that they were living in their basements but that is another matter.  We just didn’t want to pay for any of it in mandates or higher insurance costs.

And we certainly didn’t want to subject ourselves to a tax that would have been the most lucrative of all.  According to George F. Will:

About 180 million Americans are covered by employer-provided insurance, which is not taxed as what it obviously is - compensation. Republicans have abandoned a measure to treat as taxable income a small portion of the most generous employer-provided insurance plans, and have postponed for a nearly decade - meaning, probably, forever —- the “Cadillac Tax” on such plans.2

No matter what plan is brought forth it will cost money.  The “Area 51" members of the so-called “Freedom Caucus” will just have to understand this.  So, here is my humble proposal.3

First, everybody is enrolled in medicaid - from the President to the pauper at the bottom of the expressway ramp - affording all people the most basic health care coverage. 

There would be no false promises here. If your doctor was willing to work for the medicaid reimbursement rate, great!  If not you would have to find one that would.  Sorry.

Second, employees would be encouraged to either band together with other like-minded individuals to purchase insurance as a group. Or, they could join a labor union (Whose membership has been on the decline.) that could negotiate with employers for better coverage than medicaid offered to be purchased from insurance companies.

For example, I have an option of Silver, Gold or Platinum plans for my insurance coverage with increasing costs as the coverage becomes more comprehensive.  The theory behind this is obvious.  The better the plan the more likely the most talented people will want to work for your company.

However, to Will’s point, any plan offered above basic medicaid would be taxed as compensation.  This should make the brave souls in congress, who have the best health care plans of all, go running for cover like banshees on fire.

And, while this would be cutting off my own nose, premiums would increase along with age.  This idea was proposed by none other than that radical leftist Dr. Charles Krauthammer.

Sixty-year-olds use six times as much health care as 20-year-olds, yet Obamacare decreed, entirely arbitrarily, that the former could be charged insurance premiums no more than three times those of the latter. The GOP bill changes the ratio from 3-1 to 5–1.

Premiums better reflecting risk constitute a major restoration of rationality. (It’s how life insurance works.) Under Obamacare, the young were unwilling to be swindled and refused to sign up. Without their support, the whole system is thus headed into a death spiral of looming insolvency.4

This insolvency was caused by not having enough healthy people signing up and paying in than older,  people.  Why would they?  There was no upside for them.

The problem was the penalties.  Another crazy idea. They weren’t enough! 

The reason parking tickets work is that the penalty is markedly higher than not feeding the meter.  Nobody wants to risk a $100+ ticket when they could pay $ 8.00 to park. 

In many cases in the ACA it was cheaper to pay the penalty than it was to purchase insurance.  Who would do that?  Especially when if one did get really sick you were guaranteed coverage.  Some likened this to buying fire insurance while the house caught on fire. 

While I am not accomplished in the art of the deal I do have a modest proposal to offer as starting place that would benefit almost everyone.

All would get basic insurance through Medicaid even though they may not get immediate access to state-of-the-art medicine. 

Those who wished to pay more or who, through collective bargaining or their own pockets, wanted concierge medicine would have it available although there would be a tax on the recipient.  The free market would reign.

Even unions and insurance companies would be the beneficiaries. Who better to represent groups of people in an insurance market than a union?  Who would sell those premium policies? Insurance companies!

Everybody has realize that there will never be a perfect plan.  Just like there has never been a free lunch.

__________

1.  Elizabeth Preza, “Shep Smith nails Trumpcare fail: GOP’s been ‘screaming’ about this for 7 years and can’t get it done."  RAWSTORY.com
https://www.rawstory.com/2017/03/shep-smith-nails-trumpcare-fail-gops-been-screaming-about-this-for-7-years-and-cant-get-it-done/ (accessed March 25, 2017)

2.  George F. Will, “Whatever replaces Obamacare will look a lot like Obamacare.”  The Washington Post. March 22, 2017. https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/whatever-replaces-obamacare-will-look-a-lot-like-obamacare/2017/03/22/d7ae5d6e-0e5c-11e7-9b0d-d27c98455440_story.html?tid=ss_fb&utm_term=.b0445ef256a4 (accessed March 26, 2017)

3. This was first proposed in a conversation with Mr. Ted Davis, a member of my Bible Study group.  Unfortunately, I can remember where Mr. Davis’ thoughts ended and mine began.

4. Charles Krauthammer, “The Real World of Obamacare Repeal.” The National Review.  March 16, 2017. http://www.nationalreview.com/node/445841/print (accessed March 26, 2017)

The Devil and The Donald

 There is a wonderfully blasphemous program on FOX called “Lucifer.”

It is based on DC Comics character Lucifer Morningstar.  He is, or claims to be, nothing less than the devil of hell who has become bored with his life in the netherworld and has fled to Los Angeles where he runs a nightclub.

In and of itself that would be enough for a dandy of a show but Lucifer somehow becomes involved with a streetwise LA detective named Chloe Decker and he wheedels his way on to the force as a “Civilian Consultant.”  They solve crimes together.

While most of the dialogue makes one wince Lucifer has made some observations that are theologically sound. 

The first is his rebellion when people see him as the tempter who lures the innocent into doing evil deeds. 

Lucifer is a believer in “original sin.” In his mind there are no innocents. He believes that humans are capable of doing greater evil to each other than even the devil could have imagined.  He says, “My job is to punish not to tempt.”  Somehow that makes sense to me.

What makes more sense is a question that Lucifer always asks people from whom he is trying to extract information: “What is it that you really want?”  It is the perfect question for everybody!  What do we really want? Figure that out and things fall into place.

What fascinates me most out in this characterization of Lucifer is his demeanor.

We think of Lucifer as a menacing figure with horns, a red suit, smelling of sulfur with a pitchfork in hand but Lucifer Morningstar is quite the opposite. 

He is suave, debonair, and stunningly handsome. He wears tailor made suits and has a charming smile that he uses on men and women alike to woo them with his charms and ultimately into his bedroom.

Tom Ellis, who plays Lucifer, is from Wales and so has a lovely Welch accent that makes the character even more alluring. 

Lucifer is new to the world of humans and so approaches it with all the gusto and silliness of a ten year old.  He is a child without any inhibitions who says inappropriate things and exhibits socially unacceptable behaviors without seeming to care how others think. His attitude is “devil-may-care.”

Yet his personality is still appealing.  He is the kind of guy people want to be around.  He makes them feel at home, at ease, as if with him in charge everything is going to be all right.  People are sucked in by his charm, his innocence, and the way he makes them feel.

In that sense the current President of the United States is not like Lucifer.  He has none of the qualities I mentioned above.  In fact, he is a quite the opposite.  He is a “schlub.”

This dichotomy struck me on the night he walked down the long corridor in the White House to announce his Supreme Court nomination, The Honorable Neil Gorsuch, who looks like he stepped out of central casting.

While Ellis’ Lucifer is always impeccably dressed Mr. Trump didn’t even have the minimal fashion sense to button his suit jacket. 

“For the love of God!” I thought to myself. “Didn’t your beloved father have enough manners to tell you that when you are sitting down you unbutton your coat but when you stand you button it?” Not our president! 

And his overcoat?  Does he ever take that thing off?  He looks like a flasher!  People around him are wearing just their suits while he is wrapped up like he is about to face a nor’easter! 

And when was the last time you saw Mr. Trump laugh. Not just a little laugh but a big belly laugh that clearly showed he was enjoying the moment.  I can’t remember it, ever. 

I believe that a person’s emotional health can be shown by their ability to laugh at themselves.  If I am right about this it is not just Mr. Trump but every other politician I can think of seems to be joyless.  Our Nation’s Capital must be a dismal place.

Most time he is scowling is such a severe manner that many grandmothers probably want to take him aside a ask, “Donald, why such a face?”

He looks like he is always suffering from a severe case of dyspepsia.  “Quick! Somebody! Get the president some bismuth in a great big spoon”

If Mr. Trump acted in any way like Mr. Morningstar there would be even more to worry about. 

Fortunately Mr. Trump has none of the qualities that would make him somebody we would wish to be around.  His nastiness is right there on the surface for all to see.   He couldn’t mount a “charm offensive” if the security of the nation depended on it.  

Mr. Trump’s despicable nature is not hidden behind anything.  It is hanging out there like one of his too long red ties.

The one thing I have to say about him is that he never pretends to be something he is not.  With him it is all there - the anger, the name-calling, the rudeness, the over-compensation, the braggadocio.

In the end, however, let me ask you: Who would you really want to have dinner or drinks with Lucifer or the President of the United States? 

As for me? Make that a table for two for Messrs. Morningstar and Nelson.

Ministry of Walking Around

In the Harry Potter books there is something called the “Ministry of Magic” which is a huge, complicated, and most of all, inefficient bureaucracy designed to keep Muggles (you and me) from discovering the culture of Magical Creatures.

I thought of them today when I made my annual trip to the Secretary of State’s office to renew the licence plates for the hearses and flower car.

I have to go in person because the cars are “commercial vehicles” and I have to prove that they are insured by bringing in my “Certificates of Insurance.”

Why this all can’t be done on-line or even by mail escapes me but it is not only a part of our state’s bureaucracy which makes it an epitome of inefficiency.

All of these really happened on this week's visit.

The first thing one sees that there are countless lines all leading to individuals who have one thing and only one thing to do.

The first people you are greeted by (and I use that world loosely) tell you which department you were you are supposed to go depending on the kind of paperwork you have.  Whatever you present is stared at as if were written in hieroglyphics.

My “greeter” stared at my papers and said, (I am not making this up!) “You need to go back out the entrance and come in the exit.”  I wasn’t even phased because once you have entered the Secretary of State’s office it is important to realize that you have entered a magical place where entrances are exits and exits are entrances.

Out I went and in I came.

Fearing that I was going to be yelled at I sheepishly entered the exit door and was greeted by a Secretary of State security guard in a brown outfit.  I was sure he was going to ask about my relatives in Germany but instead he told me to stand in a line against the wall and wait. 

“Wait for what?” I wondered.  “For the firing squad to load their rifles?”

As I awaited my fate I noticed that there were innumerable people wearing official looking badges just walking around.  All of them had very intent looks upon their faces as if they were heading off to a national security briefing.  The room must have been changed or the meeting cancelled because it wouldn’t be long before I saw the very same people heading in the opposite direction. 

As luck would have it the chief minister in charge of walking around was working in my department but it was hard to tell because when I first lined up he received a phone call.  It was for Delores (Umbridge?) who suddenly became the most important person in the world to this man.

Instead of taking a message he decided to mount a personal search for her. It wasn’t an all out search because it seemed to be limited to a fifteen foot range in front of his door.  It consisted mostly of him looking around and asking others who were walking around if they had seen Delores.  None had.

Finally I was beckoned into the office with a wave of the hand by his colleague.  She was exceedingly friendly.  Her first warm, welcoming words were, “You need to make a copy of your certificate for each vehicle.” 

“Sorry,” I said, “I didn’t know.”

“How could you not know?” she snapped. “I’ll make copies for you this time but never again.  Remember?”  At this she disappeared.

The head of walking around reappeared still searching for Delores.

Finally, an even more angry woman than the usual Secretary of State employee said she had seen her.  Delores and her friends had been on break for almost an hour. 

I looked at the clock. It was nearing 11 A.M. The place opened at 8:30  A.M. It seemed like a good deal - work 90 minutes and take 60 minutes off.

The chief minister who had done nothing but search for Delores for the last 20 minutes seemed enraged.  “How did she think she would get away with this?” he said stupefied.

“She may think I’m a bitch but I told her to get back to work.”  Novel idea!

The man returned to his desk and a stack of papers that were at least 10 inches high.

“These are all forms from last week.  We are so backed up with work...” he said to me with his voice trailing off.

Perhaps, I thought, had you spent any of the time spent working instead of searching for someone who had been on break for the last hour the stack of forms would be considerably smaller.

The man had a very short attention span because (And again, I am not making this up!) he did whatever he was supposed to do on one form and was up again to do some more walking around.  Somebody buy this man a Fitbit®!

He left and the woman who had apparently gone to Roanoke office to make the copies reappeared. 

While talking to herself she highlighted a certain line on each application, copied each licence plate number by hand onto yet another form, and s-l-o-w-l-y but very neatly stapled them together. 
She then sent me to the cashier with the admonition. “Next year remember to make your own copies.”

Two observations:

First, when I entereded through the exit door it was 2017. I could order anything I wanted over the internet but I had to see at least a-half-a-dozen people to renew my licence plates.  Certainly this all could be done by computer but where would state employees get their exercise?

Second, people actually write about complaints about these employees on Yelp.  Do they really think that is going to change anything?  The Secretary of State’s office has been like that forever. The only thing that changes is the portraits of the office holder that are hung almost everywhere you look.  It makes the place look like the Kremlin!

You can Yelp all you want but with government employees there is no incentives to give great service.  Who wants the job?

I can say without fear of contradiction that no six year old in the history of time has ever awakened in the morning and said, “You know what I want to do with my life? I want to work for the Secretary of State’s office in the drivers licence division!”

Then the child runs down to tell his or her parents of their life’s calling and the parents cry their eyes out.

How About a Little Inconvenience?

While I have always felt that the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) was an elaborate rouse designed to make us feel safe without actually making us safe yesterday’s Fort Lauderdale tragedy proved my point.

I joined the TSA pre-check program about a year ago.  For around $90 I received a background check and was allowed to keep my coat, shoes, and belt on as I passed through a special line that was always shorter.  It was one of life’s little pleasures.

Turns out it was a scam as yesterday’s tragedy proves.  For while I couldn’t fly with an eight once tube of tooth paste in my carry-on luggage here is what the Washington Post reported I could do:

Travelers are allowed to bring firearms with them to flights as long as the guns are unloaded, locked in a hard-sided container and in checked baggage, according to the Transportation Security Administration. Ammunition can be brought onto flights but also must be placed in checked baggage.1

Are you as puzzled as I am?

You can bring a gun and you can bring bullets in the same suitcase?

That’s crazy!

How about this simple rule?

You can bring a gun or you can bring bullets but you can’t bring both at the same time in the same piece of luggage.  You have to ship one or the other.  I know that would be inconvenient, but hey!

Or, how about you can put them in your checked luggage but you have to pick your bag up in a secure area from a uniformed officer who not only asks you for some I.D. but, if your eyes are rolling around in your head and you a babbling about R. James Woolsey Jr., doesn’t give you a gun but places a butterfly net over your head and makes you shout “Tamei! Tamei!” as you are carted away.

Again, I know that would be an inconvenience and some people who only looked like Mad-Eye Moody wouldn’t get their semi-automatic weapon back but this idea really just might save some lives.

How about we stop inconveniencing 90 years old who don’t have the strength to blow up a balloon and start inconveniencing those really are intent on blowing someone away?

________

1.  Mark Berman, William Wan, and Sari Horwitz. "Fort Lauderdale Airport Shooting Suspect Had Visited FBI Office in Alaska Last Year." Washington Post. 6 January 2019. [https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/fort-lauderdale-airport-shooting-suspect-had-visited-fbi-office-in-alaska-last-year/2017/01/06/d945b20a-d462-11e6-945a-76f69a399dd5_story.html?utm_term=.2a0c1112fa45]

New Year's Resolution

In response to Lowell's request I have decided to take up the game of golf in 2017. 

It is what is expected of retired guys and so I engaged Thomas R. Jorndt former Athletic Director and golf team coach at Oakton College to teach me.

After our first lesson at the driving range Tom suggested that I practice at home.  He taught me to keep my eye on the ball.

 Tom also taught me to let the club do the work and to keep my arms straight when I make contact.

 Perhaps I shouldn't have tried this between my house and my neighbor's.  Or maybe I'll use a Wiffle ball next time.

We'll be keeping you posted through the year as to the progress of my game.