Beware of What You Wish For- Big Business and the Republican Congress

           Robert A. Levine  3-29-12

 In the realm of beware of what you ask for…was the desire of Big Business and its lobbyists, including the Chamber of Commerce, to elect a Republican Congress in 2010, providing millions of dollars that went to support GOP candidates. According to a New York Times article, “the return on investment has not always met expectations.” (http://nyti.ms/Hm2k9s) This may be somewhat of an understatement.

 Instead of pursuing legislation that would aid American businesses, enhance economic growth and reduce unemployment, Republican members of Congress have blocked these measures despite the fact they’re supported by corporate lobbyists and pro-business groups. The recalcitrance of these Republican members of Congress stems from their desire to reduce all government spending and cut the size of government. The two measures currently in limbo that businesses would love to see enacted are the transportation bill and authorization for the Export-Import Bank. The virulently anti-tax group, the Club for Growth, whose more appropriate name should be the Club for Stagnation, is opposed to this legislation, and many Republican members of Congress are taking their cues from them. A spokesman for this organization noted “Free market is not always the same as pro-business.”

 Though a ninety day extension of the highway transportation trust may be enacted by the House shortly, businesses say that long-term funding is required to start new infrastructure projects that would boost employment and the economy. It is possible that 1.5 million construction workers may be laid off unless funding is authorized. Collection of gasoline taxes would also be stopped, $110 million daily, the money probably going to the oil companies, never to be collected by the government. Speaker Boehner had previously promoted a $260 billion five year bill which was blocked by the Republican caucus and the Senate has already passed a version of the bill with bipartisan support. Currently, the federal government funds transportation spending to the tune of $51 billion annually, with each billion responsible for 30,000 jobs.

 The Export-Import Bank lends money to foreign entities to purchase American products and has been an important factor in American sales abroad since 1934, its charter due to lapse in May. U.S. exports have been thriving during the economic recovery. However, American goods would be at a competitive disadvantage without Export-Import Bank financing as other countries are willing to provide this kind of backing for their exporters. The Club for Growth opposes the Bank as an anomaly in the free market system, wanting lending to be a private function and unwilling to support the Bank as a necessity when other countries employ their funds to undermine our exporters. Rigid ideologues can not fathom pragmatic solutions to problems, dealing only in absolutes. The president of the National Association of Manufacturers, who contributed significant sums to Republican candidates in the last election cycle, had harsh words for opponents of the Bank, but these may fall on deaf ears.

Whether the extreme right-wing conservatives will eventually relent and support these two bills in the House remains to be seen. The American economy will lose if they do not, with both business and workers suffering.

Resurrecting Democracy
www.robertlevinebooks.com

The Swing Vote

The Swing Vote
            Robert A. Levine  3-26-12

The Swing Vote is the title of a recent book by Linda Killian that laments the lack of power independents have in Washington and their impotence in determining government policy. It is a strong affirmation of the need for independents to get involved in politics to bring about change. The percentage of Americans who self-label themselves as independents already constitutes the largest political bloc and is continuing to grow as more and more citizens are turned off by the partisanship of the Republicans and Democrats, and their inability to get things done.

 Members of Congress and Senators are increasingly from the far fringes of their parties and unwilling to compromise on needed legislation to move the country forward. This polarization has made Congress an ineffective body with public approval ratings in the single digits, their lowest levels ever. Moderates from both parties are either retiring in disgust at their inability to legislate and the lack of comity, or because they were defeated in general elections or primaries by more partisan candidates. Centrist politicians and voters from both parties bemoan their lack of input in the political process and the way ideological gridlock in Washington is damaging the economy and the nation’s future prospects.

In addition to the usual published sources, Killian wrote The Swing Vote after interviewing independent voters as well as officeholders and politicians from both parties. She focused particularly on those who were independents and centrists, capturing their frustration in bringing the two parties together to generate solutions to the nation’s problems, such as the national debt and budget deficits, tax policy and entitlement spending. Along with many others, she perceives the ascendancy of extreme partisanship as being caused by the redistricting process and gerrymandering, voter registration and voter rules that exclude many citizens, and the dominance of the special interests in campaign financing.

Killian sees change coming only if more independents are willing to become involved in politics, demanding more transparency from public officials, obtaining election reform, more equitable redistricting, and campaign finance reform. She does not mention the formation of a centrist third party to unify independents and centrists, to give them a strong voice in reform efforts, which I believe is necessary to effect change. Killian is an intelligent writer who makes her points cogently and concisely. The Swing Vote is recommended reading for anyone interested in politics, and the role of centrists and independents in changing the political dynamic.

Resurrecting Democracy
www.robertlevinebooks.com

The Folly of the Carry Laws- When Will America Learn?

                      Robert A. Levine   3-23-12

The tragedy of the Trayvon Martin case in Florida highlights the madness of the “carry laws” allowing citizens to carry guns on the street to “protect themselves.” This folly is compounded by Florida’s “stand-your-ground” statute that permits people who feel their lives or safety are threatened, to use deadly force against the individual or individuals they believe are endangering them, or if they believe criminal activity is occurring. This is not an issue of just one self-authorized vigilante killing an innocent teenager, but of a culture that allows citizens to carry guns and shoot people based on a subjective judgment.

The problems with these laws have been disregarded by legislators in submission to the NRA in Florida and numerous other states. It is difficult enough to determine when policemen have acted appropriately in shooting someone they consider dangerous. When a civilian is involved in a confrontation, the uncertainty escalates. Since any non-felon can be licensed to carry a gun on the street, there is no way to exclude racists from targeting minorities, gangs from killing adversaries, people from settling grudges with individuals they dislike, or self- authorized vigilantes attacking those they consider bad guys, all claiming the shootings were done in self defense.

Are we still in the Wild West era on the frontier where citizens had to carry guns for protection and there were shootouts in the streets? Or perhaps we are devolving into a society similar to Iraq, Yemen, or Afghanistan. Can the revival of feuds like the Hatfields and McCoys be far behind? Maybe we should also allow honor killings of women who disobey their parents and have sex with a boyfriend.

Politicians on both the right and left constantly talk about American exceptionalism in a positive way, separating the nation from all others as a hallmark of freedom and democracy. The ability of citizens to utilize firearms is another way the U.S. is different from other countries. America is the only developed nation that permits citizens in many states to carry weapons on the streets, some including schools and other public places. Allowing home owners or business owners to have guns on their premises to protect themselves is understandable, or hunters owning guns, or skeet shooters. But the “liberalism” that many conservatives have shown in regard to gun rights makes no sense. And it is not only the carry laws, and stand-your-ground laws but allowing people to own assault weapons, sniper rifles, rockets and grenades for “self-protection.” This should not be acceptable in a civilized nation.

One interesting element in the Trayvon Martin case is that the “stand-your-ground” Florida statute would have justified Martin’s shooting George Zimmerman, the neighborhood watch captain, who shot him. Zimmerman, who appears to be fifty to a hundred pounds heavier and much taller than Martin in photographs, followed Martin around after having been told by the police to cease and desist to allow them to handle the incident. But he persisted anyway and apparently got into a fight with Martin. We know what would have happened if the situation had been reversed and a black teenager had shot a white man in “self defense.” If not shot by the police, he would have been thrown into jail.

According to an article in the Orlando Sentinel, there were 13 killings in Florida that the authorities considered justifiable homicide in 2005. After the stand-your-ground law was passed, over the next five years an average of thirty-six killings annually were deemed justifiable. 19 other states have similar laws to Florida’s stand-your-ground statute, permitting the use of guns outside the home. Tragedies such as Columbine, Virginia Tech and the Gabrielle Giffords shooting have done nothing to halt the march of gun advocates that keep liberalizing gun laws. There must be a better way to make the nation’s citizens feel secure.

Resurrecting Democracy
www.robertlevinebooks.com

Congress and Corruption- Hand in Hand

                                    Robert A. Levine    3-22-12

 The number of cases of corruption and ethics transgression involving individual members of Congress over the years has helped contribute to the abysmal ratings of America’s national legislative bodies in the eyes of the public.  However, the extent of self-dealing, along with personal and family enrichment by these elected representatives of the people is given transparency by a 346 page report by CREW, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington.

Instead of going to Washington to serve their constituents, it appears that the majority of the members of Congress are going to the Capitol to serve themselves. With a detailed examination of the records of each House member during the last two election cycles, Crew was able to show that over half of them or their families profited through their offices. Crew analyzed “campaign spending, budget earmarks, office accounts and lobbying by any relatives.” They found an extraordinary amount of money was generated by Congressional members for themselves or relatives through “creative accounting, self-interested budgeting and generous expense reimbursements.”

Numerous examples are given involving members of both parties in an article in the New York Times (http://nyti.ms/GHSE7C). It can at least be said that while passing laws in a bipartisan manner is close to impossible, gaming the system is an accepted bipartisan enterprise.

Though this thorough analysis of Congressional members only involved a four year period, this kind of behavior has been going on throughout the institution’s history and is common practice. The public has forgotten the House Banking Overdraft Scandal of the late 80s and early 90s in which hundreds of members of Congress issued 20,000 bad checks for $10.8 million dollars without any penalties or fees. Among the prominent perpetrators were Republicans Dick Cheney, Newt Gingrich, and the Democratic House Speaker at that time, Tom Foley. (A more detailed account of this scandal can be obtained by downloading a free addendum to my book Resurrecting Democracy from my website http://www.robertlevinebooks.com/ – A History of Political Corruption Through 1992)

Forget transparency! Forget ethics! The sad part of this recent revelation by CREW is that many of these practices by House members are not illegal and do not violate House ethics rules. As long as the two parties play ball together in terms of allowing members to enhance their incomes in any way possible, even though they won’t play ball legislatively, little can be done to change the rules or make them act in a less self-serving fashion. This is more reason to consider the formation of centrist third party whose members come to the plate clean and make ethics reform in Washington a central tenet of their beliefs and action.

 Resurrecting Democracy
www.robertlevinebooks.com

A Pox on Both Your Houses- A Sudden Burst of Bipartisanship

                        Robert A. Levine   3-19-12

With public approval of Congress at 10% or below in a number of polls, and with voter wrath directed at incumbents, members of Congress and Senators are starting to realize they have to do something to improve their status in the eyes of the electorate. They are even considering (gasp!) passing two bills on a bipartisan basis and approving stalled judicial nominations. This is not being done in the spirit of compromise and because partisan rancor in the two houses of Congress has suddenly evaporated. It is an effort to show the American people that Congress is not completely dysfunctional and that the two parties can work together on occasion to pass needed legislation.

However, this Kumbaya moment sounds better than it actually is, with intra-party squabbling and inter-party conflict over some of the issues still unresolved. The two bills being considered in the House and Senate are a transportation bill and the JOBS Act (Jumpstart Our Business Startup Act). Unfortunately, the transportation bill passed by the Senate, differs from the one passed by the House and the differences have to be reconciled, a task that may not be so easy. Among other problems, the House bill would eliminate guaranteed funding for mass transit, which would hurt America’s cities and force commuters to pay higher fares.

Under President Reagan’s aegis in 1982, Congress allocated 80% of highway trust revenues to highways, bridges and tunnels and 20% to mass transit. This formula has remained in effect until now. But under the House bill, all revenue would go to highway projects, with a one time payment of $40 billion spread over five years that mass transit would share with other transportation initiatives. Revenue for the $40 billion would supposedly come from off-shore oil and gas drilling leases. The Senate bill keeps the current formula in place, but it’s only for a two year period. And Senate provisions to fund the bill, a pot-pourri of measures that have been criticized as unrealistic, uses ten years of revenue to pay for the two year program. House Speaker Boehner has been under pressure to bring the Senate bill to the floor in the House, as a number of construction jobs would be generated if it passed. But he would have to override objections from the most conservative members of his party to get the legislation enacted and prove to the public that Congress is not in perpetual gridlock. The right-wingers want to include drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve in the bill and cut total spending.

The JOBS Act, which was passed overwhelmingly in the House by both parties, will be debated in the Senate this week and may run into trouble there. Regulations from Sarbanes-Oxley and Dodd-Frank that curbed predatory behavior by investment bankers would be overturned if the JOBS Act were passed in its current form. The bill, a conglomeration of measures, would cut oversight on new companies going public, reducing consumer protection. Companies would be allowed to raise money through social media over the Internet without filing the standard disclosures. Small investors would be able to be solicited, many of whom are not sophisticated enough to properly evaluate the offerings. Auditing restrictions for small companies moving towards an IPO would also be loosened. In addition, the law would allow investment bankers to publish research on companies whose IPOs they are underwriting, a practice that is now banned since it previously led to abuses. SEC Chairman, Mary Schapiro, in a letter to the Senate Banking Committee noted that the provisions of the bill would weaken protection for small investors and would reduce market transparency. A number of Senate Democrats want to amend the bill to enhance consumer protection, but Senate Republicans led by Mitch McConnell want to see it passed as is. Increased funding for the Export-Import Bank, which helps American company sales overseas, is also a source of conflict, as some Senate Democrats and Republicans want to tie it to the JOBS Act and some Republicans want to eliminate the agency completely.

Nothing ever seems to go smoothly in the two Houses of Congress, even when there are attempts to show Americans that bills can get passed in a bipartisan manner. Good luck.

Resurrecting Democracy
www.robertlevinebooks.com-

What A Drag! Gas Prices, Austerity and the Economy

            Robert A. Levine  

Even as the economy appears to be emerging from its doldrums, several factors are threatening to derail the recovery. Since movement up or down will greatly influence the presidential and congressional races eight months hence, any action taken to bolster the economy has political overtones.

Rising gas prices is an obvious fly in America’s ointment that economists have long been warning about. While the effect of high prices has been moderate so far, future increases could throw the nation back into recession. Unfortunately, prices are dependent on unpredictable geo-political factors, most of which are beyond America’s control. Included is the West’s confrontation with Iran over its nuclear program and actions that Israel may or may not take. Iran’s recent threat to close the Straits of Hormuz caused an immediate spike in oil prices and they have remained elevated since. The situation in Syria could also spiral out of control, leading to a wider conflict in the Mideast, with neighboring states becoming involved on both sides. Nigeria, a major oil supplier, remains volatile as well, with an Islamist insurrection in the country’s north and continued unrest in the oil producing delta.

Since the start of the recession, an important element that has been a drag on the economy and stalled recovery has been the layoffs of public service employees by state and municipal governments because of reduced revenue. Economists believe this has a multiplier effect, with 2.4 jobs lost for each public sector layoff according to the Center for Public Policy Priorities. An average of 22,000 public sector workers lost their jobs every month through 2011, with a total of over 270,000 teachers and other workers being laid off. Even as private companies have ramped up employment, the shedding of jobs by state and local governments has kept unemployment levels high and made recovery more difficult. While the stimulus package from the federal government in 2009 did help preserve some of these jobs for a period of time, a considerable number of layoffs of teachers, policemen, firemen, sanitation workers, administrative personnel and so forth, did occur. Many of these jobs have not returned because state and local tax revenues have not rebounded to the levels prior to the recession. State and local governments have also cut spending on goods and services in light of their revenue shortfalls.

Aside from the immediate effect, the loss of teaching positions will be particularly injurious to the nation’s economy in the future, since an educated citizenry is necessary to compete in today’s global world.  America’s students are currently behind other nations in terms of educational proficiency and this will only worsen over time if class size increases and there are not enough teachers. And preserving and expanding the nation’s infrastructure falls mainly on the shoulders of state and local governments, with funds coming from Washington. Sadly, this is another area that has been neglected and will impact the nation in the future.

While this recession has been deeper than past downturns, the lag in recovery has been partially due to a focus on austerity by politicians at all levels combined with uncertainty over rising gas prices. Increased spending on education and infrastructure should be a priority for the nation to maintain and enhance its competitive position.

Resurrecting Democracy
www.robertlevinebooks.com3-16-12

Romney's Southern Exposure- Did He Get Burned?

                        Robert A. Levine    3-13-12

Though the big loser in today’s primaries in Alabama and Mississippi was Newt Gingrich, Tuesday the 13^th wasn’t particularly lucky for Mitt Romney. Santorum was projected as the winner in both Alabama and Mississippi, though both races were fairly close between all three contestants.

The two Republican primaries in the Deep South today had provided Mitt Romney a possibility of winning with little downside in return. The expectations for Romney had been so low at one point, that a decent showing, or a victory in either state, was seen as a possible move forward on the road to the nomination.

 Given the large proportion of conservative evangelicals as primary voters, it was believed that Romney’s Mormonism would weigh heavily against him. In addition, his portrayal as the moderate from Massachusetts by his opponents was certainly not going to help him attract voters. However, Romney did have a few advantages in the two contests. The first was that his media machine outspent Rick Santorum by four to one and Newt Gingrich by three to one, constantly filling the airways with advertisements. The second was that Gingrich and Santorum were attacking each other and splitting the most conservative vote. It was supposedly do or die for Gingrich, as he had to salvage at least one, but hopefully two victories.

The way delegates were allocated, gave Romney the opportunity to pick up support even without a win. Mississippi had 40 delegates, of which 25 were to be distributed proportionally to the voting and 12 by victories in the 4 Congressional districts. Alabama had 50 delegates, with 26 at large distributed proportionately and 21 allotted by the 7 Congressional districts. Since every delegate is important on compiling the total needed for the nomination, Romney was not willing to write off the South.

 With the realization that he might have an opening in these bastions of conservatism, Romney visited Alabama and Mississippi last week, promoting his bona fides with hearty y’alls and professing his love of grits. Perhaps having friends who are NASCAR owners may have also gained him a few votes. However, the results showed that Romney was still unable to close the deal with conservative voters. But as expected, when all the votes came in, in spite of Santorum’s victories, Romney will have accumulated a considerable number of new delegates as will Gingrich. Will the failure to achieve victory in either state sound the death knell for Gingrich? Stay tuned. There certainly will be pressure from Republican conservatives to have him drop out. Romney, of course, would love to see Gingrich remain in the race as long as possible.

 Resurrecting Democracy
www.robertlevinebooks.com

Campaign Promises and the Budget Deficit- A Reality Check

                                    Robert A. Levine   3-13-12

Politicians running for office have promised constituents the moon from time immemorial, believing it’s necessary to get elected. If they’re victorious, they can decide later whether or not to follow through on the promises they’ve made.

At times, the pledges are so outlandish that neither the candidates nor the electorate have any expectations they will be fulfilled. In other instances, candidates deceive the voters into believing promises will be realized while having no intention of trying to get them accomplished. There are also promises to special interest groups to get their support, in spite of the fact they may be injurious to society in general.

The campaign promises currently being made by the Republican presidential candidates, regarding cutting the deficit and taxes, strain credibility. A recent report by the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, which is considered non-partisan, noted that all the budget plans put forth by the Republican candidates would raise federal government debt by 2021 compared to what would occur if the programs now in place remained unchanged. The tax cuts, that are an essential part of the Republican candidates’ policies, would substantially increase the debt despite any spending cuts that might be enacted.

Though Obama’s program would also raise government debt, the increase would be less than with any of the Republican proposals and less than on the present trajectory. Under Obama’s plan, federal dept would rise from 68% of GDP in 2011 to 74% in 2021. Romney’s program would increase the debt to 86% of GDP in 2021, Santorum’s to 104% of GDP and Gingrich’s to 114% of GDP. Ron Paul’s plan would produce the smallest increase in debt of any of the Republicans at 76% of GDP and would be closest to Obama’s proposal.

Are the “fiscal conservatives” no longer fiscally conservative? http://bit.ly/A0pDIi Republican candidates constantly attack Obama for increasing the deficit and national debt, even though their promised programs would be much less effective than what the president is currently proposing. Disregarding any adverse effects that might result, the candidates promise tax cuts because they know it will mobilize the Republican base and get them votes in the primaries and in the general election. But how often do you find candidates willing to take principled stands and “tell it like it is” to the electorate? Of course, if a candidate is honest and forthright, it does not mean voters will flock to his or her banner. Most citizens would rather fantasize and not hear bad news, even if it’s the truth.

An example of fantasy accepted as reality by the voters was Ronald Reagan’s advocacy of supply-side economics when running in the Republican primaries in 1980. His call for massive tax cuts and reduced government spending to stimulate the economy was derided as “voodoo economics” by his Republican rival George Bush, but Reagan was able to convince the public of his program’s validity, winning the nomination and the general election. Now, in attempt to reprise Reagan’s victory, Republican candidates are promising a similar strategy. Will the electorate swallow the same pablum again, or realize that sometimes the bitter medicine of tax increases (at least on the affluent) may be necessary? How do we get citizens to do a reality check on all campaign promises?

Resurrecting Democracy
www.robertlevinebooks.com

Super PAC Tuesday

            Robert A. Levine

It’s called Super Tuesday because of the large number of delegates for the presidential nominating convention up for grabs in the Republican primaries.  437 delegates were at stake today in ten states scattered among every region and time zone.

Because of the number of states involved, retail politics was not at a premium in these primaries, as it’s impossible to schedule enough personal appearances and shake enough hands to connect with the electorate. That’s why a more appropriate label would be Super PAC Tuesday, since the primary in  Ohio, the most important state, was probably decided by media buys and repetitive advertising, which played a major role everywhere. And the candidates’ Super PACs are the organizations with the financial heft and advertising savvy that can sway voters to support their candidates through TV and radio ads. The campaigns, of course, also contributed money to the political dialogue, but the Super PACs dominated the discourse.

The Super PACs tend to favor negative advertising and attack ads against the opposing candidates, which seem to influence voters more than those that build up their own nominees. The pro-Romney Super PAC, Restore Our Future, had the most cash to spend, and dispensed it liberally (if a forbidden word can be used). This Super PAC has a list of donors that sounds like a who’s who of billionaires and made media buys all around the country.

Gingrich’s Super PAC, Winning Our Future, only appears to have one billionaire on board, Sheldon Adelson, who has contributed tens of millions of dollars. Gingrich concentrated his efforts on his home state of Georgia and will continue what might be considered a southern strategy in the future, trying to keep neighboring states in his camp.

Santorum competed all over, but particularly focused on Ohio, which was really Super Tuesday biggest prize. Santorum’s Red, White and Blue Super PAC, was largely funded by Foster Freiss, an affluent conservative who likes Santorum’s stands on the social issues.

Ron Paul saw his best chance for a victory in Alaska, where his libertarian views have gotten some traction.
One large state, Virginia was really not in play, with the Santorum and Gingrich campaigns failing to get their candidates on the ballot. Georgia appeared to be in Gingrich’s pocket from the outset, with Massachusetts in Romney’s. Whoever won the popular vote in each state, the formula for allocating delegates varied, with some states having winner take all while others doing it proportionately.

Early returns showed Romney with victories in Vermont, Massachusetts, and Virginia, with Gingrich on top in Georgia. No surprises there. Santorum won Tennessee and Oklahoma where 70% of the primary voters described themselves as evangelicals, along with North Dakota. No real surprises there. With a neck and neck battle throughout the evening, Romney finally pulled ahead in Ohio by a thin margin, but by 11:30 EST his victory was notconfirmed. His strength in Ohio was in the urban and suburban areas, while Santorum won the rural parts of the state. However, if Gingrich had been out of the mix, Santorum would have been easily victorious in Ohio. Romney also won in Idaho by what appears to be a significant margin.

No matter how Alaska plays out, at the end of the night, Romney will be far ahead in the total delegate count. His Super PAC and organizational prowess have been delivering for him. Money has long been known as the mother’s milk of politics with Super PACs now functioning as the cash cows for candidates. It can be anticipated that obtaining the nomination and winning the general election itself will depend to a major degree on how much milk the Super PACs will be able to provide for their candidates.

Resurrecting Democracy
www.robertlevinebooks.com

American Puritanism and Government Regulation of Sexual Activity

                                    Robert A. Levine   3-5-12

A streak of Puritanism and moral certitude has influenced politics in America since the landing of the first colonists. While these attitudes have ebbed and flowed at various times, they have always affected public discourse and legislation. Over the years, politicians have passed laws trying to outlaw contraception, abortion, homosexuality, and miscegenation because these activities were considered immoral. At the same time, citizens’ belief in individual rights and the limited role of government has fostered an expectation that government will stay out of people’s bedrooms and respect their privacy, in conflict with these Puritanical laws.

In 1873 Congress passed the Comstock Act which made it illegal to send contraceptive materials through the mail, with instruction about contraception deemed obscene. When Margaret Sanger opened the first birth control clinic in the U.S. in 1916, she was arrested and sent to prison for providing information about contraception. In 1965, in Griswold v Connecticut, the Supreme Court voided a Connecticut law that outlawed the use of contraceptives, ruling that the Constitution protected a right to privacy. Since then, women’s right to contraception has been generally accepted until conflict over coverage by religious institutions recently emerged.

In Roe V Wade in 1973, the Supreme Court ruled that a woman’s right to privacy under the due process clause of the 14^th Amendment extended to decisions between a woman and her physician, allowing her to legally have an abortion. State and federal laws prohibiting abortion were swept away. However, the Hyde amendment passed by Congress in 1976 prevented the utilization of federal funds for abortion. Multiple laws have been since passed in different states to try and restrict abortion, with provisions that included forcing women to have vaginal or abdominal ultrasounds prior to the procedure, viewing the ultrasounds, counseling about abortion, having a 24 hour waiting period, and so forth. The legality and status of these laws, supposedly to protect women’s health, remains in flux.

Homosexual behavior, specifically sodomy or anal intercourse, has been a criminal offense from pre-revolutionary times, considered a crime against nature. Until 1962, all states criminalized sodomy, though some subsequently eliminated the offense. To the present, the Supreme Court has still not ruled that homosexual acts in private have constitutional protection, though most states believe this is so. Yet there are states where anti-sodomy statutes are still on the books. Anti-sodomy laws, if enforced, are by local police agencies that set up stings for solicitation for gay sex. However, it is the solicitation of sex that is the criminal act, rather than the sexual activity itself. Government authorities generally stay out of people’s bedrooms today, though homosexual behavior remains illegal in many states.

Anti-miscegenation laws were also operative in America in Colonial times and continued afterwards, prohibiting interracial marriage and sexual activity. These were state, rather than federal laws, and breaking them were considered felonies. Prior to the middle of the 20th century, states actively enforced these laws, mainly in the South. However, in 1967, the Supreme Court in Loving v. Virginia ruled unanimously that these laws were unconstitutional.

The laws regulating people’s sexual behavior originated in the interpretation of the Bible and religious texts by some citizens, providing the rationale for government intrusion in other citizens’ private lives. Issues like contraception and abortion continue to be debated today, with some Americans wanting to use government to force their moral viewpoints on other Americans. Unfortunately, the politicians in Washington still spend an inordinate amount of time and effort on these issues, rather than addressing the nation’s budget deficit, unemployment and pressing economic problems.

Resurrecting Democracy
www.robertlevinebooks.com

Washington Comity Has Become Washington Comedy- How Can the Equation Be Changed?

                        Robert A. Levine 3-1-12

Olympia Snowe’s retirement from the Senate is another dagger in the heart of centrism and moderation in American politics. She noted that the political process is “no longer allowing lawmakers to shape or change legislation and turning every vote into a take-it-or-leave-it showdown intended to embarrass the opposition.” (http://nyti.ms/x4WQ5s)

Centrists of both parties have been exiting the Senate in droves in recent years or are leaving shortly, including Democrats Ben Nelson, Joseph Lieberman, Jim Webb, Kent Conrad, Blanche Lincoln and Evan Bayh. Republicans include Lincoln Chaffee, James Jeffords, as well as Kay Bailey Hutchinson, Olympia Snowe, and Arlen Spector who switched parties. These Senators are generally at an age where they could have continued their careers, but most give similar reasons for leaving- the poisoned atmosphere and lack of comity between members of the two parties which makes legislating difficult and sometimes impossible.

One can imagine the frustration of Senators willing to negotiate and compromise to get laws enacted that are in the nation’s interest, but are held back by extreme elements in their parties. Politics is increasingly being played as a zero-sum game, where if legislation initiated by one party passes, it is considered a win for them and a loss for the other party. And the media and zealous bases in the parties reinforce this perception. Of course, America is the real loser when legislating is no longer a bipartisan process.

The other growing barrier to legislating is the fact that so many bills are framed in moralistic, absolutist terms. This is true not only of social issues like abortion or same sex marriage, but health care, taxes and financial reform. How can one compromise when the opposing position is being characterized by one’s peers as being evil, heartless, or socialistic?
Back in the Senators’ home states, the political atmosphere has also become toxic, with Tea Partiers and others at the fringes putting pressure on centrists to adopt their positions or leave politics. And these people can be vociferous and abusive to politicians with even a tinge of moderation, like Republicans Charles Grassley of Iowa or Richard Lugar of Indiana. In fact, staunch conservative Bob Bennett of Utah was ousted in the last election because he wasn’t conservative enough for the right-wingers. This came as a warning to other Republicans to increase their conservative bona fides in legislative votes. In other words, don’t compromise!

While politicians on both sides of the aisle speak about making governing in Washington less dysfunctional, the situation continues to get worse, with Olympia Snowe’s retirement another bit of evidence. Is there any way to change?

There have been a number of moves to engage centrists and independents in this election cycle through organizations such as Americans Elect and No Labels, which appear to be gaining some traction. Unfortunately, neither of these groups goes far enough. A third party of the center is needed to transform politics in America at every level; the counties, municipalities, the states and in Washington. This third force, interposed between the two parties, would no longer allow politics to be structured as a zero-sum game, where a win for one side was a loss for the other. And with even a few members in each House, this third party would have leverage in Congress to move legislation forward that would benefit the nation.

The centrists and moderates on both sides of the aisle who are retiring could find a new home in a centrist third party. The time is ripe to end the comedy in Washington and see the return of some comity. A centrist third party could be the catalyst for change.

Resurrecting Democracy
www.robertlevinebooks.com