Monday, May 27, 2024

The Speaker Project (Reforms for management of the U. S. House of Representatives)

“No Labels” has created “The Speaker Project", an important effort to reform management of the U.S. House of Representatives.  Besides the direct link in the previous sentence, you can download it here: No Labels' ideas.

 Below I have charted the ideas and added a few more that I or other people have suggested.  As always, your comments are welcome. 

The Speaker Project

Current Approach

Proposed Change

Motion to Vacate The Chair

A single house member can demand a no-confidence vote

Require a full party caucus majority to vote for it.*

Selection of the Speaker

A majority vote of the House

# of the majority party + 5

Notice for votes on bills

Can be sprung by the majority

Min of 5 days unless top-ranking Dem & Rep agree

“Closed rules” deny minority party to suggest amendments

Often used

Require 3/5 vote

Committee Membership

Controlled by majority party

Require proportionate membership of top 2 parties

Passing the budget

Not done; relying on continuing resolutions

Stop Congressional pay if budget is overdue

Annual fiscal report

None

Televised update by Comptroller General to joint session of Congress.  Exec & Leg branches must sign.

Earmarks (open allocation of

Allow with:

Same?

funds to identified projects)

-Transparency (who requested and who gets the money)

 

 

-Identify self/family interests

 

 

-Create a max # of earmarks

 

 

-Limit types of recipients

 

“Regular order”

 

 

--Deadlines

Ignored

Met for regular appropriation bills

--Drafting legislation

Majority party behind closed doors

In Congressional committees

--Conference committees

Stacked by leadership

Balanced

--Unauthorized programs

Exist

Phase out

Discharge petition forces vote if majority of members agree

Roll call

Make anonymous

Congressional work week

Uncontrolled

5 days when in session

Monthly meetings of President with Congress

No official meetings

Televised monthly 90-minute Q&A, alternately House & Senate with President

 

 

 

THESE ARE NOT IN “NO LABELS” LIST BUT I’VE HEARD PEOPLE SUGGEST THEM

Deferring to Executive Branch to determine details of bills

No one knows what a bill will do when it is voted upon

Bills can ask Exec Branch to define, but then it comes back to Congress to vote on

The President should be able to demand a vote on a bill

 

 

If 1 house passes a bill, the other must address it promptly.

 

 

Presidential nominees should be voted on in timely fashion

 

 

*The ‘No Labels’ proposal says “or when serious ethical allegations have been lodged against the speaker”.  I’m not sure why that is necessary (it should result in a full-party caucus agreeing) or how it is defined.


Saturday, May 25, 2024

Why Will People Vote for Trump Even Though They Consider Him Unfit?

(links in this article point to some of my earlier blogs)

Bill Barr, Nikki Haley, Chris Sununu and others who consider Trump unfit to be president have all stated that they will vote for Trump.  Indeed, that is alarming!!  Why will they vote for Trump?

In his interview with Kaitlan Collins, Barr stated “I think Trump would do less damage than Biden, and I think all this stuff about a threat to democracy—I think the real threat to democracy is the progressive movement and the Biden administration.”

Ms. Collins was not seeking to understand why Barr would vote for Trump.  She eschewed her role as a journalist, which is to uncover information for her audience.  Rather, she twisted Barr’s wording to advance her blind partisan view that Barr was putting party over country.

Collins and others label people hypocrites if they vote for Trump despite thinking him unfit for office.  However, clearly it is NOT hypocritical if they think the other candidate is worse.

When Haley made her announcement, a Democrat who I greatly respect wrote to me “Shame on me for believing she was made of different cloth.  I really thought she had much more integrity.”

Bill Barr, Nikki Haley and Chris Sununu, as well as a huge number of other “Trump” voters, hate voting for Trump.  We can disagree with their position that he is the lesser of two evils, but we should respect their integrity and consider their position.  The lack of integrity is displayed by those who, like Kaitlan Collins, twist their wording.  Those who opt for the easy road of denigrating them, rather than the more rigorous effort of considering their argument, should challenge themselves as to whether they are living up to their integrity.

Unfortunately, there is a strong case to be made for Barr’s statement.  Indeed, a strong case can be made that President Biden is the worst President in U. S. history.  And, yes, quite possibly a bigger threat to democracy than ex-President Trump.  In my opinion, 2024 presents by far the worst Presidential election choices in USA history.

1)     The world is on fire worse than any time in my lifetime.  This is not an accident; it sadly can be attributed directly to President Biden (Ukraine, Afghanistan).  Neville Chamberlain is widely disparaged for his 1938 agreement allowing Germany to annex the Sudetenland in return for a promise to make no further land demands.  President Biden, in contrast, has made numerous decisions that have exacerbated the situation. 

In President Biden’s fantasy world, he is the second coming of FDR.  But FDR strengthened the military tremendously in the years before we entered WWII.  One of President Biden’s many failures is four straight military budgets increased by less than the inflation rate.  Wake up!  China, Russia, Iran et. al. are serious threats to democracy, including in the USA.  This issue alone could justify concluding that Biden is the worst USA president in history.

2)     The inflation during a President’s first term is generally not related to their policies; it is the result of prior administrations.  We needed deficit spending to counter the impact of COVID.  However, in good times, we must save money so we can operate at a deficit when crises such as COVID or war occur (10 Lessons from the Pandemic).  Instead, President Biden President has gone on an unprecedented spending spree that will burden future generations with intolerable and unnecessary debt levels.

3)     Election reform: President Biden continues to lie about election laws in GA, etc.  Meanwhile, Democrats continue to try to outlaw photo voter ID and to require that ballot harvesting be allowed. In my view, the Democrats’ (fortunately unpassed) bills to accomplish these goals are a significant threat to democracy.  Do you really believe that a return to Tammany Hall/Richard Daley/Pendergast politics is good for democracy? (Voting Laws and Voter Suppression; Election Fraud)

4)     One reason our national elections have become so contentious is that we have ceded so much power to the national government, increasing the stakes in elections for the House, Senate and, especially, President.  Of course, that increases the number of issues, making it extraordinarily difficult to have a democratic resolution of an issue.  Elected Presidents presume they have a multitude of mandates no matter why they got elected.  The Democrats are intent in further undermining the separation of powers that is critical to our success (Separation of Powers).

5)      Within our Federal government, Presidents are grabbing increased power, with President Biden and his administration continuing to take executive power to new limits, spewing rules at an unprecedented pace without due process.  They cancel student loans, assume control over energy production, try to put industries out of business, invalidate contracts on a widescale basis, set aside huge acreage by executive fiat, create internet and labor law, etc.  (Whether I support the policies or not, I do NOT support the Executive Branch unilaterally making such decrees.)  Agencies act as prosecutor and judge.  Congress abdicates authority, passing laws such as the Inflation Reduction Act which authorizes the President to pick winners and losers.  What could possibly go wrong?

6)     Free Speech has suffered, as the left cows people into acquiescence.  This is my biggest fear in terms of loss of democracy (Risks To Which Trump Exposed Us).  “Trust the Science” is being used as a facade for “accept orthodoxy”.  Although I supported the steps we took to control COVID, it certainly was NOT scientific to suppress research and alternative theories.  The hypocrisy of many who claim to trust science is exposed when they argue that gender is “assigned” at birth, ignoring the science of X and Y chromosomes.

7)     I strongly support what has traditionally been called “liberal education”.  Unfortunately, slanted education has undermined democracy (Blueprint to Fix Our Educational System; The Hamas-Israeli War has Exposed the Rot in the USA Education System).  The Progressive movement is illiberal.  (For a broader discussion of education, see Education.)

The case against voting for President Biden is increasing because of the raft of legislative decisions that he and his agencies are taking in the Executive branch.  Furthermore, it is tragically reasonable to question whether our legal system is being abused politically to harm ex-President Trump.

Fani Willis has a large responsibility, in this regard, because she screwed up the most important case against Trump.  Due to her poor judgement, it has been delayed until after the 2024 election.

Thus, all we’re seeing is:

·        The current Stormy Daniels case takes a clear misdemeanor which is beyond the statute of limitations and tries to package it as a felony, an intentional effort to hide an illegal campaign contribution.  At best, this is a novel stretch in terms of interpretation.

·        Earlier, a NY court ordered Trump and associates to pay $450 million to the state of NY.  Much as I consider Trump to be a terrible scoundrel, this decision was scary.

o   I had a situation (my details might not be exact, but the principle is correct) in which a reinsurer promised repeatedly to renew a reinsurance contract, but I did not receive the signed contract.  Each time I told them I needed to know whether I should seek other reinsurance, they told me not to worry, the signed contract would come.  Eventually, they refused to renew.  I had to scramble to get a new reinsurance contract and had to convince the new reinsurer to make it effective retroactively!  Because I succeeded in getting a new reinsurance contract, I was told that I had no basis to challenge the reinsurer.  This Trump case seems similar.  He misrepresented his assets in applying for loans (no surprise; he is disgusting), but the banks incurred no loss and testified so.  Therefore, my understanding is that there was no case here.  Admittedly, I am not a legal scholar.  I might be wrong, but my point here is that the public has cause to be concerned.

o   The $450 million was awarded to the state of NY!  This gives the state of NY an incentive to go on witch hunts to secure income.  Here, again, I may be missing legal considerations, but it raises concern.  (And the Federal Executive branch does this without a judge or jury!)

After writing this blog, I noticed that four years ago I wrote a blog called “Why people vote for Trump (2020)”.  That blog takes a significantly different approach because it was written before Biden became president.  At that time, I, and many others, believed Biden’s promise that he would bring us together and bring us back to normalcy.  Re-reading that blog today, I am very comfortable with it.

The tragedy of our situation is that I could easily re-write this article to explain why electing ex-President Trump would be the worst election result ever (past blogs are relevant here: Why I’m voting for Biden (2020) and Donald Trump’s profile (2016)).

This is a terrible situation.  We do NOT make it better by making disparaging statements about those with whom we disagree. 

Saturday, May 18, 2024

The ACLU's (selective) defense of free speech

The ACLU has a proud heritage of defending unpopular thought.  I acknowledge that they don't have the resources to address all issues, but I believe ACLU is unbalanced in protecting the political left and "progressives" as opposed to the political right and "conservatives".

Recently, I wrote to an ACLU development director as follows:

"I have gotten a steady stream of messages from ACLU supporting the free speech rights of students to protest on campus.

That’s fine, but can you point me to similar ACLU defenses of free speech on campus for professors, speakers and students who espoused conservative religious, economic or political thoughts or did not support woke issues such as personalized pronouns?  I don’t remember having seen the ACLU speak much in defense of such conservatives.  Hopefully, you can point to evidence that ACLU still truly believes in free speech for everyone.  Thanks!"

She responded nicely:

I don’t have any recent, specific examples about defending conservative protests on campus, but I do have plenty to share about the ACLU defending conservative speech more generally.

Below are two major examples which, in honesty, have had ACLU staff divided internally nationwide:

We’re representing the NRA at the Supreme Court this year, specifically defending their right to free speech: https://www.aclu.org/cases/national-rifle-association-v-vullo

We filed a “friend-of-the-court” brief to defend Donald Trump’s speech rights last fall: https://www.aclu.org/cases/united-states-v-trump-amicus-brief

Here is my response to her:

Thanks!  Please pass my comments on to policy staff.  Although I’ve never owned a firearm (used them in the military) nor donated to NRA, I strongly support ACLU’s NRA stance.

As regards the Trump case, I also agree, despite being a never-Trumper.  However, ACLU’s summary inadequately defines its position.  “cover only imminent threats that would impede a fair trial” alarmed me, as it sounds as though the safety of participants is not an issue.  However, when I read the amicus brief, I saw that ACLU’s position does allow limits on threats.  I suggest that the summary be improved.

It is better to allow too much free speech than too little.  As stated in my blog, the problem in these protests, in general, is not the students.  We’ve had very unequal application of free speech on campuses for decades.  Speech cancellations and interruptions; faculty punished for holding conservative religious, economic, or political ideas; etc.  DEI has been used to cast a tight net around acceptable speech: conform or you won’t be hired or will be fired.  Beyond silencing people, DEI demands creative fealty to orthodoxy.  ACLU is quite capable of hewing a fine line in explaining what it does/does not support, but it has strongly supported DEI programs without acknowledging their free speech restrictions.   While I agree that it is important to protect students’ rights to protest, I am concerned that ACLU seems to take a one-sided approach.  (Note to blog readers: I stuck to the free speech issues, choosing not to mention overwhelmingly leftist faculty and curricula.)

  1. ACLU's letter appropriately states “it is essential that you not sacrifice principles of academic freedom and free speech that are core to the educational mission of your respected institution” but then focuses solely on student activist group protests.  Principle #1 states “They must not single out particular viewpoints for censorship, discipline, or disproportionate punishment” which is great, but ACLU has seemingly been careful to state this principle in the context of these protests.  ACLU’s statement could have been framed more broadly.
  2. On Monday, 5/13, ACLU sent an email with the following link: Tune in to get the full story on the free speech issues on campuses.  As you can see, that link is focused on Anti-War protests.  It is not the “full story”.
  3. The principles say that students need to be protected.  What about staff, faculty, and visitors on campus?  Similarly, why shouldn’t faculty, staff and guest speakers have room to express themselves?
  4. I agree that asking police to forcefully remove students can endanger students and should be a measure of last resort, but I do not agree that the mere presence of armed police on campus has such effect.  Police on campus protect students.  Does ACLU advocate removing all police from all levels of education?

By the way, in my reading tonight, I saw ACLU inaccurately refer to curated book lists for elementary students as “book bans” (the books are not blocked from public libraries nor for older students or adults, at least in most situations I’ve heard about).  In ACLU’s work, it is critical that ACLU not unnecessarily divide us by using inaccurate, inflammatory terminology.  I’d appreciate a response from a policy person, but I recognize they can’t reply to all input.  Thanks again!


Monday, May 6, 2024

Blueprint to Fix Our Educational System

This blog deals solely with free speech.  See my general Education blog for many more ideas.

The students are not the fundamental problem relative to college protests.  It is healthy for young people to be concerned about issues and want to participate.  As was true for the Viet Nam protests when I was in college, most of the participants don’t really know the history or issues involved.  They join the protests to “make a difference” and feel comradeship, liking simplistic slogans.  Ideally, student protest provides an opportunity to engage the students, learn from them and educate them.  (I am aware that many protestors have no interest in discussion.)

The fundamental problem is that our educational system has been slanted for decades.  Over time, products of slanted education become professors and administrators, exacerbating the situation.

Despite being the child of two holocaust survivors and having (distant) relatives killed and abducted by Hamas on October 7th, I do not consider anti-Zionism to constitute anti-Semitism (despite a positive correlation).  Clearly, free speech does not include violence and obstruction, but the boundary of free speech is ambiguous; it is best to allow too much free speech than too little.

The problem is that our universities have applied free speech standards in an unbalanced fashion, supporting “progressive”, “woke” speech, while discouraging, and even punishing, conservative thought relative to gender/sexual issues, politics, economics, etc.  “Diversity” programs have actively stifled diversity in political and economic thought.

Band-aid solutions, such as “safe places for Jews”, do not address the fundamental problem and may allow the problem to fester and spread.

Michael Roth, President of Wesleyan University (Connecticut), a self-labeled liberal, initiated a program to address the root causes of this problem in 2017.  He has been improving the balance of the Wesleyan faculty and, among other things, has emphasized recruitment of ex-veterans, thinking they would add more balance to student attitudes.

I think the following steps can be taken:

Diversifying faculty:  President Roth’s program should be replicated by other schools.  Alas, it is difficult to increase faculty diversity quickly with overwhelming percentages of leftist/liberal professors tenured.

However, administrations can encourage faculty to teach a more balanced curriculum and be more receptive to disparate thoughts.  Campuses and classrooms must be safe places to speak, hear and respond to relevant unpopular thoughts.

Visiting guest professors can be selected to increase the balance of political and economic thought.

Remote classes and/or guest lectures can include conservative professors from other colleges.

Curriculum review can be done without trampling academic freedom.  Faculty who can’t find appropriate diverse views are questionable faculty selections.

A Harvard student was surprised by criticism of pro-Hamas protests.  He said he had been assigned Franz Fanon readings in four different classes and felt he was channeling Fanon’s teachings.

I do not object to including Franz Fanon in college education.  From what I’ve read about them, his writings about the psychiatry of Whites and Blacks living in colonial and non-colonial environments demonstrate valuable insights.  He fought the Nazis and for Algerian freedom, encouraging rejection of colonialist culture in favor oppressed people’s culture.  Fanon defended violence to achieve independence.  Supporters of the American Revolution can’t object to that theory.  

Fanon was Marxist and anti-colonial.  Apparently, his teaching is being used to support the polemic that everyone is either an oppressor or oppressed.  It is not clear that his ideas are being properly taught as there is discussion of slanted interpretation of his work into English.

The problem is not that the Harvard student read Fanon.  It is that he read Fanon in four classes, apparently without meaningful counter-discussion and possibly with biased interpretation.

Student polls can, among other things, help evaluate whether students feel free to speak their opinion on campus and in specific classes.

Campus panel discussions and debates, possibly with outside speakers, can tackle controversial issues.  This is a simple and obvious idea, but our universities have canceled disfavored speakers for over 50 years.

Conservative-thought clubs can be encouraged on-campus.  While I would be disinclined to give them more support than liberal clubs, if the university supports other diversity financially, …

Professors can schedule remote discussions with similar-topic classes at universities with different student characteristics. Hopefully, each class would have good diversity in thought, but, if not, this might help.

Student Contract: To assure that students understand the existence and limits of free speech and the right to protest, they could sign a contract prior to being allowed on campus, perhaps as part of a broader student code.  Provisions for protests could require that they be peaceful and not obstructive.  Protests by more than [5] people and/or encampments could require an advance permit.  Commitment to clean up afterwards could be included.

Some of the above could apply to high school as well.  Furthermore, civics education could get more attention, including education about how to work for change.

I welcome other ideas that would help, as well as criticism of the above.