Court Undoes Trump Sentencing Day

July 11, 2024

Donald Trump won’t be sentenced today for his criminal conviction, even if it was red-circled on the calendar. The Supreme Court took care of that.

The court’s six-member majority last week carved out a significant loophole in our nation’s overarching ideals by granting Trump substantial immunity in his election interference case. In so doing, the court wrote its own version of one of Our Common Purpose’s core principles. Its revision reads something like this: We Are A Nation Of Laws — Equally Applicable To All Except Those Who Occupy The Oval Office.

The decision focuses entirely on which if any presidential actions are subject to judicial review, and the answer is not much.  The court pays lip service to “the president is not above the law” then launches into a lengthy rendition of all the ways he is above the law. Trump and all other occupants of the Oval Office have:

 Absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for conduct while performing their official duties.

 “Presumptive immunity” for actions taken within “the outer perimeter” of their official responsibilities so long as they are “not manifestly or palpably beyond [his] authority.” As one important example, a “presumptive privilege” protects presidential communications because it “relates to the effective discharge of a president’s powers.”

 No immunity for “unofficial acts,” although the court couldn’t even leave that alone. Noting that there is not always a clear line between personal and official affairs, it warned that any claims that objectionable actions were unofficial in nature “must be fact specific and may prove to be challenging.”

This broad grant of immunity led the court to dismiss outright one of the election interference charges, to presume another also to be covered by immunity unless somehow it can be shown otherwise, and to leave the door cracked open on the other two. The case was sent back to U.S. District Court Judge Tanya Chutkan to sort through which actions were official versus unofficial, and ultimately whether there is enough left to even bother.

Whatever gets decided will surely make its way back to the Supreme Court, unless of course Trump is re-elected and puts a stop to the whole darn thing. The decision also left the other criminal cases against him in disarray.

His scheduled sentencing today didn’t escape, even though it involves crimes that pre-dated his presidency. Judgment day on this matter has now been postponed until Sept. 18, if it happens at all, while Judge Juan Merchan considers how the high court’s ruling affects the case.

That means we won’t learn, at least for now, whether the sentence to be handed down would have treated Trump like any other citizen convicted of similar wrongdoing. Read more on this. The question of whether we are, at this high exalted level, a nation of laws equally applicable to all has now been rendered largely moot by the Supreme Court’s landmark decision.

Trump’s motion dealt only with immunity.  The court’s expansive interest in setting apart his official versus unofficial acts all but forecloses weighing more relevant distinctions such as determining which presidential actions are taken in the interest of the public versus out of self -interest.  We’ll hold off looking at that subject until another day soon.

July 4: A Day of Unity

July 4, 2024

Happy Independence Day!

This seminal moment in our history gives us something to celebrate each year. In these fraught times, perhaps it’s a bit ironic that a celebration of “independence” serves to bring us together rather than split us apart.

And believe this or not, it does draw us together. Two-thirds of Americans strongly agree in poll after poll with the second core principle of Our Common Purpose that Even With Our Flaws, We Have Much to Cherish.

When asked in one of the Our Common Purpose polls to evaluate whether we are united or divided by each of a list of national institutions, values, services and events, our patriotic holidays of July 4th and Memorial Day finished right at the top. They rank with Thanksgiving and the broad aspiration of liberty as our most unifying traditions.

This assessment applies virtually equally among men and women, across educational levels and regions of the country.

True, the harmony isn’t entirely perfect. Consistent with what others have determined, the OCP poll shows Republicans have a slightly higher propensity toward patriotism. The difference though is relatively small. On the poll’s 201-point scale going up to +100 for united, 0 for neutral, and down to -100 for divided, our patriotic holidays scored an average of +63 among Republicans and +47 among Democrats.

Of more concern is that young voters aged 18-to-34 are less enthused about July 4th than are seniors.

But on the whole, today provides an opportunity to put aside our differences to enjoy a moment of unity. Whether evoked by the fife-and-drum corps marching down our Main Streets, the sparkle of fireworks or hot dogs on the grill, or maybe by images of the courageous declaration of independence printed on parchment, today should remind of us of how the Founding Fathers stood together in the face of a formidable foe.

They concluded their revolutionary document with this vow:

“And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our Sacred Honor.”

July 4th, Memorial Day, Thanksgiving are just three days out of the year but we — regardless of persuasion, regardless of age — could use a good dose of that stick-togetherness now.

Trump Sentencing Tests Key Ideal

June 23, 2024

If someone mentions “July 11,” what pops into your head? Exactly right, it’s the day Donald Trump will be sentenced. The date doesn’t need to be entered on the calendar. It’s on our minds.

The Trump court proceedings have turned into a major test of one of the most widely accepted of Our Common Purpose’s 10 core principles: We Are a Nation of Laws – That Need to Be Equally Applicable to All.

The ideal draws high approval each time it is reviewed, getting strong agreement from a very consistent range of 77% to 79% of likely voters in one survey after another. Importantly, the support comes from near equal percentages of Republicans and Democrats. And of those who don’t strongly agree, almost all others somewhat agree.

From the get-go, the principle was regarded not as current reality but as an aspiration.  Our laws apply to everyone.  None of us should be excused, nor should any individual or class of individuals be treated more harshly than others.  Well before the heightened awareness brought on by the Black Lives Matter movement, the primary concern of the fine folks who participated in developing the principles were the legal inequities endured by people of color and of lesser means.  Read more about the principle.

That concern has not gone away but it has been overshadowed of late by a claim that comes totally out of right field.   All of a sudden, the principle has a political component to it.  Republicans are contending that Democrats have weaponized the legal system to go after them, Trump in particular. Even as he was losing in the New York courtroom, his claim of selective prosecution might have been winning in the court of public opinion.

Then along came Hunter Biden.  Put aside that a whole series of other Democrats are also facing criminal charges, among them Sen. Robert Menendez, Rep. Henry Cuellar, and this past week New Jersey Democratic power broker George Norcross. Biden is the son of the president, and his conviction was by itself enough to take much of the wind out of the Republicans’ claims.

Nonetheless, the nation’s judicial system is under intense scrutiny. The district attorney and prosecutor in Atlanta have been accused of impropriety. The federal judge in Florida has been under fire for her handling of the classified documents case.  By comparison, Judge Juan Merchan, who presided over Trump’s trial in New York, has acquitted himself well.  However, he too is far from out of the woods.

While there is a standard process for determining sentencing that includes a recommendation from the probation officer and review by the attorneys, all eyes will be on the judge when he hands down the sentence.  Strike the right balance and there will be little grumbling. Too lenient and Democrats will howl. Too harsh and we’ll be right back to where we just were with Republicans crying persecution.  But in this case what is too harsh?  What is too lenient?

Merchan has huge latitude in the decision. What he needs is huge wisdom.

While New York defense attorneys not involved in the case have been quoted as saying it’s unheard of for a 77-year-old, first-time offender in this type of case to be jailed even for a day, theoretically Trump could be hit with prison time ranging from 16 months to four years for each of the 34 felony counts. Or the judge could allow the jail time for each of the counts to be served concurrently. He could also choose from other options, including a lighter sentence, house confinement, or a sentence of probation. Or he could give Trump a “conditional discharge” with some requirement such as community service.

On the other extreme, the judge could skip imprisonment altogether and focus entirely on levying a fine. The maximum in New York for a Class E felony is $5,000. The fine could run concurrently for all 34 counts, meaning it would total $5,000. Or it could run consecutively, meaning it would add up to $170,000.

The sentencing is complicated all the more by whether the penalty should be held in abeyance pending the outcome of Trump’s likely appeal of the conviction and to avoid the damage he and Republicans in general would suffer if his campaign activities were to be curtailed.

Fortunately for us, we are not Judge Juan Merchan. Most of us do not have his background and knowledge, nor the time he and his clerk have devoted to studying this.

There’s no getting around that Trump is a special case. The coverup helped along by the business fraud of which he has been found guilty could have altered the outcome of the 2016 presidential race. Perhaps he more than other individual has the chutzpah and the social media resources to criticize the court even as he is being tried. And any day now the Supreme Court will rule on his appeal that in effect would put him above the law in the separate election subversion case.  If he succeeds in that effort, he will put the lie to We Are a Nation of Laws — That Need to Be Equally Applicable to All.

But if we aspire to the ideal of “equally applicable to all,” a highly worthy standard in the eyes of a great majority of Americans, what would you say the sentence to be handed down on July 11 should be?

Oh No, Not My Cereal Too!

June 16, 2024

My wife just refreshed our supply of Kashi Go Original, for years my favorite cereal.

Old versus New

We were disappointed to find that the box she brought home doesn’t even come close to measuring up to the previous one.  Same name, same packaging, same height and width as the previous, but the new has one very noticeable difference.  Looked at from the side, the new box has only about two-thirds the bulk of the old.

It turns out the new contains 9.7 ounces of cereal, versus 13.1 in the old.  The new box discloses that it contains four servings of cereal.  The old held six.  Those amount to big servings but the proportionality would be the same at any size.

It means that I and every other Kashi Go lover will now be paying 50 percent more for the same number of breakfast servings than we did just weeks ago.

The opportunistic, one might say greedy, souls at WK Kellogg Co. have made my favorite cereal into a poster child for shrinkflation.  The price doesn’t go up.  The size goes down. And it doesn’t factor at all into the calculations of inflation.

A box of cereal is just one item in the market basket but multiply that experience across the grocery store and one can begin to understand why many say they are struggling.  It’s a perfect illustration of last week’s report on Why Economic Woe Won’t Go Away.  For those who haven’t done so already, please take a few minutes to give it a read.

Kashi Go isn’t the first or only cereal offender.  Sen. Bob Casey, the Democrat running for re-election in Pennsylvania, has trashed the entire industry in a television spot named “Shrinky Dink” that depicts CEO’s sneaking into a grocery store to trade out cereal boxes with smaller replacements.  Casey is ready to do battle.

By comparison, President Biden remains something of a reluctant warrior. In a new ad, he assures Americans that he feels our pain, saying he’s fighting to lower costs for food and rent. He stops short though of calling out the many companies, the makers of Kashi Go being but one example, that are propping up profits at the expense of consumers.

This additional levy is borne by everyone, but the biggest effect is on those who can afford it the least.

— Richard Gilman

Financial Insecurity Spurs Economic Issue

June 9, 2024

Stressed-out families on the wrong side of the wealth gap could put Donald Trump in the White House.

Concerns about the economy have been an ongoing bugaboo in the presidential race, to the great wonderment of liberal observers.  Inflation is behind us, they claim.  A slowdown was avoided.  We have nothing more than what they coined a “vibe-cession.”

They admit to being mystified by it all.

The answer to be presented here to their wonderment is logical enough, once it’s stated as such, and yet dismaying.  Exclusive research by Our Common Purpose shows a deep-seated anxiety is preying on a great many Americans.  Much of what is happening can be attributed to their angst over their own financial insecurity.

Price increases are the same for everyone but inflation is experienced very differently at the opposite extremes of the wealth gap, thereby creating a political gap of its very own.  This is not necessarily the political divide we know so well but at minimum an unexplored clash in perspective and priorities.  There’s a distinct difference between those who have a financial cushion and those who don’t, and it looks as if it will spill over onto the election.

These conclusions emerge from Our Common Purpose’s most recent public opinion survey. Among our many challenges as a nation, it is all the more difficult to be on the same page and of like mind if we are going in different directions financially.

The survey shows that virtually one-half of American households have less than $10,000 stashed away for a rainy day.  In round numbers, another one-quarter have between $10,000 and $100,000 in savings and investments, and the remaining one-quarter have something greater than $100,000.

The wealth gap isn’t anything new . . . but let it sink in for a moment.  One-half of Americans are living on the edge.  The ravages of inflation came along to further erode their precarious perch, and the comments they offer to the Our Common Purpose survey suggest that the alarms going off in their heads are not going away easily.

“ . . . My family is drowning and we aren’t alone,” a 45-year-old Democrat from well north of Phoenix.

“We’re broke,” a 36-year-old Republican from a rural town outside of St. Louis.

“We need help,” a 53-year-old Democrat from Clearwater, Fla.

If you think their pain wouldn’t have political fallout, think again. These folks are a disaster for Joe Biden.

In this particular survey, a nationwide poll of 1,800 likely voters conducted in February by SurveyUSA, Donald Trump had a lead of seven percentage points on the president.  Even so, Biden actually held an advantage in two of the three savings levels outlined above, the two representing higher savings.

He’s being cut off at the knees, however, by those with little or nothing in the bank.  They represent half of likely voters and Trump’s lead among them was monumental.

Upon deeper examination, we can begin to understand why.

In reply to the liberal commentators and economists who are at a loss to explain how anyone could complain about the state of the economy, The Atlantic’s Michael Powell has argued that the poor working class and lower middle class have legitimate reason to be upset.

The Our Common Purpose survey provides the direct correlation.  A person’s own financial security is, in fact, the heretofore unexplained link in explaining why the economy keeps popping up as the foremost issue in 2024.  The lower a person’s own wealth, the lower their opinion of:

• The national economy. Of those with savings under $10,000, 50 percent said the economy is doing poorly.  As savings go up, that percentage steadily diminishes, down to 28 percent for those with the most in the bank.
• Their local economy. Of those with the least savings, 54 percent characterized their local situation as weak.  As savings go up, the percentage again steadily declines to 25 percent for those with the most in the bank.
• Their own situation. Of those in the lowest savings level, 65 percent admitted they had serious financial difficulties, versus 9 percent of those at the highest level.

Strong as this correlation is, the result is not without some partisan coloring.

As the overall assessments of the national and local economies declined in lock step with respondents’ own financial prospects, at each step along the continuum Republicans had a dimmer view than Democrats.  For instance, the 28 percent of well-to-do shown above who rank the economy as poor?  Very heavily weighted to Republicans.  To lesser degrees, that pattern repeats itself.

And while the great many comments provided to the survey by the not-well-to-do are full of frustration and resignation, some turn to indignation.

The disgust and anger they express are most often directed at the president.  He is the arch-villain for some, a convenient scapegoat for others.  The criticisms are often coupled with concern about the swarm of immigrants they view as taking jobs and causing havoc, and less-frequent worries about the federal debt.

A number of these voters are no doubt a lost cause for Democrats even if the economy weren’t an issue.  Overall, the group tends a little more rural, more Southern, a little less educated.  By a few percentage points, they tilt more Republican, reflecting the flip that has occurred in the positioning of the two parties.  Nonetheless the gap is a small one, 41 percent Republicans to 38 percent Democrats, with the remainder being independents or no party preference.

The sobering part is that those living paycheck to paycheck are much too common to be confined to one demographic or another, or to one party or another.  They reside across the country, come in all age groups, with plenty of college grads in their number.  Significantly for Democrats, they also include disproportionate numbers of females and people of color.

The know-it-all reaction of liberal observers is to dismiss their concerns.  What’s the matter with these people?  What are they thinking?  How can they be so out of it?   But dismissing their concerns amounts to dismissing them entirely, and to write them all off is to write off the election.

Although they might be swayed by partisan influences on what to them are fairly abstract questions regarding the national and local economies, what they know for a fact is their own bank balance.

And when matters get close to home, there is very little partisan difference.  The 65 percent of the low-savings group who said in the last of the bullet points above that their immediate family is experiencing serious financial difficulties is made up of nearly equal percentages of Republicans (68 percent), Democrats (59 percent) and independents (also 68 percent).

The comments they offer are sometimes poignant and quite frequently worrisome.  Many are concerned, frustrated, scared.   Some express distress and even despair.

“It’s making me go under I really don’t know what I can do about it anymore,” a 53-year-old from Gary, Ind.

“I’m about to go bankrupt,” a 65-year-old from Albuquerque, NM.

“ . . . then those people become desperate and crime rates start to rise.  I’ve personally resorted to those extremes,” a 52-year-old from rural North Carolina.

“I am absolutely terrified about my financial circumstances . . . to the point suicide seems more realistic and promising,” a 42-year-old from Hawaii.

“Just feels like I can’t afford to live and, being elderly, this scares the hell out of me!” a 73-year-old from Bakersfield Calif.

Their reasons for being so financially vulnerable are probably as varied as they are.  It could be any combination of life circumstances, perhaps compounded in some cases by poor choices or bad luck.  Only six of ten consider themselves fully employed, the highest number in retail or wholesale trade.  On the other hand, a very small number make more than $150,000 a year with mortgages north of $300,000.  That subset appears to be living entirely for the moment, come what may.

Their lifestyles, how wise they are with their money, the decisions they make at the supermarket probably also vary widely.  But for a good many of them, there isn’t any wiggle room.  Getting by isn’t easy.  Life isn’t easy.

Hit first by the economic uncertainties of the pandemic, then the economic shocks of inflation and now of high interest rates, it is small wonder that those of lesser means are shell-shocked.  Price increases may be the same for everyone, but the pain they cause is anything but equal.

“We can’t afford groceries anymore. You have to choose which bills to pay and sometimes you have to choose whether you’re going to pay the bills or buy groceries,” a 33-year-old from rural Kentucky.

“Makes getting groceries a tooth pulling miserably stressful task, knowing you’ll have to blow a ridiculous amount of money for far less groceries than you would even a year ago,” a 20-year-old from Midland, Mich.

“Utilities are up $110 from last year. Gas for the car is up. Insurance is up. Food prices way up on needed items. I just can’t keep up any more,” a 19-year-old from New Richmond, Wis.

“You cannot even afford to heat your home so you live in a house that’s 40° cold.  The economy’s better?  I don’t think so,” a 51-year-old from the mountains east of San Diego.

“The economy affected me emotionally and physically. A lot of prices went up and my rent went up so high and my job isn’t paying that well so it’s hard to pay all my bills,” a 23-year-old from Homestead, Fla.

It would be hard to read the hundreds of these reflections and conclude they are anything but genuine.  And please, don’t even try suggesting that inflation has been tamed.

“I keep seeing prices stable not going up but every time I go to the store prices have went up,” a 52-year-old from a small town north of Greensboro, N.C.

“I would like to add that inflation has not slowed down. I don’t know where that’s coming from but it hasn’t slowed down. It keeps getting worse,” a 41-year-old from rural West Virginia.

“Inflation has not gotten better, it has gotten worse . . . The question said it got better, but there is no evidence in my entire state to come close to believing that,” a 23-yard-old from a small town in western Pennsylvania.

Perhaps some are confusing the definition of inflation, but then again maybe not.  Prices have continued to rise, albeit more slowly, and the Fed is now worrying that it could take several years to get the rate down to 2 percent – due to what it is calling “intrinsic” inflationary forces.

Those living paycheck to paycheck are the ones most negatively affected by the higher prices.  Now they are the ones most heavily penalized by the antidote to further increases . . . higher interest rates.

Only one-fifth are able to pay their credit card bill in full each month.  Interest rates on the mounting unpaid balance have skyrocketed to upwards of 30 percent, a factor that unfortunately is not incorporated into inflation calculations.

“It is hard to make ends meet . . . Two years ago my credit cards were all paid off now I owe $26,000,” a 74-year-old from Anaheim, Calif.

“Everything costs so much that I’ve had to use credit cards more than I would have liked.  Now the interest rates are so high that I can’t keep up with the payments on my debt.  It’s killing me and millions of others,” a 53-year-old from southern Illinois.

“Interest rates on credit cards are killing me,” 49-year-old from Canon City, Colo.

Wages supposedly are increasing to cover the difference, and that may eventually happen, but for the moment 70 percent of those living paycheck to paycheck say in the Our Common Purpose survey that pay increases haven’t kept pace or haven’t come at all.  Cost-of-living adjustments for those living off Social Security are a whole other problem.

Bottom line, the survey shows 56 percent of this group, representing virtually half of the population of the country, assess their standard of living as worse today than it was three years ago.

Unfortunately, the wealth gap itself isn’t going anywhere anytime soon.  The political gap attached to it is a little more open to attenuation, even if November is fast approaching.

Biden is faced with any number of challenges.  The Hispanic vote.  The Black vote.  Tackling the anxieties around financial insecurity would have the added benefit of regaining support on the other fronts.  Don’t tackle it, and the election will be lost.

He’s hoping the many billions being invested thanks to the Inflation Reduction Act, the CHIPS and Science Act, and the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act will trickle into many pockets.  This overall is the right approach, but it is a slow process and likely won’t have much of an impact on November.  Those who eventually benefit are unlikely to ever even recognize to whom credit is due.

When it comes to more directly dealing with inflation, Biden has seemed to be something of a reluctant warrior. His administration has chipped around the edges at the price of insulin, bank overdraft and credit fees, and the “junk fees” levied by airlines and others. Otherwise, however, he has made only halting attempts to hold big business accountable for what he terms “shrinkflation” and has resisted encouragement to more aggressively take on what others have criticized as “greedflation.”

In the absence of headline-grabbing actions to convince the masses he is on the case, some more obvious compassion would be in order.  Rather than questioning the legitimacy of the deep-seated anxieties of such a wide swath of the population, as some liberal observers seem so bent on doing, the better approach is to get out there and understand the immediate concerns, acknowledge the concerns, find short-term ways to address the concerns.

Instead of casting doubt and ridicule on so many, the least we need to do is recognize and acknowledge the stress they are under.

Farce Gives House a Big Opportunity

May 26, 2024

The funniest thing happened on the way to the farce.

The ultra-right wingers got laughed out of their position of power in the U.S House of Representatives, and they have no one to blame but themselves.

Last year at this time the House was paralyzed. The Republicans had only a paper-thin majority, and with a tiny band of extremists objecting to necessary decisions at every turn, nothing was getting done.

Under pressure from everyone else, then-Speaker Kevin McCarthy finally took it upon himself to negotiate a bipartisan accord to raise the debt ceiling. It was the right thing to do, the responsible thing to do. But he paid for it dearly.

The ultra-right retaliated by blocking any measures from coming to the House floor and ultimately handed McCarthy his head. The hardliners then proceeded to make a mockery of the process to select his successor, eventually settling on Mike Johnson. Since then, they have objected and obstructed at every turn.

In so doing, they totally overplayed their hand. While they stymied their colleagues and huffed and puffed for the media, other members of Congress chafed at the farce of it. The hardliners managed not only to outrage Democrats but to alienate the more moderate minds within their own caucus. It didn’t take long for their antics to backfire.

The outsized power they briefly held was completely undone thanks to an accommodation reached by frustrated members of the Congress — Democrats and Republicans alike — who tacitly agreed they were going to have to work together if anything was to get done. The hardliners broke the mold, alright, but not at all in the way they intended. The extreme partisanship in the House gave way – in a complete turnabout – to bipartisanship.

Step #1 was Johnson moving forward with funding for Ukraine, everyone knowing this would outrage the ultraconservatives and the only recourse would be if Democrats broke with tradition and went along with the rules to bring it to the House floor.

Step #2 was Democrats again joining with Republicans to toss aside the grandstanding attempt by Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, the Georgia flamethrower, to oust Johnson. Democrats carried through on the guarded assurances they had been making that they would jump in to protect the Speaker for “doing the right thing” on Ukraine. Notably, they hadn’t done the same for McCarthy last summer.

Step #3 came a week ago when a group of mainstream Republicans, again with necessary help from many Democrats, maneuvered around the Speaker to bring a disaster relief bill to the House floor. It was the first time the maneuver, known as a discharge petition, has been used since 2015.

None of the above fits with the rules and expectations by which the House normally operates. In fact, that is the tradeoff that has emerged. In order to get rid of the “dys” in its dysfunction, the House has had to put aside hidebound traditions that allowed a small minority to block the wishes of the majority.

The excesses of the ultraconservatives have forced the House, and given cover to its members, to adopt a “better way” of operating that was advocated in this space last August. It boils down simply to lawmakers with a common-sense approach putting aside partisanship to do what needs to be done. The arrangement is dominated neither by Democrats or Republicans wildly swinging policy to one side or the other, but of necessity finding consensus.

Freed up from being forced to vote along party lines, a large majority of the House is ready to go along. The debt ceiling compromise passed last summer, 314-117. Aid for Ukraine passed 311-112. Aid for Israel, 366-58. Aid for Taiwan, 385-34. The roll call to block the motion to remove Johnson, 359-43.

The House is showing it can be a lot less divided than otherwise it seemed. The extremists from both sides can revert at any moment to making outlandish statements and proposing partisan legislation. But when it comes to must-pass legislation, the House has found the strength of conviction and the methods to do what is needed.

The suddenly powerless ultraconservatives like to deride the cooperation as the work of the imaginary Uniparty, a sinister-sounding “Liberal World Order” they claim has co-opted both parties into doing its bidding.

The many legislators who are doing the right thing don’t identify with such aspersions. They refer to what they’re doing as the “two-party solution.” And that’s exactly what America needs.

Where do we go from here? It would be nice to predict that this novel condition is the wave of the future. The ultra-right took us to the brink, the House has seen the light and reformed its ways.

Maybe this is what Rep. Patrick T. McHenry, the North Carolina Republican who was McCarthy’s chosen representative last summer in the bipartisan negotiations on debt ceiling relief and then went on to serve as interim speaker after McCarthy was ousted, had in mind when he said the House “is on the verge of the next great turn.”

However, McHenry won’t be around to see it. He’s not seeking re-election. Neither is Ann Kuster, the New Hampshire representative who as chair of the centrist New Democrat Coalition became one of the foremost champions of bipartisan legislation, nor five other members of that coalition.

Kuster and McHenry take the high road in explaining why they are stepping down, saying it is time for them to go. But it is hard to dispute that the last two years have taken a toll.

Even though a number of strong bipartisan leaders will remain, the reality is that the 119th Congress to be elected this fall will not be the same as the current iteration. Yet to be determined is which party will have control and by how much, and the lengths it will need to go to pass critical legislation. Depending on how all that works out, we could go right back to the way things were.

We may end up laughing, or crying, all over again.

Showdown on Ukraine

April 14, 2024

Pity poor Mike Johnson.

As the House Speaker weighs somehow bringing the momentous question of aid for Ukraine to the House floor this week, he faces a dagger if he does and a club if he doesn’t.

To his credit, Johnson is taking his leadership position – not just of the House but more generally of the federal government – with a deep sense of responsibility.  As such, he seems to have accepted that it’s imperative to U.S. interests to resolve the Ukraine question.

If he does, he’s sure to be pilloried by the hard-right element that has made life miserable for him and his predecessor and has brought Congress to a near standstill.

If he doesn’t, he will be subject not just to broader criticism but the embarrassment of an insurgency from an entirely different direction.  Common-sense, centrist legislators will attempt to shove aside Johnson to bring Ukraine to the House floor on their own.

As such, the matter at hand is not only vital to the war in Ukraine but could come to symbolize the brewing battle in this country over whether government, and ultimately the populace in general, should be guided along by the middle majority or by the extremes.

Any provision of funds to Ukraine is stridently opposed by far-right members of the House such as Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene.  The Georgia Republican’s motion to vacate the Speakership– the same tool used to oust prior Speaker Kevin McCarthy – is the dagger that Johnson faces.

“Funding Ukraine is probably one of the most egregious things that he can do,” Greene told CNN last week.

On the other hand, if Johnson doesn’t move forward in some satisfactory fashion, members of the centrist Problem Solvers Caucus are threatening to employ a rarely used device called a discharge petition to bring their own measure to the floor.

This is the club hanging over Johnson, though it’s one the sponsors would clearly prefer not to swing into action.  As much as anything, they’re trying to use the threat of such to keep Johnson from caving to the extremists.

“It’s a countervailing pressure to the pressure from the other side,” Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick told a No Labels session last week.  Fitzpatrick, R-PA, is co-chair of the Problem Solvers Caucus, which is made up of equal numbers of Republicans and Democrats.

Fitzpatrick and his co-leader on this particular effort, Jared Golden, D-ME, maintained that they want to give the Speaker the opportunity to move forward on his terms.  But if that doesn’t work, they said, there will be “no holds barred” on the discharge petition.

Fitzpatrick said he for one is in the dark as to what the Speaker will propose and how he plans to get the votes just to get it to the House floor.  Johnson hasn’t been forthcoming on how he intends to proceed, with conflicting pressures coming from every direction.

Most but not all Democrats want the House to vote exactly as is on the $95 billion Senate bill that combines aid for Ukraine, Israel and Taiwan with humanitarian assistance for Gaza. While some have opposed unfettered military aid to Israel, pressure ratcheted up this weekend in response to the missile and drone attack by Iran.

Republicans, meanwhile, have been floating a variety of alternatives to direct aid.  One is to revive the Lend-Lease program from World War II.  Another is to pay for some of the aid by selling off Russian sovereign assets that have been frozen.

The biggest variable, however, is whether Johnson will attempt to marry the aid package to securing the southern border.  That’s a bottom-line requirement for the extremist right, although unfortunately it’s also the provision that caused them to scuttle the entire package in the last go-round.

Johnson acknowledged the challenges at a news conference on Wednesday, according to The New York Times, saying he was sifting through “a lot of different ideas” raised by his colleagues for aiding Ukraine.

“It’s a very complicated matter, and a very complicated time,” the Times reported him saying, “And the clock is ticking on it and everyone here feels the urgency of that.  But what’s required is that you reach consensus on it.”

The sentiment is laudable.  In reality, however, it’s not going to happen if hardliners are allowed to call the shots.  It is only achievable if Johnson seeks to find consensus among the reasonable-minded majority of the House. This will require House Republicans working with House Democrats, and vice versa, even to the extent of Democrats voting to protect Johnson’s position if they see him doing the right thing.

Cooperation of that sort will be required if we are to help Ukraine.  It’s also what’s best for America.

Which Campaign Issues Resonate Most?

March 10, 2024

We the voting public have conflicting ideas of what this election season should be about.

Trump supporters have a very clear idea it’s about border security and the economy.

Biden supporters see it first and foremost about the threat to our democracy. After that comes a mixed bag of other priorities, led by health care and climate change.

The question on the table is which of these views is more in touch with the concerns of most Americans.

A variety of indicators emerge from nationwide polling conducted for Our Common Purpose by Survey USA in mid-February. The survey began by asking nearly 2,000 likely voters which candidate they will support, delved into the importance of 10 familiar issues, and concluded with a deep dive into what’s behind the lingering preoccupation with the economy. More to come on the latter question at a future date.

Trump led Biden in this poll by the margin of 45%-to-39%, with 10% favoring another candidate and 6% undecided. Trump’s lead is fairly consistent with what other polls are showing.  The Our Common Purpose results indicate, however, that slightly more than 30% of these voters are wavering in one fashion or another. Fitness for office will surely factor into their final choice, but the issues of the day will also weigh heavily.

The 2,000 respondents, who mirror the nationwide voting population, were asked to rate 10 major issues on a scale ranging from not a concern, somewhat important, very important, to critical. The percentages of “critical” ratings is what you’ll be reading about here.

Overall, the economy continues to be the most commonly cited high priority.  This nationwide finding is consistent with the outcome of Our Common Purpose’s survey of the six battleground states in December. The percentage of voters who say each of these issues is “critical”:

1. Economy – 48%
2. Border security – 40%
3. Threat to democracy – 37%
4. Crime – 36%
5. Health care – 30%
6. Budget deficit – 29%
7. Foreign wars – 25%
8. Abortion – 25%
9. Climate change – 21%
10. Public education – 21%

Some of the differences between Trump and Biden supporters are stark. For Trump voters, the top priority is border security. That ranks as the lowest concern for Biden voters. For Biden voters, climate change is the third highest priority. For Trump voters, it ranks lowest.

Here’s what the poll shows are their contrasting lists of priorities:

The importance of issues to Trump supporters

1. Border security – 62%
2. Economy – 58%
3. Crime – 45%
4. Budget deficit – 37%
5. Threat to democracy – 33%
6. Foreign wars – 28%
7. Health care – 23%
8. Public education – 18%
9. Abortion – 16%
10. Climate change – 8%

The contrasting importance of issues to Biden supporters

1. Threat to democracy – 48%
2. Health care – 39%
3. Climate change – 38%
4. Abortion – 36%
5. Economy – 35%
6. Crime – 29%
7. Public education – 25%
8. Budget deficit – 22%
9. Foreign wars – 22%
10. Border security – 19%

Biden highlighted some of the differences in his State of the Union address on Thursday, starting with his statement that “not since President Lincoln and the Civil War have freedom and democracy been under assault here at home as they are today.”

He claimed that the issue of abortion rights would carry the day. “Those bragging about overturning Roe v. Wade have no clue about the power of women. But they found out when reproductive freedom was on the ballot and we won in 2022, and 2023. And we’ll win again in 2024.”

Perhaps he will be proven right but abortion rights isn’t even the most significant priority of most women. The poll shows 30% of women rate it as critical, lower than they ranked a number of other issues led by the economy at 50%.

Which party has a better handle on the concerns of most Americans? There are several indicators that might encourage Republicans and concern Democrats.

More cohesiveness across the income strata of Trump supporters

Border security and the economy are the issues for Trump supporters, no matter whether they are poor or well-to-do.

Their answers to follow-up questions also show an uncanny consistency regardless of circumstances. No matter whether their annual household income is below $40,000 or above $150,000, nearly equal high percentages say they feel the national economy is doing poorly and their local economy is weak. The closeness of their answers makes it difficult to know whether this reflects their reality or the influence of a strong messaging campaign.

The only difference comes when they are asked if someone in their immediate family is struggling financially. Of those below $40,000, 69% say yes. Of those above $150,000, 32% say yes.

Biden supporters have one parallel in consistency. Those who are firm in supporting him, regardless of their income, rate threat to democracy as the biggest issue.

More cohesiveness among those fully supporting Trump and those leaning to him

The levels of conviction are slightly lower for those who are merely leaning to voting for Trump, but the issues are the same.  The clearcut top priorities are once again border security and the economy.

By comparison, there’s a bit of a disconnect among those who are leaning to Biden. The economy creeps in as being more important to those at lower-income levels, than it is for those of similar income who are fully supporting him.

Far and away, one issue for third-party backers and undecideds

You guessed it. The economy stands out for these voters as well.  All the other issues are clumped together at a significantly lower level of importance.

Other than for Biden’s strongest supporters, like it or not, that’s where most voters are at the moment.

Biden acutely recognizes what he protests is a disconnect between the perception and his actual record.  “The American people are writing the greatest comeback story never told,” he said in his State of the Union address.  “So let’s tell the story here, tell it here and now.”

It remains to be seen how many voters will catch up to the story by November.

Only One Way for Congress to Get Rolling

March 5, 2024

Congress has been forced to resort to a revolutionary concept if it hopes to achieve anything of importance.  It’s called bipartisanship.

The ball got rolling last month in the House of Representatives when members of the centrist Problem Solvers Caucus, made up of equal numbers of Republicans and Democrats, introduced the latest attempt to improve border security and at the same time provide weapons to Ukraine and other allies.

This bipartisan legislation is constructed around a pragmatic quid pro quo, the purpose of which is fully evident.  Neither major provision of the legislation could be enacted on its own.  Put the two together and the chances of passage improve significantly.

Then on Sunday, negotiators emphasized the bipartisan nature of half a dozen bills they were introducing to fund six federal departments for the rest of the fiscal year. The compromise legislation was hammered out by appropriators representing both political parties from both the Senate and House.  Each side got some of its demands and gave up on others.

Our Common Purpose has been contending since last summer (read more here) that with a small bloc of ultra-conservative legislators holding out at every turn, the only possible way for the closely divided House to get anything done is to work across the aisle.  Some number of Democrats must join with Republicans to provide the necessary number of votes.  And the only way for that to happen is to write legislation that is acceptable to both sides.

It surely is what the public wants to see.  Asked in a recent Our Common Purpose survey whether on controversial legislation we should fight it out or work it out, a whopping 93 percent said work it out.

Congress seemed to have adopted that philosophy last summer when President Biden and then-Speaker Kevin McCarthy brokered the bipartisan deal to provide debt-ceiling relief.  But working together lasted for only a heartbeat.  The House quickly reverted to its habitual partisan ways in ham-handing the federal budget for the fiscal year that began on Oct. 1.  The chamber has lurched from one stopgap measure to the next during months of impasse.

In desperation, congressional leaders have suddenly realized all over again that they aren’t going to get anywhere without working across the aisle.  Before celebrating too much, let’s acknowledge the obvious.  Legislative leaders aren’t having some kumbaya moment.  They’re cooperating out of necessity. But that’s something.

The stakes are high.  The only way that aid for Ukraine, or border security, is going to pass is with bipartisan support.  The only way the budget is going to pass is with bipartisan support.

Left to their own devices, a large majority of lawmakers seem amenable.  Once they were given the green light by party leadership, the House approved debt ceiling relief last summer by the resounding majority of 314-to-117.  In line with that, the Wall Street Journal reports that very near the same numbers favor the Ukraine/borders bill.

The rather large hurdle being that legislators need to be given the opportunity to vote on it.  And something is going to have to give for that to happen.

The direct method would be for House Speaker Mike Johnson to swallow hard and bring the measure to the floor.  Even that likely would require that he get enough support from Democrats on preliminary procedural matters to overcome the objections of the House’s ultraconservatives.

The last time that happened, it didn’t end well for the person in charge.  Outraged by then-Speaker McCarthy’s maneuvering on the debt ceiling deal last summer, a tiny minority of ultraconservatives acted out for a week, effectively halting all business in the House.  They subsequently managed to oust McCarthy.

Democrats, who long had been exasperated by McCarthy and didn’t trust his intentions going forward, could have come to his rescue but didn’t.  That doesn’t necessarily mean they wouldn’t jump in to save Johnson.

Hakeem Jeffries, the House minority leader, told The New York Times that if Johnson were to do the right thing and put the matter up for a vote, “there will be a reasonable number of people in the House Democratic Caucus who will take the position that he should not fall as a result.”

Also lurking in the background, although not yet in evidence, is the potential objection of Donald Trump.  His opposition was enough to scuttle the Senate’s attempt to do much the same things.

If Johnson can’t muster the inclination or the gumption to move forward, there’s an alternative.

Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick (R., Pa.) and his fellow sponsors of the Ukraine/borders bill have begun working to file a discharge petition, a rarely used device which allows 218 members of the House to go around the Speaker to bring a measure directly to the floor.

The prospect of such could give cover to Johnson for green-lighting the measure or at minimum pressure him to do so.  Failing that, it remains to be seen whether Fitzpatrick and others would actually buck their own party’s leadership in the interest of achieving what many regard as the greater good.

This is not the first of this kind of opportunity to come up since last summer, and none of those came to pass.  Either Johnson or Fitzpatrick is going to have to stick out his neck if this one is to succeed.  It’s the only way the U.S. will be able to provide more support to Ukraine, and the only way we will tighten up the border.

The House once again stands on the precipice.  It can fall back into the ditch or it can work together to achieve something significant.  Let’s hope it doesn’t blow this.