“For The Good Of Our Democracy”: On Syria, President Obama Had To Go To Congress
In seeking congressional authorization for military strikes against Bashar al-Assad’s regime in Syria, President Obama is not weakening presidential power and is not looking for an out to avoid a war he doesn’t want. He is doing what is absolutely necessary in a democratic republic. He is rallying consent for a grave step and for what was always going to be a controversial decision.
True, Congress might vote no. If that happens, it is impossible to see how the president could then pursue an attack, even if he believes it necessary for national security. This is a risk, and a potential contradiction. It’s why Secretary of State John Kerry, a powerful advocate for Obama’s course, necessarily dodged questions on the Sunday talk shows about what the administration would do in the event of a negative congressional verdict. Obama simply has to assume it will win.
Congressional support is important for another reason: The policy Obama proposes is intended to do severe damage to Assad’s armed forces — from what I am gathering, no one in the administration is contemplating “pinpricks” or harmlessly tossing cruise missiles into lakes and fields – but also seeks to send a “message.” Using an act of war for “messaging” purposes is always vexed, but the message itself will be far more powerful if the President acts with Congress behind him. Were the president to act alone and then face an uproar in Congress, what would this do to American credibility and the world’s sense of our resolve?
And, yes, if the British Parliament could debate a strike, shouldn’t Congress?
Gaining democratic consent is especially important for an action that has very large long-term implications and clearly divides the country. Yes, the president did not seek congressional backing for his Libya policy. But in Libya, the United States was acting in support of allies. “Leading from behind” was a controversial phrase, but it did convey correctly that the United States was not acting alone or even as the lead power. In this instance, the United States is the main driver of the policy, and support from allies may be limited to France and a few other nations. A congressional stamp of approval would give the action the constitutional and global legitimacy it would lack if it were the decision of only one person. The delay created by seeking congressional support has the additional benefit of giving Obama more time to rally support around the world.
Nothing about this request will prevent Obama or future presidents from acting in an emergency and going to Congress later. But this is not an emergency. It is, however, important, and I wish Congress would call off its holiday and return to work, with the rest of the country, on Tuesday. If war isn’t a big enough deal to force Congress to shorten a recess, what is? The Senate seems to be moving in that direction. The House should, too.
Lastly — and, yes, this may seem wildly hopeful — a congressional debate of something this serious could be ennobling, whether the authorization wins or loses. Right from the start, the debate will not be purely partisan. Democrats are split, and so are Republicans.
Among progressives and liberals, there is a conflict over which historical metaphors are most informative. Those who see an attack on Syria as akin to Iraq or Vietnam have already started rallying in opposition. Those who see it as closer to our response in Bosnia and Kosovo (and our non-intervention in Rwanda) are more inclined to support the president. My hunch is that the president will rally enough Democrats to prevail, which is why I agree with the prediction of Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) Sunday on “Meet the Press” that the authorization will pass.
But this will be an even bigger test for Republicans, many of whom questioned the patriotism of Democrats who did not support President Bush during the Iraq war. There is also a genuinely anti-interventionist spirit within the libertarian wing of the party that was largely suppressed during the Iraq conflict and has come back to life under Obama. This view is represented most forcefully by Sen. Rand Paul, and it needs to be heard.
If this debate is carried out in good faith, as was the debate before the first Gulf War under President George H. W. Bush, it will strengthen the country. We often forget that the votes in the House and Senate over our response to Saddam Hussein’s invasion of Kuwait were closely divided. Yet the nation was more united because Americans knew their views had been forcefully represented in Congress. If, on the other hand, this Syrian debate is used by a significant number of Republicans for the main purpose of undermining Obama, the rest of the world will know how degraded our democracy has become. Call me naive, but I honestly think that most Republicans do not want this to happen and will rise to the seriousness of the moment, whatever their views.
Reluctantly, I think the president is right to strike against Assad. It’s widely said that Obama’s own words declaring a red line have boxed him in and that he has no choice but to act. That’s true, but insufficient. Obama spoke those words precisely because the use of chemical weapons risks, as he put it on Saturday, “making a mockery of the global prohibition on the use of chemical weapons” and “could lead to escalating [their] use.” He had hoped that his words would be enough to deter Assad. Unfortunately, that wasn’t true.
I use that word “reluctantly” because, like so many who believe the Iraq war was a terrible mistake, I am wary of military intervention in the Middle East. But because of what Obama said and, more important, why he said it, I think we have to act in Syria.
By: E. J. Dionne, Jr., Opinion Writer, The Washington Post, September 1, 2013
“Love For Labor Is Lost”: Politicians Today Can’t Even Bring Themselves To Fake Respect For Ordinary Workers
It wasn’t always about the hot dogs. Originally, believe it or not, Labor Day actually had something to do with showing respect for labor.
Here’s how it happened: In 1894 Pullman workers, facing wage cuts in the wake of a financial crisis, went on strike — and Grover Cleveland deployed 12,000 soldiers to break the union. He succeeded, but using armed force to protect the interests of property was so blatant that even the Gilded Age was shocked. So Congress, in a lame attempt at appeasement, unanimously passed legislation symbolically honoring the nation’s workers.
It’s all hard to imagine now. Not the bit about financial crisis and wage cuts — that’s going on all around us. Not the bit about the state serving the interests of the wealthy — look at who got bailed out, and who didn’t, after our latter-day version of the Panic of 1893. No, what’s unimaginable now is that Congress would unanimously offer even an empty gesture of support for workers’ dignity. For the fact is that many of today’s politicians can’t even bring themselves to fake respect for ordinary working Americans.
Consider, for example, how Eric Cantor, the House majority leader, marked Labor Day last year: with a Twitter post declaring “Today, we celebrate those who have taken a risk, worked hard, built a business and earned their own success.” Yep, he saw Labor Day as an occasion to honor business owners.
More broadly, consider the ever-widening definition of those whom conservatives consider parasites. Time was when their ire was directed at bums on welfare. But even at the program’s peak, the number of Americans on “welfare” — Aid to Families With Dependent Children — never exceeded about 5 percent of the population. And that program’s far less generous successor, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, reaches less than 2 percent of Americans.
Yet even as the number of Americans on what we used to consider welfare has declined, the number of citizens the right considers “takers” rather than “makers” — people of whom Mitt Romney complained, “I’ll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives” — has exploded, to encompass almost half the population. And the great majority of this newly defined army of moochers consists of working families that don’t pay income taxes but do pay payroll taxes (most of the rest are elderly).
How can someone who works for a living be considered the moral equivalent of a bum on welfare? Well, part of the answer is that many people on the right engage in word games: they talk about how someone doesn’t pay income taxes, and hope that their listeners fail to notice the word “income” and forget about all the other taxes lower-income working Americans pay.
But it is also true that modern America, while it has pretty much eliminated traditional welfare, does have other programs designed to help the less well-off — notably the earned-income tax credit, food stamps and Medicaid. The majority of these programs’ beneficiaries are either children, the elderly or working adults — this is true by definition for the tax credit, which only supplements earned income, and turns out in practice to be true of the other programs. So if you consider someone who works hard trying to make ends meet, but also gets some help from the government, a “taker,” you’re going to have contempt for a very large number of American workers and their families.
Oh, and just wait until Obamacare kicks in, and millions more working Americans start receiving subsidies to help them purchase health insurance.
You might ask why we should provide any aid to working Americans — after all, they aren’t completely destitute. But the fact is that economic inequality has soared over the past few decades, and while a handful of people have stratospheric incomes, a far larger number of Americans find that no matter how hard they work, they can’t afford the basics of a middle-class existence — health insurance in particular, but even putting food on the table can be a problem. Saying that they can use some help shouldn’t make us think any less of them, and it certainly shouldn’t reduce the respect we grant to anyone who works hard and plays by the rules.
But obviously that’s not the way everyone sees it. In particular, there are evidently a lot of wealthy people in America who consider anyone who isn’t wealthy a loser — an attitude that has clearly gotten stronger as the gap between the 1 percent and everyone else has widened. And such people have a lot of friends in Washington.
So, this time around will we be hearing anything from Mr. Cantor and his colleagues suggesting that they actually do respect people who work for a living? Maybe. But the one thing we’ll know for sure is that they don’t mean it.
By: Paul Krugman, Op-Ed Columnist, The New York Times, September 1, 2013
“Rand Paul’s Dangerous Lasik Obsession”: But When It Comes To The Uninsured, Nobody Has A Right To Health Care
Senator Rand Paul has spent much of the August recess engaged in typical political activities—attending a roundtable on school reform, participating in a fundraiser for a fellow Republican, and speaking at a local ham breakfast. But Paul also set aside some time for one more unusual activity: Helping some people to see. Paul, an ophthalmologist, performed several eye surgeries. All of them were for patients who don’t have insurance. And he donated his services for free.
I know what you’re thinking: Paul and his advisers decided to publicize his day of charity care, in order to create the impression that he’s a do-gooder. You’re probably right. I first learned about it from an article by Katrina Trinko of National Review, who was on the scene to write about it. So were some other reporters, including a television crew. They didn’t get there by accident. But who cares? Maybe Paul was looking for good headlines or maybe he was trying to keep up his skills. (Senate rules prohibit him from maintaining a private practice while in office.) Regardless, Paul appears to have a genuine history of charity work: According to his official biography, he helped establish the Southern Kentucky Lions Eye Clinic and has won awards for his humanitarian work. Now, thanks to this latest surgical effort, a handful of people have better sight. Good for them and good for Rand Paul.
Of course, as Trinko’s story makes clear, Paul would have you believe that his good deeds—and his experience as a physician—justify his positions on health care policy. That’s another matter entirely. Paul is a well-known critic of government-run and government-regulated health care programs, starting with the Affordable Care Act. The opposition is in many ways philosophical: Nobody has a “right” to health care, he says, because that would mean people have a right to commandeer the labor of those who provide care. Trinko, in her article, quotes Paul explaining this position during a speaking event:
“As humans, yeah, we do have an obligation to give people water, to give people food, to give people health care,” Paul muses. “But it’s not a right because once you conscript people and say, ‘Oh, it’s a right,’ then really you’re in charge, it’s servitude, you’re in charge of me and I’m supposed to do whatever you tell me to do. . . . It really shouldn’t be seen that way.”
It’s a strange, almost nonsensical argument, for reasons that Paul Waldman notes at the American Prospect:
saying that health care is a right doesn’t mean that doctors have to treat people without being paid, any more than saying that education is a right means that public school teachers have to work for free. Because we all agree that education is a right, we set up a system where every child can be educated, whether their families could afford to pay for it themselves or not. It doesn’t mean that any kid can walk up to a teacher in the street and say, “I command you to teach me trigonometry for free. Be at my house at 9 tomorrow. You must do this, because I have a right to education and that means I am in charge of you and you’re supposed to do whatever I tell you to do.”
Of course, Paul is also making a practical argument. With less government interference and regulation, and more people paying for services directly rather than through insurance, the market would bring down prices on its own—and medical care would become more affordable for everybody. As proof, he points to a procedure ophthalmologists know well: Lasik, the laser eye surgery that eliminates the need for glasses or contact lenses. Via Trinko, again:
“Insurance doesn’t cover Lasik surgery, the surgery to get rid of glasses,” Paul remarks. “So it started at about $2,000 an eye, maybe even $2,500 an eye, and it’s down in some communities to under $500 an eye because competition works and people call on average four doctors to get the price and see how much it’s going to cost.”
Libertarians and conservatives love to cite Lasik. But Lasik tells you almost nothing about the rest of the health care system, for reasons Jeff Levin-Scherz, a physician at the Harvard School of Public Health, has pointed out:
1. Lasik surgery is entirely elective. No one NEEDS it!
2. Lasik surgery is never an emergency. Hence, it’s much more “shoppable” than most health care
3. Lasik surgery is highly automated—the computers actually do a substantial amount of the work. Therefore quality is more uniform than most health care
4. There is very high fixed cost for the Lasik laser—and the low variable cost makes it more likely that providers will price this at “marginal” cost—leading to large discounts. That’s not true of cognitive services.
Ten extra visits with a neurologists cost almost ten times as much as a single visit given the large variable cost of the neurologist’s labor. Ten extra Lasik surgeries cost only a small amount more than a single surgery—since the cost of the ophthalmologist and technician is a relatively smaller portion of the total cost.
And that’s not to mention the fact that the Lasik market has been prone to more problems than promoters like Paul let on. Paul Ginsburg, the economist and president of the Center for the Study of Health Systems Change, testified about this some years ago:
LASIK has the greatest potential for effective price shopping because it is elective, non-urgent, and consumers can get somewhat useful price information over the telephone. Prices have indeed fallen over time. But consumer protection problems have tarnished this market, with both the Federal Trade Commission and some state attorneys general intervening to curb deceptive advertising and poorly communicated bundling practices. Many of us have seen LASIK advertisements for prices of $299 per eye, but in fact only a tiny proportion of consumers seeking the LASIK procedure meet the clinical qualifications for those prices. Indeed, only 3 percent of LASIK procedures cost less than $1,000 per eye, and the average price is about $2,000.
Mostly, though, the problem with Paul’s position on health care reform is the number of people it leaves out. Like every other Republican who has demanded repeal of Obamacare, he’s never proposed anything that would come close to covering as many people, or providing the same level of protection. On the contrary, he’s proposed radical changes to Medicaid that would almost certainly even higher rates of uninsurance than exist today.
According to Trinko’s article, one of the patients Paul treats is a 55-year-old woman. She says she has no insurance because it would cost her $700 a month—money that she doesn’t have. Under Obamacare, people in her position would be eligible for subsidies worth hundreds or even thousands of dollars a month—or they’d have a chance to enroll in Medicaid, as long as their state officials weren’t refusing to participate Obamacare’s expansion of the program.
Paul helped that woman to see. But if he has his way, millions of Americans in similar situations won’t be as lucky. They won’t have the same access to care or they’ll face financial ruin. Ultimately, what Paul does at a surgical center matters a lot less than what he does at the Capitol—or, potentially, the White House.
By: Jonathan Cohn, Senior Editor, The New Republic, August 27, 2013
“Crazier Than His Chronological Age”: Montana Judge’s Comments Show His Ignorance About Rape
Generally, the courts in Montana go about their business without much notice outside the state.
But after 29 years on the bench of the 13th District Court in Montana, Judge G. Todd Baugh has brought the national spotlight to Yellowstone County and is hearing calls from across the country for his ouster after he imposed a 30-day sentence in a rape case, and said the 14-year-old victim was “as much in control of the situation” as the high school teacher who ultimately pleaded guilty. The judge also described the teenager as “being older than her chronological age,” even though the age of consent in Montana is 16.
Perhaps the judge should have just used the words that too many rape victims have heard: “She was asking for it.”
In this case, though, the victim could not hear those words. She killed herself in February 2010.
Plenty of others have heard those words. Tens of thousands of people have put their names on online petitions calling for Baugh to step down. Protesters crowded the lawn of the courthouse Thursday, vowing to campaign against him if he seeks reelection in 2014.
The judge, for his part, has apologized for his comments but not for the sentence he imposed.
In a letter to the Billings Gazette, he wrote: “In the Rambold sentencing, I made references to the victim’s age and control. I’m not sure just what I was attempting to say, but it did not come out correct.
“What I said is demeaning of all women, not what I believe and irrelevant to the sentencing. My apologies to all my fellow citizens.”
The apology was rejected by many people, including the rape victim’s mother, Auliea Hanlon, who told the Associated Press: “He’s just covering his butt. He wouldn’t have said anything if people hadn’t spoken up. He didn’t reverse his decision, so it’s irrelevant.”
While Baugh’s actions have sparked outrage, this is one of many instances of “pushback” that author Susan Brownmiller has seen since the publication of her groundbreaking book “Against Our Will: Men, Women and Rape” in 1975.
She emphasized that in the Montana case, the girl was 14, making her “incapable of giving an informed consent.”
“The consent laws are very clear about that,” Brownmiller said in a telephone interview. “A 14-year-old, by law, is not responsible.”
She added, “There are a lot of guys in positions of authority, like a judge, who really have no idea of what rape is.”
Other examples include former U.S. representative Todd Akin of Missouri, who lost a campaign for Senate after he said that women who are victims of what he called “legitimate rape” rarely get pregnant, and Indiana State Treasurer Richard Mourdock, who said in a campaign for the U.S. Senate: “Life is that gift from God that I think even if life begins in that horrible situation of rape, that it is something that God intended to happen.”
At least some do understand what rape is and are speaking out, including Pete Taylor, a 51-year-old head waiter at a restaurant in Billings who attended the protest wearing a T-shirt on which he had written “14 is 14.”
By: Carla Baranauckas, She The People, The Washington Post, August 30, 2013
“Plan B For Voting Rights”: It’s Time For Congress To Use It’s Authority Under The Election Clause
Voting-rights advocates generally don’t look to Justice Antonin Scalia for comfort. During oral arguments earlier this year in Shelby County v. Holder, the case in which the Supreme Court struck down a central part of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, Justice Scalia called the act a “perpetuation of racial entitlement.”
But a growing circle of legal scholars is focusing on a lower-profile ruling — issued one week before the Shelby County decision and written by Justice Scalia — that may point the way to a new approach to protecting voting rights.
The 7-to-2 decision, in Arizona v. Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, struck down an Arizona law requiring anyone who wanted to vote to provide proof of citizenship. It said the state could not impose a rule that was more restrictive than the federal “motor voter” law, which requires only a sworn statement of citizenship by the voter.
Congress passed the motor-voter law under its power to set the “times, places and manner” of federal elections as authorized by Article I, Section 4 of the Constitution, known as the elections clause. The clause is much less well known than, say, the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment, and yet Congress’s power under it, Justice Scalia wrote, “is paramount, and may be exercised at any time, and to any extent which [Congress] deems expedient.”
“That sort of woke everybody up again,” said Samuel Issacharoff, a professor at New York University School of Law who has studied the elections clause’s possibilities.
The problem, Mr. Issacharoff said, is that voting laws based on intentional racial discrimination, which the Voting Rights Act has been so successful at blocking, are both rarer and harder to identify today. “A lot of the contemporary problems are not well handled through the 50-year-old mechanism of the Voting Rights Act,” he said.
The elections clause, by contrast, does not speak to racial discrimination at all, but addresses the administration of voting rules. Still, in light of the Supreme Court’s ruling in Shelby County, it could have an important role to play. Strong federal laws enacted under the clause could help ensure voting fairness to all voters, especially when a state law appears neutral but has serious partisan or racially discriminatory effects. For instance, a state’s voter ID law might put up hurdles for poor or young voters, who may be disproportionately minority and Democratic, or for elderly voters, who lean Republican.
The elections clause allows Congress to set rules only for federal elections, but those laws almost always guide state election practices, too. For instance, Congressional legislation could pre-empt voter ID laws like Arizona’s or changes to early-voting laws like those attempted in Florida last year.
The bottom line, said Daniel Tokaji, an election law professor at the Moritz College of Law at Ohio State, is that Congress has much more power to legislate under the clause than it has exercised. It could, for example, liberalize voter registration nationwide, which has been shown to lead to higher turnout.
“I think Congress would be foolish not to look at the elections clause,” Mr. Tokaji said. “If they could do it over again, they might have paid more attention to it back in 2006,” when the Voting Rights Act was reauthorized using data that the Supreme Court in the Shelby County case found to be outdated. (Mr. Tokaji argued in an amicus brief that the justices should rely on the elections clause to uphold the Voting Rights Act, but the court did not address the issue in its ruling.)
Given the apparent direction of the court, even the remaining parts of the Voting Rights Act could be vulnerable to constitutional challenges. That makes it all the more timely for Congress to turn to its expansive authority under the elections clause to protect the right to vote.
By: Jesse Wegman, The New York Times, August 31, 2013
Share This Blog
Unknown Feed- An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.
mykeystrokes.com 