Concern for the Poor or Pandering for Votes?

Paul Ryan has been talking a lot lately about concern for the poor. What he wants to do is to get Congress to consolidate federal food stamps with 10 of the government’s other, large- and small-scale anti-poverty efforts into a single, super-sized block grant called the “Opportunity Grant." However, the states will be under no obligation to operate any of the programs. Instead, they will have the right to choose to operate whatever they want, perhaps something other than one of the 11 original programs, as long as Washington approves the plan. Some of the programs included, are: food stamps (SNAP), nursing care, childcare aid, the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG), public housing assistance, low-income energy assistance and cash welfare.

We are reminded by Paul Waldman of the Washington Post that this sounds reasonable until you start to think about how it would play out. “In practice, it’s likely that the states most eager to sign on would be precisely those that aren’t too happy about the ways the federal government provides benefits now. The devil would be in the details; what if a state decided to take its entire block grant and devote it to giving lectures to poor people on why they should get married? There could be a lot of needs going unmet while states implement their ideologically-driven visions of how poverty ought to be addressed.”

He reaches the following conclusion: ‘Ryan’s previous budgets have relied an awful lot on slashing benefits to poor people. But this time, he promises that his proposal doesn’t cut benefits, but merely reorganizes them. Some parts of the proposal might be worthwhile. But it’s hard to avoid the conclusion that it’s still driven by the longstanding conservative desire to limit the help we give to the poor. “

E. J. Dionne of the Huffington Post comments: “Ryan insists his plan would hold funding for these programs constant, not cut them. But it’s more complicated than that. Conservatives have long advocated block-granting of poverty programs, always with the justification that states will better deliver assistance to poor Americans if they aren’t hamstrung by requirements from Washington. But there’s little evidence that block granting accomplishes anything other than making it easier for these programs to be cut in future years or simply whittled away by inflation. As Jared Bernstein points out, Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF), which we used to call “welfare,” was block-granted in 1996 and has since then seen its value slashed by 30 percent in inflation-adjusted terms.”

It’s a bit scary to contemplate what will happen if the Radical Right actually does take control of both Houses of Congress and begins to dismantle the social safety net as they prefer to call it. Under the guise of putting social programs closer to the people (i.e. under the aegis of the states) what they will have done is quite clear to any who would take the time to understand their motives:

1) Reduce the deficit by slowly squeezing the federal-to-state block grants to a mere shadow of former strength

The Claim: the federal government currently spends about $800 billion on social welfare programs like food stamps and housing assistance. Mr. Ryan said that total spending would remain the same, and that his plan would not add to the deficit. “It is important to note that this is not a budget-cutting exercise — this is a reform proposal,” his policy discussion draft said. “This proposal seeks to create the space and flexibility necessary for local, state and federal government to add value without making judgments about the right level of spending.” 

The Reality: Ryan’s previous budget proposals have always contained policy statements that focused on deficit reduction, and this would be no different. His 2015 budget blueprint, released less than four months ago, called for $137 billion in cuts over the next decade from the federal food stamp program (now known as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program or SNAP). A cut of that size—nearly a fifth of SNAP’s current budget—would mean millions of low-income Americans would lose at least some, if not all, of their benefits. Here’s how the same thing would occur under Opportunity Grants:

First, there would be the savings from those states who will not accept an Opportunity Grant any more than they would accept the ACA expansion of Medicaid. Second, inflation will reduce the value of the block grants. Third, arbitrary cuts to state grants in the future decade will occur as they have in other block grant scenarios (TANF, for instance). Fourth, state plus private agency administrative costs taken out of the block grants will reduce the amounts actually available for programs and services, and Fifth, certain states will opt to use their block grant for other programs. Thus, Ryan’s deficit reduction plan will become reality as the food stamp program and others suffer major de-funding.

2) Privatize the administration of the block grant programs.

The Claim: Reuters reports that private agencies will get in on the block grants as private providers and as “neutral” evaluators of success. “If a state opted into the pilot program, it would have low-income residents meet with case managers who would create an “opportunity plan” offering both financial advice and coordinating the provisions of the several different programs they need. The residents would sign contracts with these case managers that would offer incentives to reach financial security and sanctions if they do not. A neutral agency would evaluate each provider’s success at moving poor Americans out of poverty.”

The Reality: Ryan’s Plan would allow charities, community groups and even for-profit firms to compete with government for this anti-poverty” federal money.” Eventually this would shift the role of government largely to approving applications and vetting vendor agencies. It might even eventually replace any state government involvement beyond receiving reports and distributing money to provider agencies. "There wouldn't just be a federal agency or a state agency," said Ryan, chairman of the House of Representatives Budget Committee. Instead, they could choose from a list of certified providers. We're talking non-profits, or for-profits, or even community groups unique to your neighborhood."

States may end up as mere conduits of funds to these private providers, keeping just enough of the block grants to administer a vetting process and an oversight function. This is privatization, pure and simple. Those states that try to keep program functions for themselves are going to face private agency evaluators who may want to see more of that “state money” going to a few more private providers. A bad evaluation of a state program could end up reducing a state's share of the “Opportunity Grant” but increasing the share available to private agencies. 

One more private influence might show up, as we are reminded by the Center for Budget & Policy Priorities: “in some cases, more powerful state and local political forces may seek to corral more of the funding. For example, many state and local officials likely would try to shift part of the former SNAP benefit dollars to CDBG-type 'development' proposals that politically powerful local developers (who often make large campaign contributions) often favor."

And, as to the “squeezing-down” of the poverty programs, just remember that administrative costs for private agency providers will be at least triple that of state costs because they will likely need all new staff for the programs they oversee; leaving less money for actual programs and services. 

3) Put restrictions in place that sound reasonable but that lead to less funding

The Claim: Illustrating his plan in a speech at the American Enterprise Institute, Ryan said "a 24-year-old single mother of two with a high school education and dreams of one day being a teacher could go to a local social services provider for help. Instead of applying for food stamps, housing vouchers and welfare checks, she would meet with a case manager and draft an "opportunity plan" to achieve her goals, targeting money where it is needed most, such as transportation or child-care costs.” (Source: Center for Budget & Policy Priorities)

The Reality: The CBPP comments: “she would have to sign a contract and meet certain benchmarks for success, such as learning new skills or seeking work. Failure would mean a cut in aid while exceeding expectations would earn her a bonus. There would be a time limit on assistance, and Ryan said the plan would need to show strong evidence of positive outcomes and poverty reduction, arguing such data is lacking in current programs.”

What we have here is a typical Republican basis for showing that people in poverty must be restricted, controlled, guided, and disciplined by a higher authority. There is no sense of any worth, potential, responsibility or self-discipline. Ryan’s plan would also require “accountability” from those receiving assistance, in the form of time-limited benefits and work requirements.
"This is a hallmark of the Republican approach to poverty programs, in which poor people have to jump through hoops to demonstrate their moral worth to get benefits. “Accountability” is something that is required of poor people, and only poor people. Farmers who get government subsidies don’t have to be “accountable.” Nor do government contractors who waste huge amounts of taxpayer money. Only the poor are forced to pee in a cup or account for their time or endure a hundred other petty humiliations, so we can be sure that if they get any government assistance they have proven themselves to be morally upstanding enough to deserve help.” (Source: the Washington Post)

That 24-year-old mother seeking help in Ryan’s example must have a plan which becomes a restrictive contract. The very existence of such an individualized plan is an invitation to providers to reduce the number of services required, or to provide inadequate benefit amounts to those who haven’t proven themselves worthy. An individualized Plan for people in any case is only good if it is their personal plan and not someone’s imposed plan. If it was truly personal and if one of the services provided as an option consisted of a Mentor to give personal advice and counsel, not evaluation, such a personal goal plan might be acceptable as an option for someone who feels comfortable with such guidance.   

Interesting isn’t it, that wealthy individuals and corporations have no such contracts, plans, time limits or restrictions imposed on them when they extract millions and billions of dollars from our tax system (from our tax dollars) with the freedom to use it for bonuses for their top management or for some other nefarious scheme?

To confirm and summarize my own comments, I have chosen to end this piece with some statements from the President of the Center on Budget & Policy Priorities, since Mr. Greenstein’s conclusions are well-stated and well-researched.

“This new “Opportunity Grant” would operate initially in an unspecified number of states... would likely increase poverty and hardship, and is therefore ill-advised, for several reasons:

While Chairman Ryan describes the proposal as maintaining the same overall funding as the current system for each participating state, that would be a practical impossibility. His proposal would convert the nation’s basic food assistance safety net — (SNAP), formerly known as food stamps — from an entitlement that responds automatically to increased need... (to) fixed funding... (that) cannot respond in the same way... when need rises, such as in recessions.

All ten programs other than SNAP that would merge into the block grant serve only small percentages of those eligible, and federal funding for them (other than low-income rental assistance programs) is comparatively modest....this means that if some people receive more services under the proposal, as Chairman Ryan envisions, those services will likely be paid for by cutting assistance that helps poor families put food on the table or a roof over their head. Some of the service programs to which funds would likely be shifted have higher administrative costs than programs like SNAP and rental vouchers, so less would remain for basic assistance to needy families.

While Chairman Ryan says he’s driven by evidence and research, his plan would jeopardize basic nutrition assistance for poor children, which research has shown is highly effective not only in reducing child malnutrition, but also in improving children’s long-term prospects. A path-breaking recent study examined what occurred after food stamps gradually expanded nationwide in the late 1960s and early 1970s. It found that poor children with access to food stamps in early childhood (and whose mothers had access during pregnancy) had an 18-percentage-point higher high school graduation rate — and were less likely as adults to have stunted growth or heart disease or to be obese.... the Ryan plan would jeopardize these crucial gains. SNAP’s entitlement nature lies at the heart of this success.

Total funding to assist low-income families — from federal, state, and local levels combined — likely would decline, because the block grant would afford state and local officials tantalizing opportunities to use some block grant funds to replace state and local funds now going for similar services. Chairman Ryan says that the federal block grant funds would have to be used for the poor. But that wouldn’t prevent states and localities from substituting some of these funds for existing state and local funds that they now use for some of the same purposes.

History clearly shows that when policymakers combine a number of programs into a block grant, federal funding typically declines over time, often dramatically. That has occurred in most broad-based block grants of recent decades.... policymakers find it virtually impossible to identify a specific level of needed federal funding... As a result, the broad block grant often becomes easy to squeeze in the competition for federal budget dollars.

(For all the reasons)... noted here, the Ryan Opportunity Grant proposal would likely make conditions for America’s poor families and children worse overall rather than better.”
　

The Fourth Branch of Government

Our representative democracy is plagued with dysfunction. 

The Legislative Branch is at an all-time low in approval rating in various polls because it not only refuses to do its job of legislating to resolve or solve problems, its members can't even negotiate compromise measures that will benefit their back-home constituencies.  In other words, most members of Congress no longer represent the People, but represent whatever special interest group bought their election and their office.  Today, half of the members of Congress are millionaires or multi-millionaires, which means that they are members of an elite faction -- Plutocrats.  This elite-owned group is so dysfunctional, they cannot (won't) even pass legislation like immigration reform or extended background checks for gun purchases even though the population at large favors such legislation by 70-80%.  However it may look to us, they know what they are doing, and every move is calculated to bring them closer to their goal: to enhance their control and their wealth.  For them, the current dysfunction in the Congress is a tool, not a failing.  It serves their goal of weakening the federal government, de-regulating all industry, and getting rid of social programs that they do not wish to fund or support.

According to data from Spectrem Group, the Chicago-based wealth research firm, there are now 8.99 million U.S. households whose net worth totals $1 million or more (not including primary residence). That is up from 8.6 million in 2011 and just short of the all-time record set in 2006, when the United States had 9.2 million millionaire households.  However, the number of individual millionaires remains at about 1% of the total population of the U.S.  Yet, this small group basically holds sway over our government, our economy, our schools, our banks, our investments, and even of our tax system.  By means of a conspiratorial Plan (recall those secret meetings of wealthy corporation owners with the Koch brothers), they are out to take over ("revolutionize") our systems and our institutions.  Their Plan is to operate everything according to Right-wing ideology, and they have made too much head-way for any of us to be comfortable with what they are doing. 

The Executive Branch of government - the so-called "federal bureaucracy" -- is so dysfunctional that it can't get wounded veterans to proper treatment in a timely fashion.  It cannot do much about illegal immigration, nor about humanitarian aid to refugees (mainly children) who are trying to flee repressive and violent regimes or cultures in South America.  It can't even produce a healthcare website without major problems because it has so little control over private contractors.  In addition, much of its work in secret ("intelligence" work) is exactly that and is hidden from most of us by a veil of secrecy that only now and then has a slit in its fabric for all to gain a glimpse of what we do behind that veil. 

However, this dysfunction is nothing new; the bureaucracy has been out-of-control for some time.  Unfortunately, now that we have the technological knowledge to resolve many bureaucratic tangles, we do not have the wherewithal to afford to put effective practical hardware and software plus proper personnel in place!  The bureaucracy is so large that we can't afford to equip it adequately.  It is so large and unwieldy that no President can easily move it or get it to function quickly and effectively through Executive Order (perhaps excluding Special Ops forces that brought down Osama bin Laden!). 

It is basically a myth that an effective businessman or administrator as President could coordinate and oversee this labyrinth more efficiently and effectively, for it is essentially a diverse group of unrelated departments all functioning according to their own history, milieu, norms, customs and rules, with common threads between departments less obvious than their differences.  Loyalty is often measured by department standards, not by federal standards, and, in some cases, that misplaced loyalty affects what the departments or offices fail to tell the President or his staff.

We can find pockets of efficiency and effectiveness in certain departments and offices, usually with a narrow scope of operations and purpose, but in the broadest sense, one can expect to find uncertainty, disinformation, ineffectiveness and incompetence no matter who is the President.  And yet, we do see the Executive branch operate well enough that we forget the dysfunctions until attention is drawn to them.  After all, our mail arrives as do our social security checks, our taxes are collected, our medical needs met by Medicare and Medicaid, our emergencies are met by first responders, our military functions keep us safe, and schools provide education every day of the week.  So, what's the problem?

The Veterans Administration is just one example of dysfunction, and it appears to go much deeper than the fact that some veterans failed to obtain an appointment or any treatment, even though paperwork had been submitted as initiating a claim.  It appears from testimony of "whistleblowers" before a House Committee, that the top personnel are not being held accountable for their actions, that middle management and others are being poorly trained, and that an "atmosphere" exists that does not put the veterans' needs and service first and foremost.  The testimony indicates that the VA is a mess, pure and simple.  Is this Barack Obama's fault?  Probably not, since many of the problems existed before his presidency.  The problems of VA autonomy, separation from the White House and other departments within the Executive Branch and reluctance to utilize outside resources are evident and need to be explored in-depth. 

Having dwelt on the dysfunction, let me also say that President Obama has issued the smallest number of Executive orders of all the Presidents in recent history.  In the absence of congressional legislation, and to avoid tie-ups within large departments, the President has instead acted on his own to make things happen. During this broad salvo about dysfunction, let us remind ourselves of some of the important accomplishments of this President through Executive Orders or Presidential Memoranda (some of which involved getting a department or office to act, and some of which did not):

*--Use of torture by CIA and military to interrogate prisoners prohibited; ordered a review of our detention and interrogation policy prohibited use of torture; and ordered interrogators to limit their actions to the Army Field manual

*--Within days after taking office, Obama signed an Executive Order ordering an audit of government contracts, and combating waste and abuse

*--Created the post of Chief Performance Officer, whose job it is to make operations more efficient to save the federal government money.

*--On his first full day, he froze White House salaries

*--He committed to phasing out unnecessary and outdated weapons systems

*--Through an executive order, he created the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform

*--Obama created business.gov, which allows for online collaboration between small businesses and experts re managing a business; also launched recovery.gov, so that taxpayers could track spending from the Recovery Act. 

*--Obama crafted an Executive order establishing the President’s Advisory Council on Financial Capability to assist in financial education for all Americans

*--Obama ordered 65 executives who took bailout money to cut their own pay until they paid back all bailout money

*--He established a Consumer Protection Financial Bureau designed to protect consumers from financial sector excesses

*--Obama appointed the first ever Special Assistant to the President for Disability Policy.

*--He extended benefits to same-sex partners of federal employees.

*--He issued a Presidential Memorandum reaffirming the rights of gay couples to make medical decisions for each other.

*--Obama wrote and signed an Executive Order establishing a White House Council on Women and Girls to ensure that all Cabinet and Cabinet-level agencies evaluate the effect of their policies and programs on women and families

*--He signed an Executive Order that established the White House Office of Urban Affairs

*--He re-established and reinforced our partnership with NATO and other allies on strategic international issues. Closed a number of secret detention facilities.

*--He returned our focus to Afghanistan, and began the process of withdrawing our troops. Fulfilled campaign promise and ended our involvement in Iraq.

*--He signed an order banning gifts from lobbyists to anyone in the Executive Branch.

*--He signed an order banning anyone from working in an agency where they had lobbied in previous years. He also put strict limits on lobbyists’ access to the White House.

*--He held the first-ever online town hall from the White House, and took questions

*--He crafted an Executive Order on Presidential Records, which restored the 30-day time frame for former presidents to review records

All this occurred just within the first few years of his Presidency.  I haven't even gotten to some of the Orders he has signed since then, including several regarding sanctions on Russia, establishing minimum wage for government contractors, establishing an Executive Emergency Board and improving critical infrastructure cybersecurity!  With his determined Republican detractors, he can't win no matter what he does:  he's leading from behind if he doesn't act precipitously; or he's lazy because he plays golf or drinks a beer with someone somewhere; or, he's being sued for acting when Congress refuses to act.  Often, he is blamed for consequences or outcomes originally put into law by Republicans.  Thus, if he puts a waiver on something in the ACA to accommodate small businesses, he gets sued for it, even though he was following what the Republican Congress asked him to do!  The President has been one of the most prolific we have had in a long time in terms of  pieces of legislation signed and executive actions that made a difference in how government operates.  Even LBJ might be envious!

The Judicial Branch is in the spotlight of dysfunction right now.  At times, it now seems incapable of determining what the Constitution says or means mainly because the Court operates with a conservative majority who are loyal to certain tenets and principles that can't be easily found in the Constitution.  These right-wing Justices tend to rule according to their conservative ideology and then try to find a basis for that in the Constitution or in legal precedent.  Sometimes they succeed -- as with the ACA; and other times they fail miserably, as with Hobby Lobby, McCutheon, Quinn, and McCauley.  This is a Court intent on destruction of rights (speech vote, collective bargaining), benefits (women's health), safeguards and protection (McCauley), equality under the Law (nullification of part of voting rights act) and no establishment of religion (Hobby Lobby), except for the wealthy.  As far as the right-wing judges are concerned, the SCOTUS is functioning just fine.  For the rest of us, every day in a term seems to bring another decision that diminishes, damages or eliminates something that we thought we could count on as stable. 

All three branches of the federal government are dysfunctional, which leaves us where?  We may have only one recourse:  the fourth branch of this democracy -- the People.  It is not talked about a lot, but the Constitution does say in its Preamble that the Constitution is established by the People.  Then, there is that mention of this other branch in Amendment X, which puts a proper cap on the Bill of Rights (the first Ten Amendments that constitute rights granted to "the People."): 

 

        "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, not prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people." (Emphasis mine)

Moreover, don't you just love Amendment XIV, Section 1?

        "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of the citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law, nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

The time has come to take this Fourth Branch more seriously as an entity with potential power and authority.  It is therefore, my intention, to bring to your attention (as I have briefly in past posts such as 5/26/14, 3/23/14, 1/18/12 and 6/20/10), the importance of placing ordinary citizens in positions that can directly influence the governing of this nation.  Some would argue that the states are the Fourth Branch, but I prefer to think of them as adjuncts to federal government, operating often in compliance with federal laws, appropriations, and grants, rather than as a separate branch.  Arguably, the People have greater standing as a separate Branch, since they are seen as citizens possessing certain powers, rights and privileges granted to them, that are not reserved or delegated directly to the states.

It is my purpose, then, to propose to you that the People need to be included at all levels of government (states included) in a role that will enhance their importance as citizens, counselors and as voters who have, albeit, undefined "powers" not delegated elsewhere.  I venture to assert that some of the powers they derive is that of experience as citizens; acquired expertise by a lifetime of work or study; wisdom acquired by life's experiences, and authority gained in part by all of these attributes.  We also need the practical problem-solving capacity that ordinary citizens can bring to a dysfunctional government out of their own endeavors.  We desperately need the practicality and the pragmatism of our citizens inside our governmental structures, not outside and distant from them!

Thus, I propose a network of Citizen Advisory Panels (CAPs) (or call them Peoples' Advisory Councils (PACs) or Citizen Advisory Boards (CABs) if you prefer), to advise all elected officials, offices, departments, commissions, committees, judges, panels, legislators and cabinet members -- with nothing and no one excluded. 

Here are my specific proposals:

1)    Ideally, a constitutional amendment would serve to cement this concept, but that may be entirely impractical as a first step;

2)    Legislation that makes the operation of such Panels or Councils legal and binding on all parts of government

3)    Procedures for electing and/or appointing citizens to these positions, including basic qualifications and disqualifications for candidates, excluding any private money from elections and making citizen advisor elections publicly financed to protect their unique status;

4)    Place advisory panels in Inspectors General offices wherever this is feasible and appropriate; this might be possible by Executive Order, but may not be wise politically’

5)    Assign particular duties to every panel or council that is seated.  Some of these might include: advise on legislation pending or in progress; advise on fiscal matters, particularly on how money is spent or can be saved; evaluate proposed goals and objectives (a department or office Plan); evaluate accomplishments and outcomes; evaluate private contracts in terms of cost vs. outcomes, etc.

6)    Findings or reports of all evaluations sent to the Inspector General, to the department lead or head officer, and the White House.

7)    Advocate best practices; bring experts in for personnel training

8)    Every advisory group should have the ability by law to be a whistle-blower, if that becomes necessary; 

9)    Advisory groups should not be unduly constrained in their ability to act on areas where they have not been invited or consulted;

10)  Terms of office should be limited to 2 or 3 terms of not more than 2 years each

11)  All travel expenses and accommodations must be furnished by the budgets for the departments or offices served by Citizen Advisory Panels.

 
Our "Representative Democracy" no longer works as it should, except for the benefits it brings to the wealthiest, the most powerful, the One-Percenters, the Elite.  Before the Plutocrats destroy our national government -- the one that watches out for our life, liberty, property, opportunity, welfare and rights -- I suggest to you that the only real counter to the forces of the Right-wing oligarchy now in charge is the grassroots common-sense of ordinary citizens like you and me.  The Fourth Branch -- We, the People -- have to infiltrate and reform our dysfunctional three existing branches with the activism and determination of citizen commitment.  We cannot get to that point until reform candidates with progressive values are elected to office.  The national and state elections of 2014 will be critical to the future of this representative democracy.

IMPEACHMENT WORKS BOTH WAYS!

Once again, we hear another incessant drumbeat from the Republicans.  John Boehner, Speaker of the House, wants to sue the President.  Sarah Palin, she of no office, wants to push the impeachment of the President.  Others add to the din.  Is this the final attempt to smear the legacy of the first President of color?  Probably, but it is also a serious attempt to control the minds of voters who do not care to seek out truth.

Presumably, Boehner, representing more of his party than just himself, wants to sue the President for criminal or anti-civil actions that he has performed.  The only clue we had until recently was that the suit had to do with the President acting contrary to his oath of office in general areas like health care, foreign policy, and education.  Boehner wrote in a letter to his colleagues, that this action stems from President Obama's having "circumvented the Congress through executive action, creating his own laws and excusing himself from executing statutes he is sworn to enforce."  Now we are told that the act of non-enforcement has to do with an exemption from the ACA mandate that all small businesses of a certain type had to offer coverage at a certain point.   The action he took was one urged upon him earlier by the Republicans! President Obama allowed small businesses an extra year before they had to meet the mandate.  
We can only presume that Boehner also doesn't agree with Executive actions the President has had to take in order to address problems and issues that Congress refuses to address.  Or more correctly, he opposes Executive Actions that actually get things done!

In fact, the President's problem with Boehner and Congress has centered around having to act almost solely on his own because Congress refuses to act.  So, he has had to rely on past legislation, and on rules and regulations, and presumably on the power of being Commander-in-chief.  It would, of course, be ridiculous of President Obama or any other President to promulgate Executive actions without first checking with his legal staff and with the Attorney General before acting. 

Sarah Palin seems to disagree with the Speaker, and apparently thinks the President should be impeached rather than sued, although she does not say in detail what "high crimes and misdemeanors" that might entail.  However, and I hate to admit it, Palin may be right in this sense: the House (and the Speaker specifically) probably have no standing to "sue" the President.  Impeachment is the primary course of action permitted by the Constitution.

That brings us to a very important point: the law suit is nothing but theater.  The intention is undoubtedly two-fold:  bring more Obama doubters and haters into the voting in November, and use this scam to prepare for the process of impeachment.  I say this for good reason.  The Constitution does not support law suits of one branch of government against another.  As I read Article I, Section 3, Congress would have no standing to bring a suit against the President until after he has been found guilty ("convicted") of impeachable crimes by the Senate.  However, the Constitution does allow the process of impeachment as a check of one branch upon another (Article II, Section 4).  Therefore, the suit might be useful as preparation for impeachment, but can by itself go nowhere unless the SCOTUS decides to make up one more unfounded and noxious nostrum!

There are some from the Radical Right, who try to be more specific about "charges" of wrong-doing against the President.  Here are a few:

1)  Chairman Darell Issa:  claims the President is responsible for the lack of adequate protection at the embassy in Benghazi, Libya; for the deaths of the four Americans, and for lying about the nature of that attack.  He claims that a "stand-down" order was issued by the White House, thus preventing protection from ever taking place.  After millions of dollars in expenses to run the committee hearings involved, the Chairman has not found one shred of evidence to assert any charges in court, or any high crimes or misdemeanors in an impeachment process.  It just won't fly, and the total transcripts and evidence in emails showed that the White House was not involved.  A similar outcome applies to the so-called "IRS scandal."  No White House involvement.  No matter how hard Issa tries, the further away from crime or illegality he gets. 

Perhaps not as applicable as regards the tactics of the NSA. The American people don't like to be spied upon or listened in on.  But again, there is nothing that proves direct involvement of the White House.  The NSA has legislative and judicial authority for what it does, so the President is not the perpetrator of the actions of that agency, but Congress is.  And therein lies a very basic fact:  it is Congress who makes all the laws.  Congress has only itself to blame if something is objectionable about their legislative acts.

2)  Senator John McCain would like nothing better than to impeach the President.  He would most likely concentrate his efforts toward showing that the President's failures as Commander-in-Chief to act militarily against Syria, Egypt, Iran and others are impeachable offenses.  With the humanitarian crisis at our southern border, McCain will undoubtedly bring forth the absurdity that the President has failed to protect our borders, and should therefore be impeached for failing to enforce our immigration laws as regards illegal aliens crossing our borders.

3)  And then, there is Sen.Tom Coburn of Oklahoma who has said, on more than one occasion, that he is watching President Obama's actions for impeachable offenses.  Apparently, he hasn't found any since we do not have any detail to report other than what Coburn has already said.  His mantra is that the Congress should start working on the list of criteria that would begin the process of impeachment.  That may very well be exactly what Boehner has in mind with his law suit.  Perhaps it is simply a listing of charges that could be used for impeachment rather than in a regular court of law.

Let us then explore the other side of this issue.  Let democratic representatives bring charges of "high crimes and misdemeanors" against John Boehner, Speaker of the House, who has failed to fulfill his oath of office!  Unfortunately, we will miss the opportunity to include his recently vanquished lieutenant, Eric Kantor, in those charges!

Boehner had to swear a similar oath of office to that taken by the President: to uphold the Constitution.  Our Constitution says many things about the functions of the Congress which can be applied to the office of the Speaker.  Here are a few that might serve as grounds for impeachment:

1)  Congress is responsible for providing for "the common defense and general welfare of the United States."  Can it be charged that Republicans in general, and the Speaker in particular, have not provided for the general welfare of the poor children of this country by cutting Head Start, Food Stamps, WIC programs, and school lunches, as well as ignoring the effects of refusing to allow a vote on universal pre-K, expanded gun background checks, refurbishing of old school buildings. The list of neglect goes on and on, but I have spoken of this before on other blog postings.  The point is that Congress has failed to provide for the general welfare of children and as a result, too  many children (1 in 5 in this country) are going without essential services and programs.  In my opinion, this is a "high crime" and impeachable.

2)  Congress is responsible for establishing a "uniform Rule of Naturalization."  Not under this Speaker! who refuses to bring to a vote, the comprehensive uniform immigration bill passed by the Senate.  Does the Speaker have the right to block legislation that is required by the Constitution?  Perhaps, in general.  But, in this case, although we have immigration laws in place, it is a reasonable question as to whether we have a uniform rule (comprehensive code) of Naturalization.  I am of the opinion that we do not have such simply because immigration has developed in ways that are not addressed by the old code.  The Speaker is responsible for the lack of a uniform Rule.

3)  "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes...to pay the debts."  Why, then, do we have a tax system that does not pay our debts?  Could it be that Congress is not paying attention to its responsibility, but is more concerned about tax breaks, tax loopholes and tax rebates for the rich and wealthy corporations?  I believe Boehner is guilty of not paying our debts, contrary to the Constitution.

4)  Congress also has the responsibility of establishing "Post Offices and post roads." Does that mean that cuts in post offices across the country are unconstitutional if the Constitution only allows "establishing" them?  Does the responsibility involved in establishing post roads extend to maintaining those roads?  One would think so, but an infrastructure bill still sits un-considered and un-passed because it has not been brought to the floor by the Speaker! 

5)  Congress has the broad responsibility "to make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution...."  Is the Speaker's past statement about being proud of his record of not passing legislation an impeachable offense when one takes seriously what the Constitution declares about making laws?  Does the Constitution stand for a positive attitude toward passing legislation, and is that being undermined by the Tea Party in general and the Speaker in particular?  I believe the authors of our founding document would not recognize the negativity and neglect demonstrated by this Speaker and his Party of NO! 

6)  A few more thoughts brought about by several of the Amendments to the Constitution, especially XIV and XV:  the Speaker has not addressed the robbery of the tax system by corporations and the rich, the Speaker has failed to speak or act against the unconstitutional restrictions on voting and voters; the Speaker has allowed a minority to dictate disposition of legislation rather than a majority vote; the Speaker has allowed "emoluments" to influence legislation; the Speaker has vowed to destroy an Act of Congress (ACA) declared constitutional by the SCOTUS.  Most distressing is the fact that the Speaker of the House led a movement to shut down the operations of the federal government.  Since that power is not granted to the House by the Constitution, the Speaker acted outside the Constitution, and must be impeached for that, if nothing else.
 
Let Speaker Boehner know that "what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander!"  Impeach the do-nothing, illegally  neglectful Speaker of the House if he dares to impeach our President!!

The RULE of LAW vs. The RULE of MEN

The Radical Right has been trying for some time now to convince us that Islamic law is a threat to our country. In fact, 13 states have legislation either passed or pending that rejects the introduction of Sharia law into those states. Talk about a miscalculation: the Sharia "threat" is not real, is not valid, is not even applicable to our political life.

According to Wikipedia, "The term means "way" or "path"; it is the legal framework within which the public and some private aspects of life are regulated for those living in a legal system based on Islam. Sharia deals with all aspects of day-to-day life, including politics, economics, banking, business law, contract law, sexuality, and social issues.

There is not a strictly codified uniform set of laws that can be called Sharia. It is more like a system of several laws, based on the Qur'an, Hadith and centuries of debate, interpretation and precedent."

 There are those countries like Iran and Saudi Arabia where Sharia Law has a great influence on political governance because the civil law is informed in certain respects by Sharia Law, and that involves, especially in Iran, the elevation of Islamic clerics to a high office of interpreters so that civil legislation can be guided properly in the understanding of how Sharia law affects civil law. Thus, the clerics - Ayatollahs mainly - along with Muslim legal scholars, are attempting to relate the will of Allah to the 21st century, having reopened the door to interpreting Sharia in relation to politics and government.

Our own Supreme Court just announced a decision that is likely to be a greater threat to our government than any Sharia code could ever be. The Supreme Court just put a hole in the wall of separation of church and state that can bring down the entire structure of our democracy. You see, the Hobby Lobby and Conestoga litigation was not just about contraception and abortion, or about freedom of religion, or about freedom of speech. It is primarily about the basis of our constitution and our government. We are a nation dedicated to the rule of Law, not the rule of individuals, or corporations or dissidents. The Rule of Law just took a "hit" that cannot be ignored.

The law of the land, the Affordable Care Act, declared constitutional by the Supreme Court in a June 28, 2012 decision, requires certain businesses to offer contraception counseling and free contraceptive coverage in its health plans. The Hobby Lobby/Conestoga decision, although called "narrow" in scope, has allowed a "religious exemption" to those businesses. If they object to this section of the law on the basis of a religious belief, they can decide without penalty to refuse to provide contraceptive coverage for their employees.

It's important to say that religious exemptions do exist because of other laws, other actions by various administrations, and other rulings by the courts. However, this is the first time that an exemption has been granted on religious grounds to corporation owners or to corporations seen as "individuals." So says Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg in her unrelenting and powerful dissent statement. It is important to pay attention to her arguments, in order to have a fuller understanding of this decision. So, following is a synopsis of terse and applicable statements that I have pulled together by reviewing the entire dissent.

The Court holds that Congress, in the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) "demands accommodation of for-profit corporation's religious beliefs no matter the impact that accommodation may have on third parties who do not share the corporation owners' religious faith." Ginsburg is persuaded that RFRA served a far less radical purpose. She cites specific legislative intent and previous Court rulings to show that the exemptions for Hobby Lobby and Conestoga are not required.

She says that the Court's reading (of RFRA) as a bold initiative departing from previous jurisprudence is not plausible because even an amendment to that law "does not suggest that Congress meant to expand the class of entities qualified to mount religious accommodation claims."

As concerns RFRA's application to the current lawsuits, she raises several questions which she describes as "dispositive" of Hobby Lobby and Conestoga's claims: "Do for-profit corporations rank among persons who exercise religion? Assuming that they do, does the contraceptive coverage requirement substantially burden their religious exercise? If so, is the requirement "in furtherance of a compelling government interest?" And last, does the requirement represent the least restrictive means for furthering that interest? Ginsberg concludes that the Court fails at each step of its analysis of these crucial questions that are in keeping with the requirements of the RFRA.

Her analysis brings forth some notable quotes (emphases added are all mine):

"Until this litigation, no decision of this Court recognized a for-profit corporation's qualification for a religious exemption from a generally applicable law, whether under the Free Exercise Clause or RFRA. The absence of such precedent is just what one would expect for the exercise of religion is characteristic of natural persons, not artificial legal entities."

"Indeed, until today, religious exemptions had never been extended to any entity operating in the commercial, profit-making world. The reason why is hardly obscure. Religious organizations exist to foster the interests of persons subscribing to the same religious faith. Not so for-profit corporations."

"The Court's determination that RFRA extends to for-profit corporations is bound to have untoward effects. Although the Court attempts to cabin its language to closely-held corporations, its logic extends to corporations of any size, public or private."

"The Court barely pauses to inquire whether any burden imposed by the contraceptive coverage requirement is substantial. Undertaking the inquiry that the Court foregoes, I would conclude that the connection between the families' religious objections and the contraceptive coverage requirement is too attenuated to rank as substantial."

"What the Court must decide is not the "plausibility of a religious claim, but whether accommodating that claim risks depriving others of rights accorded them by the laws of the United States."

"Importantly, the decisions whether to claim benefits under the plans are made not by Hobby Lobby or Conestoga but by the covered employees and dependents, in consultation with their health care providers. An employee of Hobby Lobby or Conestoga is of course under no compulsion to use the contraceptives in question. But no individual decision by an employee and her physician -- be it to use contraception, treat an infection or have a hip replaced -- is in any meaningful sense their employer's decision or action." It is not compelled by the government either, but is "the woman's autonomous choice, informed by the physician she consults."

"Even if one were to conclude that Hobby Lobby and Conestoga meet the substantial burden requirement, the Government has shown that the contraceptive coverage, for which the ACA provides, furthers compelling interests in public health and women's well-being. Those interests are concrete, specific, and demonstrated by a wealth of empirical evidence. The coverage helps safeguard the health of women for whom pregnancy may be hazardous, even life-threatening."

"The Court ultimately acknowledges a critical point: RFRA's application 'must take adequate account of the burdens a requested accommodation may impose on non-beneficiaries'. No tradition, and no prior decision under RFRA allows a religious-based exemption when the accommodation would be harmful to others -- here, the very persons the contraceptive coverage requirement was designed to protect."

The government argues that the least restrictive means has been used; the Court suggests the government pick up the tab for those not covered under the exemption.  Ginsburg says: "A 'least restrictive means' cannot require employees to relinquish benefits accorded them by federal law in order to ensure that their commercial employers can adhere unreservedly to their religious tenets." Furthermore, "impeding women's receipt of benefits by 'requiring them to take steps to learn about, and to sign up for, a new government funded and administered health benefits was scarcely what Congress contemplated." "And where is the stopping point to the 'let government pay' alternative?"

" The Lee Court made two key points one cannot confine to tax cases. 'When followers of a particular sect enter into commercial activity as a matter of choice, the limits they accept on their own conduct as a matter of conscience and faith are not to be superimposed on statutory schemes which are binding on others in that activity. Further, the Court recognized in Lee that allowing a religion-based exemption to a commercial employer would 'operate to impose the employer's religious faith on the employees'."

"How does the Court divine which religious beliefs are worthy of accommodation and which are not? Would the exemption ...extend to employers with religiously grounded objections to blood transfusions, antidepressants, medications derived from pigs, and vaccinations?" While she says the Court sees nothing to worry about, concluding that the ruling is concerned solely with the contraceptive mandate, Ginsburg counters:

"There is an underlying interest, I believe, in keeping the courts 'out of the business of evaluating the relative merits of differing religious claims.' Indeed, approving some religious claims while deeming others unworthy of accommodation could be 'perceived as favoring one religion over another,' the very 'risk the Establishment Clause was designed to preclude.' The Court, I fear, has ventured into a minefield'."

The court’s four liberal justices called it a decision of “startling breadth” and said that it allows companies to “opt out of any law (saving only tax laws) they judge incompatible with their sincerely held religious beliefs.”

And therein lies the kernel of truth that is being overlooked by most commentators and news media. This decision makes the rule of Law secondary to religious belief. And that, dear reader, is the basis of Sharia law, and of any system that puts religion or religious belief above the rule of civil law. The very officials who are supposed to be protecting the primacy of the rule of law have managed to attack it in such a way that individuals or corporations may now be able to question compliance with any law that does not conform to their individual religious beliefs.

Does it logically follow upon this decision that polluting industries can object to pollution laws on the basis of the bible giving dominion over the earth to human beings in Genesis? Can corporations now object to, and exempt themselves from, laws that require equal opportunity hiring based on scripture that denounces homosexuality; or that says that women are not equal to men? Can they now cite the religious belief that the earth was created in seven days by Yahweh/Jehovah/God and thus exempt their children from public school attendance because the school does not teach "creationism"?

Not only that. The five conservative Justices have now threatened your religious liberty because they have allowed the belief about the use of contraception as equivalent to abortion, to be the law of the land. They have sided with a particular religious belief, and thus established the doctrine of certain faith communities as the basis for this exemption. Those who do not hold this belief, and who believe in the right to free choice on the matter of abortion and contraception, are thus discriminated against and will be caught up in this favored treatment of certain religious groups over others when they are denied contraception coverage by their exempt employer; or eventually by their local pharmacy if it objects to selling contraception on religious grounds!

Moreover, this is a 1% decision. It was made in favor of rich corporation owners. It allows them to assert rights that enable them to wiggle out of responsibility to their employees. (Don't forget - the writer of this decision for the Court, Justice Alito, is known for his anti-Labor decisions and views). So are the Conservative Justices conspiring together to support the 1% as Congress has been wont to do?

Well, look again-- Hobby Lobby is not the only decision about capitalism handed down this term. There is also the little noticed Harris v. Quinn decision in which collective bargaining is weakened. According to a posting on SCOTUSBLOG, sponsored by Bloomberg News, the Harris decision makes it "unconstitutional to require personal assistants (to people with disabilities) to defray the costs of collective bargaining by paying a fee to the employee's union. Collective bargaining is substantially impaired when unions cannot require the workers who benefit from it to pay their share of the cost, and that is one result of this decision. Another likely result will be erosion of the collective-bargaining regime that has helped to stabilize the personal-assistance workforce." Down the road, many see the emergence of a case that will cement the primacy of right-to-work laws in the states.

The SCOTUS is aiding those plutocrats who believe that everyone has the responsibility for achieving success on their own; that "entitlements" produce laziness and dependency. You're now pretty much on your own for contraception, pension, health care, and college loans, and perhaps soon enough -- Social Security. This is another nail in the coffin of everyone who can be denied something by their employer. This is a capitalistic decision, not just a religious one.

But, it comes down to the same thing: putting the rule of (rich) men and their corporations before the rights and benefits of ordinary citizens; placing the beliefs, policies and opinions of the rich before the law of the land; allowing the law of the land to be accommodated to fit the perceived needs of the employer no matter what effect it may have on other parties. The SCOTUS conservatives are taking us down a “path” (note the Sharia reference) that offers little in the way of solace in terms of securing our rights.

Can we fail to ask then: are the conservatives on the Court involved in conspiratorial pursuits in favor of Christian practices and beliefs, or the ability of corporations to claim the right to free speech and religious accommodation, or the pursuit of enhanced power of employers over employees? I personally would not put it past them, even if it is a simple sharing of viewpoints in preparation for certain cases. At the very least, the conservative members of the Court have been laying groundwork for this flawed decision for some time. Citizens United declared corporations equivalent to individuals with free speech rights in the form of money donated to third party PACs. Then came McCutcheon telling government it cannot prevent citizens from giving campaign contributions to as many different candidates and political parties as they want. Of course, we can't forget Town of Greece and the approval of Christian prayer to open public meetings.

The Hobby Lobby decision has opened a can of worms, whether the Court recognizes it or not. The consequences for our society, our politics and our civil practices can be devastating simply because this Court has no regard for the primacy of "no establishment of religion" as stated in the first amendment. There is no firm basis for individual religious freedom if the establishment clause that walls off church and state is continually battered. Once particular doctrines, practices and beliefs of particular religions get encoded, favored, or allowed to be used to exempt an individual or corporation from a law of the land, we are in serious trouble as a democratic nation dedicated to the rule of Law and not of men.

Yes, we are being bamboozled; but, it’s worse than that. We are being saddled with the tenets of a minority who do not believe in the basic principles of democracy, and thus it’s very foundational principles are crumbling: “free speech” defined in terms of money; public safety given short shrift around abortion clinics (even though the Justices insist on their own safety as primary over protests at their offices); voting rights truncated and invalidated; establishment of one type of religious belief over another; denial of equality for all while favoring the rights and privileges of the rich; denial of the basic necessity of collective bargaining and the need for entities that can protest injustices in terms of pay and hours, benefits and safety measures; allowing open bribery in terms of elections; allowing employers to claim exemption from laws because of their religious beliefs.

This is not simply the misleading trickery involved in the art of bamboozling; this is destruction of the Rule of Law pure and simple!