Meals From The Marketplace

            Selecting the top performances of the year in and around Sacramento has always been a most difficult task, made even more so by our attempt to rank them from one to ten.  For the year just passed, we count a full two dozen noteworthy performances and productions, all of which could easily be included in a top ten list. 

            So, let’s understand from the outset that this list, as would be true for any observer’s list, is wholly and completely subjective, even arbitrary when it comes to distinguishing number one from number two or number ten from number eleven.  But since we only note ten, let’s start by acknowledging those that didn’t quite make the cut.

           The following list comprises the “honorable mentions” for 2010:

The Dresden Staatskapelle Orchestra’s October concert at the Mondavi Center (on the campus of U.C. Davis;

The Music Circus production of “Dirty Rotten Scoundrels” in August;

The Vienna Boys Choir’s February concert at Mondavi;

The Moscow State Radio Symphony’s March concert at Mondavi;

The Music Circus production of “Joseph and the Amazing Technicolor Dreamcoat” in July;

The Broadway touring production of “Rent” at the Community Center Theater in February;

The Russian National Orchestra’s February concert at Mondavi;

The Sacramento Choral Society’s “Stained Glass Series” concert in June (at the Cathedral of the Blessed Sacrament);

The Saint Louis Symphony’s April concert at Mondavi;

The Paul Taylor Dance Company’s November performance at Mondavi;

Vladimir Feltsman’s April piano recital at Mondavi;

The San Francisco Symphony’s October concert at Mondavi;

The Capital Stage production of “Hunter Gatherers” in June (on the stage of the Delta King Riverboat); and,

The season-long production of “Shear Madness” at the Cosmopolitan Cabaret.

            And now for the top ten performances of the year.  As is our custom, we’ll go from tenth to first.

10.  “42nd Street” – This fully enjoyable and completely satisfying Music Circus production included great dancing (led by Melissa Lone) and sparkling direction by Charley Repole.

9.  Dianne Reeves – This magnificent jazz singer’s October concert at Mondavi featured a wide range of styles as she was backed by a first-rate band.

8.  The Delfaeyo Marsalis Octet – Performing with an excellent 8-piece ensemble in Mondavi’s Studio Center, this Marsalis brother led a tour de force display of virtuosity by the entire band.

7.  The Sacramento Philharmonic – Under the direction of conductor Michael Morgan, this orchestra achieved near perfection in October at the Community Center Theater, in a concert that included one of the best interpretations of Tchaikovsky’s Fourth Symphony we’ve ever heard.

6.  “Spamalot” – The Music Circus production of this Monty Python creation was a hoot, imaginatively directed by Glenn Casale to accentuate the bawdy humor without detracting from the surprisingly good music.

5.  Ornette Coleman – The legendary innovator (now 80 years old) of “free jazz” played his sax with a quartet that improvised around his set pieces in a surprisingly accessible concert at Mondavi in November.

4.  Arlo Guthrie – Another legend, this one from the folk genre, Guthrie put his whole family (15 in all) on display in a feel-good concert that was top-notch for both artistic excellence and pure entertainment value.

3.  “The Seasons Project” – Leading the 15-member Venice Baroque Orchestra in a November Mondavi concert, violinist Robert McDuffie went from rock star, as soloist for the Vivaldi “Four Seasons” concertos, to classical virtuoso, for “The American Four Seasons,” a newly created concerto by Philip Glass.

2.  Steve Martin and the Steep Canyon Rangers – Displaying a wide range of impressive talent (banjo player, songwriter, singer and, of course, stand-up comedian), Mr. Martin shared the stage with an excellent quintet in an October blue grass concert at Mondavi that may have been the best attended and most widely acclaimed performance in the nine-year history of the venue.

1.  Sonny Rollins – The “Colossus” returned to Mondavi in May as he approached his 80th birthday and played as if he were half that age, delivering a non-stop barrage of great sax solos (backed by an excellent quartet) in a two-hour concert.  The man is truly incomparable, a living legend who is still at the top of his game.

            In sum, it was a great year for jazz performances (Rollins, Coleman, Marsalis, Reeves), symphony performances (Sacramento’s Philharmonic, Dresden Staatskapelle, Moscow State Radio Symphony, Russian National Orchestra, Saint Louis Symphony, San Francisco Symphony), individual stars (Steve Martin, Robert McDuffie, Arlo Guthrie, Vladimir Feltsman), plays and musicals (four from the Music Circus, “Rent,” “Hunter Gatherers,” “Shear Madness”), and choral and dance recitals (Vienna Boys Choir, Sacramento Choral Society, Paul Taylor Dance Company).

            May the new year be as bountiful.

            It will probably always be known as “twenty-ten,” the first of the two thousands to be so identified (since the aughts really aren’t so easily simplified).  And so, it will be unique in at least that respect, the first year to be “vernacularized” in our new millennium.

            But other than that far from momentous note, what else will the history books recall of the year just past?  Several events, in particular, caught my attention over the course of the year.  Some already have faded from active consciousness; others have remained front-page-worthy; and still others may be resting up for a return to prominence (perhaps in another guise).

            Herewith, then, is a review of the things that happened in twenty-ten that may be worth remembering as we move into twenty-eleven.

            In January, the Supreme Court, on a 5-4 vote, rejected much of the campaign finance reform legislation as it applies to corporations.   The case known as Citizens United, the corporate plaintiff’s name, now stands for the proposition that corporations (and labor unions and other formal associations) are entitled to full constitutional free speech protection as if they were real persons. 

            A week later, President Obama condemned the decision in his State of the Union address, prompting Associate Justice Samuel Alito, a member of the majority in the opinion, to mouth an objection (something like “not true”) from his seat in the front row.  That Alito (and Chief Justice John Roberts, who later took umbrage at the president’s remarks) would be so offended was a little odd, since Obama’s comments were no less condemnatory than were those of four of Alito’s own colleagues in their dissent from the majority opinion.

            As the election year progressed, Citizens United certainly appeared to be opening the coffers of corporations, if the amount of spending on campaigns was any indication.  The amount of money spent by outside groups on the off-term elections was unprecedented in American history.

            In March, health care reform was finally passed into law, as the Senate and House of Representatives approved and the President signed the massive bill that was quickly condemned as unconstitutional by the opponents of the mandatory portion of the bill. 

            The claim is that the Constitution does not permit the federal government to require citizens to do something (in this case buy health insurance).  The key constitutional provision at issue is the commerce clause, which allows Congress to enact laws that deal with activity that affects interstate commerce.

            What the new law provides is access to health care insurance for just about everyone legally residing in the country.  It also restricts insurance companies from dropping individuals due to new health issues or from denying coverage on account of pre-existing conditions.  It will either save billions or cost billions, depending on which side of the debate you listen to.  But, it at least responds to a great need: providing insurance for some 40 million Americans who until now had to rely on emergency rooms or self-brewed remedies for their ailments.

            In June, John Paul Stevens, one of the longest serving Supreme Court Justices in history (35 years) finally retired at the age of 90.  Stevens, appointed by a Republican president (Gerald Ford), had become the leader of the liberal wing of the Court, often persuading colleagues who otherwise may have gone the other way on many 5-4 votes.

           His replacement, Elena Kagan, the former dean of Harvard Law School, and most recently the U.S. Solicitor General in the Obama administration, may also rise to the occasion as a leader of that same liberal bloc.  But the changing of the guard, as it were, may play out as far more significant in the years ahead.  Time, as they say, will tell.

            The Deepwater Horizon oil rig blowout and the resulting oil spill consumed much of the news throughout the spring, as the various factions and interested parties ranted and raved and pointed fingers and denied responsibility.  In the end, the disaster was apparently less severe (no major damage to coastlines and no immediately obvious catastrophic ecological impact) than originally feared, but the lessons are still being debated.

            Was the “accident” the result of too little regulation, ineffective regulatory action, greed on the part of the oil company (British Petroleum) and/or its joint venture partners, and/or was it just a regrettable circumstance that no amount of planning or oversight could have prevented? 

            The summer and fall saw the ascendency of the Tea Party movement to the point of the election of at least five of its sympathizers to the Senate in November along with a number to the House and to state legislatures across the country.  All ran as Republicans, thereby helping the GOP to regain majority status in the House and to make significant inroads in the Senate.

            Whether the establishment Republican Party will be entirely happy with the new members of its caucuses as the legislative sessions begin to take shape is another matter entirely.  Some Tea Party electeds (Rand Paul, the new Senator from Kentucky, prominent among them) are already threatening to refuse to vote for an increase in the debt ceiling that will soon be reached.  Without an increase in that ceiling, the United States would go into default on its foreign debt obligations (which are considerable).  Most economists agree the result of such an action would be disastrous for the country’s (and the world’s) economy.

            But the year ended appeared to end on a high note of sorts, depending, again, on one’s perspective, with the Bush tax cut extension that President Obama and the Republicans struck in early December.  That deal resulted in what is being called a second stimulus package, with tax cuts in the form of the extended Bush marginal rates (for everyone), a payroll deduction of two percentage points for wage earners, renewed unemployment benefits (for a year), and a lighter estate tax than had been anticipated.

            And, as a result of the deal, “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” was finally repealed, New Start (the nuclear arms reduction treaty with Russia) was ratified, and the health care bill for the 9/11 responders was finally passed.

            Now, bring on twenty-eleven.

            In 2010, the Tea Party, that seemingly incoherent, non-descript movement that many scoffed at when it first appeared on the national scene a year earlier, achieved a form of legitimacy not realized by many of its predecessors.  In electing members and sympathizers to the House of Representatives, the Senate, and to many state legislatures, the movement exceeded the aspirations and successes of the many third parties that have come and gone in the 234 years of America’s existence.

            And yet, as many in the movement will claim, the Tea Party is not primarily a political party.  Instead, it is a loose conglomeration of Americans who seek to change the way governments operate in the country, primarily at the national, but also at the state, and, presumably, even at the local level.

            The main precepts of the movement are generally understood.  Less government would be the mantra, with the specifics to include less government spending, less government regulation, and less government involvement in the affairs of everyday citizens.  Government, for the Tea Party, works best when it works least, and especially when it spends least.

            At its core, the Tea Party movement is another expression of the discontent that has developed at various times in the history of the unique experiment in governance that the country’s Constitution provides.  That experiment, with its three separate and distinct branches of government, has always produced dissatisfying results for segments of the population, and, from time to time, those disgruntled segments have banded together in an effort to “fix” it.

            And that, stripped of all the rhetoric, is really what the Tea Party is all about.  The movement seeks to reform the system by severely restricting the power and authority of the governments that are the result of that system.

            There’s an inherent incongruity in this effort, of course, however unapparent and even irrelevant that incongruity may be to Tea Party adherents. 

            The Constitution established the basis for the development of a system of governance in the first place, and it did so with the implicit intent of establishing exactly the system that is now in place.  To be specific, the Constitution envisions a politically elected legislature comprised of two separate and distinct bodies: one with proportional representation, the other with disproportionate representation.  The one with proportional representation (each member representing approximately the same number of residents) would turn over every two years, thereby giving the people the opportunity to change course quickly should the popular will so require.

            The body with disproportionate representation (two members from each state, regardless of the population of each state) would only elect one-third of its membership every two years, thereby providing greater institutional consistency and less susceptibility to the whims of the electorate.

            Meanwhile, the executive branch would be run by a president who would also be elected by the will of the people, albeit through an indirect election process whereby each state would determine how its proportionally-identified electors would cast their votes.  Occasionally, as many as three times in the nation’s history, that result has been at odds with the actual popular vote of the people.  But, again, that’s how the system was intended to operate, and so it has, anomalous results as recently as the 2000 presidential election notwithstanding.

            The third branch of government, the judiciary, was set up to be independent of electoral politics, with judges appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate, thereupon to serve for life (or until voluntary retirement). 

            Thus the Constitution envisioned a Supreme Court that would be above the will of the majority, uninfluenced by popular pressures and predilections.  That the directives from that Court would occasionally, if not frequently, ruffle the feathers of the majority’s will was contemplated and even anticipated by those who drafted the law that is supreme over all others in the land.

            So, what, from the Tea Party’s perspective has gone wrong?

            The answer is that this elaborate system has not worked to the advocates’ liking.  Through a vast array of legislative enactments, often sponsored by the president of the moment, and permitted on judicial review by the Court, the country has become top-heavy with government in most, if not all, phases of private life. 

            Thus, Tea Partiers will decry the size of government and the spending attendant to it, while reacting with great hostility to any suggestion that pet programs (Medicare, Social Security, and national defense in particular) need to be cut significantly (or even marginally).  They hate the size of their government and the presumed wasteful spending that must exist within it, but they like the programs that the government (via the “system”) has established and that the government (again via the “system”) has been empowered to administer.

            The dichotomy, indeed the logical inconsistency, in this picture is not accidental.  Despite their alleged reverence for the founders’ intent, as expressed in the Constitution, many Tea Partiers are unfamiliar with that document’s specific provisions. 

            When tea party activist Christine O’Donnell (candidate for the Senate in Delaware) expressed bemusement at the thought that the concept of separation of church and state was contained in the Bill of Rights (it has long been so interpreted in the Constitution’s First Amendment), she reflected a basic ignorance of the Constitution that, while not unique to Tea Partiers, is all too typical of them.

            In this respect, the Tea Party is not all that different from much of America.  Most Americans are ignorant of their nation’s Constitutional provisions.  Many Americans assume things are in the Constitution that are not (e.g. the ability of the president to declare war) and assume other things are not in the Constitution that are (e.g. the authority to impose taxes).

            But the Tea Party is more outspoken about how far off course it believes the nation to be.  Those beliefs may be heartfelt and well-intentioned.  And the change the movement seeks may well bear close consideration.  But without a thorough understanding of what the Constitution provides and how the system it envisioned actually works, cries for reform from the Tea Party movement ultimately cannot and must not be given credence.

            It was a bit macabre to see Bill Clinton holding court with White House reporters last week at his old hangout, right down the hall from the Oval Office.  The current president was at his side, looking very much like an emcee who has introduced the main speaker for the evening and then forgotten to leave the stage.

            Mr. Obama did finally leave, claiming he and his wife had a prior engagement, but that didn’t mean everyone else had to go, and, indeed, no one else did.  Mr. Clinton continued to engage the press with the same winning combination of charm and intellect that had captivated audiences for nearly a decade a mere decade ago.

            At some point, as he stood by the former president’s side, the current president must have been struck with the same thought many of the rest of us were having: why can’t I (Obama) be that good?  Some of us continued that rumination by noting that we thought he would be and are woefully disappointed that he isn’t.

            But that kind of thinking doesn’t go very far in modern-day presidential politics.  Every president brings his own strengths and weaknesses to the job.  Those with the communication skills of a Bill Clinton tend to be idolized more after they’ve left office than they were when they were in it.  And, for all his vainglorious pontificating and intellectual superiority, Mr. Clinton was hardly perfect, as his own party’s ignominious defeat in the 1994 mid-term elections more than substantiated.

            But neither, of course, is Barack Obama, who is still trying to “reinvent himself” after last month’s “shellacking” that he and his party suffered at the polls.  The final tally is a loss of a whopping 63 Congressional seats and six Senators, which if it isn’t a landslide, certainly makes the president’s own 7-percentage point popular vote victory two years earlier seem a lot less impressive.

            More to the point, it immediately raised serious questions about the likelihood that Obama would follow the path of Jimmy Carter (one term and out) rather than Mr. Clinton (two terms and probably could have been three but for term limits).

            Of course, Mr. Obama and his team would like to have different plans, if for no other reason than that at the end of a first term he would be far too young (51) to retire to a life of memoir writing and foundation funding.  And, too, it must be assumed that he actually has visions of a grand design for America’s future that would only be enhanced by a second four-year term.

            And so, in the weeks since the mid-term elections, we have seen a new Barack Obama, one who seems intent on finding his way back into the hearts of the American voter.  Thus, we got the latest tax bill which Mr. Obama proudly announced had resulted from a deal struck by Vice-President Joe Biden and one of his mortal political enemies, Mitch McConnell, the minority leader in the Senate.

            The deal, now enacted into law, freezes all of the Bush income tax cuts for another two years and also extends unemployment benefits through 2011 and cuts social security taxes by two percentage points for calendar 2011.  It also restores part of the estate tax that had disappeared by legislative fiat for all of calendar 2010, albeit the new estate tax will still be far lower than Obama and his Congressional allies had intended at the beginning of the year.

            Conservatives expressed grudging satisfaction with the deal, while liberals were aghast.  In both cases, the reactions were appropriate.  Conservatives gained the obvious: more tax relief for the super-rich, and the not so obvious: the opportunity to begin an assault on the country’s Social Security system (more on that point in a moment), while liberals got precious little: increased unemployment benefits for another year and no increase in income taxes for the vast majority of Americans. 

            Liberals also initially expressed pleasure at the two-percentage point reduction in payroll (social security) taxes until the B’rer Rabbit aspect of that provision became apparent.  By agreeing, oh so reluctantly, to that tax cut, Republicans had secured another campaign point to press a year from now.

            That point will be much the same one that we will see repeated in the election year of 2012, but it will have far more draconian consequences.  By arguing, as they assuredly will, that payroll taxes must not be increased (the country still being in a sluggish recovery from recession), Republicans will set the stage for making the lower tax rate permanent, with the result being that Social Security will become even less solvent and more at risk of insolvency.

            This is the old “starve the beast” strategy that is behind most of the tax cut chicanery the GOP has been playing for the last thirty years.  They don’t like anything that increases the size of government (save for military spending), especially when that increase takes the form of a dreaded “government handout.” 

            Social security is not a government handout, because it is paid for by the workers who ultimately benefit from it (when they reach retirement age), but that fact has become lost to the public consciousness with the passage of time.

            The current administration of the Social Security program is all part of the national budget, meaning the taxes collected through F.I.C.A. payroll deductions all go into the national treasury and are paid out of that same national treasury.  There is, in other words, no “lock box” for Social Security.  It’s just another government program, albeit an entitlement.  But if the entitlement can’t be afforded, it must ultimately be reduced in size or, in the extreme, repealed entirely. 

            And so, as President Obama took great credit for the passage of the near-trillion dollar tax bill last week, Mitch McConnell was smiling wisely at his side.  He knew who held the winning ticket in that deal. 

            The president may be trying to re-discover his magic, but as the year ends, he’s still no Bill Clinton.