Meals From The Marketplace

            Newt Gingrich’s serious run for the Republican presidential nomination may have been the shortest in U.S. history. 

            For those who blinked and missed the self-destruction of his campaign, Gingrich had just declared his candidacy two days earlier when he appeared on NBC’s “Meet the Press.”  Asked his view of the Paul Ryan Medicare-reform plan that all but four Republican House members had voted for, Gingrich said he opposed it because it was “social engineering from the right,” which he went on to say, as if to clarify himself, he regarded as just as bad as social engineering from the left.

            In addition to the fact that the social engineering isn’t even a relevant criticism of the Ryan plan and that the comment immediately alienated Gingrich from the majority of likely Republican primary voters, the remark will undoubtedly haunt the Republicans in next year’s elections as every Democratic candidate for Congress plays it incessantly as a way to drive home the unpopularity of the main Republican plan to reduce the deficit.

            But that comment wasn’t the only less-than-intelligent thing Gingrich had to say in his amazingly short-lived legitimate candidacy.  In a speech in Georgia that same weekend, the former Speaker of the House went off on immigrants, saying that any immigrant who wants to be a citizen should have to pass a U.S. history test.

            He apparently wasn’t aware that U.S. history is tested of all immigrants seeking U.S. citizenship, but that ignorance paled in comparison to the lack of knowledge about U.S. history Gingrich then revealed he had. 

            “And,” he added, “we probably ought to require that voters pass a U.S. history test, too.”

            Oh, really.  Let’s see, so that would be a poll test, as in the kind of Jim Crow requirement (then called “literacy tests”) that was used to keep black Americans from voting in the South for almost one hundred years after the Civil War? 

            Obviously, Mr. Gingrich’s test idea would run up against current U.S. law (starting with the Voting Rights Act) and so would most likely be a non-starter, kind of like his candidacy.  Or maybe he would distinguish his test from the racist ones of that unpleasant period in U.S. history by claiming that it would be the same test for all Americans and therefore could not be deemed prejudicial.

            Ah, but then the question would arise as to just what history the test would cover?

            Would it include, for example, the racist extermination of the Native Americans who were either killed or forced into rural ghettos in the “manifest destiny” that Mr. Gingrich is undoubtedly so proud of in the America he loves? 

            Would it cover the lengthy period of slavery in the Southern states, and the recognition of slavery in the original U.S. Constitution?  Would it ask the test takers to describe how families were torn apart by slave trade or to explain the infamous Supreme Court decisions of Dred Scott (requiring the return of an escaped slave to his “master”) and Plessy v. Ferguson (declaring that segregated “separate-but-equal” education was constitutional)?  Would it include the de facto and de jure segregation that existed throughout the nation until well into the 1960s or the violence perpetrated by the Ku Klux Klan for much of the twentieth century? 

            Would it cover the internment of American citizens during World War II, when native-born Americans who happened to have Japanese ancestors, were, under force of law, taken from their homes, forced to give up all of their personal property, and placed in concentration camps at the same time that the country was fighting a Fascist state that also featured concentration camps.

            Would it include the mass murder of hundreds of thousands of civilians when the only atomic bombs ever detonated on humans were dropped on the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki at the end of World War II?  Would it include the current, and well-founded, historical view that the bombs were not necessary to end the war, and that, contrary to the claim that was sold to a war-weary nation at the time, Japan was ready to surrender and would have if a reasonable peace treaty had been presented to it?

            Would it cover the grotesque reign in the early years of the Cold War of the House Committee on Un-American Activities that featured the blackballing of noted and distinguished Hollywood artists who had toyed with communism during the Great Depression?  Would it include the witch-hunting demagoguery of Joseph McCarthy, who destroyed the lives of many good Americans by merely claiming they were communist sympathizers?

            Would the test cover the CIA’s overthrow of the administration of a democratically-elected Marxist president (Salvadore Allende) in Chile in 1973?  Would it include the tacit support for the coup d’état in Iran in 1954 that overturned another democratically-elected leader in favor of the Shah (thereby setting the stage for the current long-standing enmity between the U.S. and that Muslim state)? 

            Would it include the social upheaval that the Viet Nam War caused, with Americans marching against the war in their nation’s capital and being subjected to tear gas and police brutality for asserting their constitutional rights? 

            Would it include the killing of college students at Kent State in Ohio and Jackson State in Mississippi when students protested peacefully on each of those campuses?  Would it cover the cold-blooded murder by U.S. military forces of an entire village of Vietnamese civilians at My Lai in 1968?

            And would it include the truth about the “preventive war” that the country initiated in Iraq in 2003, in complete violation of international law, there being no threat to American interests from that country at the time of attack?  Would it cover the torture engaged in by the United States in Abu Ghraib and at the U.S. prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba?

            These are some aspects of the country’s history that might appear on the test Mr. Gingrich wants to require of all voters.  He is undoubtedly a proud American.  I just wonder if he could pass his own test.

            Aren’t graduations grand?  The sense of real accomplishment for the graduates; the feelings of pride in their loved ones; the caps and gowns; the pomp and circumstance; the photos and hugs; the tears and smiles.  It’s about as good as life gets when you come right down to it.

            Think about it.  How many times in your life have you felt that you earned something for your own hard work, received recognition for it, and had all your loved ones admiring you for it.  That trifecta – accomplishment, recognition, admiration – is rarely experienced by most of us.  But we do get to experience it if we graduate from an academic institution that pulls out all the stops and makes a big deal of it, as most high schools, colleges and graduate schools do.

            I teach at the McGeorge School of Law in Sacramento.  McGeorge is the law school for the University of the Pacific, which has its main campus in Stockton.  The geographic separation of the campuses allows us to have our own graduation, and I must say we put on a pretty good show. 

            Our latest effort, held again this year at the Memorial Auditorium in downtown Sacramento, was another big success, despite the threatening weather (overcast and cool, especially for mid-May, when it isn’t unusual for temps to be up in the 90s).

            It isn’t that we do anything all that unique.  We faculty members march in to begin the proceedings, followed by the 300 or so graduates, all to Elgar’s perfectly composed music (how could these ceremonies have taken place before his score was published?) played on the hall’s organ by a fine musician hired for the occasion. 

            The parents, spouses and children of the graduates stand and applaud.  Some take photographs; others video the entire scene.  (I’ve often wondered how many of those videos have me smiling at the camera as we march by.)

            Once we are all assembled, the faculty on the stage, the students in the front rows in the audience, friends and family in the rows behind them and in the balcony, our Dean (Elizabeth Rindskopf Parker) introduces herself, and a quartet of my colleagues join to sing the National Anthem (a cappella, and some years you can even recognize the melody).   Then there is a prayer, thanking God for the wonders of the day, in so many words, followed by the speeches.

            Now to be completely candid, in most instances, graduation speeches are not great oratory.  Was it Ogden Nash who said, “If all the commencement speakers were laid end to end, it would be a good thing”?  Or maybe it was Will Rogers. 

            In any event, our graduation speeches are provided by our university president (Pamela Eibeck), a distinguished member of the bar (this year newly appointed U.S. District Court Judge Kim Mueller), three students (representing our day and evening J.D. graduates and our LL.M. graduates) and, this year, one of our faculty (Thom Main, who was chosen as the graduates’ favorite prof for the umpteenth time; not that I’m jealous or anything).  Thankfully, most of the orations were relatively short, and some were even memorable. 

            The graduates then are called one by one to walk across the stage while their scholastic accomplishments are read.  They receive a hearty handshake from President Eibeck and Dean Parker, have their photos taken with each, and receive their diplomas (actually just the folder, as the diplomas are handed out off stage). 

            It is this part of the ceremony that I most enjoy.  Seeing the students I have worked with for the last three years achieve their goal is a source of great satisfaction for me (and, I’m sure for all of my colleagues as well).

            It’s what teaching is all about – the hard work that you force your students to do so they can gain the knowledge necessary to enter the profession that you are so proud to be a member of.  And a lot of that work often results in some of the students thinking less than kind thoughts about us.  (I was once told that my photo was in the center of a dart board in one student’s apartment.)

            But when all the tests have been taken, all the briefs written, and all the oral arguments delivered, the pain and anguish is replaced with relief and elation, and we, the faculty that have pushed them so hard and made their lives so miserable, now get to share, vicariously, in their joy.

            I love teaching.  As much as I loved practicing law, in all the various forms of practice I engaged in, teaching has been the most satisfying of my career pursuits.  And it is at our law school’s graduation each spring that I get my reward, which is to cheer for each of the students I’ve grown close to over the years as they have their moment of glory.

            And after the ceremony, we have a big reception on our campus.  I love walking around the quad visiting briefly with graduates and their families.  Some want to have their photos taken with me; others want me to meet their parents.  Occasionally, one will say something very special, like “I want you to know that I am a better person because I had you as a professor.” 

            Those are moments to be cherished.

            For someone like me, apart from the life I’ve had with my wife and sons, my students and my work with them are how I want to be remembered.  I know that sounds ridiculously sentimental, maybe even silly, but it’s true. 

            Teaching is hard work; good teaching requires everything you have to give.  And you have to give it selflessly and unconditionally. 

            The responsibility I feel every fall when a new academic year begins is almost overwhelming, especially when I look into a classroom full of nervously enthusiastic first-year law students.  The work is constant, thoroughly preparing for each class session, carefully grading each memo and brief, giving each student the personal time he or she needs, discovering better ways to reach each of them, learning with them and from them. 

            And graduations make it all worthwhile.

            Osama bin Laden’s death on May 1 secured long-delayed justice for millions of Americans.  Few who experienced the horrific terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, did anything other than rejoice at the news, delivered by President Obama, that a small force of Navy SEALs had done the deed. 

            And most of us didn’t particularly care how it had been accomplished.  The President’s remarks, mentioning a firefight that suggested armed resistance and including the news that no Americans had been harmed, was really as much information as most of the country needed to know.

            But, of course, the White House staff couldn’t leave well enough alone.  Pressed by media reporters and journalists for additional details, Homeland Security advisor John Brennan described an “intense firefight” and said that bin Laden’s last moments included his use of one of his wives as a human shield.  He also claimed that bin Laden offered armed resistance.

            All of those details were inaccurate, or to be more blunt, they were untrue.  Mr. Brennan is much admired in the administration with respect to his role in national security, but as a press spokesperson he was clearly out of his element.

            The revised story from the White House, probably intended to provide cover for Brennan’s gaffe, was that the wife in question was not being used as a human shield but had instead been shot in the leg as she charged at the SEALs.  And bin Laden, when he was shot in the head (and, as later revealed, the chest), was not armed.  But, as the revised report went on to “clarify,” he was “resisting.”

            Really?  How, exactly, might he have been doing that?  Was he perhaps raising his fists so as to throw a few punches?  (Remember, we’re talking about a grey-bearded, 54 year-old man.)  Or was he, more probably, raising his hands in an effort to surrender?  I’m guessing he was stunned that his security had been breached and was more dumbfounded than anything else.

            But the misinformation went on.  Later reports clarified that the “intense firefight” was actually limited to small arms fire (i.e. a handgun) that one of bin Laden’s couriers fired at the SEALs.  That clarification still might not have it right.  My guess is that there was no exchange of gunfire at all because the SEAL’s assault caught the inhabitants of the residence flat-footed.

            But whatever actually happened, whether it was a full-blown firefight with bin Laden firing rounds from a high-powered assault weapon or a stealth attack by the SEALs that had all the residents of the compound begging for mercy, the end result – the death of bin Laden – was clearly the goal of the mission. 

            In other words, this was a “take-no-prisoners” assault.  And, lest there be any doubt, such an operation had to have been ordered by the President himself.  The Navy SEALs are pros.  They carry out orders.  They would not shoot an unarmed adversary without explicit directions to do so.  We aren’t talking about a bunch of Blackwater “contractors” here.  These guys play it by the book, and in this case, the book was written by the Commander-in-Chief.

            What I’m saying is that the President ordered bin Laden’s assassination and the White House then tried to cover up that fact.

            This kind of dissembling shouldn’t be a big surprise.  Transparency (the political word for honesty) is almost never applicable in government-speak.  What is a surprise is how inept each administration is at creating “cover stories.”  Time after time, we’ve seen presidents or members of their administrations offer bogus stories of events or explanations of decisions, only to have the truth ultimately come out.

            And we wonder why voters distrust their government.

            In this instance, the cover story was entirely unnecessary.  A capture of a live bin Laden would have been a terrible result, almost as bad as a botched mission that didn’t get him at all.  A captured bin Laden would have been an immediate source of Al Qaeda recruitment, not to mention efforts to secure his release through kidnapping of American officials and citizens, as the United States tried to figure out what to do with him.

            Would he have been subjected to imprisonment at Guantanamo, there to be tried by a military tribunal?  Would he have been tried in our domestic criminal courts?  Would he then have been allowed all the due process rights accorded other criminal defendants in our system?

            How many Americans would have been kidnapped in any number of countries to serve as hostages in demands for his release?  How many terrorist attacks on U.S. interests would have been attempted while he remained in custody (perhaps even for years as he awaited execution pending appeals)?

            And what would most Americans be feeling while this mastermind of the 9/11 attacks remained alive and in custody? 

            What President Obama should have said was that he had ordered the operation and that his orders were to kill bin Laden on sight.  That would have been honest, and he would have been applauded by all but a very few Americans for giving those orders.

            Instead, the President and his administration will now face months of Congressional hearings, investigative reports, and cable-news/talk-radio backbiting as the truth slowly comes out, drip by drip.

            But Presidents (being politicians first and foremost) cannot learn this lesson.  Their instincts tell them that the truth is dangerous.  You never know, the thinking goes, who will take offense if you tell the truth or honestly state the reasons for your decision. 

            So you try not to say very much at all or, when pressed, you throw out something you think will be less offensive or less likely to create controversy or put you in a negative light.

            Often, that approach works.  Many events and most decisions aren’t all that significant, and even though questions might be asked, they don’t often have “legs” as the news hounds say.

            But this one will have legs.  Investigative reports will be published by major newspapers and aired on network and cable news shows, and books will be written about it by historians.  Ultimately, the truth will come out, and it will not be particularly pretty, however justified the action was.  Moreover, it will again confirm to the American people that while they might be able to trust their President to do the right thing, they can’t trust him to tell them the truth.

            President Obama made the right call in killing bin Laden.  He made the wrong call on how he reported it.

(Part One)

            Grover Norquist isn’t exactly a household name, but he has been called the second most powerful man in America (by MSNBC’s Lawrence O’Donnell).

            Norquist is the president of Americans for Tax Reform.  He claims to have the signatures of 41 U.S. Senators and 236 members of the House of Representatives pledging not to vote for any measure that would in any way constitute a tax increase, be it an actual levy of some kind or a “reform-measure” that sought to close tax loopholes.

            In other words, Mr. Norquist has pledges that render virtually impossible any attempt to balance the budget or reduce the federal deficit (and the national debt) by increasing revenues.

            As you might expect, Mr. Norquist is extremely popular in Republican Party circles, especially those that support the plan of Representative Paul Ryan, the Congressman from Wisconsin whose deficit-reduction proposal recently passed the House.  Among other things, the Ryan bill would convert the single-payer Medicare system into a voucher program, thereby reducing its draw on the federal budget.  It would also reduce corporate tax rates significantly and maintain the current individual rates (those passed by the Republican-dominated Congress under the Bush administration in 2001 and 2003).

            The essence of the Norquist vision is also in lockstep with that of most proponents of the Ryan plan.  It is that by denying the funds to carry out government programs, those programs will cease to exist.  It’s a very thinly veiled form of the “starve the beast” strategy that was first introduced by Ronald Reagan (albeit Reagan was not nearly as “religious” about it as his current political descendants), whose real goal in running for office (other than to defeat the evil empire) was to roll back the New Deal and the Great Society.

            But Reagan, whatever else might be said about him, was an astute politician.  He quickly recognized that Social Security, the signature program of the New Deal, was much loved by most Americans.  And so he quickly backed a bi-partisan effort that successfully secured its viability well into this century.  (No, Social Security is not at risk, and won’t be for another 30 years under the current funding for it.)

            But its continued existence grates at the conservatives who have taken up Reagan’s philosophical fight.  They hate that it is a government program that takes care of people.  Governments, in this view, should not take care of people, because doing so teaches them not to take care of themselves.

            Whether this view has any merit is pure conjecture, but it should be recognized as the same argument against welfare programs.  But Social Security is not a pure welfare program, because it is largely paid for by the people who benefit from it.  (Welfare, on the other hand, is not paid for by the people who directly benefit from it.) 

            Simply stated, Social Security is a program that is funded by taxes that are used to pay the benefits the program provides.

            But the Ryan plan doesn’t target Social Security.  It has Medicare in its cross-hairs.  Medicare differs from Social Security, but it also is not a traditional welfare program.  It is not funded directly by the ultimate recipients of it, but it is guaranteed to everyone, unlike welfare programs that are targeted for those who are impoverished or otherwise in need.

            Medicare is an entitlement program, in that it is a government program that everyone becomes entitled to when they reach the age of 65.  It is paid for with general revenues, and therein lies the problem, because as the baby boomer generation reaches the entitlement age, starting this year, and as the cost of healthcare continues to increase dramatically, the program appears to be bankrupting the government.

            And so the fiscal logic of the Ryan bill is that if the current program cannot be paid for, it must be changed.  Ryan’s plan is to reduce the level of benefits provided by giving those 65 and over a voucher with which they can buy insurance to cover their healthcare needs.  And it would be a neat trick, essentially turning a government program into a private one, if it could work. 

            But, of course, it can’t.  No insurance company is going to cover seniors for their healthcare needs without either bankrupting themselves, or severely reducing the amount of coverage they provide to those seniors, or passing on the costs of their coverage to the younger purchasers of their insurance.

            And, since private industry is always in business to make a profit, the cost of those premiums will be appreciably higher than the comparable government (single-payer) plan now in existence would be.

            Thus is the Ryan plan revealed for what it is: a none-too-clever attempt to roll back the signature program from the Great Society.  Conservative purists would rejoice at this result, even as just about everyone without independent means would be far worse off than they are now.

            And that last point is the other aspect of the Ryan plan that must be understood.  It benefits the very wealthy (another top conservative agenda item) while making life more difficult for everyone else. 

            And here is where Grover Norquist and Representative Ryan meet philosophically and in practical effect.  Both seek to reduce spending that benefits the masses while increasing the amount of financial reward that the most financially successful have been able to attain. 

            Put simply, what Norquist, in his “no new taxes” mantra, and Ryan, in his “cut government spending” efforts, have in common is the pursuit of an America that is very good to those who are already very well off and very hard for those who have not yet realized the American dream.

            And, of course, it is all done under the guise of a crisis of allegedly monumental proportions, to wit: the ever expanding federal deficit.

            But isn’t there something fishy about a supposed cure that only looks to spending cuts (and indeed seeks even lower levels of revenue)?  You bet there is. 

            But, happily, there is an alternative, which I’ll unveil in the second part of this column.

(Part Two)

            Grover Norquist, the president of Americans for Tax Reform, and Paul Ryan, the Republican Congressman from Wisconsin, have a plan for America.  It consists of cutting taxes for the rich and reducing benefits for the rest of the country.  It is presented in the form of Ryan’s budget overhaul bill (passed recently by the House of Representatives) as a way to corral the runaway costs of Medicare while rejuvenating the economy. 

            But, as I suggested in the first part of this column, it is really just a way to reduce the role of government in the lives of most Americans while allowing those who have achieved incomparable wealth to increase even further their share of the pie.

            Happily, there is a better way to get the nation’s fiscal house in order, a way that doesn’t hit the middle and lower classes nearly as hard and that asks of the wealthiest only that they pay their fair share of the load.

            To get to the alternative, we need to talk about what our country has been and what it has become in terms of the distribution of wealth.

            As originally designed, America was a very egalitarian society, largely based on an agrarian economy.  If the founders had any thoughts about the acquisition of great wealth, it certainly wasn’t the one we have now.  The plan then, to the extent there was one, allowed for individual effort (normally in the form of hard labor, perhaps coupled with a good education) to yield a marginally better life than the rest of the community enjoyed.

            It’s safe to say that private jets and 90-foot yachts were not thought to be the mark of success then anymore than personally-owned spaceships are now (although such intergalactic vehicles may very well be on the current wish-list of a few of our multi-billionaires).

            My point is that in its early years, indeed, up until the early twentieth century, the acquisition of wealth in America was attainable to those who worked hard and made the most of opportunities that came their way.  And even up until the latter part of the 1900s, moving up in economic class was something that a good work ethic, coupled with a few breaks, could accomplish.

            But more recently, certainly over the last 30 years, moving up has been much harder for most Americans.  And in many instances, it isn’t for want of trying.  More Americans are pursuing higher education than ever before, yet fewer college graduates are attaining the same level of economic success as their parents.

            At the same time, a relatively small number of Americans, already wealthy to start with, have seen their wealth increase dramatically.  And so, the shares of the pie, as it were, have been re-divided, with a small number of people getting a large portion of it, while everyone else, with varying degrees of miniscule portions, have divided up the rest.  Upward mobility, for the great majority of Americans has become a false hope.  Just staying even is the new goal, if not the new American dream.

            Tax policy can reverse this trend, just as it has largely caused it.  The heavily graduated income tax rates that existed as the country emerged from World War II, with the highest rates over 90% for the top five percent of all incomes, have been reduced to barely 30% under the now-extended Bush tax cuts.  With little asked of them in terms of shared sacrifice, wealthy Americans have gotten ever wealthier. 

            And with little support from those on top, middle- and lower-class Americans have had to bear ever more of the burdens of making ends meet.  In essence, we have become a two-tiered society, with the few super rich on the top tier, and everyone else just plain struggling to make ends meet.

            In the face of this reality, a plan that seeks to reduce entitlements like Medicare and programs for the poor like Medicaid, while reducing taxes even more for the upper tier elite, is unconscionable, if not immoral. 

            Instead, the country should revert in the direction of the more significantly graduated personal income rates of the post WWII era.  If not a top rate of 91%, the rates that existed during those boom years of the Clinton presidency should be re-instated. 

            And, let’s recall that, coincidentally or otherwise, in the years following the 1993 Clinton tax increase, the economy, far from collapsing, as most Republicans predicted, actually exploded.  On the other hand, the years following the Bush tax cuts were dismal, if not devastating.

            Reverting to the Clinton tax rates will marginally increase taxes for middle- and lower-income Americans, while substantially increasing taxes for the upper crust types.  The result will be an immediate reduction of the deficit by at least half, according to most economists who have studied this alternative.  (The reduction would be even greater if/when the economy returns to anything close to normal output, something most economists believe is inevitable under any tax plan.)

            What I’m proposing is a new form of shared sacrifice.  It recognizes the value of taxes under this variant of a time-honored cliché: “You have to pay for what you get.”

            Most Americans want to be free of need or fear in their later years.  And they aren’t going to work any less knowing that their government is going to provide for them in those years.

            The choice is an easy one.  The nation can move in one of two distinctly opposite directions: towards a society with a small number of super-rich and an uncared for and left-to-their-own-devices citizenry, or towards a society with shared sacrifice that provides basic needs for those who have worked hard and struggled all their lives just to make ends meet.  Given the choice, the vast majority of Americans would opt for the latter alternative. 

            So, here’s the plan: Share the sacrifice.  Roll back the Bush tax cuts for everyone.  Then, when we reach a new sense of stability regarding budgets and deficits, we can look more dispassionately at what we want to get for what we pay.