Among all the rights guaranteed in the Constitution, the right to vote is the most important. Without it, the people lose their power and, with it, the risk of losing the rest of their rights. That is why watching some voters squander their right to vote is so troubling. 

Recent political news has kept me up at night. I fear America cannot survive another four years of Trump or Trumpism. I am unable to understand how intelligent, diligent voters can support a man who has been indicted for obstruction of justice, accused of rape, and is about to be indicted for sedition. 

It would be convenient, given my politics, if all “problem” voters were Republicans, but that is not true. I have yet to hear a compelling reason to support conspiracy theory-embracing Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. I also doubt the wisdom of voters who seem to think politics is exclusively about which candidate can deliver the most benefits, cut the most taxes, or who has the most charisma.

What makes a problem voter? Unfortunately, there are multiple causes. The first is disengagement. The worst voter is the one who does not vote. I will take idiotic voters, such as ones voting for Candidate X because their favorite rock star endorsed him or her, over one who has more important things to do than vote.

The second cause of problem voters is laziness. Thomas Jefferson considered an educated electorate as essential to democracy. Yet too many voters do not read the news or, even worse, rely on social media for their news. The result is a group of misinformed voters who believe wild and false information because “it is on the web.”  

Unfortunately, unscrupulous candidates from both parties have learned that lying can get you votes. Trump is the most prominent, but he has company. Is President Biden attempting to force all schools to teach Critical Race Theory? Is the White House refusing to release information proving the existence of extraterrestrial life?

The third cause of problem voters is the belief that, with the right leader, all problems in America will disappear. Hitler promised an end to Germany’s economic crisis that followed World War I. Trump told us that, among several things, undocumented immigrants were destroying America. He ran on solving those problems and then lied about his success. Unfortunately, the evidence of a mixed record notwithstanding, Trump’s followers still see him as a strong leader. It takes a courageous leader to call Jack Smith “deranged” and a “thug.” Right?

The fourth pitfall for many voters is the search for charisma. Today, Kamala Harris is widely disliked because “she lacks charisma” and is “unpresidential.”  Some voters choose their candidates based on their age, their race, their smile, and on which celebrities endorse them. Is it any surprise that so many unqualified, arguably crazy, people run for president? The practices of some voters make this happen—the best qualified candidates are rejected not on the basis of their abilities, record, or qualifications, but on what should be irrelevant personal characteristics.

The 2024 presidential vote is still about 16 months away. Am I naïve to hope that more voters will become engaged, get educated on the issues, and choose to support a candidate who is best for the country rather than one who promises them the most?

J.E. Dean is a retired attorney and public affairs consultant writing on politics, government, and other subjects. 

 

The well-meaning but naïve group calling itself the No Labels movement just moved one step closer to running a third-party presidential candidate in 2024. On Monday, the group released a lengthy set of policy proposals which, the group says, reflect the views of the millions of voters alienated by left-leaning Democrats and MAGA Republicans.

Donald Trump is not known for prayer, but he should say one for No Labels. If No Labels evolves into a third-party that competes in the 2024 election, it could put Trump back in the White House. No Labels, if it runs a 2024 “unity ticket,” is likely to be a spoiler. Political experts expect Trump to benefit. 

No Labels describes its genesis as a response to the harsh division in American politics. The group argues that millions of Americans—more than either the Democratic or Republican party—support centrist policies and want the two principal parties to quit fighting and address America’s problems. Sounds like common sense, doesn’t it? That is how No Labels describes its policy agenda. 

The leaders of No Labels are aware of the possibility of disrupting the 2024 elections, but, to date, are playing coy. The group tells us they are not a political party despite registering to run a presidential slate in several states. It has been recognized as a party in Arizona, Colorado, Alaska, Oregon, and Utah. More states will follow.

But who is this group that claims to be above current American politics? The group describes itself as “a national movement of commonsense Americans pushing our leaders together to solve our country’s biggest problems.” But what does “commonsense” mean? No Labels suggests the term refers to non-divisive policy solutions, policies other than those championed by either the far right or far left. 

No Labels has, sort of, determined what those policies are. It claims such policies reflect extensive polling and listening sessions with voters but the policy positions, at least as published in the group’s July 2023 brochure, lack specificity. The problem with this is that when nationally important policy is concerned, the devil, or the genius, is usually found in the details. 

While one hopes that No Labels will abandon its $70 million campaign, that is not likely. Can we trust them to not run a 2024 candidate? Have they earned our trust? 

The leadership of No Labels seeks to dispel concerns that the movement will be a spoiler in the 2024 election with a promise: “We will run a candidate only under the proper environmental conditions, which must be met for us to proceed.”  It adds, “We will measure these conditions rigorously, through regular polling and research.”

What are the “proper environmental conditions?” Who will determine if those conditions have been met? And who will interpret the polls? If those questions worry you, consider that the group has, thus far, refused to release the identities of its donors, independently reported to include several major Republicans. In other words, No Labels asks for our trust, but it is funded by dark money. Given that, we should worry. 

No Labels is also running against “Washington.”  The appeal of No Labels to many of its supporters is the belief that Washington politics are an obstacle to getting anything done in Washington. The group argues that Washington policymakers, with rare exceptions, are out for themselves. It also argues, “Washington only works for Washington. We’re working to change that.”

The appeal is a retread. It worked for Donald Trump and dozens of other legislators who have won seats in Congress—or the presidency—by running against Washington.

In the case of No Labels, the group suggests that the nation’s most passionate political divisions are somehow illegitimate and that extremists prevent a reasonable, commonsense solution from being developed. Does that mean that legislators who believe climate change is an existential crisis that demands extraordinary actions are part of the problem? It does, but only if you believe climate change can be addressed successfully with a compromise that carefully considers the interests of the fossil fuel industry. That seems naïve.

No Labels also promotes compromises for guns, abortions, border security, and more than a dozen other issues in its policy manifesto. Interested in the details? Read the pamphlet, and you will find generalities, not details. The details, No Labels seems to assume, will be worked out once the far right and left lose their power. Does that strike you as naïve?

No Labels seems to imply that passionate politics are toxic. The group argues, “This moment demands American leaders and citizens alike declare their freedom from the anger and divisiveness that are ruining our politics and most importantly, our country. A United Front. “

One wonders if No Labels would have proposed the colonies seek a middle ground with its dispute with England before the American Revolution. And should the North have split the difference with the South on the issue of slavery? (Actually, several attempts to “find the middle” were attempted before the Civil War started. One could argue that things like the Missouri Compromise postponed the Civil War and left millions in bondage for decades.) 

Some issues are sufficiently important that a compromise should not be sought. You are either for a woman’s right to choose or you are not. Suggesting that those outraged by the repeal of Roe v. Wade are somehow “ruining our politics and more importantly, our country” is offensive. 

Is it possible for No Labels to succeed? Yes, if the goal is four more years of Trumpism.

For more in-depth information on No Labels, I suggest reading the group’s policy brochure and a recent, excellent Washington Post article by Mariana Alfaro.

J.E. Dean is a retired attorney and public affairs consultant writing on politics, government, and other subjects.

 

America celebrated another birthday last week, but as I watched the fireworks I wondered, is this the next to last one? I sense our political system may be at a breaking point. If the 2024 election proves to be the disaster it is shaping up to be, our constitutional democracy might not be around on July 4, 2025.

The leading 2024 presidential candidates from each party are individuals who a majority of us do not want to run. One is widely seen as too old to run. The other does not support democracy and is well on his way to being a convicted felon. The election of either Joe Biden or Donald Trump could throw the country into a political crisis that could become the day American democracy died.

Joe Biden, of course is a friend of democracy. The problem with his election is that he might not survive another four years in office. His death or incapacity could trigger another Trump attempt to seize power by force, especially if the incredibly unpopular Kamala Harris becomes president. 

The problem of a Trump win in 2024 is that Trump is already promising to “take our country back,” and deliver retribution to the “thugs” who are prosecuting him. Plus, he evidences increasing signs of decline if not outright insanity. 

Trump is also too old to run for president—we just do not talk about it because there are so many other reasons why his 2024 candidacy is a threat to our future. He will be 78 years old on election day 2024.

So, are we doomed or is there a way out of the pending crisis? No and yes. We will be fine if both candidates drop their candidacies. For now, that looks unlikely, but it could and should happen.

I have a theory that Joe Biden’s decision to seek a second term resulted from his conclusion that Trump remains a potent political force and could regain the White House. Biden mistakenly believes that he is the best candidate to defeat Trump. After all, he did it before. Biden may also believe that if he were not running, the Democratic party would erupt into a slugfest between moderates and progressives that would facilitate Trump winning the election.

Biden could be right about the risk of a brutal Democratic party primary season, but he does not seem to understand how unpopular he is becoming. Every time the President misspeaks, stumbles on a stage, or appears tired, more voters conclude not only that he is too old to run for president, but that he is not functioning as president today. 

What could prompt Biden to rethink his decision to seek a second term? The answer is if Trump either dropped out of the race or is defeated in the Republican primaries.

To date, Trump is holding onto his base. I find it difficult to believe that anyone thinks Trump is “perfectly innocent” or is willing to take the risk of a convicted felon being elected president. Yet the numbers, so far, do not lie. 

Trump is not invulnerable. Last weekend I watched the video of Trump’s speech in Council Bluffs, Iowa. It was pathetic. Trump rallied Iowans by suggesting that Democrats seek to destroy Iowa by promoting electric cars (which do not need ethanol). He also focused on “the border” and, after calling Democrats “either evil or stupid” for promoting an open border, told the audience how he pressured Mexico into placing 28,000 troops on the border to stop illegal immigration. 

The speech, which included a reference to America going to hell, a claim that Biden is the most corrupt president in history, and that he would fix everything, was reminiscent of a Hitler speech from the 1930s. Trump uses fear and promotes hate to convince voters to support him.

Somehow, somewhere, somebody needs to take Trump down. The justice system may do it, but Trump can also be defeated if the Republican party finally rejects him. 

Could former New Jersey Governor Chris Christie be the candidate who makes that happen—the candidate who finally makes Republicans see Trump as the toxic cancer that he is? 

In recent weeks I have been encouraged—let me say excited—by Christie’s willingness to call Trump out. Christie has been outspoken in saying that it is time for Republicans to take a stand against Trump and recognize that he is the narcissistic grifter who tried to retain the presidency by force and lies in 2021.

The first GOP presidential debate is scheduled for August 23rd. Governor Christie will qualify for it by securing the requisite number of campaign donors. Will Trump participate? Given his congenital over-confidence, Trump might be persuaded to say yes. Christie expects Trump to be there and is looking forward to the chance to battle Trump directly.

If Chris Christie exposes Trump in a way that has not happened to date, Trump could decide to drop out of the race. That might clear the way for President Biden to change his mind about running in 2024. If that happens, we might get a younger, more energetic Democrat as the party’s nominee, and America might get to celebrate another birthday in 2025.

Naïve? Maybe, but there has to be a way out of this mess. I refuse to quit looking for it.

J.E. Dean is a retired attorney and public affairs consultant writing on politics, government, and other subjects. 

 

It might seem cruel to say, but the Supreme Court was right in striking down President Biden’s $450 billion student loan forgiveness plan. Yes, hundreds of thousands of students who thought the burden of their student loans had been lifted were greeted last Friday with the news that the SOBs on the Supreme Court—the same ones who overturned Roe v. Wade—have condemned them to a life of servitude which, many of them believe, is inherent in borrowing money to go to college.

Most of us are sympathetic to the student loan borrowers. I did not enjoy borrowing money for college but had no choice. It was either borrow or not go to law school. I also found that my student loan repayments, small when compared with what recent generations of student debtors owe, were a hindrance. Buying a new car was out of the question. Taking on more debt, even after I secured a good paying job made possible by the education I financed, seemed reckless. So, I did not do it. I even worried about being able to repay the loan if I found myself unemployed, so I paid more than the required monthly repayment amount. I printed out a loan amortization table and calculated how I could avoid future loan repayments by making prepayments.

When President Biden announced his student loan forgiveness plan, I was (correctly) not included. The idea of repaying student loan borrowers for payments made many years previously is ridiculous. Reimbursing borrowers who paid back their student loans is, however, somehow fair. Had I not had to repay my student loans, I could have saved more, and would have a lot more money today. Or perhaps I could have visited St. Petersburg and visited the Hermitage before Putin effectively closed Russia to sane Americans. You get the idea, but, fortunately, President Biden drew a line. The loan forgiveness program could have cost more than a trillion dollars if taken to its logical extreme. 

President Biden was right to not include me in his student loan plan. And, but for the lack of authority to forgive part or all loans of 43 million borrowers, was right to seek loan forgiveness for student loan borrowers struggling with student loan debt.  The problem, identified by the conservative majority on the Court in striking down Biden’s action, is that the law on which Biden premised his loan forgiveness plan did not allow it.

The Court majority analyzes the 2003 HEROES Act, which grants the president authority to waive or modify student loan repayment terms to respond to hardships caused by national emergencies, and concludes that it is inconceivable that Congress intended the wholesale forgiveness of $450 billion in student loans with no analysis of whether the individual borrowers identified for forgiveness needed the help.  The Court’s dissenters, three liberal Justices, argued that there is no explicit limitation on the right of the president to “waive or modify” and that a waiver can be as broad as the president would like. 

Following the logic of dissenters, President Biden could have forgiven every penny of student loan debt. If a child of Elon Musk, for now the world’s richest oligarch, had a student loan, the Justices could have argued, President Biden could have freed him of the nuisance of having to repay the loan.

President Biden responded to the Court’s decision by condemning it. He vows to find another way to deliver on his promise of debt forgiveness. Will Biden be able to do something? Yes. The Court’s decision recognizes the power of the president to “waive or modify.”  Biden will be able to provide better-targeted loan relief to millions of borrowers. 

All of us should be glad that President Biden cares so much about student loan debtors. Even though the concept of forgiving student loan debt is highly political, the reality of out-of-control student debt is real for millions of borrowers. 

President Biden has executive authority to provide targeted student loan debt relief, but he needs to part company with Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), the politician responsible for pushing Biden to exceed his executive authority by basing $450 billion of federal spending on what she saw as a loophole in a statute. 

Congress is highly unlikely to simply go back and amend the HEROES Act with language like, “The President can declare anything he wants to be an emergency and forgive any federal debt owed by anyone, regardless of the federal costs involved or whether the forgiveness is fair or needed.”  Such a “solution” would be easy. It would also be monumentally unfair, illegal, fiscally reckless, and stupid.

The brouhaha resulting from the Court striking down the Biden plan should prompt Congress and the public to take an in-depth look at the cost of higher education and the issue of how students and their families finance it. At the top of the list is addressing the problem of college costing too much. Congress must figure out a way to make college affordable without massive student loan debt. The best student loan is the one never made. 

Congress also needs to face up to the reality that if you forgive current student loan borrowers’ debt, you are creating a precedent for future generations to ask for the same thing. It may be time to abolish student loans altogether and for Congress to figure out a way to make college free for most Americans. Possible? Yes. Extremely difficult? Absolutely. 

The full text, including the dissenting opinion, of Biden v. Nebraska may be found here. 

J.E. Dean is a retired attorney and public affairs consultant writing on politics, government, and other subjects. He is a former counsel to the Committee on Education and Labor of the U.S. House of Representatives where he worked on student loan and other higher education legislation. 

 

These are worrisome times for those of us who have nightmares about a revengeful, reckless Donald Trump returning to the White House in 2025. Yes, it could happen despite a growing stack of indictments (two down, two or more to go, including the big one for sedition in Washington) and Trump’s increasingly bizarre behavior. 

Incredibly, Trump’s following in his party has increased since April. Logic still suggests that age or his legal troubles will eventually overwhelm him, forcing him to quit the race, but that has not happened yet. And it might never happen.

That is why Democrats need to rethink their 2024 strategy. They need to take some risks. They need to accept that a majority of voters do not think an 80-year-old, regardless of his accomplishments, should run for president. They need to calculate the risks of Biden becoming seriously ill or incapacitated between now and election day and being forced to quit in the middle of the election, a scenario that would create chaos. That risk is material. There has to be a Democratic actuary out there. Her help is needed—now.

In an ideal world, it would be the “Big guy” himself who gathers a small group of the party’s top leaders and lets them know he has changed his mind about running in 2024. By doing so, much of the risk of Biden not running can be avoided. Those risks include the party being hijacked by a candidate too-far-left to get elected or a candidate susceptible to Trump’s gift of destruction by ridicule, lies, racism, and misogyny. Put another way, resurrecting Hillary Clinton or choosing Elizabeth Warren will not work.

The party needs to create a checklist to select a candidate who can withstand Trump, exude ethics and honesty, and credibly continue the policies that have made Biden’s presidency one of accomplishment. The list would be aspirational.  It likely will be all but impossible to find a candidate able to check every box.  The list would not be “non-negotiables,” but ideals.

What should the Democrats be looking for? The candidate must be young, but also must be experienced and savvy enough to address the challenges of today. This means a candidate with extensive military or foreign policy experience. Similarly, a grasp of artificial intelligence would be a plus since regulating AI will be a top agenda item for the next five years. And the party needs a candidate who is personally committed to racial and economic justice, ideally as evidenced in the candidate’s own background and experiences. 

In summary, the list would include being right on issues important to voters, having the experience and temperament to handle the issues likely to  be encountered as president, having expertise in the emerging challenge of AI, and having a dedication and background to relate to—and be relatable to—most Americans.

That may seem like a simple list, but it would exclude many alternatives to Joe Biden that come to mind. Thinking about Michelle Obama as the candidate? Does not meet the criteria. How about Gavin Newsom? I am not sure. Maybe. Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.? Do you have to ask?

Who should top Democrats be thinking about? Until they develop their criteria, nobody.  To avoid a mistake, the party needs to know what it needs before starting to consider names.  Once the list is completed, party leadership should be open to considering lesser known candidates.  Two examples would be Maryland Governor Wes Moore and Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro.  

Ideally, if the Democrats, under the leadership of President Biden, decide to rejuvenate the party by finding a candidate who checks as many of the boxes as possible, the defeat of Diet Coke swigging Trump, who will be 78 years old on election day, could be easy. 

Imagine the Democratic party rallying behind a ticket that embraced its commitment to diversity, democracy, progress, and national unity. It is likely that such a strong ticket would dissuade the “No Labels” movement from running a candidate and unintentionally helping Trump. Pre-empting No Labels by itself is a reason for the party to consider taking the risk of moving on from Biden.

Joe Biden deserves America’s thanks for defeating Trump in 2024, leading us out of the pandemic, and making progress on social justice. He has repaired out alliances in Europe and elsewhere, established America as the leader of efforts to support Ukraine in its war against Russia, helped to prevent a recession, and stood up for basic civil rights, including the rights to abortion and to vote. 

A decision to pass the proverbial baton to a new generation would cap Biden’s career and make him a national hero. Let’s hope that happens. 

J.E. Dean is a retired attorney and public affairs consultant writing on politics, government, and other subjects. 

 

I did not have to check the official record last week to confirm that when the House of Representatives passed the bipartisan compromise to raise the federal debt limit and avoid a default on federal debt, that Andy “Handgun” Harris voted no. I also did not need to hear his explanation for his vote. Donald Trump had already issued his order during the now-infamous CNN New Hampshire Republican Town Hall Meeting on May 10. At that event, Trump called for a default on the federal debt. Harris’ vote was consistent with Trump’s call.

On June 2, like other First District residents who subscribe to Harris’ newsletters, I received a particularly offensive email from Dr. Harris. Our congressman (and my hand shakes as I write that) had the audacity to boast about his irresponsible vote on the recently passed increase in the federal debt ceiling and to tell us that he was doing what we wanted him to do as our representative in Congress. Really?

I do not recall anyone asking Dr. Harris to precipitate a national economic crisis by defaulting on the federal debt. 

Consider what Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen said on May 11 about the consequences of not increasing the debt ceiling, “A default would threaten the gains that we have worked so hard to make over the past few years in our pandemic recovery. And it would spark a global downturn that would set us back much further. It would also risk undermining US global economic leadership and raise questions about our ability to defend our national security interests.” 

Does Harris, an anesthesiologist by trade, think Yellen is lying?

Don’t trust a Democratic Treasury Secretary who also served as Federal Reserve Chair? International Monetary Fund economist Filippo Gori told us, “It [a default] would be a spectacular debacle—weakening the U.S. economy and undermining the United States’ international standing.”

Harris’ vote suggests he and the defeated ex-president, who knows a thing or two about defaulting on debts, think they know better than Yellen and Gori. They do not. 

What did Harris tell us in his email: “I voted No. [in Red].”  He added, “Maryland families and the voters in my district didn’t send me to Washington to write blank checks for the federal government–they sent me to Congress to permanently change the way Washington does business and this includes getting our fiscal house in order.”

First District voters may be conservative, but they did not elect Harris with the intention of collapsing the U.S. economy. One might add that Harris is right that voters do not want Congress to “write blank checks.”  Harris does not add that he always votes for tax cuts and against tax increases regardless of the current state of the national debt. 

First District voters also did not elect Harris to jeopardize federal programs that many people in his district depend on, things like food assistance, healthcare, aid to schools, and support for improving our roads and bridges.

Harris also tells us, “I have always believed that if we raise the debt ceiling by a dollar, we should reduce spending by a dollar.” That sounds like simplistic nonsense to me.

Harris is okay supporting tax cuts for the wealthy regardless of whether they increase the federal debt. Following his logic, tax cuts will force additional cuts in federal spending. To him, that is a good thing, regardless of whether the programs which spending supports are needed in the First District.

Andy Harris’ vote reflects a willingness to risk a federal debt default and the interruption of benefits to his constituents. If asked, maybe Harris would tell us that he only voted “no” after realizing that the bipartisan compromise on the debt ceiling had the votes to pass. We will never know whether this is true. And I do not want to know. I just want Harris gone.

The First District did not send Harris to Washington to engage in extreme right-wing politics, including attending the infamous White House meeting to discuss overturning the 2020 presidential election results. 

The Eastern Shore has real needs. Why not focus on those for a while and quit being a toady for Donald Trump? The First District deserves better representation in Congress. Andy “Handgun” Harris just proved that with his irresponsible debt ceiling vote. 

J.E. Dean is a retired attorney and public affairs consultant writing on politics, government, and other subjects. 

 

 

Are you celebrating the end of the debt ceiling crisis? You know, the predicted collapse of the U.S. economy triggered by the federal government defaulting on its debt because a 1917 law prohibits it from issuing debt beyond a level set in statute. That limit is currently $31.4 trillion. 

The compromise announced over the weekend is a victory for both sides. Biden’s willingness to compromise with Republicans averted a default on federal debt. Republicans won restraints on spending and several other priorities, including reducing new funding for the IRS and imposing work requirements for many beneficiaries of the SNAP (formerly known as food stamps) program.

Politics can be a difficult, ugly process, but in the case of the Republican decision to use a confrontation on the debt ceiling to achieve several of its 2024 political priorities, it worked. Should that be celebrated? Should President Biden have been tougher in negotiations? Those are valid questions. 

Thanks to the agreement, which is expected to be approved by Congress and signed by the president, the next debt ceiling crisis will not happen until 2025, after the next presidential election. 

I am not celebrating the end of the “crisis” because it never was one. The lines drawn in the sand by both the White House and Mr. McCarthy were not non-negotiable, but political posturing. I knew that sometime just before the “deadline,” the estimated date on which new federal borrowing would be illegal, an agreement would be reached. I was right.

The concept of a “debt ceiling” is stupid. America borrows money to pay for federal programs and spending already authorized. That means that, given Congress’ authority to appropriate money and raise taxes, there is already a “control” over spending. A “debt ceiling” is not needed if Congress had the backbone to pay for what it wants to spend.

The waste of time spent by both the White House and Congress arguing about the debt ceiling is reminiscent of the 15-vote marathon the Republicans needed to elect a Speaker of the House. That circus was orchestrated by about a dozen right-wing crazies with a take-no-prisoners approach to governing. They are ready to stop Congress in its tracks to make a point on issues like “wokeness,” guns, border security, abortion, and now that a Democrat is in the White House, the federal debt. They are not ready, or should I say able, to work as members of a deliberative legislative body created to translate what the people want into government spending and policy.

It was the right-wing extremists who conditioned Kevin McCarthy’s election to the Speakership on a promise to take the debt ceiling vote “to the mat.”  Because a compromise was reached, they failed. But they will be back the next time the federal debt approaches the “ceiling.”  They will also be looking for other means to attempt to win or influence issues they are unable to win without extreme game-playing. Take, for example, Senator Tommy Tuberville ‘s refusal to allow a vote on the appointment of General Charles Brown, Jr. as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff over the abortion issue.

I am waiting to see if Congressman Matt Gaetz (R-FL) or Lauren Boebert (R-CO) attempt to remove Speaker McCarthy because he compromised with the Democrats. Donald Trump, who has advocated a default, is encouraging them. 

Sadly, the compromise reached over the weekend will not eliminate future “debt ceiling crises.”  In a sane world, Congress would see that use of the “debt ceiling” to leverage cuts in federal spending only makes Congress look stupid. In its simplest form, think of Congress agreeing to spending and later refusing to pay for it. 

Representative Bill Foster (D-IL), and Senator Brian Schatz (D-HI) have introduced the End the Threat of Default Act, legislation to repeal the statute that established a “debt ceiling.” Ideally, the legislation would pass, but that will not happen. The entire Republican caucus, even those who were troubled by the brinksmanship of Speaker McCarthy, prefers to keep the weapon of the debt ceiling.

Lest the debt ceiling fiasco be seen as the exclusive fault of Republicans, realize the real issue behind the “problem” of deficit federal spending is the refusal of both parties to support the type of tax increases needed for federal programs that enjoy broad bipartisan support. Republicans oppose all tax increases and enthusiastically voted in support of tax cuts for the wealthy. Democrats also oppose all tax increases except for those to be paid by the “super rich,” best understood to be someone other than 99.0 percent of us. 

The Democrats’ tax policy fosters the misconception that significant expansions of federal programs can be enacted with no new taxes (meaning no new taxes except for the super-rich). That is dangerous. It turns Congress into a grab bag. It also encourages Republicans to oppose all tax increases and seek tax cuts for their friends whenever they have the power to do so.

So, please join me in not celebrating the end of the debt ceiling crisis. The can has been kicked down the road. We do not have to worry about a repeat for two years. Yippee.

J.E. Dean is a retired attorney and public affairs consultant writing on politics, government, and other subjects. 

 

Mike Pence is expected to announce his candidacy for the 2024 Republican presidential nomination by the end of June.  Forgive me if I yawn. Trump’s vice president has no chance of being elected president. 

The most memorable image of Pence comes from the 2020 Republican vice-presidential debate. A large black fly landed on his head. Pence was oblivious to it, just like he is on so many issues important to the Eastern Shore. Worried about climate change and rising sea levels? Mike is not your candidate.

I am troubled that Pence seems to think he is owed the Republican nomination because he refused to follow Trump’s request to reject the 2020 election results. We owe Pence a thank you for not rejecting democracy, but he was only doing his job. When he was inaugurated as vice president in 2017, he swore to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.”  

Other than not joining Trump’s insurrection, what else did Pence do as vice president? I cannot think of anything other than standing motionless behind Trump at bill signings and other events like a robot.

Pence’s policies, especially on abortion and guns, are, if anything, more right-wing than Trump’s. We could at least count on Trump to be unpredictable. Remember when Trump appeared to be open to gun safety reform legislation? Plus, why would any woman in their right mind vote for a man who has said he would not have lunch with a woman unless his wife were with him? Apparently the concept of professional female relationships has not entered his lexicon. 

I am also not ready to forgive Pence for agreeing to be Trump’s vice president in the first place. His being on the 2016 ticket gave Trump much-needed credibility among mainstream Republicans. (In 2016 there were some.) Imagine if Pence had rejected Trump’s invitation and publicly repudiated him? When you think back to those times, there were many pundits who predicted that if Pence had run for another term as governor of Indiana, he would have lost.  Perhaps that is why he jumped at the VP opportunity. 

If news reports are accurate, we may soon have several Republican candidates more engaging than Pence and without Pence’s baggage. Senator Tim Scott (R-SC) announced on Monday. Among the candidates are Governor Ron DeSantis, former U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley, Governor Glenn Youngkin of Virginia, Governor Chris Sununu of New Hampshire, and even Former Governor Chris Christie of New Jersey. All these names are preferable to Trump, who might be facing felony charges in three or even four different courts by the time the 2024 Republican convention is held in Milwaukee.

In dismissing Mike Pence as a boring, out of touch candidate, am I hoping for a Republican that can defeat Joe Biden or another Democrat in 2024? Of course not. I have yet to learn of any Republican who embraces the policies I deem important. My distaste for the GOP was also heightened by last week’s Republican intransigence over the debt ceiling.

It may be a naïve hope, but maybe, just maybe, a moderate Republican could revive the GOP and start a rebuilding process. I do not expect that to happen but ridding the party—and America—of Trump for good is a step in the right direction. 

Some may ask, why do I want a revived Republican party? Because America needs at least two parties to function properly. Without a disciplined, principled opposition party, the Democrats could go too far left. Without today’s Democratic party, imagine the additional damage Trump may have done with four more years in office.

Mike Pence is not the future of the Republican party. He needs to retire. His entry into the Republican presidential campaign will, unfortunately, benefit Trump. That is why he should not join the race. 

Let’s thank Pence for doing his job in January 2021. I wish him a pleasant retirement. 

J.E. Dean is a retired attorney and public affairs consultant writing on politics, government, and other subjects.