Wednesday, September 28, 2011
The Congressional Playground
Now and then an innocent man is sent to the legislature.
— Frank “Kin” Hubbard, Abe Martin’s Broadcast
The worst part of it, of course, is that they can’t go out on recess. They have to stay in the room until they have finished their assigned tasks. Children in grade school know that that is a fairly severe penalty for failing to complete the assigned task on time. Of course the U.S. Senate and the House of Representatives try to avoid the word “recess.” Their members think that describing their not infrequent vacations as “recess” is too reminiscent of being in grade school (which their conduct causes many of us to think they are). Thus Representative Eric Cantor in releasing theHouse calendar refers not to “recess” but to “Constituent Work Week”, thus making it sound like some constructive work House members are doing in conjunction with their constituents and not simply being out on the play ground, as it were. The Senate calendar describes the time not in session as “State Work Period”. That sounds like the Senators are off helping build roads and bridges and otherwise contributing to assorted capital construction projects in their states. The official schedule for both houses, however, has not caught on to the game and continues to refer to the time off as Recess time. That is in fact what it is. It is time that can be spent, if they go home, doing important things like talking with people back home who will give them large amounts of money to help them keep their jobs. If they do not go home they can travel around the world on trips that the uninformed would consider boondoggles, but that,the travelers explain, give them first hand opportunities to visit the countries affected by our foreign policy A 2009 Wall Street Journal, attesting to their diligence, observed that taxpayer funded travel by members of Congress had tripled between 2001 and 2009 and risen ten-fold since 1995. In addition to Israel, Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan recent travel has also included such important destinations from as the Galapagos Islands and the biennial Paris Air show.
The dreadful thing about the legislative log jams that have confronted both Houses because of the intransigence of their members is not that funding for such trivial things as the FAA has been delayed at great cost to the taxpayers, but that it has cut into the members’ recess time. In 2010 their intransigence forced them to skip the Christmas recess and work through the Christmas holidays, thus missing the many fun parties that are normally given during the holiday season. More recently they were close to being forced to work during part of the last week in September. (The House managed to adjourn only one day later than it intended. The Senate was forced to work a couple extra days.) Both the Senate and the House had scheduled vacations for their members for the period from September 26 to October 2. The members were sorely in need of time off since both chambers had been in session for approximately 14 days after returning from their month long summer vacation. That 14-day period was so busy that neither Senator Majority Harry Reid nor House Majority Leader John Boehner gave their respective members time to report on “How I spent my summer vacation.” Instead they immediately began being unpleasant to one another with the result that they were once again threatened with not being permitted to go out on recess until they resolved their differences. As is often the case in contentious classroom situations, the principal, or in this case the president, is virtually powerless to restore order to the classroom. That task lies with the respective leaders of the two classrooms and neither holds much sway over the folks in the room. Accordingly, their recess time was slightly shortened.
Although all constituents, even the unemployed, will feel a touch of sympathy for their representatives when they are forced to work extra days, it is not as much of a hardship as some might think. According to the Senate Daily Digest, during the last 20 years Senators have been in session between 123 and 191 days a year. House members have probably worked about the same amount although a 20-year comparison is not readily available. The rest of the time is recess time. In 2011 House members expect to work about 123 days and will have 241 days of free time. Senators anticipate having to work for 120 days leaving them about 245 days of free time. Compared with how many days their constituents who are lucky enough to have jobs are permitted to go out on recess, our elected representatives are faring extremely well. It’s just the country that is suffering. Given their behavior when they’re not out on recess, perhaps the country would suffer less if they simply stayed on recess the entire year. They would not accomplish less than they seem to now and there would be a great deal less unpleasant squabbling in the classroom.
Thursday, September 22, 2011
Legislative Gifts to Guns
Such as do build their faith upon the holy text of pike and gun.
— Samuel Butler, Hudibras
It was not a good year for Gabriella Gifford. It was not a good year for the six people who were killed at the same time she was shot and wounded. That could have boded ill for the gun. It didn’t. The gun has had a very good year. Of course it’s not yet over. One of its three pieces of good fortune has suffered a temporary setback and the future of a third is unclear. Nonetheless, collectively they give a hint of how the gun’s fortunes will fare if Republicans retain their majority in Florida and gain control of all branches of the federal government in the next election.
Notwithstanding the criticism it received following the January shooting, the gun’s bad odor has not been long lasting. It has powerful friends that are actively promoting its interests. Some can be found in Florida and the U.S. House of Representatives.
In June Florida’s Governor, Rick Scott, signed two bills designed to restore a sense of self worth to the gun after its depression following the January Arizona shooting. Florida House Bill 155 signed June 2 is called the “Firearm Owners’ Privacy Act”. It addresses a problem that many Florida residents, did not know existed.
Some doctors in Florida inquire of their patients as to the presence of firearms in the home. It is not clear to the NRA and probably others, why the doctor wants to know that but the NRA knows that answers to those kinds of questions will probably be entered in the patients’ records and the patient will be known to the doctor and staff as someone who has guns at home, a slur on their reputations even though the NRA admires those with guns. If these kinds of questions are permitted to be asked the next thing you know doctors will be asking about patients’ sex lives. It’s good cut off those lines of questioning at the outset. And that’s what the new law does. It says doctors should refrain from asking about firearms. A federal judge has blocked enforcement of the law. Governor Scott has said the state will appeal.
Not all is bleak in the gun’s life in Florida. It can look with pride at House Bill 45 that was signed June 1. It is called the ”“Firearms Preemption law””: and it addresses the disparity in what rights guns have in different Florida jurisdictions. In some jurisdictions guns are banned in public lands, such as parks, or municipal buildings. In others they are not. This poses a terrible conundrum for the armed law abiding peripatetic Floridian. A heavily armed family may leave a town that permits guns in parks for a picnic in a jurisdiction that bans weapons in picnic grounds. The family’s picnic will be spoiled because of the family’s fear of arrest even though it had no intention of using its arsenal unless confronted by hostile picnickers Under the legislation, municipalities are given until October 1 to remove all signs that forbid guns in public places. An individual acting in an official capacity that knowingly and willfully violates any part of the statute can, among other things, be removed from office by the governor. (This may be one of the few laws anywhere that permits the governor of a state to summarily remove an official who has been duly elected by the people.) Anyone adversely affected by a jurisdiction’s failure to follow the mandates of the statute may sue for damages of up to $100,000.
The United States House of Representatives has also come to the gun’s defense. H.R. 822 called the “National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2011” has been introduced by two House members and cosponsored by 240 of their colleagues. Although most Republicans are critical of what they perceive to be the ever encroaching federal government into the rights of states to make their own rules, when the rights of gun owners are involved they are willing to make exceptions. In this case House Republicans want the federal government to impose uniform rules throughout the country on those carrying concealed weapons. Under the proposed legislation states could no longer regulate the terms under which people may carry concealed weapons. At present, some states prohibit people convicted of violent crimes or sexual assault from carrying concealed weapons while others do not. The minimum age at which young people can carry concealed weapons varies from state to state. Some states require training before issuing a permit to carry a concealed weapon whereas others states believe that people who carry concealed weapons know how to use them and don’t need training.
For those who do not consider themselves gun-friendly there is nonetheless a bit of good news in the House’s action. It shows that some Republicans have at last found a place where the exercise of power by the federal government to regulate what states can do is welcome. That could be a harbinger of things to come. Don’t count on it.
Thursday, August 18, 2011
Elections and Evolution
The progress of Evolution from President Washington to President Grant was alone evidence enough to upset Darwin.
— Henry Brooks Adams, The Education of Henry Adams
The upcoming presidential campaign will almost certainly prove enlightening and singular. The United States will be the only country in the world where two candidates for its highest office will engage the country in a meaningful debate on evolution. For too long it’s been taken for granted although not by Michelle Bachmann and Rick Perry who promise to revive the debate. If one of them is elected president it is almost certain that the new president would propose legislation to address evolution, most likely outlawing it although that is only a guess. Rick Perry has the most experience addressing evolution and that should work in his favor. In early July he put his imprimatur on the vexing problem of what to teach children by appointing Barbara Cargill the new chairwoman for the Texas State Board of Education.
Ms. Cargill was a biology teacher and is well qualified to judge evolution. As a board member she has voted to require that the theory’s weaknesses be taught in classrooms. In questioning evolution she mirrors Mr. Perry’s views on the subject. In an interview with the Associated Press Mr. Perry said that: “There are clear indications from our people who have amazing intellectual capability that this didn’t happen by accident and a creator put this in place. Now, what was his time frame and how did he create the earth that we know? I’m not going to tell you that I’ve got the answers to that. I believe that we were created by this all-powerful supreme being and how we got to today versus what we look like thousands of years ago, I think there’s enough holes in the theory of evolution to, you know, say there are some holes in that theory.” If people with “amazing intellectual capability” even though not identified, are opposed to the theory that should certainly be good enough for the rest of us and, should Mr. Perry become president, we can all hope that at least some of these people will be his advisors. Equally compelling is Mr. Perry’s tautological statement that “there’s enough holes in the theory of evolution to, you know, say there are some holes in that theory.”
Mr. Perry will not, of course, be permitted to get to the oval office without a challenge from an equally compelling intellect in the person of Michelle Bachmann. Although her campaign has been marred by occasional confusion, she, too, will help us focus on the need to rethink evolution. (Most notably she confused America’s movie hero, John Wayne, who killed outlaws on the silver screen, with one of America’s more notorious serial killers, John Wayne Gacy who murdered 33 teenage boys and buried 26 of them in the crawl space of his home. When not murdering children he performed as “Pogo the Clown” at charitable fundraising events, parades and children’s parties.) At the Republican Leadership Conference in June 2010 she said: “I support intelligent design. What I support is putting all science on the table and then letting students decide. I don’t think it’s a good idea for government to come down on one side of a scientific issue or another, when there is reasonable doubt on both sides. I would prefer that students have the ability to learn all aspects of an issue whether they disagree with my premise or not. I just believe in the science. And that’s why I believe that the federal government should not be involved in local education to the most minimal possible process.” In 2006, in a panel discussion on the subject, she said that are “hundreds and hundreds of scientists, many of them holding Nobel prizes that believe in intelligent design.” Given the opportunity to name the Nobel laureates to whom she was referring at the Leadership Conference she elected to ignore the questioner and went on to talk about other matters. If she becomes president, one of the first things she should do is create a task force to advise her on evolution so that the entire country can be brought up to speed on this vexing concept.
Neither of these candidates should be seen as one-issue candidates, however. Once Mr. Perry has put evolution to rest he can focus the country’s attention on global warming, which he says is simply a ruse by scientists “who have manipulated data so that they will have dollars rolling into their projects” to procure grants. Michelle, on the other hand can focus on homosexuality. Fresh from her victory in Iowa she announced that when she is president she will reintroduce the ban on gay troops serving in the military. Speaking on CNN she said the “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell policy has worked well and she would probably reinstate the ban.
By the time either of these candidates has finished serving as president, the United States will be a country of which all who have not fled to saner places, will be proud to be citizens.