THE FEDERALIST PAPERS - IMPEACHMENT

FEDERALIST PAPERS

Federalist No. 65

The Powers of the Senate 

From the New York Packet.

Friday, March 7, 1788.

Author: Alexander Hamilton

To the People of the State of New York:

THE remaining powers which the plan of the convention allots to the Senate, in a distinct capacity, are comprised in their participation with the executive in the appointment to offices, and in their judicial character as a court for the trial of impeachments. As in the business of appointments the executive will be the principal agent, the provisions relating to it will most properly be discussed in the examination of that department. We will, therefore, conclude this head with a view of the judicial character of the Senate.

A well-constituted court for the trial of impeachments is an object not more to be desired than difficult to be obtained in a government wholly elective. The subjects of its jurisdiction are those offenses which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or, in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust. They are of a nature which may with peculiar propriety be denominated POLITICAL, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself. The prosecution of them, for this reason, will seldom fail to agitate the passions of the whole community, and to divide it into parties more or less friendly or inimical to the accused. In many cases it will connect itself with the pre-existing factions, and will enlist all their animosities, partialities, influence, and interest on one side or on the other; and in such cases there will always be the greatest danger that the decision will be regulated more by the comparative strength of parties, than by the real demonstrations of innocence or guilt.

The delicacy and magnitude of a trust which so deeply concerns the political reputation and existence of every man engaged in the administration of public affairs, speak for themselves. The difficulty of placing it rightly, in a government resting entirely on the basis of periodical elections, will as readily be perceived, when it is considered that the most conspicuous characters in it will, from that circumstance, be too often the leaders or the tools of the most cunning or the most numerous faction, and on this account, can hardly be expected to possess the requisite neutrality towards those whose conduct may be the subject of scrutiny.

The convention, it appears, thought the Senate the most fit depositary of this important trust. Those who can best discern the intrinsic difficulty of the thing, will be least hasty in condemning that opinion, and will be most inclined to allow due weight to the arguments which may be supposed to have produced it.

What, it may be asked, is the true spirit of the institution itself? Is it not designed as a method of NATIONAL INQUEST into the conduct of public men? If this be the design of it, who can so properly be the inquisitors for the nation as the representatives of the nation themselves? It is not disputed that the power of originating the inquiry, or, in other words, of preferring the impeachment, ought to be lodged in the hands of one branch of the legislative body. Will not the reasons which indicate the propriety of this arrangement strongly plead for an admission of the other branch of that body to a share of the inquiry? The model from which the idea of this institution has been borrowed, pointed out that course to the convention. In Great Britain it is the province of the House of Commons to prefer the impeachment, and of the House of Lords to decide upon it. Several of the State constitutions have followed the example. As well the latter, as the former, seem to have regarded the practice of impeachments as a bridle in the hands of the legislative body upon the executive servants of the government. Is not this the true light in which it ought to be regarded?

Where else than in the Senate could have been found a tribunal sufficiently dignified, or sufficiently independent? What other body would be likely to feel CONFIDENCE ENOUGH IN ITS OWN SITUATION, to preserve, unawed and uninfluenced, the necessary impartiality between an INDIVIDUAL accused, and the REPRESENTATIVES OF THE PEOPLE, HIS ACCUSERS?

Could the Supreme Court have been relied upon as answering this description? It is much to be doubted, whether the members of that tribunal would at all times be endowed with so eminent a portion of fortitude, as would be called for in the execution of so difficult a task; and it is still more to be doubted, whether they would possess the degree of credit and authority, which might, on certain occasions, be indispensable towards reconciling the people to a decision that should happen to clash with an accusation brought by their immediate representatives. A deficiency in the first, would be fatal to the accused; in the last, dangerous to the public tranquillity. The hazard in both these respects, could only be avoided, if at all, by rendering that tribunal more numerous than would consist with a reasonable attention to economy. The necessity of a numerous court for the trial of impeachments, is equally dictated by the nature of the proceeding. This can never be tied down by such strict rules, either in the delineation of the offense by the prosecutors, or in the construction of it by the judges, as in common cases serve to limit the discretion of courts in favor of personal security. There will be no jury to stand between the judges who are to pronounce the sentence of the law, and the party who is to receive or suffer it. The awful discretion which a court of impeachments must necessarily have, to doom to honor or to infamy the most confidential and the most distinguished characters of the community, forbids the commitment of the trust to a small number of persons.

These considerations seem alone sufficient to authorize a conclusion, that the Supreme Court would have been an improper substitute for the Senate, as a court of impeachments. There remains a further consideration, which will not a little strengthen this conclusion. It is this: The punishment which may be the consequence of conviction upon impeachment, is not to terminate the chastisement of the offender. After having been sentenced to a perpetual ostracism from the esteem and confidence, and honors and emoluments of his country, he will still be liable to prosecution and punishment in the ordinary course of law. Would it be proper that the persons who had disposed of his fame, and his most valuable rights as a citizen in one trial, should, in another trial, for the same offense, be also the disposers of his life and his fortune? Would there not be the greatest reason to apprehend, that error, in the first sentence, would be the parent of error in the second sentence? That the strong bias of one decision would be apt to overrule the influence of any new lights which might be brought to vary the complexion of another decision? Those who know anything of human nature, will not hesitate to answer these questions in the affirmative; and will be at no loss to perceive, that by making the same persons judges in both cases, those who might happen to be the objects of prosecution would, in a great measure, be deprived of the double security intended them by a double trial. The loss of life and estate would often be virtually included in a sentence which, in its terms, imported nothing more than dismission from a present, and disqualification for a future, office. It may be said, that the intervention of a jury, in the second instance, would obviate the danger. But juries are frequently influenced by the opinions of judges. They are sometimes induced to find special verdicts, which refer the main question to the decision of the court. Who would be willing to stake his life and his estate upon the verdict of a jury acting under the auspices of judges who had predetermined his guilt?

Would it have been an improvement of the plan, to have united the Supreme Court with the Senate, in the formation of the court of impeachments? This union would certainly have been attended with several advantages; but would they not have been overbalanced by the signal disadvantage, already stated, arising from the agency of the same judges in the double prosecution to which the offender would be liable? To a certain extent, the benefits of that union will be obtained from making the chief justice of the Supreme Court the president of the court of impeachments, as is proposed to be done in the plan of the convention; while the inconveniences of an entire incorporation of the former into the latter will be substantially avoided. This was perhaps the prudent mean. I forbear to remark upon the additional pretext for clamor against the judiciary, which so considerable an augmentation of its authority would have afforded.

Would it have been desirable to have composed the court for the trial of impeachments, of persons wholly distinct from the other departments of the government? There are weighty arguments, as well against, as in favor of, such a plan. To some minds it will not appear a trivial objection, that it could tend to increase the complexity of the political machine, and to add a new spring to the government, the utility of which would at best be questionable. But an objection which will not be thought by any unworthy of attention, is this: a court formed upon such a plan, would either be attended with a heavy expense, or might in practice be subject to a variety of casualties and inconveniences. It must either consist of permanent officers, stationary at the seat of government, and of course entitled to fixed and regular stipends, or of certain officers of the State governments to be called upon whenever an impeachment was actually depending. It will not be easy to imagine any third mode materially different, which could rationally be proposed. As the court, for reasons already given, ought to be numerous, the first scheme will be reprobated by every man who can compare the extent of the public wants with the means of supplying them. The second will be espoused with caution by those who will seriously consider the difficulty of collecting men dispersed over the whole Union; the injury to the innocent, from the procrastinated determination of the charges which might be brought against them; the advantage to the guilty, from the opportunities which delay would afford to intrigue and corruption; and in some cases the detriment to the State, from the prolonged inaction of men whose firm and faithful execution of their duty might have exposed them to the persecution of an intemperate or designing majority in the House of Representatives. Though this latter supposition may seem harsh, and might not be likely often to be verified, yet it ought not to be forgotten that the demon of faction will, at certain seasons, extend his sceptre over all numerous bodies of men.

But though one or the other of the substitutes which have been examined, or some other that might be devised, should be thought preferable to the plan in this respect, reported by the convention, it will not follow that the Constitution ought for this reason to be rejected. If mankind were to resolve to agree in no institution of government, until every part of it had been adjusted to the most exact standard of perfection, society would soon become a general scene of anarchy, and the world a desert. Where is the standard of perfection to be found? Who will undertake to unite the discordant opinions of a whole community, in the same judgment of it; and to prevail upon one conceited projector to renounce his INFALLIBLE criterion for the FALLIBLE criterion of his more CONCEITED NEIGHBOR? To answer the purpose of the adversaries of the Constitution, they ought to prove, not merely that particular provisions in it are not the best which might have been imagined, but that the plan upon the whole is bad and pernicious.

PUBLIUS.

FEDERALIST PAPERS

Federalist No. 66

Objections to the Power of the Senate To Set as a Court for Impeachments Further Considered

From the New York Packet.

Tuesday, March 11, 1788.

Author: Alexander Hamilton

To the People of the State of New York:

A REVIEW of the principal objections that have appeared against the proposed court for the trial of impeachments, will not improbably eradicate the remains of any unfavorable impressions which may still exist in regard to this matter.

The FIRST of these objections is, that the provision in question confounds legislative and judiciary authorities in the same body, in violation of that important and well established maxim which requires a separation between the different departments of power. The true meaning of this maxim has been discussed and ascertained in another place, and has been shown to be entirely compatible with a partial intermixture of those departments for special purposes, preserving them, in the main, distinct and unconnected. This partial intermixture is even, in some cases, not only proper but necessary to the mutual defense of the several members of the government against each other. An absolute or qualified negative in the executive upon the acts of the legislative body, is admitted, by the ablest adepts in political science, to be an indispensable barrier against the encroachments of the latter upon the former. And it may, perhaps, with no less reason be contended, that the powers relating to impeachments are, as before intimated, an essential check in the hands of that body upon the encroachments of the executive. The division of them between the two branches of the legislature, assigning to one the right of accusing, to the other the right of judging, avoids the inconvenience of making the same persons both accusers and judges; and guards against the danger of persecution, from the prevalency of a factious spirit in either of those branches. As the concurrence of two thirds of the Senate will be requisite to a condemnation, the security to innocence, from this additional circumstance, will be as complete as itself can desire.

It is curious to observe, with what vehemence this part of the plan is assailed, on the principle here taken notice of, by men who profess to admire, without exception, the constitution of this State; while that constitution makes the Senate, together with the chancellor and judges of the Supreme Court, not only a court of impeachments, but the highest judicatory in the State, in all causes, civil and criminal. The proportion, in point of numbers, of the chancellor and judges to the senators, is so inconsiderable, that the judiciary authority of New York, in the last resort, may, with truth, be said to reside in its Senate. If the plan of the convention be, in this respect, chargeable with a departure from the celebrated maxim which has been so often mentioned, and seems to be so little understood, how much more culpable must be the constitution of New York? [1]

A SECOND objection to the Senate, as a court of impeachments, is, that it contributes to an undue accumulation of power in that body, tending to give to the government a countenance too aristocratic. The Senate, it is observed, is to have concurrent authority with the Executive in the formation of treaties and in the appointment to offices: if, say the objectors, to these prerogatives is added that of deciding in all cases of impeachment, it will give a decided predominancy to senatorial influence. To an objection so little precise in itself, it is not easy to find a very precise answer. Where is the measure or criterion to which we can appeal, for determining what will give the Senate too much, too little, or barely the proper degree of influence? Will it not be more safe, as well as more simple, to dismiss such vague and uncertain calculations, to examine each power by itself, and to decide, on general principles, where it may be deposited with most advantage and least inconvenience?

If we take this course, it will lead to a more intelligible, if not to a more certain result. The disposition of the power of making treaties, which has obtained in the plan of the convention, will, then, if I mistake not, appear to be fully justified by the considerations stated in a former number, and by others which will occur under the next head of our inquiries. The expediency of the junction of the Senate with the Executive, in the power of appointing to offices, will, I trust, be placed in a light not less satisfactory, in the disquisitions under the same head. And I flatter myself the observations in my last paper must have gone no inconsiderable way towards proving that it was not easy, if practicable, to find a more fit receptacle for the power of determining impeachments, than that which has been chosen. If this be truly the case, the hypothetical dread of the too great weight of the Senate ought to be discarded from our reasonings.

But this hypothesis, such as it is, has already been refuted in the remarks applied to the duration in office prescribed for the senators. It was by them shown, as well on the credit of historical examples, as from the reason of the thing, that the most POPULAR branch of every government, partaking of the republican genius, by being generally the favorite of the people, will be as generally a full match, if not an overmatch, for every other member of the Government.

But independent of this most active and operative principle, to secure the equilibrium of the national House of Representatives, the plan of the convention has provided in its favor several important counterpoises to the additional authorities to be conferred upon the Senate. The exclusive privilege of originating money bills will belong to the House of Representatives. The same house will possess the sole right of instituting impeachments: is not this a complete counterbalance to that of determining them? The same house will be the umpire in all elections of the President, which do not unite the suffrages of a majority of the whole number of electors; a case which it cannot be doubted will sometimes, if not frequently, happen. The constant possibility of the thing must be a fruitful source of influence to that body. The more it is contemplated, the more important will appear this ultimate though contingent power, of deciding the competitions of the most illustrious citizens of the Union, for the first office in it. It would not perhaps be rash to predict, that as a mean of influence it will be found to outweigh all the peculiar attributes of the Senate.

A THIRD objection to the Senate as a court of impeachments, is drawn from the agency they are to have in the appointments to office. It is imagined that they would be too indulgent judges of the conduct of men, in whose official creation they had participated. The principle of this objection would condemn a practice, which is to be seen in all the State governments, if not in all the governments with which we are acquainted: I mean that of rendering those who hold offices during pleasure, dependent on the pleasure of those who appoint them. With equal plausibility might it be alleged in this case, that the favoritism of the latter would always be an asylum for the misbehavior of the former. But that practice, in contradiction to this principle, proceeds upon the presumption, that the responsibility of those who appoint, for the fitness and competency of the persons on whom they bestow their choice, and the interest they will have in the respectable and prosperous administration of affairs, will inspire a sufficient disposition to dismiss from a share in it all such who, by their conduct, shall have proved themselves unworthy of the confidence reposed in them. Though facts may not always correspond with this presumption, yet if it be, in the main, just, it must destroy the supposition that the Senate, who will merely sanction the choice of the Executive, should feel a bias, towards the objects of that choice, strong enough to blind them to the evidences of guilt so extraordinary, as to have induced the representatives of the nation to become its accusers.

If any further arguments were necessary to evince the improbability of such a bias, it might be found in the nature of the agency of the Senate in the business of appointments.

It will be the office of the President to NOMINATE, and, with the advice and consent of the Senate, to APPOINT. There will, of course, be no exertion of CHOICE on the part of the Senate. They may defeat one choice of the Executive, and oblige him to make another; but they cannot themselves CHOOSE, they can only ratify or reject the choice of the President. They might even entertain a preference to some other person, at the very moment they were assenting to the one proposed, because there might be no positive ground of opposition to him; and they could not be sure, if they withheld their assent, that the subsequent nomination would fall upon their own favorite, or upon any other person in their estimation more meritorious than the one rejected. Thus it could hardly happen, that the majority of the Senate would feel any other complacency towards the object of an appointment than such as the appearances of merit might inspire, and the proofs of the want of it destroy.

A FOURTH objection to the Senate in the capacity of a court of impeachments, is derived from its union with the Executive in the power of making treaties. This, it has been said, would constitute the senators their own judges, in every case of a corrupt or perfidious execution of that trust. After having combined with the Executive in betraying the interests of the nation in a ruinous treaty, what prospect, it is asked, would there be of their being made to suffer the punishment they would deserve, when they were themselves to decide upon the accusation brought against them for the treachery of which they have been guilty?

This objection has been circulated with more earnestness and with greater show of reason than any other which has appeared against this part of the plan; and yet I am deceived if it does not rest upon an erroneous foundation.

The security essentially intended by the Constitution against corruption and treachery in the formation of treaties, is to be sought for in the numbers and characters of those who are to make them. The JOINT AGENCY of the Chief Magistrate of the Union, and of two thirds of the members of a body selected by the collective wisdom of the legislatures of the several States, is designed to be the pledge for the fidelity of the national councils in this particular. The convention might with propriety have meditated the punishment of the Executive, for a deviation from the instructions of the Senate, or a want of integrity in the conduct of the negotiations committed to him; they might also have had in view the punishment of a few leading individuals in the Senate, who should have prostituted their influence in that body as the mercenary instruments of foreign corruption: but they could not, with more or with equal propriety, have contemplated the impeachment and punishment of two thirds of the Senate, consenting to an improper treaty, than of a majority of that or of the other branch of the national legislature, consenting to a pernicious or unconstitutional law, a principle which, I believe, has never been admitted into any government. How, in fact, could a majority in the House of Representatives impeach themselves? Not better, it is evident, than two thirds of the Senate might try themselves. And yet what reason is there, that a majority of the House of Representatives, sacrificing the interests of the society by an unjust and tyrannical act of legislation, should escape with impunity, more than two thirds of the Senate, sacrificing the same interests in an injurious treaty with a foreign power? The truth is, that in all such cases it is essential to the freedom and to the necessary independence of the deliberations of the body, that the members of it should be exempt from punishment for acts done in a collective capacity; and the security to the society must depend on the care which is taken to confide the trust to proper hands, to make it their interest to execute it with fidelity, and to make it as difficult as possible for them to combine in any interest opposite to that of the public good.

So far as might concern the misbehavior of the Executive in perverting the instructions or contravening the views of the Senate, we need not be apprehensive of the want of a disposition in that body to punish the abuse of their confidence or to vindicate their own authority. We may thus far count upon their pride, if not upon their virtue. And so far even as might concern the corruption of leading members, by whose arts and influence the majority may have been inveigled into measures odious to the community, if the proofs of that corruption should be satisfactory, the usual propensity of human nature will warrant us in concluding that there would be commonly no defect of inclination in the body to divert the public resentment from themselves by a ready sacrifice of the authors of their mismanagement and disgrace.

PUBLIUS.

On last evening, the President spoke to a joint session of Congress.  The President presented his comprehensive plan to create jobs with a method of payment for his plan.  Optimism is high in hopes that Congress will unanimously support the President's efforts to put fourteen millions Americans back to work.

The President intends to spend the next few weeks visiting major cities across the nation in an effort to put his message before the American people as well...

God's speed... Mr. President!

The Road Ahead is Full of Obstacles

Currently, we are witnessing a major change in the way America functions.  We are seeing an increase in the use of food stamps as a method of feeding families.  Keeping in mind that the qualifications for receiving Food Stamps are directly related to the income of the recipient (below poverty, or no income at all), this is becoming a disturbing trend.

I did a search of the site www.opencongress.com using the following statement: What Job creation bills were presented in Congress' House of Representatives for the 112th Session.  This was my result: http://j.mp/q5FXRG.  Most recently, Wal-Mart, the poor man's Neiman-Marcus, posted this quarterly financial report for the last six months: http://j.mp/pZEnqv.  I make these revelations so that you might associate buyers with those clothiers that are prospering in the current economy; that you might realize that trickle-down economics are not working.  Oh... on Neiman-Marcus... they had a surge in profits for the year with this quarter being superb... http://j.mp/pV1Wzv

There were no Job Creation Bills coming out of Congress for this 112th Session!  There are no jobs being created by the top three percent receiving tax cuts!  There is no correlation between tax cuts for the rich and job materializing for the masses.

Mr. Boehner made the statement on the very day that he took the gavel that he had no idea how to create jobs and he was as right as rain would be to those suffering from the drought in the Southwest.  Still, Congress, as a whole is to blame for the current laxity in meeting the needs of the country - we need jobs and plenty of them!  We need partisan legislation for the good of the country!

The end resultant of this inaptitude on the part of Congress is the starving of the government, an agenda that has at its center the mandate to ‘make Obama a one-term President’.  That this President has managed to keep the country’s financial crisis from dragging us down in a spiral quagmire is in no part due to the assistance of the Republican Party. The Republican Party is in a position to push through the House any legislation that it would have become law… but it has not entertained one job creation Bill, in fact, the House has blocked job creation legislation from such notables and John Conyers (D-SC) and others.

Are you going to be a partisan voter when it comes to the general elections of 2012, or are you going to vote your conscious and elect whomever is in favor of rescuing the unemployed?  Be an informed citizen; there are many ways that you can discern the truth.  Use impartial sites to gain the real picture… start by visiting www.opencongress.com – that is where you will see an impartial record of who is doing what in your State as well as in Congress.

In a democracy, silence is not golden; it is condonance in the face of injustices; it is fear, where the thought of reprisal fosters control – Rodney A. Davis

Congressional Reform Act of 2011

                   

The 26th amendment (granting the right to vote for 18 year-olds) took only three months and eight days to be ratified!  Why?  Simple!  The people demanded it.  That was in 1971...before computers, before e-mail, before cell phones, etc. Of the 27 amendments to the Constitution, seven (7) took a year or less to become the law of the land...all because of public pressure. I'm asking each person to forward this message to a minimum of twenty people on their address list; in turn ask each of those to do likewise.  In three days, most people in The United States of America will have the message.  This is one idea that really should be passed around.     Congressional Reform Act of 2011 1.       Term Limits. a.     12 years only, one of the possible options below… b.     Two Six-year Senate terms c.     Six Two-year House 2.     One Six-year Senate term and three Two-Year House terms a.     No Tenure / No Pension. b.     Congressman collects a salary while in office and receives no pay when they are out of office. c.     Congress (past, present & future) participates in Social Security d.    All funds in the Congressional retirement fund move to the Social Security system immediately.  All future funds flow into the Social Security system, and Congress participates with the American people. e.     Congress can purchase their own retirement plan, just  as all Americans do. 3.     Congress will no longer vote a pay raise for themselves.  Congressional pay will rise by the lower of CPI or 3%. 4.     Congress loses their current health care system and participates in the same health care system as the American people. 5.     Congress must equally abide by all laws they impose on the American people. 6.     All contracts with past and present Congressmen are void effective 1/1/11.                       The American people did not make this contract with Congressmen.  Congressmen made all these contracts for themselves.  Serving in Congress is an honor, not a career.  The Founding Fathers envisioned citizen legislators, so ours should serve their term(s), then go home and back to work. If each person contacts a minimum of twenty people then it will only take three days for most people (in the U.S. ) to receive the message.  Maybe it is time. THIS IS HOW YOU FIX CONGRESS!!!!!   Take this poll, and pass it on! You can also visit this site to participate in a petition that is circulating for Congressional Reform. Please pass on this article!

In a democracy, silence is not golden; it is condonance in the face of injustices; it is fear, where the thought of reprisal fosters control – Rodney A. Davis

Nancy Pelosi, the Warrior Princess - What She Accomplished!

When the voters took the House majority away from the Democrats, they shutdown one of the most remarkable and re-formative Congresses to date.  With that decision, America lost the best chance to bring the economy back from the brink of disaster in this writer's opinion.

Rachel Maddow expounds on the accomplishments of Nancy Pelosi:

In a democracy, silence is not golden; it is condonance in the face of injustices; it is fear, where the thought of reprisal fosters control – Rodney A. Davis

Did the Voters Really Speak...

Whether you want to believe that the voters have spoken or not, I think that you should realize one thing; the trend of voters giving the opposition Party control of Congress is consistent with previous mid-term elections. The November 2010 mid-elections were no different.

I believe that the Democrats underestimated the strategy of just saying ‘No’ as used by the Republicans. Just saying no was so ingenious that it worked! In Congressional bill after Congressional bill introduced by the Democrats, Republicans appeared to want to contribute. Compromises were made that watered each bill down on both sides of Congress. As each bill came to the floor either a filibuster would take place or the watered-down bill would pass with absolutely no support from the Republican side of each chamber of Congress – risky, but it worked… in conjunction with the ‘normal trend to oust the Party in control of the White House – we have ‘The Voters Have Spoken’.

The mid-term election trend is well known and has duplicated itself for the pass century with uncanny precision. Each president has seen this reversal in his first term of office. Pundits and the media are spinning what happens as a trend into what the voters are saying at the polls. No one to date has been able to explain why the trend has occurred with such predictable regularity to date – but we hear that ‘The Voters Have Spoken’.

What do the voters speak to… they don’t want ObamaCare; they are not happy about the turn-around in job losses (700,000 jobs per month from July of 2008 through February of 2009); Obama spent too much of the taxpayers money to curb the recession; Obama failed to address the financial corruption on Wall Street – or was it just a duplication of the mid-term election trend returning on schedule?

I think that it was the latter; my biggest worry is that Obama does not stoop down and communicate more with the people of this country, people who have no idea of what he has taken them through in such short time. I also think that, just as Reagan, Clinton, and Bush 43 did, Obama will rebound in the 2012 elections – election trends at work. Carter and George H. didn’t for obvious reasons – they simply weren’t presidential enough to gather the momentum for a second term in office. Obama has to fall into the ‘Carter/George H performance’ category to lose the 2012 elections – given his performances so far, I don’t see that happening.

In a democracy, silence is not golden; it is condonance in the face of injustices; it is fear, where the thought of reprisal fosters control – Rodney A. Davis

Remember When

If you are old enough to remember when your job was a given and the ability to pay your mortgage was not in question, then you are old enough to vote. I ask you to consider the State of the Nation prior to the 2000 elections. Bill Clinton brought prosperity to the United States of America – we had jobs and the middle-class supported the manufacturing of American products and paid the bulk of the taxes in support of our government. President Clinton even left a 1.3 trillion surplus to his successor!

Compare those days under Clinton with eight years of George Bush, the 43^rd. Eight years of runaway spending for two wars, one of which was based on pure unadultered lies! Tax cuts that benefitted the rich! Budgets that hid the cost of the war in Iraq with the condonement of a then, Republican led Congress. The deregulation of Wall Street saw the collapse of major banks, requiring drastic tactics to keep this country afloat. Tax laws that rewarded those companies out-sourcing our jobs became the accepted thing to do!

You have been warned of the foreign money that is being used by unscrupulous groups to finance the campaigns of Republican candidates for office. If we allow these despicable acts to change the way our legislators are elected, we will have none to blame save ourselves. Give this President the tools to combat these irregularities in election laws. Remember that it was a Republican appointed Chief Justice that changed a precedence regarding finance campaign laws. Never before has the Supreme Court been so bold as to contradict precedence by a misinterpretation of the Constitution!

I now remind you of the turn-around that has been accomplished by a Democratic Congress led by a Democratic President. Sure money has been spent, but aren’t we better off as a result of it? Remember when we were losing seven hundred thousand jobs every month due to the policies of ‘Bush 43' and a Republican led Congress – I do? It is a fact, Bush the 43^rd, spent more of our taxes without a return, then any other President in the history of our government – eight trillion dollars.

Much has been accomplished by President Obama, and a Democratic Congress, in just two years; think of what can be accomplished if this president were to work with majorities in both houses of Congress for the next two years. We have a national insurance policy that will enable all of us to receive the medical care that we justly deserve and need. We have withdrawn our troops from the sovereign grounds of Iraq at great cost of life and limb, a cost that can be directly attributed to ill-advised decisions on the part of a Republican president. We have reined in the reckless acts of Wall Street and arrested the degradation of our banks and economy, but there is more to be done. We have a duty to reform the immigration laws, create more jobs, and most of all – Stop the out-sourcing of American jobs to foreign nations whom we know are now trying to buy our election processes.

Don’t allow the return of yesteryear – give your support to our President and Democratic lawmakers up for election

In a democracy, silence is not golden; it is condonance in the face of injustices; it is fear, where the thought of reprisal fosters control – Rodney A. Davis

The Audacity of Dopes

A few days ago a friend sent me an e-mail with an attachment proclaiming that Obama was forcing Health Care reform on us and that we should all sign some form letter protesting his decision to force this down our throats. I read the e-mail’s full contents and came away thinking that this individual must have been off the planet during the previous President’s administration.

I, first of all, am indignant that this individual would dare to presume that Bush ‘Jr.’ had nothing to do with the present state of affairs – financial, economically, and politically – that the United States finds itself in right now. I mean, he started two wars and left them for someone else to resolve – coupled with that is the mounting debt of those two wars… 2.7 trillion and rising! He gave the rich a ten year tax cut that is going to cost us 2.4 trillion by the time it expires in 2010. He oversaw the worse collapse in our economy since the Great Depression of 1939 and you have the audacity to send me an e-mail saying that the present President is forcing something horrible on you! This President that has done more in eight months than Bush did it eight years hogwash!

How anyone can make the effort to demean the reduction of the cost of Health Care in America is beyond me. Considering that we are the most advanced industrial State on the ‘PLANET’, we sure have a hard way of showing it with a life-expectancy that is behind countries like Costa Rica and Cuba – Third-World countries! You want to bitch to me that the President is forcing you to have a better life than most countries that you turn your nose up to for their level of poverty! Are you just plain ignorant, or what? What is even more astounding is that these countries that have better life-expectancies actually have some form of government subsidized health care for all of their people – go figure! Even Mexico is better than the United States considering that it is a Third World country with a life-expectancy of 76.1 years!

These protestors are concerned that abortions will be funded by this Health Care reform bill. The effort to fight this bill for reasons unfounded anywhere in the document is ludicrous, but there they are fighting to rescind a law that has had precedence for over thirty years. The practice of abstinence 'was favored' over sexual education, over teaching our kids to deal with peer pressure, and over being responsible for providing our kids with the means to prevent pregnancies when we know that they are sexually active.

What will even the most rudimentary form of Health Care reform do… it will reduce cost through fraud detection, force competition between companies within the insurance industry, and reduce the needless request to order more test to confirm a diagnosis that can be done with less spending. Hospitals that have realized these basic principles are currently doing better with less in every aspect of medicine. Patients are recovering faster, mortality rates are down, and overall performance of these hospitals has improved tremendously.

The biggest problem with getting a better life-expectancy for Americans is providing the ignorant with sound reputable information that shows that if you implement a legislative law that is not influenced by the industry you are trying to regulate, you will be able to deliver as promised. Consider that the anti-trust exemption that has been granted the Insurance industry is actually hindering any chance to regulate the cost of Health Care – removing this exemption will force insurance companies to compete. Right now, each insurance company has an appointed area in which it operates and no other insurance company can venture into that area – hence, no competition and prices remained fixed at higher than normal levels with regard to the insured; bet you didn't know that?

As Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) explained at the hearing, the health insurance industry — unlike any other private industry in the country — is allowed to engage in price fixing, bid rigging and market allocation, all of which would violate the law if any other sort of company did it.

If you think that fighting Health Care reform is the sensible thing to do, then you deserve exactly what you will receive if we don’t pass a strong Health Care Bill. All anyone can ask is that you take a serious look at what you are fighting against and the people that are supporting you in this effort. Ignorance of the facts is not an excuse!

The Stupak Amendment Does Not Fly...

I am aghast that the House would allow the Stupak Amendment’s attachment to the Health Care bill. I think that the Health Care bill should have gone down in flames before the Stupak Amendment before allowing its attachment to the bill. It actually takes away the rights of pro-choice women to decide whether they want to have an abortion - essentially putting a knife in the heart of Roe vs. Wade without ever referencing Roe vs. Wade! You cannot erase a 'law' from the books without an amendment to address that law. Whom are they trying to fool?

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Even more so, I wonder why the House does not introduce an insurance bill that sets the record straight once and for all. Insurance companies should be removed from their anti-trust exemption, make it against federal law to discriminate against anyone for any reason that would deprive them of affordable health care, make it against federal law to fix prices on any commodity within the United States and its territories.

The other way that we can determine whether America wants a Health Care Bill is to place it on the November national election ballots as a referendum, up or down vote. Everyone would have an opportunity to endorse or vote down the reform without the need for our Congressmen to choose for us based on their bias positions, which that are undoubtedly influenced by insurance lobbyist.

If we just do that, insurance companies would be forced to present affordable health insurance policies for everyone. We do not really need a health care bill; we need health care insurance reform!

My Plan for Economic Recovery, and why it would Work

My Plan for Economic Recovery, and why it would Work

As of 1995, there were fifty-one million, two hundred forty-nine thousand people in the United States over fifty years of age. Of this group, 81.6% are homeowners – forty-one million three hundred thousand homeowners. This group showed a tendency to own a similar percentage of the one hundred thirty-five million three hundred ninety-nine thousand nine hundred forty-five cars on the streets of America, or roughly one hundred nine million six hundred seventy-three thousand cars. We can estimate that it will be a minimum of forty-one million people eligible for the Targeted Stimulus Package.

There are considerable correlations between income, homeownership rate and housing characteristics. As income is closely linked to social status, sociologist Leonard Beeghley has made the hypothesis that "the lower the social class, then the fewer amenities built into housing." According to 2002, US Census Bureau data housing characteristics vary considerably with income. For homeowners with middle-range household incomes, ranging from $40,000 to $60,000, the median home value was $112,000, while the median size was 1,700 square feet (160 m²) and the median year of construction was 1970.

These factual estimates are essential to calculating the cost of an economic recovery package that would stimulate the sectors that are failing. With a few contractual demands, one is able to target the areas of the economy that are suffering because of Wall Street practices by accomplishing the following prior to implementing the Targeted Stimulus Package:

Locate and unbundle all derivatives that encompass mortgages and re-bundle those derivatives minus the mortgages that are toxic.

Re-finance all mortgages whose homeowners are forty-nine years or younger.

Return the remaining (toxic) mortgages to the initial mortgager for resolvement.

The Targeted Stimulus Package, as applied to homeowners over fifty years of age and under sixty-nine years of age, would pay no more than one million dollars to every household with at least one person on the deed/mortgage being over fifty years of age. Each recipient would be obligated do the following:

Immediately quit his/her job and accept any pension or 401k owed to them.

Liquidate their mortgage and/or buy a new median range home (260,000) within one year of accepting the Targeted Stimulus Package.

Purchase a new automobile manufactured in the United States from parts made in the United States.

Reduce their debt balance to less than twenty percent of its total value.

Agree to place the remainder of the Targeted Stimulus Package in an approved Money Market Fund under SEC jurisdiction wherein the recipient would receive a maximum of forty thousand dollars a year.

The ramifications of this Targeted Stimulus Package would do the following:

Free up an estimated forty-one million jobs for those individuals out of work in the first month.

Liquidate an estimated eight hundred billion dollars in mortgage liabilities within the banking industry.

Create an instant demand for fourteen million new automobile purchases of vehicles manufactured in the United States.

Reduce consumer debt by fifty percent or better.

This package would cost the taxpayers forty-one billion three hundred million dollars. It would generate over ten billion dollars in State and local tax revenues in the form of sales taxes immediately, which would then re-enter the economy as job creations for road repair and construction, new house construction, and an increased demand for disposable goods. Individuals out of work would have the opportunity to re-skill to take the thirty to thirty-eight million jobs that would become immediately available to the American workforce. The overall outcome is the generation of Federal, State, and local Municipality tax revenues capable of making the aforementioned entities solvent within one year.

The government would receive compensation over the next fifteen to twenty years with a robust economy fueling every industry in the United States. This Stimulus package would not fall to our grandchildren to repay! Of course, the final parameters of this stimulus package would be up to Congress, but it would cost less than the 1.4 trillion that we have already spent – considering that, we are still not out of the woods economically as of yet.

If you believe that this stimulus package will work, send a copy, in the form of a letter, to your Congressmen!

In a democracy, silence is not golden; it is condonance in the face of injustices; it is fear, where the thought of reprisal fosters control. – Rodney A. Davis

Making The Case for the Stimulus Package

We are in the midst of an economic dilemma that is unprecedented in modern times. A global economy depression is affecting the macro economies of every nation, including third world nations whose economies are based upon cash-on-demand principals. How the United States approaches this situation will affect the rest of the world and the methods that these countries use to get their economies back on track. With over 5.1 million individuals currently drawing unemployment and over a half million people out of work with the coming of each month, we can’t afford partisanship!

The United States is the primary source of income for a number of the suppliers of goods around the world. We use twenty-five percent of the oil produced by the suppliers of petroleum. We import over one billion dollars of goods each and every day. Without these exports, our neighbors are not able to maintain a cash flow within their countries. China is a prime example of how a reduction in demand within the United States has caused the layoff of over twenty-six million Chinese workers – as demand is shrinking and trade is diminishing the world is experiencing it world-wide. If we don’t take this into account in our response to the current situation, the Stimulus Package is never going to work!

There are those that demand that tax cuts, substantial ones, are the only answer to this problem. To that I counter with the question, “Who are you trying to assist in the recovery of the American economy with that position? Let’s consider if we apply a tax cut to the economy – a reduction that equivocates to 5% of the taxpayer’s total income. With the current level of taxation being 17%, that would be an additional 12% of income in the pocket of a person making one hundred thousand dollars a year, or one hundred twenty dollars per month. This is a good thing for those that have a job, but what does it do for the person that does not have a job? This approach is selective in nature by its application.

Others say that the President’s tax plan will punish the Small Business owner. How? Why? Republican Congressmen lament this at every opportunity, but if you notice; no small business owner is shouting that he is being systematically wiped out by tax increases. Why is this so? Those who are familiar with ‘C’ and ‘S’ Corporation tax filing plans will tell you that Small Business owners are in a unique niche that allows them to take advantage of the profits that they make. The Minority leader, Congressman Boehner, is the chief decrier against the President’s implementation of this tax plan. Does the good Congressman know that there is such a thing as an ‘S’ filing, probably NOT? The informed person will see through the rhetoric and make the right choice.

The Budget package, as outlined in the proposal offered by the President, does the following:

1. A reduction in Medicare by identifying waste, fraud, and abuse along with the incorporation of preventive medicine to reduce the demand for medical care.
2. Places the burden of tax increases on the top two percent of income earners.
3. Elimination of those programs that have been proven to be non-productive.
4. Expands the opportunities for student education and student loans.
5. Investment in the production of ‘green’ energy.
6. Deficit reduction over the next four years.

The Republican Party has stated that the Stimulus Package is full of ‘pork’ with the introduction of set-a-sides for products such as prophylactics to prevent STD, appropriations for re-seeding the Mall area, etc; this is a baseless argument to justify saying no to the stimulus. Minority Leader Boehner has made the claim that the President’s tax plan is a job killer. The Republican Party has criticized every effort that this President has made to rein in the economical crisis that was initiated by the Party of ‘NO’ when it had a different answer for everything that Bush asked them to support. When are they, the Republican Party, going to realize that none of this would be necessary had they been fiscally responsible in the previous eight years? We see Republican leaders complaining with no solution and that is counter-productive.

It is absolutely essential that those scrutinizing the Stimulus Package look at the ‘domino effect’ of the Stimulus Package because it is that effect that will ensure the money spend in this package will do what we want it to do – cause cash flow. Let’s bear in mind that the original reason why we attempted to ‘drain the pond’ was to generate cash flow. Any spending will create a ‘domino effect’ thus creating jobs as it cascades around the United States which will, in turn, create a demand for the import and export of products around the globe – after all, we do have a global economy.

The by-product of inserting cash into the economy will cause employers to hire to meet demand. Those employees will spend money for goods and services, which in turns, creates a further demand that springs forth for other products. It is that simple, but there are those that are stuck on tax cuts as the only method of reviving an economy that actually has at its heart the requirement a vehicle for cash flow. Another factor is the influx of revenues into the coffers of municipalities profiting from the creation of those jobs in the form of Local and State taxes, a dividend that makes it possible for taxes within the State to remain low.

There is nothing extremely difficult to understand about this folks. What it requires is an open-mind to what is being proposed and a willingness to execute the steps involved with implementing the plan. Those stuck on stupid, excuse me, stuck on a reduction of taxes as ‘the only remedy’ to our current dilemma need to reassess their point of view. The Party of ‘No’ should remember that the national debt was doubled and the foreign debt tripled under the direction of Mr. Bush and the Republican Party. The Party of ‘No’ encouraged the out-sourcing of jobs overseas, and the de-regulation of the stock and commodity markets. With those liabilities, how can any Republican portend to have the answer to the present dilemma?

Most assuredly, there are other factors that have contributed to this situation – housing and the methods used in financing housing takes a lot of the blame. Even though it was only 2% of the GNP, the cost of sub-prime financing was just enough to create the stalemate in our cash flow. Cash flow is everything and we all need to take that to heart. Mismanagement in our banking industry, in the form of grossly outlandish compensation to CEOs and others within the banking/financial arena, caused an unnecessary drain of capital from these institutions. Adding insult to injury were the practices exercised with the bailout money that some of these institutions received.

The President, in his speech to the nation from the floor of Congress, has outlined his approach to this problem and I, for one, find his solution one that can work if we generate a bipartisan effort to formulate a comprehensive plan for the budget and the future economic growth of America. May God bless the President of the United States of America, and the people to whom he serves!

In a democracy, silence is not golden; it is condonance in the face of injustices; it is fear, where the thought of reprisal fosters control.

What Did You Expect...

We are thirty-four days into the Presidency of Barack Obama. The President is moving to accomplish campaign promises, chief among them – transparency, and yet; the Media has asked the questions that one would only have expected from an administration that had been in office for a year or more. Will the President nationalize the banking system; how are you going to manage the Guantanamo ‘mess’; will the Stimulus work; the rantings of one uninformed Rick Santelli… and more? Despite the hand that he has been dealt, the President is doing remarkably well in making the adjustments and decisions necessary to bring good government to the American people.

Even more surprising is the stout wall that the Republican Party has set for the President to vault in attempting to extend the right hand of partisanship. We all know that Madam Pelosi is not prone to following the lead of anyone, hence the degree of difficulty for the President in achieving this noble goal. But, Pelosi notwithstanding, the Republican Party has done its best to thwart the efforts of the President in realizing this goal. If there is ever to be some semblance of bipartisanship, the Republican Party is going to have to realize that they are not in the best of positions to dictate policy given the last eight years under Bush with six of those years in total control of the Congress by the Republican Party.

The responsibility for bringing America through this crisis rests with Congress in supporting the direction of the President. Robust debate with the intent of reaching this lofty goal is expected of the Congress. We saw just the opposite from Congress in passing the Stimulus package. The galvanization demonstrated by the refusal to include the Republicans in the initial phase of the Stimulus package was followed by the refusal to support any part of the Stimulus package by the Republicans. The debacle reminds us that bipartisanship is not the primary goal of this Congress. The President has said that it is incumbent on the majority to include the minority, and the minority should come to the table with constructive ideas.

The attempts to discredit the President have continued to be a source of embarrassment for the Republican Party. Witness the conversation of McCain and the President on the fleet of helicopters that President Bush ordered; a situation that President Obama had already discussed with Secretary Gates. McCain knew that Obama and Gates had already talked about the helicopters, but he attempted to use the helicopters and their cost to discredit the President; it backfired.

The Republican Party has tried unsuccessfully to question the authenticity of the President to serve…

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Senator Shelby, (R) Alabama spoke with connotations of himself being the ultimate authority as to the right of the President to be the leader of the United States simply because he had not seen the President’s birth certificate, therefore; the President had not been shown to be legitimately eligible to hold the office of President. These tactics have continued to explode in the faces of those attempting to use whatever means to discredit the President.

At some point in time the Republican Party will come to the realization that Barack Obama is the President of the United States of America, and that he is also a cunning adversary that will take them to the hoop on any subject! The Republican Party will be forced to reconcile themselves with the responsibility of working with this President for the good of America because 2010 is right around the corner!

Complain Before It Gets too Bad

Until recently, I was content to do my civic duty by voting at each opportunity for the candidate of my choice. Once I had casted my vote, I felt that everything else would fall into place and government would do the responsible thing toward me and all of the rest of the constituents who reported to the polls and casted their vote for good government. Judging by pass performances from our Congressman, I am sure that you have to agree with me when I say our real jobs start the day after that representative takes office. We have to know who our State, as well as our National representatives is, and what they are doing.

If we had collectively, as State and National constituents with concerns, been paying attention, Phil Gramm would not have been able to deregulate the Commodities Market Act without our protesting to our representatives in both Houses. We could have written our respective Congressman and complained mightily about the President’s wish to cut taxes to such a degree that there is nothing there to reduce the nation debt, not that it would have helped in that case. We could have protested and written letters and camped out at our Congressman’s office door to stop the invasion of Iraq. We could have done a lot by sharing with our Congressman our thoughts on these things because they represent us in Congress!

The election of Obama has done more to awaken the possibilities that are at our fingertips when it comes to voicing our opinion about what our Congressman are doing. We should stay abreast of what is happening in Congress. Voice an opinion about the things that we don’t like and praise them when they are doing a good job. I am sure that our elected officials go to our State and National ‘Capital Hills’ with good intentions and there are things that go on there that we are not privy to, but that does not give them the right to bargain away our interest on issues with which we take exception.

Get involved! Contact your Congressman and tell him that you are interested in this or that issue and the reasons why you are interested. Talk to him and write him often enough about – credible – issues. Don’t be a nuisance, be informed and let your conversation reflect that you are informed and concerned. Each State and National representative has both e-mail and office telephone numbers that we can use to contact them. Use them to keep your representatives informed. Refuse to accept form letters in response to correspondence with their office. The internet is a powerful tool that we can use to stay in touch with the people that matter most to us in government.

When Fascism Comes to America

"When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in a flag and carrying a cross".

When – at some point in time... Fascism – forcible suppression of the opposition comes to America, it will be wrapped in a flag and bearing a cross. What could the author of this quote have been thinking when he made that statement?

Do you know Sinclair Lewis? I have no idea who he is. Someone sent me this caricature through my e-mail. I read it, thought about it a moment and then moved my cursor to delete it as something amusing – a moose saying “be afraid, be very afraid”. Then I tried to envision what the author was trying to tell me with this caricature. I decided to take a second look and this is what I came away with…

Sinclair Lewis was born at the turn of the century. He excelled as a writer and was rewarded for his contributions by being awarded the Nobel Prize for Literature in 1930. In his acceptance speech, Lewis decried the unwillingness of Americans to stand up against accepting the status quo when he stated to his distinguished colleagues that “in America most of us — not readers alone, but even writers — are still afraid of any literature which is not a glorification of everything American, a glorification of our faults as well as our virtues," and that America is the most contradictory, the most depressing, the most stirring, of any land in the world today.”

The quote – “Be afraid, be very afraid” is attributed to Sinclair Lewis and is associated with his novel “It Can't Happen Here”, a novel about the election of a fascist President of the United States. I would point out that the attempts to commercialize this novel were met with reluctance. The reluctance, in essence, proves Sinclair Lewis’ position to be a correct one.

Are there any similarities that we can glean from the novel “It Can’t Happen Here” and what is currently occurring in these United States? Do you see the extreme political partisanship in America that would foster a fertile climate for Sinclair Lewis’ novel to come to life in our time? I do, and I will tell you why.

Do you remember when anyone that spoke out against the war in Iraq was ridiculed for not supporting the President? Those brave souls and I call them brave because they stood up against what was a popular train of thought, and verbalized their displeasure about our going to war in Iraq. Going to war seemed, at the time, the right thing to do if you believed the reasons that were presented to Congress and the American people. We have since learned that those reasons now resemble Swiss cheese in terms of their ability to withstand the truth test. Maybe those few individuals knew more than we gave them credit for; could it be that they knew what we were doing when we disregarded all of the fail-safes in giving the President carte blanche to go to war?

Congress is divided along partisan lines for good reason. The views of those on both sides are believed to be those necessary to keep America in the fore-front internationally. Republicans have fostered the ideal that if you give the people all of their money, and allow them to make the decisions regarding where they would invest that money, our economy will excel. In trusting their investment decisions as ‘the solution’ for the American economy, we put the welfare of the United States in peril, and we have but to look at the current state of affairs to realize that was/is a bad idea. To make matters worse, we allow those in a position to do so, to take all of the profits with no money reaching the working class in quantities sufficient to keep the economy fluid. I don't know who said it, but the quote "a people not governed, are a people with no focus" seems to fit here.

We know that all of the safe-guards implemented by Clinton working with a Republican majority in Congress were dismantled by the Bush administration. Deregulation was the battle cry that has us on the brink of the abyss. Remember, the Democrats did not gain a significant plurality in Congress until 2006, and even with that plurality, they cannot overturn a veto without help from the Republican members of Congress. This fiasco cannot be laid at the foot of Congress present day. No, the Republicans did this by themselves and they should own up to it!

To say that the Democratic point of view in addressing the needs of these United States is the right one is a bold statement and I certainly don’t aspire to that, but I do say that it is the closest thing to ideal that we are going to get until bi-partisanship comes to fruition. I believe with all my heart that if Congress and the President were to put America first, none of the horrible things that currently beset us would be the case. The fight to bring America back to its prominence in the world requires a sincere joint effort.

How did this country express its desire in placing President Bush in office? We know that the same core group of supporters that put Bush in office is steadfastly supporting McCain for four more years of the same policies. Who are these people that put Bush in office – well, the only thing that I can say in answer is… when fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in a flag and carrying a cross.