Thanks Senator Manchin: What an Elected Official Should Be (Updated)

 

New York Magazine Photo

***Over the weekend of Dec 17-19, Washington found out how easily all the work on the Build Back Better initiative could fall apart. As the analysts confer, it seems a few poorly chosen words from the White House coupled with a few too many snide and disrespectful comments from idealists were the tipping point for Senator Joe Manchin who called it quits on the President's funding proposal.  While the younger and/or less mature members of the House and Senate have commented that Manchin needs to be "run out" of the Democratic party, they better hope he remains a solid, albeit, moderate Democrat. They might just be thanking him for saving them come November 2022.

With the deadline for this year's budget and spending plan kicked down the road as expected, it has become increasingly clear who in Congress is there to serve this country and who is there to play soccer in a never-ending and generally tied game of Republicans vs. Democrats.  With members focused on following a political game plan rather than effective planning, this country has been subjected to a ping-pong approach to lawmaking instead of setting it on a path that fairly represents every demographic and business. With crossed fingers and muttered wishes, that trend may finally be cracking with a kind of action-based hope for fair and equitable government coming somewhere in the near future. 

Over the last year, approximately one percent (1%) of Congressional members have shown they can be what an elected official should be--objective, knowledgeable and flexible representatives who are not hog tied by party loyalty. Nine months ago, it was the handful of Republicans that voted to impeach Trump.  Now it is Joe Manchin (D-WV) who is standing against an over-the-top Democratic agenda that is largely a mystery to the America people. For that, he deserves a thank-you instead of the short-sighted criticism of the President and Congressional leaders.

This morning (10.8.2021), the news is about Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer's speech following a stop-gap vote to extend the debt limit until early December. Without too much first-hand knowledge of this speech, it isn't hard to imagine the content.  Far too often, over the last few years, federal leaders have addressed each other and American citizens as if they were scolding children instead of being professionals. That tactic has not been successful in the past and does not seem likely to work in the future. Unless Schumer was playing to donors and extremists, what possible reason could he have had to take several minutes to berate half of the Senate chamber (and at least half of the country) with words that come off as shaming rather than reconciliation. Does he really believe the majority of US citizens want more debt?  Perhaps it is Biden, Pelosi, McCarthy, Schumer and McConnell who need to be reminded of their role in government, not the American people. 

From what little is known about Biden's Build Back Better agenda, the focus is on fixing fifty years of problems created by quick decisions and simple majority wins. Repeating a pattern that has left local government with the responsibility of maintaining all these projects, the BBB legislation is competitive by design rather than mutually beneficial across all states and demographics.  It perpetuates economic behaviors which have not served taxpayers well but have created a legacy of government dependence and mandates that keep American families in a lifestyle of debt and consumerism. Like always, rural communities are low on the priority list because they can and do support themselves. 

Joe Manchin understands this governmental trend and is right to drag his feet. What is seen as rogue or unprofessional behavior on Capital Hill might just be caution to insure fair treatment for his state as well as other rural communities.

For nearly forty years, Manchin has worked in all levels of government to protect and support a state that is characterized as bigoted and uneducated but often used by big business and big government for their own purposes.  To discount his understanding of government in favor of the ideas of young and inexperienced members of Congress is to say that only the young are entitled to the full benefits of American citizenship. Entitlement based on any single characteristic--age, location, education level, income, ethnic status or gender--damages the foundation of this country and democracy as a whole.  That knowledge only comes with experience. Manchin knows the difference and should be thanked, not ridiculed. 

All of rural America should support Manchin for two reasons. One, because it is a more reasonable course of action than the one currently proposed. And two, to finally rid this country of the notion that this is all about Trump. For far too long, rural communities have carried more than its share of the economic load while surviving policies that built up global trade and weakened local economies.  Maybe now, those in Congress will wise up and see that without rural America, this country is nothing.

Keep it up, Senator Manchin. 

infrastructure 2021-22: The Hilarity of a Carbon Tax

** Pennsylvania is--according to different news reports--the first state to adopt a carbon tax policy.  No called "carbon pricing" as if it were a purchase of goods and services, the policy is coming from President Joe Biden's old stomping grounds.  With the cost of living already high in Pennsylvania, the logic of this action is dubious. 

As Congress and the President work diligently to force through an agenda that everyone but those who answer the Polls seem to question, this concept of a carbon tax is dangled out there as a way to fund the massive, catch-all infrastructure bill.  So, while this author prefers information that is well researched and factual, it should be clear that this is conjecture and speculation and not direct knowledge as to how a carbon tax would be used.

Photo (www.itep.org)

What is a carbon tax?

Simply put, it is a potential tax on anything that produces some type of carbon emission. Since nearly every biological function or energy source produces some form or carbon gas, it is an atmospheric gold mine of tax revenue. The unknown here is to what degree Congress will use this provision and how it might be regulated.

Why a carbon tax?

Like the Clean Air policies which began this trend of demonizing fossil fuels, this tax would draw income from actions and products people cannot easily do without but release some form of carbon into the air.  The concept is not new. King George tried it several times ( tax on tea and the Stamp Act come to mind) only to have the colonies rebel against him and his control.

Why have a carbon tax? 

As with most moves by government, taxing is best done when it plays well with voters.  A carbon tax seems innocuous enough because voters believe it will not impact them. Even some members of Congress may not completely understand the science to fully grasp its all-encompassing potential.  More important than the huge amounts of revenue it could generate, such a tax would show support for climate change initiatives adopted by the European Union which are based on Greenhouse Gas Theory. This is as much about earning points with US allies and celebrity activists as it is appearing to address climate change. 

Will this help curb Climate Change? 

Not likely.  As any Star Trek fan learned from the iconic series (1966), the Earth is a world based on carbon. How many times  did Spock explain this simple but accurate fact to viewers is hard to gauge. The average human is 18.5 percent carbon. Every plant is made of carbon as well as every animal on the planet.  With the exception of water, nearly all foods and medicines contain carbon. Building materials such as steel, wood and stone contain carbon.  Fabrics such as polyester, cotton, wool and acrylic are based on carbon.  Paper including shipping containers, hard copy books and even greeting cards contain carbon. To do without carbon is to do without most of the essentials of life. 

What could it tax?

This is where the hilarious nature of the carbon tax comes into play and why every citizen should stop for a moment and think about what that tax could mean for them.  Again, remember every living thing produces carbon gas at some point in its cycle. This is a natural environmental process that has existed since life first appeared. It is essential to life and to disrupt it will have unknown consequences.  Here are just a few things to consider as this Build Back Better agenda takes hold.

• Breathing Could Be Taxed - According to figures that are circulating the internet (which this author cannot verify), the average human exhales between 1.5 and 3 pounds of carbon dioxide every day.  Using the example of a penny a pound, that is roughly $10 per person per year for $3.3 billion dollars. In a similar fashion, pets, farm animals, wildlife preserves and stocked lakes have animals which produce carbon dioxide and methane.
  

• Any heat source could be taxed. Everything from the wood stove or oil furnace that so many rural residents depend on to the high efficiency heat pump with propane backup could be restricted or taxed.  Oil, propane, natural gas, wood, coal, kerosene, paper and even gel alcohol produce carbon emissions.

• Electricity in General could see increased costs from taxes.  According to government figures (2020) only about 2.3% of all electricity in this country is produced by solar energy. Add wind and hydroelectric plants and it leaves 80% of all electricity produced in the US subject to carbon emissions regulations. 

• Imports as well as Exports could be taxed.  This global economy that was pushed so heavily a few decades ago is one that cannot exist without carbon emissions. Container ships as well as over-the-road trucks are dependent on diesel for power.  Large amounts of carbon gases are produced over oceans where such gases cannot be utilized effectively by plants.  

And the list could go on and on and on. 

What about Climate Change?

For now, the leaders of the World believe that carbon emissions is causing climate change. Like the belief in a flat Earth that popped up in many civilizations, believing in something does not make it factual.  If carbon gas were the cause of all global ills, the planet would have ceased to exist long ago.

Perpetuated by computer models which have no capacity to think critically, leaders force people to accept incorrect science in order to financially benefit from government contracts, grants and tax breaks.  Until, the masses question this propaganda, carbon emissions will be seen as the enemy and taxed. Additional regulations will attempt to restrict carbon gasses much like the EPA has restricted other elements (sulfur, carbon, nitrogen, ozone and dust) when sent into the atmosphere.  

Sadly, by reducing these emissions, leaders may further compromise the environment and prolong the climate change debate.

Why does the Environment Need Carbon Emissions?

From the Lord of the Rings to many other Sci-Fi movies with spectacular special effects, movie goers have learned to see volcanoes, hurricanes, wildfires and drought as end-of-time events. Instead they are clear and specific parts of the environment's never-ending process of recycling itself.  Drought is the sign that the air is too clean (no dust=no clouds=no rain). Hurricanes bring moisture from the oceans that replenish ground water sources so that the land can continue to produce food hungry people. Volcanoes are a beautiful, yet drastic, way to recycle the minerals (like sulfur, carbon and hydrogen) that are needed for plants and wildlife to live healthy lives. And finally, wildfires clean up the environment when mankind shirks his responsibility to manage and use the resources the environment gives him.  

As long as mankind chooses to restrict these common and naturally occurring gases, erratic weather will be part of the global scene. Taxing an essential life element because some see it as dangerous is not only hilarious but extremely sad at the same time. 

 

Infrastructure 2021: Why Politicians Should Never Be Lawyers

On Friday afternoon (9/17), with less than two weeks before a potential government shutdown, the White House (per Bloomberg) quietly began to pressure state and local governments to support the the $3.5 trillion dollar spending bill and debt increase. The all-too-familiar process (used multiple times by both parties over the last two decades) threatened funding for Medicaid, school lunches, and Social Security recipients. After all, who better to disenfranchise than those who are so poorly and unequally represented in Congress. It is a typical and standard part of the budget process and because it is so common, it is even more disgraceful by its use in a time of apparent crisis.

One isn't sure who is crafting the messages that come out of the White House these days, but as the wording is straightforward and well-written, it is also harsh and lacking any semblance that those who make the decisions recognize that people's lives are at stake. Perhaps, this is why politicians should not be lawyers and why lawyers fail to make good leaders. 

The Law and the study of it is fascinating in its intricacy. Its special language, a combination of Old English and new phrasing, would impress any good con artist with its lack of transparency.  Then, there is the process that must be followed--a set of rules that, like poker, carries a certain amount of swagger and bluff to be successful. Cards are laid on the table only when one has the already won the hand.  

Portrayed as blind and balanced to be fair and equal to all, justice is not the goal of lawyers, nor politician, but a negotiating tool to gain support for personal and political agendas.  Sadly, the farther this country gets from the writing of its Constitution, the more there is an understanding that the law only serves to divide by elevating one group over another. 

By the early 1800s, just 25 years after the Constitution was ratified, the land owners, scholars, inventors and businessmen that sought to design a "more perfect Union" knew they had failed. Largely replaced by elected officials schooled and shaped by military service, wealth or legal education, there was little room for someone with a real world perspective on how daily problems should be remediated. Those, like Daniel Boone, and then Lincoln, who spoke for the common man, were a minority and still are. 

How did a country founded on working class values lose its edge? In the same way it happens today, those with education and wealth easily took control of a fledgling country with an uneducated and easily manipulated populace.

Many with educated and noble family backgrounds (Kamala Harris) had emigrated from countries which experienced political upheaval.  Some. like the Kennedy and Trump families, knew that government office could profitably steer business in a desired direction. Others with social connections and wealth saw it as an appropriate calling for the younger generation as a way to ensure the family legacy or to recover from financial ruin (Joe Biden).  Only in exceedingly rare cases did someone achieve political success with a background of hard work and relationships with ordinary people.

What makes law such a poor background for a leader?  Simple, the act of being a lawyer is about defending one narrow position according to the rules of law. It is not about right or wrong or even justice, but about persuading people to think in a particular manner.  Some examples  might help it be much clearer.  

• Lawyers defend a concept not a person. They are not required to know, talk to or even believe their clients. Once elected, no official is required to consider anything more than his own values and ambitions. Persons who cast their vote in support of a one-sided philosophy encourage inequality for us all.
  
• Evidence is the basis of decisions even if that evidence is manipulated or false. Have we not seen the Biden administration choose which evidence is to be used in regard to vaccine use?  Do the words "alternative facts" (per Kellyanne Conway) come to mind?  
• Lawyers are not accountable for poor outcomes.  Congress, as well as the President, are exempt from general liability and therefore have no interest in "doing their best". While a doctor can be sued for malpractice, elected officials are cloaked with protection that an average citizen cannot hope to ever obtain. A good publicist can erase every mistake from the public record.
  
• Lawyers frequently blame the system when it does not work in their favor and appeal the decision until it is one that is more to their liking. However, they readily claim success when they win the fight. Recently, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi chastised the Supreme Court for taking a more moderate stand on several provisions of on her own political agenda. 
  

Could it be that our government is not broken but a congregation of 536 (Congress plus the President) homogeneous career-oriented people whose focus is no less narrow-minded than a radical dictatorship or religious cult. Isn't the Law a kind of Bible behind which government stands when criticized?  Does government not seek to bend 330 million people to a single way of life that is much like the caste-system in India and religious extremists in Afghanistan.  Is a system based on wealth and lopsided protection under the law any less unjust for Americans? Doesn't the Law allow all three of these systems to exist openly?

Historically speaking, the American system was set up with three branches for the purpose of bringing different perspectives to the governing process.  Only the Court system was intended to be run by those familiar with the Law.  Unlike the nations that grew out of the British Empire, the US neglected to protect the "commoner" and provide equal representation so that poor and lower-income people could attain elected office as easily as the educated and well-of. 

Over the next few weeks, the country will be witness to the failing of a political system led by those who understand the law but not human nature. Wouldn't it be interesting to see how leadership changed if lawyers were banned from holding elected office. 

Who knows, it might bring us full circle to how the Constitution is supposed to work--of the people, by the people and for the people.  An interesting thought, isn't it? 

Kamala Harris Background Link  

Kennedy Family History in Politics

Trump Family Background

Joe Biden's Family Legacy