Category Archives: Congress

Fear of the Mob

Posted on by
Reply

This will be brief.

The U. S. Senate meets Wednesday to confirm the results of the Electoral College. Many Republican Senators and Representatives are up for re-election in 2022.  We’ve been hearing that some of those people don’t want to antagonize our president and his base by quietly agreeing to the results of the election. He already has threatened to “primary” some Republican office-holders who have repudiated his repeatedly-rejected (by the courts) claims of election fraud.

Those who bow to his intimidation are, in effect, signaling that they fear standing against mob rule, for it is clear that this president is unafraid to promote mob behavior in the streets, on the internet, or even in the front yards of elected officials who dare to stand for the truth.

And when the mob becomes a motivator for political decisions, especially if they are decisions focused on individual political futures, it is a slap in the faces of our founders and endangering the constitutional republic they gave us and for which millions have sacrificed their lives to defend.

This is a time to stand against the mob and against the one who thinks it is an acceptable tool to obtain or retain power.  There is never a time for cowardice. There is always a time for courage.

Wednesday will be one of those times.

(We hope Dr. Crane can resume his normal place on Mondays next week.)

The Staples Lesson

Posted on by
3

A lot of time and space is being chewed up in the media—including here—about our president’s desire to dominate the Republican Party after he leaves office.  We’ve heard, read, and seen a number of questions about why the GOP, by and large, refuses to acknowledge that the president lost on November 3.  One answer we have NOT heard suggested was explained in the Missouri Senate during the September veto session of 2002 by Danny Staples.

Senator Staples ran a canoe-rental business in Eminence, in country of Ozark Mountains, National Forests, and Scenic Riverways.  He might have been the greatest storyteller in the history of the Missouri Senate—certainly I never heard anybody better in four decades of statehouse coverage.  Some of his stories were tinged with truth.

When things got pretty testy, Staples often would get up and go off on a long, windy discussion of life in Shannon County’s Horse Hollow, his baseball career, his adventures with his horse Trixie, how he was related (by marriage) to Lady Godiva, defending cockfighting, or the days when he hauled cars from New Orleans to Omaha or something else. When Danny Staples was forced out by term limits, the Senate lost about 80% of its sense of humor.

But getting back to today’s situation in Washington, where it seems all sense of tension-relieving humor left the Capitol long ago.

For those worried about the Republicans in Congress who don’t dare speak even slightly ill of our president, we turn to a story told by Danny Staples in his farewell remarks to the Senate eighteen years ago.  Your reporter had the foresight to turn on his tape recorder to capture many Staples stories and has transcribed most of those recordings. Here’s part of his last speech to the Missouri Senate:

“…This is the greatest place in the world to try to make a living.  Sometimes the food is free.  Sometimes the beverages are free.  But I can tell you now…that I had to come up here two weeks ago on constituent services business and I went over to the Deville Hotel.  There was 18 lobbyists sitting there eating and drinking. And I’m term limited out. They know I can’t ever vote again.  And I set over in the corner, all by myself like an orphan boy at a picnic, bought my own Bud Lite and bought my own steak dinner.”

Danny died seventeen years ago, a little more than seven months after leaving the Senate.

The Deville Hotel has a different name. It no longer is a hangout for lobbyists around a restaurant table because it doesn’t have a restaurant anymore. And the Senate doesn’t have Danny Staples.

Nor does the Senate, or the House, in Washington have anyone who can step in when things get too self-important and tense, and cool things down the way Danny Staples did in the Missouri Senate.  And man-oh-man do they ever need it.

As far as why Republicans in Washington—or even the Republican candidate for the Senate in Georgia—continue to parrot Trumpian hogwash that the election was stolen from him, the answer might become more clear on January 6, 2021.

That’s the day after the two U. S. Senate elections in Georgia.  After that, our president will be considerably weaker because there will be nobody over whom he can threaten harm. Disparaging remarks on Twitter will mean far less because all elections have been decided. The control of the Senate has been determined. While he still might bark loudly, most of his harmful teeth will be gone—for at least two years. And with the passage of time (and the potential for legal difficulties that might mean more than another four-year term), his bite will be even less fearful.

Walking into a room of the powerful when you are in no position to help them or to seriously harm them will be a far different experience for our president from the days when he could walk into a room or into a Tweet before that senate election and hurt somebody.

As of January 6, it might be the president who “sets over in the corner like an orphan boy” because the people he will leave behind in the House and the Senate will have a much reduced reason to deal with him.

As far as being “relevant” within the party or whether a Trump will lead the national GOP: other people will be making a lot of decisions once our president no longer has the cover of his office to protect him and those decisions have the potential to make some decisions for the party regardless of the number of true believers the president now has when he has the power to do something for them. Sooner or later the party might recognize a need to move on and the path might be clearer when there is no sitting president blocking the view.

Regardless, both parties and   both houses of the Congress still badly need somebody such as Danny Staples to tell them to quit taking themselves so seriously that they lose sight of the broad public that believed it was electing them to serve in its interests.

 

 

Poster Child

Posted on by
5

Three weeks ago in this space, I argued that we should give our president some slack so he could protest perceived shortcomings in the November 3 election.  But enough is now more than enough. The final straw came last Sunday with his interview with Maria Bartiromo on FOX.

His seemingly unending and increasingly bizarre and wild claims that the election was stolen from him, his efforts to hamper his successor’s transition to the presidency, his ongoing lack of concern about the thousands of his fellow citizens who are falling ill and losing their lives at increasing rates, and his seeming (though perhaps intentional) appearance of ignorance of how elections and the courts work have exceeded the tolerance of many who were willing to give him one final chance to grow up.

I am out of patience.

Quite early in my career as a reporter, I determined there were two qualities in public figures that I would not tolerate.

I would not tolerate rudeness.

I would not tolerate liars.

Our incumbent president pegs the needle on both counts.

I pity the man.  I’ll tell you why later.

Every day, our president justifies his role as a poster child for the worst qualities anyone in elective office can have. He is toxic to the American system.  And as long as members of his political party refuse to stand up for their roles in the American system of checks and balances, he will spread his blot upon the office of President of the United States.

I take a risk in writing these words for there are issues and causes in which I believe that will need support of members of his party—and I know these words might create hurdles that are not needed to accomplish some goals.  But there are times when tolerance reaches its limits. These comments are sure to arouse the tempers of those who believe Donald Trump is our country’s greatest president.  None of them, however, believe it more than he does. To be honest, Mr. Trump was my seventh-favorite candidate in a field of two in 2016.  Hillary Clinton was my fourth-favorite candidate in the field of two—and I don’t remember who ranked above them nor do I care anymore. Those who found Mr. Trump number one by far are free, as always, to leave comments in the box below these remarks. But I urge them to follow the guidelines if they expect to see them attached to the entry. I respect differing opinions but I respect them more if they are courteously presented and are more than echoes of his unfounded assertions.

History sometimes offers a cleansing perspective to events and people who are despised in their own time.  But it is difficult for those who find Mr. Trump reprehensible as a person and as a politician to anticipate a time when that might happen for him. Despite his self-proclamations of greatness, he seems during these years when his massive character flaws have been flaunted likely to be listed among the worst presidents in our national history.

I am afraid his positive accomplishments in office have been obscured by his own behavior and his own personality, by his lies and his rudeness.

He has shown manifold instances of believing the Congress is unnecessary and of believing that the Supreme Court is his to command.

He respects no one but himself and is quick to turn on those he has praised when they speak truthfully to him the first time. He shows little or no respect for the political party he claims to represent or for those within the party who place truth and service above loyalty to him. His attacks on Republican election officials and his firing of a lifelong Republican who headed the Homeland Security Cybersecurity program—who had the temerity to say this year’s elections were the most secure in history—are so clearly antagonistic toward the party that it is hard to accept that the party leadership can remain so acquiescent.

He’s a manipulator, an intimidator and with his run for the presidency and his securing that job, he has stood upon his own pedestal to proclaim greatness. He has walked on and over people to get where he is and has left no significant record of ever helping someone else up.

He lies.  If he were say to me, “Good morning,” I would not believe it.

He has no class.  No dignity.  He is not a man who brings out the best in us.  He doesn’t even try.  Everything is about him.

I wonder how many of the thousands who have gathered at his rallies want their children to grow up to be like him.

His behavior has been such that a record number of people voted on November 3 against him and his truculent behavior since bespeaks his lack of respect for the greatest symbol that our country can show the world—free and fair elections and peaceful transfers of power.   He seems incapable of understanding that his looney conspiracy theories are so outlandish that his own judicial appointees have found them embarrassing.

He knows he is the one thing he fears most.  He is a loser.

He believes in power over others, selective recognition of rights, and the idea that he might lose that power frightens him. He wants to remain “relevant,” meaning he wants to continue intimidating the timid souls in his own political party who only enable him to speak and behave outlandishly because they are afraid.

Instead of worrying about the minority that pledges undying support to him, the leaders of his party should turn away and seek an identity that draws a new constituency that makes ideals a goal rather than a constituency that idolizes a figure who cares not about his followers except in terms of their numbers. It is the party that must remain relevant and if the penalty for doing so is loss of control for a time, so be it. Relevance to a changing nation will pay off eventually. Obeisance is temporal but weakening.

Despite these harsh words, I pity him.

He is a man who grew up in a world of concrete, steel, tall buildings, wealth and privilege, in which money could replace apologies and in doing so encouraged unapologetic behavior.  He was never a Boy Scout. His military service consisted of being sent to a military school as a young teenager where he rose to the rank of captain of cadets until he was replaced. His version of why he was replaced differs from the recollections of other cadets whose recollections indicate he was not the team player or leader he should have been, which is no surprise to those who witness him today. There is no record that I have seen that he was ever been on a nature hike, never visited a national park to appreciate beauty outside the harsh scenery of tall buildings, never placed value in anything growing naturally.  He participated in few team sports—although he once claimed to have been the best baseball player in the state, he never made the varsity team at either of his colleges although he was on the Squash team at one of them. He has a car collection but it is unlikely you’ll find the kinds of Chevrolets, Fords, Dodges and Plymouths that are part of our lives. It is unlikely he ever mowed the family yard or raked the leaves after enjoying the colors they brought to the change of seasons.  He sees people such as us as pawns in his political games, playable pieces that have no meaning other than the ways he can move them to his benefit. He doesn’t appreciate people such as us because he has never shared any of our real-world joys, pleasures, responsibilities, and challenges.

As angry as I have become with his behavior, I feel pity for someone who has never truly had a chance to live outside of himself, to be one of the people he uses.

But pity does not generate tolerance.  He’s not the kind of person I would want as a neighbor.  We have neighbors who voted for him, probably, but we appreciate them more than he does.  He would never be invited onto my front porch for a quiet conversation over Cokes.

He wants to keep control of the Republican Party after he leaves the White House.  But the nation is changing and he cannot stop it.  It would be wise of his party to embrace the changes but it can only do so if it breaks his grip and becomes once again a party of Republicans rather than a party of someone who only claims to be one.

The success of down-ballot candidates of the party indicates many believe it is a viable part of our political system.  The results that show confidence below the top surely must be the guide that cannot be ignored when the party determines its  soul going forward.

–

Titles 

Posted on by
1

Congratulations to all of those who gained titles on November 3.  Representative.  Senator.

Don’t let it go to your head.

Some people get all puffed up about titles, job titles. Some of the puffiest are those who are elected to wear titles on behalf of all of us.  But as pious Sam the Eagle learned to his embarrassment on The Muppet Show, we’re all naked under our clothes and therefore, we are all alike even if we have been given an impressive title.

That’s a good thing to keep in mind for those we elected to lead us into the third decade of the Twenty-first Century.

President, Governor, Representative, Senator (state as well as federal) and others who have achieved loftiness with a phrase they now can put ahead of their names or can keep ahead of their names for a while longer need to remember political titles are temporary and even during the times they carry them, there are people who know what they look like in their underwear.  Or less.

Your obedient servant has never been one who believes titles of elective office stay with a person once they leave that office.  Mr. Danforth. Mr. Obama. Ms. McCaskill, Mr. Holden. The public endows the person with the title until they leave office, at which point the public usually bestows that title on a successor. Do not presume that a title should be ahead of your name on your tombstone. You are no more distinguished in your final resting place than all of the others around you. You were Joe or Mary to the folks back home before you got here—to the Capitol. They will still call you by those names when you return on weekends or between sessions. And you will still be Joe and Mary when your years here are finished. Titles are nice in the Capitol where many people want to be your best friend.  But to your real best friends, the ones who sent you here, you will still be Joe and Mary.

For many years, I have spoken to the incoming new members of the General Assembly about the Capitol’s history or how to get along with the press.  I have tried to impress upon them that although they might be a Representative or Senator from X-district, they are STATE Representatives and STATE Senators and there will be times when the interests of people statewide outweigh the wishes of the folks at the Friday morning coffee table.

The same is more true for those we send to Washington where the opportunities for perceived self-importance are even greater. It would be helpful if they, even more than those at the Missouri Capitol, remind themselves of the truth of Sam the Eagle’s epiphany.

Sometimes I have told incoming legislators that if they begin to feel pretty important or if they start believing the messages of their importance that lobbyists sometimes spread upon them, to take a walk in the third and fourth floors, the legislative floors, and look at the composite pictures of members of past General Assemblies, even as recently as ten years ago, and see if they can recall anything any of those faces on the wall said or did.  “With luck, you are no more than eight years away from being just another picture on the wall that some small child might look at for ten seconds when told that ‘Great grandpa was a member of the legislature,’ and then want to go back downstairs to see the stagecoach in the museum again,” I tell them.

Whether at the state level or the federal level—or even in our city halls and county courthouses—those we pick to represent us are better served (and we are better served) if they adhere to the words of the eminent 23rd Century philosopher  S’chn T’gai Spock: “The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.” (The Gospel of Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan.)

So, to the newbies as well as the re-elected veterans: The job is not about the title given to you. It is about what that title enables you to do for the people.  All of us.

 

 

After RGB 

Posted on by
Reply

Ruth Bader Ginsburg didn’t make it to the end of the Trump administration as she had hoped.  Her dying wish reportedly dictated to her granddaughter was that she not be replaced before the election.  It appears that’s not going to be realized either.  Our president has belittled her last opinion, in fact, claiming without evidence that it was something composed by Adam Schiff or Nancy Pelosi, or Chuck Schumer, three of his favorite Democratic punching bags.

Your observer of the three branches of government for most of his life fears a 6-3 U. S. Supreme Court, regardless of any perceived partisan tilt, and thinks a 5-4 court is best regardless of any such tilt.  The law is a matter of constant fine-tuning, often on small points of difference. Progress under the law is best accomplished with a surgical instrument rather than with a hammer.  The length of time members of the court are allowed to serve is a crucial factor in whether equality under the law is balanced for the long-term welfare of the country. Rulings from a 5-4 court seem more likely to represent arguments based on law rather than decisions based on ideology.  And when ideology shapes the legal standards under which we all much live, the opportunity for Inequality seems more likely to grow.

It is clear that Senate leader Mitch McConnell’s desire for an immediate vote on an immediate appointment is more focused on ideology than on the law, more focused on power than on principle.  Our nation is best served when the differences between conservative and liberal are narrow, forcing participants to focus on principle rather than power, more on law than on ideology.  It is as true in our appellate court system as it should be true in our legislative halls.

Super-majorities breed arrogance, distract from the principle of service, and place value on power.  And unchallenged power is inimicable to a republic.

Senator McConnell, who argued in February, 2016 that President Obama’s choice for the U.S. Supreme Court, Merritt Garland, should not get a hearing, let alone a vote, because court vacancies should not be filled during an election year, now has constructed some gymnastics to justify contradicting his argument against Garland.

Whether the process can be rushed to completion before the election is held is unclear. The process usually takes longer than the time between now and voting day. But it appears Senator McConnell will push that process.

The filling of this vacancy has instantly changed the presidential campaign and can instantly change campaigns for the U. S. Senate, including McConnell’s.  When the confirmation vote nears, we’ll see if some senators facing close contests might want to wait until after the election rather than rush to a vote before.

As if we voters don’t have enough to think about.

“May you live in interesting times” is a supposedly ancient Chinese curse—although scholars have found no such expression in Chinese.  There is, however, a Chinese phrase from a 1627 collection of short stories: “Better to be a dog in times of tranquility than a human in times of chaos.”

It appears we’re going to have a 6-3 court.  That doesn’t guarantee that the most conservative issues will be rubber-stamped, as we have seen from time to time when the court has surprised us with a ruling when a swing judge develops. Now, however, it’s going to take TWO swing judges when the court’s liberals prevail, a mountain too steep to climb most of the time. But the court’s own history indicates 6-3 is not always going to be a given.

Sometimes, however, being a dog, especially in times of chaos, is appealing, too.

The danger of finger-pointing

Posted on by
Reply

Postmaster General Louis DeJoy was summoned to recent congressional committee meetings for what became a partisan public flogging or a partisan public head-patting because of the mess the current administration has put the United States Postal Service in at a critical time. Does he deserve such a flogging or congratulatory head-patting?

The correct answer is “yes,” largely depending on whether you are an R or a D.

The USPS does have problems but the timing of the correction and some of the justifications offered for it have created a climate of suspicion.  Last weekend, the Associated Press ran a lengthy fact-checking article that covered an entire page of our local newspaper. It looked at claims made during the Democratic National Convention by Joe Biden and claims made at various recent times by our president.  Part of the article examined President Trump’s claim that the post office “probably” loses “three or four dollars” on every package it delivers for Amazon. The AP says the truth is that package delivery is NOT the cause but something else is—and that’s where today’s observation fits.

The House has approved $25 billion for the Post Office to make sure it can operate at full speed during the election. Most Republicans opposed it (26 voted with the Democrats) and the bill has to get through the Republican-controlled Senate before the president can veto it—as he has indicated he will.

We have heard precious little discussion by either party in Congress or in the White House about fixing the real cause of USPS’s financial distress.

Long ago someone told me the danger of pointing a finger is that there are three fingers pointing back at you. A few days ago a retired mail carrier friend suggested I look at legislation passed in 2006 as the root cause of the turmoil that has engulfed today’s most visible but perhaps most under-appreciated public servants.

Last year, the Institute for Policy Studies, which bills itself as a “progressive think tank” (and please, let’s not dismiss these findings because it comes from somebody calling themselves “progressive,” another honorable word that has been ruined by raving talk show hosts) issued a study called “How Congress Manufactured a Postal Service Crisis—and How to Fix It.”  The opening paragraphs could not be more clear:

In 2006, Congress passed a law that imposed extraordinary costs on the U. S. Postal Service. The Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act (PAEA) required the USPS to create a $72 billion fund to pay for the cost of its post-retirement health care costs, 75 years into the future. This burden applies to no other federal agency or private corporation.

If the costs of this retiree health care mandate were removed from the USPS financial statements, the Post Office would have reported operating profits each of the last six years. This extraordinary mandate created a financial “crisis” that has been used to justify harmful service cuts and even calls for postal privatization. Additional cuts in services and privatization would be devastating for millions of postal workers and customers.”

The study—you can read it on the internet—clearly states that the action of Congress in 2006 placed a burden on the Postal Service that is choking it. If that burden did not exist, we might not be in a crisis ripe for political exploitation because the USPS would be profitable.

Is it fair to blame the Trump administration for today’s postal service brouhaha? Perhaps better, is it fair to blame the administration for taking advantage of the mess Congress created to seek an advantage in this year’s election?  Strong Trump critics will say, “definitely.” Trump supporters are likely to accept the president’s finger-pointing at Amazon and its owner, Jeff Bezos who—as we noted last week—owns a Washington newspaper that aggressively challenges the truth of many Trump statements, as the reason for poor financial performance.

The law was passed when Bush 43 was President and both chambers of the Congress were Republican.  Today’s Republican administration appears to be trying to capitalize on the crisis created by a Republican Congress in an earlier Republican administration.  But it is unfair to put the problem entirely in the lap of the majority party.  Democrats controlled the Senate 2009-2015 and controlled the House 2007-2011 and did nothing to ease or eliminate the problem.

The reality is this: It makes no difference which party created the problem.  Both parties have a responsibility to correct it.  And reducing services instead of correcting bad policy enacted in 2006 is not the responsible step to take, particularly at a time when a worldwide health crisis will keep many voters at home on election day and wanting to use the mails to vote.

Some people on both sides of the aisle need to get their priorities straight.

But when a congressional blunder becomes a matter of seeking political advantage rather than seeking to correct a mistake that is now hampering a public service, correction might be an unrealistic hope absent change in partisan numbers or political attitude in Washington.

Here’s a suggestion:

Although it is too late to do anything now, write letters to your U.S. Senators and your member of Congress asking them to fix the crisis they or their predecessors caused.  We can be sure the letters will be delivered.  We wish we could be as sure that the right people will read them and act in your best interest and the best interest of the people who carried your letter to them.

Congress can point all the fingers it wants to point at somebody else. But it needs to be reminded that the number of fingers pointing at IT as the cause of this crisis is three times as many.

Congress caused the problem. Some of those who were there in 2006 will be expecting the United States Postal Service that they crippled fourteen years ago to put their campaign literature in your mail box telling you what good servants they have been.

It does not feel good in this election year to think the people who bring us that campaign mail have more commitment to service and more public integrity than the people whose mail they are delivering.

Ode DeJoy

Posted on by
1

(Not to be confused with Schiller’s poem and Beethoven’s composition setting it to music.)

I have a friend who delivered tons of mail in his forty-year career who has a simple answer to what’s going on with the Trump administration and the United States Postal Service: “It’s all Trump and Jeff Bezos.”  Bezos is the owner of Amazon. The President thinks the USPS should charge Amazon a lot more than it does to deliver Amazon’s packages. Bezos also owns the Washington Post which maintains one of the nation’s biggest and best-known fact-checking systems. It reported on July 13 that President Trump had given out more than 20,000 lies and misstatements since taking office. Our president does not like it when someone differs with him.

The Post doesn’t just target our president and it doesn’t just target Republicans. It recently jumped on Amy McGrath’s claim that Mitch McConnell made millions of dollars from China. McGrath is McConnell’s Democratic challenger for his U. S. Senate seat.

I have a friend who remembers when mailmen used to deliver census forms and then take the completed ones to the post office where they were kept until local census workers came in later in the process and determined which four percent of the residents had not replied—and then went out and started knocking on doors.

I have a friend who receives the Catholic Missourian, the weekly newspaper of the Jefferson City Diocese—although in the summer it comes out every two weeks, I understand. He usually receives it on Friday. But recently it arrived a day late. When he checked with the local post office he learned the newspapers had been brought in on Thursday for Friday delivery but the carriers had been told to wait until Saturday—part of the slowdown in service we’ve been hearing about.

For 250 years or so we have been spoiled by the service of postal carriers such as this fellow from about 1910, who have lived by a creed adapted from the writings of Herodotus in 430 B. C.:

It is said that as many days as there are in the whole journey, so many are the men and horses that stand along the road, each horse and man at the interval of a day’s journey; and these are stayed neither by snow nor rain nor heat nor darkness from accomplishing their appointed course with all speed.

We don’t expect much from our postal service.

—Bring us our mail faithfully.

—If we mail something on time, deliver it on time.

Easier said than done especially when there’s too much snow in our driveway for us to drive out.  But we nonetheless expect to find mail in our mailbox when we struggle through the snow on foot to get there.

Our postal service has become a political football or maybe a pawn in a campaign chess match.  Our president thinks mail-in balloting will be bad for him—-although Republicans can mail in their ballots as well as Democrats.  He’s balking at additional funding for the USPS that would pay for extensive use of mail-in ballots.  He has appointed a Postmaster General whose main qualifications for the job seem to be that he has given a lot of money to the Trump campaign.  Postmaster General Lous DeJoy started removing machines that sort 30-40,000 pieces of mail per hour, presumably to be replaced by machines that can sort 30,000 pieces of mail per MINUTE although we have yet to see any accounts of the new machines being on site and ready to install when the present machines are yanked.  The Kansas City Star says four machines have been taken out in Kansas City and two more in Springfield.

He also banned overtime and late trips by mail carriers, meaning mail not delivered during normal working hours will sit in the post office until the next day, at least—including prescription medications, checks, and other time-sensitive materials.

With those policies and changes, the Postal Service expressed doubts it could handle the volume of mail ballots it will get this year. The volume is expected to jump because an increased number of voters want to vote by mail instead of going to a polling place and increasing possible exposure to the Coronavirus. The announced changes came at an important time in our democratic process and have led to suspicions that our president is using them to limit the number of mail-in ballots that are not expected to go his way.

Suggestions that the postal service is incapable of handling the volume of mail-in ballots that will go into the system increase suspicions the system is being manipulated to affect the outcome of the November election. Under normal circumstances, there should be little doubt the USPS is capable of doing that job.  After all, these are the people who year after year process a Christmas mail load that is likely to be much heavier than the load of mail ballots.  My former mailman friend, who hauled a lot of Christmas presents in his time, finds the election concerns or allegations insulting.

Just as we were about to post this entry, DeJoy announced he was going to “suspend” several proposals that had been moving ahead until after the election.  His quick turn-around came only after twenty states announced they would sue him if he continued with his plans. Yesterday afternoon he said no more changes would be made until after the election “to avoid even the appearance of impact on election mail.”  He went on, “We will deliver the nation’s election mail on time.”

The states drawing up lawsuits are nonetheless wary. Forbes reported yesterday they still plan to file their lawsuits. It would be nice if we could tell you Missouri is one of the twenty states but, alas, we cannot.  In fact, it was not until the Kansas City Star contacted Secretary of State Jay Ashcroft and reported last Friday that he had received a letter from the USPS dated July 31 saying the service might not be able to deliver mailed absentee ballots in time for them to be counted because of DeJoy’s policies. The newspaper reported Ashcroft’s office did not appear to have told local election authorities about the letter.

If DeJoy thinks he has defused the controversy with his announcement yesterday, he is likely to be disabused of that notion Friday when he explains himself to the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee. Although the committee is led by Republicans, he won’t be able to avoid anticipated sharp questions from Democrats. As we file these observations, the White House has not blocked his appearance.

Our president, who has supported DeJoy’s plans, has made a completely unproven case that mail-in voting will result in massive voter fraud if he loses. Unsubstantiated voter fraud allegations are a familiar theme to him. Four years ago he appointed former Kansas Secretary of State Chris Kobach to lead an investigation of massive voting fraud (mostly by illegal immigrants, as we recall) in the Northeast. Kobach couldn’t get a whiff of voter fraud.

“Voter fraud” has been a theme of the president’s party for several years.  It was voiced with great passion by supporters of Voter Photo ID legislation enacted in Missouri. Four years ago in this space, we reported looking at every statewide election from the August Primary of 2008 through the November, 2014 general election.  We compiled these statistics when we referred to Voter Photo ID legislation as a “solution in search of a problem.”  We found 18 prosecutions for voter fraud (17 of them in registrations) out of 36-million opportunities in Missouri, less than one for every two-million opportunities. We have heard of NO prosecutions by our Secretary of State for voter fraud since that post in May, 2016.

With a slight bow to fairness when it comes to Voter Photo ID in Missouri we observe that critics argued, as they argue now in the mail-in voting controversy, that the real reason these things are being advocated is to suppress voting by certain demographics that do not endorse the policies of the party in power.  Those critics have been pretty quiet since photo ID went into effect.  We have yet to see any trustworthy studies showing fears of voter suppression have come true because of Photo ID.

Regardless of whether you buy into our president’s unsubstantiated allegations of voter fraud in mail-in ballots or into suspicions that our postal system is a campaign pawn, we citizens deserve a postal system that does the two simple things mentioned earlier. We citizens deserve and the people who bring us our mail every day deserve to be treated better than we are being treated by those in charge of our country.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is calling the House back from its August recess to pass a bill providing the funding needed to make sure the Postal Service can handle the election mail crush. We will suggest in our next entry that the roots of this mess were created fourteen years ago and  it would be good also for her chamber—and the Senate—to clean it up.

Before we go, we anticipate in a few days the first trickle of direct mail political crap arriving in our mail box.  It’s called junk mail because it is junk and it treats the people receiving it as junk. We offer this suggestion to the USPS:  Deliver the newspaper on time to our Catholic friends and delay the political junk mail.

November 4 would be a good day to deliver it.

(About the dedicated mail carrier whose photograph you saw above: We don’t know for sure but we suspect it is a staged picture taken on his first day of work about 1910. Robert Milton Priddy, Sr.,–friends knew him by his middle name—was a rural mail carrier in the Beloit, Kansas area for more than 25 years. He died at the age of 57, three years before his grandson was born.)

Us vs. It—Part XI, Reasons to Act

Posted on by
Reply

I bought something from the internet the other day—a photograph from a company that sells archived news photos from decades ago.  No sales tax was charged by the company, which is in a nearby state.

The purchase is a reminder.

If the state needs money—and it surely does—

There is no better time to finally approve collecting a sales tax on purchases made through the internet.

The Missouri General Assembly has gone to great lengths to avoid enacting such a requirement for a decade or more. It has refused to create a collection policy of our own and it has rejected suggestions Missouri join a multi-state compact that collects sales taxes.

Past efforts have been attacked by those who use a faulty argument to avoid the responsibility needed to enact the bill.  “It’s a tax increase,” opponents claim.

Dishwater!

The state sales tax is not—let me emphasize that, NOT—being increased. If the law requiring the state sales tax be paid on purchases on the internet were to pass, the state tax you and I pay when we buy from an internet vendor would be the same as the tax charged when we buy from a hometown business. I should be able to duck a citizen responsibility to contribute to the well-being of others by buying something through the internet.

The argument in favor of an internet sales tax is even more compelling in today’s plague-mangled economy.  Hundreds of local businesses have closed because of stay-at-home orders. Many have not reopened and some never will reopen.  But one of our neighbors (yours and mine) who owns a brick-and-mortar business knows that customers who used to buy things at that store have been buying them on the internet while the store has been closed.

The problem of local folks visiting stores, checking the prices, and then buying the same thing from an internet vendor already was a problem before virus-caused closings forced consumers to increasingly rely in the internet.  Now the question becomes whether they will go back into the hometown stores when they open?

Passing a law requiring Missourians to pay the same sales tax on internet items that they have to pay for local in-store purchases is more symbolic than profitable for the merchant.  But at the same time, promoting the reopening of brick-and-mortar businesses without taking a step that offers a slight whiff of equality with internet vendors seems pretty inconsistent (although you might have a stronger word).

The need to do this has been increased by an executive order signed by our president that he says will resume the expired supplemental unemployment payments.  The executive order will pay $400 but the states will have to contribute $100.

The legality of the executive order aside, Missouri’s general revenue fund needs every penny it can generate whether for supplemental unemployment payments, virus-fighting efforts or maintaining services even at their reduced levels.

Our state leaders have insisted time after time that testing is the key to controlling the Coronavirus in Missouri.  At this point, it’s anyone’s guess whether Congress and our president can agree on a stimulus package that will include billions of dollars for state testing. Lacking that, it’s hard for someone well detached from the ins and outs of the statehouse these days to imagine where the state will find money for that testing without further wrecking the state budget, let alone where it will find money for its share of unemployment payments without the same result.

Where the state of Missouri would find $100 multiplied by several thousand each week is a troubling question.  The governor already has withheld or vetoed hundreds of MILLIONS dollars to balance the state budget.  Schools are opening and education at all levels has been badly bruised by the necessary budget actions. Inflicting deeper cuts to the biggest places to cut, education and social services, could be tragic at a time when schools, in addition their normal expenses, have to face the costs of keeping students, faculty, and staff safe from the virus.

By making Joe or Josephine Missouri pay the same sales tax on a coat from a Internet Inc., as Sarah and Samuel Showme have to pay for the same coat from a Main Street store, Inc., Missouri’s leaders and lawmakers can send a little positive message to the businesses they want to reopen despite health uncertainties at home by collecting needed funds from consumers who want to avoid a few pennies in sales tax by buying online.

The virus has produced all the justification needed to finally impose an internet sales tax. It won’t entirely solve the state’s financial problems. But it could at least partly equalize the competition for the local dollar, provide at least some of the funding for the state’s contribution to the supplemental jobless benefit, and/or ease the depth of any additional budget cuts or withholdings.

Unfortunately, this is a campaign year and candidates will stampede away from advocating anything that can be called, however erroneously, a tax increase no matter how desperate the virus causes the state to be for additional funds. Perhaps we’ll have to wait until January to see if those whose political futures have been determined by then will screw up the courage to take this step.

Better names

Posted on by
1

If we are to remove the names of traitors from our military bases—and we should—whose names deserve to replace them? The issue requires some thought and some understanding of the purposes of the bases.

Rudi Keller is a longtime friend whose company I used to enjoy during my days as an active member of the Capitol press corps. Not only is he a fine reporter, but he is an excellent historian. During the Civil War Bicentennial, Rudi wrote hundreds of columns about life in central Missouri during the war. The columns were turned into two books, one covering 1861 and the other 1862. I hope that someday, somehow, his work covering other three years of the war are published.

Rudi is now the news editor of the Columbia Daily Tribune. He still finds time to write news stories and some opinion pieces published in the Tribune and in other Gatehouse-owned newspapers. A couple of weeks ago he offered some “humble suggestions for new base names,” a response to suggestions our military bases named for Confederate officers should get new, more honorable names. His ideas are worthy of consideration by the people who have the power to make changes.

Last Thursday, U.S. Sen. Josh Hawley voted against an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act directing that new names be chosen for bases honoring Confederate military heroes. The amendment targets 10 military bases — all in states that initiated a war to preserve the right to own another human being.

In a statement to reporters, Hawley played the history card. We’ve seen it before, used to defend everything from flying the Confederate battle flag at the South Carolina capitol to keeping statues of violent racists in places of honor.

“I just don’t think that Congress mandating that these be renamed and attempting to erase that part of our history is a way that you deal with that history,” Hawley said.

Well, as the Tribune’s resident expert on the Civil War, I would recommend that Hawley ask his colleague, U.S. Sen. Roy Blunt, for some books on the generals whose names adorn some of the nation’s most important military installations. Blunt, you see, was once a high school history teacher and is a trustee of the State Historical Society of Missouri.

Blunt is not advocating for the names to remain on the bases. In fact, he suggested to reporters that renaming some or all would be appropriate.

“If you want to continue to name forts after soldiers, there have been a lot of great soldiers who have come along since the Civil War,” Blunt said, according to CNN.

Blunt noted that Braxton Bragg, whose name is on the largest military base in the world, was “probably the worst commanding general in the entire Confederate Army. He’s an interesting guy to name a fort after.”

But in case Hawley is too busy to read some books, here’s a short list of reasons why renaming those bases is a good idea. As Blunt noted, some of them have less-than-inspiring records of military achievement.

FORT LEE

We’ll start with Fort Lee in Virginia, named for Gen. Robert E. Lee.

Lee was an audacious, enormously successful commander and an inspiration to his troops. He was scrupulously honest, a brilliant engineer and he had a lasting impact on higher education after the war with his reorganization of what is now Washington and Lee University.

But instead of fighting for the nation that had given him an education, employed him and made him prosperous, he took up arms against it. That, in the Constitution, is the definition of treason.

Lee’s greatest military achievements were as an enemy of the United States. If he had been any more successful, the property occupied by Fort Lee would not be in the United States.

Fort Lee is a training center. How about Fort Steuben, for Friedrich Wilhelm von Steuben? A Prussian officer, he served in the Revolutionary War teaching basic military drill, tactics and discipline.

FORT HOOD

Fort Hood, in Texas, is named after John Bell Hood, an aggressive commander who destroyed through incompetence the last effective Confederate Army fighting west of the Appalachian Mountains.

Fort Hood is the army’s base for deploying heavy armored forces. How about renaming it Fort Patton, after the aggressive World War II Gen. George Patton? At a crucial moment of the war, he spearheaded an armored drive to defeat the last Nazi offensive in western Europe.

FORT BENNING

Fort Benning in Georgia is named for Henry L. Benning, a competent fighter who served under Hood. Benning was never a grand strategist and never held an independent command.

Fort Benning is where the U.S. Army trains its airborne troops and is the home of its infantry school. How about renaming it for Gen. Anthony “Nuts” McAuliffe? He was the commander of the 101st Airborne Division when it was surrounded at Bastogne, Belgium and acquired his nickname from the one-word answer he gave when Germans demanded his surrender.

FORT GORDON

Fort Gordon in Georgia is named for Gen. John Brown Gordon, who was an aggressive and audacious commander but who, after the war, opposed the Reconstruction policies that gave civil, social and economic rights to freed slaves. He is believed by many to have been the leader of the Ku Klux Klan in Georgia, although he is also on the record as having made some statements of benevolence to the people freed by the South’s defeat in the war to preserve slavery.

Fort Gordon is the Army’s center for signal and cyber security. Perhaps a better name would be Fort Lowe, for Thaddeus S.C. Lowe, who organized the Union Army Balloon Corps, which provided aerial reconnaissance of Confederate positions reported by a telegraph wire from a platform tethered up to 500 feet above the ground.

FORT BRAGG

Fort Bragg, North Carolina, is named after Braxton Bragg, as Blunt noted, one of the South’s least successful generals. On two separate occasions, Bragg had major strategic victories within his grasp but failed at the moment of execution.

Perhaps a fitting name would be Fort Washington, in recognition of the fact that George Washington led a meager, ill-fed and ill-clad force in the Revolution. The name applied to the world’s largest base would celebrate the power of what Washington started.

FORT POLK

Fort Polk, Louisiana, a joint readiness and training center, is named for Gen. Leonidas Polk, who did not survive the Civil War. As a military leader, he made a major strategic blunder early in the war that cost the Confederacy the chance to turn Kentucky to its side.

As a readiness center, perhaps it would be better named for Gen. George Thomas, who held his command in readiness at Nashville during an ice storm and struck at Hood when the weather warmed, scattering the rebel army and ending any substantial resistance in the war’s western theater.

FORT PICKETT

Fort Pickett, a Virginia Army National Guard installation, is named for George Pickett, who gave his name to the famously futile Pickett’s Charge at Gettysburg. If the military wants a symbol of bravery in the name of a forlorn hope, perhaps it could remain Fort Pickett.

I offer the name Fort Johnson-Brown, for Gen. Hazel Johnson-Brown, the first black woman to become a general in the U.S. Army and, in retirement, a professor of nursing at George Mason University in Virginia.

FORT A.P. HILL

Fort A.P. Hill, an Army training and maneuver center in Virginia, is named for Gen. A.P. Hill, who died in the last days of the war after a distinguished battle record. Like Lee, Hill was educated by the United States at West Point and turned on the loyalties of a 14-year U.S. Army career to take up arms against his country.

It could be renamed Fort Sherman, for Gen. William Tecumseh Sherman. While Gen. Ulysses Grant was piling up casualties in Virginia in 1864, Sherman mainly used flanking maneuvers to drive Confederate Gen. Joseph E. Johnston back almost 100 miles to Atlanta.

FORT RUCKER

Fort Rucker, Alabama, is named after Gen. Edmund Rucker. A cavalry leader, Rucker was a competent commander and after the war, a business partner of Nathan Bedford Forrest, first Grand Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan.

Fort Rucker bills itself as the home of Army aviation. How about naming it Fort Doolittle, for Jimmy Doolittle, who commanded the daring raid in which B-25 bombers launched from an aircraft carrier to bomb the home islands of Japan in early 1942? The raid did little damage but it did bring a big morale boost to a nation reeling from the Pearl Harbor attack and notified the Japanese that the U.S. had immense power to strike out.

If anyone is squeamish about the name Doolittle because it sounds like the camp for slackers, it could be Fort Wright, for the Wright Brothers, who built the first successful airplane and sold the Army its first air machine.

CAMP BEAUREGARD

And we come to Camp Beauregard, established as a training base during World War I and now operated by the Louisiana National Guard. It is named for Gen. P.G.T. Beauregard, commander of the forces that opened the war with the bombardment of Fort Sumter.

Beauregard won the First Battle of Bull Run, a battle he easily could have lost, but had few additional successes. His forté was dreaming up grandiose plans for a vast, strategic move with himself in command.

The camp is one of the oldest ones in existence from World War I. Might I suggest to the fine state of Louisiana one of their own, Natalie Scott, as the new namesake?

Known to be one of only three Red Cross workers to serve in World War I and II, Scott returned home from World War I a heroine. She was the only American woman to earn France’s highest medal for courage, the Croix de Guerre.

The current names are legacies of a time when racism turned those men’s traitorous conduct into a romantic legend of an honorable defense of home against invaders.

Time has consigned that legend to the ash heap of history and the base names should go with it.

Thanks, Rudi.

 

Dr. Crane says we can’t all be friends

Posted on by
Reply

(Dr. Frank Crane might have been thinking about the already-feverish antagonisms of the 2020 campaign year when he warned a centuryu ago that nobody can be liked by everybody, that all of us have—)

THE ENEMY

Whoever you are there’s somebody that doesn’t like you.

The one constant figure on life’s stage is the enemy. He’s always there, sitting grim and silent, or busy with hostility.

“Be thou as pure as ice, as chaste as snow, thou shalt not escape calumny.”

Gentle maiden, as good as fair, with a heart warm and kind to all God’s creatures, anxious to spread happiness as May to spread flowers, it seems incredible, but there is someone to whom your presence is offense, and to whom your surcease would be pleasing!

In the chemistry of souls this repellency is most curious but undeniable. No human force ever comes into the world without the opposite. Every positive has its negative. In every love is a little spot of hate. Heaven and hell, in their deeper significance, touch every human heart.

Caesar had his Brutus, Socrates his Miletus, and Jesus his envious Pharisees.

When I read any book that pleases me, human Dickens or quiet Wordsworth, the exquisitely tooled word craft of Vernon Lee or the smashing liveliness of Conan Doyle, it often comes to me—somebody doesn’t like this.

Queer, isn’t it? Sinister and strange, but true. Little dove, the hawk soars stilly watching; little fly, the spider swings ready in his web; little doe, the cougar crouches behind the bush; little soul, among the gods walks one who looks darkly at you.

And the higher you climb, the brighter you write your name upon fame’s scroll, the louder your applause and the more signal your triumph, the surer there will be, somewhere muffled in the cheering crowd, the somber figure of some “Mordecai, sitting at the king’s gate.”

Is not America a beloved country? There are those who loathe it unreservedly. Is not President Wilson a fine figure among statesmen? There are many who would rejoice at his downfall, who watch eagerly to find his mistakes and herald them.

In a way the strength of the enemy is a reliable measure of one’s success. The more you amount to, the sharper the hisses. Many a man has been elected to Congress by his enemies, and many a writer has been hounded to fame.

The best way to meet the enemy is to let him see that you do not think it worthwhile to fight him. Nothing so enrages malice as to discover that you don’t mind. Nothing so disarms attack as for you to go about your business as usual. Such defense is the most exasperating vengeance.

When in doubt, say nothing. Your enemy can answer everything you can possibly say, can retaliate against everything that you can possibly do, except one thing. That is silence.