Stuck in the Cellar? Virginia Dems Part 2

 

So, what has happened since I wrote my 2006 post? In 2008, Barack Obama, the Democratic candidate, won Virginia’s electoral votes. Obama was the first Democrat to do so in 40 years. Also in 2008, Mark Warner, the Democratic candidate, was elected to the United States Senate, drawing the most votes by any candidate in the history of Virginia. In that same election, Democrat candidates won 6 of Virginia’s 11 congressional seats, gathering 53% of the vote cast in the 11 districts. As I said at the time: “Surely, ‘twas a great victory!”

But, it was clear to me that the 2008 victory carried the seeds of future defeat. Dems Heading For A Big Fall. For one thing, I detected an attitude that 2008 was the last important election and that since Obama had won, there was nothing left to do. That was accompanied by a strong sense of complacency. The other Democrats I spoke to were sure that we would win the governor, lieutenant governor and attorney general races in 2009 and that the only issue was how many seats we would pick up in the House of Delegates. On top of that, I was still concerned that the 2008 election had been won by the candidates’ campaign committees, rather than the party, and that to win in 2009 all new committees, for the new candidates would have to be organized and mobilized. And, unfortunately, for us Virginia Democrats, 2009 was as disastrous a defeat as the 2008 election had been a glorious victory. We lost the contests for governor, lieutenant governor and attorney general. Democrats lost 4 seats in the House of Delegates

2010 had another election for members of Congress. And it was another disaster for Democrats. Republican candidates reclaimed the three House seats they lost in 2008. Democratic candidates in the 11 House races in Virginia received less than 42% of the votes cast in all the races. (Compared with the 53% they had received two years before). In total, the 11 Democratic candidates drew less than half the votes that they had drawn two years before.

In 2011, the Democratic tailspin continued. In that election, Democrats lost control of the state Senate and lost an additional 7 seats in the House of Delegates.

And, this past year, 2012, Barack Obama was back at the top of the Democratic ticket. Mr. Obama again won Virginia’s electoral votes. In addition, former governor Tim Kaine, a Democrat, was elected to the United States Senate. However, unlike in 2008, Democrats did not gain any seats in the House of Representatives—Republicans still sit in 8 out of 11 of the Virginia House seats.

So, what are we to conclude from the past five elections? First, when Barack Obama is the candidate, he will win in Virginia. Second, when charismatic Democrats are the candidates for the United States Senate, and they run well-organized campaigns, they will win in Virginia. As for the House of Representatives, with the exception of the temporary spike in 2008, Democrats seem stuck with only 3 seats. At the state level, Democrats are still on a downward trend. We no longer control the state Senate and our seats in the House of Delegates are shrinking rapidly. At the state-wide level, in the last two elections (2005 and 2009) we have lost the governor’s race once and the lieutenant governor’s and attorneys general’s races twice.

And, there is another factor—voter turnout. As I pointed out a few years back, It’s The Turnout, Dummy, Democratic voters seem to drop at a higher rate in elections that they lose from those they win. In that post I pointed out that, although the turnout of all voters dropped considerably from 2008 to 2009, the drop was much more significant among Democratic than among Republican voters. As I said then, “Creigh Deeds’ drop in votes from those voting Democratic in 2008 was about 540,000 more than Bob McDonnell’s drop in votes from those voting Republican in 2008.” If those 540,000 Democratic voters had come out to the polls in 2009, Democrats Creigh Deeds, Jodie Wagner and Steve Shannon would have been elected to the three highest offices in Virginia.

We can see a similar pattern if we compare the votes cast for the 11 congressional seats in 2008, when Democratic candidates picked up three seats, with those cast in 2010, when Democrats lost those three seats. In 2008, about 3.5 million votes were cast in the 11 congressional districts. In 2010, only about 2.2 million votes were cast in those 11 districts, a drop of 1.3 million votes. However, the drop in turnout was not evenly divided between Democratic and Republican voters. From 2008 to 2010, Democratic voters dropped by 940 thousand. However Republican voters dropped by only about 400 thousand. Again, Democratic voter turnout dropped by 540,000 more than Republican, and so went three House seats.

Based on these two examples it appears that Democratic voter turnout drops more significantly in years after presidential elections in which Barack Obama is the Democratic candidate, than does Republican voter turnout. This bodes ill for us Democrats because this is a year after Barack Obama won Virginia’s electoral votes. It also bodes ill for Democrats in the long run because, unless he moves to the Commonwealth and starts his political career all over again, Barack Obama will never again be on the ballot in Virginia.

Now, reader, I hear a lot from my fellow Democrats that this year’s upcoming election will be different. I am told that the most-likely Republican candidate for governor is so extremely right-wing in his philosophy that he cannot be elected in Virginia. I am also told that the General Assembly, in the last two years, has enacted so many anti-woman, anti-gay, anti-immigrant, anti-gun control, anti-other good stuff bills that the voters of Virginia will come forth and “throw the rascals out.”

Fellow Democrats, you better wake up. Unless we can get those half million Obama voters who disappeared in the 2009 and 2010 elections back to the polls in 2013, our next governor will be Ken Cuccinelli. And, as I pointed out in my previous post, barring a sudden explosion of Democratic candidates registering to run between now and June, it is almost impossible that we can throw the Republican rascals out ofn the House of Delegates. I am afraid that on November 5, we will learn that no, Virginia, there is no Santa Clause.

So, what is to be done? Stay tuned to this station for the maven’s suggestions.

 

Virginia Dems—A Permanent Minority?

“Bad news on the door step.”

No, I am not singing American Pie. Nor am I criticizing the quality of Richmond’s great metropolitan daily, which occupies my door step every morning. What I am talking about is the news that the metropolitan daily has been reporting in the nearly two months that Virginia’s General Assembly has been in session. And while I am talking about bad news, I can think back to similar stories that the Richmond Times-Dispatch brought to my house during the General Assembly session last year at time.

Let’s face it, reader; the Virginia General Assembly is not a hot-bed of progressive thought or action. In fact, I would consider it rather reactionary. Some people might even doubt that members of our legislature are acting rationally. (Establishing a commission to study whether Virginia should issue its own money, in violation of the United States Constitution, is not exactly clear thinking).

Every time our beloved law makers vote for another 18^th Century piece of legislation I assure my Facebook friends (yes, I partake of that universal depository of worthless information) that we can fix this at the polls next November. When the Senate or House of Delegates passes a piece of anti-women legislation, I urge all my friends to remember this in November. When the legislation is destructive of public education, I urge all my friends to remember in November. When the Republicans refuse to extend Medicaid coverage, I urge my friends to remember in November. And, etcetera, etcetera, etcetera.

But now comes the worse news: It is unlikely that any thing will change in November. Virginia has elections every year. This year we will elect a new governor, lieutenant governor and attorney general. In addition, all hundred seats in our House of Delegates will be on the ballot. Now I certainly agree that the Commonwealth will be a lot better off if we manage to elect Democrats to the three state-wide offices. But in order to end the continuous deposit of bad news on my door step, we need to elect a significant number of Democrats to that bastion of Neanderthal thinking, the House of Delegates.

And there lies the rub. If my finger counting is accurate, there are currently 32 Democrats in the House of Delegates. That means that there are 67 Republicans (one delegate runs as an Independent). In order for Democrats to control the House of Delegates, they would have to pick up 19 seats in this November’s election. To even scare Republicans into being somewhat reasonable in the next session of the General Assembly, Democrats would need to pick up maybe 10 seats this November.

We need to look at one more fact. In 2011, the most recent election year for the House of Delegates, the Democratic Party of Virginia only contested 55 of the seats. Let me put it another way: In 2011 there were 45 House of Delegate races in which no Democrat appeared on the ballot. Now, this maven is not super bright, but it seems to me that for the Republicans to have gained a majority in the 2011 elections they only needed to win 6 of the 55 races in which Democrats actually ran. So, there was really no chance for the Democrats to become the majority.

So to all my Facebook friends who I lured into thinking that November would somehow change things in the House of Delegates I offer my sincere apology for deceiving you. Unless something very drastic changes between now and June 11, the date by which a candidate must file (earlier if there are party primaries), there will be a Republican controlled House of Delegates in 2014-15 and I will have to spend another two years with bad news on the doorstep.

So what is the problem here, loyal reader? Isn’t there a Democratic party in Virginia? Well, actually there is. It is called the Democratic Party of Virginia and it has offices here in Richmond, a staff, a website, a telephone number, a Party Plan and even a Platform. The Platform begins with a Statement of Common Purpose, which reads:

“The Democratic Party of Virginia is united in its efforts to elect Democratic leaders of character, integrity, ability, vision, and commitment to delivering results for Virginians.”

As best as I can see, there appears no asterisk to this Statement of Common Purpose indicating that the party is only united in its efforts to elect Democratic leaders in 55 of the House of Delegate districts. I ask the question, dear reader, how can a political party hope to become the majority party in a state when it ignores 45% of the seats in one of the state’s legislative chambers? Borrowing from the Bard, something is rotten in the Old Dominion.

For those of you who followed the maven in his more productive years, you know that I talked about the Virginia Dems over six years ago: Let’s Talk about the Democratic Party of Virginia.  In that post, I began by stating: I have to admit that I have no idea what the Democratic Party of Virginia does. In that post, I stated my view that the Democratic Party of Virginia plays little role in the election of candidates. Looking at the then most recent elections, I stated that Jim Webb was not elected to the Senate and Tim Kaine to the governorship by the party. Rather, it was the individual campaign committees set up by those candidates that got them elected. Then, I ended with: Does anybody know what the Democratic Party of Virginia does?

Well, a lot has happened since I wrote that piece. I myself became a candidate and now I am a member of the Richmond City Democratic Committee. I still spend a good part of my time discussing politics, but mostly on Facebook, not on this blog. However, I am still of the opinion that despite its Platform, the Democratic Party of Virginia does not get candidates elected. Yes, since I wrote that piece, two Democratic candidates for President and two Democratic candidates for the United States Senate have carried Virginia. However, in my opinion, it was the individual campaign organizations of those candidates that won those elections, not the party. Also since I wrote that piece, the other party has elected the governor, lieutenant governor and attorney general. It has also captured effective control of the state Senate and expanded its majority in the House of Delegates.

Please do not get me wrong. I am not criticizing the staff and volunteers who work for the Democratic Party of Virginia. I know that they work their collective butts off every election cycle, which means every year. But working hard does not necessarily mean working smart.

 More to follow--

Why Do We Give The NRA Such Power?

The largest headline on the print Richmond Times-Dispatch this morning, covering more than half of the entire width of the front page, reads “NRA calls for armed guards in schools.” The number two story in the Washington Post this morning (top of the left column) reads “NRA, Put armed police in schools.” Last night on the NBC evening news the lead story involved footage of a press conference held by NRA executive vice-president Wayne LaPierre rejecting any additional gun laws and advocating the placement of armed (that is with guns) guards in all of the nation’s schools. The press conference by the National Rifle Association took place one week after the slaughter of 26 people, including 20 young children, at a Connecticut elementary school.

If I were a visitor from another planet and read these newspapers and watched television last night, I would naturally assume that the NRA was our national legislature and that Wayne LaPierre was a high-ranking elected official—perhaps the president. Why else would we pay so much attention to the views of an organization or of one man? The alien maven would be shocked to learn that the NRA was a lobbying group for gun manufacturers and that Wayne LaPierre had been elected by only a few people.

The National Rifle Association has been powerful in our national politics for a long time. As I made clear nearly five years ago (OnGuns—An Ode in Prose) over the years the NRA has morphed from an organization of sportsmen and gun collectors to a lobby for the gun industry. It has taken a “no-compromise” position with respect to gun legislation and has convinced hundreds of members of the Congress and state legislatures that any support for even the most modest control on the purchase of firearms will result in their being defeated for reelection. It has also convinced its members that the Federal Government is devoted to taking away all their guns.

But, dear reader, is it not possible that all of us have given the NRA all this power? Even the proponents of controls on the purchase of firearms have spent most of the last week attacking the NRA in paper and electronic print. They have even gone so far as to hold the NRA culpable for the murders in Connecticut last week. Apparently, it is much easier to create and attack a bogey man than to deal directly with the complex issues raised by gun control.

What if, loyal reader, we treated the NRA differently? What if, for example, we chose to ignore it? Can you imagine what would have happened yesterday if the NRA held its press conference and Wayne LaPierre came to the podium and the room was empty? Think of it—no reporters, no cameras, no protesters. What if, regardless what it said, the media chose to not report anything about the NRA? What if I had watched the evening news last night and saw stories that gave no attention to Mr. LaPierre’s statement? What if the newspapers this morning ran no stories about the NRA’s proposal to put more guns into our schools? (Oh, I know what you are saying, what about the First Amendment? Reader, the First Amendment guarantees the NRA and Mr. LaPierre the right to say anything they want; it does not require us to listen to them.) Is it not possible that if we treated the NRA this way it would shrink from the tiger it wants us to believe it is to a snarling but powerless kitten?

 

Armed Insurrection?

But when a long train of abuses … evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

Declaration of Independence

After Thursday’s decision by the United States Supreme Court upholding the constitutionality of the Health Care Reform Act, there has been some talk from our brothers on the right that armed insurrection is the only way to deal with this development. Some of our friends on the left have responded with levity suggesting that those violently opposed to health care reform are in need of mental health services or that if they don’t like it they should move to some other country. This maven, however, cannot treat these things lightly. For one thing, advocating armed insurrection against the United States might be considered treasonous. On the other hand, perhaps the Federal Government is tending toward tyranny and we should not ignore it. After all, eternal vigilance is the price of liberty.

To sort all this out, I thought it would be useful to compare American grievances in 1776, when we actually did engage in armed insurrection (at least as the British saw it), with the grievances of today. I include only some of the British offenses set forth in the Declaration of Independence.

            British offenses of 1776                                  Federal Government offenses of today

Forced us to quarter troops in our homes	Forced us to buy health insurance
Cut off our trade with other parts of the world	Forced us to buy health insurance
Imposed taxes on us without our consent	Forced us to buy health insurance
Deprived us of trial by jury	Forced us to buy health insurance
Took away our charters, abolished our laws and altered our form of government	Forced us to buy health insurance
Suspended our own legislatures	Forced us to buy health insurance
Plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burnt our towns and destroyed the lives of our people	Forced us to buy health insurance
Introduced armies of foreign mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny	Forced us to buy health insurance

Trusted reader, although it is close, I am sure you will agree that the complaints of our forebears in 1776 were slightly more serious than of those who are willing to overthrow the government in order to eliminate health care reform. So what is this totally out of proportion reaction to a court decision upholding a statute enacted by the Congress?

This maven lays the blame at the door of the Republican leadership in the Congress and their tea-drinking allies. These gentlepeople are so intent on recapturing control of the Federal Government that they will do or say anything to make President Obama appear to be an illegitimate president. Thus the accusations that Obama is not a native born American. On top of that they must show that even Obama’s legislation is illegitimate. So, after Health Care Reform passed, the Republican leadership refused to acknowledge that it was actually a Public Act, passed by the Congress and signed by the President. Immediately, they declared it not only to be terrible legislation, but invalid. They declared it to be the single-most dangerous expansion of federal power in history. They declared it to be a CLEAR violation of the constitution. They declared it to by tyranny and thus its removal as essential to the country’s survival. They declared it to be the end of life as we know it. In short, they declared their battle to destroy Health Care Reform to be Armageddon.  

Unfortunately, our Republican and Tea-Party cousins believe their own rhetoric. And worse than that, there are some pretty volatile, armed people out there who have come to believe it too. When you repeat that message over and over again, is it any wonder that people start suggesting that only armed insurrection against the Federal Government will save us?

It seems to this maven that those who opened this Pandora’s box and let the crazies out need to be the ones to recage them and lock the door. I call on John Boehner, Eric Cantor, Mitch McConnell, Rand Paul and Mitt Romney to make it clear that although they consider the Health Care Reform Act to be bad policy they do not consider it to be grounds for rebellion against the Government. Let them each announce that even suggesting armed insurrection as a solution for disagreeing with government action is not patriotic but rather is un-American. John, Eric, Mitch, Rand, Mitt it is time to call their dogs off and to declare that we are a country that resolves political dispute at the ballot box, not at the point of a gun.

The Gospel of Virginia Republicans

“Teacher, which is the great commandment in the Law?”  And he said to him, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.  This is the great and first commandment.  And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself—UNLESS

1- God has created her a woman, in which case—

·         You shall treat her with contempt

·         You shall deprive her of control of her body

·         You shall subject her to invasive medical tests

2- Your neighbors are poor, in which case—

·         You shall treat them with contempt

·         You shall discourage them from voting by imposing unreasonable identification requirements

·         You shall deprive them of affordable health care

·         You shall deprive their children of quality public education by cutting state funding for public schools and by diverting state funding to private schools

·         You shall deprive them of safe and affordable housing

·         You shall deprive them of affordable public transportation to places of employment

3- God has created your neighbors homosexuals, in which case—

·         You shall treat them with contempt

·         You shall preclude them from committed, long-term love relationships

·         You shall prevent them from adopting children

·         You shall exclude them from positions of public trust

4- Your neighbors are Spanish speakers, in which case—

·         You shall treat them with contempt

·         You shall assume that they are in the country illegally

·         You shall constantly require them to prove that they are citizens or properly-documented immigrants

On these two commandments depend all the Law and the Prophets.”

Slick and Well-Spun, But the Same Old Cantor

To this maven the greatest scourge of television is the advertising. That is why I much prefer to watch just about any show “On Demand” rather than when it is initially broadcast. Then I can “fast-forward” through all of the ads. (Actually, I’ve become quite adept at switching back to “play” just when the show resumes.) Unfortunately, some of the networks have become aware of the maven’s viewing habits and have now disabled the “fast-forward” function for “on-demand” viewing. So, alas, I am stuck watching the ads.

Just the other night, while catching up on an episode of “Awake,” which I can’t yet decide whether I like (although I am fascinated with the idea of leading simultaneous alternative lives), I was suddenly stuck in an ad. Since we are temporarily between elections, I assumed it was a commercial rather than a political ad. Since it started with statements from Richmond-area businessman, I was sure that the ad was selling the product or service for which they are known. But it quickly became apparent that they were really selling small business. All of these entrepreneurs were telling me that small businesses are the backbone of the American economy and that small businesses create most of the jobs in our country. Then they were telling me that because of high federal taxes and unreasonable federal regulations small businesses were not making enough money—money that they intended to use to create more jobs. And, suddenly, it was a political ad. Only Congressman Eric Cantor understands the importance of small business and he is introducing legislation to cut taxes and regulations on small business and we should all support Congressman Eric Cantor by reelecting him in the fall.

What a great ad! By the end of it I was ready to go marching down Broad Street with a sign extolling the wonders of small business. I was ready to take down the “Kane” sign in my front yard and put one up for Eric Cantor. I was going to go farther than that—I was going to renounce my life-long commitment to the Democratic Party and declare myself a Republican. Wow! It was like the high I get when I increase the dosage of anti-depressant I am taking. It was much better than champagne.

What an epiphany! All my life I had thought that people went into business to make money. And I also thought that they used that money to buy a nice house or two, two or three luxury cars, and several yachts or they went on long and glorious vacations and wore designer clothes and the like. Boy was I wrong! Now I knew the truth. People, especially small businessmen, go into business not to make money but to create jobs so that other people can buy all those things. Businessmen are not greedy! Rather, they are altruists. And, if it were not for that despicable federal government that has the audacity to tax and regulate them they would create even more and more jobs. And to think, I needed somebody like Eric Cantor to tell me the truth.

Well, dear reader, even the greatest high starts to wear off in time. So, very quickly the Cantor-induced euphoria started to fade and I started to feel the onset of the inevitable hang-over. I started getting this feeling of déjà vu. Hadn’t I heard this message before? Is this any different from that stuff that conservative Republicans started feeding us in 1980 and that then-presidential candidate George Herbert Walker Bush called “Voodoo” economics? Isn’t this just trickle-down economics in a new package? As the conservative message goes, if we cut taxes for the wealthy they will put more money into circulation, which will expand the economy and eventually some of that wealth will make it down to the less-affluent, like you and me. Isn’t this the same stuff that little “W” Bush and his loyal supporter Eric Cantor imposed on us for eight years, a time in which the rich got richer but in which everybody else was lucky just to break even?

And, of course, nowhere in the ad does Mr. Cantor explain how he plans to pay for these additional tax cuts. Mr. Cantor and his Republican friends in the Congress claim to be interested in reducing our national debt. Yet they are constantly advocating reducing taxes on the wealthy and on businesses. Don’t they realize that reducing tax rates inevitably results in decreased revenues to the government which necessarily increases the national debt? Wasn’t Mr. Cantor watching during the years when his party controlled both the presidency and the Congress and tried their “tax-cutting fixes everything” philosophy and nearly doubled our national debt? Wasn’t he watching, or was he too busy trying to become the leader of his party to pay any attention to governing?

Also dear reader, let us not forget the second part of Mr. Cantor’s wonderful ad: we must eliminate federal regulations to allow small businessmen to engage in their favorite pastime—creating new jobs. Again I must ask whether Mr. Cantor was paying attention during those years that his party was in control of Washington. His president and his party’s leadership in Congress convinced us that federal regulation of business was costly and unnecessary. His president and his party in the Congress drastically reduced federal regulations. That reduction in regulation resulted in businessmen engaging in risky practices that produced the financial crisis of 2007-08. That crisis produced the most severe economic recession since the 1930s. Is this the type of policy that Mr. Cantor urges us to return to?

On balance, I have to conclude that Mr. Cantor has issued a great political ad. It is slickly made and places a great spin on Mr. Cantor’s ill-advised policies. The wealthy out-of-state contributors to Mr. Cantor’s campaign fund clearly are getting their money’s worth. And, it’s nice to see Mr. Cantor actually spend his campaign funds on getting reelected for a change, rather than spending them to purchase his party leadership position. I would only recommend that an additional disclaimer be attached to the ad: Caution, this ad may contribute to unwarranted euphoria and may cause delusional behavior.

Mayor Jones and the School Board (Part 2)

Just over four years ago I posted an item that angered many
of Richmond politicians. I refer you to “Throwing Down the Gauntlet” In that blog entry I challenged the then-mayor, Doug Wilder, and the Richmond City Council (including my own representative Kathy Graziano) to provide adequate funding for Richmond Public Schools (RPS). Back in 2008, the maven still had a fire in my belly, so I used some pretty fiery language. For example:

And let’s face it. The mayor is not the only public official in Richmond who says “screw ‘em” to our children. Our beloved City Council has re-imposed its funding freeze on RPS for at least another year. Fellow citizens, face the realities, a funding freeze is really a funding cut because costs are constantly going up. So, although other city spending goes up (all those increased assessments produced a big influx of revenue) our children continue to suffer. One of our councilpersons even has the audacity to call it “tough love.” Are our children acting so badly that we have to “tough love” them with budget cuts?

I then posted some statistics that I am sure that Richmond politicians found unsettling. I listed the percentage of the annual outlays that various jurisdictions were devoting to public education. This is what I reported:

City of Richmond 26.1%
Chesterfield County 38%
Henrico County 54%
City of Norfolk 40.3%
City of Virginia Beach 48%

I then made it clear that not only was Richmond spending a smaller percentage of its operating budget on its schools then other jurisdictions but also that the money for schools was a shrinking part of our budget. This is what I reported:

Fiscal year 2007 26.1%
Fiscal year 2008 25.03%
Fiscal year 2009 24.71%

Trusted reader, just in case you think things may have changed since 2008 when I wrote that piece, take a look at the current figures. For fiscal year 2012, the City of Richmond is now providing only 21.2% of its annual budget to Richmond Public Schools.

Let me repeat this to make it clear. In fiscal year 2007 the City of Richmond dedicated 26.15% of its annual budget to RPS (which was significantly less than other jurisdictions). In fiscal year 2012 the City of Richmond is dedicating only 21.2% of its annual budget to RPS. And from what I read in our great metropolitan daily, Mayor Jones has submitted his budget request to City Council for 2013 without requesting any additional funds for RPS.

So, loyal reader, the next time the mayor or your city council member tells you that they support the children of Richmond and want to provide them with a world-class education, you tell them to put the city’s checkbook where their mouths are.

As I mentioned yesterday, two weeks ago our mayor appointed a task force to find ways to reduce spending in RPS. This followed the school board’s action in submitting a budget that needed an additional $24 million to permit the level of expenditure that the board was recommending. According to the article in the Richmond Times-Dispatch, the mayor made it clear “[t]hat the city doesn’t have an additional $24 million. I can assure you we’re not going to raise taxes for an additional $24 million.”

It is unfortunate that Mayor Jones portrayed adequate funding for RPS public schools as an issue that can only be solved by raising $24 million in additional taxes. Mayor Jones knows that the RPS share of the city pie did not shrink from 26 to 21 percent over the last five years because taxes were being cut. He knows that this shrinkage arose over the years because he and his predecessor as mayor and the members of the city council made the conscious decision year after year that other programs in the city had a higher priority than the education of our children. Providing adequate funding for RPS does not require tax increases. Rather it requires the city council to make some difficult decisions and to move funding from other programs back to RPS. Richmond ought to spend at least a quarter of its annual budget on our schools.

Reader, the city’s Biennial Fiscal Plan for 2012-2013 has the title “Moving Towards a Tier One City.” I am not sure exactly what a tier one city is, but I assume it means something like a great city. As I said yesterday, the City of Richmond will never be a great city until it has great schools. I add today that the City of Richmond will never be a great city if it continues to spend only 21% of its budget on its public schools.

Mayor Jones and the School Board

Loyal reader, some pretty exciting things have been going on in River City during the past month. First, our elected school board reported a budget for Richmond Public Schools (RPS) for the school year 2012-13 that requires $24 million more in revenues than the City of Richmond has provided in previous years. Second, our mayor, Dwight Jones, lambasted the school board for its action and appointed a “school accountability and efficiency task force” to look for ways to reduce spending in RPS and to improve classroom performance. Third, our school board has been holding public meetings in different parts of the city to explain its budget action and to get public support. Fourth, the mayor’s task force has itself been holding meetings. Fifth, the mayor submitted to the City Council a city budget that does not include any additional funding for Richmond Public Schools. Sixth (and I assume not finally), members of Richmond’s City Council have become involved in the dispute, suggesting ways to make RPS more efficient.

Until now, this maven has sat on the side line watching our politicians perform. Now, I must end my silence and add some sanity to the public dispute.

A little background: In the Commonwealth of Virginia the supervision of public schools in each jurisdiction is vested in a school board that is independent of the governing body in that jurisdiction. Virginia Code, section 22.1-28. However, school boards in Virginia have no authority to raise revenues. Instead they rely on funding from several sources. In Richmond, for example, RPS receives funding primarily from the Commonwealth of Virginia, from the Federal Government and from the City of Richmond. In preparing annual budgets Virginia school boards are bound by section 22.1-92 of the Virginia Code, which requires them, working with their superintendents, to submit to the governing body in the jurisdiction an “estimate of the amount of money deemed to be needed during the next fiscal year for the support of the public schools of the school division. The estimate shall set up the amount of money deemed to be needed for each major classification prescribed by the Board of Education and such other headings or items as may be necessary.”

1. I wholeheartedly support this year’s budget action by our school board. For four years I have been criticizing the school board for abdicating its responsibility under state law to report a budget based on the needs of RPS rather than on the level of funding that has been provided by the City of Richmond in previous years. Who’s on the Side of the Kids, Who’s on the Side of the Kids (Not Again), Will School Board Finally Follow the Law? Two years ago, I even lauded a school board in another part of the state that was actually following the law. A School Board That Does Its Job,.

Now that the Richmond school board has finally chosen to submit a budget that appears to be based on RPS needs, I laud them. They have put the debate over the proper funding of Richmond Public Schools in the City Council, where it belongs.

2. I am not sure what authority resides in the mayor’s school accountability and efficiency task force. Certainly, the mayor has appointed it. However, he can only assign to the task force authority which he has as mayor. He cannot create a committee or task force that has more authority than he has. As I said above, in Virginia, governance of local school districts is vested in the school board. Local governing bodies (boards of supervisors in the counties, the mayor and city council in the City of Richmond) get involved in the running of the schools only once each year—in deciding the amount of local funds that will be appropriated to the school district. So, I assume that the task force has authority to make recommendations to the mayor in how to deal with the school budget for 2012-13. However, since the mayor has already submitted his entire budget to the City Council, without asking any additional funds for RPS over last year’s level, it doesn’t appear that the mayor needs any recommendations from the task force (at least for the budget year 2012-13). Of course, in deliberating on the city budget in the coming weeks, the city council is certainly free to consider recommendations from the mayor’s task force.

3. Despite the separation in rolls specified in state law, this maven is not advocating that the mayor and city council have no responsibility for the operation of Richmond Public Schools. On the contrary. I think that in the past some members of the city council have sidestepped issues relating to RPS by saying it is the responsibility of the school board not of the council. The condition of RPS is far too important to the city for any elected official to ever say, “It’s not my responsibility.” I’m sure I have said it before, but if I haven’t I will say it loudly and clearly now: The City of Richmond will never be a great city until it has great public schools. It really doesn’t matter what else the city government does. So long as our schools are not world-class, Richmond will only be a C+ or B- city.

As a first step, I suggest that the city council and the school board schedule a minimum of four joint meetings each year, with the mayor and school superintendent in attendance. The agenda of each of these meetings should be to develop strategies and implementing plans to improve Richmond’s public schools—high school by high school, middle school by middle school, elementary school by elementary school—so that every child that is born in the City of Richmond may receive a first class public school education, regardless of their ethnicity or economic status and regardless of the neighborhood in which they live.

Republican General Assembly Attacking Our Freedom

Yes, Virginia, elections have consequences. And so, while many progressive voters who in 2008 elected Barack Obama to the presidency and Mark Warner to the United States Senate chose to stay home on election day in 2011 (for the third consecutive year), our Republican brothers and sisters captured control of the Virginia Senate. Now, the residents of the Commonwealth will be saddled with the consequences of the right wing agenda of the Republican Party—perhaps for a long time. This maven fears that scores of repressive Republican bills, which in previous years were blocked in the Democratic-controlled Senate, will become law this year. I can, and probably will at some time, talk about many of these bills. But right now, I just want to talk about one of them.

HB 462, as it passed the House of Delegates, is entitled “A BILL to amend and reenact § 18.2-76 of the Code of Virginia, relating to ultrasound requirement as part of informed consent for abortion.” The operative language of the bill states that

“at least 24 hours before the performance of an abortion a qualified medical professional trained in sonography and working under the direct supervision of a physician licensed in the Commonwealth shall perform fetal ultrasound imaging and auscultation of fetal heart tone services on the patient undergoing the abortion for the purpose of determining gestational age.”

The bill does provide for exceptions in the case of a medical emergency, and states that if a pregnant woman lives 100 or more miles from the abortion facility the ultrasound may be performed not less than two hours before the abortion.

Before I go any further, let me make it clear that this maven is opposed to abortion. I understand that abortion ends a potential human life and I would much prefer that a pregnant woman not choose to end her pregnancy. However, I feel very strongly that whether a woman is to terminate or continue her pregnancy is not my decision. Further, I feel equally strongly that whether that woman is to continue or terminate her pregnancy is not a decision to be made by the Commonwealth of Virginia or any other government. Rather, it is a decision that a woman must make herself, with the advice of family, friends and her medical professional.

Obviously this maven has never been pregnant. However, I have been the recipient of ultrasound examination, most recently just before my former gall bladder was separated from my body. Although ultrasound is not the worst medical procedure I have ever undergone, it is also not the most pleasant. First they make sure you are scantily clothed. Then they put you in a room that is invariably uncomfortably cold. Then they expose part of your body and inundate you with a foul-smelling glop. Then they apply the ultrasound wand and move it around your body, often pressing hard enough to cause pain. They make you roll from left to right to make sure they get the best possible “picture.” By the time the test is over, you feel cold, sore and soiled.

And, our Republican brothers and sisters in the General Assembly, who constantly preach that they want to get the government out of our lives, are about to force this invasive medical test on every woman in the Commonwealth who has decided to terminate her pregnancy. It is bad enough that a woman has made perhaps the most difficult decision in her life and will probably always carry the emotional scars that go with it. On top of that, our “anti-government” Republican delegates and senators now want to force on her an intrusive and degrading medical procedure. Cannot a woman in Republican-controlled Virginia be free from state-mandated medical tests?

Trusted reader, the next time a Virginia Republican claims that his or her party favors freedom from state intrusion into our lives, remind him or her of HB 462 and ask what further invasions of our liberty they are planning.

Who Owns John Watkins?

The Virginia 10th district Senate campaign between Democrat David Bernard and Republican John Watkins is a real David vs. Goliath contest. Bernard, a small businessman, is waging his first campaign for public office. Watkins has served numerous terms in the General Assembly. This maven has noted that in any political race an incumbent, especially one who has served multiple terms, has a significant advantage and generally wins. So, even if this election were being played on a level field, Watkins would have the advantage. But this playing field is not level. Why? In five simple letters: M O N E Y.

According to the Virginia Public Access Project (vpap.org), as of August 31, 2011, David Bernard had raised $23,638 to run his campaign. This figure is a bit misleading because $20,000 of that comes from Bernard’s own savings. On the other hand, since the beginning of his current term in the Virginia Senate, John Watkins has raised $346, 745 for his campaign. This is in addition to the $133,718 he had left over from his previous campaigns. Virginia election law only requires candidates to itemize campaign contributions of $100 or more. David Bernard has received 12 contributions in this category, including 3 from himself. John Watkins has received 484 contributions of $100 or more. These contributions provide him with 95% of the money he has raised. So, dear reader, in Virginia’s 10th Senate district we have a wee little David and a most gigantic Goliath.

So, where exactly does Mr. Watkins’ campaign money come from? If you want to see a list of his 484 benefactors, take a look at VPAP. But I thought we might just want to take a look at his 20 biggest benefactors:
Dominion Power*..................................$12,000
Virginia Hospital and Healthcare Assn. .11,700
Verizon ....................................................8,300
Virginia Bankers Assn. ........................... 7,500
Home Builders Assn. of Virginia ............6,900
Assn. of Electric Cooperatives ................6,600
Appalachian Power Co. ...........................6,500
Thomas F. Garner, Jr. .............................6,000
Genworth Financial ................................6,000
Zaremba Metropolitan Midlothian LLC* 5,600
Columbia Gas of Va. ................................5,250
Altria ........................................................5,000
Anthem ....................................................5,000
Va. Credit Union League .........................5,000
American Infrastructure * ......................4,900
Alpha Natural Resources* ......................4,500
Balzer & Associates Inc.* ........................4,400
Hospital Corp of America .......................4,400
Rebkee Co* ..............................................4,300
Va. Independent Insurance Agents ........4,150

Trusted reader, when I make a contribution to a political candidate I expect that I am buying influence, whether in Washington or Richmond. Of course, the $25 or $50 or $100 I contribute is not going to buy too much influence, but since I only support candidates whose values I share and are probably going to vote the way I would if I were elected to their seat, I expect that I am “buying” someone who will represent my interests.

I assume it is not any different for the 20 Watkins donors listed above and the other of his big money contributors. I do not think that these entities contribute to Mr. Watkins because he is handsome or has a great personality or just because they like him. I think they contribute because they share Mr. Watkins’ values and expect that he will represent their interests in the Senate. And, because Mr. Watkins has been in the General Assembly for many years, these contributors know that he has represented their interests in the past. Be assured, these are not charities; if Mr. Watson had voted against their interests in the past they would not be supporting him now.

So, if you live in the 10th district your choice this year is pretty clear. If you want your senator to be someone who has represented special interests in the General Assembly for years you should vote for John Watkins. If, however, you want a senator who will represent the people rather than the special interests I urge you to vote for David Bernard on Election Day, November 8, 2011. Pick David over Goliath.

*Dominion contributions are generally made through the Dominion PAC, which contains contributions from Dominion executives and employees.
Zaremba is in the retail business
American Infrastructure is a general contracting company
Alpha is a coal company
Balzer is an engineering firm
Rebkee is a real estate developer

The Abysmal Republican Congress

A new poll reported in the July 26 Washington Post, More Americans unhappy with Obama on economy, jobs, indicates that more than a third of those polled believe that President Obama’s policies are hurting the economy and that confidence in his ability to create jobs is eroding among his base. The poll also found that as many people blame Republican policies for the poor economy as they blame the president. But, on the issue of jobs, the poll shows that more people disapprove of the Republican performance (65 percent) than they do of the president’s performance (52 percent). Which sort of makes me wonder why the Post headline centers on President Obama.

Despite the perception by political pundits that conservative philosophy is now dominant in our country and that liberals are a dying breed, the results of the Post poll indicate clearly that the American people expect the government to fix our ailing economy. I see no indication in the poll that anybody blames businesses—whether large or small—for the state of our economy. Likewise, nobody faults business for failing to create more jobs.

I assume from the article that the designers of this poll phrased their questions in terms of policies (e.g. Do you believe that the policies of X are helping or hurting the economy). Yet policies can have no real effect on the economy. It is only actions that can make a difference. And, dear reader, under our Constitution it is the Congress, rather than the President, that must take action. Only the Congress can enact legislation. The President gets to vote on legislation only if and when the Congress passes it.

Congressional Republicans won a significant victory in the 2010 national elections. The Republicans, with John Boehner and Eric Cantor as their leaders, now control the House of Representatives. Further, the Republicans, with Mitch McConnell and John Kyl as their leaders, now have sufficient votes in the Senate to maintain a filibuster and thus block legislation they oppose. You would think that with as many votes as the Republicans have they would have been able to enact some significant legislation in this the first session of the 112th Congress. If that’s what you think, reader, you are thinking wrong.

In the nearly seven months that the 112th Congress has been in session it has enacted only 23 public laws. This compares with 283 public laws enacted in the 110th Congress and 205 public laws enacted in the 111th Congress during the first seven months of those congresses.

Among the 112th Congress’s laws you have such significant legislation as 1- a law naming the federal courthouse in Yuma, Arizona, after John M. Roll; 2- a law naming the federal building and courthouse in Martinsburg, West Virginia, after W. Craig Broadwater; 3- a law providing for the appointment of Stephen M. Case to the Board of Regents of the Smithsonian Institution; 4- a law naming the United States Postal Service building in Inverness, California, after Specialist Jake Robert Velloza; 5- a law providing for the reappointment of Shirley Anne Jackson to the Board of Regents of the Smithsonian Institution; 6- a law providing for the reappointment of Robert P. Kogod to the Board of Regents of the Smithsonian Institution; 7- a law naming the United States Postal Service building in Rootstown, Ohio, after Marine Sgt. Jeremy E. Murray; and 8- a law naming the United States Postal Service building in Cary, Mississippi, after Spencer Byrd Powers, Jr.

After subtracting these eight pieces of landmark legislation, that leaves 15 public laws of substance that the 112th Congress has enacted. Or, has it? Three of those laws were temporary extensions of the continuing resolution providing funding for the federal government. Two laws extended two programs of the Small Business Administration first from January 31, 2011, to May 31, 2011,and then to July 31, 2011. Another law extended two programs under the Patriot Act from February 28, 2011, to May 27, 2011. Three public laws extended the taxes and authorization of the Airport and Airways Trust Fund first by two months, then by an additional month and finally by an additional 22 days. One law extended the entire Patriot Act by five years. Another law extended the operation of the Ronald Reagan Centennial Commission by seven months. And, one law extended programs under the Surface Transportation Act through September 30, 2011. So, twelve of those public laws did nothing but extend the expiration dates of certain programs.

This leaves us with three significant public laws enacted by the 112th Congress between the beginning of January and the 26th day of July. These three laws are: Public Law 112-9, which makes three minor changes to the Internal Revenue Code; Public Law 112-10, which provides funding for the federal government through the end of fiscal year 2011; and Public Law 112-18, which authorizes appropriations for the intelligence activities of the Government.

That’s all folks.

The Republican dominated Congress has passed no laws addressing our troubled economy. The Republican dominated Congress has passed no laws creating jobs.

What has the 112th Congress done? The Republican controlled House of Representatives, led by John Boehner and Eric Cantor, voted to repeal the Affordable Health Care Act, voted for a budget that would eliminate Medicare and has held the country hostage for months by refusing to pass legislation enabling the Secretary of the Treasury to pay the government’s lawful obligations after next Tuesday.

What a wonderful Congress!

Deadbeat Republican Values

Don’t they know that the children are watching and listening? Don’t they appreciate what they are teaching them? It is bad enough that for years the Republican Party leadership has been preaching and acting out the values of greed and selfishness. These Republican values have produced an entire “me first” generation; people who seek to maximize their own collection of toys and refuse to share with others. Now, the Republican leadership (Boehner, Cantor, Bachman, McConnell, Kyl) are teaching a new Republican value—don’t pay your bills.

With the exception of three fiscal years under the Clinton Administration, ours has been a debtor nation since at least 1981. Republicans and Democrats undoubtedly can argue over who is to blame for our huge national debt, but placing blame serves no legitimate purpose. The fact is that we have spent about $13 trillion more than we have received in revenues. Even this fiscal year, after an election in which Republican candidates pledged fiscal responsibility, the Congress voted to increase our national debt by extending the Bush Administration tax cuts (decreasing potential revenue) and providing funding to operate the Federal Government for the remainder of fiscal year 2011 (increasing spending). Both Republicans and Democrats voted to create this additional amount of debt.

When the Congress enacts appropriations it provides to federal agencies the authority to enter into obligations legally binding on the United States. The obligations agencies incur may be paid off quickly (e.g. compensation for employees) or over years (e.g. payments under defense contracts). In either event, so long as the Government operates with annual deficits, the Secretary of the Treasury pays off these obligations with two sources of money—revenues to the Government while they last, and borrowing after the revenues are exhausted.

The Congress has granted to the Secretary of the Treasury the authority to borrow funds on behalf of the United States in sections 3101 through 3113 of Title 31, United States Code, in a subchapter that is appropriately titled “Borrowing Authority.” In this subchapter, the various debt instruments—bonds, notes, certificates and others—that the Secretary may issue to borrow funds are authorized and described.

Dating from a time when running at a deficit was occasional, not the rule, the subchapter contains a limit on the amount of securities the Secretary can issue. This limit—designated “Public Debt Limit”—is contained in section 3101(b) which provides, “The face amount of obligations issued under this chapter and the face amount of obligations whose principal and interest are guaranteed by the United States Government . . . may not be more than $12,394,000,000,000 outstanding at one time.”

Reader, it is important to remember that this “public debt limit” is not a limit on the amount that the United States owes. Rather it is a limit on the amount of securities that the Secretary can issue to raise cash. It is also important to remember that raising this borrowing limit does not increase the amount of the Government’s debt. Further, failing to raise it does not freeze the amount of debt.

The Secretary of the Treasury has already reached his borrowing limit. He has told the world that as of August 2, 2011, he will not have sufficient cash to pay the Government’s obligations. Now, you would think that the Republican leadership—those guys and gals who claim to be fiscally responsible—would give the Secretary the authority he needs to pay our bills. But, for months, the Republican position has been “no.” They have made it clear that they will allow our bills to be paid only if the President bows to their demands. One of them, Representative Bachman, has made it clear that she will not vote to pay our bills even if the President concedes to all Republican demands.

Loyal reader, the Republicans will tell you that they are being responsible and are trying to cut our debt. But these Republicans are the same people who voted to increase our national debt in this very fiscal year. And, now, when the bills that they authorized so recently come due they say they aint gonna pay. So remember, when the Secretary of the Treasury does not have enough cash to pay our fighting forces, or our hard-working federal employees, or the contractors that in good faith provided us goods and services, it’s because of Republican values.

End The Insanity—Repeal The Public Debt Limit

Loyal reader, you know that over the years of my mavenhood I have written repeatedly about the dangers of our national addiction to deficit spending. Also, I have explained that the actual debt of the United States Government is created by the tax and appropriation legislation that the Congress enacts and the President signs. Further, the “public debt limit” contained in section 3101(b) of title 31 of the United States Code is a limit on the amount of securities that the Secretary of the Treasury can issue in borrowing funds to pay the obligations of the government. It is not a limit on the actual debt.

Unless you have been in a Rip Van Winkle nap for the past six months you know that we are going through a public debt limit crisis. The Republican majority in the House of Representatives is refusing to raise the limit on borrowing unless the President agrees to its demands for severe spending cuts. This has forced the Secretary of the Treasury to do some artful dodging to make sure that the obligations of the United States are paid when they come due. However, the Secretary has indicated that after August 2, 2011, he will run out of other options and will be unable to pay some of the government’s obligations. In other words, the United States will be forced to default on the debt it owes.

This is the third major public debt limit crisis I can remember. The first two occurred during my previous career as an attorney for the Federal Government. During the second of these, in 1995, I spent many weeks monitoring the operations of the Treasury Department to assure that the Secretary did not violate the statutory borrowing limit. Although it was fun, this second crisis convinced me that the whole thing was madness. These debt limit crises are created by the Congress and political leaders in the Congress use them to try to force their opponents to agree to changes they don’t want. Everybody assumes that eventually somebody will blink and the crisis will be resolved. No responsible person really wants to see what would happen if the United States actually defaulted.

I assume that there was a time when the “public debt limit” made sense. For most of its existence the United States Government lived within its means. Revenues resulting from customs and other excise taxes and land sales were adequate to cover the normal costs of government. It was only during exceptional periods like wars that the government needed to rely on borrowing to cover its costs. During those times, the Congress exercised its exclusive constitutional power to borrow on the credit of the United States by granting to the Secretary of the Treasury authority to borrow by issuing securities. It was reasonable to limit the amount of securities to be issued by the Secretary to an amount commensurate with the anticipated deficits.

It is only during the last forty to fifty years that operation of the government on a deficit basis has become the norm rather than an occasional practice. Because of the unwillingness of the Congress and the President to make the politically tough decisions to either reduce spending to meet our revenue or increase revenue to meet our spending there have been very few years during this time when the federal budget was balanced or had a surplus. The result of this out-of-control spending spree is that the amount owed by the United States Government has increased from about 3/10 of a trillion dollars in 1965 to over 13 trillion dollars today. During this entire period, the Congress has had to repeatedly increase the “public debt ceiling” to match the amount of debt it has already authorized by appropriating more funds than were taken in by taxes.

Trusted reader, the “public debt ceiling” makes no sense in a time of perpetual deficit government. The debt of the United States is controlled by the appropriation and tax legislation that the Congress has enacted with the President’s approval. The statutory limit changes nothing. Technically it is merely a formality because the Congress has already authorized an increase in our national debt. The borrowing limit serves no purpose other than allowing hypocrites in the Congress to play the “debt crisis game.”

The Republican leadership in the Congress is portraying itself as being fiscally responsible by resisting the required increase in the statutory “public debt ceiling.” However, these leaders know that the borrowing ceiling has no effect on the actual national debt. They know that they agreed to a national debt far in excess of the current “public debt ceiling” when they voted to extend the Bush Administration tax cuts and to fund the government for the rest of fiscal year 2011 six months ago. If they really cared about the national debt, they could have done something about it back then. Instead, they have tried to hold the government hostage for the past four months by threatening to allow the government to go belly up if they don’t get their way over spending cuts. All but the craziest of them are responsible enough to know that they would never actually allow government default. It is only the statutory “public debt ceiling” that allows them to play this game.

The statutory borrowing authority really serves no purpose. It also gets us into these crazy crises on a too frequent basis. It is time to repeal the “public debt ceiling.” Section 3101(b) of title 31, United States Code, should be amended to provide that the Secretary of the Treasury may issue public debt securities in an amount necessary to pay all the obligations of the government. We need to free ourselves from the insanity of debt crises.

Retirement Benefits For Reva Trammel?

According to Richmond’s great metropolitan daily newspaper, Councilwoman Reva M. Trammel has proposed an ordinance that would restore retirement benefits for members of the Richmond City Council. These benefits were cancelled by the 1996 edition of the City Council. As described in the Times-Dispatch article, Ms. Trammel’s proposal would reinstate benefits for members of the council who have served for ten years and who were in office on July 1, 2011. My research and the TD article indicate that the first member of the City Council who would become eligible for the restored benefits if Ms. Trammel’s ordinance is enacted is—you guessed it—Reva M Trammel.

Reader, I do not object to our elected officials in Richmond being paid a reasonable compensation for their service, including retirement benefits for extended service. Nor are we dealing with a huge amount of money. The TD article indicates that if the retirement benefits are restored the annual cost to the taxpayers would be about $60,000 per year. (Of course, with the suddenly reborn concern about poverty in our city, perhaps it would be better to spend that $60,000 to create two new jobs for unemployed residents of the city, but that’s just my opinion). But, what upsets me is that nobody, including Ms. Trammel, seems at all concerned about appearances.

A bit of history: During the debate on ratification of the Constitution, anti-Federalists expressed concern over Article I, Section 6, clause 1, which gave the members of the Congress the power to set their own compensation by statute. To deal with this concern, the First Congress included the following amendment among the twelve they submitted to the states for ratification as the Bill of Rights: “No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of representatives shall have intervened.” This amendment was intended to make sure that if the Congress voted itself a pay raise the electorate had the opportunity to voice their displeasure by voting those members out at the next election. (The amendment only referred to election of representatives because until the ratification of the Seventeenth Amendment in 1913 Senators were appointed by the state governments rather than elected by the people.) As it happened, only ten of the Bill of Right amendments were ratified by the states and the compensation restriction lay dormant for over 200 years. It was not ratified as our twenty seventh amendment until 1990.

Reader, I am not suggesting that Ms. Trammel made the effective date of service in her proposal July 1, 2011 to assure that she received a pension even if she were defeated for reelection next year. However, she is the only member of the council for whom this is true. No other incumbent member of City Council can attain ten years of service and qualify for the proposed benefits without facing the voters next November. The voters of eight council districts in the city can protest their councilperson giving him or herself a compensation increase by defeating him or her at the next election and making sure that member does not benefit from the increase. This is the right that the Twenty Seventh Amendment gave voters for members of the Congress. It is only the electorate of the Eighth council district that will lack this right.

It is important that the members of the City Council avoid any appearance of impropriety in enacting legislation for the city. The council should amend Ms. Trammel’s proposed ordinance so that it applies only to members of the council serving on and after January 1, 2013.

14th Amendment And The Debt—Nice Try But No Cigar

With the days dwindling down to a precious few until D[isaster]-Day—the day on which the Secretary of the Treasury predicts he will no longer be able to pay the obligations of the United States without the Congress increasing his authority to borrow—people are grasping at straws to find a way to save us from the temper tantrum currently being waged by Republicans in the House of Representatives. One of these straws is the argument that under Section 4 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution the statutory borrowing limit contained in section 3101 of title 31 of the United States Code is unconstitutional and that the President is free to ignore it. “Obama could play constitutional card,” Washington Post, July 7, 2011, print edition, page A4. Unfortunately, this argument is a very short straw.

The Fourteenth Amendment provision being relied on to get us out of our predicament reads, in its entirety:

”The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.”

This post Civil War provision was designed to assure that debts incurred by the United States in fighting the war would be honored but that debts incurred by states or the Confederacy in fighting against the United States or claims for emancipated slaves could not be paid.

The proponents of the Fourteenth Amendment salvation argument rely on just 14 words from Section 4 of the amendment: “The validity of the public debt of the United States . . . shall not be questioned. “ They argue that these 14 words somehow make it unconstitutional for the Congress to impose a statutory limit on the amount of money that the Secretary of the Treasury can borrow. Aside from the fact that they quote these 14 words out of context, the Fourteenth Amendment proponents show a marked ignorance about the financial operation of the Federal Government.

Because they had experienced first-hand the tyranny that could arise from placing too much power in a single person, the drafters of our constitution placed control over financing for the new Federal Government in the Congress. This “power of the purse” is contained in two provisions of the constitution. Article I, Section 8, clause 2 of the constitution grants to the Congress the power “To borrow Money on the credit of the United States.” Article I, Section 9, clause 7 provides “No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law.” Under these two provisions, only the Congress can appropriate and only the Congress can borrow.

The Congress has implemented its borrowing power by enacting what is now Chapter 31 of Title 31 of the United States Code. In this chapter the Congress delegates to the Secretary of the Treasury the authority to borrow on behalf of the United States and specifies the various securities (bonds, notes, certificates) that the Secretary may issue in securing this borrowing. Section 3101(b) of title 31 provides: “The face amount of obligations issued under this chapter and the face amount of obligations whose principal and interest are guaranteed by the United States Government . . . may not be more than $[X], outstanding at one time.” Whatever amount the Congress substitutes for the “X” in this section is the borrowing limit (referred to as the “Public debt limit”). The Secretary of the Treasury may not borrow in excess of that limit and, presumably, any securities he issues in excess of that amount would not be valid obligations of the United States. During recent decades, in which the United States has been operating on a deficit basis, the Congress has had to raise the borrowing limit from time to time to allow the Secretary to borrow sufficient funds to pay off the government obligations that the Congress authorized in appropriations acts.

Reader, it seems clear to me that the statutory limit that the Congress has placed on the authority of the Executive Branch to borrow funds is a direct exercise of its borrowing power under Article I, Section 8, clause 2. What can there be in Section 4 of the Fourteenth Amendment that would make this exercise of the Congress’ exclusive borrowing authority unconstitutional?

Although the Fourteenth Amendment provision was specifically directed at public debt incurred during the Civil War, the Supreme Court of the United States has made it clear that it applies equally to public debt obligations issued after its ratification. Perry v. United States, 294 U.S. 330 (1935). In the Perry case, the Court was dealing with a Fourth Liberty Loan bond for $10,000 issued in 1918 that called for payment “in United States gold coin of the present standard of value.” A Joint Resolution of the Congress passed June 5, 1933, however, provided that bonds could only be paid at their face value “in legal tender currency.” This significantly reduced the amount that was payable under the bond. The Court held that the 1933 joint resolution was unconstitutional because the Congress did not have the authority to change the terms of public debt obligations after they were issued. The Court interpreted the term “validity of the public debt” in the Fourteenth Amendment as “embracing whatever concerns the integrity of the public obligations.” 294 U.S. at 354.

So, precious reader, does 31 U.S.C. section 3101(b) run afoul of the Fourteenth Amendment? No. The statute does not declare any existing debt obligation to be invalid. It does not change the terms of any existing debt obligation. In fact, it does not apply to existing debt obligations at all. It only restricts the authority of the Secretary of the Treasury to issue new debt obligations, an authority which the Secretary only has by delegation from the Congress in the first place. Section 3101(b) does not question the validity of the public debt of the United States because, in the words of the Supreme Court, it does not “concern the integrity of [any] public obligations.”

We need to stop relying on miraculous constitutional theories to get out of our debt crisis. The Congress needs to do its job and raise the statutory borrowing limit so that the Secretary of the Treasury can pay the Federal Government’s debt. Only the Congress can avoid D[isaster]-Day.