Impeach Barr Too

Today the United States House of Representatives will vote on the Articles of Impeachment against Donald Trump and will almost certainly approve them by a party line vote with a couple of dissenting Democrats, one of whom has announced he’s switching parties. There’s discussion of making Justin Amash (Independent – MI), who was a Republican until he announced support for impeachment, one of the managers of the Senate trial, if this was a Law & Order episode he’d be an assistant District Attorney. Members of the Senate will be jurors, the judge will be Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts.

Jury member Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-TN) has publicly stated that he is coordinating with the Donald Trump as to how the Senate trial will be handled even though doing so violates his oath as a juror in the trial held in the Senate. If you made such a statement after being selected as a juror member you’d be booted off the jury and possibly jailed for contempt of court. Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) has made similar statements. Both men would recuse themselves of if they had any integrity. Trump has been complaining about fairness since the impeachment inquiry began yet he seems uninterested in a fair trial as he’s quite happily been sending campaign donations to Senate Republicans who commit to supporting him in the impeachment trial. In any other trial that would be seen as bribing a juror.

Now that the House is about done with its part of impeaching Trump it’s time to address other serious matters. No, it’s not that the House hasn’t gotten anything else done as there are over 270 bills passed by the House that Mitch McConnell hasn’t allowed to see the light of day in the Senate. The next important job is to impeach Attorney General William Barr for obstruction of Congress, abuse of power and failing to faithfully execute his office.

Barr has held the office for 10 months and during that time he has made it clear that he serves the interests of Donald Trump rather than those of the United States. He misled Congress and the people of the United States through his words and deeds when the Mueller report was made public. He is implicated in the Ukraine scandal over Trump trading military aid and a White House visit for an investigation into a possible 2020 election opponent due to having withheld the whistleblower complaint from Congress. Barr criticized the conclusion of his own department's inspector general who reported that the FBI had a legitimate basis for launching an investigation into Russian interference in our 2016 election and the possibility that the Trump campaign was involved. In addition, Barr has defied congressional subpoenas regarding the 2020 census and Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross's claims that a citizenship status question was added at the request of the Department of Justice. The Supreme Court has determined that the justifications for the question offered by the DOJ were contrived and made up after the fact in order to conceal the real reason.

Through his actions Attorney General Barr has politicized the Department of Justice and undermined trust in the law by acting in the interests of a president who has committed impeachable offenses instead of upholding his oath of office and the Constitution of the United States, therefore he should be impeached and removed from office.

Published in the Seguin Gazette - December 18, 2019

Medicare For All Good For All

Last week’s column discussed the advantages of Medicare for All from the point of view of any individual, everyone would be covered with the same benefits regardless of what size business they work for and even if that employer shuts down or lays off workers. This week let’s review the advantages of Medicare for All to businesses and the entire economy.

Did you know that General Motors spends more per car on health insurance than it does on the steel in the car? Not so for Japanese and Korean car makers since the employer doesn’t provide health insurance, it comes from their respective federal governments via Medicare for All type programs. That saves them a couple of thousand dollars right off the top.

When unions, even those few in Texas, negotiate with employers the issue they all have in common is health insurance and it is often the issue that is hardest to resolve. Just a few years ago the City of San Antonio was in a protracted and fraught contract fight with the Firefighters Union and the biggest issue was health insurance.

When a young couple with a child or two is considering whether or not to strike out on their own and start a business one of the biggest stumbling blocks is health insurance and maintaining it in the face of both a slow start for the business and the potential failure of it. What modestly successful person is willing to risk the health and lives of their family when also taking the big financial risk of starting their own business? No other developed country so dampens the entrepreneurial spirit as does the United States.

As the prices of drugs and medical care in general continue to soar upward every employer that offers health insurance does their best to minimize the cost while providing the level of coverage necessary to retain their employees. One of the ways to do that for employers large enough to handle it is to become the insurer themselves. Schertz/Cibolo/Universal City ISD did this a few years ago and it has proven successful at restraining cost growth such that while the district isn’t paying any less than before the teachers and staff aren’t paying any more in premiums, deductibles, and co-pays than they were a couple of years ago. Compared to what all parties would be paying if SCUC ISD still used a third party insurance company they’ve generated real savings by cutting out the middleman.

SCUC ISD contracts out for administration of their health plan, that’s the part that involves paying claims by health care providers. It also pays a premium to a re-insurance company in case of a bad health year or several employees contracting catastrophic illnesses like cancer, yet it is still a government agency providing health insurance on its own. That’s a small step, taken by many others, toward government health insurance that shows it is viable here in the United States.

There is plenty of evidence that shows that children, aka future employees, who receive adequate health care from conception to adulthood grow up to be both healthier and more productive workers. The Medicare for All plans proposed by Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren address of the issues I’ve written about this week and last. There are no disadvantages to Medicare for All unless you think that wealthy people automatically deserve good health care and poor kids don’t.

Published in the Seguin Gazette - December 11, 2019

Medicare For All Tough To Beat

Every now and again I run into a Democrat who says they support healthcare reform but not the Medicare for All plans promoted by Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren. When asked why, they say they have a good plan through their employer and don’t want to give it up, that they support a “public option” where everyone has the choice to buy into Medicare. What those folks fail to realize is that while the plan they have now may be very good, Medicare for All is also much more that traditional Medicare and is actually better than most commercial plans.

How many commercial plans out there have a total annual out of pocket of $200 and that is limited to prescription drugs? No co-pay or deductible to go to the doctor with a sore throat and fever. No co-pay or deductible to take your child to the doctor for a broken arm. No co-pay or deductible for an emergency room visit for a heart attack or the intensive care unit, or surgery, or later rehabilitation. How many commercial plans cover the entire bill for all that? I know mine sure doesn’t. My colonoscopy last month was $1400 out of pocket. I haven’t gotten the bill from the anesthesiologist or the pathology lab where the biopsies were done yet. Hopefully I won’t meet my $6000 deductible for the year.

Just like current Medicare any doctor or service provider, like physical therapists, licensed or certified in Texas can apply and be accepted. Unlike traditional Medicare, the Medicare for All plan proposed by Bernie Sanders also includes dental care, hearing aids and exams, as well as vision benefits. Bernie’s plan also pays for home and community based long-term care and services, think home health aide visits to the elderly at home, or nursing homes for those in need of constant monitoring.

Just as important, while the plan people have through their employer might be just as good as Medicare for All, what happens when that employer moves to another city or state like AT&T did when it moved its headquarters from San Antonio to Dallas some years ago forcing people to find another job if they didn’t want to move? What happens if the industry they’re in or the overall economy turns down and the employer lays them off? What happens if they become too sick to work, perhaps due to cancer or other debilitating illness? The answer is that formerly great insurance is no longer available, they might have access via COBRA for a while but the premium will be sky high and if they’re not working how will they pay that outrageous premium?

45 percent of Americans are worried a major illness could leave them bankrupt, 1 out of 4 Americans skipped needed medical care because they could not afford it, and 77 percent are concerned rising health costs will cause significant and lasting damage to our economy. With these awful statistics it’s laughable that Medicare for All skeptics most common complaint is “how will we pay for it?” First let’s recognize that we’re paying more now for less. Elizabeth Warren pays for her plan by raising taxes on billionaires by adding a tax of 6 percent on net wealth above $1 billion, repealing Trump's tax give away to the rich, and treating long-term capital gains like regular income. In addition her plan calls for restoring funding for the Internal Revenue Service so it can go back to auditing the rich they way it did 20 years ago which is expected to recover $230 billion a year.

Published in the Seguin Gazette - December 4, 2019

Common Cause Calls For Impeachment

Last Friday the nation-wide non-partisan organization, Common Cause, called for impeaching President Trump. In a letter to every member of congress Karen Hobert Flynn, the president of Common Cause, reviewed the organization’s reasons as “The President and his Administration’s abuse of power, subversion of the rule of law, solicitation of a bribe, campaign finance violations, and obstruction of justice by ignoring subpoenas, undermining congressional investigations, threatening witnesses, and refusing document requests leave Congress no choice but to impeach and convict him.”

Flynn then lists the articles of impeachment recommended by Common Cause, the first four of which are related to Trump’s withholding of hundreds of millions of dollars in military aid which Ukraine needed to defend itself from Russian aggression. The impeachable offenses tied the Ukraine scandal are abuse of power, the solicitation of a bribe, campaign finance violations, and obstruction of justice in the President’s effort to thwart the House Impeachment Inquiry of the Ukraine matter.

Common Cause also recommends Articles of Impeachment for abuse of power and obstruction of justice related to the Russia investigation, and abuse of power for failure to adequately safeguard U.S. elections from foreign interference. Additional Articles of Impeachment are also recommended for campaign finance violations related to “hush money” payments, and violations of the foreign and domestic emoluments clauses of the U.S. Constitution.

All of the recommended Articles of Impeachment as well as a review of Senate rules for an impeachment trial and the additional procedures developed for the Clinton impeachment are described in detail in the 60 page report delivered to every member of congress with the letter on Friday. Common Cause has made the full report available for free at the commoncause.org website.

“Abuse of power,” is not defined in the Constitution or criminal statutes, yet it is most assuredly an impeachable high crime and misdemeanor.  Constitutional law scholar Noah Feldman has explained, “Abuse of power is anything the president does that he can only do by virtue of being president that threatens the basic freedoms and capacities of other people.” One of the three Articles of Impeachment against President Richard Nixon was for abuse of power as was one of the four against President Bill Clinton.

President Trump’s withholding of military aid to Ukraine’s government was both the carrot and stick used to force an investigation by Ukraine’s government into Trump’s 2020 electoral opponent Joe Biden was an abuse of the power of the presidency. In addition those same acts can fairly be described as bribery and/or extortion, attempting to secure Ukraine government assistance for his 2020 reelection campaign in exchange for nearly $400 million of U.S. taxpayer money and a visit to the White House.

Article II of the U.S. Constitution provides that the president “shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”

President Trump asked President Zelensky for something of personal political value to Trump that being an investigation of his 2020 electoral opponent Joe Biden in exchange for an official act which was release of military aid to Ukraine. Arguments that President Trump eventually released the Ukraine military aid without assurances of an investigation into Joe Biden and, therefore, did nothing wrong are irrelevant. Under the federal criminal code, a bribe need not be exchanged in order for the law to be violated. It is illegal for a public official to “demand” or “seek” a bribe.

There’s more where this came from, read the report for yourself then call Representative Vicente Gonzalez and urge him to call for impeachment on all nine articles in this report.

Impeachment Looking More Likely

Last week Terry Harper offered the idea that the impeachment hearings could go bad for Democrats. So far that doesn’t seem likely to happen even though many of Trump’s defenders, particularly congressman Jim Jordan, claimed the testimony was all hearsay, second- or third-hand information. In addition to Ambassador William Taylor publicly testifying with the same information he’d already provided in closed door hearings he added a new witness who can testify with first-hand knowledge as that witness was party to a phone call between Ambassador Sondland and President Trump.

Remembering that Republicans wanted to “lock her up” over Hillary Clinton’s private email server it’s astounding that nothing was said about the fact that the phone call Ambassador Taylor described was on an unsecured line to a cellphone in a restaurant with the volume so high several people at the table with Ambassador Sondland could hear Trump asking about progress on investigations. Call me crazy but were president or an ambassador I wouldn’t want much of anything I had to say about negotiations with a foreign power to be overheard in a public setting.

Even if Ambassador Taylor’s staffer never testifies Lt. Colonel Alexander Vindman, a Ukraine specialist on the Nation Security Council (NSC) has already testified in closed door hearings, a transcript of which has already been made public, that he was among several government officials who listened to the July 25 phone call between Trump and Ukraine’s President Zelensky.  That’s the call that got the attention of Congress when the whistleblower complaint was passed to them. Vindman registered concern over Trump's request for an investigation into the Biden family almost immediately with the legal staff on the National Security Council. The colonel told investigators that a top NSC lawyer decided to move records about the call onto a highly classified system that few could access. Vindman testified in public yesterday and we’ll have to see how the public reacts to what he has to say.

When Marie Yovanovitch, the former ambassador to Ukraine, testified to what she knew about Trump withholding congressionally approved military assistance to Ukraine Trump was tweeting about the purported damage she’d done in her prior foreign postings in a continuation of the smears he’s published about her for a year. Upon completing her testimony she was enthusiastically applauded by audience members. She made very clear the concern she has for the damaging behavior exhibited by Trump toward career foreign service personnel. She also made clear that Trump had both the right and the power to recall her and need not have besmirched her reputation to justify doing so.

Trump hasn’t done his case any favors by his tweets about Yovanovitch as the latest polling numbers now show 51% support for his removal from office via impeachment, that’s a 4 point increase over the last week so the upward trend continues. What’s worse for Trump is that a significant part of the increase comes from independents. So I don’t think Terry Harper’s concerns that the impeachment trial will hurt Democrats is anything the rest of us need worry about.

ACA Open Enrollment

It’s that time of year again when people without employer provided health insurance can sign up for a plan on marketplace provided under the Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare. Open enrollment started November 1 and runs until December 15. Donald Trump with help from congressional Republicans has made it harder for people to sign up by reducing the open enrollment period and cutting funding for promotion and assistance it’s still possible to find help if you need it.

Healthcare.gov has links to local assistance providers as well as renewing or updating your existing plan. While Trump has been messing with the financing he managed in some ways to accidentally lower the premium in some cases. In Guadalupe County a 40 year-old making $20,000 a year can get a Gold level insurance plan for just $32 a month or a Bronze plan for $0. If that 40 year-old earns $35,000 a Gold plan will cost them $223 a month or $105 a month for a Bronze plan. Gold level plans have lower deductibles than bronze or silver plans.

Previously I’ve spoken to folks who help people sign up for Obamacare plans and they told me that while some folks don’t qualify for the subsidies that get the premiums so low they also find people who qualify for Medicaid or their children qualify for CHIP and don’t know it so they help them sign up for that. If you know someone without health insurance now is the perfect time to help them contact Seguin Community Health Center at 1104 Jefferson Street, Seguin, phone number (830) 379 – 9797 for assistance in applying.

There are roughly 5 million Texans without health insurance or nearly 18% of the state population. Texas has both more people uninsured as well as a higher percentage of uninsured of any state in the country. Approximately 1.25 million Texas children under 18 are among those uninsured.

A study done by the Texas Alliance for Health Care., shows the lack of health insurance would cause hardships for hospitals, physicians, and ordinary Texans.

Among the study’s findings: In 2016, the cost of lower lifetime earnings and worse health for uninsured Texans was $57 billion. Barring any change in policy, that cost will rise to $178.5 billion by 2040. The $3.5 billion price tag for hospitals and physicians who provide unsubsidized and uncompensated care in 2016 will rise to $12.4 billion by 2040 without a change in policy. The value of lost earnings and poor health due to lack of health insurance in Texas is estimated to be $178.5 billion in 2040 (or $74 billion in 2016 dollars).

Speaking of uncompensated care, Texas is seeing a rash of closures of rural county hospitals primarily due to funding shortfalls caused by the state failing to accept Medicaid expansion. You can thank, our state representative John Kuempel and Governor Greg Abbott for that.

All the Democratic candidates for president are talking about how they plan to fix this nation’s health insurance mess. Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren offer sweeping plans that would take Medicaid and CHIP out of the hands of the state and make sure every American has health insurance. Consider that when listening to all the candidates as you decide who to support in the March primary.

Published in the Seguin Gazette - November 13, 2019

Joe Biden Says Look At My Record

Recently a young woman asked Joe Biden how young people can trust he'll fight for us when he's opened the door  to Super PACs, which would allow any amount of dark fossil fuel money to support his campaign. His response was condescending “Look at my record, child" and at the same time tells all what we should do when investigating any candidate. So let’s look and Biden’s record and see what it tells us about him on any number of issues.

Before we do that though remember what a Super PAC is and why the young woman’s question is relevant. Super PACs can take virtually unlimited amounts of money from a variety of different sources, and they’ve found loopholes that enable them to dodge disclosure requirements. Those donations made by undisclosed sources are called Dark Money. As a result, we the voters might not even know who is paying for advertising promoting the candidate during the primaries. What promises the candidate make in order to encourage a donor to provide tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars to a Super PAC? We'll never know and because we don't know who donated those funds we don't even know what to look out for.

Now on to Biden’s record, do you remember the 1991 confirmation hearings for Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas? You remember the controversy over Anita Hill’s testimony that Thomas sexually harassed her? Joe Biden was the Chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee at that time and in a deal with Republicans he blocked four other women from testifying in support of Hill’s claims. This is sadly illustrative of both Biden’s treatment of women and the way he works cooperatively with Republicans, which he claims is one of his strengths.

Then there’s Biden’s support for credit card companies over working Americans when he voted for the 2005 Bankruptcy Bill. The bill, championed by credit card companies and many major retailers, made it harder for individuals to file for bankruptcy and get out of debt. The bill passed the Senate with a large majority including Biden, but most Democratic senators voted no. Biden was widely considered one of the bill’s major Democratic champions. Elizabeth Warren was a strong opponent of the Bankruptcy Bill from the outset based on research she published in 2000. She explained to journalist David Cay Johnston that “Many people in bankruptcy were solid bill payers until something knocked their legs out from under them. For two-thirds of these people, it was loss of a job, for 40 percent it was a serious medical problem and for 20 percent it was the economic fallout of divorce.”

Lest we forget Biden voted “Yes” to give George W. Bush the authority to start the Iraq War. On the day the war broke out, Biden stated to the press, “We voted to give him the authority to wage that war. We should step back and be supportive.” In fact Biden didn't just vote for the war the record shows he was a leading Democratic voice in its favor. Biden played an important role in persuading the public of its necessity and laid the groundwork for Bush's invasion. At the time Biden stood as a leading Democratic voice on foreign policy since he chaired the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. While President Bush attempted to peddle the war to the American public, Biden became one of the administration’s strongets allies in this cause. Biden backed claims regarding the threat posed by Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein and the necessity of removing him from power.

So yes Joe, let’s look at your record.

Published in the Seguin Gazette - November 6, 2019

Pounding the Table

I’ve never been a baseball fan though when I was a kid I watched a few televised World Series games but I have to tell you I sure wish I’d been at the game played Sunday. All the fun happened before the first pitch when Donald Trump was introduced and the crowd booed then started chanting “Lock him up”.

Included in Trump’s World Series entourage was Congressman Matt Gaetz who last week led a group of 30 or so Republican House members to violate the security of closed door hearings involving the impeachment inquiry. Gaetz and his followers ranted about the unfairness of the closed door hearing claiming that Republicans were left out. As usual Republicans have problems with reality, also known as telling the truth, since 12 of the 30 or so in the group are members of the committees meeting in the secure area and were in fact eligible to attend those hearings along with the other 35 Republicans also on those committees.

Last week’s column was about the facts showing Trump’s demands that Ukraine President Zelensky publicly announce an investigation into Joe Biden and his son’s membership on the board of a Ukrainian natural gas company named Burisma before the U.S. would release funds, previously approved by Congress, for weapons to defend themselves against Russia’s current aggression.

Since then there has been additional testimony some confirming the nature of the “quid pro quo” and some attempting to obfuscate it. For the moment let’s pretend that there was never a connection between Trump’s demands that Zelensky initiate an investigation and the military assistance funds. Trump’s demand in itself is a violation of both campaign finance law and the constitution he and his enablers are sworn to protect and defend. Regarding campaign finance law, it is illegal to solicit or accept a campaign donation from a foreign citizen, foreign company, or foreign nation. Just asking politely for Ukraine to dig up dirt on an electoral opponent is soliciting a donation since opposition research is considered a campaign expense and is therefore a “thing of value” and therefore a campaign donation as defined by campaign finance law.

As to violating the constitution Article I, Section 9, Clause 8 states: "No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State." Emoluments in the case of this clause broadly encompasses any kind of profit, benefit, advantage, or service, not merely gifts of money or valuable objects. Having a foreign nation provide a campaign advantage is obviously in the scope of the prohibitions established in the constitution.

Gaetz and his cronies haven’t given up on claims that impeachment process hasn’t been fair and even now that Speaker Nancy Pelosi has announced a vote on future procedures for holding open impeachment hearings and releasing all the transcript from the closed door hearings they find other reasons to complain. This is typical legal wrangling rather than any focus on substance, in fact there’s an old legal aphorism that goes, "If you have the facts on your side, pound the facts. If you have the law on your side, pound the law. If you have neither on your side, pound the table."

Trump, Gaetz and Republicans in general are going to continue to pound the table as they have neither the facts nor the law on their side.

Published in the Seguin Gazette - November 1, 2019

Quid Pro Quo by Any Other Name

Around 43 years ago I was introduced to the phrase "A rose by any other name would smell as sweet" in Shakepeare’s Romeo and Juliet by Isaac Musselwhite, my high school English teacher. Mr. Musselwhite often reminded us that being able to quote Shakespeare was an indicator of refinement and sophistication; he claimed it would impress girls.

I can’t say that I was an especially good student and I’m still unsure that even if I had been it would have improved my chances for a date. What I can say is that Donald Trump apparently never read Romeo and Juliet and I’ll bet he can quote even less Shakespeare than I can. I’m certain of it because while he has professed “no quid pro quo” since he released the readout of his conversation with Ukraine’s President Zelensky each new document and testimony proves that he was demanding a corruption investigation into Joe and Hunter Biden and withholding previously approved and promised military assistance until he got it. Trump’s demands smell just as sweet as “quid pro quo” no matter what he names it.

First there were rumors of a whistleblower report, then rumors of its contents. Next Trump released the readout of the call with Zelensky which he called perfect but anyone actually reading it saw as strong tactics or extortion and yes, quid pro quo. National Security Advisor John Bolton suddenly resigned. Then came further evidence in the form of text messages between Ambassador Gordon Sondland and Special Envoy Kurt Volker confirming the details of a larger, coordinated effort, dare I call it a conspiracy, that also involved Rudy Guiliani and Attorney General William Barr. Next congress heard testimony from former National Security Council member Dr. Fiona Hill who said Bolton warned her that he would not get caught up in what he referred to as a "drug deal" being cooked up on Ukraine by US Ambassador to the European Union Gordon Sondland and White House acting chief of staff Mick Mulvaney. Out of the blue news broke that two of Rudy Guiliani’s Russian cronies had been arrested on campaign finance violations involving channeling Russian money to Republican candidates and are also implicated in the effort to pressure Ukraine into providing dirt on Biden. Then there were rumors that our former governor, now Secretary of Energy Rick Perry was involved and within days he suddenly announced his resignation.

On Tuesday the U.S. ambassador to Ukraine, William Taylor, testified in closed door hearings. Taylor’s fourteen page opening statement has been released to the public. I’ve read it and if there was ever the slightest doubt that Trump and his cronies were engaged in a conspiracy to extort political dirt on Joe Biden from Ukraine’s president in return for military assistance and a meeting with Trump that doubt has been removed. Taylor provides a very specific timeline and first person testimony regarding many conversations, verbal and written, with various members of the conspiracy. Media reports indicate that committee members and staff at the hearing gasped several times during Taylor’s testimony. I find it hard to imagine what could be more damning that Taylor’s opening statement.

Trump’s demands by any other name still smell like “qui pro quo” and since they involve him accepting a thing of value, dirt on an election rival, from a foreign nation those demands violate both the Emoluments clause of the U.S. constitution and federal campaign finance law. Attorney General William Barr’s efforts to stifle the investigation into the whistleblower complaint constitute a coverup.

It is past time for the House to impeach Trump.

Published in the Seguin Gazette - October 25, 2019

Constitutional Amendments

In theory the election this November is non-partisan, we’ll have mayors, city council and special utility districts seats on the ballot as well as ten constitutional amendments. Most of the candidates will avoid using partisan labels as is appropriate for these races. The amendments proposed for the Texas constitution are non-partisan in as much as they passed the legislature with the votes at least a large fraction of each party.

The League of Women Voters and others publish non-partisan guides to the constitutional amendments, you can find them and the candidates on your ballot at Vote411.org. Our own state representative, John Kuempel, included the amendments and the state legislature’s approved pros and cons on the last page of the missive he mailed to voters a week or so ago.

I can only support Amendment 2 and 10. Amendment 2 provides for the Texas Water Board to issuing bonds to provide financial assistance in developing water projects in economically depressed areas that would otherwise be unable to provide adequate resources for their citizens. Amendment 10 would allow law enforcement animal handlers to take ownership of their service animals when those animals are retired leaving them in the hands of people they have come to know, love, and trust rather than the current process of auctioning the animal to the highest bidder. The auctions only generate a few thousand dollars a year and it seems unnecessary and inhumane to take the animal away from the only family it has known for many years in the last years of its life.

Amendment 3 is designed to allow yet another property tax exemption, this time for property damaged in hurricanes and similar instances. As it stands now if the property is that badly damaged its assessed value will be decreased and therefore the taxes lowered anyway.

Amendment 4 is a big no. The stated purpose is to prohibit the imposition of a state income tax. First state law already does that, as it requires a vote of the citizens to start taxing “natural persons”. The real kicker and reason to vote no is that passage of this proposition changes the language of state law to prohibit an income tax on “individuals”. To most of us such a difference of phrasing seems innocuous but in the legal world, that change is very significant as corporations are treated as “individuals” which means that Amendment 4 prohibits an income tax on corporations whereas current law does not. That’s why state law provides for what is known as the Franchise Tax which Republicans have been trying to kill by increments since the day it passed.

This week I received a mailer on Amendment 5 pushing to dedicate sales tax revenue from the sale of sporting goods to the state parks system. I’m fundamentally opposed to dedicated taxes as it hamstrings legislators and prevents them from addressing budget problems, particularly when the economy suddenly drops like it did in 2011 when the state cut 6% from the education budget. Amendment 5 would just make that situation worse.

Amendment 9 authorizes another tax exemption, this time for the wealthy and big businesses that stock significant amounts of precious metals, gold and silver among others. Right now those precious metals are eligible for property taxes so if they were to be exempted your community may find the need to increase your property taxes in order to make up the difference.

There’s not enough space to cover the rest, all I can say is that in my opinion you would be best served by voting no to all but 2 and 10.

Published in the Seguin Gazette - October 18, 2019

Kuempel's Smoke and Mirrors

Once again our state representative, John Kuempel, has mailed one of his puff pieces to residents in Guadalupe and Wilson counties. As usual he touts purported accomplishments which are often as not failures.

His missive spends half a page on state funding for public education and without background it sounds pretty good until you realize that the state still hasn’t restored all the funding it took away in 2011. Instead of fully restoring funding our legislature with Kuempel’s vote in favor chose to forcibly reduce property tax rates school districts around the state had used to make up for the state cuts. So he’s cheering about a solution to a problem he helped cause in the first place. In the SCUC ISD where I live my property taxes will go down a whopping $12 a month. That’s not enough to buy a half tank of gas and I’m not going to notice it in my monthly budget. Had our district been allowed to keep some or all of those funds we wouldn’t have to again request a waiver on the maximum number of students per teacher in K-3 classes. K-3 is the age where children learn the most quickly and need to most attention and our district like many others still can’t cover the cost to properly educate them.

It isn’t just that Kuempel and his Republican cronies haven’t fully restored funding of public education they also restricted how the additional funding they did provide can be spent. It never ceases to amaze me that the politicians who talk the most about local control and not forcing one size fits all solutions on the public are the very ones most likely to do the exact opposite. I think we’d all have been better served if the state had left the choice to maintain or reduce property taxes up to the various districts.

Kuempel goes on to tout what he calls increased transparency in property taxes but in reality it’s just a requirement to hold elections to increase property tax rates. If he really believed in transparency he’d work for passage of legislation that requires purchase price of every transfer or real property to be reported to the local appraisal district. Right now wealthy folks who purchase multi-million dollar homes often use the option to not report so that the home can’t be properly appraised and therefore save thousands and tens of thousands on their taxes all while you and I pay the full share. Our former Republican state senator, Jeff Wentworth, tried for a decade to pass such a bill. If Kuempel is going to talk about transparency he should have the integrity to stop protecting the rich folks behind the curtain.

Another area where Kuempel obfuscates is his claim the legislature provided funding to cover shortfalls in Medicaid and state hospitals. Had he and his Republican colleagues voted to accept Medicaid expansion as offered under the Affordable Care Act the federal government would have provided an additional $100 million to Texas every year. That funding would have assured that many if not all of the rural hospitals that have closed and will close of the next few years were funded without costing Texas taxpayers a dime.

The general theme here is that Kuempel is taking credit for half measures designed to smooth over problems he and his fellow Republicans created in the first place. This time next year we may have a chance to replace him. I hope voters will see through the fog of Republican claims and elect someone who believes in solutions not bandaids.

Published in the Seguin Gazette - October 11, 2019

Surprise Conviction Shouldn't Be

I was both heartened and saddened when I saw the news that former Dallas police officer Amber Guyger was convicted of murder in the shooting death of Botham Jean. Last year Guyger walked into Jean’s apartment thinking it was her own and shot him to death on the spot. She used the scary big black man defense claiming that she was in fear for her life even though it was she who invaded someone else’s home and was carrying a deadly weapon. Given the recent history of white police officers shooting unarmed black men and not even being prosecuted let alone convicted the verdict came as surprise, welcome though it was.

It’s truly sad that the black community in this country has been so abused that a conviction for such an obvious murder is cause for surprise. Tulsa police officer Betty Shelby was acquitted after standing trial for fatally shooting unarmed 40-year-old Terence Crutcher in 2016. Crutcher was just trying to deal with his stalled vehicle.

New York City policeman Daniel Pantaleo faced no criminal liability for the 2014 killing of an unarmed black man, Eric Garner, using a prohibited chokehold. Pantaleo, a white police officer, used a chokehold as he attempted to arrest Garner on suspicion of selling loose, untaxed cigarettes on a sidewalk.

Officer Jeronimo Yanez shot 32-year-old black man, Philando Castile, five times during a 2016 traffic stop in  Minnesota. Castile notificed the officer he was carrying a firearm and after Yanez demand his identification Castile reached for his wallet and Yanez shot him. Yanez was acquitted of manslaughter in 2017 having testified he was in fear for his life.

Often even a conviction yields minimal time in prison for officers killing unarmed black men. In Oakland California in 2009 Police Officer Johannes Mehserle, leaned over Oscar Grant who was face down on the ground, pulled his gun and shot Grant in the back from about one foot away. Mehserle served eleven months in county jail.

Guyger is sentenced to ten years in prison but don’t feel too confident yet that she’ll be in prison nearly that long. Oklahoma reserve officer, Bob Bates killed unarmed Eric Harris in 2015 and got a four year sentence though he only served a year and four months before being released.

The Black Lives Matter movement demands justice, accountability, and most of all equal treatment. Some of my white neighbors have countered with “all lives matter” and dismiss any attempt to get them to recognize that Black Lives Matter isn’t about demanding special treatment just equal treatment. It’s more than frustrating that my white neighbors refuse to accept that our collective failure to demand justice for all as our pledge of allegiance claims insures that police and even people like George Zimmerman, the out of control neighborhood watch volunteer who killed 17 year-old Trayvon Martin in Florida, can act with impunity as long as the victim is black.

The conviction of such a clearly guilty person as Amber Guyger shouldn’t come as a surprise. It’s going to take Black Lives Matter and other activists to insure that someday such a conviction is the justice we all expect, but today is not that day.

Published in the Seguin Gazette - October 4, 2019

President Mobster

Imagine you manage a small business in a part of town that’s sees more than its share of crime and a wealthy guy from another part of town walks in trailing a couple big guys that look like bodyguards. Imagine further that you’re having a conversation with the wealthy guy about the local business climate, fair treatment of employees, and other topics when he changes the subject and asks very nicely to dig back in your records and find evidence that a mutual acquaintance has been involved with something shady. Then he says “You’ve got a great business here, it would be a shame if something happened to it”. Would you think he’s a mobster? If he’d asked for cash you’d probably call it a protection racket.

Donald Trump and his personal lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, have both admitted to having had that conversation with Volodymyr Zelensky, the President of Ukraine. They’ve both admitted to withholding congressionally authorized military aid, specifically weapons, from Ukraine in order to extract the promise of help finding dirt on Joe Biden and his son Hunter. Were Russia not continuing its illegal and undeclared war on Ukraine it would be easy for Zelensky to shrug off such demands but support from the United States is critical to maintaining the freedom, autonomy, democracy of Ukraine. Zelensky needs all the help he can get to respond to Russian aggression.

The fact that Trump has admitted to extortion for political gain both in his own statements and in the purported “transcripts” suggests to me that the whistleblower report is likely even more damning. Trump and his cronies have been illegally withholding the whistleblower report for nearly a month then he suddenly admits and can’t stop talking about just what the rumors have been suggesting. Based on Trump’s past use of outrageous statements to distract from more important issues I think these revelations likely mean that the report will document even worse transgressions than the early rumors suggested. Based on his actions toward Ukraine it would appear Trump actually believes that his statement  from late July, "Then I have an Article II, where I have the right to do whatever I want as president, “ is true.

Article II of the U.S. constitution says nothing of the sort. In fact Article II clearly limits presidential power, it assigns the title Commander in Chief of the armed forces, the power to make treaties, appoint ambassadors, judges, department heads and others but only with agreement of two thirds of the senate. Article II doesn’t even include the power to veto legislation but it does provide that the President “shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”

Our congressman, Vicente Gonzalez, finally got on board with calling for an impeachment inquiry just hours before Speaker Nancy Pelosi announced that the House would begin such an investigation. The House leadership has withheld support for impeachment for many months and many committee investigations have been stymied by witnesses who refused to cooperate, now that Speaker Pelosi has taken off the brakes we may see quite a bit of action from the six committees assigned to the investigation in the coming months. None of it will matter if their chairs don’t hold witnesses in contempt if they refuse to truthfully and completely answer questions and provide requested evidentiary documents.

Now is not the time to let up on our member of congress, it is every bit as imperative now as it was last week to push him to support a full inquiry into Trump’s misdeeds.

Published in the Seguin Gazette - September 27, 2019

Want A Gun Join A State Militia

Democrats are often viewed by Republicans as lacking in respect for the flag, weak on patriotism, and desiring to rewrite the constitution. I’ll cop to the first one as I’ve never been big on worshipping symbols, be it my high school football mascot or the stars and stripes. Patriotism is another matter as I believe patriots are those who recognize their nation’s failings and struggle to hold it accountable in order to make it better, count me in. Regarding rewriting the constitution, while it could use an amendment or two like equal rights for women and replacing the dangerous electoral college with the popular vote, I’m largely satisfied with simply enforcing it as is.

As an example the Second Amendment states: “A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” Many on the right and a significant fraction of those on the left interpret that as if the first two phrases don’t exist. The Supreme Court only recently started viewing it the same way. Prior to their 2008 decision in District of Columbia v. Heller the Supreme Court had not held that just anyone had the right to have any weapon they chose. In fact in a 1939 case the United States v. Miller, the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment did not protect weapon types not having a "reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia."

In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), the Supreme Court affirmed for the first time that the right belongs to individuals, for self-defense in the home, while also including that the right is not unlimited and does not preclude the existence of certain long-standing prohibitions such as those forbidding "the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill" or restrictions on "the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons." State and local governments are limited to the same extent as the federal government from infringing upon this right. Justice Antonin Scalia wrote the majority opinion in the Heller case.

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia claimed to be an originalist, meaning that you have to interpret the constitution with an eye toward what words and phrases meant at the time it was written and nothing else. That notion is at odds with the views of many scholars and judges who believe one must look at legislative intent, ordinarily a judge or scholar will review the debate over the legislation, including any amendments made during the process to interpret those meanings. In the case of the constitution there are the Federalist Papers many of which were written by the primary author of the constitution, James Madison, others by Alexander Hamilton.  Both wrote about militia’s and their purpose in the new country. Their intent was for them to be organized and regulated by the individual states and beholden to them unlike a national army under orders from the chief executive. It is clear that weapons owing citizens were expected to be members of such a militia and to be held accountable by the states.

While Scalia turned the Second Amendment on its head even he made it clear that states and the federal government had both the right and the duty to restrict "the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons."

There is no question that an automatic weapon with a high capacity, interchangeable magazine is a very dangerous weapon so it would appear that even Antonio Scalia would support restricting private ownership of weapons like those used in El Paso, Odessa and Sutherland Springs.

Published in the Seguin Gazette - September 20, 2019

Electoral College Anti-Democratic

Immediately after the 2016 presidential election in which Donald Trump lost the popular vote by nearly 3 million votes or 2.1% and yet won the electoral college overwhelmingly we all heard Clinton supporters complain that the electoral college should be abolished. There’s still plenty of grumbling on that topic amongst Democrats but it is a back burner issue for most of them. That’s a shame because the electoral college is even more anti-democratic than most people recognize. I don’t mean anti-Democratic Party, I mean anti-democracy.

Using the turn out from the 2016 election as an example it is mathematically possible for a candidate to win with less than 24% of the popular vote and still become president if they win the 41 smallest states, including the District of Columbia, by a margin of a single vote in each. Conversely if the candidate wins the largest 11 states: California, Texas, New York, Florida, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Ohio, Michigan, Georgia, North Carolina, and New Jersey, by a margin of just one vote each they would become president with less than 28% of the popular vote.

The examples I’ve used are the most extreme and rather unlikely but there are many other combinations in which a candidate winning vastly fewer votes than their opponent nevertheless can win the presidency due to the electoral college. There have been four other elections in the U.S. in which the winner had fewer popular votes than their opponent, the most recent was in 2000 when George W. Bush won over Al Gore. In 1876 Samuel Tilden won a majority of the popular vote at 50.9% and still lost the presidency to Rutherford B. Hayes due to the electoral college.

Alexander Hamilton identified several reasons and assumptions considered by the framers of the constitution which he articulated in his various writings. Among those reasons and assumptions were:  The choice of the president should reflect the “sense of the people” at a particular time. The choice would be made decisively with a “full and fair expression of the public will” but also maintaining “as little opportunity as possible to tumult and disorder”. Individual electors would be elected by citizens on a district-by-district basis. Each presidential elector would exercise independent judgment when voting, deliberating with the most complete information available in a system that over time, tended to bring about a good administration of the laws passed by Congress.

In this case Hamilton and his fellow framers seem to have completely missed the mark. What could more fully reflect the sense of the people than election by popular vote? At least in Texas, hardly anyone knows or cares who their presidential electors are as they are selected by the attendees of their party’s state convention before the party candidates have been finalized. Tumult and disorder is exactly what we’ve gotten both times in the last 20 years when the electoral college has chosen a winner who didn’t also win the popular vote. Independent judgement is not something voters appreciate from their electors and some states require electors to vote in accordance with the popular vote in their state assessing fines if they don’t.

Change via a constitutional amendment may be beyond reach but several election reform groups haven’t given up hope of changing the situation and they’ve gotten quite a number of states to adopt legislation requiring their electoral college votes to be cast for the winner of the national popular vote regardless of who wins in their particular state once enough states to win the electoral college have joined them in the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact.

Published in the Seguin Gazette - September 13, 2019

West Texas Renewable Projects Offer Hope

A couple of weeks ago I drove to Santa Fe, NM to visit a client and as I passed the area near Big Spring, TX I saw three very large clusters of windmills. I didn’t try to count them as that wouldn’t have been safe to do at 75 mph but I could see that there very many. Now two weeks later I’m reminded of those windmills again as I see news reports of the massive hurricane that destroyed Grand Bahama Island and threatens much of the east coast of the United States. I’m reminded because there is little question that hurricane Dorian is as powerful and slow moving as it is because global climate change has led to warmer air and seas which are the fuel for hurricanes.

Wind has generated 22% of the Texas’ electrical needs this year slightly more than the provided 21% provided by coal according to the Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT). Just sixteen years ago, in 2003, wind made up less than 1% of the state's power, and coal satisfied 40% of electrical needs, according to ERCOT documents.

In 2017 utility scale solar generation is Texas equaled what wind generated back in 2003. Utility scale means a project big enough for a utility to buy from. By the end of this year it will be double that and indications are it will double again within the next year or two. Distributed solar generation, meaning primarily rooftop installations, provides about 25% as much as utility scale facilities at this time.

Projections indicate that Texas will become the second most prolific generator electricity from solar by 2021, as more solar farms are built in West Texas near existing wind farms. Investments in transmission lines to accommodate wind generators making building solar farms nearby very cost efficient because solar and wind energy production mostly occur at different times a day allowing them to share those transmission lines.

Despite the tariffs on Chinese solar panels imposed by the Trump administration, the price of solar power continues to drop so that every year electricity from solar energy gets a little cheaper while coal and natural gas costs are basically the same as the prior year and nuclear just keeps getting more expensive. It's often more cost effective to build a new solar plant than it is to keep running an existing coal power plant or gas plant.

Solar alone employs around 330,000 people in the United States while wind employs about 110,000. Coal mining and generation employs about 140,000. Taken together wind and solar energy jobs nearly triple the number of coal related jobs in the electricity sector.
Seeing that more than two thirds of Grand Bahama Island are now underwater should make anyone who believes climate change is not a big deal or a long way off rethink that position. The growth of renewable energy generation in Texas makes clear that what needs to be done to avoid the worst of the damage global climate change can cause it just takes the will to do it. We as voters must demand that our elected officials take this problem seriously and adjust the incentives and tax breaks offered to the energy industry in Texas and the nation to encourage speeding up the build out of renewable energy projects for the sake of our future and that of future generations.

To paraphrase Wendell Berry: We don't inherit the climate from our ancestors; we borrow it from our children.

Published in the Seguin Gazette - September 6, 2019

Time for Texas to End Barbarous Death Penalty

Were it not for last minute action by a federal appeals court yesterday, August 15, 2019, the State of Texas would likely have executed Dexter Johnson for the murders of Maria Aparece and Huy Ngo in Harris County in 2006.  Earlier in the week, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals denied his motion for a stay of execution and his habeas petition without reviewing the merits of the claims he raised, including evidence of his intellectual disability and the false and misleading testimony of a State’s witness at trial. Unlike the Texas justices, the federal court did consider the evidence suggesting intellectual disability and sent the case back to state courts for further review on that issue.

Over the next four months 12 other Texas inmates are scheduled for execution. Next week, on Wednesday, August 21, the State of Texas is scheduled to execute Larry Swearingen. Since his conviction in 2000 he has consistently maintained his innocence of the 1998 murder of 19-year-old Melissa Trotter. Swearingen was convicted on the basis of circumstantial evidence alone, there is no forensic evidence tying him to the murder, nor eye witness testimony.

Since 1973, 166 people have been exonerated from death row on innocence grounds. The death penalty is the ultimate denial of human rights. That’s about one exoneration for every hundred executed. How many of those who were executed weren’t exonerated simply because they didn’t have adequate representation? How many were like Larry Swearingen and just didn’t have an alibi to prove they didn’t commit the crime? Once again Texas is at risk of executing an innocent man. It is unacceptable for the state in service to the people to kill someone when so many doubts about his guilt exist.

Many supporters of the death penalty claim it is a deterrent however criminologists will tell you it isn’t because either the murder is committed in a moment of passion when such considerations aren’t in play or the perpetrator simply doesn’t believe they’ll get caught.

Other supporters of the death penalty claim it is the ultimate punishment but think about this a moment, as soon as the prisoner is executed they are free of all hunger, pain, loneliness, and fear. They no longer suffer punishment at all. Ask someone like Anthony Graves, a man who was exonerated after spending 18 years on death row, he’ll tell you that many of those with life sentences longed for execution so it would end their misery. If this was truly about punishment we’d just hand out life sentences knowing that the suffering would last for decades. A death sentence just lets the worst criminals off the hook while not giving society a chance to walk back injustices when innocent people are executed for crimes they didn’t commit.

Finally some death penalty supporters claim that it gives closure to the families of victims. In reality most families get no such closure regardless of the penalty imposed on the convicted individual. In fact some find peace in forgiving the murderer after meeting with them and sharing their grief.

Since none of the so-called justifications for the death penalty actually exist neither should the death penalty. It is time for Texas to join much of the rest of the United States and developed world and end the barbarous practice of state sanctioned murder.

Published in the Seguin Gazette - August 16, 2019

Trump and Republicans to Blame

There are lots of problems in this country that our legislators fail to address, last weekend one event that is an example of how two of them are often intertwined occurred here in Texas. Yet another right wing white supremacist used a gun to kill 22 people, at last count, in El Paso. Trump and Republicans in Congress are responsible for this incident in the same way that a parent is responsible when a child follows their example and does something wrong.

If Trump made a few racially insensitive jokes in private it wouldn’t be such a problem, however he makes claims that certain ethnicities are “bad people” at political rallies, in televised speeches, and in tweets. He minimizes the perceived dangerousness of neo-Nazis by saying “many of them or good people”. Whether he believes these things or not doesn’t matter, he is the President of the United States and sets an example that unfortunately many Americans are keen to follow. Certainly a large fraction of those already felt that way before he started his run for president but his repeated statements have given them permission to be vocal as well. Like any mob when a loud voice starts calling for an action others take up that call and act on it.

It isn’t just that Trump uses racist tropes and scapegoats immigrants, or that congressional Republicans or for that matter Texas Republicans haven’t called him out for it. I’m truly saddened that Trump and Republicans from Congress, state legislatures, on down to some city halls would rather use his hateful, divisive rhetoric to win office than work to heal the nation and their communities.

A year ago, while right wing terror attacks were on the rise, the Trump administration dismantled a Department of Homeland Security intelligence unit focusing on domestic terrorism and reassigned the staff to different positions within the DHS. That wasn’t the first time Republicans forced dissolution of a DHS analysis group focused on domestic terror not committed by Islamists. Congressional Republicans pushed DHS to shut down a group run by Daryl Johnson not long after President Obama took office in 2009. Johnson produced a report called Right-Wing Extremism and Republicans went nuts.

Stopping research and information gathering on right-wing violence is the same sort of head in the sand behavior we see with Republicans on gun violence where they have defunded efforts to study the issue at the Centers for Disease Control. It’s also very similar to how they hide from the global climate change crisis be defunding research by the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration and other federal and state agencies.

It’s truly sad that the party of Lincoln, who did everything in his power to maintain the union, has chosen division and strife as a means to retain power. I fault not just Republican elected officials in this, it is the responsibility of Republican voters too for if they don’t repudiate Trump and his enablers at the ballot box they are in fact supporting them just like good little Nazis. Oddly enough George W. Bush’s claim around the time of the Iraq war that “if you’re not with us, you’re against us” is very true in this instance.

Published in the Seguin Gazette - August 9, 2019

Impeachment How and Why

Now that Special Counsel Robert Mueller has testified before the House Judiciary and Intelligence Committees regarding his team’s investigation of the Donald Trump and his associates it is time to consider what impeachment means and how it works. For the purposes of this discussion I have cited the various paragraphs of the constitution and provided their text including the archaic spelling used at the time.

Article I, Section 2, paragraph 5: The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.

We should think of this duty of the House as similar to that of a grand jury, meaning that House’s job isn’t to determine guilt or innocence but rather to determine if there is enough evidence of impeachable offenses to proceed to trial.

Article I, Section 3, paragraph 6: The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.

If the House finds that there is sufficient evidence of impeachable offenses it is the Senate which must then hold the trial and it requires at least 67 members to vote convict assuming that all 100 Senators are present.

Article I, Section 3, paragraph 7: Judgment in Cases of impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.

Impeaching the President is specifically limited to removal from office with no other penalties attached. The constitution is also clear that anyone removed from office is subject to criminal trial and attendant penalties, such as imprisonment or fines as appropriate to the charges, if there is evidence of criminal acts just like anyone else.

Article II, Section 4: The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

Any federal official including judges but not members of Congress are subject to impeachment and if convicted are removed from office. Treason and bribery are just the crimes spelled out in the constitution but it includes the vague “high crimes and misdemeanors” phrase to give future legislatures the flexibility to impeach for actions not imagined by the authors of the constitution.

If you haven’t read the Mueller report yet you really should, the first section regarding Russian interference in the 2016 election is enlightening though dry. While it doesn’t name Trump or others in his orbit it is part of the evidence of the conspiracy which evidence described later in the report suggests a conspiracy. Note the legal term is conspiracy, not collusion, so no Mueller’s team found no evidence of collusion because they weren’t looking for it, they were looking for conspiracy and found some evidence of it. As Mueller testified last week they also found that Trump and his lackeys withheld documents and testimony that might have provided further evidence for conspiracy.

Withholding those documents and testimony in addition to Trump’s efforts to fire James Comey are all the evidence the House should need that Trump obstructed justice and that is an impeachable offense.

Congressman Vicente Gonzalez hasn’t yet made a public statement on his position regarding impeachment.

Published in the Seguin Gazette - July 1, 2019

Frightening Historical Parallels

While Donald Trump is no Adolf Hitler and no Benito Mussolini that doesn’t mean he’s not a fascist. Merriam Webster dictionary defines fascism as "a political philosophy, movement, or regime that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition."

Trump most certainly exalts “white” people over all other races even though race is really just a social construct. His rhetoric and actions, such as not naming permanent leaders of numerous departments and agencies which would require Senate confirmation thus allowing him to name people as acting leaders so he can put anyone he wants in those leadership roles, show his autocratic philosophy. Under Trump the middle class has shrunk and the rich have gotten richer, especially the very richest. Trump showed his desire to forcibly suppress opposition when told Russia’s president, Vladimir Putin, that they should “get rid” of journalists as they met in public at the G-20 conference of world leaders in Osaka, Japan.

Similar to Hitler who vilified Jews and other minority groups, Trump has vilified immigrants from non-northern European countries. His policy of separating children from their parents when migrants seek asylum at the border is horrendous. Keeping both parents and children in unsanitary conditions without access to showers or toothbrushes would violate the Geneva Conventions if they were prisoners of war. Japanese-Americans and Jewish-Americans, many of whom have family members who suffered in concentration camps during World War II, have protested at Trump’s camps complaining that the conditions are reminiscent of those concentration camps.

Prior to World War II the German ocean liner St. Louis sailed out of Hamburg with nearly 900 Jewish refugees seeking visas to enter the United States. They were not admitted on the grounds that they needed to wait their turn as the roughly 27,000 slots available to Germans and Austrians had already been filled and so were the slots for the next several years. By 1945, just six years later, 254 of those roughly 900 passengers had been murdered by Nazis in the Holocaust.

The Trump administration is using the same rhetoric all over again to deny entry to migrants from countries south of our border. I’m all for waiting your turn in line but when the line stretches 20 or more years as is sometimes the case I think it’s time to revisit the rules that make the line. Several former asylum seekers have already been reported as murdered after being sent back to their home countries.  We’ll probably never know just how many of the deported asylum seekers are killed by the very drug lords and criminals they were fleeing the first place.

The examples above are just some of the frightening parallels between the leadership of present day United States and Germany of the late 1930’s and early 1940’s. I don’t know about you but I don’t want another stain on our nation like that of the ill-fated voyage of the St. Louis or the Japanese internment camps.

Published in the Seguin Gazette - July 19, 2019

Political or Violent Revolution

A week ago yesterday we celebrated Independence Day, the American Revolution, led by wealthy, educated elites in order to wrest control of government away from a distant despot and take it into their own hands.

This Sunday France will celebrate Bastille Day, their own revolution against the rich and powerful despots of the late eighteenth century. Workers in the cities and small farmers in the countryside resented the privilege and wealth bestowed by the accident of being born in to certain families. The triggers were the rising prices of bread and other staples exacerbated by crop failures and government on the brink of bankruptcy driven by the country’s participation in a war of choice, the American Revolution.

The seeds of revolution in our country have been planted once again and are growing even now. One famous rallying cry of the American Revolution was “No taxation without representation”, unfortunately many Americans, including Texans, once again suffer from it due to partisan gerrymandering. In some states 60 percent of voters can turn out for the party that ends up with just 40 percent of legislative seats because the other party had the opportunity to draw legislative and congressional maps that provide a near permanent advantage to that party regardless of the will of voters.

In the United States today three white men, Jeff Bezos, Warren Buffett and Bill Gates, own more wealth than the poorest 50% of the population combined. The Walton Family and the Koch brothers combined own about the same amount, while Bezos, Buffett, and Gates started with little and made billions, the Walton’s and Koch brothers inherited their wealth and use it to exert political control, gain privilege, and protect and increase their wealth.

Grocery prices have risen noticeably over the last year or two, other living expenses have as well yet most workers have seen little if any increase in their wages. Trump’s tax cut put little more in the pockets of you and me while lining the pockets of the already fabulously wealthy. At the same time it further exacerbated the national deficit even as the nation still bears the expense of the unnecessary war of choice in Iraq. Climate change is bearing down on us like a freight train, last week Anchorage Alaska had a record high temperature of 90 degrees – that’s 5 degrees above the previous record, there was massive flooding in the Great Plains last month wrecking crops and killing livestock, and the Arctic ice cap is showing signs of record shrinkage. As climate change worsens crop failure and livestock losses will cause further shortages and price increases. With the vast majority of Americans living paycheck to paycheck there’s not much room in the budget for increased costs.

There is mounting pressure for change, in the past the United States has managed that through the electoral process choosing Teddy Roosevelt, his nephew Franklin D. Roosevelt, Lyndon Johnson to manage the necessary adjustments. Will this nation choose another visionary leader to guide us through the critical transition or will it take the kind of upheaval seen in the latter part of the eighteenth century?

Published in the Seguin Gazette - July 12, 2019

New Gilded Age or New Era

The period from the end of the Civil War in 1865 until just after the turn of the century is known as the Gilded Age, it is the time of big railroads, big banks, and big steel. Men like J.P. Morgan and Andrew Mellon made themselves wealthy by monopolizing trade and corrupting government then built grandiose homes and earned the appellation robber baron. Economic inequality reached historic levels and children starved while Morgan and Mellon decided where to build their next 75 room mansions. Teddy Roosevelt earned a reputation as a trust buster through his efforts to curb the most egregious excesses of such men. Roosevelt didn’t attack all trusts or monopolies, only those he felt took excess profits and failed to provide good, efficient services or high quality products. While his public face was that of a protector of the common man he was very much a supporter of capitalism who believed that strong government provided necessary balance. Economic inequality continued to increase through the Roaring 20’s proving that Teddy Roosevelt didn’t go far enough.

Just two decades after Teddy Roosevelt’s presidency the national economy took a nose dive into what became known as the Great Depression. It took reformers like Teddy’s nephew Franklin Delano-Roosevelt and his vice-president, Texan John Nance Garner, to push back against the avarice of the robber barons’ successors and set the stage for the rapid growth in the middle class after the end of World War II. Roosevelt and Garner were forced to compromise with southern Democrats and withhold some of the protections and benefits from domestic help and farm workers, who were often minorities, in order to pass their legislation. Those left out were unable to fully enjoy the benefits of the vibrant economy.

Two decades later another reformer was needed and Texan Lyndon Johnson took up the banner to expand those benefits to the grandsons and grand-daughters of slaves and other minorities. Like all reformers before him he also had to be pushed by those who suffered under the existing system and he had to accept compromises in order to move forward.

While each of these great reformers efforts were necessary they have never been enough and soon after LBJ left office the legislation and regulations that protected the middle class were weakened or reversed. It has been 50 years since LBJ and once again economic inequality has reached record levels with just three men holding as much wealth as the bottom 50% of Americans combined.

In 2020 we have an opportunity to elect a reformer who will turn back the tide of avarice that threatens the fabric of our society and prevent another Gilded Age or Great Depression. I hope you watched the two nights of Democratic presidential candidate debates and recognized that some of them will move us forward while others just offer the status quo. Sanders, Warren, Harris and a few others offer a chance to restore balance to our economy. Biden, Hickenlooper and the rest would happily settle for scraps off the table of the new robber barons of Facebook, Amazon, and Apple.

Democrats Must Do Better Than Biden

I’m convinced that Donald Trump can be beaten in the 2020 election by several of the potential nominees. Recent polling even shows that Joe Biden can beat him here in Texas. Biden currently has the highest national ranking among Democrats who are running for the nomination. I’m just not sure he can actually win because this will be an election much like 2016 where turning out voters is more important that persuading so called swing voters and Biden isn’t that inspiring to the folks who too often don’t vote.

I don’t see him getting support from the people who we need to get to the polls in Texas in order to win a majority for president or possibly more importantly providing the coat tails to win the federal and state legislature. His support is primarily older voters who already turn out to vote in most elections. The people Democrats need in order to win the majority in the state and federal legislature are the young and minority voters. Many of those voters find Biden too middle of the road and his recent statements claiming that Republicans will work with him as well as telling business executives that not much will change just prove he’s not the change so many were looking for when they voted for Obama then Trump. That’s not to say Biden won’t get the nomination or even win in 2020 but if he does I worry he’ll end up with a Republican controlled Senate which will prevent him from achieving even slight reforms and that will lead to another Trump like president in 2024 as voters continue to look for change.

Even if Biden wins and gets to work with a majority in both houses of Congress his own statement that not much will change suggest his administration won’t provide the push to move forward on climate change, social justice, or any of the other reforms our nation so sorely needs. Yes, it would be more minority friendly, more LGBTQ friendly, less reactionary, and a better international partner but that won’t be enough for people who don’t see our government as responsive to their needs. It won’t be enough to inspire them to vote again in 2022 and 2024 and if they do vote it won’t keep them from turning to another charlatan selling snake oil in the hope that they’ll shake things up.

I’ll vote for whoever is the Democratic nominee in 2020 because none of the candidates can be worse than Trump or for that matter anyone who could possibly win the Republican nomination. I simply fear that having a “moderate” win our nomination and then the presidency invites disaster for the future of our nation. Next Wednesday and Thursday on NBC the public will have a chance to hear from twenty of the candidates and I hope that readers will take that opportunity to begin getting to know the candidates.

Wednesday, June 26, will start at 8pm and the candidates on stage will be: Sen. Cory Booker, Sen. Elizabeth Warren, former Texas Rep. Beto O’Rourke, Sen. Amy Klobuchar, former Rep. John Delaney, Rep. Tulsi Gabbard, former US Housing and Urban Development Secretary Julian Castro, Rep. Tim Ryan, New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio, and Washington Gov. Jay Inslee.

The following night, Thursday June 27, also starting at 8pm, the lineup will be: Sen. Bernie Sanders, Sen. Kamala Harris, former Vice President Joe Biden, South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg, Sen. Michael Bennet, author Marianne Williamson, Rep. Eric Swalwell, Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, entrepreneur Andrew Yang, and former Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper.

Published in the Seguin Gazette - June 21, 2019

Trump Administration Most Corrupt in a Century

Even putting aside the numerous corrupt and criminal actions by the current occupant of the White House such as obstruction of justice as documented in the Mueller report and violations of the emoluments clause by receiving large amounts of money from various foreign countries and businesses through his hotels the Trump administration is without a doubt the most thoroughly corrupt since at least Warren G. Harding was president from 1921-1923.

Former Secretary of Health and Human Services Tom Price was run out of the administration for using tax payer funds to pay for charter flights to various speaking engagements but wasn’t prosecuted. Secretary of the Treasury Steve Mnuchin got a slap on the wrist for doing the same thing to the tune of over $800,000 and is still a Cabinet member. Former Texas governor and now Secretary of Energy, Rick Perry, has been investigated for using $56,000 in taxpayer money to pay for charter flights that could have been made on scheduled airlines for far less.

Before resigning in December, Secretary of Interior Ryan Zinke was being investigated for possible self-dealing involving a developer working on a project near land in Montana owned by Zinke and his wife, Lola. The question is whether Zinke used his office for financial benefit; the Interior Department’s inspector general referred the matter to the Justice Department. He also spent thousands of dollars of public money on charter flights that he could have made on regularly scheduled airlines for a few hundred dollars. In addition friends and campaign contributors of Zinke were awarded a $300 million dollar contract to rebuild the power grid in Puerto Rico even though their company consists of only two people and the company has no experience with such a large scale project.

Former Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt was under investigation by the inspector general of his agency prior to his resignation. The inspector general of the Environmental Protection Agency said that former Administrator Scott Pruitt wasted nearly $124,000 of taxpayer money on excessive travel, including first-class airline tickets. Pruitt had EPA staff help his wife, Marilyn, seek employment with an annual salary of more than $200,000. Just three months after Pruitt was sworn in as head of the Environmental Protection Agency, Pruitt used agency staff to contact Chick-Fil-A about his wife becoming a franchisee. Pruitt paid just $50 a night to stay in a Capitol Hill condominium linked to a prominent Washington lobbyist whose firm represents a long list of fossil fuel companies like Exxon.

Housing and Urban Development Secretary Ben Carson spent about $45,000 refitting his office, including $4,000 for new blinds, more than $8,000 for a dishwasher, and nearly $32,000 for a dining-room table. In March 2018, Congress asked the GAO to investigate the spending. While the blinds were found to be acceptable the table and dishwasher broke the law.

In February, the Office of Government Ethics (OGE) refused to certify Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross’s financial disclosure statement because he hadn’t sold a stock that he claimed he had. Ross insisted the error was simply a mistake. His claim might have been more believable if the OGE hadn’t already had to warn Ross about inaccuracies in previous disclosures, and if he hadn’t also been caught lying to the press about his finances.

Late in the 2016 presidential campaign, Donald Trump began using the slogan “Drain the swamp” to represent his purported intention to stamp out corruption and self-dealing in Washington. From the examples above its pretty clear he didn’t mean what he said.

Published in the Seguin Gazette - June 14, 2019

Mexico Tariff Foolishness

Barring some last minute deal that Trump’s negotiators make with Mexico which at least appear to reduce immigration to the United States next Monday everything imported from Mexico will go up in price by 5%, that’s an extra $180 that the average American family will spend to buy the same beer, avocados, laptop computers, and automobiles. Some other items that will cost more due to Trump’s trade war with Mexico include televisions, phones, medical and surgical instruments, refrigerators and air conditioners, dates, figs, and pineapples. If nothing changes Trump promises that the tariff will increase another 5% every month until it reaches 25% or an extra $900 for those products. Remember that tariffs are taxes so this means Trump is raising your taxes as much as $900 each year.

Compare that $900 tax increase to the income taxes you paid this April 15 versus last year. For the few non-billionaires who actually noticed a reduction in their federal incomes taxes this year most or all of it will be offset by the increases in the price of goods we’re paying on items imported from China and perhaps Mexico. Trump’s argument is that the manufacturers will see it is in their interest to move manufacturing back to the US to avoid the tariffs but that hasn’t been the case when exchange rates shift and it hasn’t noticeably caused the return of manufacturing jobs from China. Instead two things have happened, offshore manufacturers simply moved to another low wage country that isn’t subject to the tariffs or they bring manufacturing back to the US but in highly automated form such that hardly any jobs are created.

Meanwhile US manufacturers like Harley Davidson actually moved some production to Europe so as to avoid retaliatory tariffs imposed by EU nations. Some small US manufacturers have even gone out of business because the tariffs imposed on Chinese goods increased the cost of the materials they used to make their products making them uncompetitive with similar products made in other countries not subject to the same tariffs.

American farmers, especially those growing soy beans, have taken a real beating from Trumps China tariffs. China retaliated by raising tariffs on agricultural products so Chinese buyers found alternate sources of soy beans leaving American farmers with huge surpluses no one wants. Trump’s solution is to give $19 billion in aid to mid-West farmers but that doesn’t come close to making up the price difference so now we’re seeing higher than normal rates of farm bankruptcies in the mid-West. At the same time Trump’s effort to insulate himself from the ire of farmers increases the federal deficit.

In 1930 as the Great Depression was getting wrecking the lives of most Americans, Herbert Hoover signed the Smoot-Hawley tariffs into law exacerbating the damage. Among economists today there is some debate on just how much those tariffs hurt America but there is broad consensus that they did hurt and not help. More than a dozen Republican Senators are ready to vote to disapprove the Mexico tariffs, if they can must 18 they can put a stop to it. John Cornyn has spoken against the tariff but he hasn’t committed to voting against it. He’s up for election in 2020 and it’s likely to be a close race so now would be a good time to call him and let him know you want him to stop the madness and vote against the Mexico tariffs. You can call his San Antonio office at 210-224-7485.

Published in the Seguin Gazette - June 7, 2019

Freedom of Reproductive Choice Left and Right

While the rate of abortions is the lowest since the early 1970’s before the Roe v. Wade decision that legalized it and about half the peak rate which occurred in 1984 Republicans aren’t satisfied. Several state legislatures have recently all but outlawed abortions. Alabama’s new law is the most restrictive only allowing exceptions "to avoid a serious health risk to the unborn child's mother," for ectopic pregnancy and if the "unborn child has a lethal anomaly."

You can tell a lot of the legislators passing such bills a truly ignorant of human reproduction. Republican state Sen. Clyde Chambliss, who pushed Alabama’s bill stated on the Senate floor that there is a "window" of time between conception and when a woman knows for certain that she's pregnant which he believes to be seven to ten days. Reality is that most women don’t know they’re pregnant for six to eight weeks and often longer.

Georgia, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Ohio all passed bills prohibiting abortions after a fetal heartbeat can be detected, that’s six weeks. In other words by the time a woman even knows she’s pregnant these lawmakers have eliminated abortion as an option. In Missouri the governor signed into law a bill banning abortions at eight weeks of pregnancy, without exceptions in the cases of rape or incest.

Some state legislatures controlled by Democrats are expanding abortion rights and access. In Maine new state law will allow nurse practitioners to perform abortions, expanding the possible number of care providers in the state. Nevada’s legislature voted to reverse some restrictions. Vermont's legislature recognized “as a fundamental right the freedom of reproductive choice," including “rights to choose or refuse contraception or sterilization or to choose to carry a pregnancy to term, to give birth to a child, or to obtain an abortion”—and its Republican governor won’t veto the bill.

The Illinois state House has passed a bill that, like Vermont’s, affirms reproductive freedoms and also repeals some restrictions on the books in the state. Massachusetts is considering the ROE Act, which would remove some restrictions, including a parental permission law for teens and a waiting period that isn’t currently being enforced anyway, as well as expand rights to abortion after 24 weeks in case of serious fetal abnormalities and create a safety net to ensure that abortion is treated like other medical care for women who don’t have other health coverage.

Research from around the globe shows restrictive laws don’t actually seem to reduce abortion rates. Instead, they are linked to unsafe abortions, which put women at risk of serious health problems and even death.

States that emphasize abstinence-only programs have the highest rates of teen pregnancy and teen birth. In 2003, California lawmakers instead passed the California Comprehensive Sexual Health and HIV/AIDS Prevention Education Act which forbade public schools from promoting religious doctrine or bias against people, and said that all sex education programs had to be medically accurate, age-appropriate and comprehensive. By 2005, California’s teen pregnancy rate was 75 per 1,000 teens, a more than 50 percent decline that dwarfed the corresponding national decline of 37 percent.

To this day, a large minority of teen pregnancies tend to end in abortion. But with California’s decline in teen pregnancy rates came declines in both teen births and teen abortions. Abortions, in particular, dropped from 76 per 1,000 teens in 1988 to 26 per 1,000 in 2005.

If Republicans really wanted to reduce abortions they’d improve sex ed in our public schools, instead they just pander to religious conservatives.

Published in the Seguin Gazette - May 31, 2019

Trump Voters Terrifying

46% of Americans are ready to re-elect Donald Trump according to recent polling. That’s a truly stunning number especially since only 46% are committed to electing a Democrat to replace him. That nearly half of Americans are on board with a man whom even Republican congressman Justin Amash says clearly obstructed justice and should be impeached shows that they don’t care what he does wrong he’s their guy and they’re sticking with him.

If you’ve read the Mueller report like I have you too understand what Amash is talking about as it lays out the case for obstruction of justice quite clearly. Worse still he has instructed members and former members of his administration to defy congressional subpoenas preventing their investigations from gathering evidence.

The trade war he set off with China and other countries is causing farmers to lose billions of dollars in sales so his administration is providing $15-20 billion in federal assistance to soy bean farmers among others who have been harmed by the backlash. Family farmers are the ones most harmed and the least helped causing unusually high levels of farm bankruptcies.

Harley Davidson moved some manufacturing out of the country in order to avoid tariffs on sales in Europe and elsewhere. Many of those Carrier air conditioner jobs in Indiana that Trump made so much about saving during the 2016 election have now moved to Mexico anyway. There are many other examples of the trade war and Trump’s economic policies hurting more than helping.

Just this week Trump announced "I don’t want to fight. But you do have situations like Iran, you can’t let them have nuclear weapons — you just can’t let that happen.”  Republic Senator Tom Cotton of Arkansas claims it would take just two strikes to wipe out Iran’s nuclear capabilities. Acting Secretary of Defense Patrick Shanahan and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo failed to convince House members of any real threat from Iran in their meeting earlier this week. This is the same kind of sabre rattling and falsehood pedaling that the Bush administration engaged in during the lead up to the invasion of Iraq.

About two miles of new border wall/fence has been built on the southern border and Mexico hasn’t paid a dime toward it. Five immigrant children have died in custody of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) while separated from their parents who were legally seeking asylum in the United States. Rather than sending more immigration judges to process asylum applicants Trump has contracted with private prison operators to house immigrants.

Trump’s cabinet selections have repeatedly been caught with their hands in the cookie jar, often for lavish travel expenses on the tax payer dime. Some have resigned in disgrace but others like Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin hang on. Those not engaged in outright theft are often incompetent such as Secretary of Education Betsy DuVos who doesn’t understand basic educational terms and principles or Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Ben Carson who showed no understanding of the terms describing real estate finance at a recent congressional hearing.

None of this phases nearly half of the American public, I find that terrifying.

Published in the Seguin Gazette - May 24, 2019