The View from Right Field

Declaring a “National Emergency” to Build a Wall Is a Terrible Idea

President Trump has apparently decided to sign the budget bill and then declare a “national emergency” to build a wall on the border with Mexico.  I’ll be brief: This is an absolutely terrible idea.  Presidential power once stretched never returns to its prior limits.  A national emergency that lets President Trump build a wall, will let his successor do other things.  Even if you approve of the former, you may not approve of the latter.  And even if courts or Congress stop President Trump from doing this,¹ the mere fact that President Trump tried to use emergency powers in this way will be a precedent for future presidents to use their emergency powers in other ways.  This is a really bad idea.
--------
¹ It could be an interesting question as to who would have “standing” to challenge President Trump’s order in the courts.

Yet Another Shutdown Post

The shutdown is getting to be silly.  But, as Janan Ganesh said in today’s Financial Times, it is continuing because “[n]either party values its own objective as much as it values the denial of the other side’s.” 

The problem, however, is not how long this shutdown will last, but how long the next one will last.  Because given the attitude of President Trump and his supporters on one side and Congressional Democrats and their supporters on the other side, there will be another one, if not more than one.  Perhaps September 30, when the federal government’s fiscal year ends.  Maybe some time before that if the national debt limit needs to be raised or if something needs to be done and one side or the other thinks it can turn it into a battle it can win.

The shutdowns will keep happening – until enough of us get mad enough at both sides that they finally understand we care more about government operating, and government employees getting paid, than we do stopping the other side from getting what it wants.  Unless we would rather the government shutdown and government employees not get paid if that is what it takes to stop the other side from getting what it wants.

A Few More Comments on the Stupid Shutdown

A few comments on the federal government shutdown, though I am not sure they add all that much to what I wrote back on January 3.  In any case, it is all the news, so here goes.

1. As I understand the shutdown, it boils down to this:  President Trump thinks that it is better to have a government shutdown than it is to not build the wall he wants to build.  The Democrats in Congress, on the other hand, think it is better to have a government shutdown than it is to let President Trump build the wall he wants to build.  Or, at least, that is how they are acting.

Shutdowns and Walls. How Will It End?

Cutting through all of the tweets, press conferences, and claims of outrage, the current partial government shutdown boils down to a simple problem.  President Trump would rather have a partial government shutdown than approve spending bills that do not include money for his “wall.”  He has promised his supporters that he would build a wall.  It was one of the main themes of his campaign, and he hasn’t been able to get it done.  From his viewpoint, he needs to do it.  He promised.

Democrats, on the other hand, would rather have a partial government shutdown than approve money to build President Trump’s wall.  They have pretty much promised their supporters that they will never approve money for a wall.  They feel they need to keep their promise.  Plus, they don’t want to give President Trump the political victory of getting money for his wall.

Can Americans Be Trusted With Campaign Finance Disclosure? – An Update After the Brett Kavanaugh Hearings

Four years ago, I wrote a post asking “Can Americans Be Trusted With Campaign Finance Disclosure?”  I noted that, while some people want to limit political spending either by limiting how much people can contribute or by limiting how much candidates can spend, the First Amendment (at least as currently interpreted by the Supreme Court) doesn’t allow either of those.  Therefore, as I said back then:

“[T]hey fall back on disclosure of contributions.  If we can’t limit spending, they say, at least we can require contributions and spending to be disclosed.  In the words of Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis (before he was on the Court), ‘[s]unlight is said to be the best of disinfectants.’”

But, I asked, as I do again in the title of this post: Can Americans be trusted with campaign finance disclosure?  This question recently returned when a federal district court judge threw out a 37-year old Federal Election Commission rule dealing the disclosures that nonprofit advocacy groups have to make with respect to the names of their donors.  Without going into the technical detail of the case,¹ the judge’s ruling increases the number of people whose names have to be disclosed, even though the people aren’t making contributions to candidates, but just to groups that are making independent political expenditures.

Brett Kavanaugh, the Supreme Court, and Roe v. Wade

With the hearings on Judge Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination to the Supreme Court starting,¹ one of the questions will be about women’s right to choose/abortion.  Will a Justice Brett Kavanaugh vote to take away a woman’s right to choose by overturning Roe v. Wade?  While Judge Kavanaugh told Senator Susan Collins that Roe v. Wade was settled law, settled law can be overturned. 

What people are missing, however, in talking about whether the Supreme Court might overturn Roe v. Wade, is that overturning Roe v. Wade is not going to take away a woman’s right to choose.  The Equal Rights Amendment was never adopted, but over the last 30+ years all, or at least almost all, of what the Equal Rights Amendment was supposed to accomplish has happened anyway.  It has been done by laws, regulations, and the general agreement of society.  Women are heads of Fortune 500 companies.  Female soldiers are going into combat as members of our military.  Women are as equal today as they would have been if the Equal Rights Amendment had been adopted 35 years ago.

Is Judge Brett Kavanaugh Anti-EPA or Just Pro-Proper Process?

Environmentalists are worried about Judge Brett Kavanaugh, Donald Trump’s nominee for the Supreme Court.  According to David Savage of the Los Angeles Times, “Environmentalists fear that if Kavanaugh joins the court, he would vote to block anti-pollution regulations for decades, long after President Trump has departed.”  Pat Gallagher, legal director for the Sierra Club, goes perhaps further:

“He would be a disaster for the environment.  He has a disdain for regulation, particularly from the EPA.  Kennedy was the swing vote in this area.  If we have to wait for Congress to act on climate change, we are doomed.”

The last sentence gives the story away.  Environmentalists haven’t been able to convince Congress to pass the legislation they think is necessary so they have been relying, during the Obama administration, on federal agencies, especially the EPA, to do what they want.  What environmentalists don’t like about Judge Kavanaugh is that he has been skeptical of federal agencies doing things that are arguably beyond what Congress has authorized them to do and that, ultimately, he is unwilling to let policy ends prevail over the means of proper process.

A Cashless Society Plus China’s Social Credit System Equals …

­In May, FT Weekend had a long article on the increase in the number of payments being made electronically and asked, “Does cash have a future?” The subheadline read: “Electronic payment is quick, convenient, germ-free and can deter crime, from tax evasion to terrorism.  So why are we so reluctant to give up on coins and notes.”¹

The pluses of cash-free transactions are many.  For businesses, more cash-free transactions mean lower costs.  There are fewer break-ins by people looking for money.  Not having to handle cash is cheaper: you don’t have to count it; and you don’t have to physically take it to the bank.

Withdrawing from the Paris Climate Accord and the Iran Nuclear Deal

In an interview in the Frankfurter Allgemeine Sonntagszeitung weekly, German Chancellor Angela Merkel said:

“America is and remains the superpower, but at the moment it doesn’t recognize multilateral agreements in all areas, as shown by the decision to leave the [Paris] climate accord and now the tariffs that President Trump has levied against Europe.”

I would agree with Chancellor Merkel with respect to the tariffs that the Trump administration has levied (or is threatening to levy, I am not sure which it is) against Europe (and other places).  However, when it comes to the Paris climate accord, and similarly the Iran nuclear agreement, I think Chancellor Merkel is missing an important point regarding the American system.

Rebuilding In the Houston Flood Plain?

They are starting to rebuild in Houston after Hurricane Harvey, and there are disputes about how and where to rebuild.  Here are some excerpts from a recent Washington Post article:

“‘What are we going to do in these neighborhoods that people just don’t want to leave?’ said Stephen Costello, Houston’s chief resilience officer, whose task is to balance development and flood protection as the city recovers. …

The need to build even in flood-susceptible areas is the result of the region’s projected growth rate. …