In the next few weeks, a lot will be written about President Biden’s American Jobs Plan Act. This $2.3 trillion bill is omnibus legislation intended to address a variety of national problems. These problems include our crumbling infrastructure, climate change, underpayment of workers who care for seniors, and the need to be more competitive with China. To pay for solutions to these problems, the bill also raises taxes for “big corporations” and for “wealthy individuals.”  

A draft of the bill does not yet appear to be available. When it surfaces, it will be yet another 800-page monster, the type of bill that our elected representatives tend to vote for or against without reading all of it. And because Republicans are already lined up against the bill, primarily because of the size of the spending and the imposition of new taxes, civil, bipartisan debate of the type that can lead to improved legislation is unlikely to occur. 

Democrats are likely to use a legislative process known as “reconciliation” to try to pass the bill in the Senate despite the 50-50 split between the parties. It is hard to fault Majority Leader Schumer for resorting to this approach given no signs of any Republican compromise. The reconciliation process, however, was not intended to facilitate the passage of massive new programs. As a result of the availability of this “legislative shortcut,” incentives for Democrats to work with Republicans are eliminated or at least reduced.  Schumer’s likely decision to use reconciliation also will “justify” Republicans simply voting against the bill and hoping that once it gets enacted, problems with it will surface.

“Problems” are likely if a bill of the size and complexity of Biden’s proposal, including dozens of new programs, is enacted. It is hard to get dozens of new spending programs “right” when they are all enacted and funded at the same time. The new spending in the bill could also trigger inflation. If it does, will additional “emergency” legislation be needed to clean up the mess?  And what if Republicans are right that raising corporate taxes will decrease rather than increase American competitiveness?

Based on what we know now about what is in the bill and how Congress will consider it, asking questions is warranted. Not asking questions is irresponsible. Because of the size of the bill, which will be followed by a third trillion dollar plus bill, asking questions is imperative. And if acceptable answers are not found, changes should be made, or enactment of the legislation should be reconsidered.

Dozens of questions should be explored regarding the bill. Here are a few examples:

At the top of the list is “Will this bill trigger inflation?”  There are no simple answers here. Modern Monetary Theory, or MMT, suggests that it may be possible to address pressing priorities such as climate change, infrastructure, and social justice and not trigger inflation.  Others are not so sure. Reducing the risk of igniting inflation means reducing the cost of the bill or finding trillions of dollars in new taxes. Given the unlikelihood of enactment of the full Biden tax plan, a reasonable compromise might be to pare down the bill, something progressives will not like.

Do the electric vehicle provisions in the bill, with a price tag of $174 billion, make sense? The bill calls for more funding to promote electric cars than to repair bridges and roads. ($115 billion).  Given that multiple manufacturers already are aggressively entering the electric car market, do we need the Federal government to build charging stations? The summary of Biden’s proposal includes the point that workers building the cars must receive a good wage. How do you make that happen? The bill also states that low-income people should have the wherewithal to drive electric cars. Do you force manufacturers to sell these electric cars at affordable prices or subsidize them?  In either case, does this make sense given the entire car market already is heading towards electrification?

Other questions relate to the diverse programs that look like campaign promises being fulfilled. A case in point:  Provisions in the bill proposing $400 billion to support improved elder care. A major part of this proposal is to raise wages for home health workers serving seniors. While it is unclear how the bill would accomplish this other than by giving states and local governments money to subsidize wages, the bill also requires that home health workers get the right to union organization. Many of us support unions, but the summary of the bill makes it sound as though these workers might not have a choice not to join a union. That may not be good for the workers, but why pick a unionization fight in a spending bill?  Maybe this fight should have been fought elsewhere?

Mark Twain once said, “He who asks is a fool for five minutes, but he who does not ask remains a fool forever.”  I do not want to feel foolish if the American Jobs Plan proves to be a mistake. Support for repairing our infrastructure, addressing climate change, and promoting racial and social equity should not be mistaken as a license to pass massive legislation without doing everything possible to “get it right.” 

J.E. Dean of Oxford is a retired attorney and public affairs consultant writing on politics, government, domestic policy, and occasionally goldendoodles.

 

Many of us who are frequent users of the Chesapeake Bay Bridge are sympathetic to proposals to build a new span. Statewide, thousands of hours are wasted each year as motorists wait in traffic jams. Use already exceeds optimal capacity and is projected to get much worse. And how many tons of toxic exhaust emissions are spewed from tailpipes during back-ups? The case, it can be argued, is a strong one, and many believe a new bridge should be built, even without Federal funding.

The contents of the first of two Biden infrastructure bills will be released later today, March 31.  The bill is estimated to cost around $2 trillion. Its enactment might make building a new bridge easier. If it included part of the estimated costs of between $6.6 billion and $15.7 billion, deciding to build a new bridge will become easier.   Cost estimates differ depending on where you build it and whether final costs are at the high or low end of the range of estimates for a particular location or type of cross.  A bridge-tunnel, for example costs more than an above-water bridge. 

 Wouldn’t Federal funding make a new bridge a no brainer for Maryland, especially for those of us on the Eastern Shore? Not so fast. We all know that once a new bridge is built, use will quickly rise to capacity. “Build it and they will come,” proved prophetic in Field of Dreams, but could prove nightmarish in the case of a new bridge facilitating the destruction of our way of life.  Simply put, the benefit of more tourists and other beach traffic may not outweigh the harm. Personally, I am not ready to see Route 50 widened into an eight-lane superhighway. And I’m not anxious to spend the next decade or so in traffic jams caused by road construction as Route 50 and other roads are widened to handle the increased traffic over the new bridge. 

And then there is the issue of climate change. Is building a new crossing consistent with fighting climate change? And because President Biden says the infrastructure bill will include not only traditional infrastructure repairs, maintenance, modernization, and enhancements, but also be part of his climate change agenda, funding for a new bridge could be “a contradiction.”

Environmental groups already questioning the wisdom of building a new span will not be happy about the “Climate Change President” engaging in “hypocrisy.”  By most objective measures, the environmentalists will be right.  Even with the transition to electric cars, more traffic means more pollution.   

Politically, the opposition of environmentalists will pose a dilemma for Senators Cardin and Van Hollen and the entire House delegation except for our own “Handgun” Harris. My guess is that Rep. Harris will stick to his guns and support funding for the bridge while opposing passage of the larger bill. His rationale, if consistent with his record, could be that if a new bridge might facilitate climate change, it should be built. 

Another consideration, admittedly speculative today, is whether the revolution in transportation currently taking place could obviate the need for a new bridge. What if autonomous cars could speed over the bridge at much greater speeds and volumes than now deemed feasible?  What if the long-awaited flying cars are developed?  (Do not hold your breath). Could these new technologies be game changers?  Hopefully, the assessments now underway will help develop answers. 

So, what do we want to see happen?  First, read the draft environmental impact statement that is currently open for public comment through May 10, 2021. Once public comment is completed, that feedback will also be worth reading. New information on how the new span could impact our area. is likely to become available. In this regard, it is worth noting that one of the options runs near St. Michaels.  Because this option is by far the most expensive of the three “build” options remaining, it seems unlikely to be chosen. But these days, who knows?

The other thing to do is to watch the soon-to-be-introduced Biden infrastructure bill.  No details yet. And while the bill is not likely to “force” Maryland to build the bridge, how funds are made available for states will be important. It is likely that if funding is made available, the state will control how the money is used. Thus, the process currently underway to evaluate options, including the no-build option, remains important.

Hopefully, environmentally sound, sensible answers will be found from the current lengthy process. Is it naïve to hope for that, as well as an easier trip to Annapolis?

J.E. Dean of Oxford is a retired attorney and public affairs consultant writing on politics, government, and occasionally goldendoodles.

 

 

Ageism is Making a Comeback, Just Ask Joe Biden by J.E. Dean

Two months into his presidency, Joe Biden seemed to be doing well. He got the $1.9 trillion American Rescue Plan Act enacted and most of his cabinet picks approved. His team began reaching out to the world, setting its own tone in foreign policy and, perhaps most importantly, the nation’s effort to combat the coronavirus was going well.

I hadn’t been watching Fox News. Or following the tweets of giants such as Donald Trump, Jr., a big-game hunter when he’s not serving as an EVP for the Trump Organization, or Stephen Miller, an ex-Trump White House aide who continues to spew venom in private life. I caught up with all three (Fox, Junior, and Miller) after President Biden slipped three times while attempting to jog up the stairs to board Air Force One. 

Let’s start with Mr. Miller, perhaps the worst of the entire cadre of Trump White House advisors. Last Friday, in an interview with Fox (who else?) he commented on Biden:

“Our adversaries around the world — Iran, Russia and Venezuela and China — they are looking at the United States and its chief representative, the president of our country, who is unable to get through even a softball interview without a cheat sheet and falls three times going up a flight of stairs. It’s sad to watch.”

Miller apparently coordinated his comments in advance with the program’s host, Sean Hannity, who played video of Biden appearing to use a “cheat sheet” to answer questions and referring to Kamala Harris as “President Harris.”

What is Miller trying to imply here?  Could it be a ham-fisted attempt to say, “Biden is senile and all of you who voted for him made a mistake?” Miller’s usual rants focus on border policy.  At least for the short term, he concluded more damage could be done by ridiculing Biden based on his age than on the increase in migrants at the southern border.

Now let’s look at the President’s namesake son. The one who some people thought was on cocaine when he addressed the Republican National Convention last year.  After the president’s slips on Air Force One stairs, he posted two separate video clips on Twitter.  The first showed the president falling, and he commented, in part, “Biden falls repeatedly but I’m sure he’s the picture of health. No wonder all our enemies are pouncing simultaneously and mocking him publicly.” The second video was of Junior’s dad hitting a golf ball that, through the magic of video editing, hits Biden in the head and causes his stumble.  The text to this tweet reads, “It wasn’t the wind folks.”

These videos tell us a lot about who Donald Trump, Jr. is but they also are examples of ageism.

Of course, this unlikeable pair of misfits (Trump and Miller) are not the only people who are publicly or privately saying Biden is too old to be president. W. James Antle, III of the Washington Examiner, for example, recently penned an article titled, “Age Questions Continue to Dog 78-year-old President.”  In the article, Antle writes about what many saw as a recent Biden memory loss, “In a recent speech, Biden appeared confused about Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin’s name. ‘I want to thank Sec- … the former general … I keep calling him ‘General,’ the president said of the retired Army four-star officer. ‘My … The guy who runs that outfit over there.’It was reminiscent of Biden’s election-year flub of the Declaration of Independence.”

Is this story legitimate news coverage or an example of ageism?  Is it wrong for the press to report on the president’s health?  On the latter question, the answer is yes.  On the former question, it’s a bit of both—legitimate news and ageism.

So, what does recent reporting tell us about how ageism is treated in the press in 2021?  The answer is that if another president would have flubbed Secretary Austin’s name, it would have been reported but would not necessarily have been linked to other incidents that also were offered as examples of age-related decline.

The recent events also tell us that ageism, while a recognized form of discrimination, doesn’t quite measure up to discrimination based on race, religion, gender, or sexual orientation.  Slights and slurs against seniors that would be considered hate crimes or at least expressions of hate, if premised on race or one of the other recognized subjects of hate crimes, are tolerated if directed at “old geezers.”  Old people continue to be depicted as technologically clueless and as doddering fools in many films and TV shows.  You know the rest.

Today, age discrimination is a recognized form of employment discrimination, but check the statistics to see how often it is enforced.  And then check with any person over 50 you may know who has recently sought employment. (And, although it is beyond the scope of this article, look at statistics relating to the reliability, integrity, and efficiency of older workers.  The statistics support the conclusion that there is no legitimate basis to deny employment opportunities to anyone solely based on their age.)

Recent episodes of ageism directed at President Biden are troubling but perhaps unavoidable in today’s deeply divided America. If Biden succeeds in getting additional parts of his agenda enacted, expect more, and most likely more vicious attacks.  Hopefully, the silver lining of these incidents will be some of us taking a fresh look at ageism—a subject America needs to confront and do something about.   

J.E. Dean of Oxford is a retired attorney and public affairs consultant writing on politics, government, domestic policy, and occasionally goldendoodles.

 

Did you hear the pandemic is almost over?  Several states already have opened, Maryland among them. Governor Hogan has opened Maryland. It is not inconceivable that every state might be “open” in the next few weeks.   

Not so fast, says Dr. Fauci. Last Sunday he warned against the premature lifting of restrictions. On Meet the Press, Fauci commented: “You know that metaphor that people say, ‘If you’re going for a touchdown, don’t spike the ball at the five-yard line. Wait until you get into the end zone. We’re not in the end zone yet.”

What prompted Fauci to ruin the party? For one thing, Europe. Poland, Slovakia, the Czech Republic and Hungary already have seen a sharp spike in infections. Italy and Germany are now “re-closing.”  

Does Europe know something that we don’t?  Is Governor Hogan’s action last week a mistake?  Will we see a “re-closing” order in a month or so, something that would not only ruin the summer of those of us demanding a reopening but will result in unnecessary infections and deaths?

The answer to this question is not as obvious as some would have us believe. Many people now have both vaccines (around 38 million nationally; more than 11 percent of people in Maryland).  Another sizable chunk of the population now has had the virus (more than 29.5 million people nationally, with more than 534,000 cases resulting in death).  We are on our way to herd immunity.

Unfortunately, we are not there yet. And then we have three problems that may prove exceptionally difficult to solve. First is the wild card of “new variants” of the virus. The CDC reports:  “Viruses constantly change through mutation, and new variants of a virus are expected to occur over time. Sometimes new variants emerge and disappear. Other times, new variants emerge and persist. Multiple variants of the virus that cause COVID-19 have been documented in the U.S. and globally during this pandemic.”

How worried should we be?  Commenting on the South Africa and Brazil variants, both of which represent a risk to the U.S., the CDC comments: “These variants seem to spread more easily and quickly than other variants, which may lead to more cases of COVID-19. An increase in the number of cases will put more strain on healthcare resources, lead to more hospitalizations, and potentially more deaths.”

The CDC advises: “Rigorous and increased compliance with public health mitigation strategies, such as vaccination, physical distancing, use of masks, hand hygiene, and isolation and quarantine, is essential to limit the spread of the virus that causes COVID-19 and protect public health.”

One might argue that Governor Hogan did not get the CDC’s memo and perhaps is not taking the precautions he should to protect people of color at a time when they have a much higher risk of infection than whites.   

Only time will tell whether Maryland should have remained closed, or partially closed.  Given that governor’s order, let’s hope that the dangers that the CDC and others identified do not materialize.  Let’s also hope that we all do what we can to be as safe as possible in the new environment. We need to continue to wear masks and maintain social distancing as much as possible. 

It’s going to be a challenging spring.  We have reason to hope we are on the road to normalcy, but we won’t get there unless we go beyond what the government tells us to do and do what we need to. 

Second, we have a stubborn group of people who, at least for the time being, refuse to get the vaccine.  Perhaps most disturbing are reports that 41 percent of  Republicans refuse to get the vaccine.  Have they concluded they are immune?   One Republican interviewed by CBS News answered, “This is a brand-new vaccine. I’m not going to jeopardize my health; I’m not going to put my kids in harm’s way. … I don’t want to play guinea pig.”  How many people must get the vaccine and not die to convince this and other groups that the vaccine is safe?

More troubling is the question of what refusing the vaccine says about the civic responsibility of those who refuse to get it, thereby increasing the risk of infecting others.

Finally, do the numbers suggest that people of color are not getting the vaccine?  CDC data, admittedly incomplete, suggests that among those now fully vaccinated, whites are overrepresented compared to non-white groups. That is disturbing data, regardless of what causes non-whites to be less likely to be vaccinated. 

J.E. Dean of Oxford is a retired attorney and public affairs consultant. He is a former counsel to the House Committee on Education and Labor. For more than 30 years, he advised clients on federal education and social service policy.  

 

 

 

I still remember an early political ad against Hogan that ran in 2014 as part of Anthony Brown’s campaign. The ad sought to paint Hogan as a gun nut. It showed someone leaning an AK-47 against a tree in a children’s playground. My thought was, “This guy has to be bad news.”  

Fortunately, as the race continued, I learned more about Larry Hogan. As I learned more, the more comfortable I became with the possibility of his being elected governor. While I did not agree with many of his positions, I realized he wasn’t a disaster.  When he won, I figured he would be a one-term placeholder, a governor elected more by the deficiencies of his opponent than on his own merits.

Since taking office, Hogan has exceeded expectations, not an easy thing to do as a Republican in Maryland. He was identified as the nation’s most popular governor by Rolling Stone magazine. That doesn’t happen every day. He was elected chairman of the National Governors Association.  And he emerged as a Republican voice of reason on COVID-19 at a time when Trump was advising people to drink Clorox.

Contrast Hogan with four other sitting governors, one of whom may not be in office much longer. At the head of the list is New York’s embattled Andrew Cuomo, under fire both for unwanted sexual advances and for his role in the tragedy at New York’s assisted living and nursing homes during the pandemic. He has gone from hero to zero.  Because of his well-deserved reputation as a blow-hard bully, his fall from power is likely to be a hard one.

Then there is Texas Governor Greg Abbott. Along with his colleague Tate Reeves of Mississippi, he has “fully opened” Texas, opening the door for yet another surge in virus infections. This follows his ham-fisted response to the disaster across his state following the unprecedented cold snap. Hundreds of thousands of Texans lost power, in part because of how the state chose to deregulate and handle its power grid.  Abbott was also quick to assign blame for the disaster while at the same time doing a poor job of keeping Texans informed about recovery efforts. The disaster, Abbott added, demonstrated how enactment of the Green New Deal would be a “deadly deal” nationwide. 

If I were Abbott, I would look for a monastery, check myself in, and never be heard from again. Abbott has written the textbook on how not to lead a state.

Abbott is joined in his coronavirus philosophy by Tate Reeves. Mississippi, Reeves would have us believe, is now back to normal—no masks required and restaurants fully open.  What motivated Reeves to act contrary to the CDC’s explicit guidance?  He is attempting to save a political career rapidly going down the drain. A January poll found that  37% rated his leadership on the virus as excellent or good, 26 percent “fair,” and a full 37 percent as “poor” or “totally unacceptable.”  Reeves appears to think that opening the state will win over those voters unhappy with closed restaurants and retail outlets.  He is willing to take the risk of more infections and, unfortunately, deaths.

Finally, let’s take a look at Georgia’s Brian Kemp (R).  When he first got elected in 2018, Stacey Abrams accused him of voter suppression. Then he embraced Donald Trump, only to be condemned by him for not fully embracing the ex-president’s efforts to reverse his 2020 election defeat. He now has vocal detractors on both the right and the left.  His political future is, at best, murky.

Contrast Governor Hogan with this quartet of losers. The most telling difference is that Hogan sees leading Maryland as his job. He had Trump’s number before Trump even came into office.  Since then, he aggressively maintained his distance, earning the respect of Marylanders in the process.    

Hogan recognizes that Maryland is a Democratic state and has no delusions about creating a Red Wave. He has successfully worked with legislators on the other side of the aisle on many bills. And first and foremost, he has demonstrated empathy during the pandemic. 

A 2020 poll found that Hogan enjoys the second highest job approval rate in the country.  A large part of his popularity has been his leadership on the pandemic.  Last year he boldly criticized the Federal government’s leadership and suggested that Trump’s delay in publicly acknowledging the severity of the pandemic caused unnecessary pain and deaths.  

It’s been a tough few years.  Maryland and the Eastern Shore are fortunate to have Larry Hogan on their side. 

J.E. Dean of Oxford is a retired attorney and public affairs consultant. For more than 30 years, he advised clients on Federal education and social service policy.

 

Andy “Handgun” Harris remains at work fighting for the interests of the Eastern Shore. On Saturday, his contribution was to vote against the $1.9 trillion American Rescue Plan Act.  The bill passed the House, 219-212, with all Republicans and two Democrats voting “no.”  But if Andy had his way, you could forget about those family stimulus checks of $1,400 for adults earning $75,000 or less a year, $1,400 payment for each dependent child, a $3,600 annual tax credit per child under age 6, and $3,000 per child up to age 17.

The bill also increases the weekly unemployment benefit from $300 to $400 per week through August 29, provides $130 billion in new funds for K-12 public schools, and $85 billion in new funds to fight the pandemic: Roughly $50 billion for virus testing and contact tracing, $19 billion to increase the size of the public health workforce, and $16 billion to fund vaccine distribution and supply chains.  Dr. Harris apparently concluded that these investments are not necessary. I wonder if a second opinion from Dr. Fauci might differ.

If the ARPA sounds like a liberal wish list to you, maybe Harris is right.  Here’s how Harris explains his vote:  

From funding the Pelosi tunnel to the Schumer bridge, the Biden bailout is nothing but a pricey liberal wish list. If Democrats were serious about focusing on COVID-19, they would focus on spending the $1 trillion in currently unspent stimulus dollars, reopening schools, and following the science on vaccine policy. Unfortunately, future generations will be saddled with the Biden bailout’s big price tag.

Analyzing this statement, the first thing to notice is a reference to the “Pelosi tunnel.”  It is $141 million of the  $90 billion provided for infrastructure.  Of the entire $1.9 trillion bill, it is 0.000074 of the total spending. Is it wasteful spending?  It’s a subway tunnel in Pelosi’s district, described by critics as a “pet project” but supported by others in the area.  There appears to be no evidence that Harris researched the proposed tunnel before condemning it.  And even if the tunnel were wasteful spending, does that justify opposing the entire bill, which will provide millions in needed funds for Marylanders?

The bill also calls for funding for the “Schumer bridge,” which is a reference for the Seaway International Bridge. This is $1.5 million (not a typo) of the spending.  Apparently, Andy “Handgun” Harris wasn’t aware that the funding request did not originate with Senator Schumer.  It was made in 2020 by the Trump Department of Transportation, headed by Elaine Chao, spouse of Senator Mitch McConnell (R-KY).

Curiously, Harris does not mention relief for small businesses, including SBA loan forgiveness.  Has Dr. Harris concluded Maryland small businesses don’t need help?  Are you aware of any small business that has not been hurt by the shut down?

He also is not talking about the $47 billion in the FEMA Disaster Relief Fund.  I wonder if some of that money might come in handy for the Eastern Shore next time a major hurricane hits.  

Final passage on the ARPA will hopefully occur soon.  At this point, it is a safe bet that both our Senators and every House member, other than Harris will vote for it. Maryland voters should remember this vote.  Harris is out of touch with the Eastern Shore.  Issues other than the Second Amendment are important to us. 

“Handgun” Harris is wrong to oppose this legislation. 

J.E. Dean of Oxford is a retired attorney and public affairs consultant writing on politics, government, and domestic policy.

 

The jury is still out on whether 2021 will be a good year.  Hope and evidence that progress is being made on the pandemic are increasing. The economy appears to be coming back to life, a trend that could be accelerated if the pending stimulus bill passes.  And our political system appears to be returning to normal after the nightmare of January 6. On the other hand, our new President has yet to face his first foreign policy crisis, and we are experiencing some strange weather.

Thus, it is fair to wonder what will happen in the rest of 2021. Here are a few predictions.

Further progress will occur on the virus, both as the numbers of people vaccinated continue to increase and as more people contract the virus and recover.  By year end, we will still be asked to wear masks, there will still be a stubborn 10 percent of the population that refuses to get vaccinated, and more “new strains” will occur.   

While progress on the virus in the US is likely, things could get worse in the developing world.  The focal point of the crisis—and, hopefully, the prime target for vaccinations and relief—will switch to these areas. Will the US play its part?

The economy will continue to recover, but not for everyone. The pandemic has made permanent changes in the details of where and what the jobs are.  Even as unemployment continues to decrease, millions of Americans will remain in need.  Additional relief and stimulus, more carefully targeted, will be necessary.

President Biden will face one or more major foreign policy challenges. Speculation is always dangerous but watch China’s actions towards Taiwan. If Xi Jinping decides to assert control over Taiwan by force, the question for the US will be whether to respond militarily.  Similarly, North Korea or Iran might choose to take military action of some sort on the assumption that President Biden will not respond. 

More major natural disasters will occur. Last week’s Texas freeze may or may not reflect climate change, but ever-greater natural disasters will increase. The probability of similar events—hurricanes, forest fires, polar vortexes, extraordinary heat waves, and maybe even an earthquake—is high. Is the US properly prepared?

Expect more political turmoil caused by or tied to ex-president Trump. It now appears virtually certain that Trump will face a deluge of criminal and civil litigation. Regardless of your thoughts on whether this should happen, Trump’s band of followers is likely to respond negatively.  Given that some people involved are extremists, violent responses are a risk. Hopefully, the FBI and other agencies are watching all groups that might contemplate violent political action, and these agencies will spring into action before such events occur. 

More racial equity protests are likely to occur. It is naïve to assume that this summer will not see more widespread protests, especially if additional triggering events—things like police violence—happen. It is essential that the new administration fulfills its promise to make racial equity a priority.  If people of color believe that government is working for them, they will work with it rather than assuming that the only way to effectuate change is to force it.

President Biden will continue to exceed expectations. Five weeks does not a presidency make.  While, at least for this writer, President Biden is striking the right tone, it remains to be seen how he will handle a crisis and whether his team will prove up to the task of leading us out of the current disaster.  So far, there is little to criticize. Cross your fingers that it stays that way with Biden—and that the new President remains healthy and committed to working with Republicans when Republicans are willing to work with him.

Those are my thoughts.  What are yours?  Are you feeling optimistic, pessimistic, or simply confused? 

J.E. Dean of Oxford is a retired attorney and public affairs consultant. For more than 30 years, he advised clients on federal education and social service policy.

 

Do you think our problems with anti-democracy and right-wing extremism are over?  If your answer is yes, please think again.  We may be in a bit of the “calm before the storm” if a more aggressive effort isn’t made to determine why the January 6 Trump insurrection occurred.

I was disturbed to read in yesterday’s paper that two people were arrested at the White House.  One, after being stopped by guards, confessed to carrying a BB gun.  Upon investigation, a pistol and ammunition were found in a nearby car.  Both are under arrest. Were they conducting some sort of reconnaissance mission to see if they would be stopped?  What were they planning?

More disturbing than what has been in the paper is what has not.  Where are the details about the role of the “Oath Keepers” in reportedly orchestrating the January 6 Trump insurrection?  Were they in touch with the White House?  How did the rally get scheduled so the attendees would arrive at the Capitol at “just the right minute?”  Were the Oath Keepers closely coordinating with the Proud Boys?

And what about stories of members of Congress coordinating with the insurrectionists?  Did some rioters get “reconnaissance tours” a day or two before the riot?  And why did Josh Hawley, the right-wing senator from Missouri, hold up a fist when he passed the mob on his way into the Capitol?

These are questions that demand answers.  But there is more. Press reports suggest that many who came to Washington for the insurrection are in economic duress.  Many have filed for bankruptcy or are unemployed. Who paid them to come to Washington?  What was their understanding about what they would be doing once they got there?  Did the insurrectionists kiss their loved ones goodbye and say, “Goodbye, honey. I’m going to Washington to kill Nancy Pelosi and hang Mike Pence.  I’ll be back in a few days. You can watch me on TV if you’d like.”

Somebody financed at least some of the rioters’ presence in Washington. Somebody, it is virtually certain, coordinated the planned march on the Capitol with the President’s men (and women).  After all, Trump specifically referenced the march in his speech.  (He also told attendees that he would be joining them, but that was a lie.)

All this brings us to the issue of what to do about our lack of knowledge about what really happened on January 6 and in the days that led up to it.  Do we let a sleeping dog lie and assume that with Trump out of the White House (finally!) we can all relax?  Or do we face the reality that Trumpism and whatever bizarre pattern of thinking led the mob to go to the Capitol are not yet behind us?

A solution to this problem is for Congress to authorize a commission on the events of January 6.  Speaker Nancy Pelosi has proposed such a commission to “investigate and report on the facts and causes, relating to the January 6, 2021 domestic terrorist attack upon the United States Capitol Complex . . .and relating to the interference with the peaceful transfer of power, including facts and causes relating to the preparedness and response of the United States Capital Police and other Federal, state, and local law enforcement in the National Capital Region.”

The commission would be patterned after the one established following the attacks of September 11, 2001. That report was written by a bipartisan group of investigators (five Democrats and five Republicans) and took roughly 20 months to write.  It is 585 pages long.  And it is widely credited with resolving many unanswered questions initially raised about why the 9/11 attacks had taken place and who was behind them.

A commission report on 1/6 will not solve the underlying problems that led to a group of Americans attacking their own Capitol, but it could help us further understand the dangers involved in right-wing extremism.  I don’t know what motivates the “Oath Takers,” but I’d take an oath myself that it isn’t something good.  

If we, as a nation, do not get to the bottom of 1/6, we risk this history repeating itself.

Sadly, I don’t expect our Congressman, Andy “Handgun” Harris, to support creating the commission. As of this writing, he had not yet reacted.  His most recent press releases complain about President Biden attempting to turn the Coast Guard into the “mask police for a low-transmission industry (watermen)” and express alarm over a Congressional Budget Office report on raising the minimum wage to $15 an hour.

J.E. Dean of Oxford is a retired attorney and public affairs consultant. For more than 30 years, he advised clients on federal education and social service policy.

 

I have a confession to make. This piece is inspired by comments made on Steve Parks’ editorial on ex-president Trump’s second impeachment trial. The article itself was excellent, reflecting many of my own sentiments towards Trump. But it was comments on the article that moved me to write.  I was amazed how angry Parks’ thoughtful observations made some of us.  It reminded me of a rockfish just after it is pulled out of the water.

It would be folly to address individual comments or writers. That would only start yet another war of words—one ending with my being accused of a lifelong hatred for Trump and his family.  Rather, I concluded that some people are not able to turn the page and acknowledge not only that Trump is finally history, but that that history is a low point in our national journey.

So, let me suggest to everyone who might be nostalgic for the Trump White House Show: Those who dwell in the past are destined to live in it. Translation:  Enough already! Move on!  If you think Biden and the Democratic Congress spend too much money, are opening immigration floodgates, or are trying to slow down global warming, you better turn the page. Biden is our president.  He is trying to address our national crisis.  Why not give him a chance?  Stop worrying about how and why Trump was victimized and turn to how we can recover from the pandemic and economic crisis.  And if you want to have a Republican party in the future, you better start thinking about what that party has to do to recover from the damage that Trump’s incompetence and treason caused.

Republicans face a fork in the road. In one direction, we find Ted Cruz, the disgraced Josh Hawley, giants like Marjorie Taylor Greene and Matt Gaetz. (If you don’t know these last two, look them up, but have a stomach distress bag handy.) These party leaders are joined by Ivanka, who is thinking of running against Marco Rubio in Florida.  Press reports indicate that some of her suggestions for last-minute pardons were motivated by her future fundraising needs.  We even have a Texas State Representative, Kyle Biedermann, who has introduced a resolution in the Texas legislature for that state to hold a referendum on seceding from the Union.  (If you look up Mr. Biedermann under Google Images, you can find him dressed up as “The Gay Hitler” at a fundraiser a decade ago. Apparently Biedermann thought that was funny.)

And let’s not forget our own contribution to today’s Republican party:  The gun-toting Andy Harris. You know him. He’s the guy who just broke his term-limit promise.

On the other side of the fork is what I’ll call traditional, or sane, Republicans.  Most people are OK with these Republicans even if they disagree with them on policy.  Examples of this group included John McCain before he died, Mitt Romney, John Kasich, Ben Sasse, Rob Portman, Liz Cheney, Lisa Murkowski, and Susan Collins. None of the living people on this list believe Trump or Trumpism was good for America. If the vote to convict Trump of treason at his upcoming trial were secret, all of the Senators on this list and several others would vote to convict.

My hope is that enough moderates, Republicans, former Republicans, Independents, and even some Democrats, will see sufficient value in having a sane, principles-based opposition party to rid the current GOP of racists, QAnon followers, and Trumpists. The Republican party is not irretrievably lost.  It can rebuild, but that takes dumping Trump and his legacy. 

And if the Democratic party goes too far left, that reformed Republican party could pick up Congressional seats in 2022 or even the Presidency in 2024.   How would that happen?  Once the current GOP is dead and Trump forgotten, the displaced voters, if they choose to vote, will have nowhere else to go. The policies that might result here might not be optimal, but civilized political debate is invaluable. 

The new Republican party should be one that embraces science, supports honest and efficient government, supports world cooperation, and first and foremost, is not a personality cult. That aspect of the most recent Republican administration offers us an important lesson:  Leader-worship is the enemy of truth.

One other thing that those angry about Trump being impeached twice need to hear.  To those commenters on Steve Park’s editorial, please don’t ask again if I was hurt personally by Trump or his policies.  I was.  My risk of dying of COVID-19 is higher because of Trump. My pride in America was hurt by the racism that regularly flowed from Trump’s mouth and that was the foundation for his border policy. Part of the country became greedier, with the negatives of income disparity hurting our ability to act together as a country. And I don’t relish Canadians, New Zealanders, Australians, Europeans and others asking me how the country could elect someone as bizarre and divisive as Trump. (Please note I did not include Russia on this list.)

As some of you may recall, I anticipated the defeat of Trump just as I currently anticipate that Trumpists will lose their grip on the GOP.  I now predict that dark days lie ahead for Trump.  The prosecutors are circling. The former president soon will be up to his eyeballs in criminal court.  Given the extensiveness of Trump’s apparent crime-spree, he most likely will be in court for the rest of his life. Somebody preoccupied with litigation and worrying about the possibility of time behind bars is not likely to head a political movement. We are done with Trump.

When Joe Biden was sworn in on January 20, we got our government back. The period a bit before election day through Inauguration Day was the greatest period of jeopardy our democracy has faced in my lifetime.  May we never go through that again.  

Although some Trumpists will doubt me, I take no pleasure in what is happening to Trump now, or the even bigger problems he will soon face.  I don’t care what happens to him, even if he manages to escape justice.  My dog in this fight is the one that believes in limited government—the type supported not only by the checks and balances cited in the Constitution, but also through a viable, healthy, two-party system.  

The rehabilitation or destruction of the current Republican party will help the country to cleanse itself of a bit of its racism and to reestablish respect for science and empathy as standards for our government.  That appears to be happening.  And it’s essential that it does.

J.E. Dean of Oxford is a retired attorney and public affairs consultant. For more than 30 years, he advised clients on federal education and social service policy.

 

“We wouldn’t be in this mess if we had a government like China’s,” a friend of mine told me last week.   I wasn’t sure I heard her right.  She was talking about our troubled response to COVID-19 over the last year. She suggested that had the government been able to order an immediate lock-down of every large city, and maybe everywhere else, last February, the pandemic would be largely history.  “Our freedom,” she continued, “isn’t always in our best interests.”

I wasn’t sure how to respond to my friend. While she is right that a more forceful lock down, perhaps achievable only through some sort of enforcement, would have slowed down and possibly stopped the pandemic (as claimed by China), I wasn’t quite ready to accept de facto martial law as a solution.  I told her as much, to which she replied, “I guess you’d rather live in misery.”  After hesitating, I mumbled, “I guess so.”

I am utterly tired of the pandemic, and I understand the sense of urgency many of us feel about getting things back to normal. We see important community institutions, like restaurants, annual festivals like the Waterfowl Festival, and churches jeopardized.  Education, at all levels, has suffered a setback that is only now being understood.  Alcoholism and suicide are up. Haven’t we suffered enough?

But is a return to normalcy worth the loss of our everyday freedom? The answer is that there is a happy medium between the two. I would not want “public health czars” in Washington deciding what states and local governments can or cannot permit, but I would, and have, welcomed limited Federal mandates.  A very recent example is the Biden administration’s mandate that masks be worn by passengers in all forms of public transportation. 

I also think it’s appropriate for the Federal government to issue guidelines for the distribution of the coronavirus vaccine to ensure fairness.  Although I might not agree with all details, I don’t think that individual cities or hospitals should be able to sell preferred access to the vaccine by rewarding donors. Nor should “family and friends” policies be tolerated.  

Among actions that the Federal government should not take are decisions on whether individual schools or school districts should open elementary and secondary schools. While Federal guidelines are welcome, the local states and school boards are in better positions to do what’s best for students.  Similarly, individual colleges should maintain their authority to decide when to reopen and how to meet their educational responsibilities to students.  

Then let’s turn to the issue of Federal assistance to those adversely impacted by the pandemic.  This, of course, is the issue of the day.  Democrats support large, widely distributed assistance in the $1.9 trillion Biden proposal. Many Republicans are pushing back, suggesting that the grants will be made to many families that don’t need them and citing the long-term impact on the Federal government.  Some also question whether it is the Federal government’s responsibility to attempt to minimize disruptions to individual citizens caused by the pandemic.

These are tough issues.  Many economists worry about the consequences of Congress passing a string of trillion-dollar coronavirus relief bills. This worry is contrasted with the reality that the current economy, plagued by continuing high unemployment and uncertainty, may collapse more if additional assistance is not enacted.

So, what to do.  Basic human decency suggests that the Biden proposal should be enacted. The concept of freedom doesn’t mean much to a mother who is unable to feed her children. The concept of returning to normalcy as fast as possible also suggests enactment of a large relief package. In the long run, money spent now may save more later.  And, if freedom is a cherished priority, as it should be, it is enjoyed more when the country is not in the middle of a depression. 

Thus, the answer to whether we need to rethink freedom considering the pandemic is no.  But that is not an absolute “no.” We need to surrender some of our freedom temporarily to progress on the war against the pandemic.  If we don’t do this, it puts freedom—and democracy—even more in jeopardy.

In coming weeks, the Biden administration is likely to propose several additional responses to the pandemic that will rub many of us the wrong way.  This is particularly the case if the dreaded “new-strains” prove to be more dangerous than currently believed.  Science suggests the pandemic won’t be ended without strong measures.  Now that we have a leader in the White House, we need to consider following him. 

J.E. Dean of Oxford is a retired attorney and public affairs consultant. For more than 30 years, he advised clients on federal education and social service policy.