While Medicare for All gets criticized two studies show problems with the current system.

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Thursday November 07, 2019 · 3:24 PM PST

2019/11/07 · 15:24

While Elizabeth Warren’s “Medicare for All” proposal is receiving increasing criticism from some of her opponents in the Democratic Presidential race , and when a number of traditional big donors to the Party are expressing concerns about her candidacy, two reports by Axios Vitals today detail major problems with the current American health care and health insurance systems that will not be solved without major changes.

A study by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) compares health statistics between the United States and the average of the other 35 developed countries that are members of the OECD. Even though the United States is spending almost three times more per capita on health care than the average of the other countries and almost twice as much of its GDP, it has worse performance in life expectancy, incidence of diabetes and obesity, percentage of the population with health insurance, access to doctors and avoidable hospital admissions for asthma and lung disease.

There are four areas where the U.S. has better performance than the average of the other countries: percentage of smokers, air pollution deaths, deaths 30 days after heart attack and the breast cancer survival rate.

Twenty-seven of the 36 OECD countries have some form of universal health care. The United States is the largest country that does not.

The Axios report concludes: “As we debate reforms to our health care system, it's worth remembering that the U.S. is an outlier compared to other countries, which have figured out how to get cheaper care without sacrificing quality.”

A separate report in the same Axios Vitals column today shows that the major health insurance providers are paying more in insurance claims this year than last year and that may result in more people losing their insurance. The range of payments by the five major insurance companies, Anthem, Humana, Aetna, United Health Care and Cigna is between 80 and 87 percent of premiums. The result is that some companies are dropping companies and individuals with higher claims.

“Health insurance companies closely track their medical loss ratios and aim to hit those targets most often by charging higher premiums, denying care, forcing people to use lower-priced providers or declining to cover people they deem to be too expensive,” the Axios report concluded.

All of these insurance companies are very profitable. United Health Care, the largest with revenues in the range of $225 billion, had a net profit in 2018, after $3.5 billion in taxes, of about $12 billion. Its administrative expenses were in the range of 15 percent. By comparison, Medicare’s administrative expenses are less than 2% but because Social Security handles a number of administrative activities for Medicare, including enrollment, the total administrative expenses probably are somewhat higher than 2 percent, but nowhere near those of the health insurance companies.

There is a general consensus that a Medicare for All program would save administrative expenses. Using an estimate that private insurance company administrative expenses range between 12 and 18 percent, and that Medicare’s expenses are around 2 percent, Bernie Sanders has estimated that the savings could be as much as $500 billion a year. However, he also said that estimate is “imprecise.”

Politifact reviewed the Sanders estimate and “ruled” that Sanders was right about the administrative costs of private insurance companies but that the administrative costs of a Medicare for All program almost certainly would be higher than 2 percent.

“Experts told us that a single-payer system for the United States would have lower administrative costs than today’s private insurance, but it likely wouldn’t be able to achieve administrative costs as low as the existing Medicare program,” Politifact reported. Because that percentage cannot be known today, any estimate of savings is going to be, as Sanders said, “imprecise.”

The Rand Corporation this year published its estimates of the cost of a Medicare for All program that included medical, dental, hearing, vision, mental health and long-term care. It concluded the total cost would be slightly higher than the total cost of health care in the U.S. today. However, Medicare for All shifts expenses away from the people. Administrative costs are reduced but the savings is offset by expected greater usage. There are no premiums, deductibles or co-pays.

Health care was a major issue in the 2018 off-year election that resulted in the Democrats winning control of the House of Representatives. Democrats then were promising to save the Affordable “Obama” Care program. There was a great deal of anxiety among the population resulting from the Trump Administration’s efforts to kill Obamacare.

That anxiety may not be less in 2020, particularly if insurance companies cut back on coverage or drop many people or companies. If Bernie Sanders, or Elizabeth Warren, is the Democratic Party presidential nominee, Medicare for All will be a major issue in the 2020 election. This year, the Republicans and some of the contenders for the Democratic presidential nomination have labeled Medicare for All as socialistic, or socialist medicine, scare terms for some segments of the population.

Medicare and Social Security are enormously popular federal programs across nearly all segments of the population, despite the fact they have socialist origins. Extending an expanded version of Medicare, including dental, vision, hearing, mental health and long-term coverage, to the entire population – possibly providing exceptions for some corporate and union programs – would change the delivery of medical care no more than Medicare has. It would not be socialized medicine. It would be almost exactly like the current Medicare Advantage programs, but without co-pays and with the addition of long-term care.

Opponents also argue that Medicare for All is not politically palatable, that the millions of people with current insurance programs do not want to be “thrown off” those programs. This is intellectually dishonest. No data has been presented to substantiate these claims. In fact, even though millions of people have corporate insurance programs, many of those programs are inadequate, providing for high premiums, deductibles and co-pays. As Elizabeth Warren has pointed out, many people who have declared bankruptcy because of medical debts, had insurance.

The “moderate” Democratic candidates prefer offering Medicare as an option in Obamacare. While, on the surface, that seems like a less controversial and more politically acceptable approach, there potentially are major pitfalls. It is quite possible that those who choose the Medicare option might be those who don’t qualify for any other. Medicare then might be burdened with a much larger number of high users of medical care without the cost-averaging benefit of serving a much larger base of low users that would exist with Medicare for All.

That major donors to the Democratic Party are concerned about Warren is not surprising. Warren wants to make major changes in areas that may have substantial effects on major donors, particularly those in banking and finance. These also are people who have no fear of losing their health insurance or having to cover the large deductibles and co-pays of a major illness.

Polls show that the idea of Medicare for All is extremely popular. Whether it becomes a winner for Warren or Sanders will depend to a large extent on their abilities to sell the concepts and particulars while fending off and exposing the fundamental weaknesses of the arguments that will come from the powerful opposition interests.

Defining 21st Century Progressivism

Dan Riker

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Tuesday August 07, 2018 · 8:00 AM PDT

2018/08/07 · 08:00

A new progressive movement is gaining strength inside the Democratic Party. This movement is the resistance to the fascistic government of Donald Trump, or, in short, the Trumpistas. The new progressive movement is the means by which we can restore the American democracy and the American dream.

There are two enormously promising recent developments behind the emergence of the new progressive movement.

First, inspired by the 2016 Presidential campaign of Bernie Sanders, thousands of his volunteers became permanent organizers for progressive ideas and candidates. Many now are in leadership positions inside the Democratic Party. New progressive organizations such as the Justice Democrats and Our Revolution were formed. Existing ones such as MoveOn and the Progressive Democrats of America gained increased support. There now are many different progressive organizations, some focused on national issues, others more on state and local issues. While there is no dominant organization, nor likely to be one, the combined force of all of these different groups promises to be enormous in the future.

Second, huge numbers of women and minority Democratic Party are candidates for public office at all levels of government. Some already have had success. A majority of women have been voting Democratic (a slight minority of whites but overwhelming majorities of minorities) but there were not large numbers of them running for public office until now. Their numbers are giving new definition to the term “progressive,” something it has lacked since the early years of the 20^th Century.

The first progressive movement began in the first decade of the 20^th Century as a revolt against the “Gilded Age” of extreme wealth and income inequality, massive consolidation of industries, corrupt political machines of both parties, and ineffectual government. In many ways it was similar to the present. President Theodore Roosevelt, a Republican, embraced progressive ideas as a counter to the rapidly growing socialist movement he feared would result in a violent revolution.

Progressives differed from conservatives and socialists over the role of government. Conservatives favored "laissez faire" – hands off - when it came to government's role in the economy and as a regulator, as they still do. The Socialists, led by Eugene Debs, wanted to overthrow the capitalist system. Progressives did not wish to overthrow the capitalist system. They believed that government should play a major role in the economy and in the regulation of business to tame the destructive characteristics of capitalism. Roosevelt said progressivism could save capitalism from itself.

Progressives differed from libertarians in two major ways. Progressives believed in the social contract, that citizens in a democracy have responsibilities to one another and may have to give up some freedom to ensure that everyone has freedom. Libertarians deny the social contract. Libertarians believed in individual freedom and are deeply suspicious of, if not downright hostile, to government. Progressives believed that government could be a means to expand, rather than limit, individual freedom.

This was the essence of early progressivism. It was not an ideology. It was a philosophy of government and governance. It defined the duties of government and public officials, which were to serve the needs of the people, not the special interests. Government officials were expected to act honestly and intelligently.[1] They followed Abraham Lincoln’s statement that the duty of government is to do for the people what they need to have done but what they cannot do for themselves.

Its big, optimistic, idea was in its name: progress. Things could be changed for the better. People could improve themselves. Life could be made better. The world could be made better. It was at the heart of the idea of the American dream. It was the counter to the pessimistic Social Darwinist theory of survival of the fittest that developed in the late 1800s.

The Social Darwinists believed that the world could not be improved, that many are not fit, or not able to improve themselves, and do not deserve help from others. That Social Darwinist concept also is behind the economic “trickle down” theory so popular with Republicans that as the rich get richer a little wealth trickles down to the lower classes. It has been well-proven that very little trickles down. In fact, over the past 40 years as the rich got richer, as the number of billionaires went from a couple of dozen to more than 500, almost everyone else got poorer.

It has been many years since progressives controlled the national government and the term has lost its meaning. Today, if you were to ask people in general what progressive means, a substantial number might answer “no idea,” or “liberal.” “Progressive” routinely has been used as a substitute for “liberal” since the 1970s when “liberal” became an epithet. With the growth of progressive candidates and progressive organizations, we now can see progressivism being redefined. As it turns out it is very much like early progressivism.

Our national government, and many state and local governments, are failing to do their duty to the people. There are solutions to our problems that progressives would implement if they gain the support of the people. There are common themes in this new progressive movement: universal health care; increased funding of public schools; reduced cost of college education; expanded affordable housing; criminal law and prison reform; racial justice; getting money out of politics; improved transportation and public transit; a much higher minimum wage; programs to fight climate change and economic inequality, including reversing portions of the Trump tax cut.

Opponents call the new progressive movement leftist, socialist, even communist, but it is none of them. We need to tell the people that the ideas and programs of progressives are as American as the proverbial apple pie. They aren’t new ideas. They are not radical. They are practical ideas and programs that would be of enormous benefit to the vast majority of the American people. Many different polls show that progressive ideas are supported by a majority of the people.

Most of the ideas and programs of the 21^st Century progressive movement come from some of our greatest leaders in the past, from periods of our history when great progress was made for the American people.

In fact, virtually every federal government program supported by the vast majority of the American people was enacted during one of the three brief periods in the 20^th Century when progressives controlled the national government. A list of such achievements follows this article and can be read here.

In 1912, Theodore Roosevelt, after being out of office for four years, ran for President again. When the Republican Party bosses denied him the nomination, he helped to create the Progressive Party. He called the Progressive Party Platform the most important document since the Emancipation Proclamation 50 years earlier.

That platform proposed strict limits on campaign contributions and expenditures, a living wage, health, unemployment and old age insurance, and strict regulations on corporations.

In 1944, Theodore’s cousin, Franklin D. Roosevelt, who had guided the nation out of the Great Depression in the 1930s with his “New Deal,” proposed a Second Bill of Rights. He said the first Bill of Rights, the first 10 amendments to the Constitution, had proved unable to assure equality in the pursuit of happiness. He proposed an economic bill of rights that would guarantee:

- The right to a living wage;

- Freedom from unfair competition and monopolies;

- The right of farmers to receive a fair income;

- The right to housing;

- The right to medical care;

- The right to social security;

- The right to education.

Much of the Progressive Platform of 1912 and of FDR’s Second Bill of Rights have yet to be realized. Many of their ideas were revived in 2016 by Bernie Sanders. Now, with progressive candidates inspired and supported by Bernie – according to some polls, the most popular politician in America – there is hope that many of these ideas finally will be realized.

Where these progressive candidates are is where the Democratic Party needs to be. The Democratic Party only will succeed if it has candidates who are tuned to the needs of the people. These progressive candidates are re-energizing the party, attracting huge numbers of volunteers, and sparking an enormous amount of voter registration, especially among young people.

With this energy the Democratic Party may regain control of Congress this year and the Presidency in 2020. Our future can be much brighter than current events portend. However, it is going to take a national concerted effort to support and finance progressive candidates and get out the vote for them. Voter registrations do not mean much if the voters do not vote.

If we give these emerging leaders of the Democratic Party strong support over the next few years, progressive Democrats will gain control of the national government as well as many state and local governments. If that happens, the obscenity we are living through now will be just a nightmare of our past.

As they have done previously when they had the support of the people, progressives once again will save the nation. We must make that happen. We owe that to our heritage, to our children and grandchildren, and to the world.

[1] For a contemporary view of early 20^th Century Progressivism, see Hochstein, Irma. A Progressive Primer. Madison: Wisconsin Women's Progressive Association, 1922. “We must elect to represent us in the city councils and in the legislative bodies, men and women who understand the problems of government and who are honestly endeavoring to pass laws so that no injustice will be done to the people's interests.” p. 10. and “The progressive in politics is one who sees what the next steps are in bringing a better civilization, and who knows how to take those steps without being retarded.” p 62 http://content.wisconsinhistory.org/cdm/ref/collection/tp/id/56073

Progressive Accomplishments in the 20th Century

Dan Riker

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Tuesday August 07, 2018 · 6:49 AM PDT

2018/08/07 · 06:49

This list of progressive accomplishments in the 20th Century accompanies my article, “Defining 21st Century Progressivism.”

Nearly of the major national government programs serving much of the population were enacted during three brief periods of American history when progressives controlled the Presidency and, much of the time, the Congress.

This is a list of accomplishments in the first progressive period, 1901-1917. Presidents Theodore Roosevelt, Republican, 1901-1909; William Howard Taft, Republican,1909-1913; Woodrow Wilson, Democrat: 1913-1921 (progressive period ends with U.S. entry into World War I in 1917)

Significant expansion of the role and powers of the President, the federal government and the civil service;

The commission system of local government;

Women gained the right to vote;

The Referendum;

Recall;

Direct election of U.S. Senators;

Public ownership and operation of urban transit systems;

Clayton Anti-Trust Act which provided the first legal rights to unions, forbidding the use of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act against them.

The first antitrust suit by the federal government;

The breakup of the Standard Oil monopoly;

The graduated income tax;

The inheritance tax;

Major reductions in tariffs;

Prohibitions against child labor and workplace exploitations;

Protections against contaminated food and medicines;

Hundreds of millions of acres of protected wilderness areas, waterways and national parks;

The Federal Reserve System.

Here is a list of the major accomplishments of the 2^nd progressive period: 1933-1941 (ends with entry into World War II). President: Franklin Roosevelt (cousin of Theodore), Democrat, 1933-1945.

Great expansion of the role and powers of the Presidency and the federal government, particularly in the national economy;

Bank and Wall Street regulation, including the Glass-Steagall Act, which created the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation and the Securities and Exchange Commission;

Huge investments in infrastructure through the Civil Works Administration, the Public Works Administration, the Tennessee Valley Authority, the Works Progress Administration, and the Civilian Conservation Corps;

Social Security;

The Federal Housing Administration, providing financing for home purchases

The eight-hour workday and 40-hour work week;

The minimum wage;

The right to organize unions and engage in collective bargaining;

Worker’s compensation and unemployment insurance.

Here is a list of many of the accomplishments of the 3^rd progressive period: 1961-1969. Presidents John Kennedy, Democrat, 1961-1963; Lyndon Johnson, Democrat, 1963-1969

In 1965, greatest number of bills passed by Congress in one session in history

The Peace Corps;

VISTA;

Medicare;

Medicaid;

Head Start;

The Childrens Health Insurance Program;

Income support for below-poverty level working people;

The Corporation for Public Broadcasting;

National Public Radio (NPR)

Public Broadcasting System (PBS)

Fair Housing and Public Accommodations laws providing freedom for anyone to buy a home anywhere, and to be served in any business establishment open to the public;

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 also forbade job discrimination;

The Voting Rights Act of 1965 assured minority registration and voting;

Immigration and Nationality Services Act of 1965 abolished the national-origin quotas in immigration law;

Economic Opportunity Act of 1964, which created an Office of Economic Opportunity (OEO) to oversee a variety of community-based antipoverty programs overall called the “War on Poverty,” which reduced the percentage of people living below the poverty line from 22.2 percent in 1963 to 12.6 percent in 1970. It is about 14.5 percent today.

Food Stamp Act of 1964;

Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965;

Higher Education Act of 1965, which increased federal money given to universities, created scholarships and low-interest loans for students, and established a national Teacher Corps to provide teachers to poverty-stricken areas of the United States;

The Hirshhorn Museum and Sculpture Garden;

National Endowment for the Arts;

National Endowment for the Humanities;

The John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts;

The Department of Transportation;

The Urban Mass Transportation Act of 1964;

Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act of 1965;

The Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 set standards through creation of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration;

The Child Safety Act of 1966;

The Flammable Fabrics Act of 1967;

Wholesome Meat Act of 1967;

The Truth-in-Lending Act of 1968 required lenders and credit providers to disclose the full cost of finance charges in both dollars and annual percentage rates, on installment loan and sales;

Water Quality Act of 1965;

Clean Air Act of 1963;

Wilderness Act of 1964;

Endangered Species Preservation Act of 1966;

National Trails System Act of 1968;

Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968;

Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965;

Solid Waste Disposal Act of 1965;

Motor Vehicle Air Pollution Control Act of 1965;

National Historic Preservation Act of 1966;

Aircraft Noise Abatement Act of 1968;

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969;

No! This Cannot Stand!

Dan Riker

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Thursday November 30, 2017 · 1:17 PM PST

2017/11/30 · 13:17

We are going through a very rough time of American history but we can get through it and then we can reverse it. This cannot stand. We will not allow it.

The impending passage of the Republican tax bill is proof that the American democracy has been purchased by wealthy kleptocratic oligarchs only intent on getting richer with no regard for the welfare of the nation. Hundreds of billions of dollars will be transferred from the poor and middle class to the very wealthy. The national debt could be increased by at least $1.5 trillion.

The next step by the Republicans will be to try to make up some of that deficit with significant cuts to Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. Those who buy their medical insurance through the Affordable Care Act will experience significant increases in premiums. There will be no funds for significant investments in infrastructure. Cutbacks in dozens of vital federal programs could occur.

The Republicans could be directly responsible for the murders of tens of thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands of people on Medicare who contract cancer. They will die without treatment because Medicare coverage of cancer would be eliminated.

Student loans would cost more. Graduate students may face massive tax liabilities for any tuition waivers or grants they receive, liabilities most could not possibly pay. Will they be sent to debtor prisons?

Many Republicans admit that this bill’s only real purpose is to pay back the Party’s wealthy donors. One said that he was told by one of this donors that if the tax cut did not pass, he should not call again to ask for money. That is how crass and greedy these donors are. By caving in to this pressure – instead of supporting measures to limit big money in politics, which would immunize them from this kind of pressure – Republicans are showing pure cowardice.

Now is the time for the Democratic Party to step up and shout. “No, this will not stand!” The Party leaders, the Democratic National Committee, and state parties should all announce that these cuts are going to be temporary. As soon as we Democrats win control of the national government, this tax scam will be repealed. More than that, a much more progressive tax system will replace it, similar to what existed prior to Ronald Reagan - a system that existed during the time of the greatest prosperity of the middle class, the 1950s and 60s - a tax system that put a much heavier burden on the very wealthy and a lighter burden on the poor and the middle class. The inheritance tax will be restored. We may allow the corporate tax to remain in the 20% range but corporate loopholes, which were not eliminated in the Republican plan, will be eliminated.

Spending priorities will shift to rebuilding the nation’s infrastructure, raising the minimum wage, providing health care for all, fighting climate change through fueling the growth of the wind and solar industries and ending subsidies to the fossil fuel industry. All of Trump’s climate threatening cutbacks in environmental regulation will be reversed. We also will enact a rational and humane immigration program.

We can do this. The American people still have the right to vote in most places. We Democrats have to give them the strongest possible commitment we can make that we will undo all the damage the Republicans are doing and get the country on the right track.

Did President Trump Indirectly Admit he Committed Obstruction of Justice when he fired James Comey?

Dan Riker

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Friday May 19, 2017 · 9:55 AM PDT

2017/05/19 · 09:55

150723-james-comey-jpo-500a_18fedec20ffef3fb4226c7fdced44951.nbcnews-fp-1200-800.jpg — In his letter that fired James Comey as Director of the FBI, Trump may have admitted he committed obstruction of justice

Friday, May 19, 2017 · 5:20:24 PM +00:00 · Dan Riker

We now may know what President Donald Trump meant when he said in his letter that fired FBI Director James Comey, "While I greatly appreciate you informing me, on three separate occasions, that I am not under investigation..." It is possible Trump may not have meant those words to be taken literally. They may have been a taunt, reminding Coney that Trump had given him three opportunities to do that, and Comey had spurned him.

If that is the case, this statement by Trump may further support the existing contentions based on other statements he has made, in the Lester Holt interview and elsewhere, that he committed obstruction of justice, which is defined in federal law, as "Whoever corruptly, or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication influences, obstructs, or impedes or endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede the due and proper administration of the law under which any pending proceeding is being had before any department or agency of the United States, or the due and proper exercise of the power of inquiry under which any inquiry or investigation is being had by either House, or any committee of either House or any joint committee of the Congress."

Obstruction of justice was the first count in the impeachment case against President Richard Nixon.

In the New York Times article, published Thursday night, reporter Michael S. Schmidt describes three occasions since the Inauguration when Trump made a direct appeal to Comey to either say publicly that the President was not under investigation, or to shut down the investigation of former National Security Adviser Michael T. Flynn, or pledge his loyalty to Trump. In each case, Comey refused. Two of those occasions were reported previously by Schmidt.

According to the article, Comey made a written record of each of these occasions, and that portions of the content of those memos were shared with the New York Times.

In Thursday night's article, Schmidt reported that Comey received a phone call from the President in which Trump "asked him when federal authorities were going to put out word that Mr. Trump was not personally under investigation, according to two people briefed on the call." Comey is reported to have said that the President had to follow proper procedures by having the White House counsel inquire through the Justice Department.

The Thursday night New York Times article references an earlier article by Schmidt which recounts that seven days after the Inauguration, Comey was summoned to a private dinner with Trump. During that dinner, Trump is alleged to have asked "whether Mr. Comey would pledge his loyalty to him."

"Mr. Comey declined to make that pledge," Schmidt reported. "Instead, Mr. Comey has recounted to others, he told Mr. Trump that he would always be honest with him, but that he was not “reliable” in the conventional political sense." The White House has denied this occurred.

The other occasion when Trump tried to influence the FBI investigation occurred at a meeting between the President and the FBI Director, according to a May 18 New York Times article by Schmidt.

"President Trump asked the F.B.I. director, James B. Comey, to shut down the federal investigation into Mr. Trump’s former national security adviser, Michael T. Flynn, in an Oval Office meeting in February, according to a memo Mr. Comey wrote shortly after the meeting."

According to the article Comey documented in a memo written after the meeting that the President said to Comey ““I hope you can see your way clear to letting this go, to letting Flynn go. He is a good guy. I hope you can let this go.”

Comey's response was reported to be, "I agree he is a good guy.” But Comey wrote in his memo that he would not agree to drop the investigation. The White House also has denied this occurred.

There was another occasion, reported in the Thursday night article, when an effort was made to influence the FBI investigation. Schmidt reported:

"The day after the Flynn conversation, Reince Priebus, the White House chief of staff, asked Mr. Comey to help push back on reports in the news media that Mr. Trump’s associates had been in contact with Russian intelligence officials during the campaign."

The Times article also recounted that "Mr. Comey has spoken privately of his concerns that the contacts from Mr. Trump and his aides were inappropriate, and how he felt compelled to resist them."

If all of this is true, and the memos almost certainly are going to be public - at least the portions that are not classified - then it will be a matter of whose word is believed. But the tip may well be in that phrase in Trump's letter, where he claimed that Comey had told him three times he was not under investigation. He certainly knew that not to be true. So why did he say it?

It just seems too coincidental that there were three occasions when Trump made direct appeals to Comey and he was rejected all three times. Trump hates rejection and almost always tries to get even.

“We have not yet begun to fight.” Now is the time to build the new progressive Democratic Party

Dan Riker

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Friday November 11, 2016 · 7:23 AM PST

2016/11/11 · 07:23

(A speech delivered to the Portland Progrressives Toastmasters on Thursday, Nov. 10, 2016)

I am not able to deliver the wonkish speech tonight analyzing the election that I had planned to give. I am just too damn mad. But I am not angry with Trump, or the Republican Party, or the millions of people who voted for them. I am angry with the leadership of the Democratic Party. They are responsible for this debacle. Long ago, they abandoned the working people and the lower middle class in favor of corporate America, Wall Street and the affluent professional class.

The Democratic Party of Bill and Hillary Clinton – and even in some important ways that of Barrack Obama – no longer is the party of all the people. And millions of the people just showed us they know that and they are not going to support it anymore.

Nor should we progressive Democrats support it anymore. And we don’t have to. The corporate Dems have ruined the Democratic Party and have no right to remain in control. Now we have an opportunity – and an obligation - to take control of the Party and restore it as the party of the people.

Tonight I will talk about the two things that I believe will lead us to eventual victory.

We should have a simultaneous offense and defense.

Our offense is a new, progressive, Democratic Party that understands and shares the concerns of the American people and operates in their interests.

Our defense is organizing to block as much of the Trump and Republican program as possible.

First the defense against Trump:

Democrats in Congress should employ tactics similar to those used by the Republicans against Obama. They can block appointments to the Supreme Court. They can use every possible tactic to delay and scuttle efforts to repeal Obamacare, or make cuts in Medicare, Medicaid or Social Security. They also should try to block efforts to repeal environmental and Wall Street regulations.

We do not want Congressional Democrats to reach across the aisle to help implement any of Trump’s extreme ideas. Like the Tea Party, we should bring primary challenges against any Democratic members of Congress who cooperate with Trumpism.

Not everything can be blocked. Filibusters cannot be used against budget bills. We will go to the people and show what kind of damage will be done when taxes on the rich are cut - When budgets for social, education, environmental and health programs are cut - When defense budgets are increased.

Now for our offense:

We will reform the Democratic Party. Right now it is controlled by corporate Democrats who have lost touch with working people and much of the middle class. Reform depends on progressives gaining control of local and state party organizations as we are doing here in Oregon.

The corporate Dems should be removed from positions of power, driven from the Party, or converted. And we should welcome converts. Many progressive leaders, like Robert Reich, were once on the other side. We want people like him on our side. So don’t automatically oppose Hillary supporters. Many of them are very talented and dedicated who can be effective leaders on the progressive side, if given the chance.

By gaining control of local and state party organizations we can gain control of the DNC. That will enable us to restructure the national party organization – and the Presidential candidate selection process - to be open, transparent and fair.

We will break the ties between the Democratic Party and major corporations, Wall Street and the fossil fuel industry. To do this we will develop new sources of funding, perhaps adopting the Bernie Sanders approach but on a much bigger scale. Whatever we do we cannot wait for Citizens United to be overturned. We can and should “just say no” to the big money.

As to how we will convince the people to give us power again, I propose we adopt and more fully develop the Bernie Sanders platform. He presented viable solutions to the problems facing the vast majority of Americans – among them universal health care, free college education, financial and corporate reform, doubling the minimum wage, and programs to fight climate change. I believe that if he had been the nominee, Trump would not be President-elect.

Finally, there are two election-oriented efforts to get underway now.

Major focus and resources should be put on congressional races and state legislative races in 2018 and 2020 so that the next reapportionment is not controlled by the Republicans.

Second, we start now to identify and build support for the Bernie Sanders of 2020 when we next can elect a progressive President. If Bernie had started sooner, he might have won.

In summary, we have to do everything we can to block Trump and the Republicans, but for us to win elections in the future, reform of the Democratic Party is required so that it addresses the real issues of most all of the people.

It seems, right now, that all is lost. It is times like this when the American spirit is tested. I know that what I am asking is the political version of John Kennedy’s pledge to get to the moon. But let’s remember his words:

We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win, and the others, too.

Now tonight I am asking you not to give up because of Trump’s victory. I am asking you to join me in this great effort. I am asking you to say with me what the great naval hero, John Paul Jones, supposedly said to inspire his sailors to turn what appeared to be a devastating defeat into a great victory, that we have not yet begun to fight. Say it: WE HAVE NOT YET BEGUN TO FIGHT!

Midnight in America – Trying to imagine the first 100 days of President Trump

Dan Riker

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Monday October 24, 2016 · 10:16 AM PDT

2016/10/24 · 10:16

Donald Trump’s “100-day action plan to Make America Great Again” could bring chaos in governments across the country, economic disruption, increased international dangers, and, potentially, violence in the streets.

Donald Trump outlined this plan for his first 100 days as President in a speech in Gettysburg without many specifics but enough to describe what could not be anything other than a nightmare. Instead of Ronald Reagan’s “Morning in America” it would be midnight in America.

He proposed a constitutional amendment to impose term limits on Congress, something that would have no chance of getting approved by either the House or the Senate.

Making an assumption that federal employees do not perform vital services, and that it is more important to reduce the federal budget than it is to provide those services, Trump said he would impose a hiring freeze on the federal government except for military, safety and public health employees, to reduce federal employment by attrition. So what if those Social Security payments do not arrive on time, or that national parks have to close for lack of Park Rangers, or the national weather service mis-forecasts a hurricane, etc.

And in order for agencies to issue new regulations, Trump would require that two existing regulations be rescinded for every new one. And this would have to be done with reduced staffing. Most federal regulations are issued to address the details of the enforcement or application of legislation passed by Congress. Trump hates government regulation about as much as he hates any regulation of his behavior. However, it is the lack of adequate government regulation that has caused far more problems for the nation in the past 30 years than any existing regulation.

He said he would renegotiate the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and withdraw from the Trans-Pacific partnership (TPP). This is one area where he is in general agreement with the progressives in the Democratic Party, but not with the leadership of the Republican Party who are greatly influenced by the major corporations that benefit from these trade deals. However, he has not specified what exactly he would attempt to change in NAFTA.

Trump said he would charge China with currency manipulation, which could lead to the U.S. imposing higher duties on Chinese goods (and an end to Walmart’s low prices). China has engaged in currency manipulation to keep its products competitive in the world markets. That currency manipulation is a significant contributor to the trade deficit the U.S. is suffering – more than $500 billion a year. Essentially, he would set off a trade war with China and trade between the two countries, and with other countries, could be seriously disrupted. That could lead to a worldwide economic recession, or depression, to say nothing of potentially a direct military conflict with China. There are less disruptive ways of dealing with currency manipulation that the U.S. and other countries could employ, such as buying up large quantities of Chinese currency to counter their manipulative efforts.

He has said he might meet with Russia’s Vladimir Putin before taking office. How long would it take after that for Putin to move into the Ukraine and set off a crisis with NATO and the European countries?

Trump said his Supreme Court appointment will go to someone whose wife has put a Trump sign in his front yard. There goes any chance of reversing Citizens United to get big money out of politics. There goes Roe v. Wade. There goes gay marriage. And, by implication, there goes the chances of another woman on the Court.

He said he would cancel the billions of dollars the U.S. is paying into the United Nations climate change programs. President Obama committed the U.S. to pay $3 billion into the funds over the next four years and $500 million was paid this year over the protests of Republicans in Congress. They are demanding that the U.S. cut off funding because the UN admitted the State of Palestine over American objections. Two U.S. laws provide for cutting off funds to UN programs if an unrecognized nation is admitted to the UN, or the Palestine Liberation Organization is admitted to the UN. This issue remains unresolved.

Trump doesn’t believe in climate change and if he became President, he would be the only major world leader who doesn’t believe in it. Such a development could have a devastating effect on efforts to curb greenhouse gases and prevent a more rapid warming of the planet. It also could crush domestic efforts to create renewable energy businesses that could represent one of the largest sources of new jobs in the future.

Trump is oblivious to the proven fact that “trickle-down” economics doesn’t. Those economic policies, which include much lower taxes on the wealthy, much less government regulation of business, including virtually no enforcement of antitrust laws, and privatization of many government services, were initiated on a large scale under President Reagan. They do cause some economic growth but much of the earnings from that growth go to the wealthy. These policies also drive up the national debt. Reagan tripled the national debt and George Bush doubled it. Most economists who have studied Trump’s tax program say it also will double the national debt without causing much economic growth – certainly not the kind Trump says it will.

Trickle-down “supply-side” policies dramatically increase economic inequality by suppressing the income of the middle class while dramatically expanding the incomes of the already wealthy. When Reagan became President there were only about 40 billionaires in the U.S. Today there are about 500. Meanwhile, middle class incomes have been virtually stagnant. Virtually all the growth in income has gone to the top 20%, much of that to the top 1%.

Lack of regulation led to the banking crisis that caused the Great Recession and the loss of trillions of dollars of home values by millions of Americans that never has been recovered. Lack of enforcement of antitrust laws has encouraged enormous industry consolidations, reducing competition as well as causing millions of job losses. Privatization of government services reduces the quality of services while increasing their cost.

Despite all that we have experienced and all the evidence that exists showing how these “trickle-down” policies have failed, Trump persists with yet another proposal to make massive cuts in the taxes of the wealthy. His program would reduce the taxes a little bit for some in the middle class but most of the value of the tax cuts would go to the wealthy. He argues that will provide more money for investment to expand businesses without realizing that businesses will not expand if there is no demand. And because the middle class has had very little disposable income – and his program will not change that - there has been low demand for products that are not necessities.

The most draconian of his proposals deal with immigration. He still vows to build the wall and have Mexico pay for it. He vows that immediately after taking office he will start deporting undocumented people who have committed criminal acts. It is not hard to imagine what may happen in some areas of the country where there are sizeable Latino populations if armed agents of the government come in to haul off people to be deported. Trump ignores the fact that there already is a process for deportation, a legal process that must be followed. People cannot just be hauled off and sent back across the border. Furthermore, according to the Yearbook of Immigration Statistics, there have been far more deportations under President Obama, 2.5 million between 2009 and 2015, than by any other President and more than the total deportations by all the Presidents of the 20^th Century. In addition, Trump would have Americans believe that we are allowing undocumented criminals to remain in the country. That is entirely untrue. The U.S. already is deporting enormous numbers of aliens with criminal records – 246.000 in 2014 alone.

Trump also said he would suspend all immigration from “terror-prone” regions of the world which would cut off immigration from most Muslim countries. The effect of such action on America’s position in the world and our relations with Muslim nations would be devastating.

Finally, to make sure that many government programs and practices are thrown into complete turmoil, Trump said he would “cancel every unconstitutional executive action, memorandum and order issued by President Obama.” Much of the executive orders issued by President Obama have been oriented to providing greater opportunities and protections to students, women in the workplace or as subjects of sexual abuse or discrimination, and most workers of all kinds against exploitation by restricting the use of overtime, providing job training, imposing a higher minimum wage on government contractors, providing paid leave for childbirth, adoption or foster care, and more. The irony of Trump’s plan is that many of Obama’s actions directly benefit large numbers of Trump supporters and they don’t realize it, or don’t care.

To imagine all of this happening in Trump’s first 100 days is an exercise in self-deception. Most of it could not happen, or would be blocked by Congress or the courts. It still is a nightmare that so many Americans are so disturbed that they will vote for a man so thoroughly unqualified in every respect and has no idea how to be President of the United States.

There are no good reasons to vote for a third party candidate.

Dan Riker

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Sunday October 16, 2016 · 10:24 PM PDT

2016/10/16 · 22:24

Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump are the most unpopular major party candidates in our history. That has caused many people to consider voting for one of the third party candidates.

This article on Jill Stein, medium.com/... is misleading, dead wrong, and naïve to the point of silliness. Before I expand on those comments, let me emphasize that this is not criticism of anyone who supports her, nor is it specific criticism of her. John Oliver did a very good job Sunday night of showing that neither Stein nor Libertarian Gary Johnson is even remotely qualified to be President.

Tony Brasunas wrote that there are four reasons to support Jill Stein.

First, he argues that because the outcomes of Presidential elections in most states are almost never in doubt, i.e. they are solidly Democratic or Republican, your vote doesn’t matter in those states. You can use your vote “to send a message.” This is just wrong and naïve. Currently, according to fivethirtyeight.com, there are at least 15 states in play this year. There are many other states that lean strongly one way or the other but do not consistently vote that way. For example, Maryland and Massachusetts are among the strongest Democratic Party states, but both have Republican governors. Louisiana just elected a Democrat as governor. A Democratic governor just left office in Kentucky.

By voting for a third party candidate what message could you possibly send and to whom are you sending it? That you want more progressive government? The conservatives and corporate Dems will be delighted to see you vote for a third party candidate. You are out of their hair and they can keep doing what they are doing. Jill Stein is polling below 2%. I think she polls best in Oregon, as she did in 2012, but still with only about 4%. The actual message being sent to those in power is "no worries."

Next, Brasunas argues that the major party candidates are ignoring the most important issues or hold positions contrary to those of progressives. This is true of Trump. It is not of Clinton. Here is a link to the issues section of her website www.hillaryclinton.com/.... What important issues is she avoiding? How many of her positions are not consistent with contemporary progressive thought? Yes, there are some differences but her program overall is the most progressive we have seen in a nominated candidate in a long time. Only Bernie’s would have been better. She has moved closer to him as he repeatedly says.

The third reason Brasunas says you should vote for a third party is that the Democratic Party cannot be fixed. This is juvenile. How can anyone say the party cannot be fixed when hardly any effort was made to fix it until Bernie came along, and he came along too late for this cycle. Just demanding change doesn’t bring change. If you want change you have to work for it. The other side does. Of course the DNC favored Clinton. Until Bernie announced, Clinton was expected to win the nomination essentially by acclamation. That doesn’t excuse the dirty tricks that occurred, however.

The argument that Bernie was cheated out of the nomination does not stand up to the facts. Some of the most notorious election manipulations, such as what was done in Arizona, were done by Republicans. With the possible exceptions of California, Iowa and Nevada, I don’t know of any case where the primary results were tipped. And because the caucus system is so flawed, random screw-ups, which almost always happen, can get viewed as manipulation. But there were some cases of outright fraudulent behavior, but nothing that altered the outcome. Even the scandalous conduct of the California primary that may have tipped the state to Clinton did not change the ultimate outcome.

I am sorry to say that Bernie lost because he began his campaign too late and did not have the time he needed in many states to build winning campaign organizations. He has said that, himself. One cannot expect to win the Democratic nomination without winning New York, Pennsylvania, and Ohio, among others.

The DNC can be fixed. It will take of time and effort by a lot of progressives around the country, but it can be done. There are organized efforts here in Oregon and in other states that we hope ultimately will lead to massive reforming of the operation of the Democratic Party and returning it to being the party of the people. The effort required to succeed in this would be far less than what it would take to build a truly viable national third party.

Finally, if by some miracle, a viable national third party could be built, we could have chaotic results in Presidential elections with no party winning the necessary 270 electoral votes. This would throw the election to the House of Representatives where each state gets one vote. Republicans control two thirds of the states and thus would easily take the White House. Furthermore, the Democratic Party probably would be far more damaged by the creation of a progressive third party than would the Republican Party, making it more likely that the Republicans would control even more states and even more of the federal government.

His final point argues for a change to a third party to correct all of the incompetence and evils of the governments we have had for quite a long period now. That our government has failed to serve the people properly for as long as most living people remember cannot be debated. The economy is screwed up because government failed in its responsibility to protect the people from predatory capitalism. Our government has not been progressive, regardless of the party in power. However, much of the time we have had divided government, one party in control of the White House while the other party controls at least one house of Congress. That is a major cause of our malaise. Changing the Presidency does not necessarily bring any other significant changes, especially the ones we need that are so bitterly opposed by Republicans. And certainly putting the Presidency in the hands of a third party candidate, without any of her party members in Congress only would make things worse.

The best strategy to build a true progressive movement is to build it inside the Democratic Party. That is what has happened in Oregon. Even though there still are some things to fix, I think we now may have the most progressive Democratic Party in the nation. Oregon has become a leader in enacting progressive legislation. Republicans know this and they are trying to stop it before the success here spreads to other states. Outside Republican money is pouring in, even to local races, to try to stem the progressive tide here.

Don’t let that happen. Get active in the Democratic Party. Canvass or phone bank for local and state Democratic Party candidates. This is how we really can win.

Bernie Sanders is a Stronger Candidate for President than Hillary Clinton

Dan Riker

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Wednesday April 06, 2016 · 6:43 AM PDT

2016/04/06 · 06:43

With his landslide win in Wisconsin yesterday, Bernie Sanders now has won more of the popular vote in primaries outside the South than has Hillary Clinton. Clinton’s leads in both the overall popular vote and pledged delegate count are due to her huge wins in southern states, most of which will not vote Democratic in November.

With the votes not completely counted in Wisconsin, Sanders has 4,144,651 votes in the 10 primaries outside the South to Clinton’s 4,096,209. In the 22 states outside the South that have had primaries and caucuses, Sanders has won 638 delegates to Clinton’s 531.

Clinton’s lopsided victories in 11 southern states have netted her 4,640,859 votes and 736 delegates to 1,795,355 votes for Sanders and 376 delegates. Hillary won every former state of the Confederacy but the only states Democrats have a reasonable chance of winning in November are Virginia, North Carolina and Florida. While Bill Clinton carried some southern states in his elections, Tennessee, Georgia, Florida, Arkansas and Louisiana, Hillary does not have the same kind of popularity in those states that her husband did. The Republican Party also is more firmly entrenched in most southern states than it was 20 years ago.

Clinton’s victories in the South are mostly due to her popularity with blacks who represent high percentages of the Democratic vote in those states. Even though they only represent about 13 percent of the national electorate, blacks are a major contributor to Democratic victories in general elections because they vote Democratic in overwhelming numbers. Thus, even though Sanders lost the black vote in the South by high percentages, it is extremely unlikely he would lose it in the general election.

Each of the candidates has won five primaries outside the South. Clinton narrowly won Massachusetts, Illinois, and Missouri but Ohio and Arizona by good margins. Sanders won Michigan narrowly but had landslide victories in New Hampshire, Vermont, Oklahoma and Wisconsin. Sanders has proven that he can compete effectively with Clinton and he has shown much greater support among younger voters who clearly are not enthusiastic about Clinton and who have a record of much lower voter turnout when they are not inspired by an election, or a candidate.

The Democratic superdelegates, who represent the establishment of the Democratic Party and have an enormous duty to Democratic voters, and to the nation, to ensure that there is a Democratic victory in November, should consider these numbers carefully. That victory depends on the Democrats winning outside the South. Bernie Sanders has shown he can do that. Every poll shows him running stronger than Clinton against every potential Republican candidate.

Sanders is a stronger candidate for President than Clinton. Furthermore, he is more likely to inspire a Democratic voter turnout that will return control of the Senate to the Democrats, and maybe the House as well.

The pundits grasp at straws to criticize Bernie Sanders but Hillary Clinton gets a free pass

Dan Riker

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Monday March 07, 2016 · 10:40 AM PST

2016/03/07 · 10:40

Bernie's opponents in the pundit class will grasp at any straw to find fault with him. They are trying to make a big deal out of what he said about white people having difficulty identifying with blacks and not understanding what it is like to live in a ghetto. He didn't say, or imply, that all blacks live in ghettos, or that no white people do. He mentioned his own poor family.

He could have been more precise but if you take his comments in context he was trying to make the same point that Hillary did - that it is difficult for white people to understand what it is to be black. I got the point. I think people who already are opposed to Bernie - like Joy Reid and others - are trying to make something out of this that wasn't there.

There also has been a lot of comment on Bernie's sharp retort to Hillary interrupting him. No criticism of Hillary's interruption. Bernie has passion and it shows, maybe sometimes more than it should for his own good. But that passion - and his honesty and integrity - are what make him a very unique Presidential candidate, a historic candidate. When are the pundits going to see this?

Where is the criticism by the pundits of Hillary's compromised situation with her contributors? That is a big deal. What about the fact that Flint did not benefit from the auto bailout? No comment from the pundits.

Why do the pundits say Hillary won the debate when the polls show the people say Bernie won the debate? It seemed obvious to me who won the debate.

How I came to support Bernie Sanders

Dan Riker

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Wednesday February 24, 2016 · 11:28 AM PST

2016/02/24 · 11:28

I grew up during the golden years of the 1950s and 60s when one income supported families. College education was financially feasible. Life seemed to be improving for almost everyone. It certainly was for me. I am a graduate of the Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore and the University of Baltimore School of Law. I've had several careers - in journalism, in the big corporation, and as an entrepreneur. I was the CEO of a wireless company, a bookseller and I have written four books.

Like many in my generation, I focused most of my time and energy on my various careers and business activities as well as my family. For much of our lives we lived the American Dream - something that seems mythical to today's young people.

While I was not paying attention, that "Shining City on a Hill" that Ronald Reagan talked about was looted by some of his powerful supporters. Our country was hijacked, and along with it, the futures of our children and grandchildren. I wanted to do something about it. I wanted to find a solution to our economic and political problems. There is no better way to learn about something than to write a book about it. And that's what I did. In so doing I discovered that the solution – like Edgar Allan Poe's famous short story about the Purloined Letter - was hidden in plain sight - in our case, in our history.

Not counting wars, we have had three major crises in America since 1900 - all the result of Republican policies. Progressive leaders and policies brought America safely out of two of them.

Fearing there would be a revolution in the United States over the enormous abuses of the Gilded Age robber barons and Republican Party laissez-faire policies, Theodore Roosevelt embraced Progressive ideas. He saw them as taming the worst features of capitalism and saving capitalism from itself.

Franklin Roosevelt’s progressive New Deal saved America from the second great crisis, the Great Depression.

We now are living through the third crisis. Even though Democrats have held the White House for 15 of the last 23 years, neither Bill Clinton nor Barack Obama reversed the devastating trickle-down, supply-side, economic policies implemented by Ronald Reagan. We have the worst economic inequality in our history. Nearly all income and wealth are going to the wealthy. The middle class now is less than 50% of the population. Half of all wage-workers are not making enough money from their fulltime jobs to support their families. 30% of children live in poverty. We are the only developed nation that has these problems – and there is no reason we should have them.

My principal conclusion in my book, reached long before Bernie Sanders decided to run for President, is that to overcome our current crisis we have to have a new progressive movement. For that movement to be successful, there has to be national progressive leadership and a following by millions of people over an extended period of time - maybe several elections. Bernie repeatedly has said he cannot do it by himself, that what he is trying to do is lead a progressive movement to take control of governments across the country.

Bernie is one of the leaders I was looking for. Elizabeth Warren is another. They have the right vision for America. Even though Bernie calls himself a democratic socialist, most of his platform comes straight from the progressive platforms and programs of Theodore and Franklin Roosevelt.

Theodore and Franklin Roosevelt both supported bank regulation and FDR imposed restrictions on Wall Street. FDR said education was a human right, Both Roosevelts supported health care as a right. Both supported a living wage. FDR’s investments in infrastructure helped the recovery from the Depression. Bernie wants to make massive investments in infrastructure now. Bernie wants to end our current Prohibition – the war on drugs. FDR ended the last one. Bernie wants to tax corporate profits hidden offshore. Corporate tax revenues as a percentage of all taxes were three times higher under FDR than they are now.

Bernie’s program is not radical, or even socialist. It is “as American as apple pie.”

Bernie Sanders has proven he is a great leader by inspiring the massive movement we need. He has thousands of volunteers across the country - hundreds of Bernie groups that spontaneously sprung up. He has overwhelming support among younger voters - particularly the millennials and even younger voters. They are our future. If they are with Bernie - and with his progressive ideas - and if they have the patience and fortitude it will take to bring those ideas to life - I think we can win.

And, I believe we have to succeed. We cannot say it cannot be done. It has to be done. We must fix America. We, the people, can do it. Let's do what must be done so that we carry out our duty to our heritage and to those who will come after us. Let's make America work for everyone.

And if we achieve this, if we elect Bernie Sanders, and with him a whole lot of other progressive Democrats, we will do just what progressives always have done, we will save the country by saving capitalism from itself.

The Misinterpreted 10th Amendment: It Doesn't Do What Many Think It Does

Dan Riker

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Monday September 21, 2015 · 7:24 AM PDT

2015/09/21 · 07:24

In last week's Republican debate there were several mentions of the 10th Amendment to the Constitution and how it confers rights to the states. Several of the candidates said they believed in that Amendment and would enforce it and by that they clearly meant they believe in limiting the powers and actions of the federal government. However, their interpretation of the 10th Amendment is wrong.

Even though neither this Amendment, nor any other provision of the Constitution conveys the right, some of the Founders, including Jefferson and Madison, as well as Southern leaders such as John Calhoun, believed that the 10th Amendment gave states the power to nullify acts of Congress and that it limited the power of the federal government. The Civil War and Supreme Court decisions settled the question whether there are any Constitutional bases for either secession or nullification. There are not. However, there still are legions of people - and many websites - that promote the idea that the 10th Amendment limits the powers of the federal government and creates states' rights.

There is little doubt that the 10th Amendment was intended to preserve some state powers, and their role in the federal system. While considering the ratification of the Constitution, all thirteen states proposed some version of what became the 10th Amendment. Only eleven years had passed since the states were separate colonies, operating quite independently of one another. Having fought to get free of English authoritarianism, they were wary of giving up too much power to any other government.

This was a particularly sensitive issue in the South because of slavery. A number of northern states wanted slavery abolished. Southern states would not have joined with the northern states in creating the United States if slavery had been abolished, or if they believed the federal government could abolish it without their consent. The 10th Amendment was one of the compromises intended to preserve some state powers and put some limits on federal power. The 10th Amendment reads:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Those who drafted it were very clever. The principal authors of the Constitution intended for the United States to have a strong national government. They were trying to solve the problems that occurred under the Articles of Confederation that did not provide for a strong central government. They also did not want individual states to have veto power over the federal government as they did under the Articles.

Not enough attention has been given to the exact wording of the Amendment, in particular, the last clause: “OR to the people.” In fact, the Supreme Court, as recently as in its voting rights decision in 2013, misstated the words of the 10th Amendment, and that was not the first time.

The authors of the Constitution were experts in the use of language, and in the construction of legal documents. Under any form of statutory construction, the use of the comma followed by the word "or" presents an alternative to the previous phrase. And the Constitution also clearly differentiates between the states and the people. The use of the word "people" in that last phase presents an alternative to the powers of the states - the power of the people, not of individual states.

The use of the word “people” in the Constitution, from the “We the People” of the Preamble on, means all the citizens of the United States separate from whatever identity they may have with individual states. There was a draft of the Preamble that used the words, "We the States," but it was changed to emphasize the nature of he Constitution and its effects. The Constitution was intended by the founders to be a compact among the people of the United States, not between the federal government and the state governments, or among the state governments. The people are citizens of the United States, not of individual states.

Ratification of the Constitution was required to be done by state conventions representing the people, not by state legislatures. The authors of the Constitution clearly intended that the citizens of the United States bind themselves, their descendants, and their states, together, forever, in the compact, the Constitution. This appears to have been recognized by a number of Southern states when they seceded from the Union. In several states, the act of secession was done through conventions of citizens, “the people,” not by the state legislatures.

There is another problem with the idea that powers not specifically granted to the federal government are reserved to the states. That problem - and it is a big one - is the "necessary and proper" clause, the last paragraph of Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution. This section enumerates numerous powers of Congress, and after specifying those powers, that paragraph reads:

"To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."

When Alexander Hamilton's proposal for a national bank was opposed by Jefferson, Madison and Adams on the grounds that Congress did not have the specific power to create a bank, Hamilton's response was a memo to President Washington in which he argued that the "necessary and proper" clauses gave the federal government the implied power to create a bank because it had the express power to regulate commerce. He wrote that any express power carried with it, out of necessity, all legitimate implied powers necessary to exercise that power.

He went even further, turning the entire opposition argument upside down. He argued that rather than having limited powers, that in the areas of federal responsibility, the “necessary and proper” clause essentially gave the national government the power to do almost anything not specifically prohibited, or illegal.

In 1819, Chief Justice John Marshall relied on Hamilton's memo in the landmark case, McCullough v. Maryland, in which the Supreme Court ruled that Congress had the power, under the “necessary and proper” clause to create a national bank. That decision is one of the most important in the history of the Supreme Court and that interpretation of the "necessary and proper" clause remains in effect today. The only specific limits on the power of Congress are those in the Constitution and those that the Supreme Court has found to exist on various occasions.

Thus the assumption that the 10th Amendment gives powers to the states if they are not expressly granted to the federal government is wrong. It also does not limit the power of the federal government.

The Constitution provides for the states to maintain some rights and responsibilities, but none that can trump those of the federal government. The Constitution clearly states that it, and federal laws adopted under it, are the supreme law of the nation. The Constitution provides for no means of changing it except by amendment; no means of dissolution of the union; no right for any state to withdraw from the union; no right for any state to wage war against any other state; no right for any state to engage in foreign affairs; no right to determine, or grant, citizenship; no separate citizenship of states; no right to restrict the rights of citizens to vote.

That last phrase of the 10th Amendment means that the reserved power is shared between the states and the people. It does not create a body of absolute “states' rights.” It means that states have the power to act where the federal government has not, and when such acts will not conflict with federal laws or responsibilities.
However, it also means that the people have the right to take action under similar circumstances.

Since the people, the citizens of the United States, elect the Congress and the President of the United States, this clause gives broad power to the people to act through their elected Congressional representatives, not just through their states. In other words, it permits the people, acting through their elected representatives, to decide that the federal government should have a power not expressed, or implied, in the Constitution.

Newer
Older

RSS