Money Talks

I'd like to start out with an anecdote.

When I was in high school, I believe that it was my senior or junior year, I took a government course. All students were required to take a form of the course, the alternative being an A.P. version. I still remember the classroom - in a trailer across from the main building, some of the students in my class - a fanatic in particular, and the teacher who taught the course. There is a phrase that he used, and did so on more than one occasion:

"money talks and b.s. walks"

Makes me want to start singing the AC/DC song...

Now, at the time, it made some sense. But I think it does even more so nowadays. I didn't used to always think this, either.

Every member of Congress receives money for their time spent in service. What you may not know is what they receive that is not money.

It's easy to claim that those members of the Senate and the House of Representatives receive too much money when actually they use their income to pay for their staff, which is actually underfunded, understaffed, or both.

What really is the issue or the lobbying interests. Now members of Congress can only receive so much money before they are required by law to turn it down. What the law does allow, however, are gifts. These gifts also have a value limit, but it's so hard to price good gifts these days, especially if you don't actually "gift" it.

Take for example a special retreat a Senator takes to a extremely nice ski resort or country club. That Senator is certainly open to hearing from a lobbyist if he's paying for his ski pass or round of golf and just happens to be riding in the lift or teeing off right next to the lobbyist.

Now, some of you might be asking, "what's wrong with that?" Is a member of Congress allowed to do that? Certainly, it's within the laws that they wrote.

Most of these members of Congress have a Juris Doctorate (J.D.). This means they went to law school. They know the ins and outs and can find the loopholes to exploit.

Now, back to the question of what's wrong with them getting a little elbow-to-elbow with a lobbyist. Why are they not meeting in their congressional office in Washington D.C.? Well, they do that too, but they figure something like: hey, why not enjoy the finer points of life that come with such an influential position. Then the lobbyist comes in with: what a grand idea!

The congressman or woman likes this little arrangement. The lobbyist likes this, too. The member of Congress receives delightful opportunities while the lobbyist just got to pitch an idea. It turns into a nice I scratch your back, you scratch mine. But there's another problem. The member of Congress has to get re-elected. So the lobbying organizations mobilize. They pitch to the voters the good for their guy and the bad for the other. Perfect example -  the National Rifle Association. Now, if the lobbying organization plays the game right, they can even be tax-exempt by classifying themselves as a non-profit organization thanks to those wonderful lawyers in Congress.

The lobbying organization pays their employees, minus those interns, pays the lobbyists, buys the "gifts" for those members of Congress, and donates the rest to the campaign funds for those members of Congress.

Now, what are you left with?

1. A politician who would rather cozy up with a lobbyist.

2. A lobbyist who has a ideal relationship with a politician.

3. A constituency whose only influence is now voting for or against that politician and can't do anything about the lobbyist.

I'm sure that this would be a good note to leave off with, but I still have a few more thoughts that I want to pour in.

First, I want to point out that members of Congress are not the only ones that get the lobbying treatment. The bureaucracy of the United States gets it too. The head of the Environmental Protection Agency gets it. The Bureau of Land Management gets it. The only thing that they don't have to worry about now is the reelection process.

So, let's say you have a nifty little non-profit organization that receives it's income via members dues - kind of like a union. You want there to be some kind of regulation in place, maybe even one that benefits your organization. What do you do?

Well, you hit up those members of Congress to get the ball rolling. Now it's not that important of a bill, so it gets pushed to the back burner. Your idea is going to take anywhere from 3 to 10 years to be made into a law. You need to "work" with a lot of congressmen and women.

In the meantime, however, you send another Larry Lobby over to the agency that regulates those types of issues. They don't have to cooperate with other agencies like members of Congress do. They make their own rules and run with it; they're part of the executive branch and they make their own decisions. The only catch is it can't conflict with a directive from the president and you don't want it to land you in front of the House Oversight Committee.

So, you've got some guys on Capitol Hill working to make it a law, but settle for a regulations while the slow gears of Congress are in motion.

The last thing I want to discuss is why I didn't believe. There is some truth to these alternatives.

One alternative is that you believe that it's about what you know; the smarter you are, the more you can influence. While politicians certainly value intelligence, it depends on how that intelligence is used. Use it to their benefit and they will tolerate you. Unless you are working for them, they probably won't care what you have to say, unless there's something in it for them.

This is why you usually see celebrities on Capitol Hill. They have a celebrity speak and then get a photo op. Most recently was Ashton Kutcher.

The other alternative is who you know. Knowing the right people. While this certainly can help, it isn't a guarantee. Just because you met them at a townhall doesn't mean they're going to remember you and ask for your assistance.

Both of these alternatives have one thing in common. If you have the money to show for it, you'll get in.

So, as my high school teacher said,

Money talks and b.s. walks.

Confirmation hearings

If you've been watching the news lately, you may have noticed that many of the president-elect's cabinet nominees have been undergoing rigorous examination in Senate committee hearings. These hearings can take some time as each Senator possesses multiple questions for the candidates.

Under Article 2 Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution, it reads:

The president  [...] with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States.

So what kind of questions are asked? Most pertain to the position which they are asked to fill. Some questions relate to comments or actions made by the individual. Other questions reflect the president. Then there are questions about relationships with companies, people, and organizations. Lastly they are asked questions about their opinions on certain matters.

That brings me to how they answer the questions. This is part of the game known as politics; it's all about pleasing as many people as possible. So how do they succeed?

First of all, avoid giving an answer that locks you in. For example, if the question is about abortion, they will avoid saying yes or no. Instead they might say something like "I will support the prevailing law regarding abortion." The last thing you want is to appear back in front of the committee because you said you would do something when you didn't.

Secondly, avoid specific answers. This can open the door to follow-up questions. It's not a sure-fire guarantee and it depends on who is asking the questions, but by leaving your answer vague or ambiguous you revert back to the first tactic and can avoid committing yourself to a certain position.

Lastly, be honest without disclosing all of the truth or your opinion. This relates to the previous two points in that you don't want follow-up questions and to be committed to a position.

A prime example of a failure is Robert Bork. The answers that Bork gave during his nomination hearing to the Supreme Court were definitive and the Senate Judiciary Committee were not pleased. The hearing ruined Bork's career as he exposed his thoughts and stances on issues. As a result, his last name has become verbiage for opposing and ruining a person attempting to get into a public office position.

Take a minute to watch some people the hearings. Rex Tillerson and Jeff Sessions are two individuals who have received a lot of scrutiny while James Mattis and Ben Carson have had a much easier time.

Right or Civic Duty

Even political scientists get tired during election season. I know that I am certainty no exception to this. The funny thing is we don't get tired from ads or debates; we get tired from the stupidity that works it's way around.

DISCLAIMER: Now, since I don't know you, the reader, I can't claim to number you amongst the stupid.

One of the biggest things we see is people's responses to voting. Some people say it's a right to vote, others a civic duty, others simply a choice. Then there's the matter of whether your vote matters, does it have any power, does it even count.

Let's start with the first. What is voting? In the United States it is a choice to vote. In some other democracies it is mandatory to vote and punishable with a fine. Therefore, people that don't like the candidates or feel their vote doesn't carry as much can choose not to vote. Some non-voters actually see this as voting.

Is voting a right? Yes, the government has the right to take away your vote or to withhold it. For instance, felons have had their vote taken from them and non-citizens have their vote withheld.

Now you might be asking about voter intimidating or voter suppression. This is not the same as this is caused by citizens. Voter intimidating is when voters are forced to vote for a certain candidate or party due to coercion or threats levied against the individual. Voter suppression is when voters are prevented from voting, once again due to threats, coercion or even demonstrations that are without a permit.

Lastly, is voting a civic duty? This is not something that I can answer, but you yourself. The reason being that it is a personal and moral conclusion.

Now to the matter of your vote itself, if you choose to vote. Does your vote count? Yes, every vote counts. No vote properly submitted is ever removed.

What about whether your vote matters? That depends... a candidate only needs 1 vote more than the highest leading competitor or an obvious amount of votes that make all other votes insignificant.

To illustrate the point let's use the city of voters, population of George, Thomas, James, Alexander & John.
First, if George and Alexander vote for party A while Thomas and James votes for party B, John now has the deciding vote.
But if George, Alexander, and James vote party A and Thomas votes party B, it doesn't matter which party John votes for. Party A has already won and thereby made John's vote insignificant. Let's take this a step further. If George, Alexander, and James vote party A before Thomas and John vote, then there is no point to them voting.

Since voting is done blindly there is no way to determine whether or not your vote doesn't matter. Also if you know your state is strong party ground for a party - i.e. you live in California which is predominantly Democrat or Texas which is predominantly Republican - your vote won't matter if you are of the opposite party.

Now to the power of your vote. A vote does carry power in relation to what you are voting on or who you are voting for. A local election gives your vote more power than a state wide or national election. Your vote has the least amount of power in a presidential election.

In a presidential election, your vote does not go towards the presidential candidate. Your vote goes to the electoral college. The electoral college then votes for the president. Your vote simply tells the state who you want the state to vote for.

Lastly on the power of voting, while your vote may not matter in respect to who wins, votes can also speak to policy. Even though your vote may not matter you and others can "tell" lawmakers that you don't agree entirely with someone or something given the closeness of the votes.

If it's 51% to 49% lawmakers understand that there need to be adjustments, especially if they want to keep their office. But if it's 85% to 15% they don't care about the 15% and will do what pleases the 85%.

Now that you understand voting, get out and vote if you so desire.

3rd Party Candidates

One of the biggest issues for this election is the dissatisfaction with the individuals selected to be the candidates for the major parties. While I too can say they certainly aren't the most appealing, it is better than voting for a third party candidate.  "Why?" you ask, in the famous words of Inigo Montoya "lemme 'splain."

It's true that a lot of attention has been given to Gary Johnson and Evan McMullin as possible alternatives to voting for Trump or Clinton. The biggest retort to voting for a third party candidate is the concept of throwing away your vote. "I'm voting according to my standards" or "Every vote matters" are some of the biggest justifications used.

I'm going to show that there's more to 3rd party candidates. First I must include a disclaimer: I am not against 3rd party candidates. There is a smart way to vote, however.

Let's begin.

First and foremost, 3rd pary candidates do not win presidential elections. There are those who misunderstand history and will claim that Abraham Lincoln was a 3rd party candidate and he won. This is false. The Republican party was in existence for years before Lincoln won his first term.

Throughout the history of the U.S., a major party candidate has always won the presidency. The only real exclusion to this is George Washington.

Here's one of the main reasons why: the president is the executor of laws and signer of laws. As such, the president has to cooperate with Congress. Therefore, it makes little to no sense having a president not from a major party since major party members will reside in Congress. The President relies on fellow party members to move forward with and passing his agenda.

Second, unless your vote is one of three votes and is breaking a tie, your vote will not matter. This includes voting for a major party or a third party. The only time that votes mattered was during the 2000 presidential election, and even then they didn't matter.

99.9% of the time, a candidate will obviously receive enough votes that the remaining votes don't make a difference. This is one tool that news outlets use to predetermine who wins a state. They combine exit polling with population to see if a candidate receives x amount of votes and thereby securing the nomination from that state.

The 2000 election is where there was the issue with the votes from Florida. Due to concerns with chads and the closeness of the race in Florida, a recount commenced. However, the recount was for naught when the Supreme Court stepped in and declared George W. Bush the winner.

Do all votes count? Certainly! Do all votes matter? No. This is why many people in the United States don't vote. It's called the rational voter theorem. They don't vote because their vote matters less and less to the point where it is more efficient to use their time in a different manner instead of spending the time to vote.

This leads us to the wasted vote. This is conditional upon the votes the candidates receive, especially 3rd party candidates. Unless a 3rd party candidate is even polling close to the major party candidates, you will waste your vote if that is where you cast your ballot.

Right now McMullin is polling enough to only make a difference in the state of Utah. On a national level, he's only at 3%. This leads to one of the very few advantages of voting for a third party.

If a third party garners enough votes, it tells lawmakers on various levels the policies that people want. In the case of McMullin, it would tell Utah lawmakers. However, the downside is now those policies are absorbed by major parties. This then makes the third party obsolete.

The best way to vote in any election is to go with a major party candidate, unless you want to help make a point to the major party candidates. 3rd party candidates are best used for bringing attention to matters not being addressed by the major parties.

If you still think that a 3rd party candidate will win for other offices, you have a much better chance. The higher the office the harder and slimmer the chances are of winning. Prime example being Congress with only 1% as independent politicians. Then examine your local city council and see how many are party affiliates.

3rd party candidates are useful and have a place, but not in a presidential race.

Latest SCOTUS Rulings

Recent Supreme Court decisions are rather difficult to discuss.  One of the main reasons for this difficult discussion is the fact that there are usually a lot of emotions involved in these decisions.  With that being said, I want to stick straight to the facts of the opinions and the rulings without delving into opinion; because of this adherence, this post will be relatively short.

Affordable Care Act (King v. Burwell)

The challenge that the court faced with this decision is whether states had to set up their own insurance exchanges, or whether the federal exchange would suffice.  This case is an example of when the Supreme Court gets down into the minutia of a law.  The Supreme Court has three basic decisions to make when reviewing a law and needs to rule against it:

1. They can strike out a sentence or clause
2. They can strike out an entire section
3. They can strike down the law in its entirety

With this case, they had to decide if a specific sentence within the law was constitutional.  A factor that gets taken into the situation is the benefit or cost to society.  Other examples of when they had to consider benefits and costs to society is Reynolds v. United States and Wickard v. Filburn.  With this case, they had to decide whether the federal exchange not established in the ACA benefits society, more than costing society, as a whole even though the provision called for states to establish their own exchanges.

Another factor that comes into this case is the justices.  First of all, Justice Anthony Kennedy is considered the swing vote of the court.  He sides with the conservatives on some issues and with the liberals on the others.  You can kind of predict his vote based on what the case is about; if it is about civil rights, he will probably side with the liberals and if the case is about anything else, it will usually be with the conservatives.

The second factor is the Chief Justice of the Court - John Roberts.  Roberts is considered a conservative on the court.  However, Roberts has been known to side with the liberals of the court in some cases.  This happens to be a case where you see him siding with the liberals.  Being Chief Justice means that he "runs" the court.  He is given leadership over the justices and deference in most cases.  However, that also means that he is not always right.  He is still entitled to his own opinion just like all the other justices.  Justice Roberts is also noted for how he decides in cases.  Roberts considers the reputation of the court, he doesn't want to make decisions he thinks will shame the court.  Second, Roberts also considers those costs and benefits of a decision.  He recognized that more people would benefit from keeping the sentence instead of striking it out and forcing people into a mayhem of health insurance.

In the end, you have a 6-3 decision in favor of the act and keeping the sentence.  A problem that Republicans now face is should they accept the ruling and drop the fight against the ACA or should they continue fighting to provide an alternative.  Problem is they don't have a planned alternative.  They want to repeal the ACA and make insurance privatized and let the market decide, but they have no draft or any other plan to take the U.S back to this method.

Same Sex Marriage (Obergefell v. Hodges)

This case is one where ideologies prevailed.  The split among the decisions of the case (5-4) fell with Justice Kennedy breaking the tie and siding with the liberals for civil rights.  To political scientists, like myself, this decision was actually predicted down to the votes.  One of the things that caused this decision to be predictable is the vocalization of some of the justices prior to handing down the opinions.  For example, Justice Ginsburg performed a homosexual marriage after the arguments for the case were heard, but before opinions were given.  As with the previous case of King v. Burwell, Justice Kennedy sided with civil rights.

The reason this case was heard to begin with is one of the federal appellate courts differed from all other appellate courts when hearing the case for homosexual marriage.  If this one appellate court would have consented to homosexual marriage, then the Supreme Court would never have even heard the case.

The grounds upon which the case was argued deals with the 14th Amendment's due process of law within the states in comparison with societal norms and traditions.  Amicus curiae briefs that were offered also brought into the decision the First Amendment and the free exercise of religion.  Amicus curiae briefs or just amicus briefs are essentially letters written to a court from a 3rd party that is not involved in the case itself but has an interest in the results of the case.  In the interest of this case, there were many civil rights organizations and religious organizations that wrote amicus briefs asking them to consider the implications of a ruling in either direction.

The concern regarding religious exercise deals with churches that do not endorse gay marriage.  Three of the most prominent religions are the Roman Catholic, the LDS church, and the Orthodox Jews.  One of the primary concerns in regards to religion is not just their doctrine, but their marriage practices; there is the fear that with the ruling in favor of gay marriage, religions will be required to perform these marriages.  Thus the conflict between doctrine and practice.

A different court case that was decided this term by the Supreme Court, Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, might prove to be a defense for religions.  If you are unfamiliar with this case, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Hobby Lobby Inc. saying that because religion was a major part of this company, any business where religion affects that company may be exempt from the ACA clause requiring firms to supply birth control health care to its employees.  While this is slightly different in that its religion and a company compared to religion and marriage, it may be possible for churches to avoid forcible performance of marriages.

Another question that arose in regards to religion with Obergefell v. Hodges is polygamy.  It is suspected that polygamy may be the next marriage issue to be addressed.  The rulings against polygamy, including Reynolds v. United State, still stands, but if the court is willing to overturn anti-sodomy laws and rule in favor of gay marriage, polygamists may have a chance.

In regards to the 14th Amendment in the case, the amendment calls for due process under the law for all citizens.  This means that if a citizen from Arizona that got married in New Mexico moves to Oregon, that each of those states will recognize any and all legal and official documents from the other states that this citizen has lived in and received these documents from.  You should be able to see the conflict now; if a citizen obtains a marriage license and has a gay marriage performed in a state that allows it, but then moves to a state where it is outlawed, there is a conflict with this due process clause.  This could also be said of the equal protection clause under the 14th Amendment.

The other part of the 14th Amendment that applies is the abridgment of privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.  Is it a privilege of citizens of all sexual orientation to be married to the person of their choosing with their consent?  This is another area under the 14th Amendment that citizens for gay marriage cited.  Ultimately it came down to protecting the 14th Amendment, which was clearly outlined, or the 1st Amendment and the institution of marriage, which was more of a stretch.

Hopefully these decisions were explained well and clearly for comprehension.  If you have any other thoughts or concerns on the matter, leave a comment.  I've also included the first section of the 14th Amendment which covers the clauses in the Obergefell v. Hodges case.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

A Debatable Flag

Much has been said about the Confederate Flag as of late.  This is one of those topics where it is difficult to keep bias removed from the situation.  There are strong feelings associated with the flag for some individuals.  Therefore, I apologize in advance for anything that is offensive as that is not what I'm attempting to accomplish.

As most people know, the Confederate Flag was the flag of the Confederate States of America in the mid 19th century.  If you're familiar with history, then you know that the South seceded from the Union due to grievances with the North.  Most people further understand that South left the Union due to slavery.

The slavery issue is true, but it wasn't the only reason the South left the Union.  The northern states preferred a strong federal government, while the southern states wanted more states rights and local governance.  During the Presidency of Andrew Jackson, the South attempted to employ the Doctrine of Nullification which ultimately failed and conflicted with the Supremacy Clause in the Constitution.  If you're unfamiliar with the Doctrine of Nullification, it's the belief and practice that states have the ability to decide which federal laws they will and which laws they won't.

Other issues for which the South seceded certainly exist, but are better spent with you in the library doing research.  Suffice it to say, the South lost.  The Confederate Flag, as claimed by some historians, is a historical piece of history that should not attacked or eliminated.

However, the Confederate Flag has been used for other reasons as well, the most prominent after the Civil War is its use by the Klu Klux Klan.  The Klan used the flag as part of its "ceremonies" at gatherings.  Therefore, people see the Confederate Flag as a symbol of terror to those of African descent, especially since it was used by the Klan who could be described as a domestic terrorist group, or as a lynch mob at the very least.

A third purported representation of the Confederate Flag is by the Neo Nazis.  They are not quite the same as the KKK insofar as they have fewer violent tendencies.  However, there are similarities between the two organizations.

A fourth - and my last - interpretation of the flag that is more common in non-southern states is that of rebellion.  Most of your mountain west states view the modern use of the Confederate Flag under this representation and give it little to no association with slavery or the racial actions of extremist groups.

I hope you understand that the Confederate Flag means different things to different people.  Even the non-racist person can find meaning in that flag.

News abbreviations.

In the news you might notice some acronyms for branches or offices of the government.  Agencies are one of the most common government offices that have acronyms.  Agencies are the bureaucracy of the government.  They have their roles to play, but can grow inefficient and ineffective if not maintained and regulated.  As such, I'll make a list of common acronyms and patterns you yourself can use to determine the acronym's reference.

These are ones that refer to specific offices of the federal government:

1. SCOTUS = Supreme Court of the United States
2. POTUS = President of the United States
3. FLOTUS = First Lady of the United States

This is the general rule for federal departments that are under the executive.  Look of the D or the DO.  Most of the departments have the DO such as the D.O.J. (Department of Justice) or the D.O.E. (Department of Energy).  The DHS (Department of Homeland Security) is one example of a department that lacks the O in the abbreviation.

Then there are the bureaucratic agencies.  This includes the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency), IRS (Internal Revenue Service), FBI (Federal Bureau of Investigation), and SEC (Securities Exchange Commission) to name a few.  If ever your in a bind for an acronym, you can Google or Bing search it and it will usually be the top result.  You can also try Wikipedia, but don't rely too heavy on it, it is publicly editable.