Our Democracy’s Public Schools

Democracy Relies on Public Schools
Nicholas Johnson
The Gazette, August 29, 2023, p. A6
OK, I’ll just say it, “I don’t object to the existence of religious and other private schools. I just don’t want them funded with taxpayers’ dollars.”

As Ed Wasserman pointed out in a letter earlier this year, neither did Republicans – in 1876. Republicans who search for “original intent” ought to be required to chew on their party’s platform plank from that year:

“The public school system . . . is the bulwark of the American republic . . .. [W]e recommend an amendment to the constitution . . . forbidding the application of any public funds . . . for the benefit of any school . . . under sectarian control.”

We shouldn’t be surprised with this Republican sleight of hand. This is the same political party that demanded Trump-appointed U.S. attorney David Weiss investigate Hunter Biden. And then responded with outrage when Attorney General Merrick Garland made Weiss the special counsel to do so.

As former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld might have said, “You don’t govern with the opposing party you wish you had, you govern with the opposing party you’ve got.”

In that spirit, let’s imagine how Republicans might expand private funding for those rejecting public programs.

A family or business preferring private protection services could forgo access to the police in exchange for some money toward their security service.

A golfer might say, “I’ll agree to stay off the public golf courses in exchange for some taxpayer dollars to help with my country club dues.”

A citizen who has never entered the public library might prefer televised media and request a contribution toward a larger TV screen to watch Fox News.

The possibilities are as endless as they are a mind-numbing misunderstanding of democracies.

[Photo credit: Iowa Department of Education, https://educateiowa.gov/walk-through-iowa-s-one-room-schoolhouses (“Here is the original well of an 1800s school house located near Shellsburg in Benton County.”) And see, Tom Morain, “One-Room Schools,” Iowa Pathways, Iowa PBS, undated, https://www.iowapbs.org/iowapathways/mypath/one-room-schools (“The first schoolhouse in Iowa was built in 1830 in Lee County.”)
“Historically, Iowans’ enthusiasm and generosity for education has been overwhelming. . . In the 1800s they paid for 12,000 one-room schoolhouses for their kids. In the 1900s they were rightfully proud of funding a K-12 system ranked among the nation’s best. . . . The University of Iowa, 1847, and University of Northern Iowa, 1876, were primarily built with Iowans’ dollars . . .. “ “How to Save Higher Ed,” The Gazette, March 19, 2017; https://fromdc2iowa.blogspot.com/2017/03/how-to-save-higher-ed.html]

One of the central benefits of democracies born of communities is their provision of the rules and tools for creating majority agreement on programs of such benefit to everyone they should be funded by everyone.

Those who came before us realized that for the vast landmass called the United States to become a “community” required many connecting networks. So they built them – a postal system, roads, railroads, telegraph, telephone, and ultimately international radio, television and Internet.

They also were sufficiently convinced of the public benefit from public libraries, parks, and wilderness reserves for everyone to pay for them, too.

Even if you drive the back country “blue highways” on vacation, you still benefit from what our 49,000-mile Interstate Highway System brings you. Few complained of its cost, let alone sought reimbursement because of how little they’d use it.

Boston’s first school was established April 23, 1635 – 141 years before there was a “United States.” How sad that of all the democratically created public programs today’s Republicans could dismantle, they picked the oldest: public education.

The 1876 Republicans knew public education’s standards were essential to have store clerks who know math, doctors who know medicine – and citizens who know civics. It’s no less true today.

Nicholas Johnson is a former Iowa City School Board member. Contact:mailbox@nicholasjohnson.org

SOURCES Ed Wasserman. Ed Wasserman, “GOP has strayed from its original position on public ed,” The Gazette, July 13, 2023, https://www.thegazette.com/letters-to-the-editor/gop-has-strayed-from-its-original-position-on-public-ed/ (“Iowans should be interested in the so-called conservative values of its Republican Party. Here is the text of one of its presidential platform planks from 1876: “The public school system of the several states is the bulwark of the American republic; and, with a view to its security and permanence, we recommend an amendment to the constitution of the United States, forbidding the application of any public funds or property for the benefit of any school or institution under sectarian control.”)

Republicans and David Weiss. Luke Broadwater and Maggie Haberman, “Republicans Wanted a Special Counsel Investigation of Hunter Biden. Now Many Oppose It; Although some G.O.P. lawmakers see the appointment of David C. Weiss as a vindication of their strategy, others criticize the now-scuttled plea deal he struck with Mr. Biden,” New York Times, Aug. 12, 2023, https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/12/us/politics/republicans-hunter-biden-special-counsel.html (“Congressional Republicans have for months repeatedly written to Attorney General Merrick B. Garland demanding he appoint a special counsel to investigate Hunter Biden, the president’s son, over his business dealings.

Some even demanded that a specific man be named to lead the inquiry: David C. Weiss, the Trump-appointed Delaware U.S. attorney who has long investigated the case.

But on Friday, after Mr. Garland elevated Mr. Weiss to special counsel status, Republicans in Congress reacted publicly not with triumph, but with outrage. “David Weiss can’t be trusted and this is just a new way to whitewash the Biden family’s corruption,” Republicans on the House Judiciary Committee wrote on X, the social media platform formerly known as Twitter.”)

Secretary Rumsfeld. Thomas E. Ricks, “Rumsfeld Gets Earful From Troops,” Washington Post, Dec. 9, 2004, https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/2004/12/09/rumsfeld-gets-earful-from-troops/ec74b055-5090-496b-a66c-145d37a79473/ (“Rumsfeld replied: ‘As you know, you go to war with the Army you have. They're not the Army you might want or wish to have at a later time.’")

“Blue highways.” “Blue Highways,” Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Highways (“In 1978, after separating from his wife and losing his job as a teacher, Heat-Moon, 38 at the time, took an extended road trip in a circular route around the United States, sticking to only the ‘Blue Highways.’ He had coined the term to refer to small, forgotten, out-of-the-way roads connecting rural America (which were drawn in blue on the old style Rand McNally road atlas).”)

Interstate highway system. “Interstate Highway System,” Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_Highway_System (“Following the passage of the Federal Aid Highway Act of 1956, use of the railroad system for moving passengers and freight declined sharply, but the trucking industry expanded dramatically and the cost of shipping and travel fell sharply. . . . The Interstate Highway System was being constructed at the same time as the intermodal shipping container made its debut. These containers could be placed on trailers behind trucks and shipped across the country with ease. A new road network and shipping containers that could be easily moved from ship to train to truck, meant that overseas manufacturers and domestic startups could get their products to market quicker than ever, allowing for accelerated economic growth. . . . As of 2020, about one-quarter of all vehicle miles driven in the country used the Interstate Highway System,[3] which had a total length of 48,756 miles (78,465 km).”)

Earliest public school. “Apr 23, 1635 CE: First Public School in America; On April 23, 1635, the first public school in what would become the United States was established in Boston, Massachusetts,” Education, National Geographic, https://education.nationalgeographic.org/resource/first-public-school-america/ .

# # #

Bipartisanship

U.S. House Needs More Bipartisanship
Nicholas Johnson
The Gazette, Nov. 22, 2022, p. A6
Even dreams that never come true sometimes lead to proposals that do. So may it be with my dream for selecting speakers of the U.S. House of Representatives.

Mike Huckabee said when he inspected planes before flying: “I'm not just interested in the left wing or the right wing, I'd kind of like for both of them to be there.”

Well, so would I. And after the last election, an increasing number of Republicans and Democrats think so as well. By definition, a successful democracy requires more than one ruling political party. It requires bipartisanship, time and effort at legislating, with compatibility, mutual respect, and willingness to compromise.

Unfortunately, it is the U.S. House of Representatives’ traditions and norms that have created the battlefield. The Constitution imposes no such constraints. Article I, Section 2, merely states, “The House … shall choose their Speaker ….”

The Speaker need not be a majority party member – nor even a member of the House (though no outsiders have been elected, some received votes).

Republicans need to rebuild their party. Democrats want Republicans they can work with. Voters are disgusted, asking both parties to start helping working people, not just major donors.

The opportunity before the House is the selection of their next Speaker. [Photo credit/source: U.S. House of Representatives.]

Yes, I know the House Republicans have pre-selected Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy. But he may not have the support of a House majority when the vote is taken Jan. 3.

Rather than leave McCarthy with the need to yield power to his no-compromises, election-denying, party-without-a-platform, MAGA, extremist, insurrectionist House members, how about the ultimate bipartisanship?

Each party can have its leadership. And tradition would dictate a Speaker from the House majority party. But shouldn’t the Speaker be the choice of both major parties?

There is precedent. In 1910, dissatisfied Republicans joined Democrats in stripping Speaker Joseph Cannon of some powers. In 1997, Republican Speaker Newt Gingrich feared dissenting Republicans would vote with Democrats, making Democrat Dick Gephardt Speaker. In Nancy Pelosi’s 2021 election as Speaker, two votes went to neither her nor McCarthy, and three members voted “present.”

On a more positive note, since 2017 the House “Problem Solvers Caucus,” with 58 members (29 from each party), has been successfully seeking to foster bipartisan cooperation on key policy issues.

Wouldn’t it be worth a similar try to build a majority from both parties that could agree on a Republican Speaker who would serve all House Members? A Speaker indebted only to them, with no need for concessions to those Members more interested in winning a war with the “enemy” party than legislating for the American people.

Like Huckabee’s airplane, the House needs wise adults on left and right. With or without a bipartisan speaker, hopefully this dream of one may inspire other proposals for converting the current mudball fight into a legislative body of problem solvers worthy of the name — and the U.S. House.

Nicholas Johnson is the author of “Columns of Democracy.” mailbox@nicholasjohnson.org

SOURCES
Picking presidents. “It’s Huckabee; My Republican Pick: Governor Mike Huckabee,” July 24, 2007, https://fromdc2iowa.blogspot.com/2007/07/its-huckabee.html

Speaker of the House:

Constitution. “The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.” U.S. Constitution, Art. I, Sec. 2, https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/.

“Speaker of the United States House of Representatives,” Wikipedia.org, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speaker_of_the_United_States_House_of_Representatives (“The most recent election for House speaker took place January 3, 2021, on the opening day of the 117th United States Congress, two months after the 2020 House elections in which the Democrats won a majority of the seats. Incumbent speaker, Democrat Nancy Pelosi, secured a narrow majority of the 427 votes cast and was elected to a fourth (second consecutive) term. She received 216 votes to Republican Kevin McCarthy's 209 votes, with two votes going to other persons; also, three representatives answered present when their names were called.[34]” …”In 1997, several Republican congressional leaders tried to force Speaker Newt Gingrich to resign. However, Gingrich refused since that would have required a new election for speaker, which could have led to Democrats along with dissenting Republicans voting for Democrat Dick Gephardt (then minority leader) as speaker.” … “non-members have received a few votes in various speaker elections over the past several years.[8] Every person elected speaker, however, has been a member.[7] … As the Constitution does not state the duties of the speaker, the speaker's role has largely been shaped by traditions and customs that evolved over time.” ,,, “In 1910, however, Democrats and several dissatisfied Republicans joined together to strip Cannon of many of his powers, including the ability to name committee members and his chairmanship of the Rules Committee.[18]” … “John Boehner was elected speaker when the 112th Congress convened on January 5, 2011, and was subsequently re-elected twice, at the start of the 113th and 114th Congresses. On both of those occasions his remaining in office was threatened by the defection of several members from his own party who chose not to vote for him.[23][24]”)

Capitalization. “'Speaker' an exception,” Chicago Manual of Style, https://www.chicagomanualofstyle.org/qanda/data/faq/topics/Capitalization/faq0003.html

House leadership. McCarthy. John Wagner and Mariana Alfaro, “Republicans engage in full-scale brawl after disappointing midterm elections,” The Washington Post, Nov. 15, 2022, https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/11/15/mccarthy-speaker-house-control-midterms/

Marianna Sotomayor, “As Pelosi backs away, a new generation of Democrats steps forward; Democratic lawmakers both seasoned and new embraced the prospect of a fresh start, while recognizing the massive impact Pelosi has had,” Washington Post, Nov. 18, 2022, https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/11/18/pelosi-backs-away-new-generation-democrats-step-forward/ (“Reps. Hakeem Jeffries (N.Y.), Katherine M. Clark (Mass.) and Pete Aguilar (Calif.) have emerged as the expected leaders …. Jeffries, 52, would break barriers as the first Black person to lead any party in either chamber of Congress. Clark, 58, could become the second woman to serve as minority whip, and Aguilar, 43, would be the second Hispanic lawmaker to chair the caucus if elected this month.” “… Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.), who earned the GOP conference’s nomination to be speaker next term ….” “Republicans begin to acknowledge that they will have to rely on Democrats to approve must-pass legislation to overcome their razor-thin majority.”

Problem solvers. “Problem Solvers Caucus,” https://problemsolverscaucus.house.gov/about

“Problem Solvers Caucus,” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_Solvers_Caucus (“The Problem Solvers Caucus is a bipartisan group in the United States House of Representatives that includes members equally divided between Democrats and Republicans, who seek to foster bipartisan cooperation on key policy issues. The group was created in January 2017 as an outgrowth of meetings held by political organization No Labels starting in 2014.[5].” … “Today, the Problem Solvers Caucus is co-chaired by Rep. Josh Gottheimer (D-NJ) and Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick (R-PA), and counts 58 members evenly divided between the parties, who are working to forge bipartisan solutions to America's toughest challenges.[6]”)

# # #

Protecting Democracy

Will Our Democracy Survive?
Nicholas Johnson
The Gazette, March 17, 2021, p. 6A
Will our democracy survive?

Some things we prize can’t protect themselves. Like the environment. Since 1970 it’s had the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

Our democracy can’t protect itself either. What percentage of a nation’s people must want a government “of, by, and for the people” to make it a reality?

Between 121 and 140 House members refused to recognize President Biden’s election.

The 2020 election turnout was a 120-year record. Yet one-third of eligible voters didn’t vote; 23% are “not interested in politics.”

Only 18% of Americans think our democracy is “working very well.” Alternatives to democracy thought “good” include government by experts (40%), a strong man with few legislative restraints (22%), and the military (17%).

It’s not that no one is aware of our democracy’s disintegration.

There are already numerous individuals and organizations working to reduce divisiveness and increase collaboration, such as the 56 U.S. House members in the Progressive Caucus, Dr. Chris Peters’ Our Braver Angels Iowa, and LivingRoomConversations.com.

From our nation’s beginning civics preparation was a driving reason for colleges and public K-12 schools. Educators know this, and organizations such as the Education Commission of the States and Educating for American Democracy (with its “roadmap for excellence”) are working to bring it back.

The origin of the word “democracy” (Greek words for “people rule”) has motivated expansion of the eligible voting base from white, male landowners over 21 to include people of color, women, and those over 18.

There are two options for those whose political party loses elections.

The one democracy compels is a revised party platform of proposals more attractive to the electoral majority than the proposals of the other party; the second is to make it possible for a minority of voters to win the majority of elections and legislative seats with gerrymandered district boundaries and a variety of voter suppression techniques.

The Republican Party has chosen the second. It had no new platform of proposals for the 2020 election. It learned, as Senator Lindsey Graham explained, that without “election reform” “there will never be another Republican president.” It is now pushing some 250 “reforms” in 43 state legislatures.

Many organizations and individuals are working on these challenges – including the U.S. House with its broad “For the People Act of 2021” (HR 1).

The point is not that no one is monitoring and trying to strengthen the weak spots in our democracy. Many persons are.

What’s needed are two things.

The first is a central institution, constantly monitoring and commenting on all elements of our democracy – the efforts to make them stronger, and where they’re under attack. It could be a nonpartisan commission, a major foundation’s project or an academic center.

The second is a commitment from the mass media to give the reports of this institution daily coverage – similar to the regular reporting this past year of COVID cases, hospitalizations, deaths and now progress with vaccinations.

For democracy to have a prayer of survival it will require the attention, words and deeds of each of us.
__________
Nicholas Johnson, Iowa City, is the author of Columns of Democracy. Comments: mailbox@nicholasjohnson.org

# # #
SOURCES
EPA 1970. Environmental Protection Agency, https://www.epa.gov/history/origins-epa

Of, by and for the people. Gettysburg Address, Nov. 19, 1863, https://rmc.library.cornell.edu/gettysburg/good_cause/transcript.htm

Refusal to accept Biden’s election. Li Zhou, “147 Republican lawmakers still objected to the election results after the Capitol attack; Congress has certified President-elect Joe Biden as the winner of the election — but some Republicans still objected,” Vox, Jan. 7, 2021, https://www.vox.com/2021/1/6/22218058/republicans-objections-election-results

One-third didn’t vote. Domenico Montanaro, “Poll: Despite Record Turnout, 80 Million Americans Didn't Vote. Here's Why,” npr, Dec. 15, 2020, https://www.npr.org/2020/12/15/945031391/poll-despite-record-turnout-80-million-americans-didnt-vote-heres-why

Americans’ support for democracy. Carroll Doherty, “Key findings on Americans’ views of the U.S. political system and democracy,” Pew Research Center, Apr. 26, 2018, https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/04/26/key-findings-on-americans-views-of-the-u-s-political-system-and-democracy/ (“About six-in-ten Americans (58%) say democracy is working well in the U.S., though just 18% say it is working very well.”)

Richard Wike, Katie Simmons, Bruce Stokes and Janell Fetterolf, “Democracy widely supported, little backing for rule by strong leader or military,” Pew Research Center, Oct. 16, 2017, https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2017/10/16/democracy-widely-supported-little-backing-for-rule-by-strong-leader-or-military/

Divisiveness. Michael Dimock and Richard Wike, “America is exceptional in the nature of its political divide,” Pew Research Center, Nov. 13, 2020, https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/11/13/america-is-exceptional-in-the-nature-of-its-political-divide/ (“Americans both see this problem and want to address it. Overwhelming majorities of both Trump (86%) and Biden (89%) supporters surveyed this fall said that their preferred candidate, if elected, should focus on addressing the needs of all Americans, ‘even if it means disappointing some of his supporters.’”)

Carroll Doherty, “Key findings on Americans’ views of the U.S. political system and democracy,” Pew Research Center, Apr. 26, 2018, https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/04/26/key-findings-on-americans-views-of-the-u-s-political-system-and-democracy/ (“Today, nearly equal shares in both parties (46% of Democrats and 44% of Republicans) say “they like elected officials who make compromises with people they disagree with.”)

Problem solvers caucus, https://problemsolverscaucus-gottheimer.house.gov/; Dr. Chris Peters, Braver Angels Iowa, https://www.facebook.com/braverangelsiowa; Living Room Conversations, https://livingroomconversations.org/

Civics education. Integral to K-12 and higher ed. Lisa Guilfoile and Brady Delander, Introduction, Guidebook: Six Proven Practices for Effective Civic Learning,” Education Commission of the States and National Center for Learning and Civic Engagement, Jan. 2014, http://www.ecs.org/clearinghouse/01/10/48/11048.pdf (“Earlier in our nation’s history, civic education was broadly seen as integral to the purposes of public schools and universities.”) Education Commission of the States, https://ecs.org (search: “civics”) Educating for American Democracy, https://educatingforamericandemocracy.org

Voting. “Democracy (Ancient Greece),” Resource Library, National Geographic, https://www.nationalgeographic.org/encyclopedia/democracy-ancient-greece/ (“The word “democracy” comes from two Greek words that mean people (demos) and rule (kratos).”)

“History of Voting in America,” Secretary of State, State of Washington, https://www.sos.wa.gov/_assets/elections/history-of-voting-in-america-timeline.pdf (“1776 -- Only white men age 21 and older who own land can vote.”)

No Republican Platform. Reid J. Epstein, “The G.O.P. Delivers Its 2020 Platform. It’s From 2016,” The New York Times, Aug. 25, 2020, https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/25/us/politics/republicans-platform.html (“Every four years since 1856, the Republican Party has produced a platform articulating its priorities for the next president. But like so much else disrupted by President Trump, the Republican National Committee has dispensed with producing a 2020 platform . . ..”)

Dominick Mastrangelo, “Graham: If Trump concedes election, Republicans will 'never' elect another president,” The Hill, Nov. 8, 2020, https://thehill.com/homenews/525063-lindsey-graham-if-trump-concedes-election-republicans-will-never-elect-another (“’If Republicans don't challenge and change the U.S. election system, there will never be another Republican president elected again,’ Graham said Sunday on Fox News.”)

250 laws 43 states. Amy Gardner, Kate Rabinowitz and Harry Stevens, “How GOP-backed voting measures could create hurdles for tens of millions of voters; At least 250 new laws have been proposed in 43 states to limit mail, early in-person and Election Day voting,” The Washington Post, March 11, 2021, https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/interactive/2021/voting-restrictions-republicans-states/

“State Voting Bills Tracker 2021; State lawmakers continue to introduce voting and elections bills at a furious pace,” Brennan Center for Justice, Feb. 24, 2021, . https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/state-voting-bills-tracker-2021

H.R. 1 – For the People Act of 2021, https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/1/text

# # #

Democrats Should Choose Norris

Introduction: If Iowa Democrats hope to win the governorship in 2018, their strategy needs to change. Most recently, their presidential candidate, Hillary Clinton, carried only 6 of Iowa's 99 counties. In 2014 it was even worse. Their last candidate for governor, Jack Hatch, carried only one county, Johnson -- known to Iowans in the western part of the state as "the People's Republic of Johnson County."

Whoever gets the nod in the Democrats' June 5 primary (or June 16 convention) will have the support of virtually all the state's Democrats, and access to the necessary money, for the general election on November 6. Thus, the issue for Democrats voting in the primary really ought to be, not who can win the primary, but who has the best possibility of winning the general election. Iowans registered as Republicans have an edge over the number of Democrats. But the largest political party by far is the "No Party" party, the independents. Whoever is chosen ought to be able to get the majority of votes from Hillary's 6 counties. The question is who can pile up the most votes in the other 93 counties.

Among the five candidates, my intuition, after a lifetime of politics, is that John Norris would do the best of the five in those 93 counties.

But there is a more powerful reason, almost unrelated to partisan politics, why Democrats Should Choose Norris. And that is the subject of this piece in the Press-Citizen.

N.J.

Democrats Should Choose Norris

Nicholas Johnson
Iowa City Press-Citizen, May 23, 2018, p. 7A

Why do you make primary choices? How do you choose from six quality governor candidates?

Politically? Win-at-any-cost? Even so, winners of primaries aren’t always best for general elections.

The best fundraiser? Party officer who’s “earned it”? One with most “Elvis”? Youngest? Oldest? Tallest? Best looking?

Looking for comfort, compatibility? Someone your age, gender, socio-economic class, race, religion? Policy positions closest to yours?

Understandable, after this legislative year, for a Democrat to focus on a winning governor and House candidates.

But once they’re there? Being a wise, compassionate, effective, politically savvy, accomplished governor requires very different qualities and skills from those of a winning candidate.

What are they?

For an Iowa governor: someone with whom Iowa farmers are comfortable; experience in the governor's office and Iowa agencies; party leadership; understanding Iowa's relationship to federal government, international markets and organizations

By these standards? It’s John Norris, hands down. He was a fifth-generation farm boy in southwest Iowa; been chief of staff to an Iowa governor, federal cabinet member, and congressman; chair of Iowa's Utilities Board and Iowa Democratic Party; presidential appointee to federal and United Nations' agencies; worked with a U.S. senator. Experienced at winning, and one fine guy.

— Nicholas Johnson, Iowa City

# # #

Taxes Are Last Step Not First

[This blog post contains both a Gazette column, immediately below, a variation that appeared in the Iowa City Press-Citizen, the earlier blog post from which both were drawn [Introduction; Follow the Money; Where to Begin], and a sample of two of the comments they produced.]

Decisions Must Come Before Taxes

Nicholas Johnson

The Gazette, January 3, 2018, p. A5
[link to location on Gazette Web site.]
The worst thing about tax cut discussions is the “Oh, look at the squirrel” distraction from what we should be talking about.

Example? Cutting Iowa employers’ taxes can’t create more jobs when employers say their real problem is a shortage of skilled workers.

If a skilled workforce is needed, it’s time to increase, not slash, funding for the state’s universities and community colleges that create those workers.

What is your vision for America?

Some believe we are a nation of 320 million rugged individualists, where everyone is obliged to pull themselves up by their own bootstraps — even those without boots. As Grover Norquist revealed, “My goal is to get government down to the size where we can drown it in the bathtub.”

Others believe those benefiting from a community are morally obliged to care for everyone in the human family. Some cite Jesus’ urging us to provide food, drink, clothing, health care, and prison visits for “the least of these.”

Until we decide whether we want an America of rugged individualism or humanitarianism, little agreement on public policy can follow.

This newspaper is full of reporting and opinion about our plethora of policy challenges — affordable housing, education, environment, flood control, health care, homelessness, hunger, jobs, net neutrality, refugees, transportation, water quality. The Gazette’s Iowa Ideas project explores some answers.

Lynda Waddington recently described Philip Alston’s U.N. report on U.S. poverty and human rights. Read his comparative rankings for U.S. infant mortality (highest), water and sanitation (36th in the world), incarceration rate (highest), youth poverty (highest), poverty and inequality (35th of 37). [Philip Alston, "Statement on Visit to the USA on Extreme Poverty and Human Rights," United Nations, Office of the High Commissioner Human Rights, December 15, 2017.]

We built this America. Is it the nation and state you want? No? Then fix it. How do we do that? In order:

1. Don’t start with tax talk.

2. Decide whether we’re rugged individualists or humanitarians.

3. Provide enforcement of metrics for the values and society we want — for ourselves and “the least of these” — not just aspirations.

4. Develop public policies that can reach those goals.

5. Calculate their costs.

6. Explore ways of accomplishing goals through education and training, philanthropy and volunteerism, churches and trade unions, corporate policies and cost avoidance, other innovative approaches.

7. Propose a tax code, consistent with community values, sufficient to provide the remaining, necessary public funding. And remember:

• No tax cuts until there are surpluses and declining debt.

• When corporations and the wealthy have trillions of dollars they don’t use, don’t hand them more.

• Consumer spending drives 70 percent of the economy. If stimulus is needed, give the money to the bottom 80 percent who will spend it.

8. Vote.

Philip Alston reports that only 64 percent of Americans bother to register, and many of them don’t vote. In Canada and the U.K., 91 percent register, 96 percent in Sweden, nearly 99 percent in Japan.

Could that possibly be a part of our problem?
_______________
• Nicholas Johnson is a former law professor and commissioner on the Federal Communications Commission. Comments: mailbox@nicholasjohnson.org

____________________
Taxes Are Last Step, Not the First, to Making U.S. Great

Nicholas Johnson

Iowa City Press-Citizen, January 27, 2018, p. A6
The worst thing about tax cut discussions is the “Oh, look at the squirrel” distraction from what we should be talking about.

Example? Cutting Iowa employers’ taxes can’t create more jobs when employers say their real problem is a shortage of skilled workers.

If a skilled workforce is needed, it’s time to increase, not slash, funding for the state’s universities and community colleges that create those workers.

What is your vision for America?

Some believe we are a nation of 320 million rugged individualists, where everyone is obliged to pull themselves up by their own bootstraps — even those without boots. As Grover Norquist revealed, “My goal is to get government down to the size where we can drown it in the bathtub.”

Others believe those benefiting from a community are morally obliged to care for everyone in the human family. Some cite Jesus’ urging us to provide food, drink, clothing, health care, and prison visits for “the least of these.”

Until we decide whether we want an America of rugged individualism or humanitarianism, little agreement on public policy can follow.

There’s no shortage of policy challenges, such as affordable housing, education, environment, health care, hunger, jobs, net neutrality, refugees, transportation and water quality.

Last month, Philip Alston, United Nations special rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights, reported America’s standing among nations: infant mortality (we’re highest), water and sanitation (36th in the world), incarceration rate (highest), poverty and inequality (35th of 37). (Read more: https://tinyurl.com/y8avqv4p)

We built this America. Are the present policies of America, Iowa, and Iowa City what you want? No? Then fix it. How do we do that? In order:

1. Don’t start with tax talk.

2. Decide whether we’re rugged individualists or humanitarians.

3. Provide enforcement of metrics for the values and society we want — for ourselves and “the least of these” — not just aspirations.

4. Develop public policies that can reach those goals.

5. Calculate their costs.

6. Explore ways of accomplishing goals through education and training, philanthropy and volunteerism, churches and trade unions, corporate policies and cost avoidance, other innovative approaches.

7. Propose a tax code, consistent with community values, sufficient to provide the remaining, necessary public funding. And remember:

• No tax cuts until there are surpluses and declining debt.

• When corporations and the wealthy have trillions of dollars they don’t use, don’t hand them more.

• Consumer spending drives 70 percent of the economy. If stimulus is needed, give the money to the bottom 80 percent who will spend it.

8. Vote.

Alston reports that only 64 percent of Americans bother to register, and many of them don’t vote. In Canada and the U.K., 91 percent register, 96 percent in Sweden, nearly 99 percent in Japan.

Could that possibly be a part of our problem?

Nicholas Johnson is a former law professor and commissioner on the Federal Communications Commission.

# # #
Original Blog Post
Why Would You Want to Do That?
Introduction. It's not easy losing weight, and I wanted to share my accomplishment with my doctor.

"Got my weight down to 215 pounds," I proudly said, "and my new goal is 210" -- before I realized what would surely come next. It did.

"Why would you want to do that?" he asked. It was not the first time during the previous near-forty years he'd uttered those words.

If medical treatment was essential he'd provide it. Otherwise, if he thought a patient had a touch of anxiety about their health, he believed some exercise and a sense of calm and well being were often as good as, and always cheaper than, any pills he could prescribe.

He appeared puzzled. "Don't you experience the joy of eating?" he continued. "Why deprive yourself of that pleasure?"

"I just thought it might be better for my health," I mumbled. Whereupon he brought out the morbidity and mortality data to reassure me that the additional five pounds would provide no statistically significant difference in my health or longevity.

Follow the Money. I thought again of his words when reading about the Republicans' plan to put $1.5 trillion on a credit card and then hand over the cash to billionaires. "Why would you want to do that?"

The top 1% of Americans own 40% of the country's wealth -- more than the total owned by the bottom 90% combined, more than anytime in the last 50 years. Worldwide, the total wealth of 62 families exceeds that of 3.4 billion people. [Christopher Ingraham, "The Richest 1 Percent Now Owns More of the Country's Wealth Than at Any Time in the Past 50 Years," The Washington Post, December 6, 2017.] [Photo credit: Kalynn Hines, "Why Are All American Houses Like Mansions?" Quora.]

It's hard to get a precise number on the dollar value of the wealth of individuals in the 1%. It depends on which economist you ask, what is and isn't counted, means vs. medians, and what year you use. But here are some (approximate) numbers from 2007 (obviously there have been substantial increases during the last 10 years of a soaring stock market).

Top 1% -- $14,000,000
Top 5% -- $1,250,000
Middle Fifth -- $110,000
Bottom Fifth -- -$14,000 (debt)

Joshua Kennon, "How Much Money Does It Take to be In the Top 1% of Wealth and Net Worth in the United States," Thoughts on Business, Politics, and Life, Table 3, November 14, 2011.

Even more significant is the near-two-trillion dollars of cash (and cash equivalents) held by American corporations (one-third of it by the top 5; 72% held overseas). [Matt Krantz, "A Third of Cash is Held by 5 U.S. Companies," USA Today, May 22, 2016.]

"OK, so what's your point?" you ask.

Ultimately, I want to address why a discussion of taxes is not the right place to begin. But since that's where the nation's dialog is at the moment, let's deal with it.

1. There's a "National Debt Clock" that increases by the second. On December 23, 2017, at 7:30 p.m. CT, the national debt was $20.6 trillion and growing. If massive tax cuts might sometime be appropriate, this is not that time.

2. If there ever were to be rational tax cuts they should come after the national debt is significantly reduced, and from balanced budget surpluses. Putting the cost of tax cuts on a credit card makes no more sense that paying for wars of choice with debt.

3. Why mention individuals' wealth and corporations' cash reserves? Because when there are trillions in cash sitting on the sidelines and bank loan rates are relatively low, there is no compelling rationale for handing out more cash to those who already have access to more than they can use.

4. Using the funds to improve the environment and the lives of those at the bottom of the wealth pyramid would not only create more human happiness per dollar, but would also more effectively boost an economy 70% dependent upon consumer spending. The wealthy already have most of what they need or want, and tend to invest, rather than spend, any excess income. [Photo credit: unknown; file photo.]

5. If the idea of helping the bottom 50% is not appealing, the money could at least better be used to carry out President Trump's expressed support for massive, essential, overdue, infrastructure projects.

In short, "Why would you want to do that?" It doesn't make economic sense.

But economics -- more specifically taxes -- is not where this conversation should begin.

Where To Begin? Imagine this breakfast table conversation:

"What are your plans for the day?"

"Oh, I thought I'd go down to the bank and borrow some money."

"How much?"

"Maybe $10,000, maybe $25,000. I don't know."

"Tell me now, why would you want to borrow that much money?"

"I don't know. I was just thinking I'd like to have more money."

"But you wouldn't have more money. After paying off the loan and interest you'd have less money. What are you going to do with the money anyway?"

"Just have it. I haven't really thought about what I'd actually do with the money."

That's one unlikely breakfast conversation. This one is more likely:

"We have to fix that big hole in the roof. How are we going to pay for it?

Insurance should cover most of it. And what better use for our "rainy day fund"? "Rainy day fund," get it?

Yeah, I get it. It's just that right now I don't find it funny. What if we need more?

Once we find out how much it's going to be, if we don't have enough I can always go down to the bank for a loan.

Where do you start? You start with your desire for a warm, dry house, and the ongoing maintenance to keep it that way. Then you address how you're going to pay for it.

That's how it ought to be with all governmental budgets -- city, county, state, and our federal budget. You don't ignore economic growth, the need for revenue, and tax policy. It's just that you don't start there.

You start with the most fundamental question. From your answer to that one the answers to the others will more easily flow.

Do you believe you have an obligation -- or if not, at least a desire and willingness -- to create an America that is a large, caring community in which no one is invisible? Or, do you find more appealing a country of individuals, with everyone on their own, where "greed is good," pollution is acceptable as long as it's profitable, and everyone must "pull themselves up by their bootstraps" -- regardless of whether or not they have boots -- until they, like you, can say, "I've got mine, Jack"?

If we're not just talking about professions of belief on Sunday, but the supporting evidence of action throughout the week, there is a discouraging quantity of evidence that a substantial number of Americans, and their elected representatives, are somewhere between a willingness to accept, and an enthusiasm for, the second choice.

So, let's pause for a moment to examine where America may have holes in its roof -- and its safety net.

I am indebted to The Gazette's Lynda Waddington for bringing to my attention Philip Alston, "Statement on Visit to the USA on Extreme Poverty and Human Rights," United Nations, Office of the High Commissioner Human Rights, December 15, 2017. (Mr. Alston is the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Extreme Poverty and Human Rights.) Lynda Waddington, "American Poverty is On Display," The Gazette, December 23, 2017, p. A5 (not yet available online).

When Philip Alston crawled up there on America's roof to take a look, here are some of the things he found.

In talking with people in the different states and territories I was frequently asked how the US compares with other states. While such comparisons are not always perfect, a cross-section of statistical comparisons provides a relatively clear picture of the contrast between the wealth, innovative capacity, and work ethic of the US, and the social and other outcomes that have been attained.

• By most indicators, the US is one of the world’s wealthiest countries.
• It spends more on national defense than China, Saudi Arabia, Russia, United Kingdom, India, France, and Japan combined.
• US health care expenditures per capita are double the OECD average and much higher than in all other countries. But there are many fewer doctors and hospital beds per person than the OECD average.
• US infant mortality rates in 2013 were the highest in the developed world.
• Americans can expect to live shorter and sicker lives, compared to people living in any other rich democracy, and the “health gap” between the U.S. and its peer countries continues to grow.
• U.S. inequality levels are far higher than those in most European countries.
• Neglected tropical diseases, including Zika, are increasingly common in the USA. It has been estimated that 12 million Americans live with a neglected parasitic infection. A 2017 report documents the prevalence of hookworm in Lowndes County, Alabama.
• The US has the highest prevalence of obesity in the developed world.
• In terms of access to water and sanitation the US ranks 36th in the world.
• America has the highest incarceration rate in the world, ahead of Turkmenistan, El Salvador, Cuba, Thailand and the Russian Federation. Its rate is nearly 5 times the OECD average.
• The youth poverty rate in the United States is the highest across the OECD with one quarter of youth living in poverty compared to less than 14% across the OECD.
• The Stanford Center on Poverty and Inequality ranks the most well-off countries in terms of labor markets, poverty, safety net, wealth inequality, and economic mobility. The US comes in last of the top 10 most well-off countries, and 18th amongst the top 21.
• In the OECD the US ranks 35th out of 37 in terms of poverty and inequality.
• According to the World Income Inequality Database, the US has the highest Gini rate (measuring inequality) of all Western Countries.
• The Stanford Center on Poverty and Inequality characterizes the US as “a clear and constant outlier in the child poverty league.” US child poverty rates are the highest amongst the six richest countries – Canada, the United Kingdom, Ireland, Sweden and Norway.
• About 55.7% of the U.S. voting-age population cast ballots in the 2016 presidential election. In the OECD, the U.S. placed 28th in voter turnout, compared with an OECD average of 75%. Registered voters represent a much smaller share of potential voters in the U.S. than just about any other OECD country. Only about 64% of the U.S. voting-age population (and 70% of voting-age citizens) was registered in 2016, compared with 91% in Canada (2015) and the UK (2016), 96% in Sweden (2014), and nearly 99% in Japan (2014).

Is that really the country you want? Or is it just kind of what happened while we were watching the Superbowl game, neither voting nor otherwise paying attention?

That's where we need to begin. What kind of country do we want? Is it inevitable, or at least OK, that we are accelerating climate change, that some people are just going to have to sleep on the streets, go without healthcare, lack adequate nutrition, education, job training, and the dignity that comes from at least some kind of regular work?

There is no secret sauce. It's clear what we could do, and how to do it. Other countries have offered us examples of how to create a caring nation -- one in which everyone has healthcare and meaningful work to do, one in which free public education extends beyond the 12th grade, one in which there's always someone to care for those without family or friends. Indeed, we accomplished some of these things ourselves coming out from under the Great Depression of the 1930s.

Until we candidly confront the kind of country we have become, decide we want a change, and fashion the programs that can bring it about, we can't begin to address how much it will cost, the best ways to pay for it -- and how to restructure our tax system.

# # #
Comments
Note: These columns and blog post generated much positive comment. With the permission of the authors, I reproduce here two emails that are illustrative of the others. Most merely addressed the proposed process and thought it a good idea. The author of the second comment, below, assumed hypothetically that the proposed process was in place and set forth some of the values and approaches he would bring to the table.

Dear Mr. Johnson,

I am an old man soon to be 79. was the Mayor of my small town for 8 years. HEAR-HEAR for your logical thoughts.

I wish the common sense you express was a very contagious viral disease and you could haunt the halls of all our elected bodies, state and federal, and infect all our law makers.

I am contacting my reps and telling to read and heed your thoughts.

Please continue your efforts to instill common sense in the electorate.

-- James Raymond

____________________
Read your piece in the Gazette today.

There are 6 million open jobs in America looking for qualified applicants.

The immigration systems both legal and illegal are bringing in people who do not have the skills or ducation to fill those jobs. So I assume you oppose the current immigration systems. Many people say we need immigration but then why are so many jobs unfilled with millions of illegal immigrants here?

Let's fix it:

- Revise the immigration system to be merit based. Limit chain migration and lottery systems that support unskilled entrants. Fund the wall and improve border security. Address VISA's for foreign students who want to stay, they are skilled people. I'm OK with DACA given these limitations.

- Approve a national voucher system so parents can chose where their funding goes for their children's education. Eliminate the US Dept. of Education and start over.

- Slash university funding. Focus resources on the kinds of skills and education the economy needs and minimize producing people with degrees who cannot find a job that matches those degrees. The current situation creates financial individual burdens and wastes valuable resources on inefficient programs.

- Create more programs to encourage trade schools to fill the jobs required to support the economy. Connect the funding to actual economic needs.

- Approve a federal budget amendment to limit federal debt. There is no net benefit to keep pushing ourselves toward the brink of financial > ruin.

- Impose a border tax so that countries that limit trade with the US are limited in access to our economy. Develop trade policies that support American jobs not American wealth.

- Reform Social Security and Medicare. Eliminate people who have not supported funding the system (see immigration). Increase the expense for those that can afford to pay a larger percentage of the cost of service.

- Make sure that the bottom 80% have skin in the game. Handing out free money is a fool’s errand. Instead of minimizing the number of people in poverty government policy has actually grown the percentage of the population on government assistance. The Great Society has been a colossal failure. Refer to 6 million job openings.

I vote every election. I vote against every Democrat because their party has moved so far to the left as to be unrecognizable as American citizens. Obama and Hillary Clinton are being proven to be crooks worse than the Watergate affair. At least the Republicans had the guts to tell Nixon to leave.

In conclusion the level of taxation is well above what is reasonable in a free society. I understand your point about deciding who you want to be before setting a level of funding. We simply disagree with so much of the current funding it seems reasonable to try and starve the beast, or as Grover put it "drown it in a bath tub". I would point out that the usual zero-sum arguments made by progressives receive on distain from me. There is always middle ground. I think you proposed that but I'm not really sure.

-- Gary Ellis

_________________________

GOP Healthcare: Just 'Tell 'em I lied'

An aide to Louisiana Governor "Uncle" Earl Long (1939-40; 1948-52; 1956-60), having faced a group of constituents demanding to meet with the Governor, and angry over his failure to deliver them a promised road, asked Long what the aide should tell the crowd. Governor Long replied,

"Tell 'em I lied."

-- Louisiana Governor Earl Long [full story in Endnote, below]

Why do the Republican members of the House and Senate seemingly feel compelled, like those who self-flagellate their backs with knives and chains, to march on to ever greater self-inflicted wounds, in order to make good on their promise to "repeal Obamacare"? [Photo credit: Gov. Earl K. Long speaking to the Legislature in June 1956; New Orleans Times-Picayune archive.]

Surely they are aware that the titular head of their party -- the President of the United States, Donald Trump -- with all of his lies and broken promises to supporters, has nonetheless enjoyed a successful political career. After all, as he's said of the media, "I'm president and they're not." [Michael D. Shear, "'I'm President and They're Not': Trump Attacks Media at Faith Rally," New York Times, July 2, 2017, p. A18.] As the Times has reported, "There is simply no precedent for an American president to spend so much time telling untruths."

"[H]ere are the numbers for the president’s first 100 days.
492: The number of false or misleading claims made by the president. That’s an average of 4.9 claims a day.
10: Number of days without a single false claim. (On six of those days, the president golfed at a Trump property.)
5: Number of days with 20 or more false claims. (Feb. 16, Feb. 28, March 20, April 21 and April 29, his 100th day in office.)" Glenn Kessler and Michelle Ye Hee Lee, "President Trump’s First 100 days: The Fact Check Tally," Washington Post, May 1, 2017.

And see, David Leonhardt and Stuart A. Thompson, "Trump's Lies," New York Times, Updated July 21, 2017 (with chronological itemized list; "There is simply no precedent for an American president to spend so much time telling untruths. Every president has shaded the truth or told occasional whoppers. No other president — of either party — has behaved as Trump is behaving. He is trying to create an atmosphere in which reality is irrelevant.")

As much as we may admire the congressional Republicans' ethical desire to keep commitments to constituents, why can't they, with regard to this healthcare business, follow their President's example, and that of Governor Earl Long, and simply say, "We lied"?

In fact, they even have a much more acceptable explanation than "we lied." I would suggest they consider something like this:

When Obamacare became law we did not like it. You did not like it. We did not like the process the Democrats used to get it enacted. During the years since, our efforts to repeal it have been frustrated by President Obama's threat to veto any repeal. As you've probably noticed, we've had our difficulties repealing it this year as well.

This is, in large part, a function of the passage of time.

There are things that even the Democrat Obamacare enthusiasts agree are wrong with the law. Whatever else happens, those defects must be fixed.

But after seven years of Americans living with Obamacare, getting access to insurance and healthcare, many of you have come to depend upon it. Few if any of our proposals to repeal it have had the support of more than 15 percent of the American people -- including Republicans. Changes that would continue, or increase, the tens of millions of Americans with no realistic access to Medicaid, Medicare or other adequate health insurance and healthcare, are neither good medicine nor politics.

We have not abandoned our quest, your quest, to improve on Obamacare. What we have come to recognize is that an outright repeal, with or without a replacement, is not politically possible. What is possible is to do better than the Democrats did in fashioning Obamacare while essentially locking us out. What we can do is to start over with the traditional legislative process of staff research, committee hearings with the nation's experts, and full floor debate regarding amendments -- a process that will enable Democrats and Republicans to work together. What we can do is create a process in which facts replace ideological arguments, a process in which every member of the House and Senate has some skin in the game, a process from which can come the best healthcare for all Americans that our representative democracy is capable of creating for the American people.

There's something to the old saying that when you find yourself at the bottom of a deep hole, the first step to getting out is to stop digging. The Republicans continued digging. It hasn't worked. Perhaps it's time to call on Winston Churchill. As Churchill once observed of our democracy, "The Americans will always do the right thing -- after they've exhausted all the alternatives." Now that Congress has pretty well exhausted all the alternatives, perhaps the next step is to do the right thing.

# # #
Endnote The full story is told by Michael Kurtz and Morgan Peoples:

"During one of his campaigns for governor, Earl Long made a stump appearance before a crowd of farmers in rural St. Tammany Parish. In typical fashion, he promised that if elected, he would have a local road, heavily traveled and full of potholes, widened and paved. Long won the election abnd carried the rural district, but when the legislature convened, he failed to include the promised road work in his agenda of bills. Astonished and furious at this display of gubernatorial duplicity, a large contingent of irate citizens journeyed to Baton Rouge to see Governor Long. Earl would not see them, and they subjected his administrative aide to a barrage of threats and insults. Refusing to leave, they stood their ground and demanded that Long see them. Equally adamant, Earl turned down the impassioned pleas by his aid. The fist-shaking mob gave the aid one last chance, and out of sheer exasperation, he said to Long, "After all, governor, you did promise to have their road paved. What should I tell those people?" With a shrug, Earl replied, "Tell 'em I lied!"

Michael L. Kurtz, Morgan D. Peoples, Earl K. Long: The Saga of Uncle Earl and Louisiana Politics, (LSU Press, 1990), Preface

I will leave to others the search for other possible indicia of similarities between President Trump and the Governors Long, such as, "[Huey] Long became a dictator, disdaining the ordinary processes of constitutional government and flouting the principles of separation of powers. . . . [H]is successors engaged in outrageous acts of personal enrichment, stealing an estimated $100 million from the state [roughly $2 billion today]. . . . [Earl Long] openly practic[ed] spoils politics. He wrecked the state civil service system, fired civil servants for 'political halitosis,' and openly accepted 'campaign contributions' from gamblers and mobsters." Id., p. 9.

# # #

Trouble in River City: Corruption Creep

NOTE: IF YOU CAME HERE LOOKING FOR INFO ABOUT PRES HARRELD SAYING UNPREPARED INSTRUCTORS SHOULD BE SHOT, THAT TINY URL WAS WRONG; TRY THIS ONE: http://tinyurl.com/zjthywh Dec 13-15 last item

This Has Not Been "A Quiet Week in Lake Wobegon"

Ya got trouble, my friend, right here,
I say, trouble right here in River City!
. . .
With a capital "T"
That rhymes with "B"
And that stands for Branstad
. . .
Mothers of River City!
Heed the warning before it's too late!
Watch for the tell-tale sign of corruption!

-- from the lyrics to "Ya Got Trouble," "The Music Man"

Harold Hill warned us there would be days like this.

One hopes that corruption (in the dictionary sense of "perversion of integrity") among those running major institutions is just a one-off thing, the rare trip-and-fall from the pedestal -- or, in the case of a post turtle* a fall from the post. But what we've been witnessing recently looks an awful lot more like a pattern.

As a concession to shortness of space, as well as life itself, a few examples from the past couple weeks will have to do -- rather than an endeavor to describe it all. Besides how could one know about all of it. Like Will Rogers, "All I know is what I read in the papers."

The majority is not silent, the Regents are deaf. The month began on December 1 with the revelation that the Regents' "transparency" and openness with the public takes the form of an opportunity for citizens to make video recordings that might or might not be watched by any regent, and would almost never be responded to or have any impact on Regents' actions. Vanessa Miller, "Speakers Fault Hiring of Harreld at Transparency Hearing; At Hearing Some Faculty Assail Video-Recorded Sessions As 'Essentially Meaningless,'" The Gazette (online), November 30, 2015, 9:53 p.m.; hard copy: Vanessa Miller, "Speakers Fault Hiring of Harreld; At Hearing Some Faculty Assail Video-Recorded Sessions As 'Essentiallly Meaningless,'" The Gazette, December 1, 2015, p. A3

Conflicts of interest. Regents President Bruce Rastetter has had a little difficulty distinguishing between his public responsibilities towards Iowa's universities and the opportunities they offer for his private businesses. He earlier obtained an interest-free loan from Iowa State University for $480,000. On December 3 we learned that he may stand to profit from his ownership in a company that may work on a University of Iowa project. Vanessa Miller, "Regents President Reports Another Conflict; Rastetter-Backed TelePharm Looks to Work on UI Project," The Gazette (online), November 30, 2015, 9:55 p.m.; hard copy: Vanessa Miller, "Board of Regents: President Reports Potential Conflict; Rastetter-Backed TelePharm Looks to Work on UI Project," The Gazette, December 3, 2015, p. A3

Allegations of Open Meetings violations. On that day (Dec. 3) we also learned that a lawsuit, charging the Board of Regents with violating Iowa's Open Meetings law during the presidential search, had been set for trial. Vanessa Miller, "UI Presidential Search Lawsuit Set for Trial; Former Candidate Calls UI Search Process 'Unique," The Gazette (online), December 3, 2015, 5:09 p.m.; hard copy: Vanessa Miller, "Higher Education: UI Presidential Search Lawsuit Set for Trial; Former Candidate Not Involved in Case Calls Search Process 'Unique," The Gazette, December 4, 2015, p. A8

The Rastetter-Robillard-Stead-Harreld connection. And we also learned of the ties between Jean Robillard (head of the UIHC hospital operation, interim president of the University and chair of the Search Committee), Jerre Stead (major donor to Robillard's projects, member of the search committee, and mentor to Bruce Harreld) in the naming of the $360 million UIHC Children's Hospital and the appointment of Harreld.

It's wonderful that the Stead family has been generous with its contributions to the University. With legislative cutbacks in financial support of public education, universities are more dependent than ever on generous major donors. We applaud them and are grateful. But this gift, and naming, does raise an interesting question regarding how the University of Iowa goes about selling off naming rights for its buildings.

This was at most a $25 million gift (and possibly only $5 million) toward a $360 million building, or slightly under 7% of its cost (if the higher number is used). Is that percentage typical? Does the UI have a rate card? How big a personal or corporate gift would be required to put a personal or business name on the entire university, such as "The Exxon University of Iowa"? Vanessa Miller, "University of Iowa Children's Hospital to be Named After Stead Family; Couple Says They're Motivated by Childrens' Health, Not Glory," The Gazette (online), December 2, 2015, 10:45 a.m.; hard copy: Vanessa Miller, "Health Care: UI Children's Hospital Honors Donors; New Facility Will Bear Name of Steads, Who Have Given $25 Million to Children's Medicine," The Gazette, December 3, 2015, p. A3 ("He [Jerre Stead] was part of the 21-member committee charged with searching for a new UI president, and Bruce Harreld — who was chosen for the job — said Stead was instrumental early on in recruiting him to apply for the job.")

Jeff Charis-Carlson, "UI Children's Hospital to be Named After Stead Family," Iowa City Press-Citizen (online), December 2, 2015, 10:31 a.m.; hard copy: Jeff Charis-Carlson, "UI Children's Hospital to be Named After Family; The Steads Make Single Largest Gift Toward the Hospital's Mission," Iowa City Press-Citizen, December 3, 2015, p. A3 ("Bruce Harreld, who was appointed UI president in September, said in a previous interview that he has viewed Stead as a mentor for decades. He also said Stead helped persuade him to meet in early June with Robillard and other members of the UI Presidential Search and Screen Committee – a meeting that helped lead Harreld to consider applying for the job. 'We’re glad Bruce is there,' said Stead, who also served on the search committee. '... It will have a very positive way of balancing our investments in the future knowing that Bruce is leading the University of Iowa to even greater success.'”)

UI Deals With GOP Insiders. President Harreld has said he would focus on "integrity" (e.g., "Harreld said 'I told Gary [Barta] the winning is yours; I’m all about the integrity and the academics.'"). Well, here's one for him.

Will he (1) publicly condemn the practice described below? (2) Provide excuses and supposed justifications for why it was OK? Or will he (3) remain silent, leaving the responses (and responsibility) to others? So far he has chosen number (3).

Ryan J. Foley, "Documents Reveal UI Deals With GOP Insider," Associated Press/Iowa City Press-Citizen (online), December 9, 2015, 12:29 p.m.; hard copy: Ryan Foley, "Documents Reveal UI Deals With GOP Insider; School Awarded Several No-Bid Contracts Totaling $321,900 to a Prominent Consultant," Iowa City Press-Citizen, December 10, 2015, p. A3 ("The University of Iowa has quietly awarded several no-bid contracts totaling $321,900 to a prominent GOP consultant . . .. [It looks] like a sweetheart deal among Republican insiders and a potential waste of money. The university sidestepped a policy that normally requires competitive bidding [on contracts of $25,000 or more; this contract was for $24,900] to ensure services are obtained at the lowest cost . . .. [S]ome of the money has gone for statewide opinion polling that the university is refusing to make public, saying doing so would 'serve no public purpose.'")

As a friend commented to me at the time, "What other institution creates a scandal in the process of trying to improve its image?"

The AAUP Report. The very next day there was news from the national American Association of University Professors, following its thorough investigation of Bruce Harreld's selection, in a report that even President Harreld acknowledged was "accurate from my perspective.”

The report concluded that the Iowa Board of Regents search for the UI's president -- involving Governor Branstad, Branstad's principal donor and his president of the Regents Bruce Rastetter, UI Vice President for Medical Affairs and Search Committee chair Jean Robillard, major hospital contributor and Harreld mentor Jerre Stead, and Bruce Harreld -- was "a crude exercise in naked power" undertaken "in bad faith," insofar as, among other things, the selection of Bruce Harreld was "foreordained." "It is difficult to see how anyone of intelligence and probity would permit himself or herself to be considered for a future presidency in Iowa." "College and University Governance: The University of Iowa Governing Board's Selection of a President," AAUP Bulletin, December 9, 2015.

See also, Vanessa Miller, "Regents Acted 'In Bad Faith' in University of Iowa President Search, AAUP Concludes; Board Could Face Sanctions from National Professors Group," The Gazette (online), December 10, 2015, 12:01 a.m.; hard copy: Vanessa Miller, "Higher Education: Report: Regents Acted 'In Bad Faith;' Professional Organization Concludes Harreld Was 'Foreordained' As UI President,'" The Gazette, December 10, 2015, p. A3
Jeff Charis-Carlson, "AAUP Calls UI Search a 'Crude Exercise in Naked Power,'" Iowa City Press-Citizen (online), December 10, 2015, 10:51 a.m.; hard copy: Jeff Charis-Carlson, "AAUP: UI Search 'Crude Exercise in Naked Power;' National Group of Professors Denounces the Recent Search for University's New President," Iowa City Press-Citizen, December 10, 2015, p. A1
Eric Kelderman, "AAUP Blasts Process Used to Hire Bruce Harreld as U. of Iowa's President," The Chronicle of Higher Education (online), December 10, 2015
Stacey Murray, "AAUP Report Condemns Presidential Search," The Daily Iowan (online), December 10, 2015

President Harreld's communications consultant. Toward the end of last week [Dec. 11] came stories of Harreld's personal speech teacher. The first published report was brief. It essentially said that he had one, and was paying for it personally. The subsequent revision of the story provided some context. "Harreld Hires Consultant to Improve Communication Skills," Associated Press/Des Moines Register (online)/Iowa City Press-Citizen (online), December 11, 2015, 2:00 p.m., revised 5:28 p.m.; hard copy: "Harreld Hires Consultant to Improve Communication Skills; UI President is Paying for It Himself," Iowa City Press-Citizen, December 12, 2015, p. A4 Here are some quotes:

UI President Bruce Harreld is paying for the services of Eileen Wixted, a crisis communications consultant, out of his own pocket. . . .

Wixted works for clients in nuclear power, health care and agribusiness, including Rastetter's corporation, Summit Farms.

Wixted helped Summit Farms respond to questions last year about $480,000 in no-interest loans it had received from a program based at Iowa State University, which critics called a conflict of interest for Rastetter.

She's also done some work for regents' institutions. She was hired for behind-the-scenes communications advice for University of Northern Iowa when regents approved the closure of its teaching laboratory school and numerous academic programs in 2012. . . .

Wixted said she conducted "on-camera media coaching sessions" for Harreld before he assumed the presidency Nov. 2, focusing on the "mechanics of being interviewed by broadcast media." She hopes to do more.

Wixted said she didn't advise Harreld on strategy and messaging, leaving those functions to UI. Since July, the university has been paying Terri Goren of Atlanta-based Goren and Associates $20,000 a month to oversee its Office of Strategic Communication on a part-time basis. Goren's contract, which called for her to develop a communications plan for the new president . . ..

For starters, what's with this Terri Goren contract? She is being paid at a $400,000-a-year rate ($20,000 a month for 3/5 time, or 3 days a week) plus a $25,000 cap on expenses. Developing a "communications plan" for President Harreld is her job. Why did he feel he needed someone else? If so, why did she need to be chosen outside of normal hiring procedures?

My comments on the pros and cons of communications consultants, and the elements of "crisis communications" can be found -->HERE<-- It's not that they can't do any good, but Harreld's primary "communications" need right now is mastery of the issues, creating and following his own moral compass, and communicating as himself -- not as an actor taking others ideas, and words, and style, and coming across as insincere.

We are reminded of Rastetter's $480,000 conflict of interest loan from Iowa State (free of any interest), and his judgment that such problems, if discovered, can always just be papered over with the help of communications consultants -- not the best of lessons for Harreld right now. And we're left to wonder about the extent to which he's providing other detailed directions, or suggestions, to Harreld, that Harreld feels obliged to follow -- and what, if anything, he gets out of throwing more business to Wixted -- like the no-bid contracts for polling, mentioned above, that were given to GOP insiders.

Robillard's private jet trip. Also on December 11 we were introduced to Jean Robillard's $10,747 private jet flight to Colorado.

The facts reported in this story raise so many questions -- including any possible relationships between a substantial gift to Robillard (for the Children's Hospital) from a Search Committee member and both of them supporting the selection of Harreld. Here are a few of those questions.

(1) It's 110 miles from Iowa City to Galesburg. With private jets flying out of the Iowa City and Cedar Rapids airports, if Robillard was really in that much of a hurry why would he take an extra couple hours each way to drive to Galesburg? Could it be he was trying to avoid any local record of this trip?
(2) The Steads have donated some $54 million to UI and the UIHC over 30 years. “'Dr. Robillard has had a tremendously long relationship with the Steads — more than 30 years,' [UI Foundation spokeswoman Dana] Larson said." Was this private jet trip really necessary to insure another $5 million?
(3) What was the incremental additional amount the Steads donated to have the $360 million hospital named for them -- $5 million?! It looks like all, or almost all, of their previous $25 million resulted in their being honored for something else.
(4) This was one week before Stead's friend Harreld (whom he first met over 20 years ago) was to be anointed UI president -- following the work of a search committee which Robillard chaired and on which Stead sat. That fact really had nothing to do with the trip?
(5) There are opportunity costs to any expenditure. Much is made of the fact the $10,747 trip didn't involve taxpayer funds. But what was not done with this money that otherwise would have been?
(6) Details of Harreld's travel expenses, reported in this story, have always been confusing. "He [Harreld] paid for all previous travel to Iowa during the search process, officials said." (a) Why would he do that? Why would the University require it (if it did)? (b) Regardless, the University's expenses for Harreld's travel "have totaled $7,278.44 -- including $5,709.04 spent before he officially took office Nov. 2 . . .."
Vanessa Miller, "UI Interim President Took $10,747 Flight to Secure Children's Hospital Donation; Trip Came One Week Before New President's Hire," The Gazette (online), December 11, 2015, 4:59 p.m.; hard copy: Vanessa Miller, "Higher Education: UI Leader Took $10,747 Flight to Denver for $5 Million kGift; The Trip United Two Presidential Search Committee Members One Week Before Decision," The Gazette, December 12, 2015, p. A1

Full employment plan for Republicans. And before I could put this together and post it, along comes today's news, involving the same governor and president of the Board of Regents, but a different executive-to-be and university (Iowa State).

Once again, it involves favoritism toward a fellow Republican, in this case the former Speaker of the Iowa House of Representatives, Kraig Paulsen; very possibly intervention by the Board of Regents, or its president; raising Paulsen's salary from the $45,828 he earned as speaker to $135,000 a year; to head a formerly non-existent job with a formerly non-existent program at Iowa State; hired without complying with the usual advertising of the position. It's a sad story, told through the email exchanges. Here's a link to the story. Read it if you think by now you have the stomach for it.

Vanessa Miller, "Emails: ISU Fast-Tracked Initiative for Kraig Paulsen Hire; University Had 'Handshake Agreement' Before Lawmaker Applied," The Gazette (online), December 13, 2015, 5:00 a.m.; hard copy: Vanessa Miller, "Higher Education: A 'Handshake Agreement;' Iowa State Fast-Tracked Initiative for House Speaker's Hire: Emails," The Gazette, December 13, 2015, p. A1

If you think I've been unfair with the telling of any of these tales, consider the linked newspaper stories and other documents as the best authority we have as to facts (rather than relying on what I've written), and then please use this blog's comment feature to tell me what you think should be changed.

If you agree with what's written here, give me some idea of what we can do. As the AAUP Report concludes, it's up to us: "The remedy, so long as these institutions remain under public control, must be found in an informed public opinion, in the expression of the public’s sense that such actions by members of a governing board not only undermine the ideals and purposes of the university but also affront the citizenry the board ostensibly serves."
_______________
* Post turtle (Texas). When you're driving down a country road and you see a fence post with a turtle balanced on top, that's a post turtle. You know he didn't get up there by himself. He doesn't belong there. He can't get anything done while he's up there. And you just want to help the poor, dumb thing down. # # #

Governor Christie's 'Plausible Deniability'

January 13, 2014, 5:30p.m. -- and see, "On Love and Fear in Politics; From Machiavelli to Christie," January 18, 2014.

And Why Democrats Should Care

Plausible deniability is a term coined by the CIA in the early 1960s . . .. The term most often refers to the capacity of senior officials in a formal or informal chain of command to deny knowledge of and/or responsibility for any damnable actions committed by the lower ranks because of a lack of evidence that can confirm their participation, even if they were personally involved or at least willfully ignorant of said actions.

-- "Plausible deniability", Wikipedia.org

New Jersey Republican Governor Chris Christie's "bridge-gate" deserves, and appears to be getting, more than a brief news cycle. Kate Zernike and Marc Santora, "‘Very Sad’ Chris Christie Extends Apology in Bridge Scandal," New York Times, Jan. 10, 2014, p. A1. [Photo credit: unknown.]

If you're unfamiliar with the story, on August 12th of last year, Bridget Anne Kelly, the Governor's Deputy Chief of Staff, sent an email to David Wildstein. Wildstein, who had known Christie since high school, worked at the Port Authority, the agency that manages the George Washington Bridge connecting Fort Lee, New Jersey, with New York City. According to the Times story, linked above, the email read in its entirety, "'Time for some traffic problems in Fort Lee' . . .. One month later, on Sept. 9, Mr. Wildstein ordered traffic lanes from Fort Lee closed, causing a traffic nightmare that added hours to the commutes of thousands of drivers." Ibid. (The story cited and linked is but one of hundreds, some with additional details. They can be easily found with a Google search. But this is enough for the purposes of this blog essay.)

Here are some of the questions I see in all this:

Why do Democrats who care about their country as well as their party have a stake in this?

Did Governor Christie order, participate in, or have knowledge of the lane closings?

Even if he did not, has Governor Christie created such "a culture of retribution" that it is the equivalent of his active participation?

Is it not only reasonable and probable, but even commendable, that employees endeavor to internalize and be guided by how they believe their supervisors might decide the issues that arise -- up until the point at which the best option is to resign?

Are there any possible, plausible motives for Kelly and Wildstein to have launched the lane closings other than their desire to anticipate and execute what they believed would be the Governor's wishes?

What is the evidence that the Governor might have, or did, desire retribution against Fort Lee Mayor Mark Sokolich?

What other explanation might there be for the Governor seeking retribution against Fort Lee?

More will undoubtedly be added to this blog essay over time. But for now, here are some summary responses.

Why do Democrats who care about their country as well as their party have a stake in this?

Am I a Democrat? Having run for a congressional seat in an Iowa Democratic Party primary, and received three presidential appointments from presidents who were Democrats, you'd probably have to say so. But it's also true that I am equally disgusted with both parties when it comes to the current system of campaign finance and its consequences -- the seeming inability of the legislative branch to represent the real interests of the 99%, putting members' prospects for re-election over everything else, gerrymandering the congressional districts, trying to score political points against each other, willingness to bring down the government and the nation's only president, throwing every possible roadblock in the way of third parties, refusing such remedies as "instant runoff," among other things.

Besides, every four years I try to identify the best Republican presidential candidate -- and not based on how easy it will be to defeat him or her. Given our two-party politics, the president will likely be either a Democrat or a Republican. Both parties almost always have a chance of having their candidate win. If it turns out to be the Republican, I'd far rather it be one we can all live with. (During the 2012 presidential election I ended up having to choose three Republican candidates, one after another, because the best ones kept dropping out, but ended up with this: "Why Mitt Romney? Better Than 'Least Worst' Republican," March 22, 2012; but see, "Abandoning Romney; Foreign Relations Disqualification, Now Domestic, Too," Sept. 22, 2012.)

Prior to "bridge-gate" I was already thinking about Governor Chris Christie as my probable Republican choice for 2016. And I haven't abandoned the idea. But it is on hold until bridge-gate gets fully investigated. Depending on the answers to the questions I raise here, he may still be the best we can find as a Republican candidate -- someone who does not hate either "government" or Democrats, and is willing to work with both. This is no time for Democrats to be trashing him, before looking around backstage to see if there are any qualified understudies to play the role. Democrats who believe Christie is "unacceptable" are obliged to answer the usual question, "Compared to what?"

Did Governor Christie order, participate in, or have knowledge of the lane closings?

As the following questions suggest, even if Christie had no actual knowledge of or participation in what his staff was doing, that is far from the end of this matter. In fact, focusing on that question -- as his Republican defenders have done -- is a bit of a diversion, whether intended or not.

Even if he did not know or participate, has Governor Christie created such "a culture of retribution" that it is the equivalent of his active participation?

If in fact what was done was retribution, done to punish an individual or group for something displeasing to Christie, is this the first and only incidence, or is it merely the latest (and perhaps most extreme) example of what has been a pattern of such behavior? If it is part of a pattern of behavior, that becomes significant for at least four reasons.
(1) While not proof, it is some support for the suspicion that retribution was the motive for bridge-gate.
(2) Even if he is totally innocent of any wrongdoing with regard to bridge-gate, most of us would not welcome the idea of putting in the White House a person whose political and personal personality involves a consistent pattern of retribution, bullying and pettiness.
(3) Such a pattern of behavior would explain why his employees might engage in such actions without his knowledge or participation.
(4) Indeed, if his employees knew that they were deliberately to use the tactics of plausible deniability as standard operating procedure, that would be further evidence of Christie's personal awareness that what was being done was wrong.

[Discovered after writing this: Kate Zernike, “Stories Add Up as Bully Image Trails Christie,” New York Times, Dec. 25, 2013, p. A1 (“Every organization takes its cues from the leadership as to what’s acceptable and what’s not, and this governor, in his public appearances, has made thuggery acceptable,” said Assemblyman John S. Wisniewski . . .. “For the governor to say, ‘I knew nothing about this’? He created the atmosphere in which this is acceptable.”] And see the addendum of prior examples at the bottom of this blog essay.

Is it not only reasonable and probable, but even commendable, that employees endeavor to internalize and be guided by how they believe their supervisors might decide the issues that arise -- up until the point at which the best option is to resign?

When President Lyndon Johnson appointed me U.S. Maritime Administrator, I undertook a study of my president, found out as much about him as I could, talked to White House staff and his longtime friends, subscribed to the "Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents," and read every statement published there. Before long, I was pretty good at predicting what he would say and do. Relying on that, and the conversations I had with him, the job description I wrote for myself was to approach every decision with that background in mind. What would he want me to do? What would he do, if he were serving as Maritime Administrator?

In my experience, most aides to political figures approach their jobs in this way. Given the number of people who want, and are considered, for such jobs, they are also relatively bright and more than relatively politically sophisticated.

It is for those reasons that I do find it hard to believe that Kelly and Wildstein would have launched anything as serious and potentially explosive as bridge-gate without at least believing (whether well founded or not) that it was what Governor Christie would have wanted them to do.

Are there any possible and plausible motives for Kelly and Wildstein to have launched the lane closings other than their desire to anticipate and execute what they believed would be the Governor's wishes?

It is hard for me to imagine what personal motives Kelly and Wildstein might have had for causing bridge-gate, or how they would have benefited, or thought they might have personally benefited from doing so. This is not, so far as what's now revealed, a case of an employee embezzling money, turning over politically damaging material to the media or an opponent, using their position to obtain something of economic value, or a job, from someone doing business with the government. It doesn't appear that they would have a motive to do the Governor deliberate harm.

What is the evidence that the Governor might have, or did, desire retribution against Fort Lee Mayor Mark Sokolich?

There are two questions here in addition to those above.

One involves the extent to which there is evidence that, if Christie was inclined to seek retribution against anyone, people in Fort Lee might be targeted.

If the answer to that is "yes," then the second question is whether there is evidence that Fort Lee Mayor Mark Sokolich was the person who was the target and trigger for Christie's pique.

There is undoubtedly more to come, and it may make clear beyond a reasonable doubt that, whatever Governor Christie's pattern of retributive behavior may be, and regardless of whether he was aware of the bridge-gate plan, the Governor was inclined to go after Democratic Mayor Sokolich for his failure to endorse Republican Governor Christie's re-election. But that is yet to be proved.

Some Democratic mayors may have been punished for not endorsing the Governor. It also appears, however, that numerous Democratic New Jersey mayors were not punished by the Governor for their failure to endorse him. It would be useful to know by what rationale Sokolich would have been singled out for this treatment.

Governor Christie said on the Rachel Maddow Show January 9, "Mayor Sokolich was never on my radar screen. He was never mentioned to me as somebody whose endorsement we were pursuing. In fact, I think he said on CNN last night he doesn`t recall ever being asked for his endorsement. . . . I never saw this as political retribution because I didn`t think he did anything to us. Now, we pursued lots of endorsements during the campaign from Democrats and we didn`t receive most of them. We received about 60 at the end of the day. We pursued hundreds. . . . I don`t have any recollection of . . . anybody . . . asking me to meet with Mayor Sokolich . . . the typical course that was used when we were attempting to get an endorsement . . .. I don`t remember ever meeting Mayor Sokolich in that context." "'The Rachel Maddow Show' for Thursday, January 9, 2014," Jan. 9, 2014.

[After writing this, I find TalkingPointsMemo reports, "The one thing that seems clear is that fewer and fewer people think this was all about an campaign endorsement." Josh Marshall, "TPM Editor's Blog/BridgeGate: The Who and the Why," TalkingPointsMemo.com, Jan. 13, 2014.]

What other explanation might there be for the Governor seeking retribution against Fort Lee?

What has, so far, made the most sense to me is the theory -- and that's all it is -- that I heard Rachel Maddow suggest last Thursday [Jan. 9]. Maddow noted that the now-famous email ("Time for traffic problems in Fort Lee") was sent 7:34 the morning after the night before. And what happened the night before? Apparently, Christie's frustration with N.J. Senate Democrats took the form of an angry outburst. It seems the Governor broke with the previously unbroken N.J. tradition that judges are re-appointed, and refused to give a reappointment to a Democrat-appointed judge. In response, the N.J. State Senate Democrats have repeatedly refused to approve the Governor's replacement nominees. Ultimately, the Governor even pulled the name of a personal friend.

As Ms. Maddow put it, "The reason he said he did it in her case is . . . because he said Senate Democrats were animals . . . and he was not going to subject this judge who he respected . . . to the savagery of the Senate Democrats.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

"CHRISTIE: . . . I simply could not be party to the destruction of Helen Hoens` professional reputation . . .. I`m taking responsibility for not allowing this group of people to do to her what they did to [the other nominees]. . . . [W]hat the ramifications will be for that going forward, they should have thought about before they opened their mouths. . . .

(END VIDEO CLIP)

"MADDOW: That was an angry Chris Christie . . . furious with Senate Democrats at a hastily called press conference that took place late in the day on Tuesday, August 12th, 2013. . . . [A]nd it is the next morning at 7:34 . . . that his deputy chief of staff gives the go-ahead to the Port Authority. "Time for some traffic problems in Fort Lee." Go to the list of legislative districts . . .. Find . . . Fort Lee, New Jersey, [it's] legislative district 37. Who represents district 37? . . . [T]he leader of the Senate Democrats . . . represents Fort Lee [Senate Majority leader, Loretta Weinberg]. "'The Rachel Maddow Show' for Thursday, January 9, 2014," Jan. 9, 2014.

At this point in time nobody knows if Ms. Maddow's theory ultimately will prove to be the explanation for this or not. But right now, if I had to choose, it sounds a lot more credible than that bridge-gate occurred because the Governor was trying to punish a mayor for failing to endorse him. Of course, this that they were telling the truth when the Governor said he didn't realize that the Fort Lee Mayor was one of the mayors whose endorsement his campaign was trying to get, that he had never met with the mayor about that, and the mayor's declaration that he has no clear recollection that he was contacted by anyone else in the campaign.

For another possibility, see, Brian Murphy, "Is a Billion Dollar Development Project at the Heart of Bridgegate?" TalkingPointsMemo, Jan. 12, 2014 ("We now know that a major redevelopment project, one that depends on Port Authority assets and relationships, was put in jeopardy at a vulnerable financial moment, and in a way that put the viability of the entire project at risk. But we still don’t know why. This batch of subpoenaed documents isn’t going to tell us, and the people who know – who really know – either aren’t talking or haven’t yet been questioned.").
#
Addendum, Jan. 16. There are two sets of separate issues here with regard to Governor Christie's use of retribution against opponents. One involves bridge-gate: (a) did retribution figure as a motive for closing lanes? (b) if so, against whom was it directed? And, of course, (c) to what degree was Governor Christie informed or involved in the plan and its execution?

The second set of issues involves the extent to which Christie has a pattern of punishing his "enemies." If bridge-gate is the only instance in which Christie has ever engaged in retribution, it could, perhaps, be excused -- notwithstanding its substantive seriousness. We could look at it as a one-off aberration, albeit a dangerous and possibly illegal one. But it would not need to be viewed as a disqualifying element of his character; something that he would carry into the oval office.

If, on the other hand, it is consistent with a prior pattern of extreme, retributive actions against opponents or those who otherwise displease him, that pattern (as distinguished from this one instance) is a matter of much greater concern.

There is at least some significant evidence, alas, that retribution may be a fundamental part of his character and method of operation and governing.

Kate Zernike, “Stories Add Up as Bully Image Trails Christie,” New York Times, Dec. 25, 2013, p. A1:

• In 2011, Mr. Christie . . . accused State Senator [and former Governor] Richard J. Codey of being “combative and difficult” in blocking two nominees. . . . Three days later, . . . the state police superintendent inform[ed] him that he would no longer be afforded [a state] trooper . . .— a courtesy granted all former governors. [Codey’s] . . . cousin . . . [a state employee] was fired, as was [his] former deputy chief of staff [from another state position]. . . .

• [T]he governor . . . wanted [redistricting commission member, Rutgers political scientist, Alan] Rosenthal to vote for the [Republicans’ redistricting] map, . . . but [Rosenthal] chose the Democrats’ plan . . .. Soon after, Mr. Christie used his line-item veto to cut $169,000 [from Rosenthal’s Rutgers] institute . . ..

• Mr. Christie was smarting from [Republican State Senator Sean T. Kean’s] criticism that [Christie should have called] earlier for a state of emergency [following a] blizzard [that] paralyzed the state . . .. [Christie] . . . held [a] news conference in Mr. Kean’s . . . district. [A] member of the governor’s staff warned [Kean] not to show up. His seat was eliminated in redistricting the following year. . . .

• Republican, State Senator Christopher Bateman, [who] voted against the governor’s plan to reorganize . . . public medical education . . .. had been working with the governor to get a judge appointed . . .. Suddenly, after months when it looked as if it would happen, the nomination stalled.

Now some may look at these examples and say, "Yeah, and so? Many public officials, from police to presidents, are invested with considerable discretion. Apparently Christie finds sticks more effective than carrots. What's the big deal?" Stalled nominations have recently become routine in Washington. So what's so shocking about the fact they apparently happen in New Jersey, too?

But let us put Governor Christie aside for a moment, and look at this issue more generally. Are there neutral principles, reasonable standards generally agreed upon, regarding the outer limits of the norms restraining executive abuse of persuasive tactics? The 2012 movie, "Lincoln," for example, portrays what some might consider Lincoln's excessive use of persuasive techniques to get the House of Representatives to put forward the Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution in 1865. There are many stories about "the Johnson treatment" that President Lyndon Johnson used on House and Senate members -- though I cannot immediately come up with examples of things done by either Lincoln or Johnson that come close to deliberately causing a traffic jam across a major bridge. President Nixon, of course, had his famous "enemies list." For an entire blog essay devoted to this inquiry, see "On Love and Fear in Politics; From Machiavelli to Christie," January 18, 2014.

Meanwhile: To deny a former governor the assistance of a state trooper apparently at least violates a New Jersey norm; firing state employees, who have done no wrong, to get back at a relative of theirs may actually be a violation of law. Eliminating a legislator's seat for a remark would seem similar. Denying an academic his state appropriated research grant because he supports a redistricting plan opposed by the Governor also looks like at least a violation of norms, if not of law -- unless the "commission" is, and is intended to be, a part of the governor's staff, and subject to executing his wishes.
#
Addendum, January 22, 2014. Hoboken. "In a television interview on Saturday, she [the mayor of Hoboken, N.J., Dawn Zimmer, a Democrat] said that two high-ranking aides to Mr. Christie had threatened to withhold money for Hurricane Sandy recovery to her hard-hit city if she did not support a real estate development that the governor wanted built in her jurisdiction. . . . Speaking on MSNBC, she produced journal entries that she said documented conversations in which Lt. Gov. Kim Guadagno and Richard E. Constable [Department of Community Affairs], told her that if she wanted the money, she had to approve the project." Michael Barbaro and Kate Zernike, "Mayor of Hoboken Says Hurricane Relief Was Threatened," New York Times, Jan. 19, 2014, p. A21.

For the response denying these assertions, see Patrick McGeehan, "Lieutenant Governor Calls Hoboken Mayor's Claims 'Illogical," New York Times, Jan. 21, 2014, p. A14 (“Any suggestion that Sandy funds were tied to the approval of any project in New Jersey is completely false.”).

There will be, no doubt, considerably more to come involving Chris Christie's past behavior in general, and the facts surrounding bridge-gate in particular.

# # #