College loan bailout: Part Two

Biden's student loan forgiveness critics are hypocrites. 

That doesn't mean his college loan forgiveness plan is good policy or good politics.

Much of the defense of Biden's college loan forgiveness plan centers on "whatabout." I used whatabout myself in yesterday's blog post. Critics of Biden's plans are hypocritical. Everyone is hypocritical. Government burdens and benefits are uneven and everybody gets a little of each. No one has clean hands.

My post yesterday likened college loan forgiveness to the home mortgage interest deduction. The comparison is imperfect. The mortgage deduction is long-established and people know to take it into consideration when doing home financing. The college loan plan was sudden. The mortgage interest deduction went through Congress. Biden is proposing to do this on his own executive authority. But I made a whatabout comparison because the biggest beneficiaries of the mortgage interest deduction are prosperous people buying big houses. They are among those condemning the unfairness of Biden's proposal. I was pointing out hypocrisy.

We hear whatabout because the critics of student loan forgiveness included members of Congress who themselves personally received PPP loans of hundreds of thousands of dollars. They didn't need to repay those loans. Hypocrites.

Business critics of Biden's plan include people who survived the Great Financial Crisis because of multi-billion dollar bailouts of too-big-to-fail banks. Hypocrites.

And what about bankruptcy laws Trump used to stiff vendors and bondholders? Hypocrites.

Who can cast the first stone? I cannot. I got a significant bonus from my too-big-to-fail bank, a bonus made possible by the bank's government bailout.

Still, I observe problems with the Biden proposal. Bad politics is bad policy.

Biden's proposal offers loan forgiveness to borrowers with incomes up to $125,000 for an individual and $250,000 for a couple. Possibly in Manhattan, Beverly Hills, and Silicon Valley people who earn those incomes can be viewed as needy, but in most of America those people are considered to be doing very well. The median individual income in the U.S. in 2021 was $51,480. Of course people in the lower half of the median are going to resent thinking they are paying the college bills for people richer than themselves.  A proposal with headline income limits of $125,000/$250,000 isn't a helping hand to the needy--a fellow victim in the struggle to get by. It signals a helping hand from non-college Americans to college-educated Americans. It is applied after the fact, so there wasn't equal opportunity to take advantage. It will look like a screwing. The ads are already out there making that point.

https://youtu.be/GEA72wFG6o4

Isn't the idea that the proposal helps "rich kids," as the ad says, a "Republican talking point?" Yes. It is a talking point for a reason. Biden's proposal is tailor-made for Republicans hoping to accelerate Democrats’ loss of non-college working class. What do Democrats think people like the woman in this ad would feel about the proposal? What is in it for her?

There is a second, worse problem. Democrats are positioning themselves as supporters of constitutional process in contrast to Trump-friendly MAGA Republicans who overturn elections and justify Trump's flouting of laws. Democrats disagree with Liz Cheney on most things, but she is making principled arguments about the rule of law as the central issue in American politics. Democrats can win the votes of some Trump-wary voters if they are understood to be the rule-of-law party, the party that respects norms and Constitutional limits on presidential power. Yet, Biden now says we are in an "emergency" that allows him to cancel loans on his own authority, without Congressional approval. Yikes! Both Biden and Nancy Pelosi have recently said that this was the purview of Congress--but now it isn't. Biden isn't coming across as strong and decisive. He is coming across bullied by his left flank into doing something he doesn't want to do and that he knows is illegal. The midterm election was supposed to be a showdown between Biden "normalcy" and Trump extremism. Biden is muddling that.

Democrats who are celebrating Biden's plan will have plenty of opportunity to regret it. The waitress in this ad may not be thinking about abortion this November. She may be thinking that the cafe owner's son just got a windfall and she is paying for it.

Note: To get this blog daily by email go to https://petersage.substack.com Subscribe. The blog is free and always will be.]

College Loan Bailouts

I hear the complaints:

"Why should people who never had college loans, or who have paid off their loans, give their tax money to people who still have student loans?"

The reason to do it is that an educated workforce and citizenry benefits all Americans. College is expensive and comes when most students are young, before they have started earning money to pay for it. So they borrow. The debt becomes a debilitating burden that creates downstream problems involving job mobility and delayed childrearing and home-buying.

The reason not to do it is that it is inevitably haphazard and unequal in its benefits. It is unfair.

Bailouts and rescues create moral hazard. Every insurance company understands moral hazard. People feel more free to do risky things. As a County Commissioner 40 years ago I confronted the problem. Jackson County, Oregon was spending hundreds of thousands of dollars a year doing Search and Rescue missions to imprudent hikers who got lost. Frantic relatives would call 911. Out would go planes and search crews. The county had created a moral hazard. We commissioners asked: Why should local taxpayers pay to rescue hikers lost in the forest? We should charge relatives who called 911 the full cost of the rescue. Bankrupt them. Take their homes. We considered it. Wouldn't a few bankruptcies or lost-hiker deaths every year send a "tough love" message to hikers? The sheriff's Search and Rescue team strongly opposed that. They argued that it was an obligation to save people in distress. Everyone deserves being rescued, they said. We continued the program, but I felt conflicted. Why should I and other taxpayers pay for other people's foolishness?

Oregon taxpayers paid to assist New Orleans when it flooded after Hurricane Katrina, even though parts of the city are below the level of the Mississippi--a long-predicted accident waiting to happen. Oregon taxpayers funded FEMA operations in wealthy neighborhoods of Houston when heavy rainfall overwhelmed their storm drain system. Houston allowed building in low-lying areas. How unfair to us.

But then FEMA came to the aid of people in my own community.  A fire swept from house to house in a fifteen mile corridor along a dense tangle of parkland and mobile homes. Over 2,000 homes burned. County and city governments had allowed the dense brush. FEMA brought emergency housing. The payback was uncertain in time and amount, but after a hot, windy summer day in 2020 it was our turn.

The home mortgage interest deduction is a transfer of wealth from people without home mortgages to people with them. It is a huge subsidy, many times greater than student loan forgiveness. The subsidy is haphazard and unfair, but people with home mortgages like it and think it is fair. After all, the country is better off if more Americans are homeowners. Widespread home ownership stabilizes communities. 

People paying that subsidy to home owners include people who cannot afford any house--poor people. The subsidy is also paid by people like me, who long ago paid off a small mortgage debt. The tax deduction for interest on a $750,000 mortgage at 5% interest is $37,500, a net after-tax cash benefit of about $14,000. Why should taxpayers without a mortgage loan subsidize people who have mortgages? It is like people who paid off student debt, or who never had any, paying to bail out people with student debt. It is unequal. It is unfair.

Politicians and Fox news hosts who oppose student loan forgiveness complain that some college students take classes they think are useless. How unfair to people without college loans to be forced to pay to bail out people who took ridiculous and wasteful sociology classes.

This new home, not far from mine, has a 30-foot entry. This homeowner would qualify for the $14,000 annual subsidy. How unfair to people without mortgage debt to be forced to subsidize people who bought a house with this ridiculous and wasteful entry.

Student loan forgiveness makes sense for the same reason that the home mortgage deductions do. Governments assist people to achieve worthy goals and we subsidize it. 

Rescues and subsidies are uneven in application. We help the worthy and the less worthy. Sometimes we ourselves are benefitted. Sometimes not. Someday we may get lost in the forest or our town will flood or burn up. Countries are better off with survivors, not casualties.

Note: To get this blog daily by email go to https://petersage.substack.com Subscribe. The blog is free and always will be.]

California leadership

California is out front again.

Zero-emission vehicle policy is ahead of support technology.

Moore

Electric and fuel cell cars and light trucks are on the horizon, but there will be some bumps in the road after California's August 25 vote adopting regulations phasing in over the next decade. Its decades-old anti-smog rules unleashed technology which changed the automobile industry. Cars are far cleaner now. Now California is moving to zero emissions. By one estimate the next generation of rules will trigger sales of 17 million zero-emission vehicles within California by 2040. If Gov. Gavin Newsom is correct, more than a dozen other states will follow the Golden State’s lead mandating ZEVs, as the zero emission vehicles are called by regulators. 

The big question is: Can they get the supporting infrastructure in place? After all, Toyota offers its Mira hydrogen fuel cell vehicle in 2022. But you’ll have to be in the San Francisco Bay area, greater Los Angeles, San Diego, Truckee or at one of three fuel cell stations in Sacramento to make your Mira go. Its range is said to be 402 miles. Electric vehicle charging stations are still scarce in parts of California, and without what’s known as a J1772 Adaptor, other EVs can’t charge at any of the many Tesla stations.

Hints of the problems California faces came in testimony at the public hearing when the rules were unanimously adopted. Tam Moore has been a journalist for over 55 years. He calls himself retired but he still occasionally plies his trade, so he listened in to that testimony. He’s been a hybrid vehicle driver since 2005, roaming the rural areas of Northern California and Southern Oregon where he says finding a plug-in is "downright difficult."

J1772 Adaptor.  $159.99 at Amazon

Guest Post by Tam Moore

I used to attend and report on lots of government regulation, so Thursday morning I joined the Internet to see what California’s Air Resources Board (CARB) did with a staff proposal which by 2036 mandates almost every new automobile and light-duty truck sold in the state be powered by electricity. 

This is a precedent-setting action with ripple effects across West Coast and Mountain States. Oregon and Washington often use California anti-pollution rules as a foundation for their states. 

More importantly, we share a regional electric power grid.

California doesn’t generate enough electricity to take care of its own needs. Electric power is wheeled in and out of the California grid big time. Juicing up future California electric cars will be a lot more than beefing up in-state local distribution systems. 

Future plans for California’s increased electricity demand, at least in a January 2022 paper posted on the Internet, call for much of the new power to be from sources such as solar and wind, buffered by massive collections of batteries storing juice for use when those intermittent generating sources are down.

Trouble is those big batteries exist only on paper. Technology hasn’t caught up.

Marcus Gomez, representing the Hispanic Chamber of Commerce and his own business, which includes a fleet of medium-duty trucks, declared the new rule ”Is just another expense to my business.”

“We need to diversify (vehicle energy sources),” he said. “If we go all-electric that means California is vulnerable to cyber-attack.” 

The final public hearing and pre-vote comment by CARB members began at 9 a.m. and didn’t end until 1:45 p.m. Board members unanimously adopted the complex regulation, despite plenty of advice to slow down the process.  It’s effective January 1, 2023 and sets vehicle standards through 2040. 

It takes approval from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency before the state can start enforcing the standards, which apply to domestically-produced and imported autos and light-duty vehicles. Another set of rules, which don’t mandate all-electric fleets, apply to heavier vehicles. 

“I expect tomorrow to see this action labeled extreme (by the news media),” said board member Dean Florez. He’s a former state legislator and he told the board that experience included the lesson “Don’t mess with people’s cars.”

That said, Florez went to the basic arguments California government has used since CARB began regulating automobile emissions back in 1990: Clean air, better health for the state’s 39,185,605 residents and uncounted future residents.

Michael Saragosa, vice-mayor of Placerville in the Sierra Foothills, sent in a written statement on vulnerability of the local electrical grid. 

“The State’s energy agencies just issued a warning our electrical grid lacks sufficient capacity to keep the light on this summer. El Dorado County already is victim to capricious “PSPS” events, and this Plan will only exacerbate our region’s blackouts and bring more suffering to residents. Also, we are not close to having the infrastructure necessary to support an all-electric future…” he wrote. 

Staff estimates show implementation will cost car-makers an average of $2 billion a year more between 2026 and 2040 while in the same period reduced consumer  costs for gasoline and related items will average $6.2 billion a year. There’s another structural change coming to California –a loss of about 65,810 jobs at gas stations and other retail outlets. 

A witness noted that the path to all-electric began as a footnote to CARB’s first auto emission rules. The process resulting in the massive rules called Advanced Clean Cars II (ACC II in bureaucratic jargon) began in 2017. 

“What if the build-out of charging infrastructure cannot keep up with the ACC II mandates, and Californians cannot charge their EVs?  What if the grid cannot reliably keep up with the ACC II mandates, and Californians find themselves routinely stranded, unable to get to and from work/ school, unable to obtain food or medical assistance,” asked Elizabeth Bourbon, a Valero oil company lobbyist. 

That’s a question for the future. CARB didn’t provide an answer.

Easy Sunday: body language

Who needs words?

An ongoing theme of this blog is that most political communication is non-verbal.  Posture and tone is more salient than the words themselves in communicating intention. 

People can negotiate a conspiracy with a wordless glance.

Watch: 48 delightful seconds:

https://twitter.com/i/status/1562012314844504064

JFK. A negative view

John F. Kennedy inspired with his words.

He disappointed with his deeds.

The American left puts a gauzy halo on the memory of JFK. Today's guest post author Herb Rothschild takes off the halo. 

Herb Rothschild worked as a civil rights activist in the deep south in the 1960s and 1970s and as a peace activist throughout his adult life. Rothschild sent this guest post because two of my recent blog posts began with quotations from Kennedy's inauguration speech. I cited Kennedy's words because I was making a point about the verdict of history as it relates to Trump's effort to overthrow the 2020 election. I wrote that history will judge harshly the Republicans who actively or passively enable Trump. Think of history, Kennedy wrote. Liz Cheney also cited history. 

Rothschild refreshes our memory of Kennedy's legacy of action and inaction on civil rights. Rothschild finds it disappointing. It doesn't live up to his words or to the unexamined halo that surrounds Kennedy's memory. 

Rothschild has a B.A. from Yale, a Ph.D. from Harvard. He taught English Literature at Louisiana State University. He is the author of The Bad Old Days, a memoir of his years as a civl rights activist in Louisiana. He lives in Talent, Oregon.

Guest Post by Herb Rothschild

  

Every black household I visited in Louisiana during the late 60s and the 70s had two pictures on the living room wall, one of MLK, one of JFK. These weren’t the homes of professionals but of ordinary--meaning fairly poor--folks with whom my work for civil rights and civil liberties brought me into contact. I consider them representative of black folks, at least in the South.

What I knew but never mentioned to my hosts was that the only reason JFK was side-by-side with MLK was that MLK had dragged him into the Civil Rights movement. He and Robert, his attorney general, for more than two years regarded the insistence that the U.S. live up to its best self as a problem to manage, not an opportunity for moral leadership.

Despite having pledged during his campaign to end racial discrimination in public housing with “a stroke of the pen,” President Kennedy only signed Executive Order 11063, Equal Opportunity in Housing, on November 20, 1962 after tremendous pressure from black leaders. Similarly, he and Robert very reluctantly acted to protect the Freedom Riders, beaten and threatened with death, in the late spring and summer of 1961. Finally, on June 11, 1963, JFK delivered a nationally televised speech calling for a federal civil rights bill. That speech is what blacks remembered. They didn’t know that he tried to dissuade lack leaders from staging the March on Washington ten weeks later, or that on October 10 Robert--doubtless with John’s knowledge--authorized J. Edgar Hoover to wiretap MLK.

Peter began his Up Close blog last Sunday by recalling how thrilled he was when, at age 11, he listened to JFK’s inaugural speech. He added, “I remain moved by words that connect community and country to some greater purpose.” I hadn’t voted for Kennedy in 1960, which was the first time I could vote. Still, I too was stirred by that speech.

Amazon

Revisiting it later, and in light of JFK’s abysmal performance on civil rights, I wondered to what greater purpose he had called us if justice wasn’t it. I was called by the extraordinary bravery of Southern blacks and whites like Andrew Goodman, Michael Schwerner and Viola Liuzzo who died standing with them. The historical record suggests that, as President, JFK never felt called to anything except screwing woman after woman whom Secret Service agents smuggled into the White House.

Bill Clinton’s political career might be dated from July 24, 1963, when the 16-year-old highschooler shook hands with JFK in the Rose Garden. Clinton lived down to his role model by having no greater purpose than his own career and screwing around.  But to their credit, in a culture that prizes appearance over substance they both projected considerable charisma.

[Note: To get this blog daily by email go to https://petersage.substack.com Subscribe. The blog is free and always will be.] 

Democrats did well. Part Three: 15% corporate minimum tax

Democrats did something popular that makes the world better.

A corporate minimum income tax of 15% is a provision in the Inflation Reduction Act.

New York Times

The Inflation Reduction Act is complicated. Most Americans would like what is in the bill if they understood what is there. They hear numbers, but not the practical benefits. The law was passed and signed in a moment of yet more Trump drama, this time involving the FBI recovery of documents taken to Mar-a-Lago. And now the news is shared with the controversy over student loan forgiveness. Amid all the noise, the 15% minimum corporate tax provision gets forgotten. 

The corporate minimum tax addresses a problem. Some very profitable companies were arranging their accounting to avoid taxation. The 15% corporate minimum tax is analogous to the Alternative Minimum Tax paid by individual taxpayers who arrange to have so many deductions and tax workarounds that they wouldn't pay anything near their scheduled marginal rate. The Alternative Minimum Tax kicks in. People caught by it don't like it. It confounds their tax strategy, which is its point.

This minimum tax for corporations is popular with the public. The vast majority of Americans, getting W-2 income from employers. They have few tax avoidance strategies. However, the opportunities for international corporations are endless. American taxpayers  observe multi-billion dollar corporations pay little or no tax. They resent it. Gallup polling for two decades has been consistent in reporting that 65% to 70% of Americans think corporations pay too little in taxes. Corporations have accountants and lobbyists to game a very game-able system.  Minimum taxes put a floor under the gamesmanship. 

There is a second, related issue. Large international companies can shift where they book income, moving their supposed corporate headquarters to low-tax jurisdictions, then pay taxes at their rate, not at the rate where most of their sales happen. The U.S. has led an effort to get all developed countries to agree to a similar 15% minimum. The Voice of America explains. 

The global minimum tax is part of a larger international taxation framework developed under the auspices of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development and the G-20 group of large economies. The deal brought together more than 135 countries in an effort to control “base erosion and profit shifting,” known by the acronym BEPS. 

BEPS refers to tax strategies employed by multinational corporations. The practice involves strategically placing operations in low-tax jurisdictions, thereby eroding the tax “base” of their home countries, and then “shifting” profits earned internationally so that they are paid in those low-tax jurisdictions. 

Getting international cooperation is an ongoing project. The U.S. version of the 15% minimum tax calculates income on "taxable income" rather than the "book income" preferred in Europe. Joe Manchin insisted on that. Still, the U.S. is in a position to urge a universal 15% rate, which will reduce the incentive for corporate venue shopping.  

Biden presented himself as a person who might know a thing or two about getting legislation passed. He came through. The sausage got made, notwithstanding zero margin in the U.S. senate. International cooperation on a worldwide 15% tax is the culmination of this administration's policy to return our foreign relations to rules-based international cooperation. That, too, took a mix of policy and moxie. Americans--me included--underestimated Biden. 

[Note: To get this blog daily by email go to https://petersage.substack.com Subscribe. The blog is free and always will be.]

Democrats did well. Part Two: Re-empower the EPA.

Democrats did something that is popular and makes the world better.

It is hidden away in the Inflation Reduction Act.

The Supreme Court took away the EPA's power to regulate emissions from power plants. With two little words, the Inflation Reduction Act, gave back the power. 

Today I continue my examination of the Inflation Reduction Act. The law is complicated and has multiple parts. Unless it is unpacked and explained its critics will dominate the public discussion. Yesterday I looked at reducing tax cheating by people with big incomes and complicated returns. Today I look at climate. The new law is widely described as the most significant climate legislation to date. The law includes $370 billion in incentives for green energy, including solar panels, wind turbines, hydrogen, electric vehicles, and carbon capture. Those parts of the law may get noticed because there is money available for doing certain things.

Less visible, but very important, is the addition of two words in the bill. They re-establish the power of the EPA to carry out one of its most important roles: Control of greenhouse gas emissions. In a decision that some Court-watchers consider even more consequential than its decision to reverse Roe v. Wade, this summer the Supreme Court announced a decision in West Virginia v. EPA. It involved what may seem like a small technical point regarding the specificity required in federal lawmaking. In West Virginia v. EPA the Court ruled that Congress was giving too much latitude to government agencies to make the specific rules on how to carry out Congress' will and policy. This was a separation-of-powers issue. The Supreme Court said the Environmental Protection Agency's rule-making went beyond the denoted purpose stated by Congress to stop pollution. Excessive carbon dioxide is damaging the planet, but it is natural, and not necessarily a "pollutant." Therefore, the EPA lacked authority to regulate greenhouse gases from power plants.

Fossil fuel state senators considered it a "win."  The presumption was that Congress--subject to heavy lobbying from the fossil fuel industry--would be unlikely to pass the necessary legislation. There was a new status quo. 

But Congress did act, with two words inserted into the Inflation Reduction Act. The law described carbon dioxide to be an "air pollutant." Delaware Democratic senator Tom Carper said, “The language, we think, makes pretty clear that greenhouse gases are pollutants under the Clean Air Act.” 

Senator Ted Cruz understood the consequence of the two words. “It’s buried in there. The Democrats are trying to overturn the Supreme Court’s West Virginia vs. E.P.A. victory.” That is correct. His comment reveals the new state of play between the Supreme Court and the Congress. The Supreme Court is a policy branch. It's decision was a victory for de-regulation of fossil fuel emissions. But, against expectations, Congress did exactly what the Supreme Court said it must do. It got specific. 

This will play out slowly and there will be new opportunities for litigation and setbacks, but the status quo on regulations of greenhouse gases moved back to the pre-West Virginia v. EPA era.

That is in the Inflation Reduction Act.

Note: To get this blog daily by email go to https://petersage.substack.com Subscribe. The blog is free and always will be.

Democrats did well. Part One: IRS

It is good when a political party does things that are popular and are likely to make the world better. 

The "Inflation Reduction Act" is big and complicated. It needs explanation.

Let's start.

Most of what the public knows about the new law is that it is complicated, that every Republican voted against it, and that Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema finally agreed to it. The law is so wide-ranging that it is hard to sell, and easy to mischaracterize. We know it is expensive and controversial. But what is in it that is good?

One good thing is that it includes $80 billion to bring IRS staffing back up to its prior staffing and audit levels. Currently the largest corporate and individual taxpayers face a 2% chance of audit. Honest taxpayers are currently shouldering the weight of tax cheats. The new law increases tax compliance and raises money while doing so.

This provision faces criticism. Ted Cruz's comments on that are typical, voiced in a fundraising appeal sent to me this week: 

And leave it to the Democrats to pile on with their Big Government STUPIDITY...

They want to spend $80 billion over the next decade to DOUBLE the size of the IRS. They want to hire 87,000 new agents & triple the number of audits the agency can perform. . . .

 

This new army of IRS agents will be coming after the middle-class and small business owners. Once again, the Democrats want to use our own government to punish us! . . .

My position is clear: Derailing this scheme isn’t enough – We need to ABOLISH the IRS!

This is a broken agency that can’t even answer the phone when taxpayers need help, and has been weaponized by the left time and time again to target conservatives!

 

Take a stand to stop this insanity and GET THESE LUNATICS OUT OF POWER. 

The IRS is, indeed, a broken agency that can't even answer the phone when taxpayers need help. It doesn't need de-funding. It needs adequate funding again.

Starving the IRS has been policy of the GOP. Taxpayer compliance for large, complicated returns has essentially been on the honor system. Citizens read news stories that the largest businesses and wealthiest people pay no taxes. It sends a message that normalizes tax cheating. Trump famously noted that he paid no taxes for many years and credited it to being "smart." Tax scofflaws take a very "aggressive" tax posture, counting on a very low chance of an audit.

The new law makes that riskier. It targets taxpayers and businesses with incomes over $400,000 a year. There is a practical reason for that. People with large incomes from businesses have tax returns that are complicated enough that "aggressive" tax postures are possible and the recovery of taxes owed is meaningful. There is a political reason, too. There is bi-partisan resentment that the rich appear to get away with lawbreaking and the "average guy" is picked on. Cruz claims the new law will continue this. The intent of the law is to do the opposite. 

People who cheat on their taxes may oppose this provision of the new law. Honest taxpayers, and people who expect others to be honest, have reason to be happy with the law, if they know what is in it. Honest taxpayers subsidize cheaters. 

Democrats need someone to communicate that message with as much clarity and vigor as Cruz and others like him communicate theirs. Normally that would be the job of the president. Biden showed he has legislative skills by getting this bill passed. I had underestimated Biden. Still, the job of persuasive, vigorous communication is not Biden's strength. I am hopeful potential Democratic successors to Biden step up to play that role.

I expect to continue unpacking the new law. Future posts include:

1. The law added the definition of carbon dioxide as an "industrial pollutant." This tiny change fixed the Supreme Court's decision in West Virginia vs. EPA which limited the EPA's ability to regulate power plant emissions.

2. The bill continues funding for Medicaid expansion under the Affordable Care Act, so that the working poor have health insurance.

3. The bill puts America on an even footing with other countries in having a 15% minimum tax on corporations.

Note: To get this blog daily by email go to https://petersage.substack.com Subscribe. The blog is free and always will be.

 

 

Big shot

The Mir-a-Lago search cited three criminal statutes:
1. Obstruction of justice.
2. Theft of government records
3. Espionage Act,

Donald Trump's lawyer told the FBI that all the government documents had been returned. The government knew that was not true and so did Trump. Obstruction.

Trump knew he had possession of records in contravention of the Presidential Records Act of 1978. Theft.

Trump disobeyed Section 793 of the Espionage Act that prohibits conveying non-public material relating to the national defense, or failure "to deliver it on demand to the officer or employee of the United States entitled to receive it." Trump had it and the FBI found it. Espionage.

Trump was openly flouting the law. Comments sent to me by Trump-friendly people argue that even if the boxes  the FBI found contained secret and sensitive material, Trump had declared them non-secret. Therefore, this was just a dispute over storage location, not espionage. So the real issue is why are people picking on Trump, who maybe just wanted source material for writing his memoirs. 

Jack Mullen had a different take on how this moment will be remembered, and how to think about Trump's claim of blanket declassification. His two older brothers had worked in the American intelligence field. He grew up in Medford and now lives in Washington, D.C. He read yesterday's guest post by his friend Larry Slesser and wanted to add this.

Guest Post by Jack Mullen

Trump: "I am so much behind you, you’re going say ‘Please, don’t give us so much backing, Mr. President, please, we don’t need that much backing’."

So said President Trump on his first full day in office on January 21, 2017, in front of the 117 stars representing the CIA individuals who gave their lives in service of this country. 

Mullen

I bristled then on Trump's first official day in office. I wonder how slighted my two older brothers might have felt. Both performed intelligence work for this country. I bristled again upon learning the ex-President took documents marked “classified” to his home at Mar-a-Lago. Yesterday’s Guest Post by Larry Slessler eloquently stated the outrage felt by the families of those who, like Larry, put their lives on the line to protect classified information. It was a sacrifice he was willing to make.

American history is flush with instances of unsung heroes in the intelligence field who protected their comrades-in-arm and their country. These people go unnoticed and receive scant thanks. Most don’t want the thanks. Many can not get it. They are unsung because their work was secret.. They just do their job--much like so many others who serve our country. What they did not need is a Commander-in-Chief who makes a big self-serving show, saying he will give them so much backing that they will plead for him not to give him so much backing. What a blowhard.

“Daddy, what did you do in the War?” was a refrain of many Medford kids growing up in the 1950’s. I was one of them. Most of our fathers ignored our badgering, and said little about their war experiences. However, a few cracks appeared when Hollywood came out with war movies that smacked them in the face. My dad had no use for the sappy Van Johnson. Other fathers I knew chuckled that a so-called “tough guy” named Marion Robert Morrison evaded military service and changed his name to John Wayne. Marion Morrison, aka John Wayne, became a symbol of the taciturn, strong American War hero.  

Those real vets--not the movie star vets--felt scorn for the likes of Van Johnson and John Wayne, the movie heroes who struck poses. Their rolled eyeballs were the clue we kids had to go on about how Daddy really felt about people who showed off about past deeds or great intentions. I now wonder how they would express themselves when Donald Trump claims to have declassified intelligence material, and done so on the fly, based not on the content but on the fact that he took it, so he needed to try to backdate its legality. How disrespectful to the people who put their trust in a process that put their lives at risk. Worse, he did whatever he did to mop up after his own behavior, and to cover his own ass. I suspect my father and brothers would have found that Larry Slessler spoke for them all. Scorn.

[Note: To get this blog daily by email go to https://petersage.substack.com Subscribe. The blog is free and always will be.] 

Classified Documents

     "With a good conscience our only sure reward, with history the final judge of our deeds. . . ."

               John F. Kennedy Inauguration speech

Larry Slessler, the author of today's Guest Post, told me that he didn't have photos of himself in Vietnam. This is partly because his work was secret and for several years after leaving the service he was not allowed to visit--or even fly over--a Communist country. It was partly, too, because he didn't want souvenirs or remembrances. He doubted that our country was doing the "God's work" JFK called on Americans to do.

Dept. of Justice Property Receipt for 33 boxes of materials

Slessler shared a story about duty to one's country, made current because of the Top Secret material the FBI sought and retrieved from Mar-a-Lago. He thought our whole effort in Vietnam was FUBAR, but while he was there, doing his job, he was supposed to defend classified materials at the cost of his life. Slessler was ten years ahead of me at Medford High School. Much of his post-service career was devoted to helping veterans readjust and thrive in civilian life.


Guest Post by Larry Slessler

During my tour in Vietnam (1965 - 1966) my small Intelligence unit was located in a compound on the outskirts of Saigon. The compound was in an old, rather small, French Villa converted to wartime usage that included the usual barricaded look of barbed wire, outer walls with broken glass firmly emplaced on top to discourage climbing, and the normal barricaded look of thousands of wartime structures. A lot of the time I was away on duty in various other parts of the country. When I would return to home base, I would automatically be inserted on a rotation of all-night guard duty. This duty assignment roster was made up of all the Enlisted men and Officers Lieutenant thru Major. 

A quirk in our arrangement was, except for the all-night duty person, sleeping quarters were located in other compounds. We traveled back and forth in jeeps from duty station to other locations when not on duty. Our Full Colonel Commanding Officer was attempting to change our arrangements and location. However, this was early in the war and we were doing the best we could and not what was best for safety and survival. Years later Donald Rumsfeld said something like: You go to war with what you have not what you might want. 

My closest buddy was Mike; a Polish American Jew. It seems every Polish last name is a jumble of mixed up letters ending in “Ski.” My German name Slessler becomes “Sless.” To most we were Sless and Ski. Intel units, in my experience, are short on military formality. Except for the Colonel we were all on first and/or nickname basis. When Ski or I had duty the other would stay on with them. It was a silent, but powerful, expression of the love and friendship between Lt.“Ski” and Lt. “Sless.” We were pledging our life to each other. We all knew that if the compound was attacked the duty person would be killed. We simply lacked the firepower to mount a successful defense.

So why the duty roster? The compound had a windowless room that contained files of highly classified documents pertinent to our mission. The night-duty man had the unit's 45 caliber sub-machine gun. In a close area it was a deadly weapon. Other than the sub-machine gun we had regular-issue rifles and side arms.

If we were attacked the duty man had one primary job. He was to use thermite grenades to destroy the classified material and then fight for his life. We were 100% certain an attack would end in our death. Our life was the sacrifice for denying the enemy our classified materials. I both resented that and understood it at the same time.

Like every day in Vietnam, night guard duty was just one more fucked-up day on a 365 day fucked-up tour. I knew I would go home. I just didn’t know if it would be under my own power, on a stretcher, or in a body bag.

In 1966 I left Vietnam for a new assignment, a 3 year tour in Hawaii in a Pacific Command Vietnam war support and planning role. That assignment included two temporary assignments (TDY’s) back to Vietnam. Both sucked.

In 1967 I flew home to Oregon for my 10-year High School reunion. I have never felt more alone and isolated. I am sure I was only Viet Vet attending. I had a 90-year old man’s brain in a 27-year old body; mixing with other 27 and 28 year old classmates. I might as well have been from Mars.

I have a severe gut and heart reaction to the former President's disregard over protection of classified material. Thousands of dedicated military and civilian men and woman have risked their lives, some have died, collecting and protecting Intelligence vital to the defense and freedom of our nation. Trump’s callous disregard is an insult to the service and life of the men and women of this great nation that have put it all on the line for our country.

 

[Note: To get this blog daily by email go to https://petersage.substack.com Subscribe. The blog is free and always will be.] 

 

  

Sunday: The verdict of history

Future generations will judge us.

Even at age 11, in 1961, I understood that I was hearing something special in President John Kennedy's inauguration speech. I was a young American, and I realized I was part of something very, very big. Our lives meant something. 

I remain moved by words that connect community and country to some greater purpose. Tomorrow's guest post will be from a Vietnam veteran who understood his job involved accepting death as the price of protecting classified documents if the building he was guarding got overrun by Vietnamese troops. He had a duty.

I heard people on Fox this morning scoffing at Liz Cheney. I don't scoff. I remain moved by Liz Cheney's words:

At the heart of our republic is a commitment to the peaceful transfer of power among political rivals in accordance with law. President Ronald Reagan described this as our American “miracle.” . . .

History is watching. Our children are watching. We must be brave enough to defend the basic principles that underpin and protect our freedom and our democratic process. I am committed to doing that, no matter what the short-term political consequences might be.

In the late 1960s I protested the War in Vietnam out of a sense of patriotism. I thought America was letting itself down. We were better than this, I thought.  My dismay today comes because so many Americans are willing to excuse, or overlook, or even actively participate in finagling to overthrow elections. We are letting ourselves down. History is watching.

I don't consider people who sacrifice for their community and country to be losers. They aren't suckers who fail to understand that history is written by the winners. They are heroes who are part of something important. Given this era of political performance and gamesmanship, I suppose I need to tell young readers that JFK is not speaking ironically. There is no barely-hidden smirk. No knowing glance. No sense that it is over-the-top big-gesture performance. JFK isn't holding up a Bible nor is he clutching and hugging a flag for the cameras. He is dead serious:

In your hands, my fellow citizens, more than mine, will rest the final success or failure of our course. Since this country was founded, each generation of Americans has been summoned to give testimony to its national loyalty. The graves of young Americans who answered the call to service surround the globe. . . . 

In the long history of the world, only a few generations have been granted the role of defending freedom in its hour of maximum danger. I do not shrink from this responsibility--I welcome it. I do not believe that any of us would exchange places with any other people or any other generation. The energy, the faith, the devotion which we bring to this endeavor will light our country and all who serve it--and the glow from that fire can truly light the world.

And so, my fellow Americans: ask not what your country can do for you--ask what you can do for your country. . . .

Finally, whether you are citizens of America or citizens of the world, ask of us here the same high standards of strength and sacrifice which we ask of you. With a good conscience our only sure reward, with history the final judge of our deeds, let us go forth to lead the land we love, asking His blessing and His help, but knowing that here on earth God's work must truly be our own.

[Note: To receive the blog daily by email go to https://petersage.subtack.com Subscribe. The blog is free and always will be. 

Veggi Tray

John Fetterman is making politics fun. 

We like that.

Today's post is easy and fun. Sit back and enjoy the ads. Consider the effect they have on voters in Pennsylvania.

Pennsylvania Senate candidate John Fetterman is doing well notwithstanding having had a debilitating stroke, being a Democrat in a Republican-leaning state, and having a wealthy and famous opponent, TV doctor Mehmet Oz. Fetterman is using message judo, turning his opponent's strengths into vulnerabilities.

Fentterman is punching up. He positions himself as the "regular guy" Pennsylvanian bringing down the inauthentic elitist. The ads are lighthearted enough that they don't come across as "negative."  They send an implied message of Fetterman's fearlessness and willingness to confront the powerful. The ads are watchable and mentally "sticky."  

Here is Steve Van Zandt, known for singing with Bruce Springsteen and known as an actor in The Sopranos, a TV series set in New Jersey. 

Van Zandt

"Snooki" teases Dr. Oz in the same vein.  She is famous as a reality-TV personality, known for her role on Jersey Shore and Jersey Shore: Family Vacation. 

Snooki

Notice that the ads aren't condemning Oz for being a fraud. Their denoted content is goodwill, urging their fellow New Jersey resident to come back home.

Mehmet Oz put up an ad of himself in a vegetable aisle complaining about the price of "crudites," i.e. raw vegetables. It backfired. He misnamed the grocery store he was in. His word "crudites" ran counter to his effort to portray himself as a price-conscious "regular guy" shopper. Here is Fetterman, telling Oz what a veggi tray is. 

Fetterman

"Rich people think differently" were the concluding words of this ad teasing Dr. Oz for saying he owned two houses when in fact he owned ten very large ones. We hear Oz sounding defensive and evasive when he says, "legitimately, I own two houses." The ad counts out his ten homes.

Ten houses

All four of the ads are funny. They don't condemn Oz nor do they praise Fetterman. They position Oz as an out-of-touch wealthy New Jersey interloper carpetbagger, and they do so without making us dislike Fetterman. That is judo.

[Note: To receive the blog daily by email go to https://petersage.subtack.com Subscribe. The blog is free and always will be.]