Tag Archives: Hatch Act

What Can Be Repaired? What Can’t?

Just a quick note before today’s post: my husband and I attended the No Kings protest in Indianapolis, and were blown away by the size, composition and positivity of the crowd. (I think my 93-year-old hubby may have been the oldest attendee, but there were lots of older folks–as well as younger and middle-aged ones.) The thousands of attendees were upbeat, entirely peaceful, and the numerous signs they carried weren’t just clever–they were patriotic in the best sense of the word.

_______________________________

When I try to find cause for optimism, I tell myself that–while the incredible destruction being wreaked by Trump and his merry band of morons, misfits and clowns is horrific–a lot of government systems had become calcified and overly bureaucratic, and that once this despicable crew has left, we can (to use Joe Biden’s term) “build back better.”

Unfortunately, reality then kicks in.

A while back, Thomas Edsall addressed that reality in a New York Times op-ed. The title was “What Can’t Trump Wreck?” and the column distinguished between the kind of damage that can be redressed relatively quickly and the damage that can’t.

Edsall began by reminding readers that Trump’s inhumane cuts to USAID are predicted to result in more than 14.05 million all-age deaths by 2030– a number that includes the death of 4.54 million children younger than age 5 years. Rather obviously,  lives lost remain lost.

We can count the dead. We can assess–at least approximately– the damage done by ICE’s thuggish behaviors– the human costs of its indiscriminate kidnapping, the social costs of its undermining of the rule of law, and the economic losses to farmers deprived of workers to pick their crops.

What we can’t quantify are the immense consequences that flow from a lack of institutional memory and expertise. Edsall quoted Sam Issacharoff, a law professor at N.Y.U., who wrote:

Government stretches the time frame for decision making. Long-term investments, collective needs like roads and defense, these are all matters that require long-term investment and expertise. Experience creates what the Swedish political scientist Bo Rothstein calls “knowledge realism,” the know-how created by experience and repeat efforts.

The dismissal of career experts, the dismantling of long-horizon science projects are examples of what cannot be recreated. What happens if tensions resurface between North and South Korea or between India and Pakistan? Who guides policy if the State and Defense Departments lose their experts? This is something where the next administration cannot simply reopen the spigot and recreate. Expertise is long to create and fast to destroy.

Ordinary citizens are likely to bear the brunt of the administration’s assaults on medical science and research, its destructive incursions into agencies like the National Institutes of Health and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the withholding of  billions of federal dollars that had been awarded to medical researchers.

 “Federal funding for biomedical research is central to health care innovation,” David Cutler and Edward Glaeser, economists at Harvard, wrote in “Cutting the N.I.H. — The $8 Trillion Health Care Catastrophe,” published in May in The Journal of the American Medical Association. “More than 99 percent of all new drugs approved from 2010 through 2019 had some antecedent research funded by the N.I.H.”

Another study documented the administration’s withholding of financing and undermining of government oversight in multiple areas, including long-term care, scientific research and vaccination policy. The administration’s budget proposals and “Big Beautiful Bill” include severe reductions in health care access, including the outright termination of services for immigrants and gender minorities. Its mass layoffs of scientific and regulatory specialists will be difficult to reverse.

William Galston, a prominent social scientist, weighed in, writing that there has been “irreparable damage” on both the home front and in foreign relations. He cited the “destruction of America’s reputation as the best place in the world for the most promising scientists and innovators of various kinds to conduct research. The evisceration of funding for basic research will be hard to reverse without restoring some bipartisan agreement about the importance of knowledge and expertise. I’m not holding my breath.”

Galston argued that irreparable harm has been done to America’s relations with the rest of the world. Trump hasn’t simply upended the longstanding system of multilateral trade relations that this country created, but he has destroyed the “trust the United States built up over decades as the guarantor of European security, of support for democracy and human rights and provider of global public goods such as freedom of the seas.”

Edsall’s op-ed enumerates a number of areas where rebuilding will be difficult, if it can be done at all, very much including Trump’s assaults on the civil service–from the firing of thousands of workers (many of whom had irreplaceable expertise)  and turning thousands more into “at will” employees, to efforts to politicise the federal workforce in continued defiance of the Hatch Act.

A Senior Fellow at the Brookings Institution called the Trump administration “the political-societal equivalent of a neutron bomb, and predicted that, even if Democrats take over, it will take far more than the next four years to rebuild it.

He isn’t wrong.

Comments

Trump’s Empty Threats

At least once a day–and sometimes more often– Donald Trump reminds us that he is an idiot.

Most recently, he displayed his ignorance of economics by imposing new tariffs on China, and then confidently asserting that China was paying them. Since his massive ego doesn’t allow him to learn from anyone–not even the third-rater “experts” with whom he has surrounded himself and who (dim as some of them are) still know far more than he does–he doesn’t understand that tariffs are essentially a tax on American consumers. (His steel tariffs alone have raised the price of washers and driers by more than $100 each.)

Not too long ago, Trump issued what he clearly thought was an oh-so-clever threat to those evil “sanctuary cities.” He proposed to resettle immigrants exclusively in those cities, an idea that the Brookings Institution called “part and parcel of the president’s approach to immigration, an issue on which he has always maintained a tenuous relationship to reality.”

Tenuous indeed.

He has apparently abandoned the threat, clearly puzzled by the lack of concern expressed by those he’d threatened. (Actually, “bring it on” is more than a lack of concern…)

In Trump’s view, sending immigrants to sanctuary cities is a way to punish those Democrats unwilling to “change our very dangerous immigration laws.” In the president’s eyes, because illegal immigration is so appalling to him, it must be appalling to everyone, and the transfer of refugees seeking asylum to sanctuary cities will turn voters against pro-immigration reform Democrats.

The president’s aborted plan for sanctuary cities is emblematic of everything that is wrong with his approach to immigration. Even if the claim that a disproportionate number of immigrants are criminals were true (it is not), the obvious problem with his plan is that there is nothing to guarantee that all these “bad actors” would stay in these Democratic strongholds. Once there, they might just move to places where large proportions of Trump voters and supporters live, and data the Washington Post obtained on a small sample of recent immigrants shows that occurring.

The Brookings article also noted that implementing this cockamamie policy (my terminology, not theirs) would require numerous violations of the laws, beginning but not ending with the Hatch Act.

Think of it this way: what if a Democratic president decided that Republican states who had voted against him or her on the basis of opposition to welfare programs should not get food stamps. There would obviously be howls of opposition if deep-red states were systematically deprived of federal funds, raising concerns about political abuse of power and a subjugation of Congressional intent in appropriations.

Trump constantly demonstrates that he doesn’t understand law–not only is he ignorant of specific rules that most Americans know, he clearly doesn’t understand the role of law in governance generally. (Granted, he also doesn’t understand governance…or really, much else.)

It isn’t just the legal framework that eludes him. He is also blissfully fact-free. As the Brookings analysis explains:

 As of the halfway mark of the fiscal year, 190,000 people have been apprehended in family units—almost a four-fold increase over last year. They currently make up the majority of all border apprehensions.

What would be the impact of relocating those asylum-seekers? There are eight states that have designated themselves sanctuary states (California, Colorado, Illinois, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, and Vermont) totaling a population of 80.23 million. In addition, there are another 87 counties and municipalities outside of those eight states that have designated themselves sanctuary jurisdictions, with a population totaling 39.71 million. Thus, the total population living in areas designated as sanctuary jurisdictions totals 119.94 million people.

The president believes the transfer of asylum-seekers to sanctuary jurisdictions would put such an undue burden on those local governments and populations that the people would rise up against their governments’ embrace of sanctuary status. In reality, however,… all families apprehended so far this year total an equivalent of .016 percent of the population of those sanctuary jurisdictions. Put differently, if those asylum-seekers were spread across sanctuary jurisdictions according to population, those jurisdictions would receive 16 asylum-seekers per 10,000 residents.

Hardly an unsupportable burden, even if asylum-seekers were the unproductive drains on local economies that Trump insists they are. But of course, he’s wrong about that too.

In 2017, researchers in the Department of Health and Human Services conducted an analysis of the economic impact of refugees, a very similar population to asylum-seekers. They found that in a 10-year period, they contributed $63 billion more in government revenues than they cost.

The administration rejected the report, because facts aren’t their thing.

America’s Oval Office is currently occupied by an incredibly uninformed (and embarrassingly stupid) raving bigot. If the (misspelled and ungrammatical) comments his supporters post to this and other blogs are any indication, they share those characteristics.

It explains a lot.

Comments

Comey, Continued….

Yesterday, while editing an post that I intended to send out this morning. I inadvertently hit “publish” rather than “save,” so subscribers received an extra transmittal yesterday.

Sorry about that! But let’s continue that discussion….

I don’t know what the effect of Comey’s actions will be on the election; we still have 8 days, and given the magnitude of the criticism he has received, perhaps he will clarify or otherwise clean up his mess prior to election day. There is speculation that his action will generate more enthusiasm and higher turnout among Trump voters, but it is also possible that anger at what will seem to many Democrats a “dirty trick” will motivate Clinton voters.

My own concern is the potential effect on the down-ticket races. Who knows? We’re in uncharted waters here.

That said, let’s revisit the ethics of Comey’s action.

A letter in yesterday’s New York Times addressing that issue deserves broad readership. It was from Richard W. Painter, currently a professor at the University of Minnesota Law School, who formerly served as the chief White House ethics lawyer from 2005 to 2007, during George W. Bush’s administration.

Mr. Painter has filed a complaint against the F.B.I. with the Office of Special Counsel, which investigates Hatch Act violations.

The opening paragraphs of his letter explain the reasons for the rules that are in place–the rules Comey disregarded.

The F.B.I. is currently investigating the hacking of Americans’ computers by foreign governments. Russia is a prime suspect.

Imagine a possible connection between a candidate for president in the United States and the Russian computer hacking. Imagine the candidate has business dealings in Russia, and has publicly encouraged the Russians to hack the email of his opponent and her associates.

It would not be surprising for the F.B.I. to include this candidate and his campaign staff in its confidential investigation of Russian computer hacking.

But it would be highly improper, and an abuse of power, for the F.B.I. to conduct such an investigation in the public eye, particularly on the eve of the election. It would be an abuse of power for the director of the F.B.I., absent compelling circumstances, to notify members of Congress from the party opposing the candidate that the candidate or his associates were under investigation. It would be an abuse of power if F.B.I. agents went so far as to obtain a search warrant and raid the candidate’s office tower, hauling out boxes of documents and computers in front of television cameras.

The F.B.I.’s job is to investigate, not to influence the outcome of an election.

The letter deserves to be read in its entirety, but here is Painter’s conclusion.

Absent extraordinary circumstances that might justify it, a public communication about a pending F.B.I. investigation involving a candidate for public office that is made on the eve of an election is thus very likely to be a violation of the Hatch Act and a misuse of an official position. Serious questions also arise under lawyers’ professional conduct rules that require prosecutors to avoid excessive publicity and unnecessary statements that could cause public condemnation even of people who have been accused of a crime, not to mention people like Mrs. Clinton, who have never been charged with a crime.

This is no trivial matter. We cannot allow F.B.I. or Justice Department officials to unnecessarily publicize pending investigations concerning candidates of either party while an election is underway. That is an abuse of power. Allowing such a precedent to stand will invite more, and even worse, abuses of power in the future.

Comments