A Newer Deal Part 6: Four MORE proposals - this time to fix CONGRESS... and why they'll work better than the Reich 'pledges'

Continuing my series about a proposed Democratic Newer Deal. 

Here I'll dive deeply into four more of the 30+ suggested reforms that were briefly listed here... organized in a way that both learns-from and satirizes the hypocritical but politically effective 1994 Republican Contract With America. 

But first some pertinent news. A couple of weeks after I started posting this series -- offering voters a clear agenda of positive steps -- economist and columnist Robert Reich issued a shorter list of “What Democrats Must Pledge to America.” And no, I am not asserting that my series triggered him to hurry his. 

Well, probably not. Though Reich's list overlaps mine in overall intent! We both aim to make progress toward better health care, aid to parents and children, and sound economics while limiting the power of oligarchies and cheaters and monopolies. Alas, Reich's 'pledges' also make up a wish list that might as well be directed at Santa Claus, for all of its political impracticality.

What distinguishes even very smart/moderate leftists like Reich from their centrist allies (like me) is not the desired direction, or even our degree of passion (you all know that I have plenty!), but awareness of one pure fact, that most of our progress across the last 250 years – even under FDR – was incremental. Each plateau building from the previous ones, like upward stairs of progress. Not letting the perfect be the enemy of the possible.

Alas, not one of Reich’s proposals satisfies the “60%+ Rule” that was so politically-effective for Newt Gingrich in 1994, and that Pelosi-Schumer-Sanders applied with terrific effectiveness in 2021-22.  

Start with steps that can be steam-rollered quickly, with 60%+ strong public support, right away! Only after that do you try for the long pass.

Big Gulp endeavors, like those tried by Clinton and Obama, always get bogged down and savaged by "Who pays for it?" and "They want communism!" Then, the GOP wins the next Congress and that's that - opportunity window closed. What we discovered in the 2021-22 Pelosi miracle year was that you can make great strides in multiple directions, if you start from that 60% consensus in order to push solid increments. Steps that then create those new plateaus!

Contrasting with Reich's "pledges," my list emphasizes restoring a functioning republic - civil service, reliable institutions, elections and rule-of-law - in ways that can't be withdrawn by future demagogues... along with incremental steps toward our shared goals (e.g. get all CHILDREN coverable under Medicare, in a single stroke, easily afforded and canceling every objection to Medicare-for-all.)

Look, I like and respect Robert Reich. But here he should have added an equally realistic 11th wish to the other ten... that every American gets a unicorn or pegasus, or at least a pony

== Those "Newer Deal" proposals we appraised last time ==

Could the news this month have better supported my list? If we had the Inspectorate right now, under IGUS (a totally independent Inspector General of the United States), Trump could not have fired or transferred most of the IGs and JAGs in the federal government. Honest scrutiny would abound when we need it most! And officers would have somewhere to turn, when given illegal orders. (I have recommended IGUS for fifteen years.)

The Truth & Reconciliation Act - discussed last time - would have staunched Trump's tsunami of corrupt pardons and the Immunity Limitation Act would clarify that no President is above the law. And yes, there are ways to judo-bypass the Roberts Court in both of those realms.

Some other proposals from my last two postings may seem obscure, like the Cyber Hygiene Act that could eliminate 90%+ of the 'botnets' that now infest tens of millions of home and small business computers, empowering our enemies and criminals. Or one that I personally like most... a simple House-internal reform to give every member one subpoena per year, which would likely transform the entire mental ecology in Congress!

But onward to more proposals! Most of which (again) you'll see nowhere else.

== Appraising another four "Newer Deal" proposals ==

I've mentioned the 1994 Newt Gingrich Contract With America several times and in so doing I likely triggered visceral, gut wrenching loathing from many of you! 

Well tough. You must understand how the 'contract' seemingly offered voters clear and crisp reforms of a system that most citizens now distrust. 

Yes, Newt and especially his replacement - the deeply-evil Dennis Hastert - betrayed every promise when they took power. Still, some (a minority) of those promises merit another look. Moreover, Democrats can say "WATCH as we actually enact them, unlike our lying opponents!

Among the good ideas the GOP betrayed are these:

 

•   Require all laws that apply to the rest of the country also apply to Congress; 

•   Arrange regular audits of Congress for waste or abuse;

•   Limit the terms of all committee chairs and party leadership posts;

•   Ban the casting of proxy votes in committee and law-writing by lobbyists;

•   Require that committee meetings be open to the public;

•   Guarantee honest accounting of our Federal Budget.

 

…and in the same spirit…

Members of Congress shall report openly all stock and other trades by members or their families, especially those trades which might be affected by the member’s inside knowledge.

Some members may resist some of those measures. But those are the sorts of House internal reforms that could truly persuade voters. Especially with the contrast. "Republicans betrayed these promises. We are keeping them."

Here's another one that'd be simple to implement. Even entertaining! While somewhat favoring the Party that has more younger members. Fewer creaky near-zombies. And so, swinging from the House to the Senate:

While continuing ongoing public debate over the Senate’s practice of filibuster, we shall use our next majority in the Senate to restore the original practice: that senators invoking a filibuster must speak on the chamber floor the entire time.

No explanation is needed on that one! Bring back the spirit of Jimmy Stewart.

Only now, here's one that I very much care about. Do any of you remember when Gingrich and then Hastert fired all the staff in Congress that advised members about matters of actual fact, especially science and technology? Why on Earth would they do such a thing? 

Simple. The Congressional Office of Technology Assessment (OTA) would often say to members: "I'm sorry (sir or madam), but that's not actually true."

Oh, no, we can't have that! Gingrich asserted that OTA said that dreaded phrase far more often to Republicans than to Democrats. And... well... yes, that is true enough. There's a reason for that. But true or not, it's time for this proposal to be enacted:

Independent congressional advisory offices for science, technology and other areas of skilled, fact-based analysis will be restored, in order to counsel Congress on matters of fact without bias or dogma-driven pressure. 

Rules shall ensure that technical reports may not be re-written by politicians, changing their meaning to bend to political desires. 

 

Every member of Congress shall be encouraged and funded to appoint from their home district a science-and-fact advisor who may interrogate the advisory panels and/or answer questions of fact on the member’s behalf.

Notice how this pre-empts all plausible objections in advance! By challenging (and funding) every representative to hire a science and fact adviser from their home district, you achieve several things:

1. Each member gets trusted factual guidance -- someone who can interrogate OTA and other experts, on the member's behalf. And this, in turn, addresses the earlier Gingrich calumny about "OTA bias."

2. Members would no longer get to wriggle and squirm out of answering fact or science questions -- e.g. re: Climate Change -- evading with the blithe shrug that's used by almost all current Republicans: "I'm not a scientist." 

So? Now you have someone you trust who can answer technical or factual or scientific questions for you. So step up to the microphone with your team.

3. Any member who refuses to name such an adviser risks ridicule; "What? Your home district hasn't got savvy experts you could pick from?" That potential blowback could ensure that every member participates.

4. Remember, this is about fact-determination and not policy! Policy and law remain the member's domain. Only now they will be less unconstrained in asserting false, counter-factual justifications for dumb policies.

And finally (for this time)... a problem that every Congress has promised to address, that of PORK spending. Look, you will never eliminate it! Members want to bring stuff home to their district. 

But by constraining pork to a very specific part of the budget, they'll have to wrangle with each other, divvying that single slice of pie among themselves. And it will lead to scrutiny of each other's picks, giving each pork belly a strong sniff for potential corruption.

New rules shall limit “pork” earmarking of tax dollars to benefit special interests or specific districts. Exceptions must come from a single pool, totaling no more than one half of a percent of the discretionary budget. These exceptions must be placed in clearly marked and severable portions of a bill, at least two weeks before the bill is voted upon. (More details here.)

Notice that all four of the proposals that we covered this time are internal procedure reforms for the houses of Congress! Which means they would not be subject to presidential veto. 

These... and several others... could be passed if Democrats take either house of Congress in January 2027, no matter who is still in the White House.

There are other procedural suggestions, some of them perhaps a bit crackpotty! Like occasional secret ballot polls to see if members are voting the way they do out of genuine conscience or else out of fear or coercion... but you can find those here.

Next time, we'll get back to vitally-needed laws.

-------------

And this project continues... in Part 7.  Or refer to the overall summary again in Part three

Avoiding “impeachment bait” - Why Donald Trump’s VP choice is more complicated than you think

Truly, I wish this U.S. election year were less… interesting. But like a mouse watching a snake, or Spock with a raised eyebrow, we cannot look away. "Fascinating" does not begin to describe it.  One is tempted to demand: "who is writing this simulation, and how much longer before we all realize that it's a farce?"

Mind you, I have started to veer again toward offering long-odds wagers. Such as whether Donald Trump will actually walk away from the Cleveland Convention with the nomination that now seems so throughly sewn up, and carry it all the way to the election. I got a creepy feeling....

But in today's missive, let's talk about something else. Appraising the highly unusual set of factors that Donald J. Trump must consider in naming the person he wants the GOP convention to put forward as Vice Presidential nominee. 

Of course that is the talk of the town. Salon has bruited Alabama Senator Jeff Sessions. Others speak Condoleeza Rice or Oklahoma Governor Mary Fallin, for reasons I'll get to, below. And were this a normal situation, my money would be on Rice.

But no. In order to show you just how much must be on Trump's mind, I'll choose one fellow as an example, letting him serve are a mirror to the pros and cons.

Reasons why Donald Trump might choose Newt Gingrich.

1) Personal loyalty can be a strong factor. Gingrich endorsed DT fairly early.  

Sure, this also applies to Sessions and to NJ Governor Chris Christie. But Sessions would crystallize so clearly that this is Civil War Part VIII that even Indiana might remember what side it had been on. And why. As for Christie? Please.

2) Insider connections. Gingrich knows everybody, including major donors like Sheldon Adelson. And the cryptic powers who may stand behind Adelson.

3) Ticket balancing: All right. Newt provides none of this.  He can't even help in his home state of Georgia. 

It's in this area that folks wax effusive about Rice and Fallin. Both of them could (at least in Donald's mind) help him with women. Rice is a two-fer, allowing his most xenophopic supporters to shout the modern rallying cry of American bigots: "See? I like that'un! That means I'm no racist at all!"

Two problems here, though. Fallin seems interested, but Rice not so much.  Also, other factors will loom much stronger in DT's mind than obsolete ticket balancing (see below.) 

(Oh, ticket-balancing folks also mention former Mass. Senator Scott Brown and former Arizona Governor Jan Brewer...  or Florida’s Rick Scott. About whom more in a bit.)

4) "I want to have somebody who can deal with Congress, who gets along with Congress, who is a Washington person," Trump said at a town hall in April. While Newt - former Speaker of the House - would seem to fully satisfy this aim…

5) …Gingrich is also enough of a rebel firebrand that he might (perhaps) be able to serve the other function of a veep nominee — ministering to the base of radical-populist-confederates who gave DT the nomination, keeping them calm while Trump tries to veer toward the middle, after Cleveland. Sessions could do this. So could Cruz or Palin. Not Fallin or Rice.

(That is… if DT runs for the center! I used to deem that likely. I even fantacized that Trump might, in the debates, drop some hoary and insane, dinosaur-obsolete standard GOP incantations like Supply Side voodoo and climate denialism. Now? That seems less likely, alas. But if he did try a middle-ward veer, he'd need to send a firebrand into Tea Party territory to calm them.)

Sure, some in the base will remember that Newt betrayed the Dennis Hastert Rule - “Never ever negotiate with democrats, even for the good of the nation.” Gingrich paused several times in the 1990s - amid general nastiness and craziness — to negotiate important measures with President Bill Clinton. You and I would deem that a good thing! But it enraged Hastert*, Tom DeLay**, John Boehner and Paul Ryan, leading them to oust Gingrich and send him into exile. That is still cause for resentment among the harshest culture warriors…

6) …Which could make Newt ideal, from Trump’s perspective!  It means that Gingrich is not a reliably obedient servant of Rupert Murdoch and the other GOP lords. Not totally. He’s always been a bit of a wild card, like Trump, mixing bilious insanity with moments of lucidity and independent thinking. This means that Newt may not be ‘impeachment bait.’

What’s that? Well, ponder this. Even if he wins the election and is inaugurated into the Oval Office, Trump would start his administration more hated by establishment pols than any president since maybe Lincoln. (And he is no Lincoln.) Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell and Mitt Romney must have already worked out the following scenario — and it is a doozy.

== The GOP replacement gambit ==

All they have to do, after inauguration, is wait till President Trump (shudder) does or says something frightful.  Which should happen within a week, maybe a month, of entering office, as sure as sunrise. 

What then? 

Tell the democrats in Congress: “Go ahead and impeach him! We’ll provide just enough GOP votes to help you succeed!”  A perfect, pre-packaged coup that would install Donald’s “establishment” Vice President in the White House for an almost-full term, getting all those juicy Supreme Court appointments plus a solid chance of re-election. 

(Think this unlikely? Ryan has already threatened to sue a President Trump if he misbehaves. )

Voila. Rupert M is back in the driver’s seat - with the bonus that Fox News will rake in billions of extra eyeball revenue during the impeachment drama!

Better yet, the GOP moguls could thereupon nurse confederate resentment, blaming the Democrats for ousting the people’s choice - Trump! Call it pulling a “JFK” without all that risky conspiracy-murder stuff.

Note that this is where the establishment will move Heaven and Earth to get Condi Rice or Mary Fallin into the VP slot, or some other absolutely-owned Murdochian prince or princess. 

Hence my reason for asserting that The Donald has to factor in more than just the usual considerations, in choosing his VP. His ideal partner is not just someone “established” … who can also minister to the radical base… but in addition she or he must be crazy and un-controllable enough not to serve as impeachment bait!

Hence my focus (for the moment) on Gingrich.  Ryan and McConnell and Murdoch will look at Newt, pondering the option of using the impeachment gambit to make him president. They’ll recall what they did to him… …and Gingrich's tenacity at revenge… and shake their heads, saying “naaaaah!” 

 (That is, unless President DT truly does over the edge, even for him. In which case of course Newt would be preferable - in my mind - over any other republican politician.  If for no other reason because… well... he’s a sci fi author!)

7) Oh, one more thing. With six marriages between them and countless conquests — and with all that hair — these guys will surly win the woman vote.

LATE NEWS:  Yipe. Newt really is angling for Trump's VP spot, by proving how Trumplike he can be. "Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich is calling for the creation of a new House Committee on Un-American Activities, invoking the infamous "Red Scare"-era congressional body as a blueprint for weeding out American ISIS adherents and sympathizers."

== But complications continue! ==

You think we're done here? Then think again. Consider why anyone would want to be Donald J Trump's Vice Presidential nominee. Traditionally, that role sets you up as the party's heir apparent. (And perhaps Paul Ryan is kicking himself, right now.) But again, this year is different.

Innumerable GOP stalwarts have removed themselves from consideration, under the widely held assumption that Trump will go down in flames, this November, taking his running mate's career with him. Not heir-apparent, but political dead meat.

Sure, that's likely. Some -- like tenured Stanford Professor Condoleeza Rice -- might shrug that off. Others, like Gingrich and Christie appear to have zero alternate hopes of mattering, ever again, and might as well toss dice. They are in a shrinking minority.

But consider a variant on the impeachment gambit.  Imagine it's October and Donald is being Donald on steroids. The party is fracturing and the election is way, way, way lost. As DT's VP nominee, you labored through August and September, visibly gritting your teeth and trying, knowing that you'll go down with this ship... that is, unless... you rebel! 

And in October, that's what you do. Visibly and publicly you separate yourself from Trump, declaring that you are running for the constitutional office of Vice President independent of him!

Can he fire you as his running mate?  I think not. That would take at-minimum a vote by the Republican Party Central Committee, if not a reconvened convention. 

What would this accomplish? 
(1) It would be memorable, and that's some consolation prize. 
(2) It would restore your status as a top figure in what's left of the Republican Party, drawing tons of press as you crisscross the country, disavowing DT and collecting political IOUs by helping down-ticket candidates***. 
(3)  Heck... there's even that weird possibility that the Electoral College... nah.

Sound implausible? Not so much actually, if Trump accepts a truly mainstream GOP figure as his running mate. If the election seems lost, she or he is likely to betray him, in October.  

And if by some chance they win? Then the Impeachment Gambit is exactly and precisely the reason the establishment is urging such a person upon you, Don. Ponder that, big fellah. Think about it really hard.

== Oh, what a mess. ==

In two weeks or so, we'll know, so why did I type all these words? Only to show you the mélange of factors that must be spinning right now, under Donald Trump's hair. 

Having put aside all the usual considerations like geographic balance or picking someone from a crucial state, is this my wager? Will he pick the Newt Gingrich? Or perhaps Florida’s Rick Scott, who seems very Gingrich-like, in all those categories? (DT would have the consolation of knowing that no sane cabal would rush for the impeachment gambit without picturing President Rick Scott and thinking twice: shudder.) So is this my scenario?

Nope. All of the above depends on Trump being fiercely logical — which he claims to be, but of which we’ve seen little sign. 

No, in fact I think DT will choose a woman as his running mate. He has to, imagining that doing so will instantly patch things up with female voters.  Given the other factors I just described, Gov. Martinez would be a logical pick… but he insulted her. Maybe Gov. Fallin or Condi Rice... 

...ignoring that he'll thereby be walking into a trap laid by Ryan, Romney, Murdoch and McConnell. 

Whether he wins or loses the November vote, sooner or later, his assigned establishment partner will betray him. So he must pick someone outside the tent.

In fact, the person who actually fits all of the criteria listed above - even more than Newt does - is… gulp… Sarah Palin.

No. No. He’s not that crazy. Who would be?

Don't answer that. Just blame Arizona.

===================================================================

.

== Addendum #1: 

Over on the American NewsX site, where I co-published this piece, one LG Hartman pointed out that I had not thought through the twists, all the way, nor seen how trapped Donald J. Trump is.  Consider how we should take "it a step further in case DT doesn't pick a VP that the Establishment likes. If Trump picks another Loon for VP but still wins -- then the Establishment makes sure they BOTH go down in flames via Impeachment scandal leading to......drum roll please, President Paul Ryan." 

Of course this assumes the Republicans retain the House of Representatives... and the dems are stupid enough to do the dirty work... but oh wow.  Now my head hurts.

== Addendum #2: two more forecasts on the side ==

Okay, these two need to be in parentheses:

(1. Did I just mention the Electoral College? No, a rebelling republican VP nominee will not persuade electors to make him or her Vice President to a winning democratic president. On the other hand, all my adult life, I wondered if we'd see some kind of machinations in the EC. Like in the 1950s when an elector from the Deep South defected in favor of a dixiecrat instead of his party's nominee.  I've been amazed that 538 appointed electors, every quadrennial year since, have always followed their state's allocation rules, with nary a peep. But if ever there were a year for flamboyant "expressions of conscience..." 

(I assure you that Trump, having seen leakage among his pledged delegates at the Cleveland GOP convention, will have someone closely scrutinize the GOP electors, this time. 

(Still, you heard it here. You can count on the fact that Ryan and McConnell and Romney are pondering every scenario.)

(2. After Cleveland, DT needs to pay very close attention to advice from the Secret Service, especially if his running mate is an establishment Murdochian. 

(Seriously, dude. Almost the only way the GOP masters could win this thing is with you as a martyr. So curb the physical risk-taking. And duck.)



===
* Hastert, the head of the GOP for many years and Speaker of the House recently went to prison for child molestation and conspiracy. 

** DeLay is also now a convicted criminal... though released on a technicality... oh such role models!

*** You heard it here.  Mitt Romney will re-emerge bigtime in 2020.  He is copying all the methods used by Richard Nixon during his wilderness years, after 1960, collecting scads of political IOUs. Bet on it.