A Bridge Too Far

Newly-inaugurated governor Phil Murphy of New Jersey has gone off the deep end.

Proof ironically comes from an Obama-era program. A June, 2012 memorandum from Department of Homeland Security secretary Janet Napolitano set forth the rationale for the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals by "the exercise of our prosecutorial discretion."

DACA did not establish "amnesty" for the children who arrived in the USA under the age of sixteen. and were on that date under the age of 31. They were required to have"continuously resided" in the country since 6/15/07 and been currently in school, a graduate of high school or possessor of a GED, or an honorably discharged veteran.

And criminals need not apply. Napolitano wisely required the indiviudal not to have "been convicted of a felony offense, a significant misdemeanor offfense, multiple misdemeanor offenses, or otherwise pose a threat to national security or public safety."

On January 17 MSNBC's Chuck Todd (transcript here; relevant portion of the video at 3:20) asked Murphy about the Office of Immigrant Defensive Protection which the governor wishes to create. The New Jersey Democrat responded

Before Donald Trump got elected, we spoke about driver`s licenses for everybody regardless of status, statewide identification cards, instate tuition or financial aid for “dreamers,” then Donald Trump gets elected. And we still stand for all those.

The state of New Jersey is in a fiscal crisis, exacerbated by the disastrous eight-year reign of Chris Christie. Its public pension debt (and property tax burden) are the greatest in the nation, the latter driving residents (especially the elderly) to move out-of-state.

In response, Phil Murphy wants to give a break in tuition to immigrants who are not citizens and under current policy, will not be citizens. They would pay lower tuition in New Jersey state schools than residents in towns in Pennsylvania, Delaware, or New York State bordering New Jersey.

Murphy also  would like "driver's licenses for everybody regardless of status," which evidently would include illegal immigrants. He might want to be reminded that one Hillary R. Clinton, who in 2007 was on the fast track for the Democratic nomination for President. She was riding high before she ran into a roadblock, courtesy of rival Chris Dodd:





Had the late Tim Russert never asked this question, it is very likely Senator Barack Obama never would have been nominated and become President Obama.

Murphy's other immigration proposal contrasts with the DACA policy established in 2012. Todd asked him "among this (illegal immigrant) population), what should be enough to get you deported? If you were brought here, what should be enough to get you deported." Murphy replied

I think what we`ve done and the president has done this, it was  done in our campaign, we`ve crossed the wires between criminal justice and law enforcement on the one hand and immigrant status on the other hand. There is nothing inconsistent.

In fact, I think they add to each other with being really tough on law enforcement but being a welcoming state and community that people could come out of the shadows and feel free to engage with police and other community leaders. If you commit a crime, you ought to be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.





Remarkably, Murphy's only concession to law enforcement was "if you commit a crime, you ought to be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law," which means..... nothing.

No politician ever would recommend someone not be "prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law." But he says nothing about what the law should be. Nor does he indicate whether once someone is prosecuted and convicted, he or she should be deported or instead allowed to remain in the state.

It's not hard to figure out why. DACA required the individual not be a felon or repeated misemeanant. Murphy would require no such thing, though he was by the question invited to concede that breaking the law would be a deal-breaker. Obeying the law should be a minimum, as the Obama Administration understood.

The governor of New Jersey would be more humane to both immigrants and non-immigrants were he to ensure that all residents, legal or illegal, receive basic human services, or better.

But citizenship, or the effort to obtain it, means something. Certain benefits, including access to a driver's license, in-state tuitiion, and protection against deportation should be conveyed to persons exclusive of those who are here (illegally or as Dreamers) who are precluded from being citizens. If Murphy attempts to follow through on the agenda he laid out to Todd, the Governor will be courting trouble both for himself and Democrats in New Jersey.




Share |

And Then There Is The Issue Of Undocumented Drugs

Have you heard the one about the documented immigrants? (Table below from Pew Hispanic Center and, unfortunately, 2009.)

Of course you haven't, because those individuals are not called "documented immigrants" but rather "legal immigrants."  Nevertheless, their counterparts who have decided not to play by the rules are not "illegal immigrants" but idealized as "undocumented workers."

Many Democrats, at least in New Jersey, have learned well from Frank Luntz on this one issue, illegal- er, uh, undocumented- immigration.  Yesterday, 200+ advocates of a bill proposed by Democrats in the New Jersey legislature to provide an undocumented/illegal immigrant a "driving privilege card" met at St. Joseph Pro-Cathedral for a rally organized by Camden Churches Organized for People (well, some people, anyway).

The driving privilege card, unavailable to legal residents of New Jersey, is not a freebie.According to this report in March, "To qualify for the card, which would be valid for four years, potential drivers would have to prove both identity and residency, pass a written driver's test similar to the exam required for other New Jersey drivers, and then pass a road test."

After which, legitimacy of their undocumented/illegal status will have been conferred upon them by government.  This is not the federal government, which still maintains an effort to return to the country of origin individuals who have undocumentedly entered this country.Nonetheless, forgive immigrants (illegal or otherwise) their confusion in being granted an extraordinary privilege by government while government lurks in the background to expel them from the country.  The distinction between the state and the federal governments is one often missed even by people born, raised, and living in the USA.

When the legislation was introduced in March, Assemblywoman Annette Quijano summed up the public rationale for the move in stating “We have to look at it realistically. We have a lot of undocumented immigrants driving today and it has become a safety issue. The more individuals on road who know how to drive, who have taken a driver’s license test and a road test, the better it is for all of us.”

Perhaps a little honesty, too, would be in order.  It's really quite simple, hyperbole aside: individuals who have come here  here legally are legal immigrants; individuals who have come here illegally are illegal immigrants.  Not undocumented, not alien, but illegal.

Perhaps times have changed, and proposals such as in NJ may be an indication of how far we've come (or retreated) on this matter.  Or it may be that once such an issue gains the attention of the public, measures which would encourage illegal entry into the nation lose popularity. But flashback to October 29, 2007. Hillary Clinton was an unstoppable juggernaut on her way to the Democratic nomination for President.  The following evening, Mrs. Clinton would appear in a televised debate from Drexel University in Philadelphia, Pa. which included the following exchange:

MR. RUSSERT: Senator Clinton, Governor of New York Eliot Spitzer has proposed giving driver’s licenses to illegal immigrants. You told the Nashua, N.H., editorial board it makes a lot of sense. Why does it make a lot of sense to give an illegal immigrant a driver’s license?
MRS. CLINTON: Well, what Governor Spitzer is trying to do is fill the vacuum left by the failure of this administration to bring about comprehensive immigration reform.
We know in New York we have several million at any one time who are in New York illegally. They are undocumented workers. They are driving on our roads. The possibility of them having an accident that harms themselves or others is just a matter of the odds. It’s probability. So what Governor Spitzer is trying to do is to fill the vacuum.
I believe we need to get back to comprehensive immigration reform because no state, no matter how well intentioned, can fill this gap. There needs to be federal action on immigration reform. ...
After an exchange between Mr. Russert and Senator Christopher J. Dodd of Connecticut, Mrs. Clinton jumped in:
MRS. CLINTON: I just want to add, I did not say that it should be done, but I certainly recognize why Governor Spitzer is trying to do it. And we have failed——
MR. DODD: Wait a minute. No, no, no. You said, yes, you thought it made sense to do it.
MRS. CLINTON: No, I didn’t, Chris. But the point is, what are we going to do with all these illegal immigrants who are driving?
MR. DODD: Well, that’s a legitimate issue. But driver’s license goes too far, in my view.
MRS. CLINTON: Well, you may say that, but what is the identification if somebody runs into you today who is an undocumented worker——
MR. DODD: There’s ways of dealing with that.
MRS. CLINTON: Well, but——
MR. DODD: This is a privilege, not a right.
MRS. CLINTON: Well, what Governor Spitzer has agreed to do is to have three different licenses — one that provides identification for actually going onto airplanes and other kinds of security issues, another which is an ordinary driver’s license and then a special card that identifies the people who would be on the road.
MR. DODD: That’s a bureaucratic nightmare.
MRS. CLINTON: So it’s not the full privilege.
MR. RUSSERT: Senator Clinton, I just want to make sure what I heard. Do you, the New York Senator Hillary Clinton, support the New York governor’s plan to give illegal immigrants a driver’s license? You told the Nashua, N.H., paper it made a lot of sense.
MRS. CLINTON: It——
MR. RUSSERT: Do you support his plan?
MRS. CLINTON: You know, Tim, this is where everybody plays gotcha. It makes a lot of sense. What is the governor supposed to do? He is dealing with a serious problem. We have failed, and George Bush has failed.
Do I think this is the best thing for any governor to do? No. But do I understand the sense of real desperation, trying to get a handle on this? Remember, in New York we want to know who’s in New York. We want people to come out of the shadows. He’s making an honest effort to do it. We should have passed immigration reform.

There were other factors which culminated in nomination for Senator Obama, but Christopher Dodd had found the chink in Hillary Clinton's armor. Whether because she was seen as supporting something seemingly outrageous or simply because she was unprepared to answer a question about an issue in her home state, Mrs. Clinton's smooth glide to the nomination was over.

Yet now, nary a Democrat is able or willing to question a similar initiative in New Jersey and Republicans, realizing that there are issues far more critical to their donor class and which threaten the control and command of the political system by the 1%, generally have not found their voice.  Throughout the country- but especially in New Jersey, where Christopher J. Christie remains supreme with power envied by Vladimir Putin- social services are endless cut partly because of a (short-sighted) effort to hold the line on taxes. Yet, Democrats in several states are determined, as Chris Dodd understood 6-7 years ago, to create "a bureaucratic nightmare."

Little if anything has been accomplished nationally on illegal immigration, and perhaps making incremental changes state-by-state will wear down GOP opposition to granting citizenship to undocumented/illegal immigrants.  But until then, most reforms, incremental and spasmodic, will continue to make the situation worse for Americans, of whatever national background.

Share |

Against Bailouts, Rhetorically

Yep, they're all against "bailouts." Ron Paul decries the "benefits" from "all the bailouts due to the monetary system." Jon Huntsman, the only candidate on the stage last night at Oakland University (debate transcript, here) in Rochester, Michigan who did not flunk Economics 101, is worried that the continuance of 'too big to fail' might lead to another bailout.

Michele Bachmann criticized the requests of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac for billions in a "bailout," blissfully unaware that when a public corporation run entirely by the government prior to 1969, the two agencies were effective and efficient. Mitt Romney- in Michigan!- said the auto bailout "was the wrong way to go." Saving American jobs does not win favor with the man who made part of his fortune at Bain Capital eliminating them.

Rick Perry, who has run Texas state government as a pay to play operation, vowed that he is "not going to pick winners and losers." Rick Santorum reminded his colleagues "time and time again, Wall Street, the Wall Street bailout, five of the eight people on this panel supported a Wall Street bailout. I didn't." Unfortunately, Santorum's preference for ending "government intervention in the marketplace" would encourage a reprise.

Even one of the debate hosts got into the act, with CNBC's personal finance correspondent Sharon Epperson worrying about "student loan debt becoming the next bailout."

If you believe these Republicans consider prevention of avoiding the temptation of another bailout a high priority, I have some prime Greek debt to sell you (cheap shot there; go, Athens!). Tax cuts for the wealthy have been joined by ridicule of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act as tenets of GOP gospel. The best rehearsed line of the night may have been from Herman Cain when he maintained there are three things wrong with Dodd-Frank, mentioning one, then quipping "the two other biggest problems with Dodd/Frank: Dodd and Frank."

Everyone laughed, including the 80% of the audience which doesn't know what was in the legislation, and the remaining 20%, which doesn't understand it.

Though weakened by an onslaught of lobbying by Wall Street, the financial reform which culminated in Dodd-Frank makes the dreaded "bailout" less, rather than more, likely. In late September, CNNMoney reported

When Moody's downgraded three banks on Wednesday, it gave a big thumbs up to the Dodd-Frank Wall Street reforms that aim to ensure there won't be any more big bank bailouts.

Moody's made clear it believes that the U.S. government is less likely to step in to save a troubled bank,and downgraded Bank of America, Wells Farg oand Citigroup.

It is more likely now than during the financial crisis to allow a large bank to fail should it become financially troubled, as the risks of contagion become less acute," Moody's wrote in its downgrade note of Wells Fargo's stock.

Perry was not being presumptuous when last night he maintained "Everybody on this stage understands it's the regulatory world that is killing America."

"Everybody on this stage" (except, it would appear, Huntsman) is living on a different planet than both defenders and skeptics of the federal government's efforts to prevent another bailout.

At a meeting of the House Oversight Committee in January, the acting assistant secretary for financial stability at the Treasury Department maintained "Dodd-Frank gives us the tools to regulate any financial institution, regardless of its size, that poses systemic risks, and it gives us the tools to shut down such financial institutions." Demurring, Special Inspector General for TARP Neil Barofsky warned that federal officials "need to have the regulatory will and the political will to rein in the size of these banks." In his view, the Dodd-Frank Republicans imply is strangling businesses is not strong enough.

Six of the seven pretenders on stage in Michigan act as if they've slept through the last several years. If sincere, they are unaware, as Matt Taibbi has noted

We've just witnessed an episode of industry-wide financial mismanagement that surely has no parallel in history. From Lehman Brothers to AIG to Goldman and Morgan Stanley (which in 2008 needed the unprecedented emergency granting of a commercial bank charter to avoid bankruptcy) to Citigroup (which needed a $25 billion bailout and $300 billion in federal guarantees to survive) to Bear Stearns (dead) and Merrill Lynch (dead) and so on, virtually every single one of America's leading financial institutions from the last decade is either already out of business or functionally insolvent and living off government life support and cheap cash from the Fed.

And the GOP candidates have one solution, and one solution only: get government out of the way. The only hope is that they realize they're just making it up.

Share|

Financial Reform Opposition

The chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, Chris Dodd, and the chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, Barney Frank, have unveiled bills designed to prevent another bailout of financial industry giants. House Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, however, is not pleased, declaring on the Senate floor

We cannot allow endless taxpayer-funded bailouts for big Wall Street banks. The way to solve this problem is to let the people who make the mistakes pay for them. We won't solve this problem until the biggest banks are allowed to fail.

Sounds like good rhetoric, and that's exactly what is- rhetoric, and nothing McConnell believes. A Time magazine blogger caught the similarity between McConnell's jargon and that of pollster Frank Luntz, a favorite of Fox News who works with Republicans:

Luntz: "The single best way to kill any legislation is to link it to the Big Bank Bailout."

McConnell: "We cannot allow endless taxpayer-funded bailouts for big Wall Street banks. And that's why we must not pass the financial reform bill that's about to hit the floor."

Luntz: "Taxpayers should not be held responsible for the failure of big business any longer. If a business is going to fail, not matter how big, let it fail."

McConnell: "[The Dodd bill] gives the government a new backdoor mechanism for propping up failing or failed institutions.... We won't solve this problem until the biggest banks are allowed to fail."

Luntz: "Government policies caused the bubble and its ultimate crash. Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, the Federal Reserve, and the Community Reinvestment Act all had a role in the catastrophe. The government inflated economic bubbles with easy credit policies."

McConnell: “It also directs the Fed to oversee 35 to 50 of the biggest firms, replicating on an even larger scale the same distortions that plagued the housing market and helped trigger a massive bubble we'll be suffering from for years. If you thought Fannie and Freddie were dangerous, how about 35 to 50 of them?"

Not a coincidence, not even close. (Luntz's advice came before there was any bill.) If one were to listen to the Kentucky Senator, one would be tempted to believe that the intent of the proposals was to expand corporate power and influence. Dodd's initiative is a little weak but at least points the federal government in the right direction as

The bill also creates for the first time a legal method to wind down failing large, systemically-important financial firms. This is an authority federal regulators consistently argue that they lacked during the financial crisis -- the reason, they cite, for using hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars to bail out private banks and financial firms.

If Senator McConnell truly were interested in preventing "people who make the mistakes" from being rewarded, he would be encouraged by Representative Franks' bill, which

creates a Financial Stability Oversight Board that will monitor the activities and practices of large financial institutions, but if they run into trouble the Board becomes a death panel. If a Wall Street bank or investment bank begins to fail, threatening the safety of the financial system, it will be put to death. End of story. Shareholders are wiped out, unsecured creditors are out of luck, management and every employee that is not required to shut down the company is fired. And even secured creditors may be required to take haircuts. The industry pays into a fund to put the institution to death, and this fund is only used to protect the system and our economy when the bank fails.

But McConnell, feigning concern about "too big to fail," wants to continue as one of Wall Street's stealth champions, Fox Business reporting on April 12:

As a financial reform bill starts to take shape in Washington, two key lawmakers came to New York City last week to explain what it means for Wall Street, and how financial executives might help prevent some of its least market-friendly aspects from becoming law by electing more Republicans, FOX Business Network has learned.

About 25 Wall Street executives, many of them hedge fund managers, sat down for a private meeting Thursday afternoon with two of the most powerful Republican lawmakers in Congress: Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, and John Cornyn, the senior senator from Texas who runs the National Republican Senatorial Committee, one of the primary fundraising arms of the Republican Party.

The stated topic of the meeting: The Financial reform bill being sponsored by Senator Chris Dodd, the Democrat and chairman of the senate banking committee. Both McConnell and Cornyn listened to numerous complaints the executives have with the bill. These included complaints about provisions that allow the government to continue to prop up financial institutions that are “too big to fail.”

The Republicans noted they expect to pick up several seats in the Senate and take control of the House. but cautioned

in order to assure those gains, and add even more, McConnell and Cornyn made it clear they need Wall Street's help.

We've seen this all before- just recently, in fact, with health care. Unmoved by the need to prevent another financial meltdown, the GOP on Friday sent to Majority Leader Reid a letter, signed by all 41 in their caucus, declaring

We are united in our opposition to the partisan legislation reported by the Senate Banking Committee. As currently constructed, this bill allows for endless taxpayer bailouts of Wall Street and establishes new and unlimited regulatory powers that will stifle small businesses and community banks.

This might have seemed a little more sincere if the Dodd bill had not been crafted with the assistance of Republican Senator Bob Corker (not a RINO, he) of Tennessee- or if the GOP senators had not planned earlier in the week to send a letter pledging to filibuster the bill, only to be stymied by one senator (Collins of Maine) who who was reluctant to commit to a strategy of blocking debate.

But this requires, in what Digby recognizes as "a kabuki dance," someone pretending to play the honest broker. The previous day, Judd Gregg (R-NH) had been asked on MSNBC about the possibility of compromise and replied

The question is how do we get back to the table. I think Senator McConnell is absolutely right. He's saying, hey talk to us on this issue. If you're not going to talk to us then we're not going to support taking the bill across the floor and we'll use our capacity to stop the bill, but what we really want to do is sit down and reach agreement because these agreements should be very doable.

That same day, however, Ezra Klein noted

if you're looking for help predicting the ultimate amount of bipartisan cooperation on this bill, the fact that Cornyn and McConnell are basing their fundraising strategy around their opposition to financial regulation should offer a clue.

We've seen this all before- quite recently, in fact, with the health care "debate." Digby, with insight rivaling that of Thomas Frank, has it figured out:

Judd's job is to ensure that the bill is watered down to something that Wall Street is happy with, but which Republicans can still vote against in the end, this time saying "it doesn't go far enough." It worked with health care.

The difference this time is that liberals are not nearly as invested in this bill as they were in health care. There could easily be defections on the left if they water this thing down any more than it already is. Nobody's life is literally at stake and Obama can't keep going to the "my legacy depends on it" well.

The Dems would do better politically to tell the Republicans to go to hell, pass a tough bill and take it to the people. Conservatives voting against financial system reform are in a much more difficult political position than liberals because everyone knows that Republicans are the party of big business and have been for a century. They'll try to muddy it up with cries of socialism, but only the veriest teabagger will be able to absorb the dissonance in all this without their heads exploding. If the Democrats allow the GOP to water down their bill even further so they can then vote against it in a faux populist hissy fit, they get what they deserve. They'd be better off walking away and running the fall campaign on the GOP's obsequious obeisance to Wall Street bankers.

Or, the Democrats can, as with health care: allow the GOP to move the goalposts and compromise till the bill is substantially watered down; watch as they nonetheless face a wall of opposition from the GOP; and listen to the mainstream media blame them for refusing bipartisanship. Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice....

An Easy Call

Loyalty is a virtue, but extremism in the defense of one's colleague may not be.

And so it goes that the Hartford Courant reported yesterday of the Democratic Senator from Connecticut commenting on the Democrat-Independent (elected as an Independent) Senator from Connecticut:

What does Barack Obama want?" Dodd rhetorically asked reporters Friday in Hartford. "He's talked about reconciliation, healing, bringing people together. I don't think he'd necessarily want to spend the first month of this president-elect period, this transition period, talking about a Senate seat, particularly if someone is willing to come forward and is willing to be a member of your family in the caucus in that sense."

After Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid met with Connecticut's junior senator, he issued the following statement:

Today Senator Lieberman and I had the first of what I expect to be several conversations. No decisions have been made. While I understand that Senator Lieberman has voted with Democrats a majority of the time, his comments and actions have raised serious concerns among many in our caucus. I expect there to be additional discussions in the days to come, and Senator Lieberman and I will speak to our caucus in two weeks to discuss further steps.

It seems a bit incongrous or disloyal- no, appaling- for a Senator who was assigned the chairmanship of a Congressional committee- in this case, the Homeland Security Committee- to have been an active supporter of the opposition party's presidential candidate. Yet, we all remember Joe Lieberman at the Republican National Convention in St. Paul this summer endorsing John McCain's candidacy for President:



He didn't stop there. Here he is in Ohio pushing for election of the Repub nominee



And Lieberman by John (and Cindy) McCain's side at Florida International University on October 17:




Even before the general election campaign, Lieberman attacked the Democratic Party, as when he told Bill Bennett on the latter's "Morning In America" (what would Reagan do?) radio program by claiming "the party seemed invested in a narrative of retreat and defeat in Iraq."



And he criticized specifically the junior senator from Illinois, who was soon to become officially the Democratic nominee for president:



Imagine what the GOP would do if one of its senators, defeated in a primary, were to run against a Republican senatorial nominee (then run against that nominee and win re-election); attack the Republican Party on what was then the biggest issue in the nation; criticize the presumptive nominee of the Party; and then aggresssively campaign for the Democratic nominee for President, as a surrogate, confidante, and frequent campaigner. At the very least, that Senator would be stripped of his/her role of chairman of a committee, thereby giving way for a loyal, or reasonably loyal, or not extremely disloyal, member of the party to head the committee. And that is how it should be in the case of Senator Joseph Lieberman, lest the Democratic Party strengthen its image as a party without strength and lacking the courage of its convictions, with the backbone of an invertebrate.

Dead, for now. The effort by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D.- Nev.) to amend the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, euphemistically dubbed the "Protect America Act," has been tabled to January. The pernicious amendment which lead to a threat by presidential candidate Chris Dodd (D.- Ct.) would have granted telecom companies retroactive immunity against lawsuits for their role in providing information enabling the National Security Agency to listen to telephone and Internet conversations. Dodd never technically began a debate, reports Sam Stein on TheHuffingtonPost.com, but talked for several hours, leaving the floor only once, during which colleagues filled in. Eventually, yearning to pass an appropriations bill before the Senate is adjourned for Christmas/New Year's, Harry Reid, an ardent supporter of the bill, tabled the measure.

According to Jonathan Weisman and Paul Kane at washingtonpost.com, an effort is being made to find a compromise, perhaps by substituting the federal government for the companies as a defendant in ongoing action. This effort is being spearheaded by Pennsylvania's Arlen Spector, whom the mainstream media like to portray as a "moderate," in an effort, I believe, to reinforce Repub philosophy that "government" is the problem and the corporate sector the solution. But there is little time left before the break and a bill therefore likely will have to be passed by the Senate thereafter, and reconciled with the bill passed by the House.

With sentiment expressed by Democrat Charles Schumer of New York, quoted as saying "those like myself, who are against immunity, really don't want to punish the phone companies as much as we want to hold the government accountable," Reid's support, and White House lust, for the legislation, the struggle of Chris Dodd and his allies appears especially heroic.

Reflections on the Debate (Philadelphia)- no. 1


I'm sure you've heard this before: speculation before the Democratic Presidential debate centered on whether front-runner Hillary Clinton would be forcefully challenged by the other candidates, especially Barack Obama. (A.B. Stoddard of thehill.com commented earlier in the day that the Illinois Senator "wants to protect the Obama brand.")

As all know by now, it happened, though Obama was still a little timid compared to Dodd and Edwards. Here is the transcript, courtesy of MSNBC.com, of the exchange on the issue of illegal immigration (comments following), raised by co-host Tim Russert.



Senator Clinton, Governor of New York Eliot Spitzer has proposed giving driver’s licenses to illegal immigrants. He told the Nashua, New Hampshire, Editorial Board it makes a lot of sense.

Why does it make a lot of sense to give an illegal immigrant a driver’s license?

CLINTON: Well, what Governor Spitzer is trying to do is fill the vacuum left by the failure of this administration to bring about comprehensive immigration reform. We know in New York we have several million at any one time who are in New York illegally. They are undocumented workers. They are driving on our roads. The possibility of them having an accident that harms themselves or others is just a matter of the odds. It’s probability.

So what Governor Spitzer is trying to do is to fill the vacuum. I believe we need to get back to comprehensive immigration reform because no state, no matter how well intentioned, can fill this gap. There needs to be federal action on immigration reform.

RUSSERT: Does anyone here believe an illegal immigrant should not have a driver’s license?

(UNKNOWN): Believe what?

RUSSERT: An illegal immigrant should not have a driver’s license.

DODD: This is a privilege. And, look, I’m as forthright and progressive on immigration policy as anyone here. But we’re dealing with a serious problem here, we need to have people come forward. The idea that we’re going to extend this privilege here of a driver’s license I think is troublesome, and I think the American people are reacting to it.

We need to deal with security on our borders. We need to deal with the attraction that draws people here. We need to deal fairly with those who are here.

But this is a privilege. Talk about health care, I have a different opinion. That affects the public health of all of us.

But a license is a privilege, and that ought not to be extended, in my view.

CLINTON: Well, I just want to add, I did not say that it should be done, but I certainly recognize why Governor Spitzer is trying to do...

(UNKNOWN): Wait a minute...

CLINTON: And we have failed. We have failed.

DODD: No, no, no. You said—you said yes...

CLINTON: No.

DODD: ... you thought it made sense to do it.

CLINTON: No, I didn’t, Chris. But the point is, what are we going to do with all these illegal immigrants who are driving...

DODD: That’s a legitimate issue. But driver’s license goes too far, in my view.

CLINTON: Well, you may say that, but what is the identification?

If somebody runs into you today who is an undocumented worker...

DODD: There’s ways of dealing with that.

CLINTON: Well...

DODD: This is a privilege, not a right.

CLINTON: Well, what Governor Spitzer has agreed to do is to have three different licenses, one that provides identification for actually going onto airplanes and other kinds of security issues, another which is another ordinary driver’s license, and then a special card that identifies the people who would be on the road, so...

DODD: That’s a bureaucratic nightmare.

CLINTON: ... it’s not the full privilege.

RUSSERT: Senator Clinton, I just want to make sure of what I heard. Do you, the New York senator, Hillary Clinton, support the New York governor’s plan to give illegal immigrants a driver’s license?

You told the New Hampshire paper that it made a lot of sense. Do you support his plan?

CLINTON: You know, Tim, this is where everybody plays “gotcha.” It makes a lot of sense. What is the governor supposed to do? He is dealing with a serious problems. We have failed. And George Bush has failed. Do I think this is the best thing for any governor to do? No. But do I understand the sense of real desperation, trying to get a handle on this? Remember, in New York, we want to know who’s in New York. We want people to come out of the shadows.

He’s making an honest effort to do it. We should have passed immigration reform.


Senator Clinton is wrong on several counts:

1)This was not a "gotcha-question" ("gotcha question" in the HRC Dictionary of the English Language, 1st edition: "question I'm going to have to answer.") Not only is illegal immigration an important issue, Mrs. Clinton had to have known, or at least suspected, that she would be asked a question about a hot-button issue occurring in her state.

2) She actually stated "I did not say that it should be done" after saying that it should be done- "what Governor Spitzer is trying to do is to fill the vacuum."

3) Just as the term "illegal alien" is emotionally charged and imprecise (are the aliens from Mars or Venus?) so is the term "undocumented worker" imprecise and misleading. There are two kinds of people, men and women; two races dominant in American life, white and black (not white and "colored" and not white and "Negro"); and there are two kinds of immigrants: legal and illegal.

4) The New York Senator is wrong on the issue. Giving illegal immigrants- from Mexico or Canada- a driver's license presents a security challenge, as Dodd hinted at. With Dodd noting (as I thought was settled principle, reflected in law) that possessing a driver's license is a "privilege, not a right" Clinton argued "but the point is, what are we going to do with all these illegal immigrants who are driving..."
Yes, Senator Clinton, with or without a legal license, many illegal immigrants will drive. But that is no reason to give them a license anymore than it is, say, sensible to give individuals convicted of drunk driving a license because we know that many of them drive without a license.

Sanctuary Cities And The Rule Of Law

During last night's Democratic Presidential debate at Dartmouth College in New Hampshire, New Mexico's Bill Richardson, in response to a question late in the debate, declared "I will also be a President who will bring back habeas corpus and the rule of law."

Richardson was right to remind us that not all Presidents must be contemptuous of the right to privacy, separation of powers, and the rule of law. Unfortunately, Governor, you- and most of your colleagues- want to uphold the rule of law only when it is a law you approve of.

Fairly early in the debate, Alison King of http://www.hearstcorp.com/entertainment/property/ent_cable_newengland.html asked the candidates a long, but revealing, question about sanctuary cities, which ended "would you allow these cities to ignore the federal law regarding the reporting of illegal immigrants and in fact provide sanctuary to these immigrants?" Host Tim Russert followed up on the question to elicit a specific answer from each candidate (though for whatever reason John Edwards was not directly queried and did not volunteer his opinion). The verdict- Richardson- yes; Dodd- yes; Kucinich- yes; Gravel- yes; Obama- yes; Clinton- yes. In response to the question, there was criticism of the "federal government," though we do know our current President is fond of the concept of amnesty (see Libby, I. Lewis).

The only candidate to respond, after a little prodding, "no" was Delaware's Senator Biden, who deserves considerable credit. But Representative Kucinich honestly, and dangerously, put it: "The federal law- there is a moral law, and the moral law here says the immigrants are being abused and mistreated." So, as President Bush apparently believes, we enforce the laws we agree with and not those we disagree with. And when we hear our Democratic candidates criticize this failed President, including his discomfort with the United States Constitution, remember this: for six Democratic candidates, the concept of the rule of law remains a concept.

Attack On The Middle Class

Normally, discussion of a law enacted 2-3 years earlier would be of little interest to anyone, but this should be an exception, and, given that I started blogging only a few months ago, I couldn't have commented then.

On April 20, 2005 President Bush signed into law the euphemistically and absurdly named "The Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005," a harsh attack upon the middle class and main street America. Originally introduced eight years earlier, the act, pushed by lobbyists from the credit card and banking industries, established a means test for filing for bankruptcy protection. According to Project Vote Smart, this restriction "determines whether the individual would be allowed to file under Chapter 7, essentially exonerating their debts after they have liquidated their assets, or if they would be forced to file under Chapter 13, requiring them to pay back creditors on a court-approved timetable."

This law was, and is, a serious blow to the middle class. Testifying against the bill, Elizabeth Warren (who teaches bankruptcy law at Harvarad University) warned it would "increase the cost of bankruptcy protection for every family, regardless of income or the cause of financial crisis, and decrease the protection of bankruptcy for every family, regardless of income or the cause of the financial crisis." Supporters were unconcerned that: in the eight years since the bill was conceived, credit card profits had increased 163%, from $11.5 billion to $32 billion; effective interest rates often are hidden in the fine print of many contracts and sometimes range to 29%; and approximately half of personal bankruptcies are due to illness or medical bills (according to commondreams.org).

Why the interest in the legislation now? The bill first passed in the House, 302-126 with zero(0) Republicans having enough interest in the average American to vote against it. The bill then passed by 74-25 in the Senate, where zero (0) Republicans voted against it. (Can you detect a pattern?) I don't have to tell you how John McCain, Duncan Hunter, Sam Brownback, Ron Paul, and Tom Tancredo voted.

All votes opposing the bill came from the Democratic side of the aisle. Five Democrats currently running for President were serving in the U.S. Congress at the time. Representative Kucinich and Senators Obama and Dodd voted against this egregious bill. Senator Biden of Delaware, a state dominated by banking interests, voted for it. Senator Clinton was recorded as "not voting." A characteristic profile in courage.

Terrorism, Pakistan, And Obama

Let's go over a couple of the facts about Pakistan:

-in September, 2006 President Pervez Musharraf negotiated a deal with the tribal warlords of northwestern Pakistan, effectively ceding all control to them, while the Pakistani army would be removed from that region;
-Osama bin Laden is believed to be holed up in northwestern Pakistan;
-The United States pays $80 million a month to Musharraf's government, payments thus far totalling approximately $5.6 billion, presumably for anti-terrorism efforts; and
-the recently released National Intelligence Estimate argues that al-Qaeda has reconstituted itself in northwestern Pakistan and the U.S.A. (or, the "homeland" to those who share the Nazi's fondness for the term) "will face a persistent and evolving terrorist threat over the next three years" due primarily to al-Qaeda.

Thus paying attention, on August 1, Barack Obama gave a statement outlining his policy on terrorism. It included the following:

As President, I would make the hundreds of millions of dollars in U.S. military aid to Pakistan conditional, and I would make our conditions clear: Pakistan must make substantial progress in closing down the training camps, evicting foreign fighters, and preventing the Taliban from using Pakistan as a staging area for attacks in Afghanistan.

I understand that President Musharraf has his own challenges. But let me make this clear. There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are plotting to strike again. It was a terrible mistake to fail to act when we had a chance to take out an al Qaeda leadership meeting in 2005. If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won’t act, we will.

The following day, Obama (according to WashingtonPost.com), responding to a question about use of nuclear weapons in Afghanistan or Pakistan), stated "There's been no discussion of nuclear weapons and that's not a hypothetical that I'm going to discuss."

In the Presidential debate of 6/3/07 from Manchester, New Hampshire, Senator Clinton, asked if as President she would enact a no-fly zone in Darfur: "well, but we're not going to engage in these hypotheticals"; and about a missile strike against Osama bin Laden that might kill civilians: "I don't think it's useful to be talking in these kinds of abstract hypothetical terms." So on 8/2/07 she criticized Obama's refusal to discuss a hypothetical situation by arguing that he should not be discussing a hypothetical question: "Presidents should be careful at all times in discussing the use and nonuse of nuclear weapons." (If this is incomprehensible to you, you're paying attention.) Of course, Obama's response was not that of a President discussing the use and nonuse of nuclear weapons- but rather that of a candidate, a distinction lost on a candidate who herself refuses to answer "hypotheticals."

Fortunately, Senator Clinton did not criticize Obama's readiness to strike terrorist camps in Pakistan, if necessary, by conventional means. Others,however, were not so reticent. "It is dangerous and irresponsible to leave even the impression that a President would needlessly and publicly provoke a nuclear power," intoned Senator Dodd, aghast that a Presidential candidate might actually tell the American people what he would do as President. Warning "it is important not to unnecessarily inflame the Muslim world," Governor Richardson, in his rush to split infinitives and reassure Muslims, inadvertently implied that Muslims everywhere approve of the terrorism bin Laden and the Taliban have provoked. And still auditioning for Secretary of State in the Clinton Administration, Senator Biden remarked "the way to deal with it is not to announce it but to do it," apparently forgetting that, not currently being President, the Illinois Senator cannot "do it." Obama's statement, Biden continued, puts Musharraf "in the position that makes it virtually impossible for him to do anything other than what he's done, basically cut a deal with the warlords on the border." (Which, obviously, is the situation that Obama's consideration of a strike against terrorist camps is a reasonable response to. This can get very confusing.)

Senator McCain, whose foreign policy expertise has been demonstrated by his steadfast support of Mr. Bush's counterproductive invasion of Iraq, also criticized Obama's stance against the terrorist camps in northwestern Pakistan. And Bush spokesman Tony Snow lectured "our approach to Pakistan is one that not only respects the sovereignty of Pakistan as a sovereign government..." seemingly unaware that when a sovereign government declares a portion of its territory off-limits to its own security forces, it has ceded a significant portion of its sovereignty (and usefulness to a "war on terror.")

What does Senator Obama understand that these guys don't? A "war on terror" must be more than a slogan.

Debate at Howard University

Some musings about the substance of the Democratic debate (one of the "All-American Presidential Forums" sponsored by PBS) at Howard University on Thursday evening, 6/28/07:

1) It doesn't seem like asking too much for a Democratic candidate to say directly that he/she is opposed to outsourcing, in response to a question specifically about the topic. Yet, Kucinich (who emphasized unfair trade), Biden, Clinton, and Gravel (who seemed unopposed to the practice) didn't find it within themselves to state unequivocally that it is harmful.

2) Asked about income inequality, Edwards and Biden- only- stated definitively that the portion of the Bush tax cuts decreasing income taxes on the wealthy should be ended now. The reticence of the frontrunners, Clinton and Obama, may not have been accidental.

3) Queried about crime and punishment, we heard all the usual explanations for the disproportionately high rate of incarceration among blacks: greater penalties for possession of crack cocaine than powdered cocaine; racial injustice in the criminal justice system; mandatory minimums; incarceration for non-violent offenses; emphasis on incarceration rather than rehabilitation; an incompetent Attorney General. How about this? The absence of a Public Defender system in many states. In Texas, for instance, a private attorney (at public expense) is selected for indigent defendants by an elected judge- who often repays (or punishes) attorneys with assignments in response to their need for campaign funds or votes. Poor defendants, disproportionately minority, often end up with disinterested, overworked, and/or incompetent counsel. And Texas is notorious for its proclivity to impose the death penalty.

4) Over at TPM Cafe, Eric Kleefeld and T.W. Farnum lament the lengthy (and, I found, self-serving) introduction, allowing the audience to applaud (always a mistake), and the limit imposed upon each candidate for answering a question in the second half of the debate. They note also Chris Dodd's remark "I was going to say, Tavis, I'll take global warming for $600" and Tavis Smiley's response "and I was going to say, if you were Paris Hilton, I'd give you an hour. But you're not." Could there be anything more superficial than Smiley's rejoinder? Perhaps Hillary Clinton's smiling response, "That was good. That was good, Tavis."

5) Senator Clinton stated "Let me just put this in perspective. If HIV/AIDS were the leading cause of death of white women between the ages of 25 and 34, there would be an outraged outcry in this country."
Let me put this into perspective, Senator Clinton. Acording to the Foundation for AIDS Research Public Policy, Congress in fiscal 2005 appropriated $2.9 billion, a 2.1% increase over fiscal year 2004, for AIDS research. AVERT.org (apparently an international AIDS charity), cites 17,011 deaths in the U.S.A. from AIDS in 2005. That computes to an average of $170,477.92 per AIDS death. According to FORBES.com, the comparable figures for various diseases are: breast cancer, $20,650; Alzheimer's disease, $10,214; lung cancer, $1,905; pancreatic cancer, $1,724; chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, $458.
Pandering is one thing, Senator Clinton. Deliberate, exorbitant distortion of the truth is something I'd rather ascribe to politicians (usually Republican) dedicated to the wealth and power of corporate interests. But I guess I have.