CenterlineRight Buffett

In the last couple of weeks, nothing much has floated to the top of the boiling pot that is life in these United States.  Oh there have been lots of headlines, but nothing that has galvanized the interest of this particular observer.  Therefore, this piece will today be dedicated to a smorgasbord of topics.

One of the subjects that is often mentioned when discussing the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) is the “Chevron” principle.  Put simply, this issue deals with the discretionary authority of federal agencies when administering the laws passed by the Executive and the Legislative branches of our government.  Here is an excellent article dealing with Chevron questions: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/chevron_deference .  In my thirty-some years of working as a federal office manager, I had first-hand experience with the consequences, both intended and unintended, of how much influence federal departments and agencies have on exactly how properly legislated laws impact American citizens.  The inherent wisdom, fairness, and logic that might be in a law is only as valid as the governmental department, agency, or civil servant that administers that law.  Much as we see the federal Judiciary being perverted by rogue federal judges who allow their personal opinions to override proper constitutional considerations when rendering judgments, so there are rogue federal civil servants who are large and in charge of actually implementing federal laws and regulations.    If Congress does a good job of defining exactly what a law is and how that law should be administered, the objective assessment of the delivery by civil servants is a relatively simple task.  Unfortunately, much of the legislation that is passed today is heavy on principle and short on particulars.  This leaves ample opportunity, or sometimes the necessity, for civil service managers to fill in the blanks and thus heavily influence the impact of the law being delivered.  Much, if not most, of the time, these fill in the blank people are political appointees. Even assuming the best of intentions, it is impossible for civil servants to know what was in the mind of Senators and Representatives when they composed a law.  The best they can do in good faith to accomplish the perceived intent of legislation is often lacking.  But far worse than that is when a partisan or biased civil servant seizes the opportunity to bend a piece of legislation towards their own vision.  On occasion, this can result in the practical effect of the law being 180 degrees opposite of the legislation’s clear intent.  This is what Chevron is largely about.  How much influence should a federal department or agency have in the actual content of legislation?  When a legal dispute arises from the administration of a law and it proceeds to the Judiciary, how much weight is assigned to the authors (Congress) and much weight is assigned to the administrators (federal departments/agencies)?  We as voters must be ever vigilant in the selection of quality people to represent us in Congress so that good laws are passed with clear intent and specific administrative instructions.  Our Executive branch should be equally vigilant in selecting quality people to serve in federal departments and agencies; people who perform their duties based on their job descriptions and do not have personal agendas regarding their assigned missions. 

Fox News has recently presented an in-depth interview with SCOTUS Justice Neil Gorsuch.  Political leanings aside, anyone should find this interview fascinating as an inside perspective to how the chief constitutional arbiter in our nation functions.  The interview is available on the Fox News website or can be accessed with a search engine.  The two points that resonant with me about the interview are the Gorsuch pleas for civility in our culture/society and his call for re-emphasis of civics education in our educational system.  I won’t waste time pleading for civility; anyone who is paying attention at all understands that civility in our country is conspicuous simply because of its absence.  Civility needs to begin in the White House, morph over to Congress, infect the Judiciary, and permeate our population.  Enough said about that.  As Justice Gorsuch poses … How can our youth practice good citizenship if they do not understand civics?  How can criticism, however well intended, be legitimate if the one criticizing has no basic concept of what is being criticized?  Our votes determine the quality of our government.  Put another and more painfully direct way…we deserve the government we get.  Well taught and non-partisan civics should be part and parcel of every basic K thru 12 curriculum in this country.  These children and young adults are the ones who will not only choose our future leaders; they ARE our future leaders.  Should they not implicitly understand the fundamental basis of our nation and how it was designed to work?

Based on what you see, hear, and read…how do you think the economy is doing?  One’s perception of American economic performance is a very personal thing; it is tied directly to your own economic health.  But there are objective and universal standards for evaluating our nation’s economic activity.  Here is an interesting article on the subject: https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/policy/economy/median-income-hit-record-high-in-2018-while-poverty-declined .  For me, the key to a healthy society is a decent job for every person able to work, a sufficiently-healthy economy that provides upward mobility for those who exhibit the ambition and drive to better themselves and their families, and federal policies that place incentives on actually producing product as opposed to rewarding successful speculation.  A paycheck provides pride, dignity, and a pathway to self-sufficiency that is the right of every American.  But it is up to every American to seize that opportunity when it presents itself.  This approach does not in any way contradict the fact that our nation and government must be compassionate and responsible in how it supports those who deal with economic challenges beyond their control.  But rather than get lost and dizzy in the swirl of technical metrics for how our economy is doing, I like to look at worker participation; showing how many able-bodied people are actually working and drawing a paycheck.  I like to see a reasonable increase in annual wages that, at minimum, keeps workers even with inflation and, at best, rewards many workers for their performance with wage advancement.  Without putting a number on it, interest rates should be low enough to allow middle class workers to afford to borrow for major purchases and acquire an affordable mortgage.  But they should also be substantial enough to reward those who have been thrifty during their working lives, saved money for their later years, and rely on some amount of interest as a reward for their sacrifices.  The national debate over the health of the U.S. economy is going to be a pretty hot topic between now and November of 2020; use your own common sense to find a proper bearing on this question and don’t get lost in the flood of agenda-based statistics that will be hurled at you.

Don’t miss the next post!

 Follow on Twitter @centerlineright.

I have written before about the arrogance and conceit demonstrated by some U.S. Representatives when assessing their own political relevance compared to that of the President.  Whether we like it or not, it is significant to consider how large an area or how many people are responsible for electing a particular politician to office.  It matters that a President is elected by all of the American voters, while a Representative is elected by a county or handful of counties, while a Senator is elected by an entire State, while patronage appointees are not elected at all and serve at the pleasure of their appointing official.  The vision of our nation’s founders was that legislation would begin in the House and then pass over to the Senate for consideration.  The House would be the residence of our citizen legislators; where they would leave their work, go to WDC for a term or two, reflect the real life experience of themselves and their peers in their product, and then return to civilian life.  The President would function essentially as the Chief Executive Office (CEO) and administer the will of Congress, all under the auspices of the Judicial branch.  There is legitimate debate on how well the original prescriptions of our three co-equal branches of government serve our nation today considering the evolution of our culture and society.  One of those issues concerns the numerical size of the House of Representatives; specifically posing the question as to whether or not the size of the House should be increased.  For a revealing insight into one of the two Legislative branches of our government, read this article about the composition of current House districts: http://statchatva.org/2017/11/15/u-s-house-districts-are-colossal-whats-the-right-size/ .

And finally, here is the report submitted by the Department of Justice Inspector General regarding the former FBI Director James Comey.  This is not the House version, or the Senate Version, or the Republican version, or the Democrat version, or the Left version, or the Right version; it is the actual, factual report from the non-partisan Inspector General.  The report: https://www.scribd.com/document/423671596/Doj-Ig-Comey#from_embed .  This is what happens when civil servants go rogue, put themselves above the law, and allow their own agendas to supersede their job descriptions and oaths of office.  This is why laws like FISA are dubious in their wisdom.  As stated earlier in this post, our government is only as honorable and ethical as the people who serve in that government.  It is a given that each national party will, upon selected occasions, seek to utilize the governmental apparatus for their own personal agendas in the furtherance of their own power and authority.  THIS is why we, as American citizens, should be very reluctant when we cede our personal liberties to government.  The case of Comey and the Russian Collusion hoax is a classic case of governmental abuse rising so high up the food chain that nobody was watching the Watchers.  It is a fact: Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.