Editorials and Opinions

Gary Tischler •

I came to live in Washington DC in 1975 after living and working on two different daily newspapers in Northern California for ten years. Looking back from the vantage point of the intervening years of four decades, it seems to me now that I had landed squarely in the middle of a railroad juncture one coming from the 1960s and the other chugging forward to what lay ahead.
It’s impossible not to think of two times and places—the 1980s and Ronald Reagan’s coming America and the roiling, revolutionary 1960s of peace and love, war and anti-war, Washington, D.C., the political and policy capitol of the United States and the San Francisco Bay Area, the epicenter of what comes next, the caretaker of hip, cool, rock and roll and protest politics, where the Pacific Ocean made up one of the seas to shining sea—more different and more connected at the same time. Neither city was typical of the makeup in function and population of the great majority of this country. Being there, and then here, felt like an exercise, at least initially in straddling not only the center of the 1970s, but two contrarian attitudes of what was important.
By 1975, things had already happened here that we did not quite pay so much attention to out there. Californians—the explosively liberal North and the entrench conservatives of the South and mid-state—had always seen Washington as the city of government, monuments, not as a place where real people actually lived. Things had happened there—very big 1970s things like Watergate, which we saw, often as the fall of the despised Richard Nixon and his ilk. He was one of us, after all, and after an ill-fated gubernatorial run, had blasted the press and said “You know have Richard Nixon to kick around any more.” As far as we know, somebody else had kicked him around.

In Northern California, protests against the war, against the government, for women’s rights, seemed common place as if everything leftist and worthy was invented in Berkeley. Turns out they hadn’t.

In California in the early 1970s, you were inured to a lot of things—the presence of drugs (pot, cookies laced with acid and hashish) at certain parties, the decline of the hippie movement in the Haight, and the rise of the dominantly gay Castro district). We saw the end of the Vietnam up close and personal as transport planes full of children rescued in the last days of Saigon landed in Oakland. On that occasion, I interviewed a man over coffee as he talked about his son, who had been killed in the last month of the war.

Ronald Reagan was elected president of the United States—now it was official, I had come full circle. I lived in the Bay Area during all eight years that Mr. Reagan was governor there. I had met him once, and he had remembered my name in five minutes, after answering a question of mine about Watergate by not answering it. He had followed to what was now:
Home.

The 1970s were over.

Jack Evans • February 28, 2013

I wrote in my last column about the new Council period and a number of my priorities, such as education, public safety, and affordable housing. One of the things these goals have in common is that they are substantially impacted by the budget decisions that the Mayor and the Council will make over the next several months. As Chairman of the Finance and Revenue Committee, this half of the year is often my busiest.

I am hopeful that the Mayor’s budget will include funding for these items as well as for expanded library hours, and that it will include sensible tax relief now that we can afford it. This is a time when everyone is expecting hundreds of millions of dollars of “new” revenue to our government to be announced due to higher-than-expected tax collections as our economy improves. In light of that information, it simply doesn’t make sense to continue our plan to begin to tax out-of-state municipal bonds this year, a tax which largely impacts seniors. I believe I have the Mayor’s support on this issue, but it will help if he and my colleagues on the Council hear from you prior to and during budget considerations.

I am also hopeful that the Mayor will finally sunset the supposedly temporary increase in the sales tax. In case you don’t know the story, the government raised the sales tax from 5.75% to 6% several years ago with the promise that it would sunset by now. Unfortunately, when the government thought it needed the money, it simply repealed the sunset provision. Now that everyone knows we have the money, we should keep our promise to lower this tax. All my colleagues should be able to agree on this, as the sales tax is regressive, disproportionately impacting those who have the least disposable income.

Before the budget is released, we first go through the performance oversight process. Over the past two weeks, I have sent a number of questions to the agencies under my purview to collect data on agency structure and recent spending. After I review what has worked and what has not, I will be in a better position to make recommendations on adjustments to the agency budgets for next year. I am also pleased to welcome the Commission on Arts & Humanities and Destination DC as new additions to my committee oversight responsibility this year. Thanks for your support during this process, and please feel free to reach out to my office as well as to my colleagues to share your views. ?

David Post •

A glimpse, by definition, is a brief preview of what lies ahead.

The last quarter of 2012, last October through December, provided a glimpse of what happens when federal spending is cut.
The economy shrunk. Not much – only 0.1% – but it shrunk. When the economy shrinks for two straight quarters, a recession is declared. That doesn’t have to happen unless we make it happen.

During the third quarter of 2012 (last July, August, and September), the economy grew at 3.1%, almost the nation’s average of 3.2% since the end of World War II.

Over the past three months, the private sec- tor did pretty well. Consumer spending went up. Durable goods like appliances and furniture al- most doubled. Investment in equipment and soft- ware increased six times. Even housing invest- ment increased.

What went down? Federal government spending declined at a 15% rate due to a drop in defense spending. In fact, government spending has declined in 10 of the last 12 quarters slowing the country’s overall economic growth.

Government spending has kept the economy out of recession since 2009. The United States is the only economy on earth, of any size, that has grown in the past three years. Austerity – reductions in government spending – hasn’t worked anywhere in the world except arguably in two small countries.

Greece and Spain are getting a great deal of attention for their economic woes. Their budget cuts have led to downward spirals and 25% un- employment. Great Britain adopted an austerity plan last year and just entered its THIRD recession in five years.
The poster children for “austerity works” are Estonia and Latvia, two Baltic states tucked be- tween Russia, Poland, and Scandinavia and together about the size of Ohio. Their combined population is about 3 million, a little more than half the D.C. metro area. Though their economies are now growing, they are still suffering with unemployment rates of 12-15%.

Government spending matters. Reductions in unemployment benefits, food stamps, and social security hurt small businesses and grocery stores. When housing assistance is reduced, the pain is felt by both landlords with more vacancies and lower rents and by local governments with lower property values and reduced tax collections. Reduced highway construction today puts construction workers out of work and reduces economic growth tomorrow.

Nonetheless, Congress is currently focused only on cutting spending with several deadlines quickly approaching. In two weeks, the “sequester” – automatic across-the-board spending cuts that Congress imposed on the nation when it couldn’t agree on what to cut – take effect. In late March, the nation hits the debt limit – like a credit card limit – that would not allow the government to pay the bills it promised to pay a few months ago. That’s like buying a car and then telling the bank you’re not going to make the payments.
By disagreeing on budget priorities, Congress has kicked the can down the road for three years. Oddly, that’s probably been best for the economy.

The last few months both in the U.S. and Great Britain provide a glimpse into the future. What do we really want? Austerity or more can- kicking? ?

Georgetowner •

Well, the District Council went and did what Chairman Phil Mendelson said it was going to do. They reprimanded Councilman Jim Graham, D-Ward 1, over accusations that he attempted to intervene in a city lottery contract dispute four years ago. The vote was 11-2; Graham and Ward 8 Council- man Marion Barry were the lone nay votes.

Yet, it probably didn’t settle the issue, except to put a stain on Graham’s council record. Graham was also stripped of his power to oversee District liquor licenses and alcohol issues on the Human Services Committee, which he chairs. They did not strip him of his chairmanship.

The reprimand followed several investigations of Graham and the D.C. Lottery contract. The D.C. Board of Ethics and Government Accountability concluded that they had found “substantial evidence” that Graham had broken the District’s code of employee conduct but did not sanction him, according to a Washington Post report. Another independent investigation by the Metro board, of which Graham was then a member, concluded that Graham had improperly mingled his Council and board duties. In addition, there’s an ongoing investigation of the lottery contract process by the U.S. attorney, not to mention numerous negative editorials in the Washington Post about Graham’s activities and roles.

Graham promised to fight the reprimand at the hearing but remained relatively silent, indicating that the is- sue was now closed.

“There’s the saying, ‘All’s well that ends well,’ ” he told WRC 4 reporter Tom Sherwood. “Well, all’s well that ends.” Graham sounded more than anything relieved and argued that the voters would have their say on him in the 2014 elections, when apparently he will run for his seat yet again.

Mendelson chose to have Graham reprimanded it seems from here because quite a bit of how Graham operates in his various roles give not so much the fact of wrong doing or ethical wrong doing, but the appearance of them.
Often, Graham’s defense has been to claim loudly that has not been indicted or that he was not the target of an investigation, as in the taxi commission bribe scandal which involved his chief of staff.

Ward One voters have repeatedly voted Graham back into office. Newly elected At-large Councilman David Gross said he would not support him next time around.

It seems though that there was little substance behind a public reprimand or even taking away his committee duties. The act smacked a little bit of grandstanding on the Council’s part, designed to do nothing more except perhaps to give the appearance of a serious smackdown and the appearance that the Council is finally serious about ethical matters, given Kwame Brown, Harry Thomas, Jr., Mayor’s Gray’s campaign and other matters.

This is not to suggest that Graham is innocent of everything he’s been accused of, but rather that he should be proven guilty of something. In the very least, the Council might have ordered an investigation of its own—by a legal entity or attorney—as it did in the case of Marion Barry, who was censured after such an investigation of his role in a legal services contract in 2010. That hearing, conducted and ordered by then Council Chairman Vincent Gray had the gravitas it and Barry de- served. Not, apparently, going to happen. ?

Georgetowner •

The Roman Catholic Church will soon be without a pope. Pope Benedict XVI renounced his absolute powers as if a last lesson to his flock: for them and the church, the Bishop of Rome freely released his grip on the papal crosier because of his failing health.

The 265th pope succeeded the popular John Paul II. While both are seen as high intellects, Benedict often seemed to play Truman to John Paul’s FDR.

The seemingly mild-mannered pope, nevertheless, pursued his goals, sounding conservative or liberal in his speeches and readings because he thinks on a different moral scale than mere secular political observers.

Read Benedict’s encyclical on love or his essays on Jesus Christ.

As the Vatican is vacant of its leader, all manner of rumors, accusations and grief are let loose. One can imagine a scene from “Angels & Demons.”

The revelation of pedophile and perverted priests — and the sinful cover-up by superiors — has poisoned the church. Indeed, for this alone, some condemn the oldest followers of Western Christendom. Regardless, a comprehensive solution must be applied now.

The College of Cardinals is set to do its primary duty. Whom will it choose? Ask the Holy Spirit.

For us, some of whom are Catholic, it is a time of reflection, supercharged by Lent, looking forward to a new pope for Easter.
For all of us living in Washington, look to your Federal City, bookended by high-powered Catholic institutions — Georgetown University on the west and Catholic University, Trinity University and the Shrine of the Immaculate Conception on the east.

These educators are impressive influencers, grounded in religion and guided by art and science, that look toward the masonic overlay of Washington’s architecture. They know more than you know, and there is a reason that they are here.

In the coming weeks, much speculation will be offered about the papacy and the church. Reserve your own judgment, and let some prayers and thanks come into your own thoughts.

Hail and farewell, Benedict XVI. Auf wiedersehen, Joseph Ratzinger.

What is next for this 2,000-year Christian institution, full of human achievements, injuries and foibles?

Expect a miracle. ?

Georgetowner • February 15, 2013

District of Columbia Mayor Vincent Gray’s State of the District Address last week was downright celebratory — and there appeared to be a lot to celebrate and promise.

Mayor Gray promised to pay special attention to the issue of affordable housing, pledging to commit $100 million to affordable housing and the thousands of additional units that would result. There was talk about the continuing rise in the District’s population, at the rate of a thousand per month, rising school enrollment and a rising number of charter schools, and numerous commercial developments en route to being begun or completed all over the district, including areas which hadn’t seen many cranes before. Things were getting to be just peachy in the district, what with at least two vastly improved sports franchises and another apparently on the road to getting better.

We have a major $400 million surplus,
ladies and gentlemen, which is great for everybody, even city employees who may get a raise after years of having none. Yup, it’s great to live in D.C.

…Unless you happen to be homeless. Washington Post Metro writer Petula Dvorak pointed out the startling fact that there are 600 kids living in the city’s single family homeless shelter. Six hundred kids. Not only that, but according to her report, the kids and parents living in that shelter have to go through uncommonly difficult bureaucratic hoops just to get cots there.

The mayor rightly indicated that we’re on our way to becoming a capital capitol city. Everyone can enjoy living here and wants to come here to live here. It’s a great town unless you’re homeless.

It’s good to hear about the focus on affordable housing, but we haven’t yet heard any details, or if there’s money in the hundred million that might go toward the homeless, increasing shelters or housing for the homeless and making sure that children. There was talk once of creating affordable housing geared for the homeless, especially for homeless families, single parents or children. Let’s hear details about those funds for affordable housing. Maybe then we can call ourselves a capital city.

David Post •

Twenty-seven words.

13 don’t count.

“A well regulated militia being necessary for the security of a free state…”

Those opening words of the Second Amendment are completely ignored by the NRA and largely ignored by the Supreme Court.

14 words, “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed,” count and those 14 words kill tens of thousands of people every year.

From 1776 to 1783 the Continental Army, a ragtag citizens’ army of 17,000, fought our Revolutionary War. The army was rounded up by the Paul Reveres who rode through towns marshalling the forces. Citizens arose from their beds, grabbed their guns – because the army didn’t own any – and went to war. When the war ended in 1783, the Continental Congress did not want a permanent army like the British had, so it was disbanded. Soldiers went home with their guns.

Eight years later, when the Second Amendment was passed, an army of private citizens on call was the only military. Hence, the first 13 words. Some argue that those 13 words were intended to allow citizens to rise up and declare war against a “bad” government.

Poppycock! The idea of citizens rising up against the U.S. government is laughable. A member of the Tea Party recently asked me, “Don’t you believe that the Holocaust would have been avoided if the Jews had been allowed to have guns?” Jews with guns could no more have held back the Nazi army than could the citizens of a city hold back the U.S. Army.

No government gives the governed the right to overthrow it violently. In fact, the United States Constitution specifically dis- allows that possibility. Section 3 of Article III of the Constitution says that ”levying War” against the government is Treason, and Section 4 of Article IV says that the federal government shall protect the states “against domestic Violence.”

Instead, the founders gave us the First Amendment and the ballot box so that citizens could criticize and overthrow the government peacefully. What purpose is a Constitution that gives citizens the right to wage war against – that is, to destroy – the government they create?

Conservatives theorist and judges argue that courts should apply the original intent of the Constitution and that the Constitution does not change with the times. At the time of the Revolution, muskets could only shoot one bullet at a time. While one soldier shot a musket, a second soldier loaded another gun with another bullet. Not until ten years after the Second Amendment was passed, did Eli Whitney – of cotton gin fame – invent the concept of standardized parts which allowed thousands of guns to be manufactured from similar interchangeable parts. His only cus- tomer was the federal government.

Ironically, when guns are involved, conservatives become liberals and embrace the “times change” attitudes. True conservatives would not be debating clips that hold thirty bullets or automatic weapons that can fire hundreds of rounds a minute. They would be debating one-shot muskets.

Daniel Patrick Moynihan, the deceased philosophic US Senator, quipped that because the Constitution failed to mention bullets, Congress should simply outlaw bullets. After all, he said, bullets, not guns, kill people.

Whatever gun laws emerge from Congress in the next few months will pale in comparison to the next Supreme Court decision on the Second Amendment. The NRA and its ilk point to DC v. Heller, the 2008 Supreme Court decision, believing it prohibited all gun control. Heller merely held that DC’s ban on handguns was too restrictive, but the Supreme Court left open many questions, including acceptable “limits” on gun laws and “dangerous and unusual weapons.”

The gun debate is about patience. Over the next eight years, four Supreme Court justices over age 74 – two liberal and two conservative – will likely retire and be replaced. The winner of the 2016 presidential election will likely re-shape the Supreme Court – and gun rights – for decades to come.

Until then, the first 13 words of the Second Amendment will be ignored. Pray for the quarter million people in the U.S. who between now and then will die from bullets.

Georgetowner • January 30, 2013

Here’s a word you haven’t heard on the hill in a while; bipartisanship.

Why, just about the only time you heard the word was when partisan on one side bemoaned that the other side wasn’t being bipartisan, and that it was their fault. It was sort of a constant varia- tion to the tune of “I’ve Got Those Ain’t Got No Bipartisanship Blues,” and everything was singing it off key.

Well, it’s a new day on Capitol Hill, and bipar- tisanship—”bipardismo” to you Spanish speak- ers—was in the air, sort of like love springs in the spring. And it was the need, desire, aching-for- action on a comprehensive immigration bill that was the spur.

Three Republican and three Democrats, two of them—Democratic Senator Robert Menendez of New Jersey and Republican Senator Marco Rubio of Florida—making their statement in Spanish to the delight of English and Spanish speakers alike. The gang of eight—it includes Republicans John McCain of Arizona, Jeff Flake of Arizona and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and Democrats Richard Durbin of Illinois, Charles Schumer of New York, and Michael Bennet of Colorado— announced a wide-ranging proposal to overhaul the country’s immigration laws as they exist. Sen. John McCain who has waxed hot and cold on the issue for years is once again in the forefront—he said we need to fix the mistakes of 1986.

President Barack Obama was expected to set forth his own principles and plan Jan. 29, which rumor has it are somewhat like the Senate plan but more liberal and more focused on getting illegal aliens on a path to citizenship.

The president and senators agreed that the effort would be bipartisan. For Obama, he was keeping a promise and a voting bloc. For the Republicans, it was pragmatism, spurred quite a bit by electoral defeat in which the Latino vote figured prominently.

Here are elements of the Senate plan: quick legalization status for illegal immigrants provided that they pay back taxes and a fine. The path toward citizenship would be delayed until further strengthening of the nation’s border. Rubio said it would modernize the entire legal immigration sys- tem and added that we have to deal with the people that are here now “in a way that’s responsible and humane.”

The White House’s participations in the Senate bipartisan effort was minimal while reports said that Obama’s administration had been working on their plan for a long time.

So: bipartisanship or competing plans?

Still, here are Democrats and Republicans working together, and the White House praising the effort and calling it similar to its plans. In the age of lowered expectations, that’s something, a far cry from four decades in which both sides in the end seemed to stumble, often bitterly, toward the arid desert of complete breakdown and failure to negotiate. Obama pushed through a Health Care bill without a single Republican vote. The Senate Republican leader almost from the moment Obama took office four years ago vowed to make it his mission to oust and opposed Obama.

The Republicans are going back to work chas- tened by their unexpected electoral loss. That may have spurred a lot of soul searching by party stalwarts and future presidential candidates, which is all to the good.

Of course, there have been attempts to reform and re-plan immigration before without much headway.

But just listening to the remarkable blame-free and rhetoric-free talk of late (the last 24 hours) should give one, if not hope, at least pause.

What’s next?

A joint . . . ahem . . . bipartisan effort on tax reform?