Morning Fog

Some Random Thoughts On The Impeachment Trial

The Prosecution:  A great job. The presentation just blew us away. But the case was not a difficult one to make. 

The Defense: Constitutional scholars have debunked the silly notion that the President may not be judged guilty now that he has left office. It is equally silly to contend that Trump was just exercising his free speech, first because we should expect a President to speak the truth, and to speak on behalf of the country and its people, rather than just uttering his trivial and false personal opinion; second because he was shouting "fire" in a crowded theater - which is beyond the pale of free speech. 

The Outcome:

Wouldn't it be really great if the proceedings could wind up in a conviction either this Friday, or next Monday? Monday is Presidents Day - what poetic justice, and what a gift for past Presidents, to have the worst President, the twice-impeached President, the besmircher of their high office, thus repudiated on that day? OR a quick result on Friday, February 12 which (younger readers may be unaware) is Lincoln's birthday. I feel certain that Honest Abe by now is sick and tired of having GOP politicians refer to themselves as "the Party of Lincoln." He would be ashamed of what his party has become.

Also under the Conviction rubric, if it should occur: No Democrats, nor any democrats, should gloat over the result.  It would be unseemly and divisive; it should be interpreted soberly as having barely escaped tyranny and restoring the country to its democratic course.

Of course, it is generally recognized that most of today's Republican politicians will continue to toady to the Tinpot Tyrant Trump. Despite incontrovertible evidence, conviction is unlikely. Nevertheless the attempt had to be made, and we must recall that it wasn't the attempt, but the shameful outcome, that was divisive.  And though today's Republican Senators may view acquittal as a victory, and may save their jobs, if not their honor, for a year or two, it is the death knell of the Republican Party. Let us hope.   

Republicans Oppose [Strong] Recovery Spending - But Why?

It's really difficult for me to understand why elected Republicans seem so reticent to spend money on economic recovery.  Specifically, that besides their general complaint that the Biden plan is too expensive, they want to cut the amount of the checks that would be issued from $1400 to $600. Certainly the Biden plan might be made more effective by specifically targeting the checks - not toward "every American" but for those who are (or were) working and have faced severe, life-changing cuts in their income. Perhaps some compromise could be worked out on that basis.

The GOP is supposed to be the party of business. Surely they must realize that money being pumped into the economy, even if it's not targeted at all, benefits businesses of all sizes and stripes, as well as their employees.

Give people money in times like these, and most of them will spend it. Lots of people are finding they can't afford their rent, or even mortgage payments; others are still more desperate, trying to put groceries on the table. But on the other end of the spectrum, I've also heard from a number of acquaintances, especially retirees, who have received checks that they confess they don't really need - but I haven't encountered any who say they're just going to save it. Instead, some talk about what they bought with it, and others have decided to donate it (usually to an organization that's working to relieve the effects of the coronavirus). And of course the money isn't spent just once - the first transaction starts a chain of ensuing transactions, a "multiplier effect" that means $1400 can easily become five times that much added to the economy in a short time. Five times $1400 is $7000; five times $600 is 3000.

This seems so self-evident a benefit to a recovering economy that even the GOP's seasonal affective disorder (they become far more parsimonious about the time that a Democratic administration takes power) -- even that can't explain their preference for baby steps rather than bold strides. I fear I have to conclude their motivation is political (DUH!). They want to stay in power, and don't want to let the opponents take credit for anything big, regardless of its benefits to their constituents. 

Members of both parties suffer from this attitudinal perversion of the way democracy ideally works, but it's much more serious in the ranks of Republicans, who far too often of late have appeared more concerned about getting themselves reelected than how they can best represent voters' interests.