THREE TAKES ON THE BIDEN AGENDA

 President Biden laid out his ambitious agenda in a generally well-received speech to a pared down, socially distant joint session of Congress on April 28. The president apparently has the wind at his back in terms of public support for the measures he’s proposing. Polling indicates voters, including many Republicans, back Biden’s proposals.

That does not mean he has Republican support in Congress. If much of his program becomes law, it will happen because Democrats unify and pass

financially related matters through budget reconciliation. The fate of voting rights and police reform measures, to which reconciliation doesn’t apply, remains doubtful.

Though all three of us count ourselves as supporters of the president and his administration, we don’t have a unified view of all Biden’s proposals.  The differences are sometimes subtle and can turn on political calculations, not substantive policy views:

 

Henry:  All In                                                                   

Biden’s overarching themes hold great appeal for me. I particularly like the fact he has cast his program in terms of creating opportunity out of crisis. The United States still faces the pandemic and the economic fallout it created, not to mention potentially existential

threats in climate change and systemic racism. As Republicans increasingly claim systemic racism doesn’t exist, Biden and other progressives must push for changes in policing and attack economic inequality. These difficult issues offer an opportunity for much needed solutions we’ve put off long enough.

Biden has also struck a chord with me by emphasizing that his plans address the nation’s

need for reality and hope. That means legislation and an administrative approach that tackles problems in

concrete ways and offers Americans hope they can have better futures and an efficient government that works.

As for the individual components of Biden’s legislative agenda, I offer my total support on rejoining the Paris Climate Accords, reforming and revising the corporate tax structure so the wealthy and big business pay their fair share, universal background checks for firearms purchases, an end to so-called ghost guns that law enforcement can’t track, recasting the ways we look at and think of infrastructure, and creating a citizenship path for undocumented immigrants.

President Biden is on the right track and I’m there with him.

Woodson: Congress, Your Move                         

I find little in Biden’s speech with which to disagree. We will have to wait and see how

many of Biden’s policies become law. I hope they all do. These policies are the most progressive since Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal.   

                                        

Reminding his fellow countrymen that he is a man of action, Biden opened his speech by pointing out that his AMERICAN RESCUE PLAN had already resulted in $1,400.00 checks reaching 85% of American families and 220 million Americans receiving Covid-19 shots. 

Biden elaborated further on his agenda:

AMERICAN JOBS PLAN – jobs in theconstruction of roads, bridges, rails, transit lines, replacing lead pipes in schools and day

care centers, and bringing high speed internet to the entire country. He urged Congress to pass pay equity legislation for women and endorsed $15.00 as an hourly minimum wage.

AMERICAN FAMILIES PLAN – 2 years of quality preschool and 2 years of free community college; $3,600.00 in childcare tax credits; greater investment in black, and tribal colleges.

AMERICAN RESCUE PLAN – lower premiums and deductibles for persons who get their medical insurance through the Affordable Care Act; and a reduction in the cost of prescription drugs.

Biden will pay for this with no increase in taxes on the middle class or poor. Only individuals and corporations who make more than $400,000.00 annually will experience a tax increase.

Biden announced the withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan but remained committed to fighting terrorism abroad and at home,

saying that white nationalists were the greatest terrorist threat that the nation faced. He mentioned George Floyd by name when urging Congress to pass legislation to insure equitable policing and urged the passage of the John Lewis Voting Rights Act.

In my view, Biden got the policies and the politics right. Congress should pass the necessary legislation.

Rob: Consider at Least Tapping the Brakes

                         

I’m generally supportive of the administration’s

agenda. We must address infrastructure and climate. The corporate tax structure requires a  fix even if the federal government didn’t need one additional dime for Biden’s program or anything else. I see raising taxes on corporations and the wealthy as the necessary first step in ending our grotesque income inequality problem.

That’s the primary beef I have with the Bernie Sanders – Elizabeth Warren economic and tax

programs from which Biden has borrowed so  heavily. They propose tax increases for new spending. I propose tax increases because we  need a fairer tax system in which everyone pays their just share. Enacting the

tax increases without as much spending as Biden plans would make us a more equitable society and likely spur an economic revival reminiscent of the Clinton years. Forty-two increased taxes on upper income taxpayers and wiped out the deficit in the process. He presided over modest spending increases, but the main impact of higher tax revenue was holding down interest rates. Government borrowing didn’t absorb capital that became available for businesses, large and small.  We experienced prolonged growth that lasted into the George W. Bush years.

We should do much of what Biden proposes. I’m not interested in giving aid and comfort to obstructionist Republicans by opposing him. If I were a senator, when push came to shove,

I’m  sure I’d vote for his bills. We might, however, consider doing what he wants in bite-sized chunks. Just saying, you know.  

THE GEORGE FLOYD VERDICT: THREE VIEWS AMDIST SETTLING DUST

 

Anyone regularly perusing this space knows we comment on current events, usually as

quickly as possible. We’re not a news service, however, so sometimes we think it best we let time pass between a significant happening and having our say. That’s the case with the guilty verdicts in the trial of former Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin for killing George Floyd.  On April 20 a jury pronounced Chauvin guilty on all three charges against him. We decided we should let the dust settle, so we proceeded with our April 22 post on Major League Baseball’s decision to pull its All-Star game from Atlanta in protest of Georgia’s restrictive voting law.

Now, the time has come for our thoughts on the verdict. The inherently personal character of our reactions merits speaking independently:

Henry: Sighs of Relief/Hope/Grief

This experience felt like batting practice for a baseball game in which the ball has been put on a

tee or watching a mystery with what seems an obvious ending. No doubt about the plot existed. A video showed who did it and how. Everything was teed up for an inevitable conclusion. Still, though the images had circulated around the globe for a year, doubt about our criminal justice system and white resistance to letting go of systemic and individual racism made me wonder if the result still might mimic so many before – “not guilty” said the jury.

When I heard the verdict on the first charge I breathed a sigh of relief. Wow, we have a conviction! Upon hearing the second, I felt a spark of hope. Maybe, just maybe, we now live in a different world.  After the third, however, grief for the Floyd family and those who came before overtook me. Neither George nor the others were coming back.

Then my mind turned to the pragmatic.  Will law enforcement organizations, particularly police unions, double down and fight police reform efforts?  Or will the good officers become the engine for change the nation needs? That’s in the hat, I decided. Though I have hope, I’m not optimistic. I still hear the wails of the many who couldn’t breathe, but perhaps now we can hear their voices.

Woodson: The Wind Is at Our Backs

Black Lives Matter members, supporters, and sympathizers believe Chauvin’s conviction

represents hope that at last African Americans will be policed as Caucasians are. They believe cries for equality in policing are gaining traction and the wind is at the movement’s back. They believe, as echoed by the biblical prophet Isaiah, “Justice will one day roll down like waters and righteousness like a mighty stream”. They are inspired to make “good trouble”.

Others believe the verdict was unjust; that it resulted from jurors’ fears of rioting. They fear that people of color will continue demanding to be policed as their white counterparts, which in their opinion is unreasonable, given their view of the criminality of black and brown people. For them Chauvin’s conviction is a threat to White Supremacy, and something should be done to squelch the fervency of demands for changes.

Like South Carolina’s Democratic Senator Benjamin “Pitchfork” Tillman, who in 1901

objected to President Roosevelt inviting the first African American, Booker T. Washington, to dine at the White House, they fear the conviction will unleash a torrent of demands for rights that are for whites only. Tillman said that the expectations growing out of a single African American having dinner at the White House meant that “we shall have to kill a thousand niggers to get them back in their places”. Today, the Tillmans of the country may be outnumbered.  The January 6^th insurrection, the rash of anti-voting rights laws, and continuing police killings of African Americans, suggest a number of Tillmans remain. 

I join the former group. Our numbers are growing as young Caucasians become aware of racial discrimination in policing. With the shifting demographics in the country, the fight continues with the wind at our backs!

Rob: The Playbook Fails

I watched the judge read the verdicts and

experienced some of the same thoughts and emotions  as my brother bloggers. I took in the cable news commentary (well, at least MSNBC and CNN). MSNBC’s Joy Reid expressed an observation about what happened in the courtroom that rang truest. I wish I could claim it as original with me, but it’s not, so I’ll give her credit. It best represents my thoughts about the impact of the verdicts.

Having practiced law for 34 years, mostly doing

litigation, and having tried dozens of cases myself, I never fault a lawyer for doing the best he or she can for their client. Every defendant enjoys the right to a vigorous defense by competent counsel.

Chauvin’s lawyer did what he could with what he had. He trotted out the defense police officers accused of killing black people usually offer – put the victim on trial, try showing the officer’s fear of the black suspect, blame the death or injury on a confluence of circumstances that exonerate the officer. The defense claimed George Floyd’s drug use and medical condition killed him, not Chauvin. Floyd, in the defense’s telling, could have risen from the pavement and overwhelmed the officers, the reason they kept holding him down. The nearby, supposedly menacing, crowd posed a threat that made aiding Mr. Floyd imprudent, even after he couldn’t breathe.

Supposedly menacing crowd witnessing death of George Floyd by Derek Chauvin

Beginning with the Rodney King case in 1992, we’ve often seen these tactics employed in trials of police officers accused of killing unarmed black people. Many times they worked, resulting in

acquittals by jurors reluctant to find against police officers.  The playbook failed this time, perhaps demonstrating it’s not infallible. Maybe it’s out of date. I think that’s potentially the verdict’s long-term significance.       

CONFEDERATE MONUMENTS, STATUTES, AND INCONVENIENT TRUTHS: SLAVERY, JIM CROW, AND ADOLF HITLER

A debate that sometimes flares into violence now rages in the United States over Confederate monuments and statues. The deaths of African American men and women in police custody like George Floyd and Breonna Taylor have provided new urgency to an already invigorated movement for removing such monuments and statutes from city streets, government buildings, and college campuses. We stand squarely with those who would destroy or relegate such structures to museums or other places that can put them into proper historical context.

We acknowledge an arguable distinction between monuments honoring Confederate officials and military officers and symbols of the Confederacy on one hand and those recognizing founding fathers of the nation who enslaved people, but did not rebel against the United States.  Monuments honoring Thomas Jefferson and George Washington require a different conversation and we defer that to another day. We concern ourselves now with people who took up arms against the country.

We fear supporters of keeping Confederate monuments prefer forgetting inconvenient truths about what those monuments represent. Today we remind them.

It was About Slavery

The War Between the States, as supporters of the Lost Cause like calling it, was fought about one thing: The South’s desire to preserve slavery and expand it into the western territories. In the early 1800s, as Americans marched westward and new states sought admission into the Union, the South realized it had a problem. If those territories entered as free states, soon the South would find itself out gunned in Congress. The number of representatives and most importantly, senators, from free states would outnumber those from slave-holding states. The South would lose its hold on power in the national government. The South couldn’t have that, since it risked the end of slavery.

Too many Americans have forgotten (or never knew) two things about slavery -- how brutal it was and how important it was economically. When we wrote recently about the movement that would make Juneteenth a national holiday, we identified museums that tell the story of slavery’s horrors. We’ve noted before how

Professor Edward Baptist’s book The Half Has Never Been Told: Slavery and the Making of American Capitalism provides a thorough understanding of both slavery’s brutality and its economic dimensions. The book describes in chilling detail murders, rapes, and physical abuse that went along with slavery and explains the relationship between the peculiar institution and development of the United States as a world commercial power. It will disabuse any reader of the notion the Civil War (its proper name) was about anything else.

The Monuments and Jim Crow

Advocates of keeping Confederate monuments glossed over when most were

erected. It wasn’t immediately after the Civil War when supporters of the Lost Cause might have focused on memorializing their heroes. Only a few went up in those years. In fact, many monuments went up after reconstruction as part of an organized campaign against recently freed enslaved persons that promoted Jim Crow segregation and, later, resistance to the civil rights movement.

       

 

Richmond, Virginia, for example, installed a statue of  Confederate President Jefferson Davis on its famous Monument Avenue in

1907. The statue of Robert E. Lee removed in 2017 from a street in New Orleans went up in 1884. The Lee statute in Charlottesville, Virginia that sparked violence in 2017 was installed in 1924. South Carolina began flying the Confederate battle flag above its state capitol in 1962, as a protest against school desegregation. USA Today reported thirty-five Confederate monuments erected in North Carolina after 2000.

These historical facts suggest erecting monuments to Confederate leaders had more to do with intimidating blacks and the civil

rights community than with preserving “heritage” as monument supporters so piously claim. Students of history know context means everything. Context in this instance speaks volumes about the message the monuments were established to send.

Hitler?

Yes, Adolf Hitler. Frankly, we’ve been surprised many people appear hesitant about comparing

the  memorializing of confederates who fought against the United States with German and Japanese leaders during the Second World War. Well, we’re not. We’re not because we don’t see a distinction. No American city or university would erect a statue of Hitler. The United States military wouldn’t name a base after Erwin Rommel, the general who

commanded German forces resisting the D-Day invasion at Normandy. How about a monument honoring Japanese Admiral Yamamoto, mastermind of the attack on Pearl Harbor?

Yet, statues in cities and on college campuses and the names of military bases honor defeated, treasonous Confederate officers. Lee, Stonewall Jackson, Braxton Bragg, and other Confederate battle commanders fought as hard against the United States as Rommel and Yamamoto. Davis sought destruction of the United States just as Hitler and Japanese Emperor Hirohito did. A distinction is artificial and intellectually dishonest.

If we have made harsh pronouncements on

this issue, so be it. Some principles require expression with moral clarity and certainty, unadulterated by diplomatic or cultural nicety. For us, this is such an issue.

We stand by our assessment. None the less, we remain interested in contrary views. We’ve stated ours, so let us hear from you about yours.