Bad Ideas by Hillary Clinton

Maybe it's all the whiskey and beer she swilled with the common people of Pennsylvania. Maybe it's the fatty foods she's been eating with people like us common folk impairing her judgment. Maybe it's good old pandering. But something has turned otherwise bright and intelligent Hillary Clinton into a damned fool.

Clinton has joined with John McCain in endorsing a gas tax holiday that would stretch through the summer travel months, an idea that Barack Obama appears to have rejected out of hand. Yes, Barack and a number of leading economists.

The idea is simple enough: during the summer months, you would pay no federal gas tax on your gasoline. The tax works out to a little more than 18 cents per gallon, so, if you pump nearly 11 gallons at a time like me, you'd save a whole two bucks. That two bucks makes a world of difference to Senator Clinton, who touts the plan as a way to cut the burden on us, the underclass. Nevermind the fact that the increased demand on gasoline would, probably, hugely increase already massive oil company profits.

Senator Clinton's idea is dumb, and there seems to be no serious support for it. I'd be mildly shocked if it ever came to fruition, and I say mildly because we do actually live in an era of zero responsible leadership. My problem is what it represents. First, in my mind, it shows no reflection or serious thought on Clinton's part. You endorse this kind of idea when you are thinking of getting votes only, and avoid considering the long-term ramifications of an plan like this. She is a bright person, and when bright people make terrible decisions, you must question their motivation. She's desperate to paint herself as the people's candidate, so desperate that she's willing to eschew reason to get a vote. Poor show, Senator.

Second, this "fix" demonstrates our national ignorance to the energy problem. We're dumb, writes Thomas Friedman. There is no leadership on national energy policy. No one is willing to go out on a limb and explain how we'll reduce our dependence on oil, how we'll reform our industry to address the rising cost of energy, and (inexplicably) no one is touting the benefits that naturally occur when an economy jettisons old tech for cutting-edge tech. Some people, like Vermont Law School's Energy Institute, understand the problem, though it is questionable whether they see the totality of the problem, or whether they only grasp the environmental aspect of it. We clearly need some ideas.

So, I have one. If our government doesn't want the two bucks for each fill-up, instead of cutting the tax, let's redirect it. Take the two bucks from every fill-up and create a giant investment fund. Some non-partisan, government group will administer it. We'll send use the money to figure out what the hell is wrong with us, how to fix it, and to invest in smart companies that can, well, save our world.

But, that'll never happen.

Senate Approves Wiretapping Bill

Yesterday, the Senate approved a wiretapping bill that expands law enforcement's surveillance powers, shields telecommunication companies from liability, and prevents judicial review of the surveillance program until after the wiretapping is complete. The targets of surveillance include Americans suspected of having ties to terrorist networks. Nineteen Democrats sided with the Administration on this one, likely in fear that they may be called weak on national security one day.

I think that this describes a divergent trend in American war politics today (not to mention Democratic sissy-ness).

For a lot of us, it's shocking to think that our government may spy on us one day based upon the mere suspicion that we've become linked to a terrorist network. After all, we all learned in high school history class that the Founding Fathers feared tyranny and oppression, and so they formed a government of limited police powers, with the limits taking the form of the Bill of Rights. However, what makes this area of law so confusing is that at the same time that the Founders were debating the role of government vis-a-vis its citizens, there was already a well-established common law theory of the laws of war.

The law of war basically deals with the powers of the various branches of government when a nation is at war. It's an English idea that carried over to our legal system. Some of the basic notions, such as the head of state (a president or king) acting as the commander-in-chief, are familiar. Others, such as the role of the courts as a non-policymaking body with almost no competence with military matters, are less familiar. However, the common law of war is a well-established, although murky and fluid, doctrine. It grants the executive broad powers to conduct war and gives the legislative branch a strong advisory role.

Although the common law of war might be well-established, it's interaction with our Bill of Rights is very unclear. The two are not always compatible, and that, I think, is the political discussion we need to have today. Each is born from a different socio-political system. The common law of war comes from a aristocratic monarchy where the rights of individuals is not well-defined. Our Constitutional system is democratic with the rights of individuals well-defined. When the two clash, we must decide which must give and how. Do we want a strong executive who can bend the law as he sees fit? Do we want to the rights of individuals to bend the the will of the state? How far should we go in paying for war?

I'd like to suggest that politically, we're branching off into two groups. Conservatives want a strong executive, and they identify with the common law approach to war that views civil rights and the role of government during war as a fluid continuum based on the government's needs. Liberals, on the other hand, adhere to the Constitution, which rigidly explains the roles and rights of both the government and individuals. One, the liberal approach, is democratic. The other, the conservative approach, is not.

Scary to think that after 232 years some of us would want a king again.