Simple Health Care Solution Pits Capitalism Against Socialism

By Alan W. Cohen

Are you tired of the bickering in Washington, D.C., over health care? Today, House Speaker Paul Ryan promised real reform even though the House bill is worse than the disease. Yesterday, socialists Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren accused Republicans of causing the death of millions of Americans with their proposals to dump Obamacare. It’s the theater of the absurd.

Over here in Missouri, at the center of our nation, all we know is that our choices for health insurance are dwindling daily as premiums continue to skyrocket. President Donald Trump claims Obamacare is in a death spiral. Democrats and the media claim otherwise, calling out Republicans for forging a new health care bill behind the scenes when that is exactly what the Democrats did in creating it. It’s exasperating. There is truly a complete disconnect. There is Washington and there is reality. Never the two shall meet.

So, what is the solution? How about this: Simplify. We have 35 states that are completely red. We have 15 states that are either completely blue, or some shade of violet. Let them compete against each other. Let the blue states have their Obamacare. Grant a waiver to any state where the number of insurers is noncompetitive, say at least six. Block grant to those states Medicaid funds to cover those without insurance, and suggest strongly that they permit the sale of policies across state lines, and let the free market do its magic. Historically, states have been melting pots of ideas, permitting human creativity to find solutions that certainly no one in Washington. D.C., is capable. States might contract with hospitals to provide services to the poor for far less. States might adopt medical malpractice reforms such that it would entice the best of doctors. States might be competing to attract the best patient care, and thus attract the best businesses, create the best schools, and so on. Heck, states may do without insurance all together and permit providers to sell their services on the open market, just like most dentists have successfully done since they rejected Medicare fifty years ago. The possibilities are endless.

What about the blue states? It’s up to them. Today in the news, the State of Illinois, a blue state, is nearing bankruptcy. And, of course, there is California and New York, each teetering on the ends of socialist policies, raising taxes to such extremes that people are fleeing to Texas and California by the millions. Blue states can continue to commit financial suicide or they can choose. Illinois Republican governor Bruce Rauner has been fighting Democrats to save Illinois from filing bankruptcy since his election three years ago. And he’s losing. Margaret Thatcher said it best. Socialism works until they run out of other people’s money.

When you pit capitalism against socialism, capitalism will win out. Just as it always does.

Alan W. Cohen is a retired attorney, blogger and author. His new book, Private Vows: The Case for Ending State Regulation of Marriage and Divorce is available on Amazon.

Recent blogs:

Memo to Elite Media from Mid-America: We Don’t Care! So, Shut Up Already!

America at a Crossroads: Embrace Freedom, or Accept Totalitarianism

Trump Travel Ban Highlights Political Conflicts Inside American Judicial System

Climate Change Non-Deniers Need to Open Up Collective Brains to Capitalism

Can Millennials Save Marriage in America? Studies Say Yes.

Hear Me Bernie Sanders: There is No Constitutional Right to Health Care

 

3 Requirements That Must Be Met in Order for Trump’s Jobs Plan to Work

By Alan W. Cohen

During his campaign, Donald Trump was about one thing: Jobs. Without much help from Congress, he is doing everything he can to support business investment in America to stimulate job creation. But the President is up against more than fifty years of failed government policies that have all but destroyed the incentive of those seeking to fill those jobs. He is up against fifty years of destruction of what was once called the Protestant Worth Ethic.

Donald Trump is seeing the world through his era, when couples married young and stayed together for life, when there was little divorce, and an unwanted pregnancy was a community-wide shame. This was the time when young men saw their place in society based on their chosen career. Their purpose was clear. Succeed to attract the best of of spouses, and to create a good life for himself and his family. Young men entered high school in search of both. Some, not all, went to college if that dream required a higher education. Others chose a different path, to create, or, perhaps, just to work and survive, without a family.

Those days are long over. Young men entering college today are less likely to see their future because they see college as an extension of high school, one where they are freer to play and party and chase girls, many who are more willing than ever to participate without any promise of a future. The statistics are daunting. According to Nicholas Eberstadt, in his recent book,  Men Without Work: America’s Invisible Crisis, there is a smaller percentage of working age men in the workforce than at any time since the Great Depression, and the trend is continuing on a downward spiral. That explains why home ownership rates are also falling and are at the lowest rate since the Great Depression. Marriage rates continue to fall to their lowest ever. The same can be said for the average length of marriage. Meanwhile the rate of children born outside of marriage continues to climb to upwards of 40 percent, more than 72 percent in the African American community.

As I said in my 2015 book, America Solved: A New Family for the 21st Century, the blame for this disaster falls squarely on the federal government and its insidiously stupid child support policies, policies that are more racist than Jim Crow, and more destructive to the African American community than the Ku Klux Klan. In America Solved, I explain how Lyndon Johnson sought to control the African American vote, and how Johnson ignored the findings of the 1965 Moynihan Report that called for a complete reversal of a Kennedy administration policy that not only legislated single-parent families, but required the evicted husbands to pay back to the federal government the sum it was paying as a condition of his eviction. To summarize, the report said: Poor children have poor fathers and, unless immediately changed, would cause irreversible damage.to the African American family. Yet, as I explain in America Solved, those policies remain in place, and those grim statistics are a natural and logical consequence of Johnson’s policy, one that has expanded to a complete federal takeover of family law in America. Incredibly, federal policy is to incarcerate those that fail to pay the sum as determined by the state government agency or court at a cost that far exceeds their debt, even though more than 70 percent of all child support arrears is owed not to the mother, but the federal government, and 90 percent is owed by men earning less than $10,000 a year. It’s insanity on steroids.

So, the bottom line for President Donald Trump is to do three things that he alone can do from the Oval Office without a Congress that has been hell-bent for more than fifty years to continue its socialist expansion:

  1. End Mass Incarceration: Send a message to those men, especially those in poverty and those in the African American community that you hear their cries by issuing pardons to anyone who was ever convicted of criminal nonsupport, and by stopping the funding of federal paid jailing of those convicted. America was supposed to have banned debtor’s prisons at the turn of the 19th Century, but recreated them with the ill-fated 1996 Welfare Reform Bill.
  2. Stop Collection of Government Owed Debt for Back Child Support. As I explain in America Solved: A New Family for the 21st Century, federal law does not permit this debt (unlike back taxes) to be discounted, or in any way forgiven, despite the fact that 90 percent of those who owe it are the same chronically poor that the Welfare program was supposed to help. While President Trump is forbidden from forgiving the debt, a hiatus on all collection efforts will create a momentum that future presidents will have to continue. As well, it will shine a light on this incredibly stupid and racist policy.
  3. Push Male Contraceptives: Only Congress can reverse the illogical belief that men have any control over procreation, and thus should be punished for creating children they cannot support. Condoms are insufficient and the CDC claims only a 5 in 6 success rate. Big Pharma is reluctant to invest in new, inexpensive methods for both the Male Pill, and especially an inoculation procedure created by a doctor in India that would physically block sperm from being ejaculated with the remainder of the semen, a procedure that could be reversed with a similar inoculation.  By forcing these medical procedures and drugs into the open market, and even pushing its distribution, President Trump would be telling these young men that they can live their lives without the fear that their success will be punished. Current child support policies are outdated, and, as I explain in my 2017 book, Private Vows: The Case for Ending State Regulation of Marriage and Divorce, unconstitutional. Those policies assume that people will continue to earn more as they get older, and project that higher income on any person who is not presently earning that amount, despite the fact that, if that assumption were ever true, it hasn’t been for at least a generation. As a result, men are saying to America in the most passive aggressive way possible: Why bother? Better to hang around their parents’ house, play video games and get high.

If President Trump wants young men in America to sign on to his program, they must have the idea that he has their back, that he understands their plight. But mostly he must create the incentive for success that is sorely missing in our great nation. They must be free to find their purpose in life, and free to pursue their happiness. Mostly, however, they need to know that the hard work will be worth it. While you cannot reverse fifty years of bad policy overnight, these three measures will be a start. Congress has been asleep at the wheel or headed in the wrong direction, showing no signs of a course correction. That leaves it up to one man. Good luck Mr. President.

Alan W. Cohen is a retired attorney, blogger and author.

Past blogs:

 Why Anti-Sharia Protests Are Misguided

Islamist Victory in Antisemitic Public Relations Battle Spells Doom for Freedom,

Completes Conquest of Europe

75 Notre Dame Students Embarrass Themselves, The University, Their Parents, and Especially America

Trump Travel Ban Highlights Political Conflicts Inside American Judicial System

America at a Crossroads: Embrace Freedom, or Accept Totalitarianism

Can Millennials Save Marriage in America? Studies Say Yes.

Susan Rice and Unmasking: Where is the Democrats’ Moral Compass?

Comey Confirms that Hillary the Evil Genius Behind the Trump/Russia Scandal

Memo to Elite Media from Mid-America: We Don’t Care! So, Shut Up Already!

By Alan W. Cohen

I speak to you from the breadbasket of American journalism, the University of Missouri-Columbia.  As a graduate from the world’s first, and best, journalism school in the nation, and as a dedicated Libertarian, I think I can speak for my fellow Mid-westerners, deep in Trump Country.

Shut up! We don’t care. We have memories. We know that you didn’t mind it when Barrack Obama did far worse than that you daily accuse Donald Trump. And we know you were embedded in the Hillary Clinton campaign, thanks to Wikileaks. Heck, if either of them were Republicans, you have already had them in prison for their offenses.

It does not matter to us that you have rid us of Bill O’Reilly and the conservative, but rational, thought process that used to be Fox News. We don’t have to watch you. We don’t have to, and who actually does, read the New York Times or the Washington Post. We don’t care.

Here is what we do see. Hysteria. And, hysterical people convince no one of anything but the fact they are hysterical. We know that you have anti-Trumpists deep in the federal government who are willing to leak classified information because they are desperate to retain power. We see you for what you are. We went through this with Ronald Reagan and the Bushes. But times are far different. We can listen to Rush Limbaugh, Mark Levin and Sean Hannity, and read conservative bloggers, or my fellow Libertarians. So, the only people you are convincing is the ones that are were already convinced. So enough already!

And every day it’s something different. Some new minute detail that you blow completely out of proportion in your Group Think echo chamber. We can turn you off, just like I turned off Fox News when they began their program with the feigned Democrat press conference about how awful it is that Donald Trump may have given away some bit of information that might be classified. Wow! Is that funny or what? Here’s a hint: Think Hillary Clinton.

So, Elite Media, look at yourselves in the mirror. What do you do everyday? You get your deep sources, and publish that same classified information. It has been going off for years. I remember learning how Fidel Castro learned about the Bay of Pigs invasion. He read it in the New York Times.

And, you will notice that the polls haven’t budged. We know who you are and we will never believe you. All you are doing is destroying what is left of your credibility. As I wrote in a blog earlier this year, journalism was never what you said it was, fair and balanced. It has always been political. Therefore, it has always been biased. It was you that had to daily convince us that you were seeking the truth, that you could give us context. But that has stopped, and your credibility is now completely gone.

So, when I have my choice between watching the news and watching some boring pregame show before the Cardinals play, I will choose the latter. I vote you off my island. And so do my fellow citizens from the Heartland.

Alan W. Cohen is a retired attorney, blogger and author. His latest book, Private Vows: The Case for Ending State Regulation of Marriage and Divorce, is available on Amazon.

Recent Blogs:

Integrity of Rod Rosenstein Shining Beacon in Washington, D.C. Swamp

Trump Travel Ban Highlights Political Conflicts Inside American Judicial System

America at a Crossroads: Embrace Freedom, or Accept Totalitarianism

Climate Change Non-Deniers Need to Open Up Collective Brains to Capitalism

Three Important Lessons I Learned from Georgetown Professor Randy Barnett

Syria Bombing: Why History Trumps Libertarian Beliefs

Susan Rice and Unmasking: Where is the Democrats’ Moral Compass?

Is Hillary the Evil Genius Behind the Trump/Russia Scandal?

Journalistic Ethics is a Myth, Just Like in Any Other Business; Long Live Journalism

 

 

 

 

 

Trump Travel Ban Highlights Political Conflicts Inside American Judicial System

By Alan W. Cohen

During oral argument today, May 8, 2017, before the U.S. Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, one judge asked the ACLU attorney a basic question that pretty much goes like this: If Hillary Clinton had won and issued the identical order, would that order be constitutional. His answer was telling. Yes, of course it would. But this one is not because of comments made by Donald Trump during the election.

Huh? In my 25 years of law practice, and the multitude of oral arguments at the appellate level, this was a first. Judges are to interpret statutes as written, and, only if there is an ambiguity, do they go further to seek the intention of the legislature. Here was a law in place in the 1950s, used many times by many Presidents, including the second most liberal in history, Jimmy Carter, to ban certain foreigners from entering the country. That is the plain language of the statute. It gives the President not discretion, but absolute authority, to exclude entry from the United States he deems is a threat to national security. Period. There is nothing new here.

Yet, it’s not surprising that the judiciary does what it wants to do on an almost daily basis, each knowing that the legislature is pretty much powerless to stop them from interpreting laws however they wish because a higher court, not the elected officials who drafted the law, had the final say. That is our history. In our Mother Country, law was judge created, and opinions of judges were used as precedent, and ironically, permitted a final appeal in the House of Lords. In France, law was always statutory, and the judges were to follow that strict construction of the written language. America began as a judge driven law and gradually morphed into a statute driven law, all while giving to the judiciary the final say on how that law was to be interpreted.

While there are countless examples, nothing better explains it then the treatment of the Fourteenth Amendment. As Mr. Justice Hugo Black once wrote, Congress explicitly passed the Amendment to nullify an 1833 Supreme Court decision excluding state and local government from constitutional scrutiny as it pertained to fundamental rights. Under that ruling, states were free to establish religions, and violate the fundamental freedoms that had agreed to in their compact, those God-given rights to pursue happiness stated in the Declaration of Independence. But when the matter came before that same Supreme Court just a few years after the passage of the post-Civil War Amendments, the Court decided that no, it didn’t, that, despite its clear language stating otherwise, it was just and anti-slavery amendment. As a result of this judicial overreach, our nation endured almost a century of court authorized religious intolerance and racial bigotry, not to mention gender bias.

So when we complain about activist judges seeing everything through a prism of political party, why should we be surprised? That is how the ACLU could argue that if a Democrat issued the same order it would be valid, but since it’s a Republican, it’s not. That is why the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals will almost assuredly strike down the ban, not for any legal reason, but because it was issued by a Republican. Based on today’s oral argument, despite that glaring admission from the ACLU attorney, this case can go either way. We just have to determine the political leanings of its court members. The law be damned.

Alan W. Cohen is a retired attorney, blogger and author. His new book, Private Vows: The Case for Ending State Regulation of Marriage and Divorce is available at Amazon.

Most Recent Blogs:

America at a Crossroads: Embrace Freedom, or Accept Totalitarianism

Climate Change Non-Deniers Need to Open Up Collective Brains to Capitalism

New Copy of the Declaration of Independence Brings Out the Crazies

I Have Come to Praise Bill O’Reilly, Not to Bury Him

Three Important Lessons I Learned from Georgetown Professor Randy Barnett

Easter Message: Why Religion is Vital to Maintaining Our Liberty

Can Millennials Save Marriage in America? Studies Say Yes.

 

 

 

New Copy of the Declaration of Independence Brings Out the Crazies

By Alan W. Cohen

There is no doubt that certain people in high places want to cast doubt on anything that is America, particularly our founding. But this latest pronouncement coming from two Harvard professors is over the top nuts.

You may have heard on the news that someone in Great Britain discovered a parchment document purported to be an original copy, meaning a true hand written copy of the Declaration of Independence. Assuming that it is a true document, and no one has explained how it could be a true document, what is different from the original? Are there passages different? No. Does the document contain different words? No. Did different people sign the document? No.

So what is the big deal? It turns out that the order of signatures are different. So what? We all know how the Declaration came to be. Continental Congress met and each colony voted. The Declaration went through the mill until all thirteen colonies voted to consent. So, now two Harvard professors are claiming that there is some special meaning to the order of the signatures. In the original, the signers were organized by their newly founded states. In this new copy, they are randomly signed. Before getting into the weeds of what that difference might signify, lets imagine that this document is authentic. How would it have come about? After signing the original, the Continental Congress needed to spread the word, and that required copies. Since no copy machines were then available, scribes copied the document by hand, and then asked the signers to redo their respective John Hancocks. Therefore, there was no purpose behind the order of signatures for the copies. The scribes probably had to chase down the signors, who just signed somewhere on the page.

But two Harvard professors have declared some hidden meaning behind this difference, that it must mean that federalism is a fiction. Alas, the Founders signed as one nation, not as a collection of states. And,  your point is? Doesn’t the Constitution begin We the People of the United States? Of course, it is from the people. The Declaration itself is about alienable rights and the pursuit of happiness, not of the states, but of the people who live in those states. Those same people divvied up authority between the federal and state governments, reserving those inalienable rights for themselves.  That is what we call federalism.

I am beginning to wonder what they are smoking at Harvard.

Alan W. Cohen is an author and blogger, retired from the practice of law after 25 years. His new book, Private Vows: The Case for Ending State Regulation of Marriage and Divorce is available on Amazon.

Read Past Blogs:

I Have Come to Praise Bill O’Reilly, Not to Bury Him

Three Important Lessons I Learned from Georgetown Professor Randy Barnett

Easter Message: Why Religion is Vital to Maintaining Our Liberty

Can Millennials Save Marriage in America? Studies Say Yes.

Syria Bombing: Why History Trumps Libertarian Beliefs

With Gorsuch vote McCaskill Confirms She is Not Running for Re-election

Susan Rice and Unmasking: Where is the Democrats’ Moral Compass?

Is Hillary the Evil Genius Behind the Trump/Russia Scandal?

Journalistic Ethics is a Myth, Just Like in Any Other Business; Long Live Journalism

Shocker: Sanctuary Cities Now Claiming Federal Funding is an Entitlement

Hear Me Bernie Sanders: There is No Constitutional Right to Health Care

Tomi Lahren Touches The Soul of the Libertarian on Abortion Question

Does Neil Gorsuch have Libertarian tendencies? One Question Tells Us.

March Madness and the Trump Travel Ban: A Two-minute primer

Why Libertorian?

 

 

 

Three Important Lessons I Learned from Georgetown Professor Randy Barnett

By Alan W. Cohen

The one thing I learned while I was in college was that scholars are pretty much set in their ways, and are rarely open to new ideas, especially if those new ideas challenge their entire way of thinking. At 57, I was pretty set in my ways. I had attended a top journalism and law school, had practiced in my field for more than 25 years, writing and teaching seminars. I thought I knew it all, or at least had a firm grasp. I had just published my book, America Solved, my attempt to reverse the destructive federal  child support policies of the past fifty years.

That was almost a year ago. I had been a converted Democrat, and time had transformed me into a Libertarian, with Reason Magazine as my bible. That is where I learned about Randy Barnett and his new book, Our Republican Constitution, and it was in that book that I learned the three important lessons that would lead me to my book, Private Vows: The Case for Ending State Regulation of Marriage and Divorce.

Lesson One: When in law school, I was taught that the source of fundamental rights was the Constitution. It made sense. We have First Amendment rights to free speech, etc. Yet, as are most Americans, I didn’t quite understand the source of those rights not specifically mentioned, especially the Right to Privacy. Practicing in family law, I relied on two of those rights not enumerated, the Right to Parent and the Right to Marry. I accepted those rights because the Supreme Court recognized them as fundamental, although I held on to the view of Mr. Justice Goldberg that those rights exist in the Ninth Amendment. Randy Barnett taught me, however, that the source of these rights lay not in the Constitution, but what was written in the Declaration of Independence. The People have inalienable rights. They transfer some authority to state government, where their elected servants administer their appointed duties for the public good. The People also transfer some to the federal government, i.e., the Constitution, to protect them from foreign intrusion. But since those rights are inalienable, the People lack the ability to transfer, or give up those rights, and thus any act of state or federal legislatures that violate those fundamental rights is void at is inception. Suddenly, it all made sense. The Bill of Rights does not confer rights. It defends them. Congress shall make no law …

Lesson Two:  Elections are based on majority rule, and it has been drilled into us that the view of that majority that should prevail.  We are constantly bombarded from the left and the right, each claiming that their view is correct because they represent the majority. What I learned from Randy Barnett, however, is it that the Constitution is not We the People as the majority, but We the People as a collection of  individuals. As an amateur historian, I recall the folly of the Kansas-Nebraska Act, based on a theory that one group of people could vote to enslave another.  The same question applies to those majority who would restrict the Right to Marry. In 2015, in Obergefell v. Hodges, the Supreme Court made a finding that marriage in America began as a purely private affair, and then evolved. My book,  Private Vows, answers the question of how that happened. But I could not have accomplished that goal without this lesson that I learned from Randy Barnett. Since We the People is a collection of individuals endowed with inalienable rights, and since one of those rights is the Right to Marry, the People could not transfer to their elected representatives the authority to restrict that right. Therefore, state regulation of marriage and divorce is unconstitutional, as are federal laws that impact the Right to Parent.

Lesson Three: Whether it be the current state action to void the Trump Travel Ban or during the Civil Rights Era, where George Wallace and his fellow segregationists so argued, the idea of State’s Rights always intrigued me. Yet, Randy Barnett taught me that State’s Rights is a fiction. States don’t have rights. The Tenth Amendment recognizes that the people did not give complete authority to the federal government. Elected state officials have authority, and that authority is limited to what is specifically conferred. For Private Vows,  Barnett made me fully appreciate that the Tenth Amendment is not a source of authority for what the Supreme Court as recently as 2013 declared, that domestic relations was traditionally left to the states to regulate. Barnett taught me that tradition is not a Constitutional argument. We have to look to our Founding Documents.  Rather, the Declaration of Independence instructs us that the People have the inalienable right to marry, to parent, and to the Pursuit of Happiness. States do not have the authority to regulate marriage and divorce because the Constitution gives the the People’s elected servants no such authority, and any act to interfere in purely private acts is void at its inception.

Thank you Randy Barnett for teaching this old dog a new trick, and I will be forever grateful. You have given me a greater appreciation of the wisdom of our Founders than I thought possible. My personal goal is to share what I learned from you, and to broadcast it for the better of the people of the United States of America.

Alan W. Cohen is a graduate of the University of Missouri-Columbia School of Journalism and the Washington University (St. Louis) School of Law. Now a full-time author and blogger, he practiced Family Law in the St. Louis area for more than 25 years. His books are available on Amazon.

Syria Bombing: Why History Trumps Libertarian Beliefs

By Alan W. Cohen

Presidential adviser Steve Bannon once commented that we Libertarians do not live in the real world. And, from some of the commentary coming out of Cato and other outlets, I can see why he might believe that. More on that later in the week.

Just as we do not believe in the murder of those unfortunate souls that lay beneath those 59 Tomahawk missiles that struck that Syrian airfield Thursday evening, we Libertarians believe in the Constitution first and foremost. Yet, just as murder must be justified in times of war, we must look past our immediate regrets for the President taking unilateral action to send a message to the world.

In 1916, an infamous German chemist convinced himself and the Kaiser that he could end the bloody stalemate at the trenches with a new weapon. The gas attacks that followed were as horrid as they were ineffective, just as the inventor of the machine gun had believed a quarter century before. Yet, while millions of young men died on Flanders Field and all across Europe after blindly going over the wall, it was the gas attacks, not the machine gun that stuck in the world’s collective consciousness. Poison gas was banned by all civilized nations, and it remains so today, just as they have banned torture. Hitler employed poison gas in his Final Solution. It is the weapon of cowards and barbarians, not to be tolerated. Ever.

Thus, when President Trump had a visceral reaction to the pictures of children going through that unspeakable torture, it was understandable. Yet, history is bigger than that. Barrack Obama appeared to morph into Neville Chamberlain in his passive approach to hostile extremism, the Iran Deal being his biggest contribution to receding American power. Just as Chamberlain believed you could make a deal with the Devil, Obama, Susan Rice and John Kerry were convinced they could deal with his minions, and were equally naive. As late as this January, Obama and his acolytes were praising themselves for ridding Syria of chemical weapons.  This is the world that Donald Trump inherited.

Thus, while just as Christians and Jews must go against their religious teachings to wage war, Libertarians must recognize there is an exception to every rule. Evil exists.  It is the job of the President to protect us from that evil. If Trump’s message has a positive impact on protecting our liberty, then we can justify that limited military response. But Rand Paul is right. We must not tread further. Be wary of the war mongers, and remember our past mistakes. Like the Constitution, it is a very delicate balance.

Alan W. Cohen is a retired attorney and author. His most recent book, Private Vows: The Case for Ending State Regulation of Marriage and Divorce is available on Amazon.

Memo to Austin Peterson: With Gorsuch vote is #FireClaire McCaskill Confirming She is Not Running for Re-election?

By Alan W. Cohen

How would you like to be the Democrat senator in a state that has a veto proof majority Republican legislature, a newly minted Republican governor, and voted for the Republican for President by a double-digit margin?

Welcome to the world of Missouri senator Claire McCaskill. In 2012, McCaskill trounced Republican Todd Akin 54.7 percent to 39.2 percent, while Romney won the state by a margin of 53.8 to 44.4 percent. In an article she penned for Politico in 2015, McCaskill explained how she, in Nixon-est fashion (Richard, not Jay), was able to manipulate the process to run against who she believed to be the weakest opponent:

“I began to consider whether it would be useful to help Akin spread his message, keeping in mind that he was the weakest fundraiser out of the three potential nominees.

Akin’s track record made him my ideal opponent. Many of his votes in Congress contradicted his claim of being a fiscal conservative. While he opposed President Barack Obama’s authority to raise the debt limit, during the Bush administration, in 2004, he had voted to raise the limit by $800 billion. A vocal opponent of the Obama administration’s stimulus efforts, in 2001 Akin had voted in favor of a $25 billion stimulus package that mostly benefited large corporations and the wealthy. And he was a big earmarker: in one fiscal year he sponsored or cosponsored $14 million worth of pork and once sought $3.3 million in a special appropriation for a highway near nine acres he owned and was planning to develop. While opposing spending money for child nutrition programs, veterans’ health benefits, and disaster relief, he repeatedly voted to raise his own salary.

His extreme positions on social issues and ridiculous public statements made him anathema to many independent voters. He sponsored an amendment that would define life as beginning at conception, thereby outlawing common forms of birth control. He voted against repeal of the military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” legislation. When the Affordable Care Act was being debated, he stood on the House floor and asked for God’s help in keeping the nation from “socialized medicine.””

That was the past. In 2012, voters continued to adore their Democrat governor, Jay Nixon, who balanced out the state legislature that was becoming increasingly Republican. McCaskill, who battled cancer in 2016, will have no such ally this time around. That is why her vote to support the filibuster of Judge Gorsuch was so telling. She could easily have joined Joe Manchin of West Virginia, another Democrat senator from a Trump loving state. Her vote would have been meaningless in the overall scheme. Yet, she chose to join with her Trump hating colleagues to shown disdain for a moderate, highly qualified candidate. And, its not like she is worried about getting “primary-ed.” There is no Democrat that would challenge her, regardless of her vote. Her seat is vital to the Democrats. And, thus, McCaskill doesn’t have to worry about funding.

So Claire McCaskill, facing an embarrassing defeat, must be planning on retiring, leaving the Democrats to draft the once popular Jay Nixon to take on an unknown Republican opponent in a very red state.

Alan W. Cohen practiced law in the St. Louis area for more than 25 years before retiring. He is the author of Private Vows: The Case for Ending State Regulation of Marriage and Divorce and America Solved: A New Family for the 21st Century. Both are available on Amazon.

Comments:

Please email Alan W. Cohen directly at alan@privatevows.com.