DV Journal

U.S. Rep. Chrissy Houlahan (D-Chester/Berks) and Republican challenger Neil Young debated Wednesday.

Reading NAACP President Stacy Taylor moderated the discussion on Berks Community TV.  The two candidates discussed war, inflation, immigration, the border, and tax policy.

Young, a high school social studies teacher, made the case that he’s the person to represent the 6th District. Higher prices, increased chaos abroad, and an education system that has traded “excellence for equity” are issues he’d handle differently than Houlahan.

Houlahan, who has represented the district since 2019, defended her record of voting for various Biden-Harris administration bills like the Inflation Reduction Act and the Chips and Science Act, which added trillions to the national debt.

Houlahan, a former Air Force officer and business owner, argued she has the experience needed to keep the country strong.

She wrote legislation to combat inflation and gun violence. A bill she authored to stop fentanyl from coming into the U.S. was signed into law, she said.

Neil Young

“I’m recognized as one of our most bipartisan legislators in Congress,” said Houlahan.

Young began the forum by introducing himself in Spanish.

He said the Biden-Harris administration has redefined Title IX and “intentionally hid critical information from parents.”

“The truth is that we could have secured our border.  The truth is there was a House bill but it wasn’t voted for by my opponent. We could have protected our girls on the sports field. We could have kept them from being drafted onto the battlefield. We could have sanctioned Iran and reduced their ability to fund terrorism. We could have passed the parents’ bill of rights.  We could have distanced ourselves from anti-police, anti-Israel colleagues, like AOC, who was on the steps of Reading High School just this past weekend. We could have been honest about what the Inflation Reduction Act actually was. And that was a backdoor Green New Deal that has driven inflation and restricted American energy,” said Young.

Asked about the three most important issues, Young cited foreign wars, inflation, and illegal immigration.

“We’ve crept precipitously close to World War III,” said Young.

“Inflation is completely out of control,” he said, adding that groceries now cost 21 percent more in Pennsylvania, and gas prices have doubled.

“We’ve got over 10 million people who have come into this country. We don’t know who they are. We don’t know if their asylum claims are correct. And we’ve lost 300,000 unaccompanied minors. We’ve got a disaster at our southern border.”

Houlahan agreed that “we are in a precarious time in terms of our peace on the global stage.

“I believe in precipitous time in terms of what’s going on in Ukraine, what’s happening in Israel, what could possibly happen in the Indo-Pacific. And as a consequence, I believe we are at an important time to have people at the table, myself included, who have deep background on this issue. I serve on the Armed Services Committee, I’ve served on the Foreign Affairs Committee, I now serve  on the Intelligence Committee.”

Houlahan said the COVID pandemic was “a big shock to our economy.”

“But luckily, we’re at a place where inflation is abating, largely because of some of the things that we did to make sure we could keep our roofs over our heads, to make sure that we could put food in our stomachs, to make sure that we kept the schools safe with things like the Inflation Reduction Act, with things like the American Rescue Plan, and things like all of the funding we did for the paycheck protection program.”

America must continue to grow its economy, she said.

“And some of the things we’re doing with the Chips and Science Act, for example, reshoring, onshoring, peer-shoring, all of the jobs we need to, the technologies that we need to aggressively seek, the things we’re also doing to make sure that we complete on the stage with the skills and jobs that will bring us into the next century.”

Asked what she would do about systemic racism, Houlahan said the federal government should make sure “we have equal access to education” and that the criminal justice system treats everyone equally. Adults need to have the skills for jobs, she added.

Young said, “Our schools are failing” –including those in Chester and Berks Counties, where most have decreased in performance.

“There’s nothing that is exasperating wealth gaps and wealth divides more than a lack of school choice,” he said.

Houlahan opposes school choice.

“I am not in favor [of sending] money to follow a child into a faith-based school. I don’t believe that is the role of the government. The government’s role is to educate all children and keep them [in] a very strong public school system.”

They also sparred on abortion.

Houlahan’s daughter was about to give birth to her granddaughter.

“And the idea that she is going to be born into a world where she has fewer rights, fewer bodily [autonomy] rights than I do, is something that’s really, really worrisome,” said Houlahan.  “This is a conversation a person should have with their family, their faith, their doctor, and our government should stay out of this.” She said 30 percent of military women do not have access to birth control.

Young agrees with the late liberal Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg that Roe v. Wade was “on shaky legal ground.” And while he is personally pro-life, he would leave the abortion decisions to the states. Since Roe was overturned, there are now more elective abortions than ever, and most are chemical abortions in the early months of pregnancy, he said.

“I’m always going to fight that we are a family-friendly environment,” he said. “That we’re not struggling with the cost of groceries, with the cost of gas.”

The U.S. is experiencing a population decline, he said.

Young noted 10 million people have illegally crossed the border since Biden-Harris took office.

“That House bill my opponent voted against had a provision, remain in Mexico. This [provision] takes care of a whole lot -to see if your asylum claim is going to be granted. That saves us a whole lot of resources. It would have increased border patrol agents. It would have criminalized visa overstays. It would have resumed construction of a border wall.”

Houlahan said she voted against that bill because it would allow children crossing illegally to be held for a month, “which I felt was an atrocity,” but she supports a “bipartisan” bill that failed to pass in the Senate.

Young said the bill’s author said the final bill was “unrecognizable” and voted against it, as did six Democrats. It would have allowed 5,000 people a day to cross the border and permitted them to claim asylum.

“Sometimes bipartisan only serves two parties, and it doesn’t serve the American people,” said Young.

Asked to discuss the high cost of housing, the pair differed on the causes.

Young said the average cost of a house in Pennsylvania has risen from $195,000 to $300,000.

He believes that the Biden-Harris “war on fossil fuels that we use to transport 90 percent of everything we make” is the main cause. He pointed to restrictions on drilling on federal land and on exporting natural gas, along with “massive government spending.”

Also, illegal immigrants compete for rental housing in Reading and Coatesville, he said.

“Rental prices and home prices are inextricably tried,” Young said.

Houlahan disagreed, saying migrants play no role in housing costs.

She’s met with organizations like Habitat for Humanity that receive government funding to help people with affordable housing. She said Vice President Kamal Harris proposed government help with down payments.

Houlahan said the “Biden administration has done a wonderful job bringing allies in” to help with the Ukraine War.

“These are very dangerous times, and we need to be working with our allies to make sure we are as safe and secure as possible,” said Houlahan.

Young said Russian President Putin annexed Crimea when President Obama was in office. And now he’s invaded Ukraine under Biden.

“There is a penalty to weak leadership,” said Young, who brought up “the disastrous withdrawal from Afghanistan.” That withdrawal had “long-lasting foreign policy effects in places like Russia (and) in empowering Hamas.”

Please follow DVJournal on social mediaX@DVJournal or Facebook.com/DelawareValleyJournal

For an alternate point of view, see: “Counterpoint: The 1994 Crime Bill’s Legacy–Thirty Years of Failure”

By the early 1990s, the United States had experienced dramatic and unprecedented surges in crime, with the violent crime rate up 470 percent from 1961 and the murder rate up 92 percent from that year.

Life in American cities was more dangerous than ever, and punishment was not fitting the crimes. While the median sentence for murder was 15 years, the median time served was only 5.5 years. The median sentence for rape was five years, but the median time served was a paltry three. Overall, violent criminals served, on average, 37 percent (2 years, 11 months) of their sentenced time. Forty-four percent of Americans said there was an area near where they lived that they would be afraid to walk alone at night.

In response to widespread pressure from law enforcement and residents, on September 13, 1994, former president Bill Clinton signed the bipartisan Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994. Commonly referred to as the 1994 Crime Bill, this omnibus package was the most serious federal effort to reduce violent crime in U.S. history. The bill injected billions into hiring police, created a grant program to encourage state adoption of Truth in Sentencing laws, added prison capacity, and criminalized gang membership — among other provisions.

Support for the bill was considerably higher among Black Americans (58 percent) than among White Americans (49 percent) — likely because Black Americans bore the brunt of violent crime victimization and homicide then and now.

After passage, violent crime and homicide rates ticked downward for the next two decades. The results were particularly acute for Black violent crime victims. From 1993 to 2005, the rate of Black non-fatal violent victimization dropped by more than 50 percent. While it would be foolish to attribute all of this to the 1994 Crime Bill alone, there is good reason to believe specific policies were influential.

Economist Steven Levitt completed the most comprehensive analysis of the crime decline that began in the mid-1990s and found four significant factors of impact. Two of them — the increased number of police on the streets and increased prison populations — can be directly tied to the 1994 Crime Bill.

Evaluations of the bill’s hiring program have found that the program increased the number of officers on the street and reduced crime. These results align with public safety research that has continuously demonstrated that more police means less crime. Analyses of police staffing levels and crime in Florida and New York City found increasing police levels reduced overall crime. Another recent study found each additional police officer prevents 0.1 homicides — an effect that’s twice as large for Black victims compared to White victims.

Harsher punishments and more incarceration likely contributed to the decline because incarceration has a significant incapacitation benefit. While in prison, criminal offenders cannot victimize the public. A review of existing literature by the Sacramento-based Criminal Justice Legal Foundation found that any claims of prison being criminogenic cannot outweigh that incapacitation benefit. One analysis found that incapacitating one high-rate offender prevents, on average, 9.4 serious felonies. Two recent studies from the U.S. Sentencing Commission found that longer sentences reduced recidivism among released federal inmates.

The main criticism of these provisions is that they exacerbated “mass incarceration” —  a genuinely meaningless term that sounds scary but conveys no information. While it is true that U.S. incarceration rates are higher than Western Europe’s, we are not substantially more punitive. What we do have is a much higher rate of gun crime, which necessitates longer prison sentences and more incarceration.

This isn’t to say the bill was perfect, and in the 30 years since it became law, we have found ways to be more targeted in policing and sentencing. Overall, though, the 1994 Crime Bill marked a significant policy accomplishment and helped usher in a 20-year decline in violent crime that yielded fewer victims and more capacity for human flourishing in neighborhoods previously held captive by violence.

As Congress convenes a bipartisan task force to investigate the security failures that led to the attempted assassination of former president Donald Trump, its mere existence should serve as a stark reminder of the importance of vigilant and proactive security measures.

Many elements contributed to the security breach, so many issues need to be addressed. Effective planning is the cornerstone of security and emergency preparedness. Venues need thorough risk evaluation, clear role definitions and proper resource allocation.

Tragically, the Trump rally in Pennsylvania exposed the inexcusable absence of overwatch from a nearby water tower and the rooftop where a gunman shot Trump and Corey Comperatore. The claim that a sloped roof was unsafe for law enforcement is absurd. The gunman used this roof to establish a stable shooting position. The gunman didn’t fall off after being shot, indicating the roof’s suitability for surveillance purposes. 

The Secret Service’s inability to secure this critical location is perplexing and raises substantial concerns regarding risk-assessment protocols.

Each excuse about the heat, rooftop slope, inadequate staffing, etc., highlights a fundamental failure in preparation. Security officers and agents need hydration, rest from extreme temperatures and sufficient manpower.

The gunman used a range finder to gauge the distance to a target, which revealed a glaring flaw in the security screening processes. This type of gear, often used as binoculars, must be identified and flagged at future events. Additionally, overly stringent rules of engagement delayed the response until after the first shot. Strong rules of engagement are necessary but should never hinder the ability of agents to act promptly in high-threat situations.

Effective security depends on proper command and coordination. Centralized command, regrettably, slowed down an immediate response from on-the-ground personnel. Tips from rallygoers enabled law enforcement officers to identify the gunman earlier that day. However, they found themselves without instructions or were explicitly told to stand down, resulting in their inaction. Compounding the problem was the bystander effect, where individuals are less likely to intervene, assuming someone else will. This highlights critical issues within a centralized command structure: delays and inefficiencies proved fatal.

Decentralized command puts decision-making power in the hands of those on the ground, enabling quicker and more effective responses. FEMA advises having no more than five direct reports per supervisor to maintain a manageable span of control, ensuring decisions are timely and efficient. This potentially could have averted the delays that led to Comperatore’s death. 

In military operations, decentralized command is often preferred because it allows small units to adapt swiftly to exploit vulnerabilities and adjust defensive positions as necessary. This flexibility is vital in high-stakes security situations.

After witnessing several events in 2018-2020 with a Secret Service presence, our team members saw a few things about standard Secret Service operating procedures that stand out. They used similar ID and screening procedures and technology as the TSA uses at airports, such as a portable walk-through metal detector, checking backpacks, bags and purses. Even water bottles branded for the venue of one event were not allowed to be left unattended. The agents showed strong teamwork, operating alongside several law enforcement agencies simultaneously. The deterioration of quality highlights the need for improved leadership and support systems.

The gaps in preparation, command and coordination at the Trump rally revealed significant security lapses. However, assigning fault alone will not fix the issues that allowed the gunman to take his shots. Proper preparation, decentralized command, and support for security personnel are essential to prevent such incidents. Also crucial is requiring transparency to foster greater ownership in security, law enforcement and secret service personnel in successes and failures.

The human cost when security falls apart is severe. Accountability and a commitment to best practices are necessary to ensure the safety and survival of high-profile individuals and the public. Immediate reforms would save people like Corey Comperatore, whose memory Congress and the Secret Service can honor by fixing these issues and working toward a safer future for all Americans.

Please follow DVJournal on social media: X@DVJournal or Facebook.com/DelawareValleyJournal

David Winkler says he believes he has a good chance of beating three-term  incumbent Congresswoman Madeleine Dean (D-Montgomery) in November.

Winkler is running for Congress because he cares “deeply about America.”  He served in the U.S. Marine Corps and fought in Iraq and Afghanistan. After leaving the Marines, he joined the Army.

“A lot of people died to preserve our freedoms and way of life,” said Winkler. “I feel like right now our government is failing the people. And that it’s my duty to stand up and fix it.”

His changes have improved because of the rising popularity of former President Donald Trump, whose coattails might lift down-ballot Republicans.

And, the first-time Republican candidate notes that Dean’s far-left votes against Israel and pro-Palestinians have alienated a sizable portion of the area’s Jewish voters. According to the Jewish Federation of Philadelphia, Jews comprise about 10 percent of Montgomery County residents.

Dean is “one of the most divisive people we have in the government,” said Winkler, 38. “Everything she’s done has torn America apart, from her volunteering to be an impeachment manager to her voting record, even at what’s happened with the Jewish community, the blatant antisemitism. We need people in D.C. who bring people together, not divide… She only caters to the far left.”

Commentary magazine editor John Podhoretz wrote in June that Trump is poised to get more support from Jews than any Republican presidential candidate in modern history due to Biden’s lukewarm support of Israel. He noted a drop in votes for Democrats from Pennsylvania Jews “may be the game right here.”

Rabbi Matthew Adelson, a Conservative rabbi and member of the Philadelphia Board of Rabbis, supports Winkler for Winkler’s position backing Israel.

“David is a wonderful person,” said Abelson. After he met Winkler, “it became very clear to me that he’s someone who is capable of leading on that very critical issue.”

In the months since the Oct. 7 Hamas terror attacks, Dean has “made it very clear she is not a supporter of Israel,” said Adelson, who cataloged a long list of Dean’s pro-Palestinian votes.

“On Nov. 7, there was an opportunity to censure (Rep.) Rashida Talib (D-Mich.) for promoting false narratives regarding the Oct. 7 attack, and (Dean) voted no,” said Adelson. “She allowed funds to go to Iran, and voted against putting sanctions on Qatar.” Iran funds Hamas, and Qatar has given money and sanctuary to its leaders.

“In December, she did not condemn antisemitism on university campuses amid the testimony of university presidents to Congress,” Abelson said. “She voted no on the Israel security supplemental Appropriations Act on Feb. 24.  She called for a ceasefire with Hamas on Feb. 29.”

On April 5, Dean voted with members of the “Squad” to cut U.S. military aid to Israel.

“And she wrote a letter asking Biden to ‘use all the tools’ there are to prevent Israel from going into Rafah,” he said. “When the IDF did go into Rafah, they found tunnels between Rafah and Egypt, which is a grave concern.”

“On April 16, around Passover, she voted present when there was an opportunity to condemn the slogan ‘From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free,’ which is clearly genocidal,” he added. In May, she backed Biden’s withholding of offensive weapons from Israel.

And in July, Dean “rose on the House floor” to say the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine (UNRWA), which is anti-Israel with employees who took part in the Hamas terror attack, “is doing ‘God’s work,’” said Abelson.

“It’s very obvious she doesn’t have the back of her Jewish constituents,” he said.

Christian Nascimento, chair of the Montgomery County Republican Committee, said, “Whether it is her doubling down on support for Joe Biden after the recent debate debacle or her one-sided approach to the Israeli-Hamas conflict, Rep. Dean has shown that her far-left views are outside the mainstream of Montgomery County voters. In David Winkler, we have a candidate that has a commonsense approach and a different perspective as a person of color and a veteran – a perspective that better aligns with the majority of residents of the 4th Congressional district.”

Winker also holds Dean, who sits on the foreign affairs committee, partly responsible for the disastrous American withdrawal from Afghanistan, where 13 U.S. troops died in a suicide bombing at Abbey Gate near the Kabul airport.

“She should have been able to push back on Biden to keep Bagram Air Base open,” he added. He noted military equipment worth billions was left behind, but more importantly, so were American citizens and Afghans who helped Americans.

“One of those was my interpreter,” said Winkler. “This was a complete failure of the U.S. State Department and the Department of Defense.” His interpreter is still trapped in Afghanistan.

That withdrawal is “one of the reasons I’m running. Once a Marine, always a Marine. Semper Fi. We don’t leave people behind.”

Winkler was a biracial foster child who was adopted by “two loving White parents.” His father was an engineer with Raytheon, then a merchant marine. Winkler grew up in Canada, southern California, and Northern Ireland. Winkler joined the Marines when he turned 18. He also worked as a police officer in Murfreesboro, Tenn. and led a nonprofit, Wings for Warriors. He moved to Montgomery County in 2021 after marrying his wife, Kay, who grew up here. She is a first-generation American whose family came from Sierra Leone. The Winklers, who live in Elkins Park, are raising a stepdaughter and a baby son. David Winkler currently employed as a property manager.

“I’m just a pissed-off veteran,” said Winkler. “You can call it MAGA. You can call it whatever you want. I’m just very commonsense.”

Please follow DVJournal on social media: Twitter@DVJournal or Facebook.com/DelawareValleyJournal

Once again, Big Liquor is knocking on Congress’s door, asking for a handout paid for by hardworking American taxpayers. The latest ploy comes in the form of two bills in Congress — S.1781 and H.R. 4073 – which are disguised as innocuous trade and tax policy reforms, but in reality, are special interest gifts to an industry with big lobbyist muscle.

Essentially, these bills would create a zero percent effective tax rate for multi-national liquor companies importing certain foreign-produced spirits products. This isn’t just a loophole; it’s a cavernous gap in our tax system, quietly pushed by the hard liquor special interest lobby in hopes of slipping through unnoticed in an omnibus package. That’s often how lobbyists get special gifts for their clients; they sneak special carveouts and loopholes into larger “must pass” bills. No one notices, but clients get rich … often at our expense.

Opposition to S.1781 and H.R. 4073 isn’t just about fiscal responsibility; it’s about fairness. While Big Liquor stands to gain billions in tax breaks, American small businesses are left behind. Current rules prevent most commodities from being offset unless their Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS) codes match. American bourbon and Irish whiskey, with their distinct HTS codes, can’t offset each other, yet Big Liquor wants to change the rules to benefit themselves.

Confusion is the lobbyist’s best friend. By exploiting the convoluted U.S. tax code, the Big Liquor Lobby aims to shift the burden of their taxes onto hardworking Americans. It’s a cynical game that we can’t afford to let them win.

And let’s not forget, this isn’t Big Liquor’s first rodeo. In 2020, they scored a generous tax break with the Craft Beverage Modernization and Tax Reform Act, while loopholes like the rum cover-over, which provides a tax break for Big Liquor companies that produce products in the Caribbean, and the 5010-flavor credit, which gives them a tax incentive to dilute hard liquor with wine or flavorings, continue to line their pockets at the expense of taxpayers and U.S. territories.

Now, with S.1781 and H.R. 4073, Big Liquor is once again angling for special treatment. But these bills aren’t just special treatment; they’re earmarks, plain and simple. By definition, earmarks benefit a select few at the expense of the many, and these bills would line the pockets of a handful of global liquor giants.

Enough is enough. Congress must stand firm against these blatant attempts to rig the system in favor of Big Liquor. Taxpayers shouldn’t foot the bill for corporate greed, and American small businesses deserve a level playing field. It’s time to put an end to these kinds of games and ensure that Big Liquor pays its fair share.

Big Liquor companies have taken advantage of the U.S. tax system for far too long. It’s time for Congress to say no to another handout and yes to fairness and fiscal responsibility. Pennsylvania’s federal delegation, especially Rep. Lloyd Smucker (PA-11), should take the lead in shutting down this Big Liquor special interest payoff.

Please follow DVJournal on social media: Twitter@DVJournal or Facebook.com/DelawareValleyJournal

Congress is at it again, spending heaps of taxpayer dollars on special interests and expanding the size of government with the recently signed $1.2 trillion spending package. The package was passed just in time to avoid a partial government shutdown.

The Associated Press described the events as “long overdue,” and Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer characterized passing the bill as “complet(ing) the job” and insisted that doing so was “good for the country.” Some Democrats and Republicans have been able to tout their “victories” in the bill to their bases. Spectators who view Congress’ productivity in bills passed or speed of action will similarly see this as a win.

But don’t be fooled. The package’s contents and the way in which it was passed illustrate, once again, that our governing processes are broken and that our politicians flippantly waste citizens’ money. Let’s look at the bad, the ugly, and the worst of this process.

First, the bad: the actual contents of the bill. It is always the case that people spend their own money more wisely than they spend others’, but congressional spending is the epitome of that reality. In the spending package, the federal government sent millions in taxpayer dollars to special interests — for example, $850,000 to a New Jersey housing development for LGBTQ+ seniors and $400,000 to an organization that, among other things, provides “gender-affirming” clothing to trans youth.

Regardless of how one feels about the related social issues, there is no reason Congress ought to steal taxpayer dollars for such causes. Citizens, of their own volition, can donate their money to those projects if they wish. Congress has no right to force that spending on taxpayers and add to the national debt. 

Yes, $1.25 million is not a lot, but those are only two of many special interests that will receive federal money as a result of this package. In the last two years, members of Congress known as The Squad have secured $220 million for special interest groups.

Republicans, too, are guilty of using the federal government to provide funding to favored interests in their districts. For example, Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia  secured $3.8 million in federal funding for an airport expansion in Dade County, Georgia.

If you thought conservatives would fight for limiting government and cutting spending, you were wrong. Instead, in this package, the GOP was far more focused on  banning LGBTQ pride flags from being flown outside of U.S. embassies. The GOP did not stop the $200 million allocated for a new FBI headquarters in Maryland. Additionally, the Republicans supported a $27.75 billion raise for the Department of Defense above its current funding level, even though the Pentagon has failed audits six years in a row.

Now, for the ugly: the process. Not only did our nation’s politicians pass a package containing all kinds of ridiculous measures, but they passed it without even reading it. The bill, which spans more than 1,000 pages, was released in the middle of the night, and our representatives were given fewer than 36 hours to review it. In other words, they didn’t review it. We elect these individuals to be our eyes, ears and voice in Congress. Is it too much to ask that they read the bills before they vote?

There’s a big difference between “completing the job,” as Schumer said, and skipping the job altogether.

Finally, the worst: broken promises. When Mike Johnson became speaker of the House, he promised Republicans adequate time to read legislation before voting on it. However, he waived the self-imposed 72-hour rule for this massive $1.2 trillion package, sparking ire from many. Even Republicans, such as Greene and Justin Amash of Michigan, have called for the ouster of Speaker Johnson after the chaotic process through which this bill was passed.

 Thomas Massie of Kentucky went to X (formerly known as Twitter) right before the spending package was passed to lament, “As part of the debt limit deal last summer, Biden agreed to an automatic 1 percent cut to all discretionary spending if we were still on a CR on April 30, 2024. Tomorrow, our Speaker will give up that leverage and pass an omnibus that spends more than (Nancy) Pelosi spent in her highest year.”

Our politicians impetuously spend American taxpayers’ money, imprudently blowing out the national debt with no signs of slowing down. This weighs on economic growth and reduces the prosperity of Americans. In justifying the haste with which this bill was shoved through, Speaker Johnson stated, “We have to govern.” Blindly spending taxpayer dollars is not governing. It is lazy and immoral. Americans ought to demand better.

Please follow DVJournal on social media: Twitter@DVJournal or Facebook.com/DelawareValleyJournal

When reports of kidnapped women and murdered children began pouring in Saturday from the massive Hamas attack on Israel, the response in Washington was to convene the “Gang of Eight.” Those are the eight key congressional leaders charged with overseeing military intelligence, and they are usually the first people briefed in such a crisis.

Only thanks to House Democrats, it is now the gang of seven. The speaker’s chair is empty, vacated by a vote of all 208 members of the House Democratic Caucus in support of Rep. Matt Gaetz, R-Florida, and seven fringe MAGA Republicans.

Unlike a typical leadership battle, Democrats weren’t backing an alternative candidate to take control. They didn’t even offer a leadership plan. Their only goal was to help what talk host Hugh Hewitt has dubbed the “Knucklehead Caucus” create chaos and promote GOP infighting while shutting down the House.

The Democrats’ plan worked. There is plenty of chaos in Washington today.

Unfortunately, there is far worse in Israel, and thanks to the Democrats’ success, a leaderless Congress is powerless to act. The House cannot pass legislation or approve military aid until the vacancy that Democrats helped create — purely for partisan political purposes — has been replaced.

“The emergency in Israel puts a spotlight on the state of paralysis in the House and completely unchartered legal territory the House is in,” reported CNN’s Annie Grayer.

Or, as moderate Republican Mike Lawler of New York put it, “This is why you don’t remove a speaker mid-term without cause. What an unmitigated sh*t show.

“Doing so as Israel faces an all-out attack is dangerous. Uncertainty and chaos in the U.S. breeds vulnerability around the world,” Lawler added.

Democrats remain unapologetic. Rep. Annie Kuster of New Hampshire, head of the New Democrat Coalition in the House, sent out a fundraising email Saturday morning — literally as the Hamas terrorists were rampaging across Israel — touting Democrats’ success in ousting the speaker.

The email included this description of Kuster’s vote to vacate: “As the Chair of the New Democrat Coalition, she worked to end the chaos and deliver bipartisan solutions for the American people.”

Voting with Gaetz and his fringe fellow travelers is certainly “bipartisan,” but how many Americans view it as a “solution”?

Meanwhile, Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick, R-Pennsylvania, was bemoaning the behavior of Democrats in the Problem Solvers Caucus who could have intervened to stop the chaos.

“The motion to vacate (the speakership) gets put on the floor, and we went to our (Democratic) colleagues and said, ‘Can you at least buy us some time?’” Fitzpatrick told Fox News. “Forty-eight hours. We can’t rewrite a 300-page rules package to make the House work more in a bipartisan manner in eight hours. It’s impossible.”

Fitzpatrick said Republicans asked Democrats in the Problem Solvers Caucus to vote “present” instead of advancing the motion to vacate. They refused.

“That’s all we were asking for was some time. … And that’s why there are so many Republicans in our group that are very, very upset, and add me to the list.”

And even if there hadn’t been an international crisis (there could be another one in Ukraine, Taiwan, North Korea, etc. tomorrow), former Democratic presidential candidate Michael Bloomberg points out that empowering Gaetz would still be a mistake.

He says House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries’ decision to “let (Kevin) McCarthy hang himself may have allowed Democrats to feel good in the moment, but Democrats now face the prospect of a speaker who will likely be to McCarthy’s right, and who will likely draw from his political demise the worst possible lesson: that the extremists must be heeded.”

Democrats engaged in childish partisanship for short-term gain, with Kuster’s enthusiastic support. Now, there is a mess the United States must clean up quickly to fully come to Israel’s aid.

All 208 Democrats should be asked whether it was worth it.

Solving the U.S. debt crisis will be challenging. It will require bringing expenditures into balance with revenues in the long term. The federal government has failed to do this for decades. Under law, deficits and debt are projected to continue to grow at an unsustainable rate for the foreseeable future. Statutory fiscal rules still need to halt unsustainable growth in debt.

For example, in the 1980s and 1990s, Congress implemented statutory fiscal rules designed to reduce the debt burden. In those years, federal expenditures were balanced with federal revenues, decreasing debt burdens. But in 1999 and 2000, Congress circumvented the rules by allocating funds to emergency spending. 

And in 2002, Congress ended this charade by simply allowing the fiscal rules to expire. This allowed Congress to pursue discretionary fiscal policies, boosting spending far above that permitted by the regulations. The statutory fiscal rules enacted by Congress in recent years have suffered a similar fate. The fatal flaw in statutory fiscal rules enacted by Congress is that rules passed by one Congress are easily circumvented or suspended by a subsequent Congress.

In contrast to the United States, other countries have enacted effective fiscal rules. The most successful is Switzerland. The Swiss constitution requires voter approval for increased taxes and debt. In the 1990s, Switzerland experienced a debt crisis. Swiss citizens responded by enacting a debt brake as a constitutional fiscal rule through a referendum, with support from 85 percent of voters. The Swiss debt brake caps the growth in federal spending at the long-run growth rate in national income. It mandates that the federal government bring expenditures into balance with revenue soon. If the government incurs a deficit, the deficit must be offset by surplus revenue in subsequent years. The debt brake was enacted in 1998 and has allowed the Swiss to cut the ratio of national debt to national income in half. The Swiss could respond to the financial crisis and the coronavirus pandemic without a massive increase in deficits and debt, such as that incurred in the United States.

The Swiss debt brake has been copied in other European countries. It is now part of the fiscal rules imposed by the European Union. Northern European countries have been more successful in implementing the new fiscal rules than the southern countries. Ultimately, the success of the new fiscal rules depends upon support from citizens. When citizens approve new fiscal rules as constitutional provisions, as in Switzerland, it is more difficult for elected officials to circumvent or suspend the rules.

If the United States had enacted a debt brake, we could have reduced debt burdens just as the Swiss have. The question is how to enact more effective fiscal rules. Congress has proposed many fiscal rules as constitutional amendments for decades. However, Congress has never achieved the two-thirds’ majority required to submit these proposed amendments to citizens for ratification.

U.S. citizens can follow the lead of Switzerland and incorporate a Fiscal Responsibility Amendment in the Constitution. Article V gives citizens, as well as Congress, the right to propose amendments. Citizens and their state representatives have proposed Fiscal Responsibility Amendments for more than half a century. In 1979, two-thirds of the states had proposed such amendments. At that point, Congress was required to call the amendment convention, but Congress failed to fulfill this obligation under Article V.

This year, citizens may finally see some light at the end of this tunnel. House Budget Committee Chairman Jody Arrington, R-Texas, introduced a resolution requiring Congress to count state resolutions and call the amendment convention.

It is now up to the people and their state representatives to exercise the power granted to them in Article V of the Constitution. With a Fiscal Responsibility Amendment in the Constitution, citizens could determine how much government they want and are willing to pay.

Please follow DVJournal on social media: Twitter@DVJournal or Facebook.com/DelawareValleyJournal

I am often asked why, in a country of such talent and imagination, the U.S. political class is so feeble. Why are our politicians so uninspiring, to say nothing of ignorant and oafish?

The short answer is because political life is awful, and potential candidates have to weigh the effect on their families plus the wear and tear of becoming a candidate, let alone winning.

I would name three barriers that keep good people out of politics: the money, the primary system and the media scrutiny.

Taking these in order, you must have access to enormous funding to be a candidate. Mr. Smith, the character in the 1939 movie “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington,” was appointed. He didn’t have to subject his rectitude to the electoral process.

A candidate for Congress must get substantial funding from the outset and be prepared to spend much of his or her career raising money, which frequently means bending your judgment to the will of donors. Yes, Mr. Smith, to some extent, the system is inherently corrupt.

I asked a prominent political consultant what he asks a candidate before going to work for him or her. First is money: Do you have your own, or can you raise it? Second are skeletons in the closet: Have you been arrested for indecent exposure or drunk-driving offenses?

Finally, the consultant told me, he asks a candidate: What do you stand for? In short, the mechanisms of politics triumph over principles. A member of the House once told me that he spent much of his time meeting with donors and attending fundraisers. “You’ve got to do it,” he said.

In the days of the smoke-filled rooms (there really was a lot of smoke), the party — the professionals — prevailed. In the primary system, the odds are on those who are extreme and appeal to the fringes of their party ideology. The party doesn’t shape today’s candidates; they shape the party.

Look at the Republicans, little recognizable from the party of old; the party that was held in check by the New England stalwarts. Or look at how the Democrats fight to avoid falling into the chasm of the far left. Once, the Democrats were held in check by labor, which gave the party an institutional center.

On the face of it, the primary system favors grassroots democracy and the individual. In fact, it favors those with rich friends who will cough up.

Finally, there is media scrutiny. If you want to run for office, you become a public plaything. Everything you ever wrote or said can and will be dredged up.

Opposition research operatives will interview old lovers; check on what you wrote in the school yearbook; rake through your social media posts; and that unfortunate slip of the tongue in a local television interview years ago will be reprised on the evening news. You have a target on your back, and it will be there every day you are in office.

This delving into every corner of life is a huge barrier that keeps a lot of talent out of politics. Anyone who has ever had a disputed business dealing, a DUI arrest (not even a conviction) or a messy divorce is advised to forego a political career, no matter how talented and how much real expertise Mr. Smith might bring to the statehouse or Congress.

Run for political office, and you put your family at risk, your private life on display and, having been hung out to dry, you may not even win.

These are some of the factors that might explain why Congress is so risible and why such outrageously fringy people now occupy high office.

Having observed politics on three continents, I am firmly of the belief that it needs strong institutions in the form of local political associations and party structure, and candidates should be judged on the body of their work, not on a slip of the tongue or an indiscretion.

However, the selection of candidates is always a hard call. If parties have too much control over the system, party hacks are favored and new, quality candidates are shut out.

If primaries continue as they have, the fringes triumph. Just look at the Congress — a smorgasbord of wackiness.

Please follow DVJournal on social media: Twitter@DVJournal or Facebook.com/DelawareValleyJournal

The Congressional Review Act has proven its importance in holding the Biden administration accountable in a divided Congress. 

Conservatives in Congress won their very first legislative victory in March with a CRA resolution overturning a District of Columbia crime bill that would have reduced penalties for violent offenders. Under political pressure for surging crime in the District, President Biden caved and signed the CRA resolution, leaving progressives high and dry without any executive branch cover for voting against common sense.

Created in 1996 through the efforts of then-Rep. David McIntosh, R-Indiana, the CRA was constructed to empower Congress to keep the executive branch and D.C. in check, which the Constitution grants Congress exclusive authority over. 

Rather than the typical 60 votes necessary to advance most policies in the Senate over the potential for a filibuster, CRA resolutions are “privileged measures” requiring only a simple majority. In the current Congress, that has meant that conservatives could hold Biden’s sprawling administrative state in check with the support of only one or two Democrats, and sometimes less than 51 votes. Convince the usual suspects of Democratic senators Joe Manchin, Kyrsten Sinema or Jon Tester that a Biden policy has gone too far, and the CRA can be used to stop that policy in its tracks.

Conservatives also forced the first veto of the Biden presidency through a CRA resolution opposing a 401(k) rule that put progressive values over economic value for American workers. Advancing American Freedom launched a six-figure ad campaign, concentrated in Arizona and Montana (we had already flipped Manchin with a massive coalition letter effort that included key West Virginia stakeholders). As a result, we were able to protect the retirement accounts of hardworking Americans from progressives’ political games.

Last week, the Republican-controlled House of Representatives passed two CRA resolutions, overturning Biden’s overreach on heavy-duty vehicle emissions and his student loan bailout. The heavy-duty vehicle emissions rule would add thousands of dollars to the cost of every truck on the road, driving up already exorbitant transportation costs for consumers. According to the American Truck Dealers, costs could be as much as $42,000 per truck, and the EPA estimates the rule would impose a $55 billion burden on the trucking industry over the rule’s lifetime. The CRA, which already passed in the Senate with the support of Manchin, received support from four House Democrats in battleground districts.

The student loan rule would cost hundreds of billions of dollars, breaking our already broken higher education system. Rather than helping working-class Americans struggling to get by, this rule rewards the professional class and progressives with overly expensive gender studies degrees. 

The rule isn’t just a slap in the face to Americans who chose not to go to college because of the crippling expenses or those who worked hard to pay off their student loan debts — it’s a deeply misguided initiative that will actively encourage more reckless borrowing and stoke the flames of inflation. Even Biden has acknowledged that his authority is doubtful here. It’s clearly part of a corrupt political spoils system aimed at buying votes. While it did not get as many Democratic votes as the heavy-duty vehicle CRA, the student loan CRA passed with bipartisan support in the House and now moves to the Senate, where its fate will be determined.

Advancing American Freedom has been compiling a list of executive overreach called the Biden Accountability Tracker (BAT). The BAT tracks each significant policy decision made, executive action taken, or regulation promulgated by the administration that hurts the American people. This task has produced 171 entries in the past two years, the latest of which would be ripe for CRA action. 

The administration has aggrandized federal power at the expense of accountability, adopting a radical “whole-of-government” approach to nearly every political or policy issue. Defeating this destructive agenda is top of mind as conservatives look to take back control of Congress in 2024. In the meantime, we should use the CRA vigorously to swat down overreach. Let history remember 2023 as the year of the CRA.