Ethics Quiz: The Senators’ Letter

/ Jack Marshall

I think I could check through the names of the 20 or so most prolific Ethics Alarms commenters and guess with nearly 100% accuracy how each of them will respond to this ethics quiz.

Eight Republican Senate Republicans released a letter after President’s Trump was declared guilty as charged in his mysterious “he did something illegal in there somewhere and besides, he’s a bad guy and everyone should hate him” trial in Manhattan. It declares that they will not do anything to support President Biden for the rest of his term in office: not vote on any legislation for non-security funding, not vote on judicial and political nominations, not not vote in favor of “expedited consideration and passage” of any Democrat-proposed legislation.

Signed by conservative GOP Senators Mike Lee, J.D. Vance (Ohio), Tommy Tuberville (Ala.), Eric Schmitt (Mo.), Marsha Blackburn (Tenn.), Rick Scott (Fla.), Roger Marshall (Kan.) and Marco Rubio (Fla.), the terse missive states,

“The White House has made a mockery of the rule of law and fundamentally altered our politics in an un-American war.  As a Senate Republican conference, we are unwilling to aid and abet this White House in its project to tear this country apart. To that end, we will not 1) allow any increase to non-security related funding for this administration, or any appropriations bill which funds partisan lawfare; 2) vote to confirm this administration’s political and judicial appointees; and 3) allow expedited consideration and passage of Democrat legislation or authorities that are not directly relevant to the safety of the American people.”

Your first Ethics Quiz in the Month of June…

Is this a responsible and ethical response to the perceived “lawfare” unlashed against former President Trump?

(or is it just grandstanding?)

Either way, the letter is ominous, and just a whiff of the toxic fumes engulfing the nation’s politics that are certain to have unpleasant, sickening, and even fatal effects on the American experiment. This begins the endgame that I warned was approaching once the “resistance,”Democrats and the news media commenced the 2016 Post Election Ethics Train. That tag describes the Left’s strategy of denigrating the system that elected Trump, refusing to confer on him the deference and respect every POTUS must have to begin his term and have a prayer of serving his term in office while following his official oath, and relentlessly seeking to undermine him, withhold from him the traditional symbols of legitimate Presidential power and public support, and, if possible, get him removed from office without another election.

The letter continues that unconscionable train wreck. It is not in the best interests of the United States for cultural, political and societal ethics train wrecks to keep rolling on. If the the letter is designed to stop it, that would be a good thing. Does anyone believe that the Senators’ letter isn’t designed instead to just take the train in another destructive direction?

65 thoughts on “Ethics Quiz: The Senators’ Letter”

  2. The letter is not only unwise, it is unethical to put the (ridiculous) trial at the feet of Biden. And that is exacerbated by what they see as their “remedy”. Doubly unethical.

    Reply

      • If someone kills your wife, you don’t get to kill him in revenge, and you CERTAINLY don’t get to kill his wife because “the rules have changed.” You let the law do it’s job. If he’s not convicted because there wasn’t enough evidence, tough break, but you still shouldn’t kill him, you’ll only make things worse for yourself. If he’s really a bad person, he’ll slip up and do something he CAN’T get away with. If the law fails to convict him because he bribed the judge, prove he did it, spread it far and wide, get the judge removed from the bench. If the system is broken, you fix the system. If you just throw it all away once it becomes inconvenient, then you never valued the system that much to begin with.

        You’ve been advocating Sicillian ethics on this blog for quite some time now, You’ve held up as a role model a villain character whose defining trait (besides hating humanity) is a refusal to take any responsibility for her own actions. You’ve claimed the other side wants to put you in gas chambers (hyperbole much?) and in the past you’ve even talked about threatening physical violence to opposing counsel merely for making things difficult in procedure.

        I invite you to step back and think about what really motivates you. Is it sheer survival? If so, will you do anything to ensure your own security, or is there a line where you’d say, “No, my comfort or even my life isn’t worth doing this.”

        Is it holding up the values espoused by the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution? If so, are you willing to sacrifice, to endure some inconvenience or imperfections to uphold the base? Or do you only uphold this country’s values as long as it suits you?

        Reply

        • We have no choice because they are doing it to us.

          Here is Andrew McCarthy.

          https://archive.md/S0lfa

          Here, the indictment fails to say what the crime is. Bragg says he is charging Trump with felony falsification of records, under Section 175.10 of New York’s penal code. To establish that offense, Bragg must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Trump caused a false entry to be made in his business records, and did so with an intent to defraud that specifically included trying to “commit another crime or aid or conceal the commission” of that other crime.
          Nowhere in the indictment does the grand jury specify what other crime Trump fraudulently endeavored to commit or conceal by falsifying his records. That is an inexcusable failure of notice. The indictment fails to alert Trump of what laws he has violated, much less how he violated them. If any prosecutor were ever daft enough in the future to accuse Trump of falsifying records to conceal, say, a federal campaign-finance crime, Bragg’s indictment would be useless for double-jeopardy purposes because it doesn’t specify what criminal jeopardy Trump is in.

          Trump knows this.

          Reply

  4. I might be more kindly disposed to the letter if I thought any of these people actually has the spine to do what they imply.

    I note that they specifically say NON-SECURITY-RELATED. Okay, that looks good on paper. But once the pork starts flowing on security-related bills, they’ll fold up tighter than aluminum foil.

    Nor would I put it past this admin to wrap horseshit into security-related legislation, larded with pork fat.

    Reply

  5. What an interesting conundrum. I certainly sympathize with the letter, but I’m also concerned with the lack of ethics of the letter. The citizens of America deserve (an pay dearly for) a government that works for them, not against them.

    However, the Trump prosecution (or was it persecution) has forced many to confront the undeniable reality of the politicization of our legal system.

    I believe it was Jonathan Turley who observed that Biden and Democrats have re-created the Adams era of censorship of political opponents, threatening — during Adams’s time — newspapers, today Biden is demanding social media buckle to his demands

    Regardless, the Trump prosecution has forced many to confront the undeniable reality of the politicization of our legal system.

    In many respects, President Biden and Democrats have re-created the Adams era.

    During the Adam’s administration the nation was also divided down the middle as both sides accused each other of being traitors and insurrectionists. So very much like today?

    Do I despise where our politics have taken us today? Yes. When one is battling an unethical opponent who will usurp powers for evil purposes I’m not convinced you can win the war ethical — kind of like Biden demanding Israel stop killing the enemy who has sworn to annihilate Israel.

    Reply

  6. Was filibustering unethical? This seems sort of analogous.

    Personally, I don’t think the letter is a good idea. Are the Biden Administration, the DNC and the DOJ running these cases? Heck yeah.

    Reply

  8. If I were a Senator -a sobering prospect in its own right- I might consider acting in the manner these Senators say they will act, but I would never publicly vow to do so in a letter such as this. Staking out a position like this is seldom wise. Certainly it is an all-too-human attempt at tit-for-tat. I believe they might rally more support for their stated intentions by quiet persuasion and reasoned arguments. Maybe these are just VP hopefuls auditioning for the job.

    Personally I would be more interested in doing whatever I could to prevent the Dems from rigging this election like they did in 2020. You know they will try mightily.

    Reply

  9. “Hey the left just literally invented a crime and contorted the justice system to put their political opposition in jail but you know what might set a bad precedent? Conservatives responding.”

    -Rachel Bovard

    Reply

  10. I think the Republicans are useless and the Democrats are totalitarians. Nothing in that letter changes my mind. Useless showboating that gets us no where.

    Reply

    • The man we need is Mike Davis.

      https://www.mediamatters.org/steve-bannon/steve-bannons-show-mike-davis-threatens-rain-hell-these-biden-democrats-and-warns-them

      ***START QUOTE***

      MIKE DAVIS (ARTICLE III PROJECT): What’s going to make my year next year is when President Trump appoints Mark Paoletta or Jeff Clark as the Attorney General and the other one can take the White House Counsel job. And John Sauer is President Trump’s Solicitor General. And John Eastman is going to run the Office of Legal Counsel. And Your Excellency, Viceroy and Gov. General of D.C. Mike Davis is going to help them rain hell on these Biden Democrats.

      I would say to these guys, lawyer up. I would lawyer up because guess what? This is a criminal conspiracy that these Democrat prosecutors and Democrat White House officials, Democrat Judges, Democrat witnesses, Democrat operatives — they’re running an — Andrew Weissmann, buddy? You’re running a criminal conspiracy to violate the civil rights of President Trump, his top aides like Peter Navarro and Steve Bannon, his lawyers like Jeff Clark and John Eastman, his supporters on January 6.

      …

      This is lawfare. This is election interference. And there are going to be the most severe legal, political and financial consequences come January 20, 2025.

      ***END QUOTE****

      I hope they expand their reach to include all Democrats.

      Hopefully, they can establish a regime where those who breathe even one syllable of dissent against Trump, or the American way, gets targeted for prosecution of crimes real or imagined, using dubious legal arguments and forged evidence if necessary, regardless of what statute, evidence, Brady v. Maryland, or the United States Constitution say.

      The rules have changed.

      I did not choose to change the rules, others have changed them for me, with the full support of academic, media, and entertainment elites.

      We need to do this to these subhuman vermin Democrats or they send us to the gas chambers!

      Reply

      • I have limits.

        If they do this then they are no better than the ones doing it to Trump and our country is doomed.

        I do not, and will not support such total disregard for the Constitution of the United States of America. Period.

        Mike Davis and anyone else that advocates for this “vengeance is mine” scorched earth bull shit can bite me!

        Reply

        • The rules have changed.

          We have new rules, for the worse.

          I agree with you completely that the new rules are bad.

          The thing is this.

          Unlike someone changing the rules at a party game, you can not just pack your toys and go home simply because you do not like the new rules.

          You will be subject to the new rules.

          They are in force.

          To quote the first X-Men film, there is no more land of tolerance.

          There is no more peace.

          Neither here, nor anywhere else.

          Reply

          • Your claim that you believe ‘the new rules’ are bad ring as empty as a politician’s promise to improve the lives of his constituents.

            Reply

              • Michael,

                There is nothing obliging us to play by bad rules and unethical means. And there are many, many reasons not to play by the bad rules. But the greatest among them is: if we stoop to playing by the bad rules, nothing remains to distinguish us from them. We are lost if all that remains is two sides fighting over power, with no higher ideals backing them.

                Frankly, the Democratic party is fracturing. The leadership is old, and the younger generations don’t have the wherewithal to step into the leadership vacuum. The very push of dividing people into warring tribes is starting to have the tribes warring within the Democratic camp. We’ve seen this most recently with a Pro-Hamas rally exchanging blows with a Pride parade. We’ve started to see how the working class has been suborned to college grads with student debt, how woman have been thrown to the wolves of the trans ideology, how gays and lesbians are being suborned to the trans ideology, blacks are being ignored in preference to illegals, and so on. The cracks are there and widening.

                The Democratic party has thrown away its ideals, especially caring for the poor, defending the rights of the small man against big corporations, championing the equality of all humans regardless of background, and providing safety nets for those who have fallen on hard times. Instead they have embraced power politics and hedonism, and those are not legs on which a party or coalition of parties can long endure. Yes, power and hedonism are tempting, and there will always be those who flock to those banners. But the very self-destructive nature of power and hedonism ultimately means that only a very few get what they want, and at the cost of everyone else. This is in part why so many in traditionally Democratic demographics are starting to consider a right-ward shift.

                Keep in mind: virtue is attractive. Being dumb is not a virtue, but being innocent is. (I think someone, somewhere said, “Be as shrewd as serpents and innocent as doves.”) We need to fight, yes, but with the conviction that we adhere to the rule of law. That there is a definite, objective Good that we can strive toward. That we can dialogue without descending into pettiness and nastiness. That we will persevere in adversity. (Right now, that is one of the most amazing things about Trump, is that he still has the ability to keep pushing forward against the adversity he is facing. Amoral, boorish, narcissistic, yes, but no weenie he. And that tenacity is attractive. Would that all Republicans had that tenacity!) That we believe in truth, and will always seek the truth, but we won’t jump to conclusions. That we will praise our adversaries when they are right, and not simply criticize them when they are wrong.

                We throw all those attractive things aside if we say, “the rules have changed and the high road no longer works.” The high road is essential in the face of dirty politics and corruption. The high road isn’t for when things are easy. It is exactly for when things are hard, so that we do have a road to take, milestones to follow, and a goal to strive towards. Our adversaries don’t win by playing dirty. They win by making us abandon our principals.

                Thomas Jefferson wrote that the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants, he was only half right. The tree of liberty is watered with the blood of martyrs, not murderers, from those who lay down their lives in the defense of liberty, not from those who would cast liberty aside supposedly to save it.

                Reply

      • In that case, why should anyone stand with Republicans? If so they’re offering is a different lawfare, a different totalitarian state, where dissent is also ruthlessly suppressed, why should anyone join them in it? A principled man must oppose them for being against the fundamental values our society was built on, and an unprincipled man improves his odds of survival and profit by sticking with the totalitarians who already hold the high ground in media, academia, high tech, finance, and the civil service. Why stand with the underdog, if not for principles?

        Reply

  12. Here is Jason Willick.

    https://archive.md/i2hnj#selection-717.0-1651.442

    If you pay close attention to the right, you know that the phenomenon dubbed “election denial” exists along a continuum. Hardcore election deniers entertain ludicrous ideas such as that Joe Biden won the 2020 election in Arizona because of “bamboo ballots” shipped from Asia. On the other hand, a good chunk of the Trump supporters who reject the legitimacy of Biden’s 2020 victory rely on vaguer theories that can’t easily be falsified — such as that social media companies influenced the election by suppressing damaging information about the business dealings of Biden’s son.

    Sign up for Democracy, Refreshed, a newsletter series on how to renovate the republic.
    In their closing arguments Tuesday, New York prosecutors dabbled in the latter form of denial about the 2016 election. No, that’s not false equivalence. The linchpin of prosecutor Joshua Steinglass’s closing argument for convicting Donald Trump was that he conspired “to manipulate and defraud the voters” by suppressing damaging allegations of extramarital liaisons. That suppression “could very well be what got President Trump elected,” Steinglass said.
    In other words, Trump might not have stolen the office outright, but he gained it illicitly by deceiving the electorate. This soft form of election denial that New York prosecutors teased might be more corrosive than its unhinged bamboo-ballot manifestations because it allows even intelligent and informed people — especially intelligent and informed people — to reject political outcomes they don’t like.
    In many, if not most, political campaigns, Americans learn about facts that could have been relevant to their vote only after their vote is cast. Hillary Clinton’s 2016 campaign settled a claim in 2022 with the Federal Election Commission that it did not properly disclose expenses for opposition research that turned up false information about Trump’s Russia ties. If Trump is convicted in New York, prosecutors will have created a legal and political road map for partisans to attack the legitimacy of any election after the fact.

    In his closing argument, Steinglass fleshed out what he meant: “Democracy gives the people the right to elect their leaders, but that rests on the fundamental premise that the voters have access to accurate information about the candidates.” When voters have inaccurate information — when candidates “pull the wool over their eyes,” as Steinglass put it — they have apparently been defrauded.
    Voters had “the right to decide for themselves” what they thought of Daniels’s account of her Trump tryst, Steinglass said. If jurors agree, they could find that Trump had “intent to defraud,” which is one element of the charges.
    Whether legally sound or not, the prosecutor’s theory reflects a dangerously warped view of democracy and what it can accomplish. America’s democratic political system relies on candidates for office having the right to say whatever they want about each other and the media having the right to report freely and fearlessly on candidates. That competitive process will generally yield good information to voters — and indeed, voters had a pretty good idea of who Trump was when they elected him. But it will never yield totally complete information, and an election is not fraudulent if material information surfaces after votes are cast.
    It’s not an exaggeration to say that this view, if broadly accepted, would lead to democracy’s destruction because it would call the legitimacy of so many elections into question. Yet it’s at the core of the prosecution’s effort to convince jurors that Trump should be convicted on complicated charges forged by an unholy combination of misdemeanors and felonies and federal and state law.
    Speaking of calling electoral legitimacy into question because of missing information, let’s say the jury convicts Trump and that voters go to the polls this November thinking he is a felon and deny him a second term — and that the conviction is tossed later on appeal. Steinglass said democracy is subverted when voters lack “accurate information about the candidates.” But in that (plausible) hypothetical, their information would be inaccurate in a major way: Trump would have been wrongfully convicted.
    Would that mean the 2024 election was illegitimate? In my understanding of democracy, absolutely not. In the understanding New York’s prosecutors destructively promoted on Tuesday, perhaps. Election denial now begets more election denial down the line.
    I’m not saying that fraud can’t be thrown around as a political epithet. Partisans can hold their opposition accountable politically for scheming for advantage or betraying constituencies. Nor am I saying politicians can’t be prosecuted for campaign-finance violations and the like (though these are usually handled as civil, rather than criminal, offenses for a reason).
    The danger is when amorphous, inflammatory accusations of election theft are seen as grounds to prosecute an opponent or delegitimize outcomes. Claiming partisan falsehoods corrupted elections is always a convenient excuse for losers, but they have to accept outcomes anyway. If that takes some political make-believe — some looking the other way, some deference to the “sacred” judgment of voters — well, that’s the price of self-government.

    Reply

    • “In his closing argument, Steinglass fleshed out what he meant: “Democracy gives the people the right to elect their leaders, but that rests on the fundamental premise that the voters have access to accurate information about the candidates.” When voters have inaccurate information — when candidates “pull the wool over their eyes,” as Steinglass put it — they have apparently been defrauded.”

      How do voters get all information when cameras are barred from the very courtroom Steinglass is making such arguments? Merchan banished the press when he went into a tirade against Costello yet it was the press that made Costello as the belligerent. Seems like an actionable offense by Bragg on Juan Merchan. Oh right he has judicial immunity so he is above the law here.

      Reply

  14. Although I understand the inclination to push back against the (mostly) unprecedented democrat-generated lawfare, I don’t see this letter actually accomplishing anything except being one step in a continuing destructive back and forth. The case needs to get to SCOTUS to put an end to it. Like Bush v. Gore, it’s of dire importance to the nation, and can’t wait months and months being dragged through all the normal steps to get there.

    If I understand things correctly (yeah, no guarantee on that!), the linchpin in this case being charged and judged as a felony is the supposed commision of a federal crime. Trump was never charged or convicted of such a crime (the feds looked at it, and passed). States, per court rulings, are not authorized to enforce federal laws. This means that NY has presumed Trump guilty of such a crime with no actual conviction, or somehow tried and convicted him for that federal crime during this state court action. Shouldn’t this be enough for Scotus to address it?

    Reply

  15. I haven’t picked up a solution offered about how Republicans should respond to what has happened.

    Big tech does have their finger on the scale, Democrats are totalitarian, journalism isn’t, the low information voter gets their news from said sources, keep voting for morons (holds true for both sides, actually), and so it goes.

    I agree with Republicans bringing govt to a halt, or even tit for tat, but as usual, they don’t know how to politic. I agree with whoever said they should’ve kept it under wraps and meted info out as needed.

    Instead of focusing on the crappy economy and disastrous foreign policy issues, and even playing up the well established Chinese connection, they’ve bit hook, line, and sinker on stupid.

    Say what you will about Cocaine Mitch, he understood how to politic better than most Republicans, and did a lot of good work. Be nice if we had someone like that.

    Reply

    • The only response is retaliatory lawfare.

      https://ethicsalarms.com/2024/05/31/regarding-that-verdict-in-manhattan/#comment-867909

      Here is what Republican police officers and Republican prosecutors and Republican jurorsm have a holy, moral duty to do, now.

      Police officers, when investigating crimes, have a duty to bury evidence of guilt, and forge and fabricate evidence of innocence, if the suspect is a Republican.

      Conversely, if the suspect is a Democrat, they have a duty to forge and fabricate evidence f guilt and bury any evidence of innocence.

      Prosecutors must start charging Democrats with felonies, especially capital felonies. They should not let evidence, statute, Brady v. Maryland, or the United States Constitution stand in the way. If they have to use creative legal theories, so be it. If they have to suborn perjury, so be it. If they have to collude with police to fabricate evidence, so be it.

      Republican jurors have a duty to acquit if the defendant is a Republican, even if he openly confessed in court.

      Republican jurors have a duty to convict Democrats, even if video evidence from three angles prove innocence beyond a reasonable doubt.

      The rules have changed.

      I love the old rules.

      I did not want to change the rules.

      Other people, with the support of media, academic, and entertainment elites, changed the rules for all of us.

      Reply

  16. One of my longtime Usenet allies made this point about military justice.

    http://forum.pafoa.org/showthread.php?t=379970&p=4515565#post4515565

    If Milley won’t be punished for TREASON, why should he be punished for telling the truth?

    The UCMJ has simply ceased to exist by way of its blatantly arbitrary, discriminatory and partisan application.

    The “leadership” of the U.S. military has forfeited all respect, and the destruction of respect for military law was merely collateral damage.

    As long as Milly’s not stretching a rope, the UCMJ is an utter nullity.

    – Christopher Charles Morton, dba Deanimator

    I may have mentioned before that Chris was a U.S. Army veteran.

    Chris’s words apply with equal force with respect to the entire criminal justice system today.

    I know what he would say if he were alive today.

    Reply

  17. I hate the idea of playing this dirty, but I think the Democratic party has left us no choice. If only one side is shooting, then the other side will soon be dead. At this point the only answer is to beat them at their own game, and if that includes bringing government to a halt and starting to throw some of them in the slammer, then that’s what it takes.

    Reply

  18. Such letters are foolhardy in my estimation. If you don’t take a hard line on everything then your words ring hollow. Further such pronouncements lock you into not doing something that benefits society. Not everything your opposition does is antithetical to your values. Finally, selectivity is far more likely to get behavioral changes. Voting down judicial nominees that show even the slightest inclination to be partisan would be fine but to say no to all could cause you to lose a decent jurist. We have to assume there are still some fair judicial nominees who sport a D next to their names.

    You don’t correct what is wrong by doing this. Construct a bill that works to correct or prevent lawfare. For example, ban states from changing voting procedures during an election year or prosecuting named candidates in the run up to an election. I am sure that there are many more things that could be in such a bill. Make the bill such that if the other side is unwilling to bring it to a floor vote, pass it and then signed into law then hang that on those who stop such a bill from becoming law.

    Personally, I would prefer that they say if no one is above the law why hasn’t Biden been indicted for theft of classified documents and charged with disseminating classified information to his ghost writer.

    Reply

    • addendum: One piece of legislation would be to ban the combination of those running for national office, President, Senators and House members and local or state office seekers.

      Currently, some jurisdictions allow non-citizens to vote and are told they can only vote for the local candidates and issues. Having a separate federal ballot would effectively prevent a non- citizen from casting a ballot that includes a vote for any federal official. Further, to obtain a federal ballot the registered voter must display a federally approved ID that proves citizenship such as a RealID, passport, birth certificate with raised seal form the state etc.

      Reply

  19. This letter from the Senators, I have conclude, is completely empty. It is statement for show, nothing else. In some ways, if you take it seriously enough, it is rather damning of Republican Senators up to this point.

    They write: “To that end, we will not 1) allow any increase to non-security related funding for this administration, or any appropriations bill which funds partisan lawfare; 2) vote to confirm this administration’s political and judicial appointees; and 3) allow expedited consideration and passage of Democrat legislation or authorities that are not directly relevant to the safety of the American people.”

    My first response to this is: “Where have you been the past 3 years, then?” Or even the past… I don’t know, 30 years? That takes us to 1994, and I think there was a great contract that Republicans made back then that promised so much, and ultimately delivered so little.

    The whole point of deliberative bodies is to put the brakes on bad legislation. Maybe that legislation could be reworked into something decent, but by and large the deliberations are supposed to stop legislation from happening, not enable it to occur. The American idea of governance was fundamentally suspicious of government, viewed government as a necessary evil that needed to be kept in check, and the Constitution set up a government where do anything should require a large amount of agreement all around. Since we tend toward disagreement on most things, that means when our government is working as intended, almost no laws are passed, no appropriations made, and only the best and most trustworthy judges appointed. If Biden up until now has been getting his agenda enacted by any other means than executive order, that means Republicans have been failing to do what they should have been doing all along. If taken seriously, this letter essentially says, “Okay, people of the USA. We’re finally going to start doing our job. Really.”

    To anyone who objects to the notion that Republicans should be shutting down every bit of the Democratic agenda that they can, and instead should be working with Democrats, my response is that I would expect, and desire, Democrats to do the same to Republicans. The federal government has two mandates: protect our borders from outside threats, and to handle disputes between states. Everything beyond that is appropriating responsibility and authority from more local agencies, from states to counties to municipalities. So anything proposed that would continue to increase the size and role of the federal government should be stymied at every turn.

    As an example, our Ohio representative Max Miller (called out on EA once before) is cosponsor on a bill that would tax college endowments that are more than $2 billion in size, and average more than $500,000 per student. Those taxes would go to set up a new bit of bureaucracy that would oversee directing money to fund students through trade schools and subsidize employers who would take on non-college bound workers and provide on-the-job training. It sounds good, right? Hit those evil universities with their gobs of money that they don’t really need, and transfer the wealth to those non-college-bound, blue-collar workers who would get a leg up in learning those crafts that are currently in high demand and low supply.

    I wrote Miller’s office, and even talked to one of his staff, and indicated I disapproved of this measure. I don’t approve of yet another bureaucrat managing from on high a program that will, like every other federal program, be filled with bloat and relatively ineffective at achieving its ends. I could also wax eloquent on how this is a wealth redistribution, which in general I do not approve. But fundamentally I don’t want to see yet more expansion of the federal government. I offered that I would approve if the addition of this new chunk of bureaucracy was met with greater reductions in other departments. If we have to have this federal program, I proposed taking money from the Department of Educations’ budget. (I’m sure that has a snowball’s chance in Hell of happening.)

    When it comes to money, I have no greater trust in Republicans than I do in Democrats. Ever since George W. Bush, our national debt has been climbing at precipitous rates. Trump didn’t stop that. Republicans in Congress haven’t prevented Biden from spending like a drunken sailor. So in reading the Senators’ letter, I can only ask, “And only now will you do what you’ve supposed to be doing for decades, because Trump was convicted?” Does that mean if the jury had hung or acquitted, they wouldn’t be fighting the Biden administrations agenda? Does that mean they didn’t think it worth fighting the Biden agenda when Trump was first indicted? Does that mean they didn’t think it worth fighting the Biden agenda when Biden accused everyone with conservative values as public enemy number one?

    My second response is, “You’ve told us what you’re not going to do. Now tell us something positive you are going to do.” Opposition to the Biden administration should be taken for granted. That’s part of being the opposition party. But provide a vision of what you’re actively going to do to promote something better. Define what something better is. If lawfare wielded against Trump is bad (and for a moment, let’s take that as given), what in this letter gives us any notion that the problem can be fixed? How are you going to prevent lawfare like this happening in the future? Is it going to be tit-for-tat, and we descend into chaos as we try to legally tear out each others’ throats? Or is it going to be a grand plan to put this cat back into the bag? Until you can provide answers to these questions, posturing like this letter is, as says Qoholeth, vanity and chasing after the wind.

    Reply

    • Thank you. You stole my thunder, but you are forgiven.

      I had the same reaction. The letter told us that the “big eight” were no longer supporting the Dem agenda; so they had been up until now. Good to know.

      Reply

  20. I am really late to this conversation judging from how long it took me ot scroll to this box. However, my imput is simple. There comes a time when the bully in the playground needs to be confronted and expose for what he truly is. I feel that the letter, and its proposed actions, in an attmept to do that . Sadly, it was only signed by 20 of the Republican caucus.

    Reply

Leave a reply to deacondan86 Cancel reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.