Month: August 2017

Recent events in Charlottesville have many of us thinking about how to respond to those things which we view as absolute evils in our society.  Like others, I have been disgusted by active displays of racial and religious prejudice and naked authoritarianism on the streets and in the media.   I also find attempts to justify recent activity in terms of recognizing our history to be disingenuous, if not downright dishonest.  Watching the video, listening to the chants of the marchers and the comments of their leaders following the confrontation clearly reveals their other purposes. We cannot sit on the sidelines and wait for these movements to run their course.  My favorite conservative political philosopher, Edmund Burke put it plainly: “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.”

The question is, “What should we do?”  I am not by nature a pacifist.  I tend to want to face things head on.  The problem with this approach is that the forces of evil are also committed to violence.  Any direct confrontation will result in more injuries and deaths. Furthermore, as a civil libertarian, I am passionate about the defense of First Amendment rights and freedoms.  We cannot prohibit their demonstrations and speech.

However, many of my ancestors were pacifists.  They were Amish and Mennonite.  These Swiss Anabaptists had (and, in some areas, still have) a practice called “shunning.”  When members violate their moral strictures, they refuse to recognize their existence.  Of course, this is perilously close to doing nothing.  However, my version of shunning would involve attending marches and other demonstrations by these bigoted groups and responding to their message by turning our backs.  The media could help by figuratively turning their backs as well.  A simple statement that the demonstration took place and that it was ignored by onlookers would be enough.  No pictures of the demonstrators.  No broadcast of their chants.

“Shunning” is a conscious action.  It openly demonstrates disapproval.  If we could convince the media to join the movement, it would deny these groups of the publicity they crave and upon which they depend to swell their numbers.  We should be like the families that have cast out members who have participated in these activities.  We do not stop recognizing them as children of God, but we tell them that they are not welcome in our society unless their behavior changes.

We must deny these people the recognition they seek.  We must constantly recognize their behavior as that of weak people who seek status through the disparagement of others.  Perhaps a chant of “Weak, Weak, Weak” can replace “Fake News” and “Lock Her Up” as the political by-words of our time.

A recent article by Sophie Quinton of Stateline.org that was reprinted in the St. Louis Post Dispatch described the many groups around the country that are attempting to arrange for a constitutional convention to amend the federal constitution. One common theme among these groups was the desire for a balanced budget amendment. This has long been a goal for many conservative groups and even for such decidedly non-conservative politicians as the late Senator Paul Simon. Proponents of such an amendment argue that state and local governments are required to have balanced budgets (the performance of the State of Illinois notwithstanding). Furthermore, they contend that businesses and even individuals cannot continue to operate with deficits.

I believe that we have a classic apples and oranges comparison problem here. Those governments, businesses and individuals that operate in a “balanced budget” environment do so by separating capital and operating expenses. It is quite normal to incur debt for the former and very dangerous to do so for the latter. Were such a separation not possible, governments could not build highways, structures, sewer plants, etc. Business could not invest in new plants and equipment. Individuals could not purchase houses and automobiles. Obviously, debt is not the problem.

The federal government operates with what might be called a unified budget. It makes no distinction between capital and operating expenses. If you examine a proposed budget, you will find operating expenses like personnel and utilities lumped in with very expensive buildings and equipment. For example, a very quick pass through the Defense Department portion of the FY18 budget proposed by President Trump identified almost $19 billion of proposed expenditures for such capital items as planes, ships and vehicles. I did not take the time to look for such items as the construction of the GSA building in St. Louis or other obvious capital items. What is more, expenditures on so-called infrastructure items are capital expenditures, and such expenditures are an integral part of both the President’s program and that of the Democratic party. A simple balanced budget amendment would be an unmitigated disaster. The government must be able to borrow in order to meet capital expenditures just as corporations, individuals and lower levels of government do.

The issue is not really the national debt itself but the level of the debt. Good governmental, corporate and individual financial management requires that debt be considered in the context of the ability to repay what is borrowed. That is what credit ratings are all about. Government and corporate “junk bond” ratings make it almost impossible to borrow except at very high rates of interest, and the same is true of individuals with low credit scores. There are some who are satisfied with a simple measurement of federal debt as a percentage of Gross Domestic Product. While that is a useful, simple indicator, it is probably insufficient.

I would feel a great deal more comfortable if our federal budgeting system identified exactly those items for which the government is borrowing money. Can you imagine going into a bank and asking for a loan to purchase some “stuff” without specifying what you want the money for? Admittedly, governments do not face the same collateral requirements that corporations and individuals face, but we should require them all to be equally specific. This is particularly true in those cases in which the government is forced to increase taxes in order to provide a sufficient income stream for debt retirement. It is equally true if the income stream for debt retirement is achieved by cutting spending for other government programs. All such actions should be totally transparent to the taxpayers as well as to legislators. I fear that many of our legislators have no clue as to the specific linkages involved in such budgetary decisions.

In order to achieve the desired transparency, we most separate capital and operating expenses in the federal budget. In that way, we can see which items are eligible for purchase with borrowed money. It should also require the identification of proposed income streams for debt retirement. Now that is “running government like a business.” We should not ban debt and equate it with sin.

It is also worthwhile to point out in this context that some debt is mandatory under current law. One often hears charges the federal government has been “raiding” Social Security funds to pay for its extravagant projects. In fact, the Social Security Administration is required by law to invest the funds collected in government securities. The interest paid on such investments is critical to the growth of these funds. That is the way the system was designed. Unless the government borrows, Social Security funds cannot draw interest. If SS draws no interest, it will become insolvent much earlier than currently predicted.

The old adage is appropriate here. “Be careful what you wish for.” Debt free government sounds wonderful to many. It would, in fact, be terrible.

This year, we have witnessed problems with security clearances for high-ranking executive officials in our government. I cannot recall that this situation has existed before. Normally, presidential appointees are granted clearances and no one questions the process or the results. We have recently watched as clearances have been questioned for a National Security Advisor who had historically had a clearance and for a high-ranking presidential advisor.

It may be worthwhile to start at the top. It seems to me that anyone who is elected President of the United States has what I would call a “presumptive clearance.” There is little point in going through a full vetting process, since a President cannot function without access to all the classified information
that he or she and presidential advisors deem necessary. It matters not that presidential critics may hint at potential adverse information that might disqualify another individual. By reasonable extension, I assume that the same argument might apply to the Vice President.

It is true that cabinet members and other advisors require clearances in order to perform their duties. However, recent events make me nervous about performing less than thorough vetting of these officials. Many of them may have experienced a complete background investigation in connection with former offices. This is certainly true of those current advisors who have held high-ranking military office. All that they might require is an update.

However, it appears to be wise to subject those without prior Top Secret clearance to a full field investigation. It is not enough that the President vouches for them. As we have already seen, presidents can make mistakes in this arena. Such investigations are both expensive and time-consuming. However, they are routinely required of lessor mortals who are appointed to positions of responsibility requiring access to Top Secret information.

Some individuals have found it necessary to file multiple copies of the form that must be submitted by all candidates for a clearance. The reasons that have been offered I find unconvincing. “I forgot those events that should have been included.” “My administrative assistant sent it in without my knowledge.” “The SF86 is very complicated.”

Over the years, I submitted many such documents. Those of us with certain kinds of clearances were required to undergo regular updates in addition to the original investigation. Of course, I had the advantage of having an original document to work with and update. My memory didn’t have to be that long. I didn’t really find the form to be that complicated. One also should be aware of the assistance provided by modern technology. Just Google SF86 and follow the instructions provided.

In fairness, I will admit that most of us do not have as many pertinent events to remember as do the movers and shakers in the world of high finance. They have many more foreign contacts to list, but surely someone must be keeping track of their calendars and the participants in their meetings.

Finally, blaming one’s lapses on the questionnaire on an administrative assistant won’t wash at all. The AA is not requesting a clearance. The requester must sign the form and thus accepts all responsibility for its contents and omissions.

In the case in question, enough potentially adverse information has been revealed through the corrected forms to warrant, at the very least, a suspension of the individual’s clearance pending a full and complete investigation. I suspect that such information would have been sufficient for an outright denial of a clearance in my case and that of almost anyone else.

It is a sign of the times that we can no longer assume that “important people” are worthy of access to classified information. Well, perhaps that is not true. We just did know about our problems before.

While carelessness and downright malfeasance with respect to the security of classified materials has, unfortunately, been far too common in our recent history, what stands out for me is the degree to which such behavior has proceeded to higher levels of our government. Three such instances come immediately to mind.

In 2015, General David Petraeus, an accomplished and decorated military leader, former head of the CIA, and fellow Princeton alumnus, was charged with mishandling classified information. He subsequently pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor charge. The circumstances of General Petraeus’ violation of the law, while fodder for the tabloids, are not relevant here. What is relevant it the he knowingly provided classified information to a person who was not authorized to receive it. A man of his intellect, education and experience clearly should have known better. The fact that the information was to serve as additional fodder for his biography makes the situation worse.

During her tenure as Secretary of State, Hilary Clinton used a private server for both personal and official e-mail. This case, of course, has been widely publicized, particularly in the course of the recent presidential campaign. In the course of the investigation into this matter, Secretary Clinton indicated that she had not sent or received any material marked as classified on this server. When classified material was found on the server, the response was that she had not realized that the (C) at the beginning of a paragraph indicated that the contents were Confidential. She was not charged because the FBI felt that their was insufficient evidence that she “knowingly transmitted” classified material to unauthorized persons. Indeed, while transmission surely was possible given the unsecured nature of the server, no evidence seems to have appeared that it actually took place. What is most disturbing about this case is that a former First Lady, U.S. Senator and (at the time) current Secretary of State had so little understanding of appropriate procedures for handling classified materials. In the course of thirty years of active and reserve service in the U.S. Army, I cannot recall an instance of a cleared enlisted person or DOA civilian, let alone a commissioned officer, who displayed this level of knowledge deficiency.

Next I come to the current President of the United States. In the course of an interview with the Russian Foreign Minister and the Russian Ambassador to the United States he chose to reveal hitherto classified material to them. The material was classified TS/SI and code word protected. Now, as many have pointed out, this cannot be illegal since the President is the ultimate classification authority and could decide that the material was unclassified. However, at this level, such decisions are of great significance and should not be undertaken lightly on the spur of the moment. It is particularly frightening to note that, during the subsequent justification of the President’s decision, he and General McMaster, National Security Advisor, claimed that the President did not actually disclose sources and methods along with the intelligence itself. This represents a lack of understanding of what the SI designation and code word protection mean. What is meant is that, given knowledge of the classified intelligence, sources and methods could be inferred by unfriendly powers. You don’t have tell people that the information came from Agent 86 and was gathered in a communications intercept using his shoe phone.

I am moved to despair when I realize that officials at the highest levels of our government do not understand how to handle classified material or choose to ignore what they do understand. Some things really do need to be classified. Revealing sources and methods involved in the gathering of intelligence simply guarantees that these sources and methods cannot be used again. Counterintelligence officers are not stupid. If our officials lack information, they cannot make good decisions. I know. They sometimes make bad decisions even with good information, but one cannot have everything. Generals, Secretaries of State and Presidents simply must know better. Perhaps they should be required to listen to detailed security briefings before taking office and annually thereafter. Some of them would not listen because they already know everything because they are “smart” people. It is worth a try.