Trains and Boats and Planes 2015 Style.

Minneapolis, MN, August 5, 2007: Site of the I-35 bridge collapse

For those of us who came of age in the Sixties, the name Burt Bacharach will resonate, He wrote songs which brought huge careers for the likes of Dionne Warwick, Gene Pitney, Cilla Black and Dusty Springfield. His music topped the hit parade regularly and made the singers into stars. One of Bacharach’s biggest hits was “Trains and Boats and Planes.” The song’s lyrics describe the problems of conducting a love affair at long distance. Were the song to be given air time today, perhaps a different connotation would apply.

Infrastructure – those trains, boats and planes - is not a sexy topic. There is no jazz to it. Politicians distance themselves from it because it is not eye-catching, it is very costly, it does not have quick results and is more likely to lose votes than gain them. Yet the importance of infrastructure was brought home to me some years ago during an episode of The West Wing. CJ, the character who was the Press Secretary and, later, President Bartlet’s Chief of Staff, was weighing her options about her future career once Bartlet left office. A successful businessman turned philanthropist asked her to be the head of his new charitable foundation. “I’ll invest $10 billion,” CJ was told. “What would you do with it?” She replied, “I’d build roads, roads in Africa and other countries where food and fresh water is a scarcity. Roads will ensure that people can have access to food and fresh water in times of scarcity and drought. And it will enable people to make and grow things and have them transported for sale.”

Improving America’s infrastructure during the 20^th century was one of the important reasons for its economic dominance as the world’s largest and most productive industrial nation. Yes, there were other factors. Dominance resulted from a capitalist philosophy helped by huge investment. Personal freedom was an important factor as people exercised their rights of choice of goods to buy. Production for the home market was strong. Henry Ford made sure his workers’ wages were sufficient to enable them to buy a Model T.

However, arguably the most important factor was the investment in infrastructure. In the early 20^th century, America was far too large for goods to be transported and delivered long distance by road. Air freight was forty years in the future. So a good railway system became essential. There were all kinds of problems. Refrigerated rail cars were not reliable, so produce was at risk. Railway gauges would vary from state to state, so time was lost in transhipment. But the railway networks, all privately owned, criss-crossed the whole country. It was possible to ship goods from the west coast to the east coast and vice-versa.

Electrification helped. The redevelopment of the Tennessee Valley during the Depression brought electricity to seven states. However, after World War II, railways suffered from lack of investment as competition from air and road transport strengthened. Railways fell into disrepair and bankruptcy. The road system received a shot in the arm in the 1950s when the Eisenhower administration invested in a 48,000 mile interstate road building program. By the 1970s, transport competition kept prices in check because it was feasible and economic to transport goods by air. Railway freight became the poor relation.

In last week’s Sunday Times, Amanda Foreman wrote about the perilous state of America’s infrastructure. For many decades, this important element of the economy had been starved of investment and the results were there for all to see. Those of us who have enjoyed American road trips will know the poor state of repair of many interstate highways and state roads. What is staggering is the estimate by the American Society of Civil Engineers that one in nine bridges is structurally unsound. In 2007, the I-35 Bridge in Minneapolis collapsed without warning and with loss of life. Since then there have been six more major bridge incidents. In addition, the ASCE has warned that 32% of America’s roads are sub-standard. As for the railways, in Philadelphia last week an Amtrak train was derailed. The accident may have been caused by driver error but since 2010 there have been more than twenty serious railway incidents which cannot all be attributable to this cause.

The ASCE is clear that the lack of investment in American infrastructure is costing the country dear. It alleges that if Congress does not tackle the infrastructure deficit, over the next five years American exports will decrease by $28 billion, more than 850,000 jobs will be lost and GDP will drop by $900 billion. I cannot attest to the accuracy of these numbers but clearly there is a major problem here.

Three years ago, I took a road trip around the west coast of America. Driving through the San Joaquin Valley, I was reminded of the vast amount of produce grown in California. What shocked me was the manner of transportation. For hours, extremely large trucks filled to the brim with fruit and vegetables and belching out diesel, pounded the road out of the Valley, presumably headed for the interstates and the ports of California, Oregon and Washington State. There was no railroad in sight.

Governing is a very difficult business and investing in infrastructure is often unpopular. One only has to look to England and the debate about HST2, a program to build a new high-speed railway to improve links between London, Birmingham and the North. The debate has been characterised as one of speed and the need to have faster links but the real issue is capacity. Our existing railroads cannot carry more train traffic. For almost a decade, the politicians who will make the final decision on HST2 have procrastinated, as British infrastructure suffers. I suspect the position is the same in the States.

If a nation wants a thriving economy, it must have good, efficient and affordable systems in place for the transport of people and goods. Failure to do so leads to stagnation and defeat by competition. In the 20^th century, Americans demonstrated a ‘can-do’ attitude on transport but this seems to be no longer the case. Hopefully the determination of America’s commercial and industrial leaders to make improvements will take effect but any change will also require political will and leadership. It will be interesting to see if any of the 2016 Presidential and Congressional hopefuls have the vision, determination and the guts to get things done.

The Race for the White House 2016

The Invisible Primary.

There is a period in the Presidential election cycle known as the invisible primary when White House hopefuls test the waters for a leap at the top job in American government. The contestants form an exploratory committee of their closest and often wealthiest supporters, get in seed money to cover initial expenses, and establish whether the run for the mansion on Pennsylvania Avenue might be successful. This year, some of the hopefuls have been lining up PACS and SUPERPACS because they will need vast amounts of donated cash in the campaign coffers if they get a green light.

So far, there are no surprises in the 2016 Democrat camp. Hillary Clinton seems to have a lock on her party’s nomination, although there are one or two people such as Jim Webb and Martin O’Malley making a noise. In contrast, there are some twenty Republican hopefuls putting their names forward.

Some Republican aspirants used immoderate and un-presidential language to make themselves appear to the Republican base that they have the right Republican stuff. Politicians on both sides of the aisle know it is often good campaign politics to create an outside enemy. Hence some Republicans in the race have positioned themselves to express concern about terrorism risks and particularly the errors of the negotiations over Iran’s nuclear program.

At a conservative summit in South Carolina last weekend, one after another Republican presidential hopeful used “let’s get tough” language to describe their hard-line positions on the Iran treaty. Although national security and foreign relations have long been a dominant issue at these kind of forums, this time around candidates greatly intensified their rhetoric as they angled to be seen as the staunchest enforcers and fiercest protectors of the country.

Texas US Senator Ted Cruz remarked that the two gunmen killed by a policeman last week in Garland, Texas “were likely inspired by the Islamic State.” Cruz added, "We saw the ugly face of Islamic terrorism in my home state of Texas, in Garland where two jihadists came to commit murder. Thankfully one police officer helped them meet their virgins."

Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal stated that gun control means “hitting your target.” Jindal, who is thinking about running for president, echoed Cruz, saying he was "thankful that those two terrorists were sent to their afterlife."

Florida US Senator Marco Rubio quoted the violent action film, “Taken,” to describe his plan for defeating radical Islam. "When people ask what our strategy should be on global jihadists and terrorists, I refer them to the movie, 'Taken’…Liam Neeson, he has a line -- this is what our strategy should be: We will look for you, we will find you, and we will kill you."

Last week, Rubio flashed his hawkish foreign policy credentials by seeking to include a rider to the Bill designed to give Congress oversight of the framework deal reached with Iran. Rubio’s rider would have destroyed the Bill’s chances of going ahead. Majority leader Mitch McConnell eased Rubio’s attempt by killing the rider at birth.

At the South Carolina summit, all the Republican Senators bashed the Bill and warned that the agreement endangers Israel. The hypochrisy of these men is shocking. Two days before, all had voted in favour of the Bill.

Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker, who seems to be moving closer to officially announcing his run, received a standing ovation when he said: "We need a president who is going to back away from that deal In Iran." How ironic that all bar one US Senator voted for the Bill.

One Republican presidential candidate who was not in attendance was Kentucky Senator Rand Paul, who is reluctant to intervene in overseas conflicts. He suffers harsh criticism because of his stance. I call it good politics. After all, he might be president one day and will not want to show his hand before negotiations with foreign leaders start.

One Republican eye-catching hopeful is Carly Fiorina, the former chief executive of Hewlett-Packard. She is running for president and is on record that one of the first things she would do in the White House is to stop negotiations with Iran until officials agree to inspections. On Saturday afternoon she fired off the loaded message that she would want to send to the Iranians: "Whatever the circumstances were, they have changed and until and unless you submit to full and unfettered inspections of every single nuclear facility in your country, we will exact and enact the most crushing sanctions we can."

If Fiorina gets her Party’s nomination, it will be the first time since 1952 that a candidate has not held office as the sitting President or Vice-President, or been a member of Congress or a state governor. In 1952, Eisenhower was acclaimed at the Republican Convention on the first ballot as the nominee. However he was a five star general, and held a series of interesting titles, such as Supreme Commander Allied Forces in Europe during World War II and later Supreme Commander of NATO and President of Columbia University.

By comparison what are Ms Fiorina’s credentials? As the first female head of a Fortune 50 company, she is worth $80 million, four times as much as Mrs Clinton. Whilst it is good that any American over the age of 35 can run for president, Ms Fiorina’s credentials are slim. Her hubris and lack of political nous reminds me of another hopeful, former Alaskan governor Sarah Palin.

When we look at the list of hopefuls, it would be wrong to exclude Donald Trump. In South Carolina, he decided to attack Sergeant Bowe Bergdahl, the U.S. soldier who left his patrol base in Afghanistan in 2009 and was held by the Taliban for five years until the United States bartered for his release. Trumps said of President Obama, "I call our president the five-to-one president. We got Bergdahl; they get five leaders, killers that want to kill us all. And they're all back on the battlefield, by the way, and we got this piece of garbage named Bergdahl, who years ago we would have shot for treason." How presidential! Back in the 50s, people chanted “We Like Ike.” Maybe now we’ll get: “Trump’s a Chump.”

The citizens for whom I feel most pity are those who live in Iowa and New Hampshire. They will be invaded by all these politicians until February 2016, by which time the Iowa caucus and New Hampshire primary will finally be over. That’s a long time to have your peace shattered.

The Senate Passes an Obama Inspired Bill. Wonders Never Cease.

Some weeks ago, American negotiators and their five negotiating partners agreed the framework of a deal with Iran concerning nuclear weapons and the lifting of sanctions. The American Constitution requires American involvement in agreements of this nature to be approved “with the advice and consent” of the Senate. Accordingly, last week the deal came before the US Senate which voted overwhelmingly by 98 votes to 1 with 1 abstention, to pass the Bill approving the agreement. What had happened?

The Bill passed by the Senate gives it skin in the game, as we golfers say. The Senate will have oversight powers, allowing a thirty-day review of any final deal made with Iran. There will now be a congressional voice in the process when the President’s team finalises negotiations with the Islamic republic.

Nothing in terms of passing laws through Congress comes easy. When the Bill was passed, Sen. Ben Cardin (D-Md.), ranking member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, commented: "On such a serious national security matter, Congress has a responsibility to fulfill its oversight obligations, to dispense with political divisions and to unite around a common purpose." He added, "Such bipartisanship has eluded the Senate of late, but I give great credit to Chairman Corker who kept us focused on the ultimate goal." He was referring to Sen. Bob Corker's (R-Tenn.) efforts to rework the original language of the Bill into a version that was palatable to Democrats. This was no simple task.

Senate rules permit any senator to add a ‘rider’ i.e. an additional clause to any Bill and the rider does not have to be related to the Bill itself. For example, in an agricultural Bill, a senator can seek a provision preventing abortion advice being given by doctors employed by federally funded hospitals. Presidential candidate Senator Marco Rubio (R-Fla) sought a provision in the Bill requiring Iran to recognize Israel as a Jewish state. The Israel provision was offensive to supporters of the nuclear treaty Bill because, aside from being non-germane to the negotiations, pro-Israel lawmakers were placed in the impossible position of being forced to vote down pro-Israel legislation in public. No doubt Senator Rubio had his motives but it will play badly for him in the Presidential campaign that he would sacrifice national interests by forcing the Bill to be still-born. 

Faced with a risk where the Iran Bill might be blocked, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell filed a cloture motion, a move to end debate and bring a Bill to a vote. The cloture vote was delayed by several hours in an attempt to give lawmakers extra time to reach agreement on a limited series of votes on amendments, before cutting off debate entirely. Such an agreement was ultimately not agreed by either party but McConnell’s move worked.

These days, most Republican legislators oppose anything less than the unrestricted open amendment process. Sen. David Vitter (R-La.) was on record that he would block any effort to vote on a predetermined set of changes to the nuclear bill. Senate Democrats, who had not proposed any amendments, were ready to wrap up the Bill as it was. Ultimately, only two amendments came to a vote, and both failed.

The Bill must now go to the House of Representatives before arriving on the President’s desk. It is expected to face less scrutiny and opposition in the House, due in part to the looming deadline to reach a final nuclear deal. Of course, expectations can always be confounded.

Assuming the House approves the measure, the Bill will become law before the 30 June deadline set by the framework agreement. The negotiations demonstrate how difficult it is to have a bill passed by Congress unless it is carefully managed and where compromise is the watchword. It is also surprising to find bipartisanship in DC on this issue when the political parties have been daggers drawn for so many years and when the Republicans in Congress have made it clear that they will do what they can to confound the occupier of the White House.

Why has the Senate taken steps to approve the treaty? Historically this House has been regarded as having foreign policy expertise. It saw the importance of the treaty with Iran as the beginning of a process to control a member of the nuclear family. Furthermore, it has taken steps to ensure Congress keeps a hand firmly on the Executive as the treaty moves forward. In these political time in America, wonders will never cease.

Is America Institutionally Violent?

This is a big topic and deserves much greater detail but you have to start somewhere. I believe that America has become an institutionally violent nation. By this I mean that the violence is either condoned or accepted by the federal government, the governments of the American states, cities and towns, as well as other political institutions that govern America. What leads me to my conclusion of institutional violence is that state governors, city and town mayors and their administrations pay lip service to those offended, plead for calm if citizens take protests to the streets but do very little or nothing to change police training or the mind sets of the officers. Certainly, there are no proposals to tighten laws.

The events of Baltimore and Ferguson are fresh in people’s minds. In both cases, extreme police violence and brutality were visited on black men, leading to their deaths. In neither case were the police under threat.

Under American law, the police do not have the right to be judge and jury. However, cases of police brutality are often investigated by internal police commissions and/or district attorneys. Internal police commissions have often been criticized for a lack of accountability and for bias favoring officers, as they frequently declare the officers acted within the department's rules, or according to their training. For instance, an April 2007 study of the Chicago Police Department found that out of more than 10,000 police abuse complaints filed between 2002 and 2003, only 19 resulted in meaningful disciplinary action. There are many other examples, leading to the conclusion that times have not changed.

Two years ago, twenty-seven innocent children were murdered at the Sandy Hook Elementary School. Since the turn of the century, nearly two hundred children and university students have been murdered, usually because of gunshot wounds. What meaningful legislation on gun control has been proposed since 2000 by the White House? What laws have Congress passed? In a word, none that are significant. In the states, has there been any action to halt the slaughter? Some, such as Oregon, have passed new gun background check laws but the states who have done this are very much in the minority. Do these laws make much of a difference? Time will tell but I doubt that the slaughter of school children will be halted as a result. It seems that those with the power to make change will not accept the unpalatable truth that until Americans can no longer carry guns, the killings will continue unabated.  

If the legislators and the administrators just sit on their hands, what can the judges do? From the very birth of America, its people experienced the violence of the War of Independence, followed by other wars, such as the War of 1812. The Framers were persuaded to protect the individual rights of American citizens in the Bill of Rights but the cruel and unusual punishment exception in the 8^th Amendment did not stretch to lawful execution.

The Supreme Court came close to considering the problem in the 1970s. It declared a moratorium on the death penalty whilst considering the way it was administered. In cases from the California and Georgia appellate courts, the Supreme Court accepted the qualitative difference of death from all other punishments. As such, when a person is convicted of murder in America, a second trial takes place to determine the sentence. Here was an instance of the Court taking decisions out of the hands of Congress and getting the job done.

Last week, the Supreme Court considered the constitutionality of death by lethal injection. A year ago in Oklahoma, an execution was bungled, the lethal drug was ineffectual and the convict survived for 43 minutes. The supposed best legal minds in America debated lethal injection procedures. One, Justice Alito, accused those protesting the procedure of “waging a guerrilla war against the death penalty.” Presumably, he considers it proper that people die at the hands of the state.  And so the debate continued as the learned justices dissected the merits and use of certain drugs and the humane way to kill somebody legally.

This discussion was patently ridiculous. Any person who has had surgery under anaesthetic knows you get put to sleep and wake up a while later, not knowing anything about the intervening time. Why is it beyond the wit of those who want to execute people to adopt this simple solution?

I find it discomforting that the Court did not discuss a far more important issue, namely whether in 2015 the state has the right to take a life? Are the Supremes too scared to break with precedent and tell Congress and the executive branch that America is out of step with the rest of the western world and needs to re-think the execution issue? Perhaps the majority of the Court considers the legal system would be weakened without this deterrent.

Until the three branches of the federal government, as well as their counterparts in the states and cities, come to grips with police enforcement, the virtually unrestricted right to own guns and executing people, I cannot see any likelihood of reduction in acts of violence throughout the United States. If all these administrators, legislators and judges are satisfied with the status quo, the charge that America is institutionally violent must stand.