The Supremes are at it Again: Diana Ross Would Do Better!

Photo credit: The Onion

Last week, a Supreme Court ruling gave a small number of wealthy donors a way to heavily influence political campaigns. In McCutcheon v FEC, a 5-4 decision, the Court decided that the overall limit that individuals can give candidates and political parties would no longer be limited. The huge inflow of money from so-called Super-PACS will be inflated even more because donors can expand their giving by writing single cheques for as much as they like for each candidate. The previous maximum was set at $123,200 for this year’s mid-terms.

Politicians can now focus on the big dollar givers, whose largess has been off-limits until now. Billionaires like conservative industrialists Charles and David Koch and liberal hedge-fund manager Tom Steyer can expect to be asked to spend tens of millions of dollars, in addition to their donations to Super-PACS. The ruling declared unconstitutional a total limit on how much an individual can give federal candidates. Once again, the Court interpreted the First Amendment by equating speech with money.

John McCain, the Republican US senator who has championed restrictions on campaign funding, predicted “there will be scandal.” Fred Wertheimer, president of Democracy 21, an advocacy group for reducing the role of money in politics, stated: “The Supreme Court is turning our representative system of government into a sandbox for millionaires and billionaires.”

However, conservatives have cast the ruling as a victory for freedom of speech. Craig Engle, a Republican election law attorney, said “This isn’t a threat to democracy, it is democracy. One of the things that is anti-democratic is when people aren’t allowed to express themselves freely.”

It is ironic, using the word “free” about speech which is paid for by rich donors, donors who will certainly expect a return on their investment. I want to challenge the five Justices who ruled against FEC. I would ask them first to re-visit the First Amendment which states:

            “Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech.”

For those Justices who want to rely on a strict construction of the Amendment, was there not “money” in the United States in 1791 and, therefore, had the Founders wanted to allow the free use of money, would they not have said so? For me, the interpretation by the Court is specious.

Assuming for a moment the Justices are right on this issue, then surely it would be permissible for political donors to give in “money’s-worth,” such as a fleet of Cadillacs. But the election statutes of most states regard such a gift as bribery and unlawful. There is a lack of consistency here which the Court doesn’t seem to address.

What does “speech” mean? Speech is defined in the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary as:

            “The act of speaking; the natural exercise of the vocal organs; the utterance of words and sentences. Talk, speaking or discourse; colloquy, conversation, conference.”

Nowhere in the definition is there a mention of money. Therefore, any Justice who relies on a strict construction of the Amendment is plainly wrong to equate free speech with, say, a donated advertisement. So, presumably the nucleus of the Court’s majority decision rests in the meaning of “democracy.” The Shorter Oxford English Dictionary defines the word as:

            “Government by the people; that form of government in which the sovereign power resides in the people, and is exercised either directly by them or by officers elected by them. In modern usage, it often denotes a social state in which all have equal rights.”

I assume the Justices who gave the majority decision believe a person should have equal rights to spend his or her money. In normal circumstances I would agree. But when it comes to elections, the principle of “one man, one vote,” does not imply that one man contributing millions of dollars to a political campaign is equal to millions contributing just one dollar each. The outcome of people’s votes should neither be decided by the amounts that can be spent, nor the unbridled, conspicuous consumption which will follow at election time.

If a billionaire decides to spend millions of dollars on a political campaign, it is natural to ask “what does he want?” Joseph Kennedy spent like crazy to get his son into the White House. When asked why JFK could not achieve a larger majority in the 1960 presidential election, his father replied, “I couldn’t afford it.” Is this the kind of democracy the Supreme Court wants?

There is no solution to the campaign funding problem while the Supreme Court decides that rich people deserve more democracy than their fellow citizens. The political parties don’t mind the lack of control. There are as many billionaires supporting the Democratic Party as the Republicans. Efforts by Congress to legislate – see McCain-Feingold – have been overturned by the Court. The only way to deal with the problem is a constitutional amendment and that is not even a blip on the radar at the moment.

So, American citizens are faced with an unequal democracy. It occurs to me that Diana Ross and her backing singers would do a lot better than at least five of the current Supremes.

The Wild West of Education: The Right to Bear Arms

One wonders if memories of the shocking events at the school in Newtown, Connecticut have faded or been superseded in the minds of Americans. To recall, shortly before Christmas, 2012, twenty eight people, mostly young children and two teachers, were gunned to death. A man using a number of weapons, including automatic rifles, gunned himself into American history.

This is not an isolated incident in American schools. Since January, 2000, there have been one hundred and forty seven separate shooting incidents. A staggering one hundred and eighty seven innocent children and teachers have been murdered. Take this year alone: in less than four months, there have been thirty three occasions when a gunman has been apprehended in a school. Nine people have been killed. In any other western country, this would be called an epidemic. What laws exist to protect those in schools? Effectively none, save standard criminal laws against violence.

The Second Amendment to the Constitution is construed to mean that all American citizens have the right to bear arms. But the Amendment was ratified in 1791, a time so totally different to now. The Amendment states the right to bear arms is conditional upon providing a well-armed militia, in other words an army. The Amendment was passed to ensure that the United States could lawfully defend itself against the British and others when no regular army was not in being. Nowadays, America boasts of the strongest armed forces in the world.

The subsequent sweeping interpretations of the Second Amendment by the American law courts begs the question whether gangsters in Chicago or wise New York guys or wackos form part of the authorised American armed forces. There are now so many gun laws passed by Congress and the states that one might imagine there was gun control. There are all kinds of rules about concealed and disclosed weapons, numerous regulations relating to semi-automatic rifles as opposed to automatics and even stock sizes.

But when anyone can go to a gun fair and have a weapon at their disposal after the briefest of checks, how is this control? How can school children be protected? Surely, there should be a law, pure and simple, that it is a federal offence, punishable by a lengthy prison sentence, to be in possession of any kind of armed weapon within four hundred yards of a school. I accept this won’t deter an assassin armed with a long-range assault weapon. Many schools operate airport-style security measures at great expense. But this does not seem to prevent determined kikllers from plying their ghastly trade.

The Bush administration did nothing to cure gun problems. The National Rifle Association is one of the strongest lobbying groups in America and its Board is full of Republican supporters. For eight years under Bush, gun supporters were not touched, not even a scratch, courtesy of the NRA. The Obama administration tried to make changes, especially after the Newtown shootings, but the gun lobby was far too strong for the White House. Congress kicked into touch even the most minor ameliorations proposed by President Obama.

Why do so many Americans feel it is their birth-right to own guns? Do they not realise that checks on who may buy and possess weapons of death are so weak as to entitle mentally challenged people to arm themselves? The Newtown killer had serious mental problems for years before the attack but he had four weapons on his person when he committed appalling violence on innocent children.

Do Americans really want such a violent society? Is it really a total vote loser for any American politician to back resistance to armed weapons? I suppose the answer must be “yes.” There seems to be no moralist movement which advocates repealing the Second Amendment and setting out legislation which states: “Unless you come within a listed exception, you may not own any kind of gun.” The exceptions could include gun clubs where guns are held under lock and key in the club premises, guns to kill animals humanely and shooting rifles for hunting which would be licensed.

If Americans want to know why western Europeans are different, here is a good example. We in Europe see no need to arm ourselves as no one is likely to come gunning for us. The trouble is that even if there was an anti-gun movement that achieved a repeal of the Second Amendment, there would be so many guns held by Americans, who would refuse to hand them back, that the repeal would be meaningless.

Ask yourselves, who suffers? Just look at the school shooting numbers. Is it worth all those lives just to have the right to bear arms?

Have You Clean Hands?

For the past two weeks and more, our newspapers and television screens have been dominated by the developments in the Ukraine. I have lost count of the times I have heard about “the flagrant breach of international law.” Effectively, the Crimea has been annexed to the Russia Federation and a referendum of the Crimean population last Sunday is looked upon by the self-designated international community as bogus. But there is some evidence that the vast majority of the Crimean population, who are Russian speaking, wanted to break away from a country they considered hostile. The response this far: the United Kingdom and the USA are imposing sanctions on twenty one Russian officials, making travel more difficult for them and freezing their assets. Hardly gun-boat diplomacy.

I consider the actions by Putin and his colleagues wrong but what justifies our involvement? Does the West have a strategic interest in the Ukraine? Is there likely to be ethnic cleansing in the country? What action can be taken by the West, save for starting a vast military operation? No statesman has suggested the latter, nor has the Ukraine government – the present one – asked for this. So what we have is a load of hot air generated by the Western statesmen as the Russians do what they want. Yes, it is a form of appeasement and yes, the Russians may seek further territory. But I prefer a cold war to a hot one.

I am writing about this topic because I consider the West to be using double standards. Neither the States nor Great Britain have clean hands. In 2001, what legal right did the Americans, supported by the British, have to invade Iraq and Afghanistan? Where were the United Nations resolutions approving the actions? What we and the Yanks sought was regime change, a principle that has no foundation in international law. Add to this, the outrage of Guantanamo Bay where some men have been held prisoner for more than thirteen years without charge or trial. Had the Russians done this, the outcry would have been deafening.

In his Sunday Times column this week, Andrew Sullivan has detailed “the CIA’s vault of horrors.” His theme is that the USA threw Geneva conventions out of the window. When a Senate committee investigated the torture programme at Guantanamo and in Iraq, CIA head John Brennan protested innocence for his agency. However, at the same time, the agency was spying on the Senate committee staff. What did the Senate enquiry uncover? “Hanging prisoners by their wrists and ankles from shackles in walls, beating prisoners to a pulp, waterboarding hundreds of times, cramming prisoners into tiny boxes and God knows what else.” The accusations of undermining have been made by no less a figure than Diane Feinstein, senior US Senator for California and a respected defender of the intelligence services. Sullivan believes her, not Brennan. I think Sullivan’s right.

Poor President Obama. He is forced to hush up incidents arising under the administration of his predecessor. Without doubt, Dick Cheney was a prime mover in black ops and black site torture, as well as forms of barbarism that most Americans would find loathsome at any level. Arguably, Obama seeks to keep quiet the authorised torture under Bush as he justifies the authorised drone attacks of the current administration. It reminds me of the Pentagon Papers disclosures when President Nixon sought to hush up the actions of the Johnson administration. That came back to bite Tricky Dicky.

Nor does the United Kingdom have a clean record. Let’s not forget the 1980s “shoot to kill” policy, operated by the British Army and the Royal Ulster Constabulary and approved by H M Government. Not a week ago, a secret term of the Good Friday agreement, giving amnesty to IRA killers, was made public. Why was this not disclosed at the time?

Henry Kissinger coined the expression, “realpolitik,” as an expression to describe the way statesman acted in the real world. We have to face the fact that when a strong power exercises its might against a weaker, adjacent power, there is little that the international community can do to prevent it. Having statesmen like our Foreign Secretary, William Hague, huff and puff about Russia’s action in Crimea is no help and no use. And why talk openly about kicking Russia out of the G8 when it supplies vast amounts of energy to the west? Bring Putin to G8 and warn him then, behind closed doors.

So, pardon me if I don’t wring my hands about the Ukranian people. That country has had a potential revolution within its own borders for decades. History tells us not to get involved in another country’s civil war. Thus far, the West is listening to the past. Maybe it is washing its hands too.

Waiting for the Other Shoe to Drop

This is a peculiar expression. Why a shoe and why wait for it to drop? I invite you to log onto Google for the answers. The expression is often used in the political arena when waiting for a follow-up to an announcement or event. An example is when a presidential nominee keeps the nation waiting for his or her choice of vice-president.

About two weeks ago, three things were reported on in the national press, then the media went quiet on them. The events were President Obama’s 2015 budget proposals, the Republican Party’s announcement that it had been too focused on health-care law and the Supreme Court declining to hear gun law challenges, aiming to acquire even more freedom for under 21s to own guns. So much for the NRA and the rest of the gun lobby. Each of these stories was worth following up but there seems to have been little or nothing in the newspapers. Unsurprisingly, the situation in the Ukraine and the missing Malaysia Airlines airplane has dominated the news cycle of late but couldn’t the fourth estate be writing something about these three stories? I read the Washington Post and Huffington Post and have seen nothing, nor has anything been mentioned in the UK broadsheets.

Let me examine the three stories in a little detail to establish why they are of particular interest. First, the Supreme Court. In 2008, the Supremes decided there was a right to gun ownership for self-defence within one’s home. Two years later, the Court ruled that this right applied to state and local gun-control efforts, not just those at the federal level. Subsequently, the Court has declined to review appeals that seek to challenge restrictions, such as tight controls on who may carry a firearm.

However, this month, two challenges were mounted concerning freedom to own firearms. The first was a Texas law, barring 18 to 20-year olds from obtaining permits to carry handguns. The second was a federal law prohibiting licensed firearm dealers from selling handguns to people under the age of 21. I am pleased to see that the Supreme Court refused these challenges. Long may this trend continue. There have been more than one hundred shootings in schools since Newtown. The Court’s refusals are a small but worthwhile rebuff to Americans and their love affair with guns.

The second story relates to the Republican Party potentially seeing sense over their approach Affordable Healthcare Act. When I say “seeing sense,” I refer to the Party’s political stance. Trying to change ACA whilst negotiating budget and debt ceiling issues was seen as blackmail by many voters. I went on record to say the Republicans were entitled to criticise the Act but in a different setting, namely when contesting the 2014 midterms.

It seems congressional Republicans are looking at the Act as the golden ticket for this year’s midterms. However, their strategy seems to be “repeal the Act,” i.e. carpet bombing instead of drones. If so, surely this is a hopeless attitude for them to adopt. The Act may be unpopular but forty million more Americans are now entitled to healthcare. That’s a lot of votes for the Democrats, especially if those voters are told by the Republicans, “if we win, ACA goes.” I expect to see some Republican candidates change their position and offer detailed policy solutions to resolve the Act’s problems. If not, the broad challenge to ACA may come back to bite them.

The third story relates to the President’s 2015 budget request, seeking tens of billions of dollars of fresh spending for domestic priorities while abandoning a compromise proposal to reduce the national debt by trimming Social Security benefits. The previous strategy, the “grand bargain” to raise taxes on the rich and rein in retirement spending, has been abandoned. I’m not surprised. In furthering the policy, the President managed to upset his Party while gaining nothing from the Republicans.

So, the new Obama strategy is a call for the end to austerity without any details of how the budget changes will be funded. Of course, any government delights in broad, voter-friendly rhetoric without commitment to the fine print. Is this strategy a vote winner? Is the President hoping that a radical policy like this will win him enough votes in November to keep the Senate majority while winning the House? I really don’t know but it strikes me that either the way to finance budget changes has not been agreed or the administration is keeping ideas in reserve until later this year. Both courses carry risks.

For the past two weeks, I have waited to see how these three stories develop. Nothing much happened until the special House election in Florida last week. The Democrats lost heavily in a contest they expected to win easily. So, how will they change their strategy to make the November mid-terms a success? I see some heated discussions ahead between Democrat Congressional leaders and the White House. Where is that other shoe when you need it?

Getting a Book Out There: Piece of Cake….Not!

There’s a saying: “Everyone has a book in him or her.” I don’t know how true this is but I can now say with justification that there is a book in me. My novel, “Truth to Power,” was published as an e-book last week. The experience from start to finish is like starting at the top of a high slide and finishing at the very bottom. Let me explain.

About four years ago, I completed my doctorate in American political history. There were suggestions that I should expand my thesis into a book, a work of non-fiction, but I’d had enough of academic writing. I thought, why not turn the research into a novel? After all, I had found out how corrupt US city government had become during the 1920s and 30s, and how journalists had reacted. There was ample material for a work of fiction.

On holiday in Miami Beach, I spent almost two weeks sitting on the veranda of our hotel during the day, writing a story. Every night, before I went to sleep, I would work out the next steps in the plot in my mind and the following day I would type on my laptop for hours on end. I loved it. I was having fun inventing characters and events. As for the troubling matter of finding evidence to support elements of the story, I could just make it up. By the time I returned to London, I had more than 60,000 words written. I never knew how enjoyable writing a book could be. Over the next weeks and months, I finished the story and polished it. The big question was, what to do next? After all, the experience so far had been nothing but positive and I hoped it would continue.

The real learning curve was about publishing. A writer may but submit a book to a publisher but what the writer really needs is to find a literary agent who will promote the work. I didn’t know any agents so I floundered. Suddenly, I wasn’t having fun. An accountant friend of mine told me he acted for a well-known literary agency. He suggested I send him my manuscript and he’d pass it on. A few weeks later, I received an e-mail from him. It recounted how the agent had not expected to get very far with my book but was now half way through it and enjoying the read.

Subsequently, I met the agent. She wanted to take me on as a client. The first step would be revising the novel. She sent a detailed list of suggestions. Anyone who writes knows that revising is the hardest part and I struggled but did as she asked. All seemed to be proceeding well when the agency dropped me. Their reason was that the book needed to be marketed in the US market and their current experience of American publishing was it was in dire straits. I believed the agent but felt very badly let down. It was back to square one.

It didn’t help when many friends kept asking, “When is your book going to be published?” Some months later, the literary agent contacted me. She suggested I get in touch with Acorn Publishing, who specialise in e-book publication. Thus began my relationship with Leila and Ali Dewji, a sister and brother who own Acorn. Leila is my editor. Boy, did she put me through my paces. Over several months, the novel changed, as characters were dropped, plot lines altered as confusing American city politics was clarified. I liked Leila in inverse proportion to what she had me do.

Once Leila was satisfied, the book was sent to be “close edited.” Here, I had to deal with more than 350 comments by another editor. I almost lost the will to live as I tried to cope not only with the comments but the Word software for reviewing documents. It did not help that in the middle of this exercise, my computer died. I bought a new one with updated software with which I am still coming to grips.

By the time the close edit was completed, I had lost count of the hours and hours spent by me on the novel. Any sense of fun and enjoyment which I got from writing had sunk without trace. Instead, the sale of Truth to Power has become serious business. But for Leila and Ali, publishing is what they do and I respect and appreciate their efforts.

A few days ago, Truth to Power was published as an e-book, available on Amazon, Google and all other e-book sellers. I now have publicists in America working for me and my first interview with an American magazine is scheduled for this week. Maybe my initial excitement about writing might be recaptured.

I do not want to be the next J. K. Rowling, a suggestion made to me more than once by friends and family. What I would like is that the novel finds readers who like a page turner and a story of the struggle for supremacy between two men against a political background.

The Eleventh Commandment

“Don’t get found out” is the Eleventh commandment. In private life, men and women all too often get themselves into difficulties by breaking it. The breach will cause embarrassment, occasionally family break-up and perhaps a prison sentence but the glare of media publicity is unlikely. However, when people in public life break the Eleventh and are caught out, the heavens open as the media descends, eager to reveal people’s weaknesses.

Four years ago, Virginia governor Bob McDonnell was selected to give the Republican response to President Obama’s 2010 State of the Union address. Just eighteen months back, McDonnell’s rapid rise accelerated when he was tipped for the Vice-Presidential spot on the 2016 national election ticket. However, he now faces federal corruption charges, along with his wife, Maureen. A few weeks ago, the wheels fell off the McDonnell bandwagon as evidence emerged of a murky relationship with a wealthy Virginia businessman. Allegedly, it’s the old story of a politician crossing the line when wealthy donors help in an election and offer the politician a dream life style financed by suspect funds. The American media headlined the story for days.

Of course, McDonnell is not the only politician currently in the firing line. Chris Christie is caught up in a scandal concerning the lane closures on the George Washington Bridge. Criminal investigations continue against Christie aides and David Wildstein, a former aide and friend, has alleged that Christie knew of the plot before the event. Christie, of course denies this and Wildstein, who will probably be charged with a crime, may be just trying to save his skin. Whatever, the front runner in the race for the Republican presidential nomination in 2016 has fallen and the media is enjoying the schaudenfreude.

As prosecutions of politicians make such juicy news, I researched the post-WW2 record of federal legislators, senior members of the judiciary and senior federal administrators who broke the Eleventh and were convicted of crimes involving corruption. Considering the number of careers entailed over this period, there have been comparatively few prosecutions and, save for a few instances, there is little or no connection between those convicted and the President they served. The current and previous presidents’ records are interesting.

The Obama administration record is not unblemished. So far six men are in the frame including Jesse Jackson Jr., (D-IL) who pleaded guilty to wire and mail fraud. Louisiana Federal Judge Thomas Porteous (D), a Clinton appointee, was impeached, convicted and removed from office on charges of bribery and lying to Congress.

Obama’s predecessor, George W. Bush, faced a White House scandal which went all the way to Vice President Dick Cheney’s office. Lewis ‘Scooter’ Libby, Cheney’s Chief of Staff, was convicted of perjury and obstruction of justice in the Valerie Plame affair. Libby was sentenced to 30 months in prison and fined $250,000. His sentence was commuted by President Bush.

During the same presidency, master-lobbyist Jack Abramoff’s was convicted of attempting to influence Congressional action concerning U.S. immigration and minimum wage laws. Several Congressmen were convicted in the scandal, including Bob Ney (R-OH) for conspiracy and making false statements, as a result of his receiving trips from Abramoff in exchange for legislative favors.

The Abramoff scandal has not resulted in a reduction of lobbying influence. Lobbying remains a sore in Washington. It remains the major business of the city, not legislating.

Since the 1970s, three presidents have had to face the full glare of the media as a result of falling foul of the Eleventh. Nixon resigned over the Watergate affair to escape a Senate trial after the House had impeached him. Clinton faced the ordeal of a Senate trial after he was impeached for lying. The lie related to conduct in his private life, whereas Nixon covered up and lied blatantly about the dirty tricks practised by his people. Interestingly, several of Clinton’s Republican prosecutors admitted to affairs in their private lives during the Senate trial.

Ronald Reagan, who still rates highly as one of the most effective presidents, was very lucky to escape impeachment. He broke Acts of Congress in the scandal known as Irangate and lied about it. Just read the Tower Report and Reagan’s subsequent apology:

“A few months ago, I told the American people I did not trade arms for hostages. My heart and my best intentions tell me that’s true………..but the facts and evidence tell me it is not. There are reasons why it happened but no excuses. It was a mistake.”

There was no political will to impeach this very popular president.

Looking at the three “impeachments”, I conclude that the process is more political than legal. But what stands out in my memory is the almost total paralysis of the US government as the scandals were played out in the media and Congressional hearings. For the time being, those who revel in the excitement of seeing political mucky-mucks brought to justice, will have to rely on the prosecutors picking the lower branches of the scandal tree. Currently, there is nothing alleged against President Obama and his colleagues to suggest any of them have fallen foul of the Eleventh Commandment.

But in America, one never knows, until the fourth estate goes public.

Chutzpah!

The nearest English translation of the Yiddish word, “Chutzpah”, is unmitigated gall. The translation does not do justice to the Yiddish expression. It is usually accompanied by histrionics suggesting disgust, dismay and derogatory views of the action taken by the person at whom the word is thrust. There is an old joke. A teenager murders both his parents and throws himself on the mercy of the court, pleading that he is an orphan. Now that’s chutzpah!

This morning, I use the word to describe the actions of the Republican leadership of the House of Representatives. Just a few weeks ago, Congress approved the increased US government S1.1 trillion budget for 2014. Let me make it clear: the Republicans in both the House and Senate supported the measure.

My blog of January 19^th set out the important changes to the tax structure. I wrote: “It ought to follow that the US government spending limit will be raised without condition because the Republicans have agreed new spending initiatives.”

According to most polls, the blame for the government closure last year was fixed on the Republican Party, or to be more accurate, its right wing. Therefore, it ought to be reasonable to conclude that the US debt limit, which must be approved by Congress, would be raised to meet the expenditures that Congress has voted for.

Let me elaborate. This is not a situation where the White House has power. The Constitution gives power to the legislative branch: “To lay and collect taxes,…to pay the debts…of the United States and to borrow money on the credit of the United States.” All the administration can do is use its power to persuade Congress and the public at large that the debt ceiling should be raised, so that the government can borrow sufficient funds to pay its debts as they fall due. The decision to do so rests with Congress.

What the government currently faces is a cash flow problem. Anyone who has run a business or a home knows that you need ready cash or borrowing facilities to pay bills when they arise. If you don’t pay, there are consequences, including removal of supply of goods and services, not to mention litigation. In the case of a government, failure to pay debts will damage its credit rating and make future borrowing more expensive, as well as bring its reputation into disrepute.

It is not easy to regulate a government’s cash flow. Its revenue arises from borrowing and taxation. Tax money comes in at irregular times and in sums which it cannot predict with absolute accuracy. As the work force and business profits rise and fall, the tax revenue changes. Therefore, it is possible for the government to have sufficient funds one day, followed by a default position the next day, and back in the black the following day, unless it has borrowing facilities to rely on.

In the case of the US, the Treasury has warned that it could start to face payment problems at the end of February. House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA 7) has scheduled time this week for “possible consideration of the legislation related to the debt limit.” Some House Republicans have said that “possible conditions are under discussion,” including the elimination of military pension cuts, which I would remind you, were agreed by the Republicans in December last year, i.e. just six weeks ago. So, the Republicans might agree to allow the government to pay its debts if the government agrees to increase its spending on military pensions! I thought the Republicans were opposed to increases in government spending.

There are only seven legislative days left before the government might have to default or close down. Surely, the taxpayers haven’t voted for this kind of grandstanding. Congress has already approved the expenditure which the administration has to make next month. It really has to stop politicising the debt ceiling issue and do the job it is meant to do.

If Congress fails to legislate on the debt ceiling, causing the government to shut down again, I trust the voters remember this next November. In the meantime, I hope I have persuaded you that the actions of the House Republicans come within the definition of chutzpah!