|
Ivan W.
Parkins |
|
To order Dr. Parkins book, Perspectives For
American Society Contact |
|
©Ivan W. Parkins 2010, All articles, text, web pages property of
Ivan W. Parkins. Use of any material
requires permission of the author
and can be obtained by contacting,
info@americanpoliticalcommentary.com |
|
About Ivan W. Parkins: Dr. Parkins is a retired professor of
Political Science from Central Michigan University. He received his PhD from the University of
Chicago and is a graduate of the United States Naval Academy. Dr. Parkins served as a naval officer
during WWII aboard the battleship Alabama.
He is a recent widower with three daughters, 3 grand children and 2
great grand children. Dr. Parkins has
written extensively, having authored 3 books and a newspaper opinion column
for many years. |
|
Front Page |
|
In This Issue: ¨ THE PARTISAN BATTLE FOR AMERICA ¨ TRUTH, JUSTICE, THE AMERICAN WAY ¨ NAKED EMPERORS ¨ FIFTY YEARS OF NATIONAL BUDGETS ¨ REVISED, “PARTISAN ADVANTAGE AND
DEBATE IN THE U.S. SENATE |
|
PARTISAN BATTLE FOR EFFECTIVE
LEADERSHIP of AMERICA The
historical evidence is weighted to the Democrats
in the House and Senate By Ivan
W. Parkins With many of the usually apathetic Americans
out in protests over the continuing unemployment and mounting public
deficits, why is an all Democrat Administration pushing a “lots more of the
same” domestic agenda. And, how can
they blame so much of present domestic policy on Republicans? Among things too little noticed is that, for
the first eight of the past fifty years, Democrats controlled all three of
our elective national branches. Besides Presidents Kennedy and Johnson, they
had majorities averaging about 100 Representatives in the House, plus four
years of filibuster-proof and four of only slightly less potent majorities in
the Senate. In that period the United
States pursued a vigorous foreign policy, including War in Vietnam, and
undertook a War on Poverty. By 1968
both of those wars were beginning to look very costly and of questionable
benefit. A strong anti-Vietnam element
divided the Democrats, and Johnson was influenced not to seek reelection. In a three-way election, Republican Nixon won the Presidency and
inherited Johnson’s initiatives. Unfortunately, he also inherited Johnson’s
heavily Democrat Congress. He allowed
much of the domestic policy to continue but attempted to transfer more of its
administration to the states. And, he
concentrated his efforts where the nation’s Chief Executive has primacy. He set out to make the South Vietnamese primarily responsible for their
own defense—under very loud predictions of failure from the anti-war
crowd. Although Nixon won reelection by what is still
the largest plurality of popular votes in this nation’s history, he did not
get relief from the bitterly anti-Nixon Congress or media. Soon he was struggling just to remain in
office, and resigned. Although he left
an agreement with the Communists that appeared to provide for the survival of
South Vietnam without the help of American ground forces, our Democrat
Congress soon ignored that, withdrawing the limited help that we had
promised. Our former allies were
slaughtered by the tens of thousands in Vietnam, and by millions in Cambodia. Vice President Ford did a credible job of
holding the place. Meanwhile however,
Democrats in Congress ran amuck, voting themselves larger roles in budgeting
and military affairs. For now at least, I’ll just note that the
Community Reinvestment Act, origin of much of our present fiscal problem,
became law during the Carter (heavily Democrat) Administration. Also, Presidents Reagan and G. H. W. Bush, both of whom won their
elections by popular majorities,
never enjoyed the “luxury” of working with a House of Representatives that
shared their partisan affiliation. |
|
FIFTY YEARS OF OUR NATIONAL
BUDGETS By Ivan W. Parkins In only five of the last fifty years have the
Congresses and Administrations in power produced budge surpluses. The first, for Fiscal 1969, was enacted in the
last part of Democrat President Lyndon Johnson’s Administration and carried
over into the Administration of Republican President Nixon. Both Houses of Congress were controlled by
Democrat majorities throughout that time period. All four of the other budget surpluses
occurred late in the Administration of Democrat President Clinton. That was after Newt Gingrich had won
control of the House and the Senate had turned Republican, Fiscal years 1998,
1999, 2000, and 2001. Fiscal 2001
extended until a few weeks after 9/11/01.
|
|
Truth?…. Justice?… The American Way?… Or How Disinformation in the
Biased Media Changes Public Perception By Ivan W. Parkins
June 24, 2008, 2pm EDT, I have just seen on the National Geographic
Channel (NGC) a particularly interesting, and especially timely, example of
disinformation. It was a carefully
selected account of events and proceedings leading to President Clinton’s
impeachment and acquittal. Little, if
anything included was false; much that was not included was true and more
significant. That
severe judgment is prompted mainly by my having recently discovered and read
David Schippers’ book, SELL OUT ,
published in 2000. former Chief
Investigative Counsel for the House Judiciary Committee, Schippers did appear
in the NGC documentary, but only very briefly. Originally, he had been reluctant to take
the investigative job. He was, after
all, a Democrat, a former head of the FBI’s Organized Crime and Racketeering
Unit, under Attorney General Robert Kennedy.
But, Committee Chairman Henry Hyde, an acquaintance, said that was why
he wanted Schippers. Of
course Schippers’ party links and the fact that he worked satisfactorily with
an “extreme right-winger” like Ken Starr did not fit well into a picture of
events engineered by a “vast right-wing conspiracy.” One
incident that Schippers relates in his book has Starr replying to Clinton
lawyer David Kendell’s charge that too much information was being leaked to
the media… “ Mr. Kendell, the only information that has never leaked was that
unavailable to the White House.” (page 151)
But, the great injustice was not the Lewinsky Case, most of which did
become public in lurid detail. More
grave, and clearly related to Clinton’s performance in office were matters
such as illegal citizenship grants and campaign gifts from the Chinese. About those, the White House was able to
stall with legal challenges and slow yields of documents until just before
the 1996 elections. Members of
Congress, many Republicans along with most Democrats, saw those issues as
threats to their reelection, and opposed the whole impeachment process.
Clinton’s problems would have been much greater if he had had to
respond in public to charges that he had demanded quick citizenship for
75,000 person with arrest records, 115,000 with unclassifiable fingerprints,
and 61,000 who had filed no fingerprints at all (page 45). But those and the questions about illegal
campaign contributions were left to Janet Reno and other Clinton
subordinates. Of
course, Clinton’s great victory over impeachment is now what most casual
observers remember. What Mr. Schippers
calls the “flat-out rigged ballgame” (page 7) have never been transformed by
our information system into a part of the public’s political memory. I
am reminded of recent diatribes by candidates about the need for change. Yes, we do need change, but I am troubled
by what changes. |
|
Partisan Advantage And Debate in the U.S. Senate By Ivan W. Parkins Under cloture, the Senate rule requiring
60 votes to close off debate, the Democrat Party has had the advantage. Under FDR, five Congresses, for 10 years,
the President had a majority of more than twenty Democratic votes, not always
loyal but partisan. Democrats held a similar advantage in the
Senate during Republican President Eisenhower’s last 2 years, and for 8
additional years under JFK and LBJ. Also, for 4 years that ended Republican
President Nixon’s tenure and included the first part of Democrat President
Carter’s term. Now Democrats must struggle to keep
partisans in line, and hold two independent votes in order to reach the magic
number of 60. Republican’s? No Republican President in
more than seventy-five years has had such an advantage! REVISED: I failed in the above piece to allow for the
change in the Senate's cloture rule, made in 1975 (after Nixon's
resignation). As a consequence my computations of Democrat advantages
prior to that Democrats 24 years,
Republicans 0. I.W. Parkins, 2/20/10 |
|
Naked Emperors By Ivan W. Parkins (reprised from 2008) Newt Gingrich’s
revolution, taking over the House of Representatives in the elections of
1994, can not be appreciated unless one first understands that for an
unprecedented time, 40 years or twenty Congresses, the Democrats had held
firm control of the House. They took
it from Eisenhower’s Republicans in 1954 by a margin of 29 votes, and 29
votes was the smallest margin of their control for 40 years. In seven Congresses the Democrats
controlled the House by 100 votes or more.
None of the Republican advantages in the six years (1995-2001)
following the Gingrich’s victory was by a margin as large as 29 votes. Scot
Faulkner’s book Naked Emperors details his effort as first-ever chief administrative officer
of the House to correct the management problems left by 40 years of Democrat
majorities. Faulkner had no
legislative authority; his job was to oversee
how 800 million dollars was spent and how 13,000 employees served the
needs of House Members. For starters,
a private accounting firm called in to do an audit quit, the records were
simply too few and poorly kept for auditing. The
reform met with strong resistance. Why
should any Member not be happy with a bank where his checks would be cashed
and no one had authority to demand that he make deposits? Recent media stories had forced release of
names of the 303 Members (both parties) who were taking advantage of
that. The largest such individual
indebtedness totaled nearly $600,000. Contracts
for services and supplies were often missing.
Apparently, they were let as political favors and evidence had been
destroyed. Thousands of lobbyists and
journalists had passes to enter the Capitol Building after the hours
available to mere citizens. Faulkner’s
book is very specific about persons, times, places, and other details. Obviously, he is presenting his report of
his work. Not so obviously, because
poorly publicized, that work attracted dozens of foreign officials, including
at least one Russian, anxious to learn of how to provide better
services to a legislative body. He and
his management team achieved at least one real First, The first reduction of
a House budget in the twentieth century. Some
of this makes dull reading. But, it is
worth at least a quick skim by any citizen serious about voting in the 2008
elections. Some of the Congresspersons
involved are still there, and they have more seniority and power. Should
we now trust the party that had 40 years of solid majorities
in the House prior to 1995, and now is in control again,
to oversee the management and budgets of our government’s other branches? I.W. Parkins |