Op-Eds

Is Making Election Day a Federal Holiday a “Democratic Power Grab?” Yes, But …

Leave a comment

RGBStock.com Vote Pencil

Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) opposes a Democratic bill that would make election day a federal holiday. He calls it a Democratic “power grab.” Is he right?

The New York Times reports, without questioning the premise, that the bill is “intended to increase voter turnout.”

McConnell says that its real purpose is to allow federal employees, who skew 1) politically active and 2) Democratic, to get paid to spend Election Day working for their party instead of for the taxpayers.

Former Senator Barbara Boxer best summarized the Democratic response to McConnell’s claim: “What is Mitch afraid of? Answer: the people.”

They’re both right.

Boxer is spot-on in noting that Republicans do everything they can to make it difficult for people who probably won’t vote Republican to vote at all by opposing early voting, purging voter lists, closing registration offices in poor and/or black areas, etc.

But McConnell is right about the intent of this specific provision. Its purpose is to let the Democratic Party mobilize a new army of federal employees to staff its volunteer operations on Election Day.

How do I arrive at the conclusion about intent? By observing what the actual effect of the bill would be.

The people in America who have trouble voting don’t work for employers who just automatically say “oh, Congress declared it a holiday? Have it off, with pay!” Some of them are lucky to get Christmas or Thanksgiving off, and if they do it may or may not be paid.

They work at Walmart. They work at McDonald’s. They work in factories. They work in retail establishments that are open seven days a week and sometimes 24 hours a day. And many of them rely on their feet, on a bicycle, or on navigating government mass transit to get here and there.

The only effect on their lives of “Election Day as a federal holiday” is that some of those federal employees might wander into their working establishments for a snack.

If Democrats want to increase voter turnout among the working class, communities of color, etc., they need to be fighting to expand early voting periods, and perhaps to make “Election Day” a 48-hour period, from midnight Friday night to midnight Sunday night. They need to be fighting against voter list purges and voter registration office shutdowns.

I’m shocked — shocked! — that they’re just trying to tap taxpayer money for their own party’s political benefit instead.

Thomas L. Knapp (Twitter: @thomaslknapp) is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

PUBLICATION/CITATION HISTORY

Op-Eds

The Fired Next Time: A “Shutdown” Proposal

2 Comments

Photo by Zela from RGBStock

The longest partial “government shutdown” in US history ended on January 25. To get Leviathan’s gears turning at full speed again, President Donald Trump said uncle on funding for his pet border wall project in return for a three-week “return to normalcy.”

More interesting than the (quite possibly temporary) end of the “shutdown” is the direction things were taking right before the wall funding came tumbling down.

Transportation Security Administration employees called in sick en masse, creating long delays at major airports. IRS employees called back (without pay) to process tax returns followed suit.

At the other end of the spectrum, self-organizing volunteers, as well as employees/contractors sent by tourism-reliant businesses, turned out to clean toilets and so forth at national parks. The parks were “closed,” but visitors showed up anyway and enjoyed their time with nature.

A few days before the temporary truce, Association of Flight Attendants president Sara Nelson asked AFL-CIO leaders to call a general strike: A walkout by workers (especially union workers) across all industries, all over the country, in support of getting federal employees back on the job and back on regular paychecks.

Had the matter dragged on for a few more weeks, or even a few more days, Nelson’s call might have fallen on more supportive ears. And if the curtain goes up on “Shutdown Theater Part II: This Time It’s Personal” at the end of the three-week timeout, there’s a distinct possibility of something resembling just such a general strike.

But I’ve got a better idea. Instead of taking off work in support of furloughed federal employees, why not seize the jobs those employees are doing and free the employees, and the customers, from the competing manipulations of Donald Trump, Charles Schumer, and Nancy Pelosi?

The air transport sector is the most obvious place to start.

Airline and airport operators should get together during this three-week ceasefire and put together a plan to provide airport security, airplane safety inspection, and air traffic control whether the government is on the job or not.

Such a plan would work like this: The instant the federal government “shut down,” airport/airline representatives would inform Washington that flights will continue, and that they will continue on time and without undue passenger delays for security screening, period.

If TSA shuts down security screening points for lack of personnel, the airports will either re-open those lines with their own screeners (perhaps hired from the ranks of unpaid TSA employees), or simply wave passengers through.

If the FAA inspectors aren’t available to inspect planes, the airlines will use their own mechanics.

If federally employed air traffic controllers aren’t willing to work without pay, the airlines will hire and pay them.

But either way the flights happen, unless armed troops are sent in to stop them. And if  the airlines/airports take over those jobs, no backsies. Once they go private, they stay private. Washington, you’re FIRED.

Time for a gut check to see if politicians really want to keep playing the “shutdown” game.

Thomas L. Knapp (Twitter: @thomaslknapp) is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

PUBLICATION/CITATION HISTORY

Op-Eds

Venezuela: None of Our Business

4 Comments

Edgar Zambrano, Juan Guaido and Stalin Gonzalez

On January 23, the President of Venezuela’s National Assembly, Juan Guaido, was sworn in as “interim president.” In what was presumably a pre-coordinated move, Guaido’s administration was quickly recognized by the governments of the United States, Canada, and several countries in Latin America.

Guaido’s claim rests on a provision in Venezuela’s constitution which allows him to assume the office should it become vacant. The Assembly says that it is.  Nicolas Maduro, elected to a second term as president in 2018, begs to differ. A number of countries, including Russia and China, continue to recognize his government.

All of which seems either remarkably simple or incredibly complicated, depending on who you ask and which side they’re on.  From an American who’s on neither side, like me, it comes down to two simple facts:

First, Venezuela’s government does not and never has represented any kind of military threat to the United States. It has never invaded the United States. It has never attacked the United States. It has never threatened to do either, nor does it seem to be well-equipped to do so if it desired to.

Secondly, Venezuela is not and never has been either a state or territory of the United States. It achieved independence from Spain in 1821 as part of the Republic of Gran Colombia, and became a completely independent nation in 1830.

Taken together, these two facts lead inexorably to one conclusion:

How Venezuelans choose to conduct their political affairs never has been and is not now the business of the US government. One need support neither Maduro nor Guaido to reach this conclusion. It’s simply not up to Donald Trump, Mike Pence, Marco Rubio, or any other American politician to run Venezuela.

Unfortunately, US administrations since the 1950s  seem to have lost or mis-filed the above memo. Usually in the name of anti-communism, though in reality mostly for the benefit of American oil companies, the US has continuously intervened to ensure “friendly” regimes in Caracas.

That began to backfire in 1998 with the election of Maduro’s predecessor and mentor, Hugo Chavez. Chavez cultivated closer relations with communist (Cuba and China) and former communist (Russia) countries, while implementing socialist economic programs.

Two decades later, Venezuela is an economic and humanitarian wreck. American politicians blame Chavez/Maduro and socialism for the country’s decline. Maduro and his supporters blame US sanctions and secret support for the opposition.

Both sides are right, but on only one of those claims is the US rightfully positioned to act. It should lift all economic sanctions on Venezuela, withdraw diplomatic recognition of any claimant, close its embassy, and leave a note on the door: “Work this out yourselves; when you have, let us know if you’d like to resume relations.”

Thomas L. Knapp (Twitter: @thomaslknapp) is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

PUBLICATION/CITATION HISTORY