Caution Cut

   No surprise that the Federal Reserve moved to trim interest rates by a quarter point today, following earlier reports that the world economy is sluggish and could drag the U.S. down with it.
   To forestall that, the Fed moved to make business financing a bit easier, reducing its core interest rate to 2 percent from 2 1/4 percent.
   Last week, the Commerce Department noted that the economic growth rate fell to 2.1 percent in the second quarter, down from its 3.1 percent rate as the year began. Earlier, the International Monetary Fund reported that worldwide growth may be slowing.
   And despite continuing growth in America, which has had its longest upside stretch ever, the signals from around the world suggest that this could soon end. So to prevent that and to encourage continuing economic health, the Fed trimmed its core interest rate.
   Will it work? Watch how things go over the rest of the year.

Watch Out

   Politicians claim credit when an economy grows, and blame their predecessors when it stumbles.
   Reality check: A national economy has a life of its own, and while government spending may have some influence on economic health, it is not the primary influence.
   Indeed, when an economy is healthy and growing, a wise government steps back while the nation enjoys its economic balance and growth.
   Moreover, excess government spending in prosperous times can easily detract from the prosperity enjoyed by the other two major segments of a national economy -- consumer spending and private sector production.
   For centuries, governments avoided any involvement in economic cycles, following the notion of laissez faire, a French term meaning "leave things alone." But the Great Depression of the 1930s persuaded people that government can and should intervene to stimulate an economy back to health.
   The problem, of course, is in knowing when to back off. Government cannot, and should not, attempt to fully control an economy all the time.
   However, it can and should intervene occasionally to maintain economic balance. That's the goal of a nation's central bank -- in the U.S., that's the responsibility of the Federal Reserve, and it does so by manipulating interest rates. The plan is aided when need be by increases in government spending on things like road and highway construction and other infrastructure projects.
   Meanwhile, don't be surprised if the Fed acts to cut interest rates next week for the first time in a decade, despite widespread signs of a thriving economy.
   The kicker is that worldwide, there are signs that things are not what they could be in other nations, and the Fed may be acting to forestall a downturn from affecting the U.S.
   As for the likelihood that the Fed is following directions from the president, who has been talking big about the need to lower interest rates to help stimulate the economy even more than it has been for the past few years, it would be the first time the Fed has done that.
   The Fed has always cherished its independence, and the odds that the central bank is doing what the president wants are slim. It's a coincidence, at best.
   If not, that can be the start of a very serious problem.

Send Them Back

   With all the chanting about the four congresswomen who, the president says, should "go back to where they came from" -- though all are U.S. citizens and only one was not born here -- what would happen if that mandate were applied to everyone in Congress? 
   Result: Many members of the current Congress, both Senate and House -- would have to leave. Some 29 of these duly elected officials were not born in the U.S. Moreover, more than 12 percent of all the members of Congress are either immigrants themselves or are children of immigrants.
   The Constitution does not require that officials be "native born" and only the president must be "natural born." If candidates for presidents were required to be born here, that would have ruled out Ted Cruz (Canada), John McCain (Panama) and George Romney (Mexico). All Republicans. 
   For several days now, news media have been checking the status of elected members of Congress, updating their lists of who was born where. It's nothing new, since the lists are updated regularly, and I found at least one that listed the birthplaces of every member of Congress going back to the First Congress in 1789. 
   As for "sending back" all those who were not born here, does that include the president's wife? The current one, that is, who came here on a work visa and overstayed it, eventually getting some favorable treatment to stay and acquire citizenship.

My Way or the Highway

Mine is the Great Truth. Yours is only a myth.

   The rebirth of the chant, "Love America or leave it" is little more than a demand that everyone must agree with the chanter, and those who disagree must "go back to where you came from."
   The problem with that, of course, is that America was founded on disagreement, when the colonials decided that the iron-fisted ruling attempts by the British government at the time could no longer be tolerated.
   In fact, the first to come to America were those who disagreed with government policy at the time. This includes the Pilgrims, who wanted the freedom to worship as they chose, and not be forced to join the Established Church, especially if they wanted to take part in government.
   Currently, the demand that those who disagree with the president "go back to where you came from" is silly on its face, because many already are where they came from. They were born here.
   Meanwhile, the independent news media are increasingly critical of the tweets emanating from the Oval Office. But "critical," however, may not be the appropriate word. Straight reporting of the name-calling and insults, as well as the racial, ethnic and sexist slurs aimed at those who disagree with the president is enough.
   Such a practice fulfills the journalistic duty of reporting accurately what a government official says and does, and also carries forward the mission of informing readers and viewers so they can decide for themselves how to vote.
   And lest we forget, the Constitution specifies that a candidate for Congressional office must have reached the age of twenty-five years and been seven years a Citizen of the United States, and who when elected, be an inhabitant of the state in which she shall be chosen.
   That's for the House of Representatives. A Senate candidate must be at least thirty years of age, be a citizen for nine years, and must live in the state he or she wishes to serve.
   Clearly, there is no requirement that the candidate be born in the U.S. The Constitution does not require that a candidate for Congressional office be a native born citizen, nor does it require that she or he be a natural born citizen.
   For the president to say that the four women members of Congress who criticized him "go back" to where they came from defies the Constitution, since three of them already are where they came from. The fourth came here at a young age, acquired citizenship, and reached the minimum age mandated for members of the House of Representatives.
   In fact, nowhere in the Constitution does it specify that a government official be born here. Even for the presidency, the qualification is that a candidate be a "natural born citizen." That's not the same as "native born." A candidate for president could be born anywhere in the world, and if at least one parent is a U.S. citizen, then the child is by definition a "natural born citizen." Only a presidential candidate must be a "natural born citizen." The Constitution also requires that a presidential candidate be at thirty-five years of age, "and been fourteen years a resident within the United States."
   As for ranting "go back to where you came from," one wonders how many generations a family must live in this country before they become "true Americans." If it's more than two generations, then the current president himself does not meet that requirement, and he should "go back" to where he came from. In his case, that would be Germany, since that's where his grandparents lived before coming to America.
   But maybe he can't go back, because Germany may not want him.

A New Trail of Tears

   Who's in charge here? That's the question currently bedeviling the government, as the president tries to work around the Constitution and Supreme Court rulings.
   One answer is that, ultimately, the Supreme Court is, but only to the extent the president and all American citizens follow its rulings. Currently, the president maintains that only citizens should be counted in the upcoming Census, and the Supreme Court ruled that the government has not provided a good enough reason to do that. Moreover, the Constitution stipulates that Congress, not the president, is in charge of the Census.
   But this would not be the first time a president has ignored the Supreme Court, or even the second.
   In the 1830s, President Andrew Jackson refused to obey a Supreme Court ruling that deporting members of the Cherokee, Choctaw, Chickasaw and other tribes from their homelands in the Southeast to what was then called "Indian Territory" in the Oklahoma region was unconstitutional.
   One hundred years later, in the 1930s, President Franklin W. Roosevelt bypassed several Supreme Court rulings against his programs to help the nation recover from the Great Depression. FDR simply gave the programs different names, and continued.
   Was the president right in each instance? That's for scholars and historians to decide. Some believe that while FDR may have been constitutionally wrong, desperate times required desperate measures.
   Is the same true for President Jackson, that citizens of America needed new territory so much that forcing the native tribes out was essential?
   Besides, some would argue, the Cherokee and the other tribes were not American citizens. "America for the Americans" was the more recent attitude, and those who were not "true Americans" should leave.
   Also in the 19th Century, that attitude saw former slaves deported to Africa.
   Later, immigration quota systems were set up establishing how newcomers from which country -- with a preference for Northern European whites -- could come to America.
   We now see a replay of those attitudes.
   "There's no more room" for newcomers, they say, and "the door is closed."
   Now, America has a president who insists that only citizens be counted in the national Census.
   But the Constitution specifies that the Census, taken every ten years, count all residents. It makes no reference to citizenship or the right to vote.
   So does the president mean that only those eligible to vote be counted in the Census? If so, that means that children under 18 somehow don't count. They don't matter. They don't exist.
   One important result will be that families in low income areas will get no help from government antipoverty programs. So if there is no poverty, according to "official" Census figures, government aid programs can be eliminated, and taxes on the wealthy can be reduced.
   Meanwhile, those seeking refuge and opportunity in what used to be called "the land of the free" are arrested and confined to prison-like facilities without sufficient food, water, clothing or other necessities.
   The new trail of tears has led to more weeping.

The Wolf Who Came Back

                There is a spirit of place, a specialness about a city or a countryside that makes it different. That sense of specialness comes in large part from the people who live there, and with the blend of cultures they bring with them and add to the mix.

            But some part of the specialness comes from the place itself -- the hills, the trees, the air, the water, the weather, the animals ...  even those long gone. Their spirits remain.

            Wolf was driven from the Eastern Woodlands many decades ago, and the red squirrel was replaced by the European grey.

            But their spirits remain, and watch.

            My first novel, "The Wolf Who Came Back," is a post-apocalyptic story about a wolf who came back to the Eastern Woodlands, after the destructive foolishness of man nearly destroyed the world.

   It's available in ebook or paperback form via Kindle/Amazon.

Enjoy

Equal Play

   News item:  The U.S. women's soccer team won the World Cup in France, and was welcomed home with a parade in New York City. 
   Perspective: The women's national team has at least placed in the top three in every World Cup tournament since the competition began in 1991: First place four times, second place once, and third place three times.
   Comparison: How many times has the men's team won or even placed in the World Cup tourney?
   Answer: Never. The men's team competed in the tournament only once, and that was because as the host nation, the team was automatically entered. The team was eliminated early.
  Yet for years, the men's team traveled first class while the women's team sat in the coach section. That has changed, but the women still are paid far less than the men, even though they have won more often, including victories at the Olympic Games.
   Will this change? It should, but it won't happen tomorrow because the revenue stream won't support equal pay for even far better play.
   Answer: More fan support for women's soccer.
   Addendum: The women's team is not likely to be invited to the White House for a congratulatory meeting with the president. Why not? Because they have already made it clear they wouldn't go even if they were invited.

First Amendment Victory

Mock not, lest ye be mocked upon -- Pug Mahoney

   Freedom of speech includes the freedom to disagree.
   Notwithstanding the current president's fragile ego and his inability to tolerate criticism, he cannot ban disagreement and mockery from his Twitter site if he also uses it for official business.
   That's the ruling from a federal appeals court, upholding a challenge by those who were blocked from posting comments on the site because they severely criticized him.
   Moreover, the court said the president violated the Constitution in doing so.
   A three-judge panel for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, based in Washington, ruled unanimously that because the president uses Twitter for government business, he cannot exclude some from posting comments because he dislikes their views.

Holiday Musings

"You won't have a name when you ride the big airplane

And all they will call you will be deportees." 

-- Woody Guthrie

   Racism and bigotry are not new in America, despite the welcome posted on the Statue of Liberty in New York Harbor.

   "Send me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free. I lift my lamp beside the Golden Door."

   But now, says the president, the door is closed because "There's no more room."

   America was founded by refugees from discrimination, beginning with the Pilgrims who had to leave England and sought refuge in the Netherlands before sailing to America.

   Later, Irish Catholics moved to Maryland to escape bias and find the freedom to practice their faith.

   Soon enough, however, those who were here for a while sought ways to prevent newcomers from linking to freedom and opportunities.

   "Help wanted," said the ad. People of all backgrounds considered, "except no Irish."

   Another added "NINA" to the poster seeking workers, meaning: "No Irish Need Apply."

   That was in the 19th Century. In the 20th Century, a boatload of Jewish refugees from Germany was turned away from landing in New York, forcing them to return and face the Holocaust.

   And many of Italian descent today can remember seeking jobs but losing out because of company policies. As a result, workers changed their names.

   But for those of Asian or African heritages, that was not an option.

   Here's an irony to consider: Many of the patriotic songs shouted by those most biased against immigrants were written by newcomers, including "The Star-Spangled Banner," the march composed by John Philip Sousa, son of immigrants from Portugal.

   And "God Bless America," made famous by Kate Smith, was composed by Irving Berlin, a Jewish Immigrant from Russia.