Rob-pelgänger ?

Dear Senator Portman,

Thank you for recent e-mail newsletter detailing the energy and passion with which you are serving the citizens of Ohio.

I did receive two e-mails, however, and I was confused about which one came from the real Senator Portman. Can you clarify for me if you are the author of either the first or the second newslettter that I received ?

Extracts from the two different communications are here below.

So, which is it (A) or (B) or (all of the above) ??

(A) On Monday, Portman released the following statement on Tax Day and the introduction of new legislation to better protect taxpayer rights:

“Tax Day this year marks another year where American workers, families, and businesses have been saddled with a complicated, out-of-date tax code.  It serves as a reminder that one of the most pressing issues before Congress is pro-growth tax reform that simplifies our tax code, promotes job creation, and makes America more competitive.  What’s more, many Americans have lost trust in an IRS that has recently targeted conservative groups and failed to be good stewards of taxpayers’ money and our tax laws.     

“In December, I was pleased that President Obama signed into law three common-sense bills that I authored and introduced last tax day, but there is still more work to do.  That is why I am introducing new legislation today that gives taxpayers the ability to appeal to the IRS Office of Appeals and ensures that the IRS can’t farm out audits of private taxpayer information to outside law firms.” 

The Coalition for Effective & Efficient Tax Administration (CEETA), a group that comprises 14 trade associations and taxpayer groups, praised the bill, saying:

“As Americans across the country face their tax filing deadline today, they should take comfort in knowing that Senator Rob Portman once again introduced legislation that will protect their rights against IRS overreach and inappropriate examination practices. The Coalition for Effective & Efficient Tax Administration (CEETA) hails Sen.Portman’s efforts to protect taxpayer rights across a broad spectrum of aggressive IRS audit practices.”

(B) On Monday, Portman released the following statement on National Animal Crackers Day along with the introduction of new legislation to better protect Senators' right-to-not-work privileges :

"Animal Crackers Day this year marks another year where American taxpayers are saddled with unfounded expectations that their elected officials in Congress will execute their Constitutional duties. It serves as a reminder that one of the most pressing issues before the Senate is an anti-partisan operating reform that simplifies our Supreme Court nomination process, promotes completion of constitutionally-mandated responsibilities, and makes the Senate more efficient and accountable.  What’s more, many Americans have lost trust in a Senate that has recently resorted to partisan inactivity and failed to be good stewards of taxpayers’ money and our Constitutional mandates. 

“In March, I was disappointed that President Obama nominated a well-respected judge for appointment to the Supreme Court, consistent with his Article II, Section 2 responsibilities, after I had repeatedly exhorted to him not to do so, so there is still more resistance and stone-walling to do.  That is why I am doing nothing today that gives taxpayers the ability to believe that their elected officials are striving to reduce partisanship in Congress and ensures that the 114th Congress will continue the recent trends and will be the most partisan Congress in US history, and will not fulfill even their most fundamental of Constitutionally mandated responsibilities.” 

The Coalition for an Ineffective & Inefficient Congress (CIIC), a group that comprises 3 Republican Senators and several programmed robots, praised the inactivity, saying:

“As Americans across the country fulfill their expected job duties or face the consequences, they should take comfort in knowing that Senator Rob Portman once again stood down from his responsibilities. The CIIC hails Sen. Portman’s efforts to protect the rights of Senators in the face of a broad spectrum of aggressive disgruntled citizens.”

Please re-read Article II, Sec 2 of the Constitution, and recall the oath to which you pledged in January of this year, to assess whether your current position is based on good judgement and respectful of the responsibilities that you have to the citizens of Ohio ... and then please #doyourjob, or do the honorable thing : resign.

Sincerely,

Voltaire et jardins

Dear Senator Portman,

Thank you for your e-mail of 25-March, responding to my previous e-mails to you in which I expressed my significant concerns about the fact that you are not supporting a vote in the Senate on the President's nominee for the Supreme Court.

Your primary argument that you presented in your editorial to the Cincinnati Enquirer in March and also reinforced in your statement subsequent to your meeting with  Judge Garland earlier this week is based on ideas of partisanship determining when to take actions :

"I have concluded that the best thing for the country is to trust the American people to weigh in and to have the confirmation process take place in a less partisan atmosphere. "

So, how does this work, exactly ? Somehow, with the passage of time partisanship dissipates in the same mysterious fashion in which it arrived ? And then you will be willing to get back to work ?

I don't think so. And the data that exists indicates strongly that some magical disparition of partisanship is not going to happen just because a presidential election takes place. In fact, based on the data available from voteview.com, the partisanship that exists exists in the US Senate - not within the electorate and not based on presidential election choices. See the table below. It shows quite clearly the increase in partisanship that has been increasing for the last twenty years, and that that partisanship is most increasing on the Republican side of the ledger.

Solutions to problems to partisanship are not going to be found by diverting responsibility elsewhere. The responsibility to vote on the President's nominee for the US Supreme Court rests with the US Senate.

In my office, a lot of my colleagues have coffee mugs that say things like :

"World's Best Dad !" and "Best Mom Ever !"

I think everyone in the Senate deserves a coffee mug with the slogan :

"USA's Most Partisan Senate Ever !!!"

Congress Year |-1    <----- Senate Democrats ------------        0    ------------ Senate Republicans ---->      +1|
113 2013-2014 |                               *------------------|--------------------------*                      |
112 2011-2012 |                                 *----------------|-------------------------*                       |
111 2009-2010 |                                 *----------------|----------------------*                          |
110 2007-2008 |                                 *----------------|---------------------*                           |
109 2005-2006 |                                 *----------------|--------------------*                            |
108 2003-2004 |                                 *----------------|------------------*                              |
107 2001-2002 |                                 *----------------|-------------------*                             |
106 1999-2000 |                                 *----------------|------------------*                              |
105 1997-1998 |                                *-----------------|------------------*                              |
104 1995-1996 |                                 *----------------|-----------------*                               |
103 1993-1994 |                                  *---------------|----------------*                                |
102 1991-1992 |                                  *---------------|---------------*                                 |
101 1989-1990 |                                   *--------------|--------------*                                  |
100 1987-1988 |                                   *--------------|-------------*                                   |
99 1985-1986 |                                   *--------------|-------------*                                   |
98 1983-1984 |                                    *-------------|-------------*                                   |
97 1981-1982 |                                    *-------------|-------------*                                   |
96 1979-1980 |                                   *--------------|-----------*                                     |
95 1977-1978 |                                   *--------------|-----------*                                     |
94 1975-1976 |                                   *--------------|------------*                                    |
93 1973-1974 |                                  *---------------|------------*                                    |
92 1971-1972 |                                    *-------------|----------*                                      |
91 1969-1970 |                                    *-------------|-----------*                                     |
90 1967-1968 |                                   *--------------|-----------*                                     |
89 1965-1966 |                                    *-------------|-------------*                                   |
88 1963-1964 |                                    *-------------|------------*                                    |
87 1961-1962 |                                     *------------|------------*                                    |
86 1959-1960 |                                      *-----------|-----------*                                     |
85 1957-1958 |                                         *--------|-----------*                                     |
84 1955-1956 |                                          *-------|------------*                                    |
83 1953-1954 |                                             *----|-----------*                                     |
82 1951-1952 |                                              *---|----------*                                      |
81 1949-1950 |                                            *-----|---------*                                       |
80 1947-1948 |                                                *-|----------*                                      |
79 1945-1946 |                                               *--|----------*                                      |
78 1943-1944 |                                                 *|-----------*                                     |
77 1941-1942 |                                                *-|----------*                                      |
76 1939-1940 |                                                *-|----------*                                      |
75 1937-1938 |                                                *-|-----------*                                     |
74 1935-1936 |                                                *-|------------*                                    |
73 1933-1934 |                                               *--|--------------*                                  |
72 1931-1932 |                                            *-----|---------------*                                 |
71 1929-1930 |                                          *-------|-----------------*                               |
70 1927-1928 |                                         *--------|----------------*                                |
69 1925-1926 |                                        *---------|------------------*                              |
68 1923-1924 |                                       *----------|-------------------*                             |
67 1921-1922 |                                     *------------|--------------------*                            |
66 1919-1920 |                                    *-------------|-------------------*                             |
65 1917-1918 |                                    *-------------|------------------*                              |
64 1915-1916 |                                   *--------------|------------------*                              |
63 1913-1914 |                                   *--------------|----------------*                                |
62 1911-1912 |                                  *---------------|----------------*                                |
61 1909-1910 |                                 *----------------|-----------------*                               |
60 1907-1908 |                                *-----------------|-----------------*                               |
59 1905-1906 |                              *-------------------|----------------*                                |
58 1903-1904 |                               *------------------|----------------*                                |
57 1901-1902 |                              *-------------------|--------------*                                  |
56 1899-1900 |                            *---------------------|-------------*                                   |
55 1897-1898 |                           *----------------------|------------*                                    |
54 1895-1896 |                         *------------------------|---------*                                       |
53 1893-1894 |                       *--------------------------|---------*                                       |
52 1891-1892 |                      *---------------------------|---------*                                       |
51 1889-1890 |                    *-----------------------------|--------*                                        |
50 1887-1888 |                    *-----------------------------|-------*                                         |
49 1885-1886 |                   *------------------------------|-------*                                         |
48 1883-1884 |                   *------------------------------|-------*                                         |
47 1881-1882 |                   *------------------------------|--------*                                        |
46 1879-1880 |                   *------------------------------|--------*                                        |

If you really are committed to making progress in this partisanship environment, the steps to take are yours. And there is no time like the present.

Put your head down; get back to work; do the right and fine and simple thing.

"Il faut cultiver notre jardin" - Candide

Please re-read Article II, Sec 2 of the Constitution, and recall the oath to which you pledged in January of this year, to assess whether your current position is based on any factual data, correct logic, and good judgement ... and then please #doyourjob, or do the honorable thing : resign.

Sincerely,

eternal persistence of rising polarity

Dear Senator Portman,

Thank you for your e-mail of 25-March, responding to my previous e-mails to you in which I expressed my significant concerns about the fact that you are blocking a vote in the Senate on the President's nominee for the Supreme Court.

Your primary argument that you presented in your editorial to the Cincinnati Enquirer in March and also reinforced in your statement subsequent to your meeting with  Judge Garland earlier this month is based on ideas of partisanship determining when to take actions :

 "I have concluded that the best thing for the country is to trust the American people to weigh in and to have the confirmation process take place in a less partisan atmosphere. "

Well, when are we going to have a less partisan atmosphere ?

Let's look at some data, some actual real data that is well known and respected in your sphere : DW-NOMINATE measures of polarity in Congress, based on the methods developed by political scientists Keith T. Poole and Howard Rosenthal.

The data shows that subsequent to the last 16 presidential elections, the subsequent Congress and Senate sessions were MORE polarized in 14 of those 16 elections !! So, unless something changes to disrupt that pattern, the probability to arrive at a less partisan atmosphere is about 12% probability, vs. the more likely scenario (88%) that next years Senate will be even more partisan, more polarized than the current Senate.

So, if what you are trying to achieve is a confirmation process in a less partisan environment .... better act now, because the situation is only going to be worse next year.

The only two elections that are associated to a less-partisan-subsequent Senate are the congressional sessions after Richard Nixon's first election in 1968 and then again after the Jimmy Carter's election in 1976. Every other election since Dwight D Eisenhower's first election to the presidency in 1952 was followed by a Senate that was more polarized than the preceding session.

So, the position that you are currently taking (i.e., not voting on the President's nominee) is only contributing to increasing the polarization that you state that you are trying to avoid, and based on history, waiting until next year is not going to achieve what you have stated is your necessary condition for moving forward with your constitutional duty.

So, what are you waiting for ?

Here is a representation that shows the percentage change in polarization in the Senate in the session subsequent to a presidential election :

| <decrease --0---   increase in polarity   -------->   |
|---------------|----------------------x-----------------|Eisenhower
|---------------|---------------------x------------------|Eisenhower
|---------------|---------------------------x------------|Kennedy
|---------------|---------x------------------------------|Johnson
|------------x--|----------------------------------------|Nixon
|---------------|------------------------------------x---|Nixon
|----x----------|----------------------------------------|Carter
|---------------|---------x------------------------------|Reagan
|---------------|------------x---------------------------|Reagan
|---------------|------x---------------------------------|GHW Bush
|---------------|--------------x-------------------------|Clinton
|---------------|----------------------x-----------------|Clinton
|---------------|-----x----------------------------------|GW Bush
|---------------|----------------------x-----------------|GW Bush
|---------------|----------x-----------------------------|Obama
|---------------|-------------------x--------------------|Obama
|---------------|-----------------???--------------------| ?????

Please, get to work at the business of efficient government.

Please re-read Article II, Sec 2 of the Constitution, and recall the oath to which you pledged in January of this year, to assess whether your current position is based on any factual data, correct logic, and good judgement ... and then please #doyourjob, or do the honorable thing : resign.

Sincerely,

i dati di partigiani

Dear Senator Portman,

Thank you for your e-mail of 25-March, responding to my previous e-mails to you in which I expressed my significant concerns about the fact that you are not supporting a vote in the Senate on the President's nominee for the Supreme Court.

Your primary argument that you presented in your editorial to the Cincinnati Enquirer in March and also reinforced in your statement subsequent to your meeting with  Judge Garland earlier this week is based on ideas of partisanship determining when to take actions :

"I have concluded that the best thing for the country is to trust the American people to weigh in and to have the confirmation process take place in a less partisan atmosphere. "

Well, have you any data to indicate that we will be in a less partisan atmosphere next year ?
I guess the answer to that question is very likely : No.

Let's look at some data, some actual real data that is well known and respected in your sphere : DW-NOMINATE measures of polarity in Congress, based on the methods developed by political scientists Keith T. Poole and Howard Rosenthal. 

That data shows that the current Congress is the most polarized ever in the modern history of the United States.

So, congratulations to you and your colleagues for having achieved that.

But, just as interestingly, there is no pattern in that data that indicates that :

• years following presidential election years are likely to reduce the polarization, and
• there is no pattern in the data that remotely suggests that Supreme Court nominations were voted on in the Senate in years that are less polarized.

In fact, the position that you are currently taking (i.e., not voting on the President's nominee) is only contributing to increasing the polarization that you state that you are trying to avoid.

Here is a representation of the polarization data that substantiates what I have stated :

Congress Year  |     Increasing Partisanship -->  |
113 2013-2014 ----------------------------------------------o   <--- Max of all time !!
112 2011-2012 -------------------------------------------o
111 2009-2010 -----------------------------------------o
110 2007-2008 ----------------------------------------o
109 2005-2006 ---------------------------------------o
108 2003-2004 ------------------------------------o
107 2001-2002 -------------------------------------o
106 1999-2000 ------------------------------------o
105 1997-1998 -------------------------------------o
104 1995-1996 ----------------------------------o
103 1993-1994 ---------------------------------o
102 1991-1992 -------------------------------o
101 1989-1990 ------------------------------o
100 1987-1988 ------------------------------o
099 1985-1986 -----------------------------o
098 1983-1984 ----------------------------o
097 1981-1982 ----------------------------o
096 1979-1980 ---------------------------o
095 1977-1978 ---------------------------o
094 1975-1976 ----------------------------o
093 1973-1974 ----------------------------o
092 1971-1972 -------------------------o
091 1969-1970 --------------------------o
090 1967-1968 --------------------------o
089 1965-1966 ----------------------------o
088 1963-1964 ---------------------------o
087 1961-1962 --------------------------o
086 1959-1960 -----------------------o
085 1957-1958 ----------------------o
084 1955-1956 --------------------o
083 1953-1954 ----------------o
082 1951-1952 ---------------o
081 1949-1950 ----------------o
080 1947-1948 --------------o
079 1945-1946 --------------o
078 1943-1944 --------------o
077 1941-1942 -------------o
076 1939-1940 -------------o
075 1937-1938 --------------o
074 1935-1936 ---------------o
073 1933-1934 ------------------o
072 1931-1932 ----------------------o
071 1929-1930 --------------------------o
070 1927-1928 ---------------------------o
069 1925-1926 -----------------------------o
068 1923-1924 ------------------------------o
067 1921-1922 ----------------------------------o
066 1919-1920 ----------------------------------o
065 1917-1918 ---------------------------------o
064 1915-1916 ---------------------------------o
063 1913-1914 --------------------------------o
062 1911-1912 --------------------------------o
061 1909-1910 -----------------------------------o
060 1907-1908 -----------------------------------o
059 1905-1906 -------------------------------------o
058 1903-1904 ------------------------------------o
057 1901-1902 -----------------------------------o
056 1899-1900 ------------------------------------o
055 1897-1898 ------------------------------------o
054 1895-1896 -----------------------------------o
053 1893-1894 -------------------------------------o
052 1891-1892 --------------------------------------o
051 1889-1890 ---------------------------------------o
050 1887-1888 --------------------------------------o
049 1885-1886 ---------------------------------------o
048 1883-1884 ---------------------------------------o
047 1881-1882 ----------------------------------------o
046 1879-1880 ----------------------------------------o


Just get to work at the business of efficient government.

Please re-read Article II, Sec 2 of the Constitution, and recall the oath to which you pledged in January of this year, to assess whether your current position is based on any factual data, correct logic, and good judgement ... and then please #doyourjob, or do the honorable thing : resign.

Sincerely,

le chant des partisans

Dear Senator Portman,

Ohé ! partisans, ouvriers et paysans, c'est l'alarme !

Thank you for your e-mail of 25-March, responding to my previous e-mails to you, outlining some of my concerns with your current position of not supporting a vote in the Senate on the President's nominee for the Supreme Court.

The difficulty with your position is that it is obviously only motivated by political considerations so that when you try to defend your position in a manner that attempts to avoid that context, you put forth arguments that are, quite frankly, silly.

Let's have an adult conversation, based on the assumption that both Senators and citizens are intelligent, critical thinkers.

Let's take a look at one of your arguments that you presented in your editorial to the Cincinnati Enquirer in March and also reinforced in your statement following your meeting with  Judge Garland earlier this week :

"I have concluded that the best thing for the country is to trust the American people to weigh in and to have the confirmation process take place in a less partisan atmosphere. "

Really ? Exactly when is that going to happen ? And how ? Do you actually believe that somehow the passage of a few months is going to reduce the obstructionist partisan environment that has overtaken your beltway neighborhood ?

Wishful thinking for a future less partisan environment does not make it happen. To achieve a less partisan environment starts with taking actions that actually reduce the partisanship. It starts with you. Your action to stand on the weakest of silly partisan rationalism only promotes this partisan atmosphere that you pretend is a hindrance to reasonable decision-making.

Oh, and another thing : Where in the Constitution does it state that constitutionally-mandated senatorial responsibilities are to be set aside in times of partisan atmosphere ? I missed that section. Maybe you can find a constitutional scholar who can help us find that mysterious directive in the Constitution that you pledged to uphold.

Let's just get to work at the business of efficient government.

Please re-read Article II, Sec 2 of the Constitution, and recall the oath to which you pledged in January of this year, to assess whether your current position is based on correct logic and good judgement ... and then please #doyourjob, or do the honorable thing : resign.

Thank you for considering raising the conversation to an adult level.

Allons-y, les partisans !

Existential fallacy

Dear Senator Portman,

Thank you for your e-mail of 25-March, responding to my previous e-mails to you, outlining some of my concerns with your current position of not supporting a vote in the Senate on the President's nominee for the Supreme Court.

The difficulty with your position is that it is obviously only motivated by political considerations so that when you try to defend your position in a manner that attempts to avoid that context, you put forth arguments that are, quite frankly, silly, not factually correct, and ignore the fact that many of your constituents (including myself) are beneficiaries of a great education from the great state universities that we have in Ohio, that taught us to think critically.

Let's have an adult conversation, based on the assumption that both Senators and citizens are intelligent, critical thinkers.

Let's take a look at one of the arguments that you presented in your editorial to the Cincinnati Enquirer in March : Joe Biden.

Really ?

Here's is what my mother used to say to me when I was in grade school :

"If Joe Biden wants to jump off of a cliff, are you going to jump off the cliff with him ?"

Quoting someone else who is on the wrong side of the Constitution in a prior discussion does not validate your position for being on the wrong side of the Constitution in this situation.

Existential fallacies are not at the heart of good decision making processes for good government.

Let's just get to work at the business of efficient government.

Please re-read Article II, Sec 2 of the Constitution, and recall the oath to which you pledged in January of this year, to assess whether your current position is based on correct logic and good judgement ... and then please #doyourjob, or do the honorable thing and resign.

Thank you for considering raising the conversation to an adult level,

Galatians 7

Dear Senator Portman,

Thank you for your e-mail of 25-March, responding to my previous e-mails to you, outlining some of my concerns with your current position of not supporting a vote in the Senate on the President's nominee for the Supreme Court.

The difficulty with your position is that it is obviously only motivated by political considerations so that when you try to defend your position in a manner that attempts to avoid that context, you put forth arguments that are, quite frankly, silly, not factually correct, and ignore the fact that many of your constituents (including myself) are beneficiaries of a great education from the great state universities that we have in Ohio, that taught us to think critically.

Let's have an adult conversation, based on the assumption that both Senators and citizens are intelligent, critical thinkers.

Let's take a look at the first argument that you presented in your e-mail to me :

"It is common practice for the Senate to stop acting on lifetime appointments during the last year of a presidential term ..."

Let's side aside for the moment that the Constitution of the United States does not, in any context, contain language that diminishes the power or responsibilities of any office holder in the final year of their term.

Let's side aside for the moment that this seems to be a quite selective use of responsibility-avoidance by the Senate for just this one issue.

And then, let's look at some facts:

• there have been 125 Supreme Court Justice (replacement) appointments in the history of the United States
• 38 (30%) of those confirmations were made in the 1st year of the then-President's term
• 39 (31%) of those confirmations were made in the 2nd year of the then-President's term
• 30 (24%) of those confirmations were made in the 3rd year of the then-President's term
• 18 (14%) of those confirmations were made in the 4th year of the then-President's term

So, although there is a slight downtrend in the number of nominees and appointments made in the 4th year of presidential terms, the facts are that we have a long history of Supreme Court confirmations in the final year of the presidential mandate, and not a history that resembles, even to a small measure, your rationale of "common practice".

The problem with manipulating "facts" as though your listeners are not critical, informed citizens, and as though any manipulation that serves a political purpose is acceptable, is that that behavior pattern delivers presidential front-runner candidates like Donald Trump, for whom facts are inconsequential, malleable, and no basis for future action.

This is not a path that leads to effective governing.

It is appropriate to reflect on Galatians 7 at this moment :

"whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap."

Let's just get to work at the business of efficient government.

Please re-read Article II, Sec 2 of the Constitution, and recall the oath to which you pledged in January of this year, to assess whether your current position is sufficiently respectful to the intelligent, critically-thinking citizens of Ohio   ... and then please #doyourjob, or do the honorable thing and resign.

Thanks for your consideration,