Miscellaneous

So if land transfers, regulatory reform, and tax reform fit under the umbrella of a BBA, what doesn’t, and why?  Where can the Amendment Convention not go?  If it were a rogue Convention, there would be no answer to that question.  By definition, a rogue Convention would observe no limits.  So the question is really where should a BBA Convention not go.

The process of Reconciliation in the United States Senate provides a guideline.  Created by the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, Reconciliation allows the Senate to pass budgetary items with just 51 votes.  So what is a budgetary item?  The Bush tax cuts were.  The Clinton welfare reform was.  Opening ANWR was.  But when Clinton tried to pass his health care plan, HillaryCare, using Reconciliation he was blocked by the Byrd Rule (2 U.S.C. Sec. 644).  The Byrd Rule says, among other things, that if a provision in the budget has only an extraneous effect on the budget, it should not be allowed.  So, who decides if an item is extraneous to the budget?  The Senate Parliamentarian, who can only be overturned by a 3/5 vote.

That’s the job I want, at the Amendment Convention:  Parliamentarian.  I’m a lawyer, and I know the Constitution, and I served eight years in the Alaska Legislature.  I’m qualified.  When I meet with Senator Faber in Savannah on Friday I’m going to ask him to be Co-Chair of, and to preside at, the Seattle Summit.  I’m also going to ask him to appoint me, on an interim basis, as the parliamentarian for the Summit.  That way I get to justify my participation in what should otherwise be for legislators only.

Richmond, Virginia should be the site of the Amendment Convention, in honor of George Mason, the Father of the Bill of Rights, and a proud Virginian.  Mason also gets a lot of the credit for Article V.  In many ways the Constitution was created by Virginians, Washington and Madison most prominent among them.  I’ve never been to the Capitol, but I imagine it’s beautiful.   So I emailed the Task Force and suggested we contact the Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, Goodlatte of Virginia (what a coincidence!) and tell him we unanimously urge him to recommend to the House of Representatives that Richmond be chosen as the site.

We may need Virginia next year.  Again, what a coincidence!  So we’ll make sure we tell all those Virginia legislators that if they pass our bill, and the first Amendment Convention in 229 years is going to be held, it will be in their Chambers.  I think they’ll like that.

I’ve been thinking about getting 38 states to ratify, and two of the toughest ones will be Maine and Minnesota.  There are a lot of tree huggers in Maine, and it’s barely purple.  So what can we give Maine?  Lobsters: control of their fisheries, free from the federal government.  All small fishermen (which is where the votes are) hate the federal government and its fisheries agents.  They’re like revenuers are to moonshiners  — the enemy.  So we abolish the National Marine Fisheries Service and hand its functions over to the regional fish councils already in existence.   The fishermen and lobstermen of Maine would eat that up.  When you eliminate a federal agency, you’re cutting the deficit, so it fits.  The only people this would piss off would be the environmentalists, and we lost them a while back.  So you get Maine.

This is politics.  Now, what does Minnesota want?  Something that, if they get it, it cuts the deficit.  Somewhere in that state there a group of people that are pissed off at the federal government.  We need to find out who they are, and what they’re pissed off about, and find a way to eliminate the agency that they’re pissed off at.

Article V, properly applied, can be a lot of fun.

Thanks to Rep. Phil King, who we’ve never heard of, The Texas House passed an updated version of the BBA on Friday on a 100-40 vote.  It turns out King is also the incoming Chair of ALEC, which is sweet.  ALEC’s always been big on the BBA, but now we may really see some action.

We didn’t need Texas.  We got it around 40 years ago.  The Convention of States (CoS) really did need Texas.  They put on a full court press, with 20,000 volunteers, a big citizen’s lobbying effort, testimony from over 40 witnesses, and firm commitments from the House leadership.  They did everything right.  They won’t even get a floor vote.

We sent Mike Stern down to testify, period.

CoS is dead.  They’ve spent millions of dollars, and, in some states, ran excellent campaigns.  They’ll finish 2015 where they started, with three states.  It’s over.

Our legal counsel, Dave Guldenschuh, is a fugitive from CoS, and has stories to tell about dysfunction at the highest levels.  But their real problem was quite simple.  They had bad dog food.  The dogs wouldn’t eat it.

They made a fundamental political miscalculation.  Lawyer and radio host Mark Levin, author of “The Liberty Amendments”, is partly to blame.  He encouraged them to go whole hog, try to get a wide open convention which would alter the basic structure of the federal system.  It was a hell of an idea.  I supported it, and testified in favor of it before the Montana Senate Judiciary Committee.  But it was a bridge too far.  It scared people.  Article V is kind of scary to begin with.  To emphasize the radical nature of possible change, as CoS did, makes it just too scary.  When it comes to the Constitution, the American people are conservative.

Plus, they had term limits.  A deal killer, for a lot of legislators.  They don’t believe in term limits.  I’m beginning to see why.  In one sense, term limits are a way to punish the people in office right now.  Rather than throw them out, instead, let’s take their power away.

Like the power to tax.  If we add tax reform to land transfers and regulatory reform, and make the Reagan Initiative three legged, will it cost us votes, or get us votes?  I don’t know.  And I don’t need to know, not yet.  I’m guessing the Amendment Convention will convene in August of 2016, sixteen months from now.  Nobody needs to make a decision until then.  When the delegates, Republican and Democrat, from all 50 states, start their deliberations they will, collectively, make a political calculation, to wit:  How much can we get away with?  What will the purple states ratify?

That will depend, in part, on the public’s perception of the entire Amendment process.  Was it done in an orderly, calm, and reasonable way?  Were all sides listened to, and all view points seriously considered?  Was their bipartisanship?

The last question may be the big one.  If we can’t get some Democrats on board this will be tough to ratify.  I know some reasonable Democrats in Alaska, like former Speaker Sam Cotten, a Navy vet.  He’s now the Commissioner of Fish and Game.  In Alaska, that’s an important job.  And Senator Lyman Hoffman of Bethel, an Eskimo, who I served with.  I’ll talk to them, down the road.

Sam did me a favor 30 years ago.  It was in the middle of the subsistence fight.  The Natives, backed by Ted Stevens, wanted special rights in the Constitution.  It was a very hot fight, and I was leading the opposition.  Sam pulled me aside one day and told me some of the Native leaders thought I was prejudiced against them.  This was serious.  My Uncle Fritz instilled in me, in no uncertain terms, that the Native people of Alaska were owed great respect, and I feel that way very strongly.  So I pulled in my horns and made sure all the Natives knew I had nothing but respect for them.

So I owe Sam one.

You could help balance the budget with tax reform, so if the Amendment Convention chose to do so, it would be within the scope of the call.

The Reagan Initiative  — a supply side BBA — was created out of necessity.  We won’t get to 34 without it.  I believe the two additional elements, land transfers and regulatory reform, will be opposed primarily by the environmentalists.  If you’re going to do land transfers you may as well do regulatory reform  — you’re pissing off the same people,, so what the hell?  Go for broke.

Adding tax reform to the Convention agenda is a different story, which is why I’ve opposed it.  There are a whole lot of people who would be afraid of true tax reform, primarily the entire beltway establishment.  These are people who could go along with regulatory reform and land transfers, but would balk at tax reform.  That’s bad politics.  You want to keep your opposition to a minimum, and build support for your side.  It’s arithmetic.  If we added tax reform, would we get additional support?  Would that support offset the increase in the opposition?

It would fire up a whole lot of people.  The enthusiasm for abolishing the IRS is real.  Land transfers and regulatory reform don’t get people jacked up like repealing the tax code.  That’s exciting.

The people who really know the answer to these questions are the Presidents of the Maine and Washington Senates, Michael Thibodeau and Pam Roach, and Minnesota Speaker Kurt Daudt.  We’ll need all three states to get to 38 for ratification.  If they tell us we can add tax reform, we should give it some serious thought.

The kind of tax reform we’d propose is, to me, almost a completely political question.  How much can we get away with?  How flat can we go?

Here’s an idea.  In the tax reform section of the BBA, put in a provision that strips Congress of the power to impose new taxes for ten years.  Any new taxes, of any kind.  If there need to be tax increases in this ten year period, require the preapproval of a majority of the state legislatures.  Allow Congress to petition the states for permission to impose a new tax.  If they get 26 Resolutions giving approval, they’ve got a green light.  Otherwise, no new taxes.  Period.  Zero, zilch, nada.

I’ll bet that would appeal to people.  I know damn well it would appeal to state legislators.  The more I think about it, the more I like it.

Maybe it’s time to go bold.  Maybe this is a truly special political moment, where amazing things are possible.  I’ve talked a lot about running with the tide.

What if it’s a rip tide?

Kurt Daudt, Speaker of the Minnesota House, will be one.  Each state will be different, but I suspect the norm will be for both presiding officers to go, along with a third delegate of their choosing.  I think the Convention will be next summer, or early fall at the latest.  Congress will decide.  I think Boehner and McConnell will want a successful convention, so they’ll schedule it accordingly.  Not many states have full time legislatures, like Wisconsin, Michigan, Ohio, New York, California.  In those states the presiding officers may not be delegates, since their legislatures will be in session during the Convention.

So the meeting in Seattle will be, for the most part, a meeting of the delegates to the Amendment Convention.  Maybe not a majority of the delegates, but pretty close.  Some of them have thought about this.  A lot of them, like Kurt Daudt, haven’t.  It’s fun to think about.  You get to, with your colleagues, propose an Amendment to the Constitution.  You speak for your state, and represent its interests, just as the delegates in Philadelphia did.  This sort of thing hasn’t been done in this country in 229 years.  But you’re not starting from scratch, the way they were. You’re proposing one amendment, to balance the budget, and that’s all you’re doing.  You’re working within the framework set up by the Framers, as they intended us to do, when the time came.  And the time has come.  We’re doing what Mason and Madison would have expected us to do.  We’re not radicals or revolutionaries.  We’re restorationists.

I think these men and women will enjoy it.  They’re pretty smart, for the most part, and will feel up to the challenge.  Who wouldn’t want to be a part of history?

The thing is, I know these people.  I was one of them, and in a way I still am.  They’re good people.  A few of them are a little full of themselves, but not that many.  And they’re patriotic as hell.  Most state legislators in this country don’t do it for a living.  It’s a part time job, and a sacrifice.  You give up time with your family, and time on your real job.  As soon as I left the legislature my wife and I started making real money in my law practice.  We struggled when I was in it.

So here’s the thing.  Let’s say you’re Kurt Daudt.  You want to be a delegate to the first Amendment Convention in our history.  You want this Convention to happen.  So you ram it through the House, and raise hell when the Democrats who run the Minnesota Senate won’t take it up.  For us, this is good.  We’ll probably never get Minnesota, but this issue could help us take back the Senate next year.  Come 2017 Minnesota could be a target state in the drive for a second Amendment Convention.

To succeed in politics you have to appeal to people’s self-interest.  It’s in Kurt Daudt’s self-interest to have this Convention.  There’s something in it for him.

And, of course, not just Kurt Daudt.  Phil Nicholas, and Bart Davis, and even Andy Biggs, if he gave it some thought, will want to be in on it.  You can spend a lifetime in politics, as I have, and get one chance to participate in something this big.  Big, and vital to the future of the country we all love.

So, yes, the Seattle Summit should be a success.  Just getting these delegates-to-be in the same room will make it one.  Whatever we accomplish beyond that will be gravy.

David Cuddy knows what it takes to make a movie.  He’s done it.  So does John Aglialoro.  He bankrolled the Ayn Rand movies.  Between the two of them they should be able to figure out how to make a documentary, or a reality type TV series.  Something.  If he just agrees to record, on film, the Seattle Summit I’ll be happy.  I’ll find out tonight.

He’s President of the Indiana Senate and has been a leader in the Article V BBA movement.  Biddulph had a good discussion today with him and with Ohio Senate President Keith Faber.  Long and Faber are apparently buddies.  This is good.  If Faber is to Co-Chair the Seattle Summit, the only person who might legitimately feel passed over will be Long.  You can make the case that he “deserves” it as much as Faber does.

Biddulph has also set up a Friday lunch with Faber, and is setting up a dinner for a dozen or so legislative leaders Friday evening.  Thank you, David Biddulph.  When I get to know Faber a little bit I’ll propose that he Co-Chair the Summit.  David thinks he’ll agree.  The other Co-Chair should be a woman, preferably a Democrat from the West.  So what does Long get?

When the actual organization of the Convention takes place there will be a number of slots open.  Maybe Long should be the Floor, or Majority, Leader.  I think there will be three plum committees which people are going to want to chair.  One on the traditional BBA, one on land transfers to the states, and one on regulatory reform.  Maybe Long has a special interest in one of them.  There will be other committees as well, of course.  Credentials, Rules, and Style.  The Style Committee will be in charge of drafting the final version of the Amendment, melding the work of the three substantive committees.

Maybe Long will be content to be one of the core group that Faber will rely on at the Convention.  I’m speculating here, but to get to 26 we may need to offer some of these choice assignments to different legislative leaders from around the country.  We really want the active involvement of incoming NCSL President Curt Bramble.  Maybe Curt would like to be Floor Leader.  With the Reagan Initiative I’m confident we’ll get Wyoming.  But if Wyoming Senate President Phil Nicholas knew he was going to chair the committee on land transfers, we could be sure of Wyoming.  Maybe West Virginia Speaker Armstead wants to chair Regulatory Reform.  Why not?  We’ve got to get West Virginia, or else.

I wonder how much people like Faber and Long have actually thought about how the Convention would actually work.  I’ll find out in Savannah.

Saw my old friend Bill Choquette today.  I met Bill when we were studying for the bar in the summer of ’74.  Bill taught me about fishing and hunting moose, and we became big buddies.  His father and his three brothers, all Alaska bad asses, made me an honorary Choquette.  The four brothers and I met at Swiftwater Bill’s one night, and brother Dave snuck in a bottle so he would have to buy only one drink.  He pulls his bottle out to refresh his drink, and I say, “Dave, you don’t have to do that.  I own this place, and drinks are on me.”  I always had fun with the Choquettes.

I promised Bill I’d be back with my sons and granddaughter in three years.  It’s a promise I intend to keep.