If a Republican in Washington said the sky was gray a Democrat would say it was blue. If a Democrat said the clouds were white a Republican would say they were red.
Never agree with the opposition — the hell with bipartisanship for the betterment of America. “Preserve the party” at all costs is the modern battle cry in Washington, DC, as well as most state capitals around the nation.
David Platt, of Hollywood, FL, summarized it very well in his recent letter to The Miami Herald Reader’s Forum. Mr. Platt, while writing about the potential opening in the U.S. Supreme Court, quoted Sen. Jon Kyl, R-AZ, as saying that he, the senator, “isn’t ruling out a GOP filibuster,” and stated “that the Republicans are already saying ‘no’ without even knowing what they are saying ‘no’ to.”
Every conservative president has nominated a conservative to fill a Supreme Court vacancy. Every liberal president has nominated a liberal to fill a vacancy. The secret is to see how close you must come to the middle of the road in political ideology to obtain the votes needed to approve the nomination and still remain close to the political principles of the president.
Justice John Paul Stevens, the leading liberal on the U.S. Supreme Court, has announced that he intends to retire in late June when the court has completed its term. He hopes that the president will appoint his replacement, and the Senate will confirm the nomination in order that the court can continue its agenda in the fall with a full bench.
President Obama has stated that he knows he cannot replace Justice Stevens’ experience or wisdom. However, he will seek someone who has similar qualities: an independent mind, a record of excellence and integrity, a fierce dedication to the law and a keen understanding of how the law affects the daily lives of the American people.
Democrats want the process to begin before the fall elections where it is inevitable that Republicans will increase their numbers and be able to put up a bigger fight, apparently, according to Sen. Kyl, against whomever the president nominates. According to the senator, the use of a filibuster is very possible.
Unfortunately, this is the way of politics. Push to reduce the power of those in office so the “out-of-power” party can regain control. This works for the politician who is attempting to retain his or her job in Washington. Unfortunately, it doesn’t work for the benefit of the American citizen.
I don’t know the answer. However I can make one observation. Basically, we embarrassingly suck up to politicians. We treat them like kings and queens. We heap praise, upon praise on our elected officials until they begin to think that they are in fact superior to us.
Once they have reached this exalted level of thinking, they feel they are invincible and can do no wrong. Self-gratification over service to the community becomes their way of life. Some served so long in the Congress that they have forgotten what it is like on the outside.
Perhaps we could start the process of taking back control of our government by treating elected officials as mortals, just like you and me.
We appreciate your opinions on this column whether in agreement or disagreement. Please send your comments to (fax number) 305-662-6980 or email to < letters@communitynewspapers.com >.
The opinions expressed in this column are not necessarily those of this newspaper, its editors or publisher.
Commissioner Jordan’s proposal may prove embarrassing
Miami-Dade County Commissioner Barbara Jordan proposed that the county roll back the authority given to the county mayor three years ago in an obvious move to reduce the influence of the mayor.
A war has been brewing for the past several years as to who should have the ultimate power and authority to run the county. Jordan’s proposal, if approved by county voters, would transfer the day-to-day management of the county, back to the commission.
Today, the county manager is appointed by the mayor and his position ratified by the county commission. Jordan’s proposal would place the manager directly under the commission and return the mayor to a ceremonial position, cutting ribbons and welcoming visitors to Miami.
Jordan also brings back to the ballot the subject of a salary increase, a contentious subject that has been turned down by voters for at least the past 30 years. Currently, commissioners receive $6,000 a year salary, far too little for the responsibilities involved in the position.
County Commissioner Carlos Gimenez proposed limiting commissioners to no more than two consecutive four-year terms. Today, a commissioner can hold onto his or her position as long as they are reelected by the voters in their district.
Commissioner Audrey Edmonson proposed a three-term limit for commissioners, setting commissioner salaries, according to the Florida formula for counties with more than a million residents, at $92,097 a year.
Why did Jordan bring up the subject at this date? She must feel that with the public’s recent anger over the mayor’s now widely known salary increases for his key staffers — at the same time the county was formulating a salary reduction for all county employees in order to bring the county’s budget in line with reduced revenues — would translate into voter support of her proposed reduction of mayoral authority.
True, a substantial number of county voters, angered over the salary increases, joined an attempted recall of the mayor. The recall was unsuccessful. In my opinion it shows that the voters were unhappy with Mayor Alvarez, but not sufficiently angry to remove him from office.
The voters of Miami-Dade are unhappy with the mayor. But, the public is even angrier, more dissatisfied, with the actions of our county commissioners. Voters remember the commission’s going against all recommendations and moving the Urban Development Boundary (UDB) to please their financially supportive friends. Voters will not forget the commission’s constant efforts to remove citizen participation in government by refusing them the right to address the actions of the commission during meetings.
Jordan’s proposal goes against the concept of checks and balances. Who is watching out for the public if the commission is to make the rules by which our government operates and at the same time is responsible for its administration?
The public would turn down Jordan’s proposal, as presented, if it is placed on the ballot in August. I suggest that the vote would be around 70/30 in favor of the mayor retaining his power. The concept of a commission passing laws and a mayor implementing them and managing the government is basic to the separation of powers. Commissioner Jordan, don’t embarrass yourself and your fellow commissioners by pushing the issue as you propose. You want some leverage on the subject? Tie your proposal to a two-term limit and salary increase.
Then you may get the public’s vote. We appreciate your opinions on this column whether in agreement or disagreement.
Please send your comments to (fax number) 305-662-6980 or email to < letters@communitynewspapers.com >. The opinions expressed in this column are not necessarily those of this newspaper, its editors or publisher.