THE NEW NORMAL

It is difficult to write about our new virus driven dystopian life as the reality changes by the hour.  The fear guided daily routine now revolves around staying at home with our families, watching our investments bleed away as the paper loses cascade downward and listening to the media talking heads describe our descent into a social and economic apocalypse. 

There is one undeniable fact.  If we cannot quickly solve the underlying health problem caused by the coronavirus, the prospects for solving the economic problem will spiral out of control.

Optimists are in short supply.  The world economy has shut down and entered a recession.  A depression mirroring the 1930s becomes more likely by the day. 

 As coronavirus testing increases, the news on disease spread gets worse. Millions of retail and food service jobs may not exist on the other side of the crisis. Fear of the unknown has many Americans expecting the most dismal of outcomes.  Toilet paper hording and the purchase of firearms reflect the mood of the country. 

Americans do not do well staying at home for extended periods.  I would not be surprised if the number of fatalities caused by domestic violence, alcohol/drug abuse, and suicide fostered by isolation, greatly exceed the number of coronavirus deaths.

In some respects, these new vicissitudes of life do not differ much from our medieval ancestors faced with the plague.  When there is no cure, human nature, not science, prevails. The wealthy decamp to their country homes to escape infection, not unlike the nobility of Florence and London in the 14^th century. The internet is rife with prayer chains and group Hail Marys asking for relief.  The plague doctors of yore and our modern medical staffs place their lives on the line to tend to the sick.  Social interaction comes to a halt, including funerals for the dead.

The role of government in addressing the pandemic will be a much discussed topic. Early indications are that countries that were able to stay ahead of the virus (Singapore, South Korea, Taiwan, Hong Kong) implemented massive testing to identify infected individuals and to quarantine these people in dedicated locations.  Others who were exposed to infected individuals were located by contact tracers, systematically tested and quarantined to prevent further spread.

Unfortunately, America found itself reacting to the outbreak rather than taking a proactive approach and listening to the experts. The New York Times reported on 3/19/20 that the White House was warned last year that it was not prepared to manage an infectious disease outbreak. A Health and Human Services simulation, called “Crimson Contagion” contained a draft report dated October 2019. It drove home just how underfunded, underprepared and uncoordinated the federal government would be for a life-or-death battle with a virus for which no treatment existed.

The initial American response to the pandemic was abysmal. Without explanation, many of the most qualified infectious disease experts in the country were terminated from critical positions in the White House, Homeland Security and the Defense Department when the Trump administration took office.  Moreover, the President was snail like and reactionary in accepting the gravity of the growing crisis.

Without massive testing and isolation at the onset of the pandemic, our government was forced to adopt the Italian response and to propose a countrywide “stay at home” solution.  The problem is that this approach does nothing to shut down the early spread of the disease, does not identify potential hot spots, and causes massive economic and social dislocation.

The Wall Street Journal in its 3/20/20 editorial began to question the efficacy of our national path to defeating the virus.  It concludes: “America urgently needs a pandemic strategy that is more economically and socially sustainable than the current national lock-down.” This would no doubt involve moving the country out of the present stay at home mode and back to work in the social distancing mode.  However, the hospitals need to be properly provisioned before this can happen.

The election will be a Trump versus Joe Biden Affair. It will be a one-issue campaign without political rallies or hand shaking.  If the President is able to recover from his gaffes and project any sense of leadership, with the pandemic ending with minimal long-term dislocations, he may win.  Conversely, if we are staying at home come autumn, he will be fortunate to carry one state. 

For those who are willing to look ahead, economic green shoots and positive results will eventually appear. First, the zombie companies surviving on cheap credit will be gone, replaced by well-capitalized enterprises.  Second, for those who had patience and did not sell into the teeth of the financial panic, retirement accounts will be replenished on the other side of a deep but hopefully brief recession.  Third, a valuable lesson has been learned on how not to prepare for a worldwide pandemic and we will be prepared for future outbreaks. Fourth, millennial couples, now forced to stay at home, will not escape their nesting instincts and will begin producing large numbers of coronial children.

Lastly, I am reminded of the excellent epic study, The Great Leveler, written by the historian, Walter Scheidel.  The premise was that over the arc of civilization, catastrophic events have done more to lessen inequality than anything else. While everyone suffers in times of economic collapse, the rich simply have more to lose and the large gap in equality becomes more manageable.  Let us hope that one of the byproducts of this disaster, hastened by actions taken by Congress, is a rebalancing of the economic scales in favor of the less fortunate in our society.

CATASTROPHIC EVENTS REQUIRE GLOBAL SOLUTIONS

Despite the rapid expansion of modern science and the new technologies of the information age, our nation remains subject to events that are unpredictable and catastrophic.  These events can destroy decades of economic, political and social advancement with little warning and devastating results.  They can challenge our democratic principles and send us into domestic tribal warfare as we begin to doubt who we are as a people.

 In recent years, such events have led to the rise of populist nationalism. Many in the American middle class have rightfully felt threatened by these unexpected events and betrayed by the solutions advanced by the political elites.  They have come to believe that retrenchment will offer them protection, limit the damage to their economic welfare and improve their social standing.

Paradoxically, turning outward toward international solutions would offer better solutions to these events for the vast majority of Americans than turning inward with an “America first” prospective.  This commentary will explore my thesis.

First consider the attacks of September 11, 2001.  The early days of the George W. Bush presidency were an optimistic time of unprecedented American global growth and influence both militarily and economically. No nation was in a position to challenge our hegemony.  Liberal democracy was on the rise. Protectionism was being replaced by free trade and transnational integrated systems. Then a group of extremists operating from one of the poorest countries in the world successfully hijacked four planes and everything changed.

According to a 2018 report from Brown University the total cost to the United States from 9/11 was at that time $5.93 trillion. The attack also led to the War on Terror, the largest government spending program in U.S. history. In 2020 we continue to feel the economic and emotional effects of the attack as we attempt to negotiate our way out of America’s longest war in Afghanistan.

The next event to challenge the middle class was the great recession of 2008.  Subprime mortgage loans and lack of financial regulation were directly responsible for this destructive economic disaster.   

According to the Department of Labor, roughly 8.7 million jobs (about 7%) were shed from February 2008 to February 2010, and real GDP contracted by 4.2% between Q4 2007 and Q2 2009, making the Great Recession the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression. Unable to obtain financing, major financial institutions either merged or declared bankruptcy.    

The country has rebounded in many ways from the Great Recession, but we are also more unequal, less vibrant, less productive, poorer, and sicker than it would have been had the crisis been less severe. Economists have found its aftermath remains most pronounced on the middle class where jobs were washed away, often by employers using the recession as an opportunity to fire workers and invest in alternatives.

 In recent weeks a third unpredictable event has caused further economic and social pain as we have experienced the worldwide outbreak of the coronavirus.  This epidemiological disaster has shut down large sectors of  the economy, sent us home to shelter in place and placed unprecedented strains on our medical system. For the third time in two decades, the middle class is under pressure from unemployment and loss of retirement savings.

In the face of these three outsized threats: terrorism against the Homeland, economic collapse caused by profit seeking financial institutions and now, a worldwide viral pandemic, it is difficult to blame Americans for supporting more isolation.

Unfortunately, this approach is short sighted and will further cripple the country in the long run. Building a wall at our Southern border will not make our country safer.  Fighting with our Allies over funding against terrorism and withdrawing from international organizations and treaties will not help prevent the next attack.  International cooperation offers the best prospects for homeland security.

On financial matters, it is impossible to ignore the integrated nature of the world economy.  It is a pipe dream to believe that long gone manufacturing and industrial production can be resurrected within our borders to provide domestic employment. Tariffs and trade wars injure middle class consumers and farmers.  Moreover, if Europe or China suffer economic reversals, the American economy will not escape the consequences of financial chaos.

Regarding the coronavirus the first response of our elected leaders to isolate the country from a growing pandemic did not work.  Infectious diseases do not honor national borders and by their very nature demand worldwide cooperation in order to limit their spread. Refusing to accept tests for the virus from the World Health Organization have place our response weeks behind the curve by making it impossible to target break-out areas.

My point in all of this is that the middle class has been harmed by a series of unlucky, “black swan” events. However, the way back is not to be found in attempting to turn America into a self-sufficient economy with closed borders.  When the coronavirus crisis is over, nuclear proliferation, the displacement of millions of people into refugee camps and climate change are but three other issues that require immediate United States involvement on an international scale.

 In the end open-mindedness on world events and leadership in International affairs will best serve the interests of the middle class and all future generations. I am not advocating an over the top globalist prospective that ignores the importance of love of country and the local communities that give our lives meaning. Nevertheless, to face the problems that threaten our way of life, we must also look outward and stay engaged.

In collaborating with other nations to save the world from terrorism, recession and pandemics, we will save America.

WASHINGTON COUNTY SHOULD RECONSIDER HOME RULE

In 1968 a new local government article to the Pennsylvania Constitution guaranteed the right of all Pennsylvania counties and municipalities to adopt home rule charters and exercise home rule powers. The constitutional change was hailed as a watershed in the history of local government in Pennsylvania.  The basic concept of home rule was straightforward. The power to act in municipal affairs was transferred from state law, as set forth by the General Assembly, to a local charter, adopted and amended by local voters.  

 Change is never easy and in fifty years, only six Pennsylvania counties have adopted home rule as their form of government. In 2002 Washington County voters approved a commission to adopt a proposed home rule charter. Unfortunately, the work went for naught when the referendum to approve the draft charter was defeated in a subsequent election. Many believe the effort was doomed to fail because Washington County was not ready for major revisions in government structure.  For a variety of reasons now is the time to revisit home rule in Washington County.

I can hear the doubters as I put pen to paper: “We tried that already and Washington County turned down home rule.” “This is sour grapes after Democrats lost county wide elections in Washington County.” “Give the new Commissioners a chance to govern.” “Home Rule is about raising taxes.”

Washington County was a much different place at the turn of the century when home rule was first considered. We have now evolved from a rural farming district into one of the most unique local areas in the country. An urban bedroom community in the north, with a large industrial park, close to an international airport. A county with a destination entertainment complex at the intersection of two interstate highways, with a casino, race track and discount shopping mall. It is a modern industrial county at the center of the Marcellus Shale fracking industry. Our southern border blends into Appalachia, an area where the dying coal industry and years of neglect is still marked by poverty.  Clearly, the cookie cutter model for county government, mandated by Harrisburg, does not fit Washington County’s changing profile.

My position is not based on the recent changes in party leadership of the commissioners’ or row offices.  Had the Democrats retained control of county government it would still be time to revisit home rule. 

 The argument that home rule is only about officials seeking to raise taxes is not true for Pennsylvania counties that have adopted this form of government. According to a study conducted by Penn State: “the residents of home rule counties enjoy a greater level of government services yet do not pay higher taxes than the residents of non-home rule counties.”  I have no doubt that our fiscally responsible county officials can be trusted with broad based home rule taxing authority to fashion creative solutions for our citizens.

What is to be gained by adopting home rule in Washington County? First, the county row offices could be eliminated and replaced by a non-elected, modern Department of Court Records.  The small patronage-driven offices for civil filings (Prothonotary), criminal filings (Clerk of Courts), real estate filings (Recorder of Deeds) and wills and estates (Register of Wills) could be combined into one court-based administrative operation.

The new Department of Court Records would be organized in accordance with best record keeping practices and would save money by eliminating overlapping expenditures in each of the existing operations.  The small elected row office fiefdoms are anything but efficient.  Appropriate audit controls would eliminate fiascoes like the recent unexplained missing large deposits in the Clerk of Court’s office.

Second, Washington County could replace the elected office of Coroner with an appointed Medical Examiner who would be an experienced pathologist. At a minimum, Medical Examiners have completed an anatomic pathology residency and a forensic pathology fellowship.

Third, a county home rule charter would provide the opportunity to replace the three-commissioner system authorized by state law with a single elected chief executive.  Under this model, adopted by Allegheny County and others, a county-wide counsel would also be elected to work with the executive in conducting county business.  The executive would be a single voice and the counsel would reflect the very different needs and priorities of Washington County’s diverse voters.

The Romans taught us in 60 BC that a three party triumvirate, similar to our commissioners, was no way to run a Republic.  There was little that Caesar, Pompey and Crassus could agree on and much finger pointing when things did not go according to plan.  The experiment degenerated into a dictatorship.

When our forefathers considered how to organize the federal executive branch in the Constitution, Alexander Hamilton carried the day in Federalist No.70 “The Executive Department Further Considered.”  He wrote: “Energy arises from the proceedings of a single person characterized by decision, activity, secrecy and dispatch, while safety arises from the unitary executive’s unconcealed accountability to the people.”  Washington County voters are entitled to vote for a single executive who alone is answerable for his/her actions.

 In addition to the above, home rule would make Washington County less dependent on state government in other respects. We would have greater control in addressing:  a) economic development needs; b) the demands on county government for local services; and c) such control would permit rapid response to address unique problems without waiting for Harrisburg to take action.

The Pennsylvania counties that have adopted home rule have taken local control of their futures.  It is time for Washington County to join them.

IN DEFENSE OF DEMOCRATIC SOCIALISM

The 2020 election promises to be a wild affair, with many Americans becoming more entrenched in their political bunkers than ever before.  The one political ideology that will receive the most abuse is the much-maligned concept of democratic socialism.  I will offer a brief defense.

 For many Americans, it does not matter that the term “socialism” is preceded by the word “democratic.” The mention of socialism conjures up visions of communism, totalitarian leaders and the end of individual liberties. The words of British Conservative writer, Roger Scruton provide a summary of the prevailing view: 

“The future of mankind, for the socialist, is simple: pull down the existing order, and allow the future to emerge. But it will not emerge, as we know. These philosophies of the “new world” are lies and delusions, products of a sentimentality which has veiled the facts of human nature.”

What conservatives and even traditional democrats fail to remember is that “pulling down the existing order and allowing the future to emerge”” was exactly the answer for taming the abuses of the industrial revolution.  Democratic socialism provided the roadmap for how a democratic society would respond to the abject poverty, overcrowding, and ill health in the expanding urban areas. It gave voice to a political culture that would make room for immigrants into the existing community. It expanded voting rights for Western Europe and America, without social unrest.  In the twentieth century communism and fascism succeeded only in those countries where democratic socialism with its liberal reforms was not permitted to flourish.

I would argue that the social challenges of the industrial revolution have returned under a different guise as we enter the information revolution.  It is no longer an adequate response to only provide an economic floor for the unfortunate and disabled in society. The new challenge is to determine what role the nation must undertake in order for all its citizens to pursue healthy, full and decent lives.  This is why progressives who favor democratic socialism are calling for universal health care, low cost higher education, income leveling by taxing the wealthy and policies to face climate change head on.

The greatest misconception concerning democratic socialism is its effects on the political life of democratic institutions. It is a myth, encouraged by conservative social media and outright false propaganda that political elites and societies that have adopted democratic socialism seek to limit individual liberty or other democratic principles.

 Opponents of democratic socialism point to Venezuela, Russia and China as examples of our fate if its policies are adopted in America.  An examination of each case leads to a different conclusion.  In truth,  Venezuela’s democracy collapsed decades ago, not because of  its reliance on democratic socialism but because of its slide into kleptocracy, where the country is governed by a loose confederation of criminal enterprises.

The Russian political elite has no affinity for democratic socialism and has taken control of all media to weaken public confidence in democratic elections and to increase support for its own brand of crony capitalism and authoritarianism. China’s brand of market capitalism has emboldened autocrats around the world to seek economic prosperity without opening the door to civil liberties or democratic political competition.

The best blueprint for democratic socialism lies in Scandinavia where the Nordic model employed by Sweden, Denmark, Norway and Finland has resulted in increased economic productivity, high social equality, social trust in democratic institutions and over the moon levels of personal happiness.

Consider the decaying levels of social trust in America.  In Scandinavia, as pointed out by David Brooks in a recent opinion article (NYT, 2/13/20 This Is How Scandinavia Got Great) the Nordic model reinvents basic education to confront social integration at an early age. The goal is to “create in the mind of the student a sense of a wider circle of belonging-from family to town to nation-and an eagerness to assume shared responsibility for the whole.” This approach places all of society on the same side as contrasted with American tribalism and narrow silo thinking of “me” over “us”.

 I am not suggesting that democratic socialism is the panacea for all of our social ills. Moreover, there are other well-constructed visions on the way forward for our complex democratic republic. But it is wrong to dismiss the principles of democratic socialism out of hand without considering its value in planning for our future.

Lastly, a word about where the real danger lies for liberal democracy. According to the National Endowment for Democracy, global democratization peaked in 2005.  Since then many regimes have turned undemocratic.  Liberal democracies have become illiberal.  Many new democracies have declined into what political scientists call “competitive autocracies”.  This trend has nothing to do with the principles of democratic socialism and everything to do with the election of populist political leaders who seek to divide voters and who encourage their followers to favor the individual in charge over democratic institutions.

A WINTER TRIP TO BROADWAY

A journey to New York City in late January is not for everyone. The biting wind howls through the skyscraper canyons and holiday splendor is no more. But the city holds a secret for those who venture forth into the cold.  Many Broadway performances have a special two for one ticket sale, hotel rates are the lowest of the year and winter restaurant week offers outstanding value for lunch and dinner.  Moreover, the Metropolitan Museum is always featuring new exhibits and the Winter Antique Show is in full swing at the Park Avenue Armory.

The last week in January, we spent four nights at the Paramount Hotel, just off Times Square. Our objective was to pack in as much theater as we could consume.

 First, Hadestown, voted best Broadway show of 2019. This lively musical tells a version of the ancient Greek myth of Orpheus and Eurydice, where Orpheus goes to the underworld to rescue his fiancée Eurydice. Intertwined is the myth of Persephone who became Queen of the Underworld after Hades abducted her from a flowering meadow to become his wife. The pandemonium that ensues is a sad tale and first rate entertainment.

Our second day was dedicated to six hours of Harry Potter and the Cursed Child, presented in two parts at a matinee and evening performance. This best play of 2018 picks up where the books and movies ended.  Harry Potter is an adult and his wayward son turns Hogwarts upside down.  The illusions are first rate and the story leaves one guessing until the end.

The next evening was the play, To Kill a Mockingbird as reinvented by Aaron Sorkin.  This adaptation narrows the story and focuses on the trial proceedings of Tom Robinson, falsely accused of raping a white woman.  The courtroom drama is riveting. While defense lawyer, Atticus Finch, now played by Ed Harris, appears to be the tolerant one in a sea of racism, he has his own issues with white privilege.  In my view, the African American housekeeper stole the show with her witticisms and reminders that black Americans in the Deep South were abused and degraded at every opportunity.

Earlier in the day we traveled by Uber to the Metropolitan Museum of Art to take in the well-publicized special exhibit on “Science and Splendor in the Courts of Europe”.  Between 1550 and 1750, nearly every royal family in Europe assembled vast collections of valuable and entertaining objects. Such lavish public spending and display of precious metals was considered an expression of power.  The objects on display reminded us that our history is often stranger and more awe inspiring than anything manufactured by Broadway.

Our last full day in New York began with a visit to the Winter Antique show on Park Avenue. The Winter Show is the leading art, antiques, and design fair in America, featuring 72 of the world’s top experts in the fine and decorative arts.  Held at the historic Park Avenue Armory, the fair highlights a dynamic mix of works dating from ancient times through the present day and maintains the highest standards of quality in the art market. Each object at the fair is vetted for authenticity, date, and condition by a committee of 150 experts from the United States and Europe.  We saw all the exhibits and bought nothing. (Any purchase would require a second mortgage on our home).

Our final Broadway entertainment was the Disney musical Aladdin.  Highly predictable but memorable for its stunning staging and musical score.  It was amazing to me that this show, which opened in March of 2014, could still pack the house six years later.

Our meals ran the gamut from cafeteria fare, to the ubiquitous pastrami sandwich at the Roxy Deli to fine dining at Becco, owned by Lidia  Bastianich whose operation in the Strip District recently closed.  We also had an outstanding lunch in the Met’s formal dining room and a late night meal at Sardis, the birthplace of the Tony Awards.

We had planned to see the held over Opera Porky and Bess at the Metropolitan Opera, but the ticket prices were over the moon. While stranded in Newark for our delayed flight home, we discovered that Cinemark Theaters were showing the Opera the following week in Robinson Township.  We quickly bought tickets to extend our theater experience a little while longer.

THE DANGER IS BEHIND THE CURTAIN

I see the impeachment trial of President Donald Trump similar to watching the movie Godfather III. The official entertainment is in the Senate chamber, much like the stage of the Sicilian opera house, surrounded by pomp and circumstance.  The outcome on the stage is not in doubt.  However, the important political action is up in the balcony with the cannolis and out on the street, as the enemies of Don Corleone are eliminated, out of sight and out of mind. Behind the Trump operatic curtain a similar well designed intrigue is under way. 

Trump has become the daily entertainment in American politics.  A classic American Opera.  l watch the Senate proceedings because they are first rate theater.  But going forward, my attention will be focused behind the curtain on Vice President, Mike Pence; Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo; and Attorney General, William Barr.

Why have the three most important individuals in the President’s administration hooked their political futures to this opera? After all, none of them were Trump supporters before the 2016 election.  None of them have  given a favorable review of Trump’s personal conduct as a private citizen or while in office.  In my opinion, none of them cares what happens to Trump after he leaves the White House or about his place in history. None of them will support a Trump national political dynasty featuring his children or son-in-law.

Those who believe the conduct of these three, along with countless others who remain invested in the Trump administration, is based on blind loyalty to the Republican tribe or based on the need for personal power and recognition are wrong.  Moreover, the motivation for the big three and  others within Trump world springs from an ideological vision well beyond loyalty to one man.

There is a concerted movement to turn President Trump’s highly flawed Presidency into a political juggernaut for decades to come.  Behind the curtain, the groundwork has been laid for a Christian conservative coalition, based on the legal, social and religious right wing fringes of both Catholicism and Protestant evangelical thought.  I am not proposing an outlandish conspiracy theory with no evidence.  I am simply following the path of bread crumbs left by the Vice President, Secretary of State and Attorney General.

First, Vice President Pence.  He has staked out his core beliefs on numerous occasions: Christian, conservative and Republican, in that order.  According to Richard Land, president of the Southern Evangelical Seminary: “I do not know anyone who is more consistent in bringing his evangelical Christian worldview to Public policy.”  There is a quiet confidence that if Trump blows up during his presidency or even if he survives for eight years, Pence will be ready to inherit the Trump political base and the White House. 

To a conservative evangelical, this means a glorious return to the Christian values upon which they believe America was founded. To a secular democrat, this sounds like descent into the dystopia of The Handmaid’s Tale as a theocrat assumes the presidency.

Second, consider Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo. Before entering politics, he spent much of his career running a struggling Wichita Kansas aviation company.  The billionaire, conservative Koch brothers have their headquarters in Wichita and supplied financing for Pompeo’s business interests, before urging him to enter politics.  According to the Center for Responsible Politics, from 2010 through 2016, Pompeo received more campaign funds from the Koch’s network than any other candidate in the country.

In 2016, Pompeo followed the Koch’s disdain for Trump, after the brothers announced they could support any primary candidate other than Trump.  After all, Trump seemed destined to lose the election and the Kochs had donated over 100 million to tea party and conservative candidates. Following the election Pompeo changed his allegiance to Trump after his close friend Mike Pence was able to recommend him to head the CIA.  When Rex Tillerson was dismissed as Secretary of State, Pompeo took his place, in large part because his views on Iran were aligned with the President.

Like Hillary Clinton, Pompeo is a Secretary of State deeply involved in politics.  He has higher political goals that are more in touch with the Koch money machine and Pence than with Trump.  In fact, he may be the most conservative, ideologically driven Secretary of State ever to serve.  His positions on gay rights, abortion, human rights and climate change are often expressed on the job and closely dovetail with the goals of a post Trump Christian Conservative Coalition.

The last path of breadcrumbs leads to the curious case of Attorney General, William Barr. A wealthy lawyer with little left to prove, many were surprised when he auditioned for the AG position by submitting an unsolicited legal memo to the Justice Department in June of 2018.  The letter elaborated on his long held position that a President’s Article II constitutional powers renders him essentially immune from accusations of obstruction of justice.

After replacing two weak candidates for Attorney General, Barr has become both ‘Sword and Shield” to the President. (See the New Yorker Profile by David Rohde, 1/20/20.) However, Barr’s interests in executive power and long standing concern about the role of religion in civic life have little to do with supporting Trump as an individual. In 2016, he gave over half a million dollars to Republican candidates and only $2,700.00 to the Trump campaign.  His vision is to build a strong foundation, post Trump that will support many decades of Christian, conservative governments in which the executive is given unrestrained Presidential power.

Not far from the White House, is the Catholic Information Center, run by the arch conservative Catholic group, Opus Dei.  Barr is a member and has served on the Center’s board.  He is also a long time member of the Federalist Society, with a mandate to shift the American Judiciary to the right.

This past October, Barr gave a speech at the Notre Dame Law School to make a case for ideological warfare in America.  In essence, he blamed the spread of “secularism and moral relativism” for the increase in every form of social pathology from the loss of family values, to mental illness, to drug use.  He believes that only a return to Christian religious precepts can save the country.

The conservative Christian ideologues in the Trump administration are thrilled when those of us who oppose Trump get caught up in the day- to- day Opera orchestrated by a pathological liar and self-serving narcissist. Concerned Americans would do better to look behind the curtain and discover the agenda that they have in mind for our political future.

IMPORTANT CHANGES FOR PENNSYLVANIA IN 2020

Two of the most important rights we have as Pennsylvania residents will undergo significant revisions in 2020. First, our right to withhold private information from the government will be altered by the federal REAL ID Law.  Beginning on October 1, 2020, Pennsylvanians will need a compliant driver’s license photo ID card or other form of federally acceptable identification (such as a passport) to board a domestic commercial flight or to enter a federal/military installation that requires ID. Second, seven major changes to how we vote in PA were signed into law by Governor Wolf on October 31, 2019.  This was a bipartisan piece of legislation that both Republicans and Democrats are calling the most important election law reforms in eighty years.

The Pennsylvania Real ID Law.  Pennsylvania was among the final states to adopt the federal REAL ID Law.  In 2005, Congress passed the law in response to the findings of the 9/11 Commission to limit the opportunity for terrorists to move about the country under aliases, using fake driver licenses.

 At first, many states, including Pennsylvania, were defiant over concerns about privacy. The REAL ID Law was seen as an internal passport to track U.S. citizens. Initially, Pennsylvania passed legislation prohibiting the Department of Transportation from participating in the program. However, as the federal deadline got closer and the implications for Pennsylvania domestic travelers became clearer, the Pennsylvania legislature reconsidered and in 2017 repealed the non-compliance law.  The compromise was that the new driver’s license/ID mandated by the REAL ID Law were made discretionary, depending upon the needs of each resident.

The federal government extended the compliance deadline to October 1, 2020, giving Pennsylvania more time to gear-up for the new license/IDs. The start-up costs were around 30 million with annual maintenance of the program estimated at upwards of 17 million.  Now each of us has a decision to make in the coming months.

My wife and I decided to bite the bullet and obtain the new REAL ID licenses. This involved an extra trip to the local PennDot office; the gathering together of documentation to prove both identity and residency; and a not insubstantial check in the amount of $60.50, for each of us.  The only good news was that time left on our old licenses was added onto the new four year REAL ID license.  Because we each had valid passports, we needed to provide less documentation than those without passports.

Our decision to go through with this inconvenience was twofold.  First, we did not want to be forced to carry our passports on domestic flights, already a major hassle when traveling overseas.  Second, we understand Murphy’s Law and the fact that someday, without warning, we would be required to present the ID in order to enter a federal facility that requires identification. (post offices, Social Security offices and other federal offices dispensing benefits do not require ID)

For Pennsylvania residents who occasionally travel domestically by air and who do not have passports, getting the REAL ID will be a necessity in order to board a plane.  For older residents who never travel by air, the inconvenience and expenses in obtaining the new ID might make little sense.  Unless, of course, Murphy’s Law strikes again and the unexpected domestic air travel becomes a necessity.

Pennsylvania Election Reform Bill.  For over a century, Pennsylvania voters were only able to vote by either physically going to a designated polling site or by formally requesting and being approved for an absentee ballot. Once a voter arrived at the polls there was always a lever available to vote for one party or the other, without considering the credentials of individual candidates.   This will all change for the May 2020 primary, all but guaranteeing a larger percentage of registered voters will actually vote and give some thought to their choices.

The new law provides for “no excuse mail in voting” permitting registered voters to vote by mail by requesting their mail-in ballot up to 50 days before each election. (The 50 day period is the longest vote by mail period in the country) The request may be made in person at the county election office, by calling the office, or online at votespa.com. 

The procedure is the same as the absentee process, but now no excuse to receive a mail-in ballot is required.  In addition, the new law provides for a “permanent mail-in and absentee ballot list” so that voters can request and receive ballots for all elections held in a given year. Voters can now submit mail-in and absentee ballots until 8pm on election day as opposed to the former time limit of 5pm the Friday before each election.

 The deadline to register to vote is extended to 15 days from the prior 30 days before the election.  This voter friendly deadline provides more time to register to vote than 24 other states.

Removing barriers to voting absentee allows more people to vote in the manner most convenient for them.  As more people learn about this option, a no-excuse absentee voting system is likely to reduce both polling site lines and the administrative burden on election officials, thereby decreasing the total cost of administering elections.

Perhaps the most controversial election reform relates to eliminating “straight-party voting”, the option of pushing one button to vote for all the candidates in a single party in general elections. Voters will now have to check off their choice for every contest in the general election, as opposed to simply voting for all Democrats or all Republicans.

Lastly, county commissioners are breathing a sigh of relief because the law authorizes the borrowing of $90 million by the state to reimburse counties for up to 60 percent of the cost of replacing their voting machines with voter-verifiable paper trail election systems.

I am personally excited about the election reforms. I can now obtain a paper ballot in advance and go about my business on Election Day without interrupting my schedule.  More importantly, a no excuse mail-in ballot will give me more time to study the issues and candidates that appear on the ballot, in the privacy of my home, before casting my vote.  After all, voting responsibly is as important as voting in the first place.