The Forgetful Five
Paul Ruscher, Eugene, Oregon, 20 January 2017 updated 9 January 2021
Updates 30 September 2017--its down to 1½ as Price is out, and Sessions' impact on Russia probe is crippled.
Updates 9 January 2021 - what the heck happened to Trump's first Cabinet?
It's Inauguration Day!
As a responsible scientist and science educator, and
politically interested and independent person (I register for a political
party only when required to participate in my state's primary system, and have
not done so uniformly), I am always fascinated by the intersection between
public acceptance and understanding of science, and government policy invocation
practices. The United States Senate holds
a reputation and history, and Constitutional expectation, that it serves as the
deliberative conscience of the people, having the authority to advise and consent on
the powers of the Executive Branch. I am
not convinced that, under the leadership of Senator McConnell, it will carry
out this important function in a meaningful way. Nothing to do about that, however.
The US Senate is in the process of carrying out what are
appearing to be pro-forma confirmation hearings on a number of candidates for Executive
office who have not completed ethics oversight, and for individuals who are, on
their face, wholly unqualified to hold office for their selected
department. As examples, I present five
cases in which any objective determination of fitness for duty would fail. Four of my five picks have significant
tie-ins to education or science policy, so I feel fully qualified to comment
here. The other ties in to basic social
justice principles, and everyone should have an opportunity to reflect on this.
I also briefly mention some of his picks for which I am mildly and surprisingly
supportive, from what I can tell about their records.
1)
Betsy DeVos, Secretary of Education resigned January 7,2021 after the day the Capitol was breached by insurrection fomented by Trump
Shame on Senator Lamar Alexander
for scheduling a single round of 5-minute question times for Senators, and
prior to full ethical oversight was completed for this candidate. Ms. DeVos is on the record as an ally of
public funding for religious and for-profit schools to replace public
education, and without necessary financial or educational experience oversight
required of the public schools they are designed to replace or improve
over. And with no evidence that
collectively these schools improve educational access or outcomes for students,
and plentiful evidence that they actually provide less service and poorer
outcomes, an advocate like this for our federal public educational system has
me baffled. The public's right to know
her record is now squarely in the hands of the 4th Estate (the press),
which unfortunately has been so maligned that many GOP supporters of Mr.
Trump's nominees will never get to read the truthful examination of her record,
because they are so blind to it.
I do not think that we must
necessarily have an advocate for teacher's unions, or Common Core, or NGSS in
place to lead. But we must have an
individual who actually knows something about education from a non-political
perspective, and one who did not receive her training through advocacy of
making more money off the government to run shoddy schools that line deep
pockets for her millionaire friends. My
hope here is that Republican Senators like Lisa Murkowski, Susan Collins, and
Lindsay Graham will join with the Democrats and Independents to vote
"no" on her nomination and restore some civility to this process, and
demand a fair hearing for the next candidate that President-Elect Trump
nominates.
As Attorney General for the state
of Oklahoma, Scott Pruitt led numerous efforts to derail any rational effort at
improving environmental legislation and regulation promulgated by the EPA and
other federal agencies. These efforts
have been spotty in their success, at best, and many have failed
spectacularly. Updates to environmental
regulations to protect soil, air, water, and wildlife quality are mandated by
scientific understanding of environmental change, including, yes, the human
influence on Earth's climate. And Mr. Pruitt
personifies the classic case of the fox being in charge of the hen house. As Rick Scott and other GOP governors have
done in their respective states, leaders have dismantled state regulations and
compliance with federal environmental regulations in an unbridled manner in the
last decade or so. There is no
discerning individual in politics today who can say with a straight face that
Scott Pruitt will embody the foundational principles of environmental
protection in this nation; principles which were embodied first in Republican
presidents like Theodore Roosevelt and Richard Nixon (yes, that President
Nixon), who worked in bipartisan ways to provide environmental protection
mechanisms that could blunt what had been aggressive campaigns to ignore
environmental degradation by selfish personal and commercial interests.
As an environmental scientist
myself, I cannot in good conscience support Scott Pruitt for EPA, and believe
he should be resoundingly defeated at the full Senate level by a large number
of Senators. If the Senators act
according to their Constitutional duty and not party loyalty, Scott Pruitt
should be able to amass no more than a dozen affirmative votes, largely from
those states whose Senators applaud their own Governor's policies of
institutional environmental degradation.
The presidential candidate who
could not remember the name of the Energy Department (which he proposed to
abolish) is being picked to lead it. President-Elect
Trump has taken a page from President Reagan here in picking individuals who
proposed elimination of cabinet level departments (in his case it was Education
that got my attention back in 1980, as I worked for the former Oregon State
University faculty member [as his TA] who was picked as Undersecretary in
Charge of Dismantling the Department).
But his only experience in energy appears to be reaping the benefits of
oil and gas extraction for his state coffers and his spirit of environmental degradation
and profit over sensible natural resource extraction. Energy is a department more embodied in the
science of physics than any other, perhaps, with the majority of its budget
involved in nuclear weapons programs and other tough concepts. Not much to say here, except that to ask a
question. Should this department be led
by an individual with no scientific background in any of the areas for which it
has responsibility, and for which his only reaction to not knowing about is was
"Oops!"?
A physician in charge of a
medically-oriented department! Wow, a
proper pick, right? Well, no. You see, first of all as a Congressman he apparently
made money off private stock purchases in industries where he was pushing
legislation and changes that would benefit these companies. He has been a staunch opponent to the health
care law of the land, the Affordable Care Act, and will likely be in charge of
dismantling whatever components the new Congress and President decide are no
good. In any event - hearings on two
committees are proceeding without the candidate having completed external ethical
oversight and there will little time for questioning by any Senators in any
event.
Rep. Price has advocated segregating
sick patients into high risk pools and eliminating funding for Planned
Parenthood, an organization who provides many individuals with their only
access to care from cancer screening to prenatal care. He's an advocate for more privatization (read
as profit incentives) for insurers and health-related businesses. Bad choice, but at least it is not Gov. Rick
Scott who Mr. Trump chose here.
Nevertheless, the selection of Mr. Price raises serious ethical
considerations, for his financial history and his lack of sensitivity regarding
individuals who are most in need of health services, and his lack of commitment
to public health generally.
This individual has a documented
history of being what I would call a reformed racist. These folks grew up in the south within a
culture of white supremacy, and responded, at least in some cases, which
grudging acceptance that members of their African-American communities are in
fact equals and deserve equal protection.
This past would disqualify many a Republican and Democrat from office if
it were the only criticism brought forward.
But Senator Sessions' denial of environmental justice in the face of
public health and housing, discrimination, and in other areas has been
well-documented. His opposition to
voting rights is legendary, and his adherance to false-news related to voter
fraud has led him to bring cases unsuccessfully in his home state. He does not understand rights for disabled
individuals, either, apparently. His
omission of key points of fact on his own record in his candidacy statement for
Attorney-General are problematic. If he
was not deemed qualified to serve as a Federal judge by the Senate, that really
does raise some red flags that all should pay attention to.
Several people came forward to
support Senator Sessions as an individual who does not have a racist bone in
his body. He may be intelligent, he may
no longer be a racist. Those
characterizations are distracting from a more more comprehensive assessment for
someone who will serve, not as the President's lawyer, but our
lawyer — the lawyer for the nation.
President-Elect Trump has made some picks that are creative,
I think, and I could support, if only full vetting was available. But the process seems to be so rushed
because of the delays in naming nominees and the ethical tangled webs that so
many of these candidates bring to the table, that it is hard to know if they
are supportable or not. I am cautiously
optimistic with regard to the picks of Elaine Chao (Transportation), Wilbur
Ross (Commerce I wish I had more time to air my grievances about his tenure), Nikki Haley (UN Representaitve), Mad-Dog Mattis (Defense), and
David Shulkin for VA Secretary.
I await formal nominations for NASA, NOAA, Fish &
Wildlife, National Park Service, and Geologic Survey leaders, all of whom have
significant scientific responsibilities and are likely to be promulgated by GOP
operatives not interested in advancing scientifically-informed public
policy. Once these nominations are made
- there may be a follow-up analysis here; stay tuned. The nominations of Michael Flynn (National
Security Advisor), Rex Tillerson (State Department), Linda McMahon (Small
Business Administration and known for WWE), Ben Carson (Housing and Urban Development) and Mike
Pompeo* (CIA Director but gets an * for other appointments) are also problematic for me on so many levels, as a
progressive person. [Such an astounding record of Cabinet departures in such a brief stint as President goes into the books, and replacements now sitting at Cabinet surely protect him from #25A (25th Amendment) discussion, don't you think?]
Finally, I do wish to publicly offer my congratulations to
President-Elect Trump on being sworn in today as our 45th
President. You will now be our President,
yea, verily, my President. I hope that
you have a successful term as President, and that you truly are interested in
being a President of all the people. You
enter office with approval ratings that are very low, but probably higher than
those of President Abraham Lincoln, who started out with the second-lowest
popular vote percentage (39.7% in 1860) of any, and ended up being one of our
greatest ever (but that took a Civil War and other significant historical
events). You (and your messengers) must
not continue to tout that your were elected in some sort of sweeping mandate,
however, given that your election is notable for the votes that you did not
receive (with a turnout less than 60%, and 54% of eligible voters not voting
for you and Mr. Pence), and winning an election with one of the historically
lowest percentage of votes of any president.
Mr. Trump, to what do you aspire? Is it more than just shaking things up and "draining
the swamp" and replacing our governance structure with a Billionaire's
Club? You need to address this issue to
the people who you will lead. There is
tremendous distrust apparently across the nation now. Will you truly find a way to govern all of the
people, and from the White House and not Trump Tower? Are you just going to implement the Heritage
Foundation's playbook, as exemplified by the recent article in The Hill? I hope not; the future of our Republic is at
least in part, in your hands.
Further reading recommendations:
- https://www.splcenter.org/news/2016/11/18/statement-splc-president-richard-cohen-nomination-senator-jeff-sessions-attorney-general
- https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/19/us/politics/civil-rights-justice-department-donald-trump.html
- http://www.forbes.com/sites/brucejapsen/2017/01/04/why-health-insurers-worry-about-trumps-hhs-pick-tom-price/#65a71605123c
- https://www.lcv.org/article/re-oppose-scott-pruitt-administrator-environmental-protection-agency/
- http://nstacommunities.org/blog/2017/01/12/legislative-update-unions-and-civil-rights-groups-strongly-oppose-devos-nomination/
- http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/01/10-questions-rick-perry-trumps-pick-energy-secretary
- http://thehill.com/policy/finance/314991-trump-team-prepares-dramatic-cuts
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_presidential_elections_by_popular_vote_margin
