Letter 2 America for March 25, 2014

Dear America,

Ted Cruz, the bombastic senator from Texas, has once again taken to the grandstand, this time to oppose Senate Bill 2124--which appropriates money for aid to Ukraine for its economic development and also increases the American financial commitment to the IMF (International Monetary Fund)--on the basis of a claim that the bill would diminish the power of the United States in the IMF and concomitantly enhance the power of Russia within the IMF.  The bill is not that long, though it is rather cumbersome, but its text is not so complex as to defy understanding by us laymen, so I read it.  There are provisions within it relating to American participation in IMF, but the only one that I can see that is relevant to American power within the fund requires the United States to exercise its vote fully in pursuit of remediation of the Russian usurpation in Crimea and interdictions of whatever Russia contemplates in eastern Ukraine.  Those provisions are a minimal portion of the total content of the bill, and in consequence of reading them, along with the balance of the bill, I am baffled by Cruz's claim.  But in reportage regarding Cruz's grandiose pronouncements on the subject, the real motivation for his blathering became apparent, and it has nothing to do with American power.  It has to do with Republican power.

The Republicans are the first to submit unrelated amendments to bills that come before congress, and they bellow the loudest when they are deprived of the opportunity to do so.  But with regard to these issues--aid to Ukraine and funding of the IMF--they are complaining that the two should be separated, and they intend to seek to amend S. 2124 to strip the IMF language and funding out of it, purportedly on principle.  The hypocrisy of their tactics and pronouncements is just part of their modus operandi, so it hardly merits mention.  We see it all the time, and frankly, the Democrats are not above such tactics either.  Hypocrisy is just an accepted part of the acumen that gets our legislators reelected.   But the real motivation behind the Republican effort does merit discussion because it has all been an effort to preserve the effectiveness of a basic Republican axiom: money talks...literally.

The money in question is primarily that of the Koch brothers, who are conservative activists with billions of dollars between them, which they lavishly spend on support of conservative causes and candidates, thanks to the Citizens United case.  You may remember that our Supreme Court vindicated the right of corporations and billionaires to advocate in the electoral process through funding of campaign advertising.  In other words, the right of their money to talk is sacred in America.  The legal doctrines involved, eg. that corporations are people under the law, is too bizarre to discuss here, but suffice it to say that The Court's decision in that case was a deferential nod to the oligarchy that prevailed during America's "Gilded Age."  However, the law with regard to tax deductibility for contributions to political activist organizations still obtains; you may remember the dust devil created by Daryl Issa and his House Oversight Committee based on the claim that the IRS had discriminated against conservative organizations with the words "Tea Party" in their names by denying them 501(c)(3) status, which would have rendered contributions made to them tax deductible.  The IRS had conducted investigations of such organizations toward the end of determining whether contributions to them were tax deductible under 501(c)(3) or were not because these organizations were political.  They could be tax exempt because they were non-profit, but if they were engaged in political activity, including spending more than 20% of their funds on lobbying or any funding of campaigns for office, their donors were denied deductibility for their contributions because they were 501(c)(4) entities, not 501(c)(3) entities.  The latter status is reserved for non-profit, non-political entities pursuing issues only.  The former are outright political organizations, and the use of the phrase "Tea Party" in their names certainly suggests politics to me...as it justifiably did to the IRS.

That flap demonstrated the need for additional regulations to separate the wheat from the chaff, so to speak, and the IRS and congress embarked on the task, but the Kock brothers don't like that idea.  Apparently they need the tax deduction because they don't yet have enough money, which means they don't have all of it, and Ted Cruz thinks they should.  After all, without the Koch brothers' money, the Republicans would be in a far less advantageous position this November.  It takes money to float contrived ideas in the cause of getting your cronies elected, and Cruz wants to preserve that Republican edge that the Koch brothers represent.  That's the real issue relative to Senate Bill 2124.  Tea Party Republicans want a quid pro quo for their support of the Ukraine bill, and the pretext for opposing it is this nonsense about the IMF.  It's all a tawdry game, and the motivation is as crassly political as it could be, which is why the Republicans ganged up on Cruz and Rand Paul, who also opposed the bill.  Everyone can see that they are nakedly political in their purportedly moral opposition...once again...and with the prospect of gains in The Senate and The House this November, Republicans like John McCain are trying to create some distance between themselves and the brazenly ambitious, ultra-conservative contingent with which they are now at internecine, partisan war.  That's why Cruz and his cadre relented; the Republicans started sawing off the limb they had gone out on, and they want to be president...at least Cruz and Paul do. But there's one more thing they want.  Cruz...he's from Texas, where oil and gas come from, remember...also wants the ban on exporting natural gas and petroleum lifted for the purpose of marketing it in Europe.  The Russians are the number one supplier there, and there's money to be made by supplanting them if the Russians decide to withhold gas from Europe in retaliation for European sanctions directed at Russian conduct in Crimea.  That's the other quid pro quo Cruz wants.  He'll need that fossil fuel money too if he hopes to be elected president.  It's all about the money.

So, that's the reality with regard to the latest battle of principle in Washington.  It's no revelation that principle has nothing to do with it, which I hope Americans will remember when they cast their votes in November.  Well, we'll see, won't we.

Your friend,

Mike