There are numerous reasons that people Marched for Science last week. Many of us feel the need to defend science against an unprecedented assault by a wave of know-nothing politicians. For example, the President has packed the Executive Branch with the wackiest gang of science deniers, creationists, polluters, and education profiteers imaginable.
However, that doesn't tell the whole sad story. Congress has its own gang of anti-science maniacs. Perhaps the craziest of all is Chairman of the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, Lamar Smith (R-TX). Smith's powerful Committee makes US science policy and controls the purse-strings for a slew of agencies, including NASA, DOE R&D, the National Science Foundation, STEM education, EPA research, and the National Weather Service.
Chairman Smith has used his position to conduct a personal war against climate science. He issued subpoenas for e-mails from NOAA climate scientists. He accused government scientists of falsifying data. He used the official Science Committee Twitter account to publicize anti-science articles from alt-fact Breitbart. Several times, he gave keynote speeches at climate-change denial conferences sponsored by the Koch-and-Exxon-funded Heartland Institute.
Smith is certainly no moderate. He was one of the first Congressmen to endorse Trump for President. He was one of the earliest supporters of the presidential candidate who tweeted that climate change is a hoax created by the Chinese to make us less competitive. In January, Smith spoke from the House Floor, "Better to get your news directly from the President. In fact, it might be the only way to get the unvarnished truth."
In a Heartland keynote speech in March, Lamar Smith spoke to the global-warming denying attendees: "Next week we’re going to have a hearing on our favorite subject of climate change and also on the scientific method, which has been repeatedly ignored by the so-called, self-professed climate scientists."
True to his word, on March 29, Smith wasted taxpayer money by holding a hearing on "Climate Science: Assumptions, Policy Implications, and the Scientific Method". For his sham of a hearing, Smith invited three global warming skeptics to testify. In the interest of "balance", he also invited one proponent of current scientific consensus on climate change. If Smith had invited speakers in actual proportion of scientific viewpoint, he would have had his three skeptics and ninety-seven scientists convinced of the fact of human-caused global warming.
Smith, who has absolutely no scientific training, led-off the proceedings by lecturing the audience on his view of the scientific method, claiming "Much of Climate Science today appears to be based on exaggerations, personal agendas, and questionable predictions, (rather) than on the scientific method." In Smith's world, the only scientifically-valid research agrees with the climate-change denial myths peddled by his corporate donors. (by the way, Smith has received more than $700,000 from the oil and gas industry over his career.)
Dr. Michael Mann, the sole witness defending the overwhelming consensus of scientific thought on global warming, was repeatedly attacked and bullied by all eight of the Republican Congressmen who spoke at the hearing. The three climate change deniers were given softball questions and treated with deference.
The entire Science and Technology Committee is an embarrassing sham. Of the twenty-two Republicans on the 38-member Committee, fully eighteen are declared climate change deniers. The other four committee Republicans have voiced more nuanced stances on the subject. Typical of the GOP members are:
Barry Loudermilk (R-GA), who stated, "Some politicians and bureaucrats believe in whatever theory gives them an opportunity to take money from the energy sector and spend it themselves in the name of saving the planet."
Jim Banks (R-IN), who is quoted saying, "I believe that climate change in this country is largely leftist propaganda to change the way Americans live and create more government obstruction and intrusion in our lives."
Andy Biggs (R-Arizona), who said, " I do not think that humans have a significant impact on climate. The federal government should stop regulating and stomping on our economy and freedoms in the name of a discredited theory.”
Remember, these scientifically-illiterate politicians are the people who make US Science policy and fund government-sponsored research. The House Committee is full of shills for energy companies and fossil-fuel front groups. They are willing to ignore the truth in order to keep those campaign contributions coming in. The Committee is a national embarrassment.
Global warming is real, human-caused, and is having adverse effects on us, our economy, and our planet. Both the Trump administration and the House Science Committee, as chaired by Rep. Lamar Smith, have declared war on the peer-reviewed research of climate scientists. In the formulation of US policy, fringe views that support a corporate agenda are being allowed to trump real science. That is just one of many reasons to keep Marching for Science.
My wife and I were among the massive numbers of people around the world who marched for Science on April 22. We took part in the Milwaukee event, which started at 2:00PM downtown in Red Arrow Park. Speakers went for about an hour, followed by a two-mile march to the County Museum and back again. The crowd was estimated by the organizers to be more than 3,000 people (I think it was more).
Because the march coincided with Earth Day, many of the attendees came with the environment as their main focus. Others were concerned about the current administration's outright rejection of science, scientists, and adequate science funding. My own reasons are outlined in my entry of March 30, "Why I Will March for Science."
Unlike most recent protests, there wasn't a great deal of anger expressed by the participants. The mood was more of frustration and resignation at the stupidity of current national and state decision-makers.
The chants were a little lame. (Give me a P...an H...a Y...an S...an I...a C...an S... What's that spell?). The skies were a beautiful blue and the temperature a comfortable 52 degrees. The standard marching gear was science-themed T-shirts, light jackets, and a smattering of lab coats (I dug-out my own for the occasion).
During the event, I kept wondering how we have arrived at this low point in our nation's history. How did we get to the point where we feel that we must defend science from our political leaders? Why is a March for Science even necessary? How did we elect a President that makes his decisions based on the mandates of big oil and coal rather than on facts? How did we elect a Vice President that rejects the foundation of modern Biology? Are we headed towards a new Dark Age?
The US Constitution describes two ways that amendments can be made. The first way- the route by which all 27 existing amendments have been enacted- requires a 2/3 approval by Congress, followed by ratification by 3/4 (38) of the states. The state approvals are granted by state legislatures.
The second, untested way to amend the Constitution is to have the legislatures of 2/3 (34) of the states call for a Constitutional Convention that would propose amendments. Any amendments coming out of such a Convention must then be approved by 3/4 of the states. This unproven method is currently advocated by Tea Party groups and the right-wing ALEC organization, in an attempt to bypass the US Congress in implementing a Federal Balanced Budget Amendment.
In late March, a set of bills passed through a joint committee in the Wisconsin legislature that would add our state to the list of 29 calling for a new Constitutional Convention. After Wisconsin, only four more states would be needed to initiate the radical step that would open-up our US Constitution to a frightening and potentially disastrous re-write.
I have two problems with this development. First, I do not believe that we should have an amendment mandating a balanced budget at all. Second, if we must have such an amendment, a Constitutional Convention is a dangerous way to do it.
I don't know anyone who believes that our country should run budget deficits in perpetuity. We should and must get our fiscal house in order. We know how to do it. We did it within recent memory. We had our last balanced budgets in 1998-2001, under President Clinton. However, I question the wisdom of doing it through a Constitutional Amendment.
Unless we resort to bookkeeping tricks, a balanced budget Constitutional Amendment will be catastrophic to our economy. Instead of gradually and wisely growing out of our debt problem, (as we have been doing the last eight years), it would impose immediate and drastic financial shocks to the nation. It would be a Sequester on steroids. Austerity did not work in Europe and it won't work here.
In addition to the self-imposed financial shocks, a Balanced Budget Amendment would remove the flexibility that government has to even-out the economic cycle. We should run surpluses during good times and stimulate the economy during bad times. A Balanced Budget Amendment would force government to raise taxes and slash government at the worst possible time, during a recession.
An amendment would cause problems when we are faced with war or major calamity. We should not be forced to starve children to pay for clean-up of a new, New Madrid earthquake or a war with Belgium.
OK, so you are not convinced. You still believe that we must have a Balanced Budget Amendment to force our government into fiscal sanity. If we really have to enact such an amendment, let's do it the old fashioned way, the careful and deliberate way that has worked for all 27 of our current amendments. Let's do it by involving our elected representatives in Congress.
A new Constitutional Convention runs the risk of a "run-away" situation, in which the unelected delegates go way beyond the original intent of the meeting. While the delegates are convened, why not propose a bunch of other amendments? How about a "person-hood" amendment? Or a rewrite of that pesky First Amendment? Or a repeal of the Second? And Congressional term limits? Why not simply start from scratch?
Barry Goldwater opposed such a Convention, saying, "[I am] totally opposed [to a Constitutional Convention]…We may wind up with a Constitution so far different from that we have lived under for two hundred years that the Republic might not be able to continue.” Anton Scalia put it a little less eloquently, "I certainly would not want a Constitutional Convention. I mean whoa! Who knows what would come out of that?"
The Wisconsin GOP-sponsored bills would have the delegates to this important Convention be unelected political appointees. Three would be named by the State Senate President, three by the Assembly Speaker, and one by the Governor. If formed today, the seven-member Wisconsin delegation would be 100% Republican. So much for representative government.
A Constitutional Amendment for a balanced budget is a well-meaning and naive dream, with likely dire consequences for our economy. Instead of allowing us to gradually grow out of the deficit problem, it would impose an austerity death spiral. And convening a Constitutional Convention to get us there is another dangerous proposition.
Rather than adding a new amendment to impose a balanced budget, we should re-evaluate the policies that got us here in the first place. We should elect politicians who will increase revenues, trim the bloated military budget, and promote wise economic growth policies. The current GOP Congress and the Trump administration are going in exactly the opposite direction.
Washington, Waukesha, and Ozaukee counties have long been the three most Republican counties in Wisconsin. For example, in 2008, John McCain won the counties with 64.1, 62.3, and 60.3% of the vote, respectively. Similarly, Mitt Romney won the counties in 2012 with 70.0, 66.8, and 64.6% of the vote.
This trend held true in off-years, too. In the 2014 gubernatorial election, Walker carried Washington, Waukesha, and Ozaukee counties by 75.9, 72.5, and 70.0%. As usual, the three counties ranked as the first, second, and third most Republican counties in the state.
However, last year's presidential election was unusual in many ways. The GOP's highly-flawed candidate was not as popular in the three-county region as in many other parts of the state. Trump received 28,893 fewer W.O.W. votes than Mitt Romney. This huge drop-off by the GOP candidate at least temporarily unseated the W.O.W. counties as the reddest in Wisconsin.
My own Washington County, I am ashamed to say, was the 3rd most Trump-loving county in Wisconsin, giving Trump 67.4% of our vote. We trailed only low-population Florence (71.5% Trump) and Taylor (69.5% Trump). Still, Washington was dethroned from being the top Republican vote percentage county. We could hold our heads at least a little higher.
Waukesha County was certainly not a citadel of Trumpism. Giving Trump 60.0% of its vote, Waukesha was only the 22nd trumpiest county in the state. And at least for the 2016 presidential election, Ozaukee County was downright purple. At 55.8%, they were only the 40th most Trump-loving county.
The question remained, were the 2016 presidential results a mere aberration, or are they indicative of a trend? Could W.O.W. county residents have finally wised up? Could the voters of the Milwaukee suburbs be starting to become less overwhelmingly red? The answer came this week, in the vote for State Superintendent.
Although the election for State Superintendent is supposed to be non-partisan, it was anything but. Moderate incumbent, Tony Evers ran against a Republican-backed challenger, Lowell Holtz. Holtz was clearly a wing-nut candidate. He wanted to abandon state curriculum standards. He was in the pocket of the school profitization industry. He even celebrated the confirmation of the uniquely unqualified Betsy DeVos as Secretary of Education.
Holtz was endorsed by a raft of county Republican parties. He was endorsed by the far right Wisconsin Family Action PAC. He was endorsed by some of the looniest politicians in Madison, including Representatives Andre Jacque, Bob "Gunnin'"Gannon, Ozaukee Patriot member Dan Knodl, and Janel Brandtjen. He was endorsed by former Representative, one-time State Superintendent candidate, and frequent national embarrassment, Don Pridemore.
So despite the race being non-partisan in name, it was clearly a proxy Democrat vs Republican contest. The moderate Evers won handily, with 70 percent of the vote. Despite the common wisdom of progressives doing poorly in low-turnout elections, Evers carried the day. Evers remains a voice of reason to defend our public schools against the worst intentions of the extremist Governor and wacko Legislators.
But how did the W.O.W. counties vote? They regressed to their former behavior. In this highly partisan, formally non-partisan election, the three counties once again were the reddest in the state. In fact Washington County (which voted 53.6% Holtz) and Waukesha County (which voted 51.3% Holtz) were the only two counties in which the GOP-backed candidate won. They thereby returned to being the #1 and #2 reddest counties. Ozaukee, in which Holtz received 46.6% of the vote, is again the #3 most Republican county.
So despite a temporary bout of sanity, a presidential election in which Washington, Waukesha, and Ozaukee Counties were not the three reddest counties in Wisconsin, we relapsed. Tuesday's election once again bestowed on the Milwaukee suburbs the disgrace of being the most Republican region of the state.
