Rabbi Pruzansky's Blog

     How does a President whose political fortunes were considered moribund after the mid-term elections – only seven weeks ago – pull off a string of legislative triumphs in record time ? One reason is that he remains a formidable politician who will not be as easy to defeat in 2012 as many assume. A second reason is that these victories are smaller than the sum of their parts.

    Consider the “law” that now permits avowed homosexuals from serving in the military, a move that most combat troops overwhelmingly opposed. It is not difficult to see a harmful effect on unit cohesion when a sexual dynamic is introduced into the ranks, especially where men are forced to live in close quarters for long periods of time. After all, if libido and propriety are not legitimate considerations, men and women in the military would be sharing lodgings, so how can social discomfort not impair military effectiveness ? And for those who have been touting that Israel has had open homosexuals serving in the military for several decades without any loss of effectiveness, well, how do you know ? How do you measure effectiveness ? Israel has not fought a conventional, contested war in almost forty years, and the most recent example of a near-contested conflict – the war in Lebanon in 2006 – was a military debacle. So who’s to say that the IDF has not been harmed by a number of factors, including this one ? What metric is used ? And so the military has been given the needed “flexibility” to

    In any event, the “law” that banned homosexual service was of fairly recent vintage – 1993, in fact, and President Clinton’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” was a (reasonable, workable) reaction to that law. But why was a “law” necessary in the first instance, when the prohibition itself was a military regulation not subject to Congressional oversight ? For example, when President Truman de-segregated the military in July 1948, he did it through Executive Order as was his prerogative as Commander-in-Chief. He did not need Congressional legislation. It was the fear of Clinton’s using the same mechanism (and a deep distrust of Clinton on military issues) that induced Congress to act, what was likely then an inappropriate micromanagement of military matters.

      Of course, Clinton had a good ten months when he could have assured full participation of homosexuals in the military but chose to do nothing.  He wisely chose to do nothing, because the military was opposed then, as it is now. But now that the “PR” victory has been won, the dance goes on. Using the military to advance a social agenda without due regard for its effect on its efficiency is always unwise, so the military has been offered the bone of determining the pace of implementation. What works in liberal theory – think “closing Guantanamo” – might not be as practicable in the real world. In any event, I would be curious to find out whether the new law sparks of wave of homosexuals joining the military. And, more importantly, more than 99% of Americans are unaffected by this legislation, which makes it mostly symbolic and reflective of declining mores.

    The START Treaty is another example of legislation that offers more symbols than substance. Billed as the President’s “leading foreign policy objective” begs the question: why this treaty was ignored for months and then rushed for approval ? And another question: isn’t it just a little quaint to perceive Russia as a “superpower” with whom the United States has to engage in arms control talks ? Russia is a third-rate power with a mono-dimensional economy propped up by oil and natural gas sales, and little else. By many accounts, China has supplanted Russia as America’s main rival, and other countries in the world – Iran, for one – pose a greater threat to America than does Russia. So the nostalgia for a Cold War dynamic is misplaced, and the main effect of the treaty is to limit the US ability to defend itself and its allies by quantifying the number of strategic warheads America can deploy. This effectively dooms the missile shield over Europe that Obama renounced anyway last year, as well as deprives the US of the full capacity to deter the troublemakers in South America, like Venezuela, which is importing Iranian missiles. And all designed to hasten the objective of eliminating all nuclear weapons from the world, a pipedream that is a nightmare for freedom. Remember the old slogan: “If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns”? The greater horror is the naïve fantasy that the US can divest itself of nuclear weapons, and the evildoers of the world will follow suit.

     And I thought “peace in the Middle East” was the President’s “leading foreign policy objective.” Oh, well. This, too, will not affect the average American.

      The third accomplishment – the extension of the Bush era tax rates – shows Obama’s political prowess. Certainly, I supported the extension and reiterate that any American who wishes to pay taxes at a higher rate can certainly do so, and I support as well a drastic reduction in domestic  and foreign spending (by the way: the time has come. Let Iraq start contributing financially for the presence of American troops there). You can’t (shouldn’t) spend what you don’t have. The apoplexy of the liberal base – which truly believes that not confiscating someone’s wealth is a “tax break” – was a joy to behold. Their assumption must be that everything one earns belongs firstly to the government, which then allows you to keep whatever they deem appropriate. That assumption is Stalinist, not Jeffersonian.

     What’s troubling is the recourse to the lame duck session of Congress in order to deliberate and vote on matters that might have political consequences if done before elections, and debated by many politicians who were repudiated by their constituents and have lost their mandate. These sessions were historically very rare and very limited in scope, but have become almost routine. It amounts to bi-partisan fecklessness, unworthy of people who purport to be national leaders. Indeed, the long delays between elections and the assumption of office are anachronisms that should be changed, immediately. Give new presidents and Congresses two weeks to take office (to allow for ballot challenges and recounts); count absentee ballots before the elections; tally them as they come in, under rules of strict secrecy, of course.

    The most important consequence of all this legislation is on President Obama. The repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” was candy for the liberals dismayed by his acceptance of the Bush-era tax rates, and certainly solidified that part of his base. Like his policies or not (I despise them), he has an admirable record of at least trying to implement, and in many cases, implementing, his campaign promises. The irony is that many of his voters assumed that his promises were just rhetoric – that no leader would be so brazen as to legislate the country into bankruptcy or socialism. But he has tried – and has transformed for the moment his political standing. In a little over one month, Obama went from projecting the appearance of incompetence to projecting the appearance of competence. It is not that any individual piece of legislation is that significant – it’s not – but he momentarily changed the debate, and the image of his presidency, and seized the initiative.

   All of which will make him much more difficult to defeat in 2012. But it is still early. And dealing with a Republican House has the potential to bring out Obama’s arrogance and condescension in a way that alienates many prior supporters. And if a Republican alternative to Obama governance emerges – both person and policy – the campaign will be joined and the battle begun.

     Americans are being threatened with an imminent shutdown of the federal government, as funding for government operations runs out in a scant 48 hours. It is unknown who exactly is doing the threatening but those people need to be reminded not to threaten something that to many others does not sound that frightening at all.

     What exactly happens if the federal government shuts down ? Clearly, essential personnel (military, FBI, earmark coordinator) will remain at work even without pay, anticipating that their compensation will surely come eventually. Non-essential personnel will…well, if they are non-essential, one wonders why they are on the payroll to being with. Can anyone seriously suggest that the average American will notice if EPA shuts down for a few weeks, or the Departments of Commerce, Energy and Education forever ? On the contrary, closing down Congress indefinitely might be the simplest way to reduce the deficit; you can’t spend if the spenders are locked out. The TSA staff, voyeurs and fondlers with government imprimatur – will have to get their jollies elsewhere. Israel can rest securely knowing that the State Department is not hatching new schemes for its dismemberment. And I believe that Americans can be trusted to behave properly in national parks and museums, even without supervisory personnel. The federal government does much today that it is not constitutionally authorized to do, at least as the Founding Fathers envisioned this government of limited and specifically enumerated powers, and much that its overtaxed and overburdened citizens can easily live without. One who threatens a government “closure” might be playing into the hands of the Tea Party; it just doesn’t sound so bad.

     Of course, it likely won’t happen, sad to say, because most of the “government” today consists of union employees who want to be paid (i.e., overpaid) for their jobs. These bureaucrats – by the hundreds of thousands – earn almost twice as much as their peers do in the private sector, and have no reasonable metric by which to measure their productivity or necessity. The government can’t shut down, because too many other citizens will learn how bloated and superfluous are most government functionaries, and how ten such workers can easily be replaced by one or two. It is worthwhile to recall President Reagan’s threat (soon, carried out) to fire and replace striking air traffic controllers, and the predictions of gloom and doom in the skies if that ever came to pass. It did come to pass, and they were supplanted by others quite handily. The skies above remained serene. A government shutdown ? We should try it. If we don’t like it, we can always beg them to come back. In any event, people’s daily lives are more affected by local and state government decisions than by what the federal government does.

     We might not miss them as much as they think we will. The sorry spectacle unfolding before Congress these days – trying to ram through unread, expensive and potentially dangerous bills before a holiday deadline – smacks of college students suddenly awakening from a binge and realizing that finals are just days away. START treaty, assuming it is serious ? Where has this been hidden for months that it must be voted on in a day or two without debate, because of its importance ? Tax policy, the budget – what are these people being paid for if not to raise revenue and appropriate money for the common good in an equitable and intelligent way ? And this too – a $1.1 trillion dollar omnibus spending bill – has to be force-fed to an angry public that has tired of Congressional shenanigans ?

     Nothing irks the American public today more than “earmarks” – the grant of federal dollars to projects favored by particular congressmen. Even though it is not a lot of money in relative terms – this time, $6 billion out of more than $1 trillion – the practice smacks of both abuse and corruption. Some Congressmen are quick to say that people hate all earmarks, except those from which they benefit, and that is partly true. Too many people today dine at the federal trough and want to keep the money flowing to them. But there is a broader objection to this practice, and a relatively simple formula that can be applied to distinguish what is wasteful from what is warranted.

     We have traveled light years from when James Madison (after all, Father of the Constitution) stated in 1794 on the floor of the House, in response to a Congressional appropriation of $15,000 for relief of French refugees who fled from insurrection in San Domingo to Baltimore and Philadelphia, “I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents…T]he government of the United States is a definite government, confined to specified objects. It is not like the state governments, whose powers are more general. Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government.” These days, anything and everything is fair game for the Congressional handout, and Congressmen who distribute money as if it were theirs to give, and to people who presume that it is theirs to take.

    Here’s the formula, so simple one wonders why it has never been embraced: Congress should appropriate funds for things that have some federal interest, and nothing for things that do not.

Interstate highways and bridges have a federal nexus; the re-paving of Kinderkamack Road (the main road running through River Edge, Emerson and Westwood, New Jersey, and proud beneficiary of “stimulus” funds) does not. The latter is a state obligation; let the states sell bonds to pay for road repair.  Museums and statues, foundations in memory of Bart Stupak’s son and John Murtha himself, have no discernible federal interest (those are local and personal matters, respectively), and nor does most of the idiosyncratic research funded by the federal government that serves as subsidies to universities.

    Some projects fall into gray areas. A port in South Carolina ? That could have some federal interest, but it depends on necessity, availability of other options, and other factors. The next generation of GE aircraft engines ? I can see why that is a federal interest, and the fact that money is targeted to a specific state should be no impediment if there is a federal need served by the project. Those are the items that should be debated: which projects have value to the nation as a whole and which projects have limited or parochial interest. The former should be paid for by the feds, the latter by state funds or private donations. That NPR still receives a nickel from our tax dollars is a macabre joke.

     And it should not be government’s responsibility to find or create employment but rather to create economic conditions – through its tax and monetary policy – that encourage employment and growth in the private sector. Certainly, government has the capacity to guarantee full employment. I think it was the great economist Milton Friedman who said that if you really want full employment, government can hire half the people to dig holes and the other half to fill those holes, and voila (!), full employment. Indeed, but no productivity. Yet, too often, government employment programs seem to partake of just that paradigm.

      Americans object to higher taxes – and taxes as they are – because they do not see a positive return on their “investment.” Indispensable federal projects – primarily defense and security – can easily be funded from existing revenues. Most other expenditures historically, were never a federal responsibility, and are still not spent efficiently. The government’s War on Poverty ($3 trillion worth) has been a colossal failure, guaranteeing multi-generational poverty and dependency.  The big-ticket, budget-busting items, now deeply engrained in the American way of life – such as Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and now also pension payments to federal employees – are arguably unconstitutional encroachments of government into the lives of its citizens (FDR admitted as much about Social Security, which he foresaw in 1935 would eventually be a gigantic Ponzi scheme). They are nothing less than the re-distribution of wealth – forcibly taking money from some and giving it to others, without cause or justification – itself a form of slavery.   “To take from one, because it is thought his own industry and that of his fathers has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers, have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, the guarantee to everyone the free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it” (Thomas Jefferson, letter to Joseph Milligan, April 6, 1816). The “death tax” is just a particularly gruesome example: people whose income was already taxed are taxed a second time on those same assets when they shed their mortal coil and seek to bequeath their estates to their heirs.

     To which can be added Benjamin Franklin’s bon mot, an apt description of politics today: “When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic.” The frustration level and the distrust of Americans for their government are intensifying daily because those “entitlements” cannot be repealed and are here to stay. But the average American would do better financially setting aside that money for his own retirement, as it becomes increasingly unlikely that 20-30 years from now funds will be sufficient to pay beneficiaries, or that dollar will have a value commensurate with what the payers into the system intended.

     For some, taxes are never high enough. There is always more to spend, more re-distribution to execute and more equitability to engender. To them – all liberal Democrats – I offer the following challenge: pay it ! I have never understood why those who clamor for higher taxes don’t just pay it themselves. There is no law preventing anyone from giving gifts to the Treasury. Those who are apoplectic because the tax rates on high earners might remain at 36% and not be raised to 39.6% are certainly welcome to pay 39.6%. They might even want to splurge and pay 40%, or even 70% (the highest tax bracket when Ronald Reagan became President) of their income. They will be blessed for doing so, and feel altruistic and superior to boot. Whatever usefulness they perceive in paying higher taxes can be freely obtained if they just pay it without being ordered to do so.

     They can, and they should. I’d rather not, at least until I can be reasonably assured that my hard-earned money is being spent sensibly and meaningfully. Until then, a government shutdown might be the only vehicle to “form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, … promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.”

 I trust that rings a bell.

The recent People’s Court episode featuring an Orthodox couple suing a laundry service for washing and ruining the woman’s wig has once again put Torah Jews in a negative light. In addition to the show’s regular viewers, more than 100,000 people have seen a video of the trial and decision. A short review of the facts is in order: By all accounts, the couple’s child had accidentally put a wig in the laundry bag, which was delivered to the cleaning service – whether authorized or not is disputed – that washed it, and rendered it unwearable to all but the most stylistically-challenged. The wife testified quite candidly, as a pious Jew, she wears the wig for religious reasons since she married, and that the destroyed wig was valued at $3000.00. The defendant claimed that they had been authorized to wash it – but that wasn’t the real issue.

The judge ascertained that the plaintiffs had not received any repair estimate but on their own claimed the wig as a total loss. This was a serious deficiency in the plaintiff’s burden of proof, but the judge investigated further, allegedly calling Georgie the wig company, maker of the wig in question. She discovered, much to her distress, that the receipt for $3000 applied to the beautiful wig the women was presently wearing in court, rather than to the bird’s nest the woman had submitted into evidence. In other words, the judge accused the couple of lying – of claiming the damaged wig was worth far more than it actually did – and she dismissed their case.

The couple was asked to respond, and looked like the proverbial deer in the headlights. The flabbergasted husband just lamented that “the judge called us liars,” but had no credible retort. The wife was equally dumbfounded. When, as a trial lawyer arguing cases before juries, I would impeach the credibility of witnesses for their inconsistent statements, I would always quote Mark Twain, who used to say that “If you tell the truth you don’t have to remember anything.” If the couple could not think of an answer on the spot to account for the discrepancy, there is really nothing left to say. You can’t show up in court without evidence – or answers – and hope to look good. The truth is only one story; it should be fairly easy to recall.

It was a cringe-worthy moment – on national television, religious Jews were accused of telling a bald-faced lie in order to win money from struggling Hispanic businessmen. Subsequently, the couple mounted a defense in the Jewish media – that perhaps the judge had not called Georgie or had called the wrong Georgie, that they had been unsettled and frightened and did not defend themselves adequately or quickly enough. Some even suggested that they would and should sue the People’s Court.

I hope not. The question that presents is: if what they are saying is true, then why didn’t they scream when accused that “it can’t be…you’re making a terrible mistake,” much like Yehuda did when confronted with evidence of Binyamin’s guilt. He didn’t wait to investigate or to mull over a retort because he knew that Binyamin was innocent, and that something else was afoot. If they knew then what they claim to know now, they should have said it then. Post- conviction (here, post-liability) assertions carry zero weight. If you know it can’t be, then say so. It would make for great television, which is what the producers want anyway.

Unfortunately, the post-facto defense does not really matter, and once the public trial ended, the real facts and the winner/loser of the court case paled before the Chilul Hashem (“desecration of G-d’s name”) that was engendered. The actual truth or justice or whether the couple was indeed right or wrong – deserved compensation or not – are now irrelevant. “It matters not whether Chilul Hashem is intentional or unintentional (Avot 4:4);” the effect is the same. A Jew has to be extremely careful of his/her public persona, deeds and appearance because desecration of G-d’s name is a horrendous sin even if it is unintentional and inadvertent – even if it was involuntary. The impression left that religious Jews – scrupulous in their observance of the laws of modesty but cavalier (or worse) about other people’s money – is one that is difficult to dispel. And for tens of thousands of viewers, rightly or wrongly, it will never be dispelled. Chilul Hashem is not a deed; it is a result of a deed.

Certain conclusions need to be drawn. One of my most cherished colleagues suggested that our religious Jewish communal organizations should henceforth ban Orthodox Jews from appearing on reality shows. We don’t need the world to see Orthodox Jewish litigants, fashion models, apprentices, et al – it never turns out well. I agree.  All these shows feed on human venality and dysfunction, and elicit the worst facets of our character. The Talmud (Yoma 86b) states that we are obligated “to publicize the deeds of hypocrites because of the desecration of G-d’s name that is caused,” and Rashi comments that we do that because people will see their deeds, assume their righteousness, and be misled. That’s not to say that this particular couple – strangers to me – are hypocrites; it does say that we have to be very careful never to put ourselves in a position where even our appropriate actions can be misinterpreted and misunderstood, and put the Torah in a negative light.

Furthermore, it should never be satisfactory to console ourselves that “it’s just a few people, the majority of us are righteous, etc.” That trope might work for others, but it should never satisfy us. We are part of a “kingdom of priests and a holy nation” to whom the Creator of the universe revealed Himself at Sinai and in the Holy Temples. No one is impressed by disclaimers, nor should we be impressed. If one wants to appear on TV, then do so to defend the Jewish people or do something positive for humanity – don’t do it for money or fame.

Rav Shlomo Aviner once wrote that it is more important to teach a young child love of humanity even before we teach that child about love of G-d. A young child cannot fully comprehend “love of G-d” anyway. Love of humanity has to come first, because whoever is personally corrupt, who grows up with a distorted character will just have his mature “love of G-d” and his advanced knowledge of Torah built on a crooked foundation. Then one can wear a yarmulke and steal – and all for a good cause. But if one loves and respects people, then it is impossible to steal from others or to harm them. If we perceive that all others are created in the image of G-d just like we are, then it becomes nearly impossible to mistreat or defraud them. Rav Kook added that when love of G-d is built on a foundation of love of humanity, then even our love of humanity will be enhanced.

We must also tread very carefully, and remind ourselves that – like Avraham of old – we are both strangers and residents in the land. We do not have to suspect that there is a Nazi lurking behind every bush to realize that exile is still exile – that history repeats itself, but never exactly the same way, for good and for not so good. To continue – with a new story seemingly every month – to put an unattractive face forward courts disaster. The Torah records the stories of our forefathers and foremothers because they taught us about the proper responses to life and its challenges, about keeping the faith even amid turmoil. When we follow their path, we are distinguished for our goodness, and when we do not, we stand out in less savory ways.

This episode – which teachers have shown to their classes in order to provoke discussion and draw conclusions – is a chilling reminder of what can happen when we become too comfortable with ourselves and do not project the possible consequences of a particular course of action. We can undo the damage – whether intentionally inflicted or not – by reinforcing to ourselves the Torah’s notions of ethical conduct to all man, not insisting on every claim we might have, and focusing on what is holy and upright. Then we will be a truly great nation, worthy of the standards that G-d has set for us.