What are they covering up?

Six in ten years? That’s the claim asserted by the leadership of Wyoming’s legislature.

When State Senator Ray Peterson (R-Big Horn/Park) heard them announce there had been only six reports of sexually inappropriate conduct by his colleagues in the last decade, he was surprised. Senator Peterson was not surprised that some lawmakers engaged in that kind of troublesome behavior. He was surprised to learn the number was so low.

Senator Peterson has been around. He has been a member of the Wyoming legislature since 2005. He was there during the years covered by that claim. Ray Peterson has a keen moral compass. He believes the actual number of inappropriate sexual incidents perpetrated by state legislators is much higher. “That number of six since 2008,” he told the media, “could probably triple and be more accurate.” His assessment? “Sadly enough, it’s pretty commonplace.”

His colleague Michael Madden (R-Johnson-Sheridan) has been a legislator since 2007. But, he has seen nothing of the sort. “I have never heard any innuendos or any rumors of those kinds of things happening in the Wyoming legislature,” Madden exclaimed.

Honest folks who spend a great deal of time around legislators, especially after hours, will tell you Senator Peterson is right, though his estimate may be on the conservative side.

There is a good reason that some, like Rep. Madden, have never seen “those kinds of things happen in the Wyoming legislature.” The legislature has a secret. They figured out how to make certain their constituents are as much in the dark about these matters as Rep. Madden.

To prove my point, I submitted a public records request to the Legislative Service Office. I wanted their records regarding the handling of any complaints made against legislators for inappropriate sexual conduct. They had admitted to six such incidents. I suspected there were many more. However, they have rules to shield them from any threat that we will never know.

Here’s how it works. The legislature is protected by a law it enacted, denying inspection of personnel files, though that law permits public access when warranted. Knowing which lawmakers engage in sexually inappropriate conduct warrants allowing the public to know. But, they keep it secret.

Digging a deeper moat around the castle, legislators adopted internal rules. The “Wyoming Legislature’s Anti-Discrimination Policies” and the Wyoming Legislative Services Office Personnel Manual were written by legislators, for legislators. The rules have a “but for the grace of God, there go I” tone. They make sure the public will never learn anything about these untoward matters.

The LSO lawyer explained, “Both policies include the directive that ‘to the extent practicable, complaints of harassment or discrimination shall remain confidential.”

Furthermore, I was informed that “the procedure for formal discipline of legislators for legislative misconduct requires the proceeding remain confidential unless and until probable cause determination is made by a subcommittee of the management council.” If probable cause is found, the matter is “open to the public.”

The legislature’s attorney wrote, “No sexual harassment complaint has progressed to the public-proceeding stage.” Not one of the six complaints legislative leadership claims to have received or the three-times-that-number Senator Peterson estimates to have happened, or the actual number which is undisclosed, has “progressed to the public-proceeding stage.” Likely no sexual harassment complaint ever will. If these guys are good at anything, it is covering one another’s back.

It’s good to be the rule maker.

Legislators are, however, required to undergo non-harassment training. Imagine that. Adults who have been elected to public office, entrusted to serve the people, have to be trained to keep their hands to themselves.

The cure will be found more quickly in “naming” not “training.” So long they can hide behind policies, not much will change. The first time one of their colleagues is called out publicly for this reprehensible behavior, the rest of the legislature will take note. The abusive conduct will end abruptly.

Do you think the voters have a right to know? Well, they do work for you.  

Liz Cheney's pitifully, pathetic pandering

“People know how to spend their money better than the government does.” Really?

That is what Congresswoman Liz Cheney said the day before her campaign brochure arrived in every mailbox in Wyoming. The multi-color, tri-fold, obviously very expensive and self-aggrandizing document was titled “Working for Wyoming.” It also included a note telling us that we paid for it.

“This mailing,” it said on the front cover, “was prepared, published, and mailed at taxpayer expense.”

We all know how to spend our money better than that.

Though Cheney wastes our money on campaign brochures, it is more than a little silly for a Member of Congress to say, “People know how to spend their money better than the government does.” That is a pitifully pandering slogan that can’t survive a moment’s reflection.

It’s one of those phrases politicians store away in their rhetorical arsenals. My grandmother embroidered similarly trite sayings on doilies. It’s specifically designed to barely touch little more than the tiniest nerve endings on the surface of a voter’s brain. Allowed to penetrate any deeper, the voter realizes he or she has been had.

Followed to its logical extreme, we should simply not tax anyone anything. If people know how to spend their money better than the government, what purpose does the government serve? Let the folks who know better keep it all.

But we should amend the Preamble of the Constitution to reflect the reality created by Cheney’s sloganeering.

“We the people of the United States of America, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty for ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and agree that it’s everyone for themselves.”

Think of the possibilities. If some folks want to save for their medical needs, that’s how they will spend their money, “as opposed to those who are just,” as Senator Charles Grassley (R-Iowa) said, “spending every darn penny they have on booze or women or movies.”

When their parents are old and sick or their children become disabled, they can spend all they have caring for them, though it won’t be enough.

Some might buy tanks and missiles to defend themselves and their neighbors. Not many will find it as wise to provide mental health and substance abuse care for people they don’t know. A few hunters and hikers might spend some money on maintaining a picnic table at a national park. I’m unsure whether anyone would pay to inspect restaurants or oversee worker safety or plow roads. Libraries and other cultural resources don’t matter to many voters. They might not choose to spend their money on them. 

Among those Cheney says “know how to spend their money better than the government,” not many have spent wisely saving for old age. Only a handful will spend on education. Imagine how few would invest a nickel in local, state, or national infrastructure.

Even without an obligation to pay for the necessities of life now covered by taxation, those folks have already spent themselves into nearly as bad a financial shape as the government.

Private debt may soon equal public debt. Those folks Cheney was talking have been about as successful as the government in amassing debt. They have nearly 12 trillion dollars in personal debt. Most saved nothing for their senior years. A third owe more on credit cards than they have in savings. Half have fewer dollars available for emergencies than they owe.

Actually, Liz Cheney’s vote for the recent tax cuts is a step farther in that direction than she’ll admit. She won’t even acknowledge knowing how much her undeservedly wealthy family will benefit from the cuts.

What she and her GOP colleagues were really saying is, “We know how to spend your money better than you do and we have decided to spend it on tax cuts for ourselves and our wealthy donors. It’s good being us. It sucks to be you.”

We all heard them cave today on DACA

“I have finally figured out what the real conspiracy is.”

In the 1970s I was a member of the Wyoming legislature and a member of Congressman Teno Roncalio’s staff. There was an eccentric fellow in Cheyenne named Charlie (I won’t use his last name) who came to talk to me regularly. Charlie was a member of the John Birch Society. He worked hard to persuade me of his multitude of conspiracy theories. He kept up with all of their positions and could articulate them perfectly and with great zeal.

But, one day something changed. Charlie walked into my office with a grim face. He informed me he had “finally figured out what the real conspiracy is.” It was, he said, to be found, not among democrats or Republicans but rather in the John Birch Society leadership itself. Charlie had “figured out” that all they wanted was his vote and his money while they willingly but secretly joined Democrats and Republicans in taking advantage of the foot soldiers like him.

I remembered Charlie when I watched Senators Schumer and Durbin cave in to the Republicans today and most Democrats follow.

I am not one to believe there is no difference between Democrats and Republicans. There are significant differences on many issues, but it’s how they vote and not the positions they take that determines whether there is justice. Alas, many of the differences eventually dissolve into rhetoric and not action. Before you excuse them by saying they are in the Senate minority and can’t do much, I don’t recall there was much difference when they had 60 votes in the Senate. Even then, they couldn’t even include a “public option” in the Affordable Care Act because too many in their caucus were beholden to insurance company lobbyists.

We all heard them cave today on DACA. Schumer and Durbin stood and gave lofty speeches about DACA, gushingly offering up their thanks to the Supreme Leader for his gracious agreement to allow democracy to invade the workings of the United States Senate. They celebrated the occasion as though they really thought it meant anything. It doesn’t.

Isaiah, the great prophet of Hebrew scripture, once spoke of empty promises and celebrations. He used words that came to mind as I watched the spectacle of the Democratic Party leaders trying to convince us that they had accomplished anything.

“You people of Gomorrah. "What are your multiplied sacrifices to Me?" Says the LORD. "I have had enough of burnt offerings of rams And the fat of fed cattle; And I take no pleasure in the blood of bulls, lambs or goats. When you come to appear before Me, Who requires of you this trampling of My courts?”

How appropriate are Isaiah’s words aimed at “you people of Gomorrah?” The great sin committed by the people of Sodom and Gomorrah has nothing to do with homosexuality as the false prophets teach. It had to do with the failure of those people to offer hospitality and what they did to cause harm to strangers among them.

The prophet Ezekiel explained why Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed and the actual reason should cause us all to tremble.

Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore, [God] did away with them as you have seen.” Ezekiel 16: 49-50.

The Democrats and Republicans are “you people of Gomorrah.” What Schumer and Durbin and the others did today was to offer a “burnt offering” to Steven Miller and the Freedom Caucus of the House Republicans. The DACA kids are those burnt offerings.

Like Charlie and the John Birch Society, I think we have finally figured out what the real conspiracy is. I can’t wait until the Democratic National Committee, or better yet the Democratic Senate Campaign Committee, call again and asks for a contribution.

Charlie had it right all along.