Earlier this month the government finally reopened, once again within hours of defaulting on the debt limit. I wrote about this a few weeks ago and spoke about the lack of courage from the House Speaker. The deadlock was broken only when a vote was finally called. The House of Representatives voted 285 to 144 (87 Republicans voted to reopen). In the Senate the vote was 81 to 18. Of course this is only valid until January, but I’m sure I’ll be writing more about this later.

The lack of courage I wrote about was brought into clearer focus for me a few weeks ago. I’m currently reading [Woodrow] Wilson by A. Scott Berg. Most of us know him as our 28th President but before that he was president of Princeton University and governor of New Jersey.

In November of 1912 he was elected President. On March 1, 1913 he wrote this to his successor as governor: “The rarest thing in public life is courage, and the man who has courage is marked for distinction; the man who has not is marked for extinction, and deserves submission.”

These past few weeks we’ve found a just how rare courage can be. Congressional republicans find themselves being pulled toward confrontation and away from compromise/progress/responsibility not because they fear being defeated by a democrat in the next election but because they fear being defeated by a more conservative republican in the primary.

In other words, they are putting their own job security above the good of the country. To be fair, they have a point. You can see the latest from Sarah Palin who supports replacing moderate republicans. You may remember Sarah: she ran for Vice President in 2008 and was the candidate who didn’t know that North Korea and South Korea were different nations, and couldn’t name any newspapers in Alaska.

On the other hand, really? Are there no senators or representatives who have enough of a moral compass to put the good of the nation above their own careers?

I write this against the backdrop of someone who died earlier this month: Tom Foley.

Tom died on October 18th. He represented the 5th Congressional district of Washington State from 1965 to 1995 and was Speaker of the House from 1989 to 1995. He was defeated in 1994 by George Nethercutt who ran on a platform of term limits. George argued that Tom’s 30 years in the House jaded him to the point that he was no longer representing his district but had “gone native” in Washington DC; he promised that, if elected, he would only serve 3 terms (6 years). In 2000 he announced that he “changed his mind” and ran again. He ended his House career in 2004 when he ran for Senate and lost.

We would have done better if Tom had won. He could have been the voice of reason

Since my post last week, the only thing that appears to have happened is that the concrete encasing progress has gotten harder. There is no shortage of moving parts in this drama, but allow me to focus on one issue: why Speaker Boehner won’t allow a vote on reopening the government. Earlier in the week President Obama suggested that there were enough votes in the House of Representatives to end the budget standoff. Two days ago, on October 9th, CNN agreed with this. They reported that all 200 Democrats and 19 Republicans would vote to reopen the government without conditions. That’s a simple majority and would allow the Senate to pass it and President Obama to sign it.

But the speaker won’t call a vote. Why not? OK, I can’t read the heart of another person and I’m hesitant to assign motives without knowing the reason, but let me suggest this: Speaker Boehner won’t call a vote because he knows it will reopen the government and cost him his role as Speaker of the House. There is good reason to believe that if the government reopens because of this vote, there will be enough Republicans angry with him that they will replace him as speaker.

Really? This is all about one man afraid to lose his position? And not even his job? No matter what happens he will remain the representative of Ohio’s 8th Congressional District. If he loses his position as speaker he will lose a sweet office and lots of prestige, but nothing else.

I write this against the backdrop of tragic news: On October 6th, San Diego (and all of us) lost Captain Jennifer Moreno, a soldier who was killed in Afghanistan.

Jennifer embodied the best of what it means to be an American. She chose both nursing and the United States Army because she wanted to serve. When she joined the army she (and everyone she loved) knew this day may happen despite their fervent prayers.

What nobody expected was that the $100,000 death benefit promised to her family would be delayed because of the government shutdown. Normally the family receives this benefit within 36 hours to allow them enough money to travel to Dover, Delaware to claim, transport, and bury their loved one. Fortunately Fisher House, a charity that supports military families, will cover the expenses.

Meanwhile, the government continues to be shut down because a guy from Ohio is afraid to lose his title.

So how did we get here? Since October 1st the government has not granted itself the power to spend money, setting up the “government shut down” that we now face. It has meant that approximately 800,000 employees of the federal government (including my sister Lisa) cannot go to work and are not getting paid. It has meant that none of us can go to a national park like Yosemite or Yellowstone. We can’t apply for Social Security or watch the pandacam at the National Zoo.

It’s become a throwdown between members of Congress, but perhaps it bears looking at the background. The Constitution enumerates the powers of Congress in Article 1. Section 8 states that the Congress shall “have the Power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts, and Exercises, to pay the Debts and and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States.” Section 9 states: “No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time.”

Since the 1921 Budget and Accounting Act, the President is required to submit a budget to Congress by February. If Congress passes the budget, it becomes law effective October 1st (the federal fiscal year is October 1st to September 30th). If they change it (ie, make amendments), it goes back to the President for his signature.

For much of the 20th Century this worked, but it began to fall apart toward the end of the century. As a matter of fact, it last worked in 1997. There is an excellent article in the Washington Post on this.

Since then, Congress has passed a series of “continuing resolutions” and “omnibus spending bills” that have continued funding of the government without ever developing a budget for federal spending. During that time Congress has passed all sorts of laws that have required them to spend money, including Medicare Part D.

During the administration of George W. Bush, federal spending increased from $1.86 trillion to $2.98 trillion. Much of it was devoted to national defense after 9/11 and his wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

When Barack Obama was elected in 2008 he proposed the Affordable Care Act to expand health care to almost all Americans. It was passed by both houses of Congress and signed into law by President Obama on March 23, 2010. The Republican minority never liked this and pledged to repeal it if they had the chance. In 2012 they gained a majority in the House of Representatives but the Democrats retained the majority in the Senate and President Obama was re-elected in 2012.

Any law that is passed can be repealed, but since both the Senate and the President support the ACA, this won’t happen. The crux of the current government shut down lies in this: the Republican majority in the House of Representatives refuses to entertain a budget or pass a continuing resolution to keep the government funded unless the ACA is “defunded.” By defunding it they essentially say that whether it’s the law of the land or not, Congress will not pay for it. This has the effect of blocking the law without repealing it.

It’s a misuse of their power. Whenever Congress passes a law they make a pledge that they will pay for it, in much the same way I promise to pay for anything I charge on my credit card. By defunding a bill that was legally passed they are no better than someone who takes out a credit card with no intention of paying for what they buy.

It’s time for us to get angry and demand accountability. I understand that the Republican majority in Congress doesn’t like the ACA, but I didn’t like the Patriot Act [sic]. That doesn’t mean that I wanted Speaker Nancy Pelosi to shut down the government and put 800,000 people out of work until it was repealed.

The government needs to go back to work and the Republicans need to understand that they don’t get to hold the rest of us hostage.

Last month I wrote about San Diego’s current mayor, Bob Filner. He was elected last November and has been in office since December. Previous to that he served in the U.S. House of Representatives. Beginning last month a cascade of women have accused him of sexual harassment and abuse. One of them, Irene McCormack Jackson filed a civil suit against the mayor.

On July 26th he called a news conference; many of us expected he would resign. Instead he admitted that some of his actions were “wrong” but denied charges of sexual harassment. He also said he was going to seek treatment for this, while maintaining his role as mayor. On July 30th the city council voted a resolution that the city would not cover his legal bills; Filner responded by saying it was the city’s fault because he had not received training in sexual harassment (oddly he appeared to know enough about it to deny guilt).

The beginning of this month he left his office, purportedly for treatment; he returned after one week, and then took some vacation time. He has not acted in his official capacity since the July 26th news conference.

Shortly after that conference a recall campaign was started. It requires over 100,000 signatures to be gathered in 39 days, the San Diego city clerk estimates that a recall election would cost the city between $3 million and $6 million.

In the last few days word has come out there Bob is looking for a deal. Most of us assume he will resign in return for a negotiated settlement of any lawsuits that the city would pay for. Most of us find that pretty distasteful, but it may be cheaper than the cost of a recall.

Bob should man up and do the right thing: admit what he did, resign, and suffer the consequences. Of course, if he were a real man, he wouldn’t have abused the women around him.

Yes, San Diego has once again made headlines, and not for a good reason. Earlier this year we elected Bob Filner as mayor of the city. He is a democrat and I tend to support his positions, but I was uneasy pulling the lever for him. Previous to this he served in Congress for nearly 20 years and he had a reputation as a hothead with a hair trigger temper. In 2007 he was charged with assault after an altercation in the baggage area. The woman who got in his way appeared in ads for Bob’s opponent during the election.

Now we are hearing about charges of sexual abuse. Allegations in the last few weeks paint a picture of a man who, for example, suggested that a female employee should come to work without panties. There are also charges of groping, kissing, etc. Last week he acknowledged that he has acted “inappropriately” and that he needs help. Shortly after this he answered specific charges by saying he is entitled to “due process of law.” When one of his employees came forth yesterday, Filner denied the charges.

OK, let’s sort this out. Mayor Filner states that he is entitled to “due process of law;” that phrase comes from Section 1 of the 14th Amendment of the Constitution. It only applies to criminal proceedings; to the extent that nobody has seriously suggested the mayor be arrested, due process doesn’t apply.

The mayor needs to resign. The charges point to a pattern of behavior that is simply unacceptable and it makes day to day operations difficult. The women who work near him now need to worry about their own safety as a first priority, not the business of the city.

A common misconception with men like this is that they see this as a perk of being powerful. In reality these are men who are weak and want to be powerful and think this will do it. It’s inconceivable to the rest of us, but they honestly don’t think this kind of abuse is unwelcome or frightening. When confronted they downplay it, suggest they were “just kidding” or “just fooling around.”

It’s not playful or welcome. It’s unacceptable and does not serve the people of San Diego.