Miranda And The Public Safety Exception - Reality and Myths

There is a considerable amount of confusion regarding the Miranda doctrine and how it operates. This confusion has been heightened by the discussion of whether the FBI will invoke the public safety exception to the Miranda doctrine when questioning the Boston marathon bomber. Here is some basic information that may be useful in trying to understand the issues.

As most people know, the 1966 case of Miranda v Arizona held that the police are required to notify a suspect who is in custody that he has the right to stay silent and that if he speaks, any statements can and will be used against him in a court of law.

But of course if that is all the court had said, the Miranda decision wouldn't mean a whole lot. Just saying someone has a right to not make a statement would be meaningless sophistry, a right without a remedy, unless there are sanctions to back it up. The significance of the Miranda decision was not just that people in custody are required be notified of their Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination, but that if that right is violated their statements cannot be used against them at trial.

This second part of Miranda was an extension of a series of decisions stretching back decades earlier which held that evidence that was obtained in violation of a person's Constitutional rights could not be used at trial. This was definitively articulated by Weeks v US for Federal cases and by Mapp v Ohio for state cases.

This doctrine is known as the exclusionary rule. It is one of the cornerstones of American jurisprudence and has been wildly controversial. The underlying premise of the rule is that unless law enforcement officials are severely penalized when they violate a suspect's Constitutional rights, they have no incentive not to keep a violating them. Excluding unlawfully gained evidence from trial is viewed as the best tools to make law enforcement officials abide by the rules since both from the standpoint of the police as well as the prosecutors all of their work will come to naught if they are unable to get a conviction. The courts did analyze other potential remedies, such as sanctions against police officers, but determined that they are largely unworkable, and provide no real protection to a defendant whose rights have been violated.

It is important to note that the Fifth Amendment right to not be "compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself" exists regardless of whether or not the Miranda warning is given. If the suspect tells the authorities that he does not want to make a statement or in fact does not make a statement, his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination protects him. All Miranda does is ensure that the suspect is aware of that right.

Miranda applies when a suspect is in custody because the courts have determined that the very fact that a person is in custody is inherently coercive. If a person in custody freely and openly decides to talk after being told that he does not need to talk then the coercive element is taken away.

There is one other factor about the Miranda rule that is critical. Miranda does not prevent the authorities from questioning a suspect who has not been told of his Miranda rights. It merely prevents the authorities from using any of the statements made by the suspect and certain evidence that flows from those statements which is often referred to as the "fruit of the poisonous tree" from being used against the defendant at trial.

Now, what about the public safety exception. In a 1984 case, New York v Quarles, the Supreme Court set forth what is referred to as the "public safety" exception to Miranda. The court referred to it as a "narrow" exception which would allow the police to question a suspect before he is given his Miranda warnings about limited matters directly affecting the safety of the officers or the public. Further, the court held that any statements made by the defendant in response to those could be used at trial.

Quarles was a 6 to 3 decision with a vigorous dissent. The dissenters questioned whether or not, on a purely factual basis, there was a public safety issue in the case But more importantly were very concerned about how this exception could be abused. They asserted that this exception would cloud the clear unambiguous requirements of the Miranda rule which they believed had served the public and the interests of justice well for many years. In response, the majority stated

the exception will not be difficult for police officers to apply because in each case it will be circumscribed by the exigency which justifies it. Police officers can and will distinguish almost instinctively between questions necessary to secure their own safety or the safety of the public and questions designed solely to elicit testimonial evidence from a suspect.

There is an important point to remember when analyzing the public safety exception. It involves both factual and legal questions. If one does not believe that a public safety exception should exist, then no set of facts will justify such an exception. On the other hand if one's concerns are purely fact related, i.e., whether or not there a clear and immediate public safety concern justifying the questions, those concerns can only be resolved by a clear understanding of all of the underlying circumstances.

The public safety exception has been in existence for almost three decades. Needless to say the FBI and the Justice Department had a keen interest in providing guidance to its agent about the exception since they do not want to have prosecutions thrown out based on improper questioning. To that end, the FBI has issued a fairly comprehensive explanation of public safety exception which is a useful primer on how the exception developed, and how the FBI views it in application.

In addition, the FBI has issued specific public safety-terrorist guidance that is designed to be used in terrorist cases. Here is the meat of the guidance contained in that document, which is titled "Custodial Interrogation for Public Safety and Intelligence-Gathering Purposes of Operational Terrorists Inside the United States."

1. If applicable, agents should ask any and all questions that are reasonably prompted by an immediate concern for the safety of the public or the arresting agents without advising the arrestee of his Miranda rights. [3]

2. After all applicable public safety questions have been exhausted, agents should advise the arrestee of his Miranda rights and seek a waiver of those rights before any further interrogation occurs, absent exceptional circumstances described below.

3. There may be exceptional cases in which, although all relevant public safety questions have been asked, agents nonetheless conclude that continued unwarned interrogation is necessary to collect valuable and timely intelligence not related to any immediate threat, and that the government's interest in obtaining this intelligence outweighs the disadvantages of proceeding with unwarned interrogation. [4] In these instances, agents should seek SAC approval to proceed with unwarned interrogation after the public safety questioning is concluded. Whenever feasible, the SAC will consult with FBI-HQ (including OGC) and Department of Justice attorneys before granting approval. Presentment of an arrestee may not be delayed simply to continue the interrogation, unless the defendant has timely waived prompt presentment.

What does all this mean in the upcoming interrogation of Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, the one surviving brother accused of carrying out the Boston Marathon bombing. It is possible that the FBI has some legitimate basis to invoke the public safety exception based on concerns about whether Tsarnaev has planted other explosive devices or is aware of other specific pending terrorist attacks. Beyond that, it's difficult to imagine any questions that would fall within the exception.

That does not mean, of course, that they can't ask him about anything they want to without having previously advised him of his Miranda rights. They can do so with the full awareness that in all likelihood they will be unable to use any statements he made about those matters in any trial against him.

Also, if he advises the authorities that he does not want to speak to them, or simply does not speak to them, even though they have not advised him of his Miranda rights, he is perfectly entitled to do so and the authorities are prohibited from compelling testimony.

We should always remember that even though the FBI may think it's questions are reasonable and fall within the public safety exception that does not mean that the courts will agree with them. Also, any answers to questions they may ask about future threats, whether admissible or not, don't necessarily in any way impact the admissibility of all of the evidence that has already been gathered in the case or that make be developed in the future that is unrelated to any statements.

Given some comments I've read I need to make some editorial observations. This is not Guantánamo. This is not some black site in Afghanistan. The United States has successfully prosecuted a large number of people accused of terrorism in the Federal courts of the United States and has done so while fully complying with the Constitutional guarantees applicable in such cases. Lindsey Graham notwithstanding, this case will be treated just like all of those other cases.

Rand Paul's Authoritarianism And Hypocrisy On Display Today

Rand Paul, who professes to be a libertarian and staunch believer in Constitutional rights and limited government is anything but. His professed respect for the freedom and liberty of others is situational at best. The most recent example of his authoritarianism and hypocrisy is his statement regarding marriage equality. Today on Fox he said the following:

I've always said that the states have the right to decide (the issue of marriage equality.) * * * I do believe in traditional marriage, Kentucky has decided it, and I don't think the federal government should tell us otherwise, * * * I don't want the government promoting something I don't believe in, but I also don't mind if the government tries to be neutral on the issue."

So let's parse this hypocritical drivel. First, he says "that the states have the right to decide." Well, why should the states have the right to decide any more than the federal government. If you are a true libertarian you don't believe that government at any level should have the right to decide how people live their own personal lives. For instance a true libertarian would follow the Libertarian Party platform on this issue which says

Sexual orientation, preference, gender, or gender identity should have no impact on the government's treatment of individuals, such as in current marriage, child custody, adoption, immigration or military service laws. Government does not have the authority to define, license or restrict personal relationships. Consenting adults should be free to choose their own sexual practices and personal relationships.

(I am not a Libertarian, but this aspect of their platform is something agree with and coincidentally it largely mimics the Democratic platform.)

Next he says that while the states should have full authority to dictate how people live their individual lives, the federal government should have no role in the matter. This is strikingly at odds with the provisions of the federal Constitution which insure that not only the Federal government but the states cannot infringe on personal rights. It appears that while he has a problem with federal authoritarianism he is totally comfortable with state dictates.

But his hypocrisy goes much, much further. First, he says as a personal matter he believes in something he refers to as "traditional marriage." That's fine. He's entitled to any personal beliefs he has. That is not the question. The only question is what does he believe government should or should not do regarding the issue of marriage equality. On that subject he says "Kentucky has decided it, and I don't think the federal government should tell us otherwise." So not only does his libertarianism begin and end only with actions of the federal government but he is perfectly happy to have a state government that denies people their personal liberty simply because that denial comports with his personal beliefs.

Not satisfied with exhibiting hypocrisy and authoritarianism he adds some incoherence.

I don't want the government promoting something I don't believe in, but I also don't mind if the government tries to be neutral on the issue."

He doesn't want the Federal government promoting something he doesn't believe in but by extension he's more than happy with having the federal government promoting something he does believe in. And then he goes on to say I don't mind if the government tries to be neutral on the issue. Well, guess what? That is exactly what the proponents of marriage equality are after. Neutrality. What they don't want is for the federal government or the states to be biased in favor of one type of marriage by prohibiting others from enjoying the benefits of marriage.

If anyone ever had any doubts as to whether Rand Paul is a libertarian or for that matter someone who even believes in the rights guaranteed by our Constitution, his discussion of marriage equality leaves no doubt as to his true thinking. He only believes in rights that are consistent with his own personal beliefs and is more than happy to have the states infringe upon rights and for the federal government to be restricted in its ability to guarantee rights, Unless of course those federal actions are consistent with his "personal" beliefs.

Some libertarian! Rand Paul is nothing nothing more than a right-wing theocrat, and a hypocritical autocrat, pretending to be something else.

House Will Vote On Clean Debt Limit Bill on Wednesday

The House is going to raise the debt limit on Wednesday but will not actually be voting for a debt limit increase. Rather, to spare their poor members the embarrassment of actually having to raise the debt limit, the language of the bill will suspend the debt limit law until May 19, 2013, on which date the new debt limit will be whatever debt has accumulated between now and then.

When the bill is enacted, there will be no limit on how much debt can be issued until May 19. On that day, there will be a new, higher, limit in place. That new limit will include all the debt issued between now and May. It will also include the debt that will have been issued to cover the debt that has been deferred since January 1 through the "extraordinary measures" that were used by the Treasury to avoid default.

Putting aside the cowardice of the Republicans in their refusal to actually vote on a debt limit increase that has a big number in it, this is great news. This vindicates the President's determination to not negotiate with those who would hold America hostage, those who would jeopardize payments to Social Security recipients, those who would jeopardize the full faith and credit of United States debt in the world bond markets, those who are so irresponsible that they cannot accept their basic obligations as members of United States Congress.

This debt limit suspension bill does not include anything else except what is hoped to be a cudgel to be used on the members of Congress themselves. The bill provides that if by April 15 both the House and the Senate have not agreed on a joint budget resolution, then all pay of the members of the House and Senate will be held in escrow until such time as they agreed to a budget resolution. Interestingly, April 15 is the date that both Houses are supposed to agree to a joint budget resolution under the Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974.

By actually providing for payments of salaries to be made, but for them to be paid into an escrow account rather than distributed to members of Congress, the bill is designed to avoid the Constitutional prohibition against "varying" the salaries of the members of Congress during the term for which they were elected.

The interesting thing about it is that, to the extent it actually places pressure on members of Congress, it will have much less impact on the members of the Senate who by far are richer and much more able to live very comfortably without their Congressional salaries. It is also somewhat amusing that, once again, the Republicans think a ploy needs to be adopted to force the Members of Congress, including their own, to do their jobs.

Why The Debt Limit Fight Will Be A Political Face-Off With No Gimmicks Or Constitutional Crisis

In dealing with the upcoming debt limit crisis, President Obama will approach it in a fundamentally different way than he did back in 2011. But for a variety of very good reasons he will make it a straight up political face-off between the President on behalf of the people of the United States against a minority of Republicans in Congress who have recklessly threatened to put the country in default.

As he said in his press conference today "There are no magic tricks here, there are no loopholes." This reiterates what the President stated on Friday, through the Treasury, that he will not use the platinum coin option. That statement echoed his decision in 2011 that he would not use the 14th Amendment option. By these determination he has made clear will not circumvent the debt limit law by the use of one of several tactics that, while arguably legal, would be viewed by some as gimmicks, or that could develop into a significant Constitutional crisis. Moreover, he understands that the use of any of those options would merely delay the final day of reckoning. The debt limit must be increased and it is Congress' responsibility to do so.

To understand those issues we must first look at the debt limit law itself. There is a provision in the United States Code that limits the amount of money the United States can owe at any one time, and thus the amount it can borrow. It reads

31 USC 3101(b) The face amount of obligations issued under this chapter and the face amount of obligations whose principal and interest are guaranteed by the United States Government (except guaranteed obligations held by the Secretary of the Treasury) may not be more than $14,294,000,000,000, outstanding at one time, . . . .

That limit is modified by the provision of law enacted as part of the 2011 debt limit confrontation which gives the President the authority through successive acts to further raise the debt limit to $16.394 Trillion.

The Treasury reached that $16 Trillion limit at the end of 2012. Here is a comprehensive Congressional Research Service Report report explaining the history and operations of the debt limit. Since the end of the year, Treasury has used some "extraordinary" powers, such as canceling Civil Service Retirement Fund obligations, to keep paying the bills.

There have been three options under discussion. It has been argued the President could use the authority to mint a platinum coin in a trillion dollar denomination and use those funds to continue to pay the Treasury's bills. The second alternative was to use his authority to issue scrip that would be used to pay the debts of United States until the debt limit that could be raised and real dollars borrowed. The third option was for the President to simply say that he has the authority under the 14th Amendment, or some other constitution provision, to issue debt notwithstanding the fact that the issuance would exceed the amount of the debt limit law.

The President did not choose the first two options because, whether or not one thinks he has the legal authority to issue a platinum coin or issue scrip, the President knew that both internationally and domestically taking either of those actions would be viewed as a gimmick, a magic trick. More importantly, either of those actions would merely be kicking the can down the road. They would be giving the Congress an excuse to not raise the debt limit because the President would have continued to keep the country operating and the Republicans would have been let lose to fight the President in the courts and through impeachment hearings.

The third option was for the President to assert that the 14th Amendment gives him the authority, if not a requirement, to avoid default notwithstanding the debt limit. But this assertion would create a significant Constitutional crisis, a crisis between the President and the Congress as well as between the President and the Supreme Court.

Asserting this position is not the same as a conflict between two statutes, where the President interprets one statute as overriding another. Many people have suggested this possibility by arguing that the Congress has passed Appropriations Acts and that they require the President to spend the money appropriated, a requirement which conflicts with the debt limit law. That argument has little merit. There is no statute that says money that is appropriated must be spent if there is no money available. In fact, if you look at every appropriations Act the lead off language is ,

"That the following sums are appropriated, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, . . . . . "

"Any money in the Treasury." Very soon, if Treasury cannot borrow money and put it in the Treasury, there will only be two dollars in the Treasury for every three dollars of bills coming due.

Appropriations acts simply do not authorize let alone require the expenditure of funds that the Treasury does not have. There is no conflict between Appropriations Laws and the Debt Limit law. One tells Treasury how to spend money in the Treasury. The other limits how much can be borrowed to put money in the Treasury. This question is totally different than the question of whether the President can refuse to spend appropriated funds when such funds are available, which the Supreme Court has ruled to be unconstitutional.

Simply put, we are talking about the President having the power to unilaterally decide whether he will comply with laws that are duly enacted by Congress and signed by the President. Except for Nixon, no President has done that in this way since Lincoln suspended the Habeas Corpus provisions of the Judiciary Act of 1789. The action was challenged by a prisoner but Lincoln ignored a court decision which ruled the action Unconstitutional. Eventually, however, Congress essentially ratified his action.

It is important to point out that this is not the same as the President's decision to not defend the Constitutionality of DOMA, the Defense of Marriage Act. In the case of DOMA, the Constitutionality of the law had been challenged in court. The President decided that the law was no longer Constitutionally defensible and argued that position in court. However, he also announced that he would continue to enforce DOMA until the courts struck it down.

Also, this is not like the President's decision regarding Libya and the War Powers Act. While all Presidents have questioned the Constitutionality of the War Powers Act, all have generally complied with it. In the case of Libya, the President argued that he complied with the requirement for him to consult with Congress and that, in any event, the Act did not apply because we were not involved in hostilities. Whether one agrees or disagrees with the President's positions, he clearly did not take the position that he even though the Act applied he could violate it based on his determination that it was not Constitutional.

In contrast with those situations, in the case of the debt limit the President would be directing the Treasury to ignore a law that clearly applied to its actions based on his unilateral; determination of its Constitutionality. He would be doing so even though the law has not been challenged let alone held to be Unconstitutional by a court.

Virtually all legal scholars believe that the President has a duty to enforce the law regardless of what he thinks about it because all laws that are duly enacted are presumptively Constitutional. This is a basic tenet of our legal system that was referred to in the 6th Circuit Decision upholding the Affordable Care Act

The minimum coverage provision, like all congressional enactments, is entitled to a “presumption of constitutionality,” and will be invalidated only upon a “plain showing that Congress has exceeded its constitutional bounds.” . . . The presumption that the minimum coverage provision is valid is “not a mere polite gesture. It is a deference due to deliberate judgment by constitutional majorities of the two Houses of Congress that an Act is within their delegated power . . .(citations omitted).

No Court has held that the President has the power to issue a binding ruling that any law, such as the debt limit, is Unconstitutional. Rather the courts have held that such power resides in the Supreme Court. Since the 1803 case of Marbury v Madison it has been accepted that only the Court can declare a law Unconstitutional. Unless that happens or until it is repealed, the debt limit is the law of the land.

Having rejected all other options, the President has decided to engage in a direct challenge to the Congress. He is not going to play games or kick the can down the road. And he certainly isn't going to give them ammunition to argue that he has exceeded his Presidential authority, which would create a sideshow of its own involving court cases and Congressional hearings. This is actually the boldest step he could take it is also the step most likely to succeed because it is a pure political challenge involving the power of a President who is just been reelected against a very unpopular Congress. As such it is by far the most likely to succeed.

White House Responds: No Secession Today Boys

The White House has issued its response to all the secession petitions filed on its website. In the politest way possible the petitioners were given a gigantic red raspberry. In addition, the White House took the opportunity to point out that secession runs counter to the precepts that undergird our democracy, has been ruled to be illegal by the Supreme Court and, tragically, has been tried once before at a cost of 600,000 lives.

Writing a response to the people who view secession as a viable option surely must have been a real challenge for the rational, professional, knowledgeable, and educated folks working at the White House. But they were up to the challenge and did a masterful job with this one. While the full text is set out below, I thought it useful to highlight what are arguably the most important points.

The White House pointed out that first and foremost we are a self-governing nation in which people have the power through the ballot box. Elections are the process that has been used for over 200 years for people to elect their representatives and seek to change their government. Destroying the Union or leaving it are not legitimate options. These thoughts are captured here,

Our founding fathers established the Constitution of the United States "in order to form a more perfect union" through the hard and frustrating but necessary work of self-government. They enshrined in that document the right to change our national government through the power of the ballot -- a right that generations of Americans have fought to secure for all. But they did not provide a right to walk away from it.

The White House then points out that not only is the ballot box the forum for resolving disputes, but that 150 years ago secession was tried with terrible results.

As President Abraham Lincoln explained in his first inaugural address in 1861, "in contemplation of universal law and of the Constitution the Union of these States is perpetual." In the years that followed, more than 600,000 Americans died in a long and bloody civil war that vindicated the principle that the Constitution establishes a permanent union between the States.

And for those who think that maybe states can secede without the Civil War, the White House also points out that when the Supreme Court addressed this issue it clearly held that secession is not a legal option for states.

And shortly after the Civil War ended, the Supreme Court confirmed that "[t]he Constitution, in all its provisions, looks to an indestructible Union composed of indestructible States."

The Supreme Court case referred to is Texas v White, a case which should be mandatory reading for all would be secessionists. Here is a money quotation,

When, therefore, Texas became one of the United States, she entered into an indissoluble relation. All the obligations of perpetual union, and all the guaranties of republican government in the Union, attached at once to the State. The act which consummated her admission into the Union was something more than a compact; it was the incorporation of a new member into the political body. And it was final. The union between Texas and the other States was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States. There was no place for reconsideration or revocation, except through revolution or through consent of the States.

Of course none of this will assuage the anger and anxieties of the would be patriots in Texas and elsewhere who express their patriotism by wishing to dissolve the Union. They will only be satisfied when a person who looks like them, thinks like them and acts like them becomes President of United States. Of course to find that country they may have to leave the United States and band together to form the Disjointed Republic of Dimbulbistan.

Here is the full text of the White House petition response.

OFFICIAL WHITE HOUSE RESPONSE TO
Peacefully grant the State of Louisiana to withdraw from the United States of America and create its own NEW government. and 8 other petitions
Our States Remain United
By Jon Carson

Thank you for using the White House's online petitions platform to participate in your government.

In a nation of 300 million people -- each with their own set of deeply-held beliefs -- democracy can be noisy and controversial. And that's a good thing. Free and open debate is what makes this country work, and many people around the world risk their lives every day for the liberties we often take for granted.

But as much as we value a healthy debate, we don't let that debate tear us apart.

Our founding fathers established the Constitution of the United States "in order to form a more perfect union" through the hard and frustrating but necessary work of self-government. They enshrined in that document the right to change our national government through the power of the ballot -- a right that generations of Americans have fought to secure for all. But they did not provide a right to walk away from it. As President Abraham Lincoln explained in his first inaugural address in 1861, "in contemplation of universal law and of the Constitution the Union of these States is perpetual." In the years that followed, more than 600,000 Americans died in a long and bloody civil war that vindicated the principle that the Constitution establishes a permanent union between the States. And shortly after the Civil War ended, the Supreme Court confirmed that "[t]he Constitution, in all its provisions, looks to an indestructible Union composed of indestructible States."

Although the founders established a perpetual union, they also provided for a government that is, as President Lincoln would later describe it, "of the people, by the people, and for the people" -- all of the people. Participation in, and engagement with, government is the cornerstone of our democracy. And because every American who wants to participate deserves a government that is accessible and responsive, the Obama Administration has created a host of new tools and channels to connect concerned citizens with White House. In fact, one of the most exciting aspects of the We the People platform is a chance to engage directly with our most outspoken critics.

So let's be clear: No one disputes that our country faces big challenges, and the recent election followed a vigorous debate about how they should be addressed. As President Obama said the night he won re-election, "We may have battled fiercely, but it's only because we love this country deeply and we care so strongly about its future."

Whether it's figuring out how to strengthen our economy, reduce our deficit in a responsible way, or protect our country, we will need to work together -- and hear from one another -- in order to find the best way to move forward. I hope you'll take a few minutes to learn more about the President's ideas and share more of your own.

Jon Carson is Director of the Office of Public Engagement

Letter To The President: Cutting Tax Spending and Fixing Long Term Social Security Deficit

President Barack Obama
White House
Washington D.C. 20500

Dear Mr. President,

I have a proposal for how you can deal with the upcoming push to continue to get a grand bargain, hopefully outside the context of the debt limit. The Republicans want to you to focus on cutting costs, saying that taxes have been decided. You should agree but only if all costs are looked at - those that involve the Treasury writing a check and those the involve the Treasury writing a back door check by telling a taxpayer he can reduce what he owes. We must focus on cutting all expenditures, those made by directly by appropriations acts and those made indirectly through the tax code.

There is no doubt that tax expenditures have been under discussion. But I have a proposal for how to do reframe that debate and implement changes that I have never heard discussed. It is an approach which would be much easier to understand, sell, and implement.

Everyone knows tax policy is hard and complex, but it can be made easier. If you have three goals: cutting spending made through the tax code (tax expenditures); making the tax system fairer and more progressive; and reducing or phasing out subsidies that have passed their useful life, here is a "relatively" simple way to achieve all those goals.

Eliminate all deductions by converting them into tax credits, unrefundable of course. Value those credits at 10%, which is the lowest tax rate. (That gives you some room to negotiate up on some if necessary.) Doing this will achieve many important things.

* It lowers the deficit by cutting wasteful costs we are making through tax expenditure without raising rates.

* It leaves every truly middle class tax payer, those earning within 50% of the income mean, in roughly the same place or better than they are today.

* It gives every taxpayer the same subsidy for doing the same thing. The wealthy will not get a back door check from Uncle Sam for 35% of the interest cost on their mortgage, while the working guys only get a benefit of 10% of their mortgage interest expense. The same for charitable deductions and all the rest. This cures an unacceptable unfairness in the code and runs counter to any legitimate public policy interest.

* It simplifies the code, eliminating the really complicated things like the recently reinstated Pease Plan which partially limits the value of deductions in an unnecessarily complex way.

* Finally it gives you a mechanism to phase out tax expenditures that have passed their time. If those phase outs are done at 1 to 2% per year per year will be as easy to tolerate as the phased out tax benefits enacted in the Reagan years that eliminated for instance the deductibility of non-mortgage consumer debt.

Look, I know everything has complexities but those things can be worked out. I also know that institutions and people have a “not invented here” mindset that make them resistant to change. But this really can work. And once your your folks analyze it you will see that I have only scratched the surface of the benefits it offers.

* * * * * *

Personally, we hoped all the Bush tax cuts would have expired, knowing that would have cost us several thousand dollars but ones we never knew we were missing in the nineties. I have spent a career dealing with economist and their charts and tables and respect their work, but I understand the limitations of that work are real. One need only look at how they totally under predicted the effects of the great recession when folks like me, who were tying to sell a house and seeing the swift and deep collapse of the market could readily see the impact it was going to have on not just housing but the entire overleaveraged financial system. It was clear to anyone not looking at recession charts of the last three decades that we were facing something much worse than what had been seen since the depressions. Conversely, those same experts have not accurately seen that now the rate of growth is increasing faster that they thought. Since they have been burned by under prediction in the past they don’t want to burned by over prediction now.

That is a long way to say we could generate far more tax revenue without hurting the economy than is being thought, and could use it for necessary expenditure as well as deficit reduction, which is going to be the key Republican mantra over the next four year. Not only that, higher revenue, with part used for more infrastructure spending as well as long term investment and the rest used for lowering with lowering the deficit will help us grow faster.

I have one final thought on Social Security and Medicare. I think the long term Social security issue could be solved by not only lifting the the wage tax cap but by making all dividends and capital gains subject to the full 12.4% rate. A version of this was done in the ACA for the Medicare tax. You could even add a new small benefit percentage in the calculation so the the super rich would see a bit of return on these contributions. I think you will find that this change would pretty much eliminate the projected Social Security shortfall. It would also have the salutary effect of getting the total tax rate on unearned income closer to par with the total tax rates paid on wages

* * * * * * *

We live in a great country but since the eighties we have been making it less great by increasing income inequality, and living off the legacy of public expenditures made by our fore-bearers. As a consequence we are sadly seeing a less just, stable and economically dynamic country.

I am confident you are the Leader that can continue on the course to turn this around. I first really heard it in the Osawatomie speech, which was brilliant and moving. I continue to hear echoes of that speech to this day. I hope what I am proposing here will be yet another way for you to present concrete proposals that will further the necessary aims you have for our Nation.

Yours Very Sincerely,



Gary L. Norton
Durango, CO 81303



I added a small postscript inviting him for a visit to our house in a beautiful part of the country. He hasn't been here but Michelle has and he should just ask her.

Dinner With Five Voltec Engineers

On October 23, my wife and I had dinner with five Voltec engineers in Durango Colorado. We had received a call about a week ago saying they would be stopping in town and wanting to know if we would be interested in talking with them. We, of course, we’re delighted to meet them and share our experience with the car.

These five engineers are part of the propulsion team. They were making a loop through Colorado that started in Denver and would end in Colorado Springs. They told us that they were testing various new components, and otherwise testing the performance of the vehicle in mountainous terrain. They did not share what those the new components might be.

At the outset I should note that these men seemed to be very proud of what they had achieved. They took great pride in the Volt. I was very complimentary towards the car and they told me how much they appreciate not only what I said, but also the very positive responses the Volt has received. Several of these guys had also worked on the hybrid Silverado and they were very proud of their achievements with that truck as well. I should also note that GM-Volt.com came up in the discussion several times, primarily raised by me. There were many smiles around the table and they assured me that they were very familiar with the site and it was monitored closely every day.

Our discussion started with their question as to why I bought the Volt. Condensing a long discussion, I said that I fell in love with the car. The car and I made a connection. It just felt right. I had never bought a Chevy before, and have only owned one other American car out of the dozens of cars I’ve owned. I had not expected to feel a connection with the car when I got in and drove it, but boy was I surprised. I was impressed by the quality and the quietness, by the feel of the breaks, steering, and doors, and above all I was impressed by the quickness, responsiveness, and seamless operation of the car. Yes, the extremely low operating costs, environmental considerations and cutting our dependance on oil are all very important factors. But if most buyers are like me, the first and most important question is whether the car feels right. In the case of the Volt, the answer was a definite yes for me.

Since they were propulsion engineers they were primarily interested in how the engine/ battery/drivetrain system worked in mountainous terrain. I told them I was very happy with Mountain Mode. I had tried to navigate the mountains without it, and ultimately concluded that Mountain Mode was the best. I did ask them about a phenomenon I had experienced on several occasions. Usually when I run out of battery power driving on the flats it shows that I consumed around 10.4 kW. However, on several occasions, and it seems primarily when driving in the mountains, I would only show a consumption of approximately 9.6 to 9.8 kW before I would run out of battery power. They did not have an answer for why this would occur but they may get some information that could could sort out, since they downloaded a whole bunch of data from my car.

They asked me about my likes and dislikes and I told them Chevrolet had struck a very good balance between the competing interests of battery power, weight, cost and engine efficiency. I did make one comment about the gasoline engine to the effect that on occasion I could feel a slight vibration through the steering wheel and possibly the floor. I suggested that since a vibration is connected to your sense of what you hear, that I may have been feeling the engine more than actually hearing it when driving in the mountains. I said the noise was very low, and not the least bit obtrusive, but I did on occasion notice it and therefore thought that they might want to think about inserting a little more isolation between the engine and other components.

They asked me if I had any recommendations on the display screens in the car. I said that maybe it was a lack of imagination, but I really didn’t, with one exception. In the power mode you can see the number of kilowatts consumed, but I would like to have an initial notation of how many kilowatts were in the battery before I started the trip. When the car is unplugged, there is a notice that is fully charged, but there is no numerical indication of what that charge is. I felt it would be useful to have that information, which would enable one to monitor how the battery was performing.

They asked about charging. I told him there were no public charging stations around here and all charging was done in my garage. They asked what kind of charger I used. I told them I had decided on the SPX Power Express since, although it was more expensive, it appeared to be a much heavier duty device than some of the cheaper models. There were some knowing smiles around the table. I explained I was very happy but had experienced two charging interruptions, which I attributed to lightning or some other problem with the electrical current. In response to their question I confirmed that the check engine light came on in both instances. The first time it cleared fairly quickly but the second time stayed on for several days. It stayed on long enough that I ended up making an appointment with the dealer to have it checked out, even though I was certain, based on my conversation with OnStar, that there was no problem. As these things go of course the next day it turned off. They explained that it is specifically designed to stay on through four cycles, a requirement having to do with the emission control standards.

We discussed a few non-propulsion things, primarily little quibbles. I suggested that the back door trim on the inside could easily be of a higher quality, similar to that on the front doors, without costing too much. I mentioned the need for a bit of rubber trim on the outside of the rear doors, to keep the doorjamb from getting dirty. They smiled, and said they were fully aware of that problem based on their experience every time they wash the cars. We discussed power seats a little. They explained that they were not included for weight and cost reasons. I said that in most cars I’ve found power seats unnecessary since my wife and I drive separate cars and rarely adjust the seats. Oddly, the Volt is an exception. We both love it so much, and prefer to our Acura, that it is always the first car out the garage and the other car is only driven if both of us are driving at the same time or if we are hauling a large load. Lastly we said we really loved the black roof, that it gave the Volt a distinctive appearance. While it was discontinued in 2013 it should at least be an option.

When they brought up the subject of the coming winter, we had a lengthy discussion about heat pumps. They said a heat pump was not included because of the experience with heat pumps in the EV-1. I explained that they should look at the issue again since heat pump technology has changed dramatically since the late 80s and early 90s and based on my household experience with heat pumps it seems to me that the possibility of it meeting the Volt’s heating needs were very high. My heat pump still works well at 10°.

We discussed marketing a little bit. I expressed the view that Chevrolet was not focusing on the biggest attribute of the vote, that the combination of a gas generator with a battery was a marriage made in heaven. The single largest drawback that keeps people from enjoying the seamless quiet power and economy of an electric vehicle is the concern that it cannot on trips of any distance. The volt solves that problem. Any time it needs to be driven on a long trip, the driver can do so simply by filling it with gasoline just as in any other car. However, for 80 to 90% of the daily usage of the car, the driver can simply run it on battery power, never using gasoline.

After dinner we went out to the Volt and I gladly agreed to their request to download data from the car. I also received an in-depth explanation of the operation of the drivetrain. I did mention that one chintzy little thing I didn’t like was the hood release latch. I said I assumed it was taken out of the Chevy parts bin but was really a bush league device that was not consistent with the high-quality engineering in the car. I asked about the Cadillac ELR and specifically about the news that it might get a turbocharged engine. The response was a knowing smile but otherwise, “no comment.”

It was a wonderful evening. I am very impressed with the attitude and confidence of these men. I left thinking that with these men working on the Volt, it and the other vehicles that will be developed with the Voltec technology have a bright future ahead of them.