Frank: A Life in Politics from the Great Society to Same-Sex Marriage (52 page)

Looking ahead, the opportunities to cut the military budget are many. One way is to substantially curtail the far-flung network of bases we sustain throughout the world. A presence in South Korea is clearly required given the threat from a North Korea that is governed by a heavily armed lunatic. Reassuring friends in the Middle East who are confronted by a range of hostile fanatics justifies maintaining a presence there, especially a naval one. But the army should be prevented from expanding its mission in Africa. And while an American presence in Europe was needed to protect the poor, war-weakened nations of that continent from an aggressive, heavily armed Stalin, those states are now rich and fully capable of defending themselves—even from a Vladimir Putin.

We can also safely cut back on our capacity to engage in an all-out war with the Soviet Union’s Russian successor. I am prepared to err here on the side of safety. We can currently launch thermonuclear attacks via three separate means, known as “the triad”: intercontinental ballistic missiles, strategic bombers, or our fleet of nuclear submarines. I propose—seriously—that we instruct the Pentagon to pick two, thereby saving billions of dollars per year. We can also safely cut down—not eliminate—spending on new weapons. Here is where politics intrudes. Taking benefits away from people who have been enjoying them, and count on continuing to do so, is very hard. Never providing the benefit in the first place is much easier. Even if we have to maintain most existing contracts, a decision to scale back future expenditures will yield massive savings.

This program, which is entirely feasible substantively and politically, reduces currently projected spending by more than $1 trillion over the next ten years.

The fact that public opinion in America has moved away from supporting an aggressive military posture is only confirmed by its recent reaction to the savagery of the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria. The efforts by hawks such as McCain, Cheney, and Senator Lindsey Graham to push Obama into a muscular military intervention lacked any political appeal until the gruesome beheading of Americans, and the lack of effective resistance to the murderers as they advanced through Iraq. Even then the public supported air strikes but not ground troops. Tellingly, congressional leaders advised the president to act without any authorizing legislation—reflecting, I am certain, a reluctance among their members to vote for military action in the face of public skepticism. Most important for my argument, the scale of intervention in Syria and Iraq is well within the capability of the smaller military structure I support. It is entirely possible to combine vigorous antiterrorist activity with a substantially reduced military budget. Maintaining overwhelming superiority over barbarous fanatics who have no air force does not require expanding our capacities.

*

There are few comparable opportunities to free up money by making cuts in domestic spending. But there is one area where a change in policy could save billions of dollars a year on the federal, state, and local levels—and even create new revenue sources. It is time to recognize that the glaringly unsuccessful and disruptive battle we have waged in recent decades is not the War on Poverty, but the War on Drugs. Criminalizing a willing adult’s decision to ingest substances that do no harm to anyone other than the drug user himself or herself has been ineffective and very expensive. It also leads to crime that harms nonusers.

My advocacy of decriminalizing most drugs stems in substantial part from my libertarian conviction that adults should not be subject to government coercion for choices that primarily affect themselves. But even those who think it is legitimate to prevent people from doing things the rest of us think are bad for them must acknowledge that this war has been a failure.

This case is most easily made with regard to marijuana. The idea that using marijuana is the first step toward substance abuse is true in one respect only: The law treats it that way. But this is beginning to alter. The parallels with same-sex marriage are notable: Growing acceptance of legal marijuana is driven by generational change, and by the fact that once a few jurisdictions removed criminal penalties, the predicted negative consequences of such “permissiveness” failed to materialize. Thus far, voters in Colorado and Washington show few signs of regretting their decisions to allow unrestricted adult use.

I acknowledge that legalizing heroin, cocaine, and other currently illegal substances has little such popular appeal. And I acknowledge further that the case I am making does not extend to all drugs. We must do what we can to stop people from swallowing or injecting substances that increase the likelihood that they will injure others. Of course, there is one substance that does clearly increase the incidence of antisocial behavior. But the prohibition of alcoholic beverages from 1920 to 1933 did more harm than good, and almost no one advocates trying it again.

While I generally disagree with colleagues on the left who believe that the mass of voters are in agreement with us, the evidence is strong that in this case they are. The fear of being considered “soft on drugs” has inhibited my former colleagues in government whose careers began in earlier decades. But the consistent support for relaxing marijuana prohibition in referenda and the accession to office of a newer generation are rapidly changing the political equation. It took too long for the Obama administration to accept legalization on the state level. But once it did acquiesce, there was little negative fallout—which is itself indicative of the changes under way.

In the case of heroin, cocaine, and other substances, there is little support for legalization. But there is growing support for reducing criminal penalties and for offering nonpenal treatment alternatives to those who wish to curtail their habits. Scaling back the War on Drugs in such ways could save as much as $40 billion per year according to the Cato Institute.

*

If government were more solvent, it would also be more successful—and more popular. We could do more to support children in poverty or working families unable to earn enough to live decently even with their best efforts. We could withstand the pressure to cut off benefits to the long-term unemployed, and we could fund rental-housing programs that keep lower-income people from being victimized by the upward pressure on housing costs or even becoming homeless. In addition, we can make a serious effort to provide genuine equality of opportunity for those who, forty years ago, would have gotten manufacturing jobs that paid a decent wage but whose prospects in today’s economy are bleak, and whose inadequate income prevents them from enjoying anything close to equality of opportunity.

Two very different chairs of the Federal Reserve gave identical answers when I asked them a compound question: Has inequality in America gone beyond what is healthy for the economy, and if so, what can we do about it? Alan Greenspan and Benjamin Bernanke both told me that inequality was excessive, and both cited greatly increased access to community colleges as a partial remedy. These institutions provide their students with occupational skills that lead to jobs that can support families at a reasonable level, and are not susceptible to going offshore—for example, as technicians who repair television sets and heating systems and other machines.

Since community colleges are primarily funded by state budgets, as those budgets are squeezed, fewer students are able to attend. Meanwhile, those who do attend are more likely to incur unsustainable personal debt loads. Increasing federal aid to states in general and for community colleges in particular would help reduce tuition to an affordable level—and help strengthen the earning power of those in the lower economic sector. More Pell Grant funding for low-income students would also be beneficial, as would lower interest rates on student loans. In 2010, Democrats took a step in this direction when we passed a bill sharply reducing the subsidy that private banks receive when they offer federally guaranteed student loans at no risk to themselves. Unfortunately, a Republican filibuster in the Senate forced a substantial reduction in the program.

Liberals who are serious about spending money must also be serious about saving it. Properly deployed, the money that we can reclaim through sensible defense and drug policies gives us the chance to overcome antigovernment sentiment and redress growing inequality. Increased federal revenue would also relieve the pressure on the two most successful antipoverty, pro-middle-class programs America has ever enacted: Social Security and Medicare.

*

This represents the substance of what I’m advocating as I continue my engagement in policy debate. One postretirement question remains to be answered: What form will this involvement take?

The answer is easy: I will be an advocate, with no organizational affiliation. After devoting forty-five years to collegiality with colleagues, responsiveness to constituents, and figuring out how to maximize my individual input into collective decision making, I have no desire to check what I am doing or saying with anybody else. I am passionately committed to never again being responsible for anybody else’s actions or opinions. (Except when it comes to Jim, and in this particular trade-off, I come out ahead. He is asked to explain or defend me much more often than the reverse.)

This means I will make my arguments using every medium of spoken and written communication in which I am proficient. I have made comparatively little use of social media, but I am working on that. I am not optimistic of complete success. (I have been engaged in a lifelong battle with inanimate objects, beginning with an exasperated elementary shop teacher who promised that he would pass me if I would stop touching the tools.) My determination to avoid organizational affiliations also complements my choice to live in two places—I divide my time between Ogunquit, Maine, Jim’s longtime home, and Newton, Massachusetts, which has been mine for thirty-five years. (Fortunately, they are only about an hour and a half apart by car.) This arrangement accommodates my teaching and TV appearances and Jim’s ongoing work for regular customers of his awning business. It also means he can accompany me on my political rounds—sometimes—and I can—sometimes—watch him surf and snowboard.

When I compare my life now to the life I expected to lead in 1954, I find significant similarities and differences. As in 1954, I plan to devote very little of my political energy to LGBT rights, and almost all of it to supporting a strong role for government in general. Of course, when I was fourteen, I expected to be arguing for more liberal policies within the framework of a broad societal acceptance of government’s role. Now that role itself is at issue. Back then there seemed to be no serious chance of winning any battles on behalf of LGBT people like myself. Now many of those battles have been won. What was impossible in 1954—fighting for LGBT equality—became essential and then much less necessary. What was unnecessary then—building support for a strong government role—has now become essential.

Sixty years ago, when I began to think about how to maximize my participation in politics, I understood that it would require the repression of any private life. Today, I cite the emotional damage I inflicted on myself when I speak with younger LGBT people who ask my advice. It took me far too long to achieve a happy, fulfilling domestic existence. Even with my ongoing commitment to the public good, political activity now ranks a very distant second for me. Looking back, I think I was pretty good at my job. Now it is time to be good at life, and with Jim’s help, I think I can be.

Appendix 1

Who Did What on Subprime Lending and Regulating Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac

1994: A Democratic Congress passes and Bill Clinton signs the Home Ownership and Equity Protection Act, directing the Federal Reserve System to adopt rules to prevent irresponsible lending.

1994–2006: Fed chair Alan Greenspan explicitly refuses to use this authority, rejecting the urging of Fed governor Edward Gramlich that he do so to deal with an emerging pattern of lending abuses.

1995–2006: Members of the Democratic congressional minority also urge Greenspan to act. The Republican majority supports Greenspan’s decision, refusing to allow Democrats to use official committee proceedings to make our case.

2000–2004: Troubled by an increase in imprudent lending practices, advocates persuade several states to adopt laws and rules restricting lending abuses.

2004: The Bush administration uses federal authority to preempt state rules restricting the activities of nationally chartered banks, and urges state-chartered banks to shift to federal charters to escape state regulation. This kills the state regulations on mortgages.

2004–2006: Led by Congressmen Brad Miller and Mel Watt, Democrats begin an effort to pass national subprime regulatory legislation. At first, Republican subcommittee chairman Spencer Bachus negotiates with us, with the Democrats favoring stronger rules. But the House Republican leadership directs the Financial Services Committee to drop these efforts, and no legislation can be produced. (Republicans are still in the majority.)

2007: Democrats are in the majority for the first time since 1994. In November, the House adopts a tough antipredatory lending bill.
The Wall Street Journal
and conservative Republicans on the committee angrily denounce it as an interference with the free market and praise subprime loans for helping poor people become homeowners.

2008: Prodded by House action, and not wanting to lose the initiative on the issue, Ben Bernanke leads the Fed to adopt rules under its HOEPA authority for the first time since the law passed fourteen years earlier.

2009: The House readopts the subprime bill and includes it in Wall Street Reform (aka the Dodd-Frank Act).

2010: The Senate agrees to accept the subprime bill in the conference committee on the Wall Street Reform bill, and it becomes law upon the president’s signature.

2013: The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau adopts tough rules effectively prohibiting irresponsible mortgage lending.