AnnotatedOpinions.com

Of the thousands of judges staffing courts in the United States, none is as powerful and less accountable to citizen complaints and scrutiny as the hierarchy of federal jurists appointed to lifetime terms. . . While the constitutional purpose of that arrangement is to insulate sitting judges from political or public influence on their rulings, it has also made it difficult to remove an incompetent or criminal-minded individual. Only the U.S. House of Representatives has the power to initiate impeachment proceedings against such jurists, and only the U.S. Senate can remove them from office.  

As reported by the Chronicle’s Lise Olsen, federal judges have committed a wide range of inappropriate, unethical and sometimes illegal acts while keeping their six-figure salaries and eluding exposure. In a review of more than 3,000 allegations of judicial misconduct over the past decade, Olsen found only seven judges faced formal disciplinary action and only two were recommended by colleagues for impeachment. . .  

In response to the complaints that judicial scrutiny is lacking at the federal level, earlier this year Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa and Rep. James Sensenbrenner, R-Wis., introduced legislation that would create an independent inspector general for the federal judiciary. . .  

The legislation, which has not come to a vote, would set a four-year term for the inspector general, who would be appointed and subject to removal by the Supreme Court chief justice. . .  

[AO: Yes, yes, and yes. This Chronicle identifies an issue that deserves attention. But here is why we must thread carefully.  

As the Chronicle explains, the constitution purposely puts hurdles in the way of removal of federal judges. These hurdles are meant to “insulate sitting judges from political or public influence on their rulings.” So far, the system setup by our Constitution has been successful in protecting the federal judiciary and as a result we must be careful so that our tinkering does not produce unintended consequences.   

The proposal for the appointment of an inspector for the federal judicial may seem innocuous. Yet in that proposal lies the potential for political manipulation. The inspector, who would be a political appointee, may come to wield immense power over the judiciary even if that individual is subject to removal by the chief justice of the Supreme Court. Such power will likely reflect the political ideology of the politician who appoints the inspector. A Republican president may appoint a very different inspector general from one a Democratic president might appoint. This decision will have an effect on how the inspector general brings the pressures of her office to bear on judges.   

We saw a version of this in the US Attorneys General firings during the George W. Bush administration. It’s one thing for an administration to pressure or otherwise influence prosecutors. We don’t need the executive branch to also have the power to pressure federal judges.  

The Chronicle has identified an issue that deserves attention. However, appointing an inspector general may not be the best solution in light of the potential for abuse.]

Of all the convoluted math cranked out by the federal government, none quite compares with the creative ciphering done in the name of proving that Social Security is really, truly solvent.  

The subject springs to mind in the wake of reports that the nation’s retirement safety net will be running a deficit for the next couple of years. Nothing to be alarmed about, you understand: Only about $10 billion in 2010 and $9 billion in 2011. Come 2012, everything will be copacetic once more. The amount flowing into the trust fund is expected to return to surplus.  

Except that the so-called surplus in the Social Security kitty isn’t really a surplus. After all those billions withheld from millions of workers’ paychecks and matched dollar for dollar by employers are sent to Washington, something funny happens. After the obligations to Social Security recipients are paid, the remainder is almost instantly alchemized into debt — Treasury bonds, to be specific. These are used to fund a host of mostly worthwhile government activities . . .  

[AO: Yesterday I watched an episode of “The Office.” In that episode, Michael Scott (the character) asks one of his employees to explain the meaning of surplus to him as if he was a 5 year old. I will attempt to do something similar. Imagine your parents give you $10 to open a cookie stand. After buying materials and ingredients and baking the cookies, your cost comes to $9. The remaining $1 is a surplus.   

Let us extend this analogy to Social Security. The government collects billions to fund Social Security. After expenses and payments, what is left is a surplus. Let us call that the Social Security surplus.   

In the television program, Michael Scott has the choice of spending the surplus (to avoid having next year’s budget decreased by the amount of the surplus) or returning the surplus and getting a 15% bonus. In the case of Social Security, the government uses the surplus to “fund a host of mostly worthwhile government activities.” But according to the Houston Chronicle, once the government uses the surplus to fund something else, it is no longer a surplus. But why?  

This is where the logical slight of hand occurs. See, it is not that there is no Social Security surplus after it has been spent by another arm of the government. No. The real concern the Houston Chronicle has is that once spent, the government will not payback the loan it owes to the Social Security Administration (think of the surplus going to the government as a loan). But this is not an issue of whether there is a surplus. That is the issue of whether the government is a trustworthy borrower and if the Social Security Administration should be lending its surplus to the government, keeping it under its mattress or perhaps going into the loan sharking business. ]