Do we live in a democracy, or do we have a democratic system?
I watched NBC's "Nightly News" tonight (4/17/2013), and I learned that a bill to enact universal background checks for gun purchases had been "defeated" in the Senate. They reported that four Republicans had voted in favor of the bill (actually, an amendment to a bill), but four Democrats had voted against. That didn't make any sense to me, because I knew that Democrats held a majority in the Senate, so four votes switching both ways would still leave a Democratic majority.
It was only later, listening to a different news show, that I learned that the amendment had been "defeated" by a vote of 54 ayes and 46 nays. Yes, a bill was "defeated" because it got only 54% of the vote, which is "only" a majority.
Ignoring for the moment whether the Senate is a democratic institution, or whether a vote of a majority of Senators would reflect a vote of a majority of the American people, the problem still remains that, if the Senate is supposed to be a representative body, and if a majority of Senators can't act for the Senate, then something is terribly and fundamentally wrong.
So the question raised at the beginning of this post, "do we have a democratic system?" can be answered, and the answer is "no," we do not.
Showing posts with label Politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Politics. Show all posts
Wednesday, April 17, 2013
Saturday, November 10, 2012
The House of Un-Representatives
Looking at the election results from Pennsylvania, I was glad to see that we had voted for Barack Obama and Bob Casey, but surprised that we elected only 5 Democrats from our 18 Congressional districts. Was there that much vote splitting?
Then I learned that Pennsylvania wasn't alone. As Ezra Klein points out, Democratic candidates for the House got 54,301,095 votes while Republicans got 53,822,442, but Democrats got many fewer House seats, only 193 to 233 for Republicans. (Nine races are still undecided.) So Democrats got half the votes but only 44% of the seats.
I looked up the Congressional election results for Pennsylvania, and with 99.61% of the precincts reporting, Democratic candidates for House seats got a total of 2,702,900 votes, Republicans got 2,617,031 votes, and other parties got 41,080 votes. So Democrats got 50.4% of the votes, but won only 28% of the races.
How could that happen? It happened because some Congressional districts were lopsided wins for Democrats, while most Republican wins were narrower, so the Democratic votes were concentrated in a few districts. Specifically, 41.9% of all Democratic votes were cast in the 5 Congressional districts that the Democrats won.
And why did that vote concentration happen?
The easy answer is that the Republican-controlled Pennsylvania legislature fixed the Congressional districts to favor Republicans, but that's only part of the answer. The fact of the matter is that Democratic votes tend to be concentrated in urban areas, and in Pennsylvania that means Philadelphia and Pittsburgh. Once that many voters of one party are congregated together like that, it is fairly difficult to construct districts with proportionate numbers of voters of each party. Republican-controlled legislatures might have made the problem worse, but the problem was going to be there regardless. And it's only going to get worse as time goes on because there is a growing tendency for people to cluster together with other people with similar political views, as explained in Bill Bishop's book, The Big Sort.
The irony here is that the House of Representatives was supposed to be the branch of the government that would be most responsive to the will of the people, with direct elections every two years.
The Senate was only indirectly responsive to the people, with Senators elected by state legislatures. Senators are now elected by popular vote, but the allocation of two Senators for each state gives less populous states--which tend to be Republican--a disproportionate amount of power, and the Senate is slow to change because Senators are elected only every six years.
The election of the President is even more indirect, and so the President was going to be the least responsive to the people, because the President is chosen by "electors" selected by each state "in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct," which means that popular vote is not needed at all. And we complain about the role of the "Electoral College" in Presidential elections every four years, but the results of the Electoral College usually match the results of the popular vote.
So we've now got a President who was elected with the support of a majority of the voters. We've also got a Senate with 54 Democrats and 46 Republicans, which is roughly the same percentages as the popular vote for President and so roughly representative of the voters. But we've also got a House that is distinctly not representative of the politics of a majority of Americans.
So the whole system has turned upside down, with the President becoming the most representative of the popular will and the House becoming the least representative, a House of Un-Representatives.
Then I learned that Pennsylvania wasn't alone. As Ezra Klein points out, Democratic candidates for the House got 54,301,095 votes while Republicans got 53,822,442, but Democrats got many fewer House seats, only 193 to 233 for Republicans. (Nine races are still undecided.) So Democrats got half the votes but only 44% of the seats.
I looked up the Congressional election results for Pennsylvania, and with 99.61% of the precincts reporting, Democratic candidates for House seats got a total of 2,702,900 votes, Republicans got 2,617,031 votes, and other parties got 41,080 votes. So Democrats got 50.4% of the votes, but won only 28% of the races.
How could that happen? It happened because some Congressional districts were lopsided wins for Democrats, while most Republican wins were narrower, so the Democratic votes were concentrated in a few districts. Specifically, 41.9% of all Democratic votes were cast in the 5 Congressional districts that the Democrats won.
And why did that vote concentration happen?
The easy answer is that the Republican-controlled Pennsylvania legislature fixed the Congressional districts to favor Republicans, but that's only part of the answer. The fact of the matter is that Democratic votes tend to be concentrated in urban areas, and in Pennsylvania that means Philadelphia and Pittsburgh. Once that many voters of one party are congregated together like that, it is fairly difficult to construct districts with proportionate numbers of voters of each party. Republican-controlled legislatures might have made the problem worse, but the problem was going to be there regardless. And it's only going to get worse as time goes on because there is a growing tendency for people to cluster together with other people with similar political views, as explained in Bill Bishop's book, The Big Sort.
The irony here is that the House of Representatives was supposed to be the branch of the government that would be most responsive to the will of the people, with direct elections every two years.
The Senate was only indirectly responsive to the people, with Senators elected by state legislatures. Senators are now elected by popular vote, but the allocation of two Senators for each state gives less populous states--which tend to be Republican--a disproportionate amount of power, and the Senate is slow to change because Senators are elected only every six years.
The election of the President is even more indirect, and so the President was going to be the least responsive to the people, because the President is chosen by "electors" selected by each state "in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct," which means that popular vote is not needed at all. And we complain about the role of the "Electoral College" in Presidential elections every four years, but the results of the Electoral College usually match the results of the popular vote.
So we've now got a President who was elected with the support of a majority of the voters. We've also got a Senate with 54 Democrats and 46 Republicans, which is roughly the same percentages as the popular vote for President and so roughly representative of the voters. But we've also got a House that is distinctly not representative of the politics of a majority of Americans.
So the whole system has turned upside down, with the President becoming the most representative of the popular will and the House becoming the least representative, a House of Un-Representatives.
Wednesday, January 12, 2011
The Rhetoric of Violence
[This is something I wrote in back in August of 2010, but for some reason never published. The recent events in Tucson make me regret not publishing it sooner.]
Republican leaders have gone through the motions of renouncing the threats of violence that have been reported against Democratic leaders during and following the enactment of health care reform, and those Republication leaders seem to consider themselves entirely free of any responsibility for those threats. But those threats are entirely consistent with the rhetoric of the right, including the rhetoric of Republican leaders, and the rhetoric helped to justify violence in the minds of the far right.
Both international law and domestic law recognize times when violence can be justified. The most-well known example in domestic law is the law of self-defense, which allows you to touch, injure, or even kill another person in order to defend yourself against an attack. More broadly, there is a "justification" defense, which allows the use of violence to defend others and not just yourself.
And international law recognizes that a nation may legitimately use force to defend itself against invasions or other foreign threats.
But in each case, the level of violence that can be exerted must be appropriate to the level of violence of the aggressor. You can't respond to verbal threats with physical force, and you can't respond to physical force with deadly violence. In other words, you can't shoot someone who slaps you or shoves you. Similarly, the use of force by nations must be "proportional" to the threat. A country can't bomb a city in response to a border obstruction.
If the health care reform enacted by the Democrats were nothing more than bad policy, bad philosophy, or bad judgment, threats of violence could obviously not be justified, even by the most fervent opponents. But that's not the way the issues were framed by Republicans and conservatives. The health care bill was described as "oppressive" and would deprive Americans of "freedoms." Earlier, there was talk of "death panels." And the procedures used to enact health care reform were attacked as undemocratic and illegitimate. The Republicans described health care reform not merely as bad policy, but as the product of an oppressive, illegitimate government that threatens our life, liberty, and property. They described health care reforms in terms that, if taken literally, would justify armed revolution.
The extremist rhetoric of Republican leaders might not have incited threats of violence by the right, but the rhetoric justified threats of violence. And their defense is that they should not have been taken seriously?
Republican leaders have gone through the motions of renouncing the threats of violence that have been reported against Democratic leaders during and following the enactment of health care reform, and those Republication leaders seem to consider themselves entirely free of any responsibility for those threats. But those threats are entirely consistent with the rhetoric of the right, including the rhetoric of Republican leaders, and the rhetoric helped to justify violence in the minds of the far right.
Both international law and domestic law recognize times when violence can be justified. The most-well known example in domestic law is the law of self-defense, which allows you to touch, injure, or even kill another person in order to defend yourself against an attack. More broadly, there is a "justification" defense, which allows the use of violence to defend others and not just yourself.
And international law recognizes that a nation may legitimately use force to defend itself against invasions or other foreign threats.
But in each case, the level of violence that can be exerted must be appropriate to the level of violence of the aggressor. You can't respond to verbal threats with physical force, and you can't respond to physical force with deadly violence. In other words, you can't shoot someone who slaps you or shoves you. Similarly, the use of force by nations must be "proportional" to the threat. A country can't bomb a city in response to a border obstruction.
If the health care reform enacted by the Democrats were nothing more than bad policy, bad philosophy, or bad judgment, threats of violence could obviously not be justified, even by the most fervent opponents. But that's not the way the issues were framed by Republicans and conservatives. The health care bill was described as "oppressive" and would deprive Americans of "freedoms." Earlier, there was talk of "death panels." And the procedures used to enact health care reform were attacked as undemocratic and illegitimate. The Republicans described health care reform not merely as bad policy, but as the product of an oppressive, illegitimate government that threatens our life, liberty, and property. They described health care reforms in terms that, if taken literally, would justify armed revolution.
The extremist rhetoric of Republican leaders might not have incited threats of violence by the right, but the rhetoric justified threats of violence. And their defense is that they should not have been taken seriously?
Sunday, October 31, 2010
The Pennsylvania Pendulum
A piece of history that's working against Joe Sestak on Tuesday is that, true to the pattern for the past 60 years Pennsylvania will be electing a Republican governor.
For the past 60 years, the voters in Pennsylvania have changed the party in the governor's mansion every eight years, like clockwork. Ed Rendell, a Democrat, has served his eight years, so it's time to elect a Republican governor, and that would be Tom Corbett.
And vote-splitting takes extra effort, so a voter who votes for a Republican governor is more likely to vote for a Republican senator.
Sestak could still be elected to the Senate even if Tom Corbett is elected governor, but it will be a little bit harder, and in a close election that little extra edge could make a difference.
For the past 60 years, the voters in Pennsylvania have changed the party in the governor's mansion every eight years, like clockwork. Ed Rendell, a Democrat, has served his eight years, so it's time to elect a Republican governor, and that would be Tom Corbett.
And vote-splitting takes extra effort, so a voter who votes for a Republican governor is more likely to vote for a Republican senator.
Sestak could still be elected to the Senate even if Tom Corbett is elected governor, but it will be a little bit harder, and in a close election that little extra edge could make a difference.
Tuesday, August 31, 2010
Overreaching by the Pennsylvania AG
The Attorney General of Pennsylvania, Thomas Corbett, is now running for governor, and it will be interesting to see what will happen to Pennsylvania's role in the lawsuit Corbett joined in seeking to have the new health care reform law ("The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act," H.R. 3590, P.L. 111-148) declared unconstitutional. Corbett was able to join in the lawsuit even though the governor of Pennsylvania, Edward Rendell, is a Democrat who actively supported passage of the health care bill, because the AG of Pennsylvania is an elected office that is largely independent of the governor. So, somewhat ironically, Corbett will be unable to continue to support the lawsuit if he is elected governor, because the next AG will be able to decide whether to proceed.
And Corbett never should have joined in the lawsuit, because it was outside of his powers as AG. If the lawsuit were just challenging the parts of the act that affect state government operations and revenues (mainly the provisions expanding Medicaid, which is a program created by federal law but only partially funded by the federal government), it would have been within his powers to represent the interests of the state, but the lawsuit also challenges the provisions requiring individuals to purchase health insurance (the "individual mandate"), and that is not within the powers of the AG.
The complaint that was filed says that the Attorneys General who are the plaintiffs seek "to protect the individual freedom, public health, and welfare of their citizens and residents" and specifically asks the court to order the federal government not to enforce the act against both the states represented by the AGs and the citizens and residents of those states.
But who gave the Attorney General of Pennsylvania the right to "protect" the individual interests of citizens and the right to represent their individual interests in court? And what if I (or other citizens) don't want the AG representing me in this lawsuit?
There is an allegation in the complaint that the Florida AG has "broad statutory and common law authority to protect the rights of the State of Florida and its people." There is no similar allegation regarding the powers of the Pennsylvania AG, and I don't believe that AG Corbett has the legal power to represent the people of Pennsylvania (i.e., the individual citizens of Pennsylvania separate from the government of Pennsylvania) in this lawsuit.
Section 4.1 of the Pennsylvania Constitution creates the office of Attorney General and declares that the AG " the chief law officer of the Commonwealth and shall exercise such powers and perform such duties as may be imposed by law." The law that seems most relevant is section 204 of the Commonwealth Attorneys Act, Act of October 15, 1980, P.L. 950, 71 P.S. §732-204, which states in subsection (c) that the AG shall represent "the Commonwealth and all Commonwealth agencies" in civil litigation. There is also the power to represent the Commonwealth and its citizens in federal antitrust litigation, but there is no general power to represent the citizens of Pennsylvania in any other kind of civil litigation. (On the inability of the AG to represent private parties, or enter into settlements affecting the rights of private parties, see Commonwealth v. Philip Morris, Inc., 40 Pa.D.& C. 225 (1999).)
It is possible that AG Corbett thinks that the statutory power to "intervene in any other action, including those involving ... the constitutionality of any statute" (71 P.S. §732-204(c)) allows him to join in this lawsuit but, unless the context clearly indicates otherwise, the word "statute" is defined to mean the statutes enacted by the General Assembly of Pennsylvania. 1 Pa.C.S. §1991. (And the context here does not clearly indicate a broader meaning of "statute." Quite the opposite, in fact, because it makes sense to give the AG the duty and power to defend state statutes against challenges to constitutionality, but it makes no sense to give the Pennsylvania AG the general power to challenge the constitutionality of federal statutes.)
The attempt by AG Corbett to challenge the constitutionality of the provisions of federal law which affect individual citizens of Pennsylvania but not the government of Pennsylvania is therefore outside of his power (what lawyers sometimes call "ultra vires") and the courts should deny him any standing to make those challenges.
But that might become moot if the next AG decides to withdraw from the suit.
And Corbett never should have joined in the lawsuit, because it was outside of his powers as AG. If the lawsuit were just challenging the parts of the act that affect state government operations and revenues (mainly the provisions expanding Medicaid, which is a program created by federal law but only partially funded by the federal government), it would have been within his powers to represent the interests of the state, but the lawsuit also challenges the provisions requiring individuals to purchase health insurance (the "individual mandate"), and that is not within the powers of the AG.
The complaint that was filed says that the Attorneys General who are the plaintiffs seek "to protect the individual freedom, public health, and welfare of their citizens and residents" and specifically asks the court to order the federal government not to enforce the act against both the states represented by the AGs and the citizens and residents of those states.
But who gave the Attorney General of Pennsylvania the right to "protect" the individual interests of citizens and the right to represent their individual interests in court? And what if I (or other citizens) don't want the AG representing me in this lawsuit?
There is an allegation in the complaint that the Florida AG has "broad statutory and common law authority to protect the rights of the State of Florida and its people." There is no similar allegation regarding the powers of the Pennsylvania AG, and I don't believe that AG Corbett has the legal power to represent the people of Pennsylvania (i.e., the individual citizens of Pennsylvania separate from the government of Pennsylvania) in this lawsuit.
Section 4.1 of the Pennsylvania Constitution creates the office of Attorney General and declares that the AG " the chief law officer of the Commonwealth and shall exercise such powers and perform such duties as may be imposed by law." The law that seems most relevant is section 204 of the Commonwealth Attorneys Act, Act of October 15, 1980, P.L. 950, 71 P.S. §732-204, which states in subsection (c) that the AG shall represent "the Commonwealth and all Commonwealth agencies" in civil litigation. There is also the power to represent the Commonwealth and its citizens in federal antitrust litigation, but there is no general power to represent the citizens of Pennsylvania in any other kind of civil litigation. (On the inability of the AG to represent private parties, or enter into settlements affecting the rights of private parties, see Commonwealth v. Philip Morris, Inc., 40 Pa.D.& C. 225 (1999).)
It is possible that AG Corbett thinks that the statutory power to "intervene in any other action, including those involving ... the constitutionality of any statute" (71 P.S. §732-204(c)) allows him to join in this lawsuit but, unless the context clearly indicates otherwise, the word "statute" is defined to mean the statutes enacted by the General Assembly of Pennsylvania. 1 Pa.C.S. §1991. (And the context here does not clearly indicate a broader meaning of "statute." Quite the opposite, in fact, because it makes sense to give the AG the duty and power to defend state statutes against challenges to constitutionality, but it makes no sense to give the Pennsylvania AG the general power to challenge the constitutionality of federal statutes.)
The attempt by AG Corbett to challenge the constitutionality of the provisions of federal law which affect individual citizens of Pennsylvania but not the government of Pennsylvania is therefore outside of his power (what lawyers sometimes call "ultra vires") and the courts should deny him any standing to make those challenges.
But that might become moot if the next AG decides to withdraw from the suit.
Wednesday, March 03, 2010
Why Turkeys Run the World
The Senator Bunning/unemployment benefit extension fiasco is another illustration of a fundamental truth that was revealed to me some years ago in a book (more of pamphlet really) titled "Why Turkeys Run the World." The fundamental truth is that real decision-making power does not reside in the people with a goal or a mission or something to accomplish. The real power rests with people without any goal or agenda whatsoever.
Take Senator Bunning (please). The reason he was able to block Senate action was due in large part to the peculiar (to say the least) rules of that body, but the reason he was so successful was that he wasn't actually trying to accomplish anything, or even actually trying to block anything. If he had been trying to accomplish something, then the other Senators could have negotiated with him. But he didn't actually want anything, so there was nothing to offer him. It was his very purposelessness that gave him power.
A similar dynamic was seen in Senator Lieberman's self-indulgent opposition to health care reform. The real problem was not that Lieberman supported health care reform, or that he opposed it, but that he really didn't give a damn one way or another. Not really caring what happened, he had much greater freedom of action, and much greater power, than the Senators who stood for something.
Elections are usually decided by the independents in the middle, not with the stalwarts on either side of the political divide. Similarly, Congressional power resides in the indifferent and the unprincipled, not the dedicated.
Take Senator Bunning (please). The reason he was able to block Senate action was due in large part to the peculiar (to say the least) rules of that body, but the reason he was so successful was that he wasn't actually trying to accomplish anything, or even actually trying to block anything. If he had been trying to accomplish something, then the other Senators could have negotiated with him. But he didn't actually want anything, so there was nothing to offer him. It was his very purposelessness that gave him power.
A similar dynamic was seen in Senator Lieberman's self-indulgent opposition to health care reform. The real problem was not that Lieberman supported health care reform, or that he opposed it, but that he really didn't give a damn one way or another. Not really caring what happened, he had much greater freedom of action, and much greater power, than the Senators who stood for something.
Elections are usually decided by the independents in the middle, not with the stalwarts on either side of the political divide. Similarly, Congressional power resides in the indifferent and the unprincipled, not the dedicated.
Friday, February 05, 2010
The Upcoming Tax Brawl
There's been some media attention to the strange one-year repeal of the federal estate tax, and a few comments on the failure of Congress to pass an "extenders" bill to prevent a number of tax provisions from expiring at the end of 2009, but I have yet to see any public comment on what will be THE political story of 2010, which is that all of the Bush tax cuts will be expiring at the end of the year and, unless Congress acts, almost every tax-paying American will be paying more in federal income tax next year.
For the wealthiest Americans, allowing the Bush tax cuts to "sunset" will be quite a shock. A family of four with $500,000 of income filing a joint return with no itemized deductions would pay $136,208 in federal income tax in 2010, but will have to pay $158,801 in 2011, a $22,607 increase, unless Congress acts. If that $500,000 of income includes qualified dividend income, which is taxed at the capital gain rate of 15% instead of the maximum rate of 35% on ordinary income, the results are even more dramatic. In 2010, $500,000 of income with $250,000 of qualified dividends would result in $89,201 of federal tax, but in 2011 the tax jumps up to $158,801, an increase of $69,600, or almost 80%, in only one year.
Barack Obama campaigned on the pledge (which he has repeated several times since being elected), that he will not raise taxes for those earning less than $250,000. For a family of four with $250,000 of income, their tax bill is $51,701 under current law, but goes to $59,341 in 2011, a $7,640 increase.
Reducing the family's income reduces the impact, but the impact is still there. For a family earning $50,000, the tax bill would be $2,763 under current law, but jumps to $3,878, more than $1,000 more, in 2010.
Even a family earning as little as $30,000 would be affected. That family would owe $400 in federal income tax in 2010, but if the 10% tax bracket and marriage penalty relief both expire, that family's tax bill more than doubles, going from $400 to $878.
And here is where the Senate will jump into inaction. As we have seen very clearly in the attempt at health care reform, it takes only 41 Republican votes in the Senate (which the Republicans now have with newly-elected Scott Brown seated) to block any attempt to raise income tax rates for the wealthy. But these tax increases are already enacted and will happen if Congress does nothing, and it also takes only 41 Democratic votes in the Senate (or the Democratic majority in the more progressive House) to block any extension of the tax cuts for the wealthy.
So it's going to be like health care, only worse. At least with health care, Republicans paid lip service to the idea of reform and compromise, but when it comes to taxes Republicans are going to even pretend to be interested in negotiating with Democrats. With increasing pressure from "tea partiers" and the extreme right, and facing election battles at the end of 2010, Republicans have no reason to do anything but draw a hard line and insist on making the Bush tax cuts permanent.
And Republicans also have every reason to block anything the Democrats try to enact, because they would really like to go into the 2010 election being able to point to enormous tax increases on working Americans in 2011 and blaming it on the Democrats who control Congress.
So it's going to be bloody. It's going to be a bare-knuckled street brawl with knives and chains, and if the Democrats don't get their act together and enact real tax reform before November, they're going to find themselves down on the ground, bloody, and being kicked in the face.
For the wealthiest Americans, allowing the Bush tax cuts to "sunset" will be quite a shock. A family of four with $500,000 of income filing a joint return with no itemized deductions would pay $136,208 in federal income tax in 2010, but will have to pay $158,801 in 2011, a $22,607 increase, unless Congress acts. If that $500,000 of income includes qualified dividend income, which is taxed at the capital gain rate of 15% instead of the maximum rate of 35% on ordinary income, the results are even more dramatic. In 2010, $500,000 of income with $250,000 of qualified dividends would result in $89,201 of federal tax, but in 2011 the tax jumps up to $158,801, an increase of $69,600, or almost 80%, in only one year.
Barack Obama campaigned on the pledge (which he has repeated several times since being elected), that he will not raise taxes for those earning less than $250,000. For a family of four with $250,000 of income, their tax bill is $51,701 under current law, but goes to $59,341 in 2011, a $7,640 increase.
Reducing the family's income reduces the impact, but the impact is still there. For a family earning $50,000, the tax bill would be $2,763 under current law, but jumps to $3,878, more than $1,000 more, in 2010.
Even a family earning as little as $30,000 would be affected. That family would owe $400 in federal income tax in 2010, but if the 10% tax bracket and marriage penalty relief both expire, that family's tax bill more than doubles, going from $400 to $878.
And here is where the Senate will jump into inaction. As we have seen very clearly in the attempt at health care reform, it takes only 41 Republican votes in the Senate (which the Republicans now have with newly-elected Scott Brown seated) to block any attempt to raise income tax rates for the wealthy. But these tax increases are already enacted and will happen if Congress does nothing, and it also takes only 41 Democratic votes in the Senate (or the Democratic majority in the more progressive House) to block any extension of the tax cuts for the wealthy.
So it's going to be like health care, only worse. At least with health care, Republicans paid lip service to the idea of reform and compromise, but when it comes to taxes Republicans are going to even pretend to be interested in negotiating with Democrats. With increasing pressure from "tea partiers" and the extreme right, and facing election battles at the end of 2010, Republicans have no reason to do anything but draw a hard line and insist on making the Bush tax cuts permanent.
And Republicans also have every reason to block anything the Democrats try to enact, because they would really like to go into the 2010 election being able to point to enormous tax increases on working Americans in 2011 and blaming it on the Democrats who control Congress.
So it's going to be bloody. It's going to be a bare-knuckled street brawl with knives and chains, and if the Democrats don't get their act together and enact real tax reform before November, they're going to find themselves down on the ground, bloody, and being kicked in the face.
Thursday, October 02, 2008
Looking Backwards
I just finished watching the vice-presidential debate between Joseph Biden and Sarah Palin, and the line that sticks in my mind is the one Palin recited (I don't give her any credit for any original thoughts) after Biden described McCain's voting history, because Palin said, "There you go again, looking backwards."
The biggest challenge of the McCain campaign is that is must distance itself from both the past and the present. The past is the record of the Republican party, which has controlled Congress for 10 0f the last 12 years, the record of John McCain, who has been in the Senate for the last 26 years, and the record of George W. Bush, who has been President for the last 7 years. The present is the platform of John McCain, which is a platform of increasing tax breaks for the wealthy, continued dependence on fossil fuels, and the continuation of a unilateral foreign policy based on military force.
The promise of the McCain-Palin campaign is that we didn't really mean what we did in the past, we don't mean what we say about the present, and we're going to do something different in the future. Just trust us.
And Joe Biden had the correct response, which is that the past is prologue.
The biggest challenge of the McCain campaign is that is must distance itself from both the past and the present. The past is the record of the Republican party, which has controlled Congress for 10 0f the last 12 years, the record of John McCain, who has been in the Senate for the last 26 years, and the record of George W. Bush, who has been President for the last 7 years. The present is the platform of John McCain, which is a platform of increasing tax breaks for the wealthy, continued dependence on fossil fuels, and the continuation of a unilateral foreign policy based on military force.
The promise of the McCain-Palin campaign is that we didn't really mean what we did in the past, we don't mean what we say about the present, and we're going to do something different in the future. Just trust us.
And Joe Biden had the correct response, which is that the past is prologue.
Wednesday, October 01, 2008
Talking Points Salad
Listening to interviews and off-the-cuff statements by VP Republican candidate Sarah Palin, I get the feeling I'm listening to a talking-points salad. She takes the talking points she's been given by the McCain campaign, then chops them up and puts them together in a random way to create a kind of word salad.
To see and hear what I'm talking about, here's a montage of memorable moments to date, put together by Josh Marshall's Talking Points Memo.
To see and hear what I'm talking about, here's a montage of memorable moments to date, put together by Josh Marshall's Talking Points Memo.
Monday, September 29, 2008
Partisanship
Sorry, but this makes no sense whatsoever.
The follow are two consecutive sentences from a statement by John McCain on 9/29/2008:
"Senator Obama and his allies in Congress have infused unnecessary partisanship into the process. Now is not the time to fix the blame; now is the time to fix the problem."
If Senator McCain was not "fixing the blame," then what was he doing?
The follow are two consecutive sentences from a statement by John McCain on 9/29/2008:
"Senator Obama and his allies in Congress have infused unnecessary partisanship into the process. Now is not the time to fix the blame; now is the time to fix the problem."
If Senator McCain was not "fixing the blame," then what was he doing?
Thursday, September 25, 2008
The Mythical McCain-Month
In "The Mythical Man-Month," software manager Frederick P. Brooks Jr. explained that adding workers to a software project that was behind schedule would only slow the project down, and not speed it up. This happens because adding new workers forces the existing workers to stop what they are doing to explain to the new workers what has been done, what needs to be done, and what is being done, as well as the increase in time needed for communications among a greater number of workers.
For similar reasons, John McCain's decision to suspend his campaign in order to travel to Washington to intervene in the Congressional efforts to fix the current mess in the nation's credit markets can only slow things down, and not speed things up.
McCain admits he knows nothing about economics, and has also admitted that, as of two days ago, he had not yet read Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson's three-page bailout proposal. It will therefore take a great deal of time to bring McCain current on the economic and political issues at stake, as well as the history and current state of the negotiations within Congress and between Congress and the executive branch.
Unfortunately, McCain can't tell the difference between leadership and showboating, which is why he will almost certainly make things worse instead of better.
For similar reasons, John McCain's decision to suspend his campaign in order to travel to Washington to intervene in the Congressional efforts to fix the current mess in the nation's credit markets can only slow things down, and not speed things up.
McCain admits he knows nothing about economics, and has also admitted that, as of two days ago, he had not yet read Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson's three-page bailout proposal. It will therefore take a great deal of time to bring McCain current on the economic and political issues at stake, as well as the history and current state of the negotiations within Congress and between Congress and the executive branch.
Unfortunately, McCain can't tell the difference between leadership and showboating, which is why he will almost certainly make things worse instead of better.
Saturday, September 06, 2008
Pit Bull with Lipstick
What scares me most about Sarah Palin is not her ignorance, inexperience, or ideology, but her inability to work with or even listen to anyone she doesn't already agree with. That, coupled with what has been described as her viciousness and vindictiveness, is frightening.
The messes made by Bush in Iraq, FEMA, the Dept. of Justice, and the U.S. economy came from his willingness to listen to (and reward with jobs) the people he liked and agreed with, while ignoring (or firing) the people he didn't like.
For Palin, Trooper-gate, the mass firings after she became mayor, and just about everything else I've read about her demonstrates that, given power, she would do the same as Bush did AND MORE.
She lacks not only the skills and experience to lead, but the temperament as well.
The messes made by Bush in Iraq, FEMA, the Dept. of Justice, and the U.S. economy came from his willingness to listen to (and reward with jobs) the people he liked and agreed with, while ignoring (or firing) the people he didn't like.
For Palin, Trooper-gate, the mass firings after she became mayor, and just about everything else I've read about her demonstrates that, given power, she would do the same as Bush did AND MORE.
She lacks not only the skills and experience to lead, but the temperament as well.
Friday, September 05, 2008
Which McCain to Vote For?
The McCain-Palin campaign is now offering the American people a variety of different John McCains to vote for.
You can vote for the McCain who promises to "change Washington," or you can vote for the McCain that has spent 26 years in the Senate in Washington and voted along with the Bush administration 90% of the time over the last eight years.
You can vote for the McCain who says that the Democratic nominee, Barack Obama, is not qualified to be President after only four years in the U.S. Senate, or you can vote for the McCain who says that his running mate, Sarah Palin, is qualified to be President after two years as the governor of the fourth-smallest state (by population).
You can vote for the McCain who is knowledgeable about foreign policy, or you can vote for the McCain who can't remember whether Iran is arming Sunni muslims or Shia muslims in Iraq.
You can vote for the McCain who wants to promote bipartisanship, or you can vote for the McCain who runs attack ads comparing Obama to Paris Hilton.
So many choices.
You can vote for the McCain who promises to "change Washington," or you can vote for the McCain that has spent 26 years in the Senate in Washington and voted along with the Bush administration 90% of the time over the last eight years.
You can vote for the McCain who says that the Democratic nominee, Barack Obama, is not qualified to be President after only four years in the U.S. Senate, or you can vote for the McCain who says that his running mate, Sarah Palin, is qualified to be President after two years as the governor of the fourth-smallest state (by population).
You can vote for the McCain who is knowledgeable about foreign policy, or you can vote for the McCain who can't remember whether Iran is arming Sunni muslims or Shia muslims in Iraq.
You can vote for the McCain who wants to promote bipartisanship, or you can vote for the McCain who runs attack ads comparing Obama to Paris Hilton.
So many choices.
Sunday, August 31, 2008
A Dancing Queen in Go-Go Boots?
On July 30, 2008, Blender reported that presumptive Republican Presidential nominee John McCain's favorite song is "Dancing Queen" by ABBA.
And Alaska Governor Sarah Palin had previously told Vogue magazine that “I wish they’d stick with the issues instead of discussing my black go-go boots."
Obviously, you could never make this stuff up, and it's more than somewhat disturbing, because McCain obviously didn't pick Palin as his vice-presidential nominee for her presidential qualifications or her national campaign experience.
And Alaska Governor Sarah Palin had previously told Vogue magazine that “I wish they’d stick with the issues instead of discussing my black go-go boots."
Obviously, you could never make this stuff up, and it's more than somewhat disturbing, because McCain obviously didn't pick Palin as his vice-presidential nominee for her presidential qualifications or her national campaign experience.
Monday, July 28, 2008
The Timetable is Half Full
Much of the public discourse over the benefits/dangers of a "timetable" for withdrawal from Iraq try to paint a picture in black and white that is more a matter of perspective: Is a timetable for withdrawal a claim of victory or a concession of defeat? (I.e., is the glass half empty or half full?)
The establishment of a timetable for withdrawal is really nothing but a change of attitude. Under the Bush administration, the attitude has been that we intend to stay in Iraq until we need to leave. A timetable for withdrawal expresses the attitude that we intend to leave unless we need to stay.
And withdrawal is an attitude that American citizens and soldiers have grown to like.
The establishment of a timetable for withdrawal is really nothing but a change of attitude. Under the Bush administration, the attitude has been that we intend to stay in Iraq until we need to leave. A timetable for withdrawal expresses the attitude that we intend to leave unless we need to stay.
And withdrawal is an attitude that American citizens and soldiers have grown to like.
Thursday, July 17, 2008
Is Bush Naive?
As recently as May 15, John McCain said that that Barack Obama's willingness to talk to Iran demonstrated "naiveté and inexperience and lack of judgment."
Now, it's been learned that the Bush administration is sending a representative to talk to Iran about its nuclear program.
So, is McCain going to attack President Bush as "naive" and lacking judgment? Bush is naive and inexperienced (despite seven years in office) and lacks judgment, but that's beside the point. This is an opportunity for McCain to show how "tough" and independent he really is, and it would be a shame to pass that up.
McCain could take his cue from former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton, who described the planned talks as "further evidence of the administration’s complete intellectual collapse.” And Bolton was considered a neoconservative ally of the Bush administration, having served as Undersecretary of State for Arms Control and International Security for four years before President Bush pushed him into position of ambassador to the U.N. through an interim appointment to avoid Democratic opposition in the Senate.
Now, it's been learned that the Bush administration is sending a representative to talk to Iran about its nuclear program.
So, is McCain going to attack President Bush as "naive" and lacking judgment? Bush is naive and inexperienced (despite seven years in office) and lacks judgment, but that's beside the point. This is an opportunity for McCain to show how "tough" and independent he really is, and it would be a shame to pass that up.
McCain could take his cue from former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton, who described the planned talks as "further evidence of the administration’s complete intellectual collapse.” And Bolton was considered a neoconservative ally of the Bush administration, having served as Undersecretary of State for Arms Control and International Security for four years before President Bush pushed him into position of ambassador to the U.N. through an interim appointment to avoid Democratic opposition in the Senate.
Sunday, June 15, 2008
Boumediene "Worst Decision"?
Last Thursday, the Supreme Court announced its decision in Boumediene v. Bush, which allows detainees at the U.S. Naval Air Station at Guantanamo Bay to have access to federal courts in order to challenge the legality of their detentions. On Friday morning, speaking at a "town-hall style" meeting in New Jersey, presumptive Republican presidential nominee John McCain referred to the decision as “one of the worst decisions in the history of this country.” That is ridiculous hyperbole even from a conservative Republican point of view.
Let's put the decision in perspective:
So why the hyperbole? In the grand scheme of things, why should a conservative care whether or not a handful of detainees have been granted access to federal courts?
Two possible reasons:
Let's put the decision in perspective:
- The decision affects only about 280 people held at Guantanamo Bay. The majority opinion clearly states that the military base at Guantanamo Bay is unique because it is not, technically speaking, part of the United States, and yet it is under the complete control of the United States. The decision will never be applied to detainees held in prisons in Iraq or Afghanistan.
- The decision does not set anyone free. The decision only allows them access to federal courts for purposes of challenging the legality of their detentions. If the Bush administration can demonstrate to the courts that the detentions are legal under U.S. law or international law, then the detentions will continue.
So why the hyperbole? In the grand scheme of things, why should a conservative care whether or not a handful of detainees have been granted access to federal courts?
Two possible reasons:
- It's better to be on offense than defense. McCain is going to have a difficult time defending the record of the Bush administration (and McCain's voting record) on domestic and foreign policy issues, so it's better to be on the attack against the decisions of the Supreme Court than trying to defend the decisions of the Bush administration and the Republican party over the last 7 years.
- The fear game. What has won elections for Republicans over the last several decades is fear. Fear of desegregated schools (i.e., blacks and liberal judges), fear of crime (i.e, blacks and liberal judges), fear of affirmative action (i.e., blacks and liberal judges), fear of loss of jobs (i.e., Hispanics and blacks and liberal judges), fear of gay marriage (i.e., fear of homosexuals and liberal judges), and fear of terrorism (i.e., fear of Arabs and blacks). Attacking the Supreme Court as "soft on terrorism" effectively combines the most important elements of almost every traditional conservative fear, because it combines traditional white xenophobia with traditional conservative antipathy to the court system.
Sunday, June 01, 2008
Florida, Michigan, and Zimbabwe
Hillary Clinton's comments comparing the primaries in Florida and Michigan with the elections in Zimbabwe were half right. She was right that there is something wrong with changing the rules of an election when you don't like the result, but she was wrong to think that she is different from Robert Mugabe.
People went to the polls in Zimbabwe thinking that their votes would count. But then Mugabe saw that the results weren't what he wanted, so he changed the rules and the results didn't count.
In Florida and Michigan, people went to the polls thinking that their votes would not count. But then Clinton saw that the results weren't what she wanted nationally if Florida and Michigan didn't count, so she tried to change to the rules to make the results count.
People went to the polls in Zimbabwe thinking that their votes would count. But then Mugabe saw that the results weren't what he wanted, so he changed the rules and the results didn't count.
In Florida and Michigan, people went to the polls thinking that their votes would not count. But then Clinton saw that the results weren't what she wanted nationally if Florida and Michigan didn't count, so she tried to change to the rules to make the results count.
Monday, May 26, 2008
Campaigning in June
Hillary Clinton's remark about Robert Kennedy's assassination in June after the California primary has been widely commented upon, and I don't want to attribute any dark motives to what she said, but it's worth looking at the comment in the context of what she says she meant, which is that it is not unusual for candidates to be competing in primaries in June.
She first referred to her husband's 1992 primary contests, and how he did not "wrap up" the Democratic nomination until he won the California primary. That is only half true. Bill Clinton swept the "Super Tuesday" primaries in March (not February) and was considered the nominee apparent after that. Paul Tsongas withdrew from the race later that month, leaving only one other candidate still campaigning, Jerry Brown.
California was one of the last primaries and Brown had won only three states, New Hampshire, Colorado, and Connecticut, so he had virtually no chance at the nomination. (Clinton won 39 states, including California, and Paul Tsongas won 6.) Brown apparently thought that, if he could win California (his home state, in which he had served as governor) by a large margin, he might be able to deny Clinton a first-ballot victory and perhaps play the role of spoiler.
In trying to justify her continued campaign by reference to the 1992 primaries, Hillary is comparing herself to Jerry Brown, the spoiler, and not Bill Clinton, the eventual nominee. And California was (and is) a big state, with lots of delegates at stake, and was Brown's home state, which he had a reasonable expectation of winning (although he did not). How does that justify Hillary Clinton continuing to campaign in Puerto Rico, Montana, and South Dakota?
The reference to Robert Kennedy campaigning in California in June of 1968 is even more of a reach. The eventual party nominee was Hubert Humphrey, who declared his candidacy only after President Johnson made the surprise announcement in March of 1968 that he would not seek reelection. Entering the race so late, Humphrey was not able to register for any of the primaries, and so he did not win any primaries at all. Becoming the nominee of the party without winning a single primary was possible then because the majority of Democratic delegates were what we would now call "superdelegates" chosen by political leaders and not by primaries or caucuses. It was only after the Democratic party changed its rules during the 1968 convention itself that the primary system began to have real political importance.
In the 1968 primary campaigns, Robert Kennedy (and Eugene McCarthy) were trying to do what John Kennedy had done in 1960, which was to use the primary system as a springboard to challenge the political establishment. But Hillary Clinton is the political establishment. She is now hoping to use the last few primary contests to challenge the candidate (Barack Obama) who has proven to be the more popular candidate, winning more total votes than she received in the contests in which they competed.
So where does that leave Hillary Clinton? It leaves here exactly where she is now, continuing to compete in a race she can't really win and looking for some justification other than her own personal ambitions.
She first referred to her husband's 1992 primary contests, and how he did not "wrap up" the Democratic nomination until he won the California primary. That is only half true. Bill Clinton swept the "Super Tuesday" primaries in March (not February) and was considered the nominee apparent after that. Paul Tsongas withdrew from the race later that month, leaving only one other candidate still campaigning, Jerry Brown.
California was one of the last primaries and Brown had won only three states, New Hampshire, Colorado, and Connecticut, so he had virtually no chance at the nomination. (Clinton won 39 states, including California, and Paul Tsongas won 6.) Brown apparently thought that, if he could win California (his home state, in which he had served as governor) by a large margin, he might be able to deny Clinton a first-ballot victory and perhaps play the role of spoiler.
In trying to justify her continued campaign by reference to the 1992 primaries, Hillary is comparing herself to Jerry Brown, the spoiler, and not Bill Clinton, the eventual nominee. And California was (and is) a big state, with lots of delegates at stake, and was Brown's home state, which he had a reasonable expectation of winning (although he did not). How does that justify Hillary Clinton continuing to campaign in Puerto Rico, Montana, and South Dakota?
The reference to Robert Kennedy campaigning in California in June of 1968 is even more of a reach. The eventual party nominee was Hubert Humphrey, who declared his candidacy only after President Johnson made the surprise announcement in March of 1968 that he would not seek reelection. Entering the race so late, Humphrey was not able to register for any of the primaries, and so he did not win any primaries at all. Becoming the nominee of the party without winning a single primary was possible then because the majority of Democratic delegates were what we would now call "superdelegates" chosen by political leaders and not by primaries or caucuses. It was only after the Democratic party changed its rules during the 1968 convention itself that the primary system began to have real political importance.
In the 1968 primary campaigns, Robert Kennedy (and Eugene McCarthy) were trying to do what John Kennedy had done in 1960, which was to use the primary system as a springboard to challenge the political establishment. But Hillary Clinton is the political establishment. She is now hoping to use the last few primary contests to challenge the candidate (Barack Obama) who has proven to be the more popular candidate, winning more total votes than she received in the contests in which they competed.
So where does that leave Hillary Clinton? It leaves here exactly where she is now, continuing to compete in a race she can't really win and looking for some justification other than her own personal ambitions.
Sunday, March 02, 2008
Panaceas
There are an increasing number of "solutions" that Republicans and conservatives seem to want to apply regardless of the problem.
Tax cuts are one. If the economy is going well, tax cuts are needed to sustain economic growth. If the economy falters, tax cuts are needed to stimulate the economy. If the federal deficit gets too big, then tax cuts are needed to stimulate the economy in order to produce higher tax revenues. Tax cuts are the remedy to every economic problem.
Keeping our troops in Iraq is also the conclusion no matter what happens. If things are going badly, then we need to maintain troop levels in order to avoid losing. If things improve, we still need to maintain troop levels because we're winning. No matter what happens in Iraq, the solution is military.
Imprisonment is also a "solution" that seems to have gotten out of control. We now have 1% of our population in prison, which is the highest incarceration rate in our history and the highest incarceration rate in the world. Imprisonment is applied not just to violent crimes but to social crimes such as drug addiction, gambling, and prostitution. And if people who are released from prison commit another crime, make the prison sentences longer. It doesn't make any difference what the crime was, or whether crime rates are going up even as prison terms are getting longer, the solution is still to make the prison sentences longer still.
Tax cuts are one. If the economy is going well, tax cuts are needed to sustain economic growth. If the economy falters, tax cuts are needed to stimulate the economy. If the federal deficit gets too big, then tax cuts are needed to stimulate the economy in order to produce higher tax revenues. Tax cuts are the remedy to every economic problem.
Keeping our troops in Iraq is also the conclusion no matter what happens. If things are going badly, then we need to maintain troop levels in order to avoid losing. If things improve, we still need to maintain troop levels because we're winning. No matter what happens in Iraq, the solution is military.
Imprisonment is also a "solution" that seems to have gotten out of control. We now have 1% of our population in prison, which is the highest incarceration rate in our history and the highest incarceration rate in the world. Imprisonment is applied not just to violent crimes but to social crimes such as drug addiction, gambling, and prostitution. And if people who are released from prison commit another crime, make the prison sentences longer. It doesn't make any difference what the crime was, or whether crime rates are going up even as prison terms are getting longer, the solution is still to make the prison sentences longer still.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
