Sunday, November 14, 2010

Why Democrats don't really control the Senate

The Democratic Party thought it had avoided a huge beating when they held the Senate on November 2nd. The firewall the DSCC built against a Republican Senate was mostly due to the meddling of Tea Party groups and a favourable mix of Democratic and Republican incumbents up for election. Neither of these factors is going to help them over the next two years. It is likely the Senate is going to be hardly recognisable as the body in which the Democrats hold a majority.

Even though 2012 is going to be the year President Obama (presumably) is on the ballot, there is little chance Democrats are taking their seats for granted. There are a total of 23 Democratic seats up for re-election (including independents) versus only ten Republicans. Not only are there more Democratic seats up for grabs, but they are also seats deep in red territory. Democrats such as Ben Nelson (D-NE), Kent Conrad (D-ND) and Joe Manchin (D-WV) are all conservative Democrats who will do everything they can to run against a president unpopular in their respective states. They will likely buck their party at every opportunity.

Many would counter by saying many Democrats from states such as Virginia and Missouri would tend to vote with the President more often because many young voters will be present during the Presidential contest. This is all but certain, however, as the electoral map is looking very different than in 2008 and core parts of Mr. Obama's base have been demoralised.

2012 is also an interesting year in which many of the prominent moderate Republican senators are up for re-election. Senators Scott Brown (R-MA), Olympia Snowe (R-ME) and Richard Luger (R-IN) will all face the prospect of running as a Republican in states Obama will likely carry. You may argue about Indiana, but this is definitely the case with New England. This will likely cause them to vote against their party. However, this automatically disqualifies them for winning their primary. This often trumps considerations for the general election (see Arlen Specter) and they will probably try to win their primary despite their past voting records.

All of these factors mean the Senate will be far more conservative than its partisan composition suggests. It is likely a good idea President Obama postponed debate over the Bush tax cuts until 2012, when Senators will have an incentive to make smart decisions.

Thursday, November 4, 2010

Leadership battles today matter for tomorrow's Democratic Party

It was only a week ago Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) was predicting the Democratic majority in the House of Representatives would be preserved following Tuesday's midterms. Needless to say, not many people listened to her. Now that the Democratic Caucus is over 60 members smaller than it was during the 111th Congress, a leadership shakeup is inevitable. Several prominent committee chairmen, notably James Oberstar (D-MN) were voted out of office. Now, with several prominent Democratic moderates calling for Ms. Pelosi to step down, she is seriously considering their advice. 

If the Democratic Party knows what's good for it, it will push back against the Blue Dogs in the House and vote Ms. Pelosi the minority leader. Nancy Pelosi is one of the best Democratic speakers of the House we have seen for a generation. Not only has she managed to cajole a fractured caucus to support controversial measures such as health care and climate change, but she managed to do it by fairly large margins. Closely related is her ability to raise huge sums of money for those who support her agenda. 

If Pelosi does decide to run for minority leader, it is very likely she will be successful. The House Blue Dog Caucus, her most formidable political barrier, was nearly halved on Tuesday when they were subjected to the brunt of losses in the House. Moderates such as Jim Matheson (D-UT) have a lot less to work with than they did before the losses. The disdain the Republican Party has shown for her is proof she is effective at passing President Obama's policies. 

Another leadership position waiting to be filled is the chairmanship of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC). Robert Menendez (D-NJ) has chaired the committee during this election cycle, though not with any particular flare. Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY) was widely credited with helping to sweep the Senate for two years in a row in 2006 and 2008 while he was chair. He is now being encouraged to take the helm again for 2012, when the Democrats have a huge majority of seats up for reelection. 

It is likely Mr. Schumer may be the only chance the Democrats have to hold the Senate in 2012. Since Obama's reelection prospects are looking dimmer by the day, there is no way they can count on a huge wave of Democratic turnout. What the Democratic Party truly needs is a prodigious fundraiser who can help push candidates across the finish line. Once though of as a contender for position of Senate majority leader, he is now freed up to pursue this powerful role.

One way or another, the Democratic Party has to employ all the resources it has to pull itself out from under the boulder it now finds itself. Pelosi and Schumer are two of the best shots we have to regain the legislature. 


Update 10/5/2010: It appears Nancy Pelosi will run for House minority leader when the new session convenes. This is good news for the Democratic Party.

Wednesday, September 29, 2010

Senate elections matter... for House Democrats

There has been growing consensus among both liberals and conservatives that the Senate is more important than it used to be. In the last two decades, the filibuster and secret holds have been abused to the dismay of many a ruling party. This did not used to be a problem, though in the 111th Congress, it was a major consideration in most major pieces of legislation. This is the main reason why most of the attention this election cycle has gone to the Senate.

There is a more important reason, however, why Senate elections truly matter this year. With no presidential candidate up for election during the midterms, Senate candidates often appear at the top of the ballot. Senate candidates have the rare opportunity to bring out voters from all over the state, something that is not possible for individual House races. Therefore, good turnout for a Senate candidate means good turnout for all the House races in the state for that candidate's party. 

Lets take a look. In Pennsylvania, Joe Sestak (D-PA) is running against former Rep. Pat Toomey (R-PA) for the seat of Arlen Specter (D-PA). Joe Sestak, though a strong candidate, has been having difficulty making headway in a strong anti-Democratic year. The RCP poll average for the race has Pat Toomey winning by 6.5%. Similarly, Nate Silver has a 92% chance of a Republican takeover. Pennsylvania has many swing districts held by vulnerable Democrats who will not be benefiting from a strong Democratic wave this year. I will list the key races below:

                     PA-03: R+6
                     PA-10: R+14
                     PA-11: R+11
                     PA-12: R+4

Notice there are no Republican seats in play. Some would argue Jim Gerlach (R-PA) is endangered, but I do not believe he will loose. Among the incumbents above, several have been in the House for more than two terms. Now lets take a look at a state which the Democrat is running an effective campaign. In Washington State, Incumbent Senator Patty Murray (D-WA) is fending off a challenge from perennial Republican candidate Dino Rossi. The RCP poll average for the race has Murray winning by 5.3%. Lets now look at the key House races.

                     WA-02: R+4
                     WA-03: R+9
                     WA-08: R+13
                     WA-09: D+3

Washington and Pennsylvania are relatively comparable states, when it comes to partisan identification. Both are strongly Democratic, but have many swing districts in the more rural areas. The four most likely to flip districts in Pennsylvania all lean or are Republican blowouts, and all controlled by Democrats. The Washington situation is somewhat different. Dave Reichert (R-WA) is vulnerable to the Democrats even in a bad year and the close Democratic races are all close to the margin of error. 

There is also a similar effect of Governor's races on those down ballot, though it is not as clear as their Senate counterparts. Many governors have cross-party appeal and make turnout for House candidates much less reliable. If the Democrats want to hold on to their majority in the House of Representatives, they should start by looking to shore up of their winnable Senate races.

Sunday, August 29, 2010

Political Cartographer is back!

To all faithful readers, sorry for the interruption in posts. I have been in the Washington area working for the Sierra Club Maryland Chapter and later for the Blue Mountain Center in upstate New York. Now that the congressional recess is over, so is mine. I will be posting as usual from tomorrow onwards, so stay posted!

Thursday, July 15, 2010

The good, the bad, and the ugly for the Administration

First the good news. The latest attempt to cap the leaking oil well is reported to have worked, meaning no more oil is leaking into the Gulf of Mexico. It is only a test, though, and will be removed if the pressure is found to be too high in the well. In addition to this, the Wall Street Reform bill has now passed the senate. It will likely be signed by President Obama by early next week. These are both incredibly good news for the Administration, who have been desperate for some good news.

Now the bad news. The public confiderence in the Administration is heading south, says a new poll. This could have to do with the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, the economy, and the budget deficit. Whatever the problem, this is not good news.

Finally, the ugly. For the first time ever, President Obama is trailing or tied with ALL of his potential 2012 challengers. That's right, Barack Obama is tied with Sarah Palin. No, this is not Rasmussen. Worse, it is the Democratic Public Policy Polling firm. The Administration should be worried about this news. President Obama has somehow maintained favorability ratings much higher than most other mainstream politicians. That he is trailing people with even lower poll numbers than himself means the country is no longer behind him. Watch to see how the Wall Street Reform bill and the Oil Spill cap affect his numbers.

Wednesday, July 14, 2010

The myth of health care "reform"

Since the health care bill has become law, many people have talked about the "new health system" in America. Even President Obama has referred to the law as if it is somehow reshaping the current health system. This is just not true. The types of health reform candidate Obama campaigned on and eventually enacted promised to leave those with insurance alone. The bill only streamlines the current system by creating exchanges, preventing abuses by insurance companies and extending coverage. The largest component of it is the mandate for having insurance. None of these provisions significantly alter the fundamental way in which health care is obtained in America.

Politician of the Month: Scott Brown (R-MA)

After adamantly pledging to be the 41st vote against Harry Reid's agenda, it seems this centrist Republican Senator from Massachusetts has gone against his word. Ever since being elected to the seat of the late Senator Ted Kennedy (D-MA), Senator Brown has arguably helped the Democrats' agenda more than challenger Martha Coakley ever could have. He provided the critical 60th vote on the Democrats' job bill which came up for consideration earlier this year. He has now committed to supporting the financial reform package which he played an integral part in crafting. These have all angered his conservative base in Massachusetts, however, he has emerged as the state's most popular politician.

Scott Brown's true contribution to President Obama's agenda goes further than this. The willingness for this moderate Senator to support some of his signature policies has given Maine Senators Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe political cover to negotiate. It has also freed up Senator Ben Nelson (D-NE) to vote with his party again, shaking the fear of appearing to support a liberal agenda. His reluctance to support the health care law cut back the negotiations and gave Harry Reid the incentive to use the reconciliation process. He is now refusing to support the campaign finance disclosure bill, though it is not likely it would have been brought up for consideration by the August recess anyway. Regardless of whether you approve of the job he is doing, this guy is powerful. Link

Tuesday, July 13, 2010

Scott Brown (R-MA) to vote yes on Wall Street Reform: passage all but assured

Scott Brown (R-MA) has announced today he will be supporting the financial reform bill being debated in the Senate. He came to this decision after having extracted concessions in conference committee, notably the removal of the $19 billion bank tax which would have affected many Boston banks. His vote will be joined by Senate moderates Olympia Snowe (R-ME) and Susan Collins (R-ME). The vote of conservative Iowa Senator Chuck Grassley will not be known until the cloture vote, though it is likely to be no. This bill has not been followed by the progressive community with the same intensity as the health care bill but it is a very big deal. It begins to reverse the trend of financial deregulation begun under President Reagan in a powerful way. It does not solve some of the problems which led to the financial meltdown, but does rein in some of the worst abuses by banks. It also shows there is still potential for negotiation with moderate Republicans, such as Scott Brown. This will likely hurt his standing among conservative Republicans, however.

Monday, July 12, 2010

It's all about playing down expectations

White House press secretary Robert Gibbs warned on Sunday that there is a concrete possability the Republicans could take back the House of Representatives in November. This is one of the first public admissions of political trouble from the Democratic establishment. Conservative pundits were quick to jump on the prospect of the Obama Administration sounding the alarm so early in the election cycle, citing the weakness of their position. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) has repeatedly asserted the Democrats' House majority is not in danger, citing individual house races, but her statements have only become more positive following the completion of the health care debate.

Pelosi has a point here. Though the national trends have the GOP at a slight advantage, there are numerous reasons to suggest they will fall short of a majority. The individual House races that feature vulnerable Democratic incumbents are polling better for the majority party than would be expected. The Democrats also have a massive fund-raising advantage. Above all else, the Republicans are not viewed as a good alternative to the Democrats by the electorate. The nomination of people like Sharron Angle and Rand Paul does nothing to improve their standing in this area.

Furthermore, the White House statements about the Democratic Party's chances in November are likely to play down expectations. The Republican Party has been trumpeting their inevitable win so loudly that anything short of a sweep in November will make them look bad. It is likely Democratic strategists have realized there will be political capital to be had if the Republicans do not win the election by a mile. The comments could also have been trying to arouse the Democratic base, who are frightened by the idea of John Boehner (R-OH) as Speaker of the House. Link

Saturday, July 10, 2010

Has anybody other than Obama remembered the War in Iraq?

Joel Wing, the author of the blog Musings on Iraq has correctly pointed out the number of U.S. troops stationed in Iraq has declined from a high water mark of 171,000 in October 2007 to a mere 77,500 today. This is mainly a result of Obama's withdrawal strategy he announced soon after being sworn in as President. This fact has mainly been overlooked by the mainstream media, who have been preoccupied by the President's Afghanistan strategy. Yes, many of the troops being withdrawn from Iraq will eventually end up in Afghanistan, but that does not mean that the United States withdrawing from Iraq is not a big deal. The war in Iraq is arguably one of the most controversial military incursions the U.S. has ever engaged in, after Vietnam. Afghanistan, however, is far from that.

President Obama announced his strategy in Afghanistan to the usual responses. The liberals criticized the surge and conservatives criticized the planned withdrawal. The notable thing there was the existence of a withdrawal at all. Had Obama really wanted to fight the war in Afghanistan he would not have set a withdrawal date. By pulling troops from Iraq to Afghanistan he was doing a politically popular move. Once public opinion toward the War in Afghanistan shifts toward opposition, Obama can easily pull all the remaining troops out of the Middle East. Expect public opinion to solidify in the coming months around strong disapproval of the war. When that happens, it is likely we will see most combat troops returning home.


This is what I hope will happen. Escalating the War in Afghanistan was a pillar of Obama's campaign, one which seems to be forgotten by most anti-war activists. If he doesn't withdraw from Afghanistan, get ready for Lyndon Johnson (The Sequel.)Link

Wednesday, July 7, 2010

Recess appointments are far from ideal, but definately warranted at this point

The Obama Administration has finally realized it has to do something about Republican holds on nominees in the Senate. This week, President Obama appointed Dr. Donald Berwick to be the head of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) through a recess appointment. The recess appointment is a controversial process by which a President bypasses Congress in appointing federal officials to a half-term (2 years) during a Congressional recess.

Since being elected, President Obama has faced record numbers of holds on his nominees. This leaves the federal government without the staff and leadership it needs to carry out its duties. Senator Richard Shelby (R-AL) made headlines this year when he held hostage all federal nominations for pet projects back home. He eventually agreed to release the hold, though many of these nominees have yet to be confirmed.

Now, The Hill is reporting Mitch McConnell (R-KY) has blasted the Obama Administration for doing a recess appointment. His opposition mainly has to do with a single quote Berwick made about health care rationing in the past. What is really "truly outraging" is not the recess appointments, but the obstruction the Republicans are engaging in. You cannot blame the government for failing to stimulate the economy when you deprive them of the people needed to carry out the law.

Tuesday, July 6, 2010

Tom Perriello steps on cow pie

This is a must see video. Tom Perriello (D-VA) just released his first television ad of the 2010 election cycle, attempting to display his successes in bringing jobs to his district and improving infrastructure. He mainly just ends up getting hit with a branch, stepping on a cow pie, getting debris dumped on his head, and ruining what looks to be a very expensive suit.



Regardless of whether you would ask this guy to change his clothes before coming in your house, he is very remarkable. Despite representing a district with a PVI of R+5; he has voted for the stimulus bill, the health care reform bills, the climate change reduction act, and other major Democratic priorities. A recent poll has put both Perriello and his Republican challenger at 44% each. The House cannot lose such a valuable Democrat.

This video is definitely worth watching.

Get your vote in!

I am adding a new feature to this site called the Sarah Palin Award. It allows readers to choose between some of the most extreme politicians and candidates running this fall. The feature is located on the right side of the website and will be open until September 1st. Get your vote in or suggest other contenders in the comments section of this post.

Who created this deficit, really?

From the Center for Budget Policy and Priorities comes the unexpected news that the Obama Administration policies have had little impact on the federal deficit after all. A new report released shows the deficit would barely top 3 billion dollars if it were not for the policies of the Bush 43 Administration. The TARP program is projected to be close to deficit neutral as the money is paid back, the recovery measures will be paid for in increased tax revenue, and the economic downturn will eventually subside. The enormous tax cuts enacted by the Republican Congress will balloon the budget shortfall and the ongoing wars in Iraq/Afghanistan will further sink any hope of fiscal solvency.

The first implications of these findings is it builds a strong case for deficit hawks to allow the Bush tax cuts to expire. The UI extension in the senate would extend the tax cuts for all but the wealthiest of Americans. Both Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi have shown an ambivalence about passing a tax extenders bill without an extension of Unemployment Insurance. The second implication of this data is it could somehow translate into an opportunity for the Democrats to regain the upper hand on spending and the deficit. However, the Republicans will likely criticize the "liberal media" for twisting the data as usual.

Monday, May 31, 2010

Why is Harry Reid rebounding?

Harry Reid was a lost cause. Both Minority Whip Dick Durbin and Chuck Schumer have been publicly vying for his position for over a year now when it is assumed he will be defeated for reelection. Not so fast, says a recent Mason-Dixie poll recently released which shows his numbers rebounding significantly. Reid slightly trails potential challengers Sue Lowden and Danny Tarkanian and actually LEADS Sharon Angle. These are not good numbers for an incumbent by any means, but they indicate a competitive race. So my question is, what has caused this sudden reversal of fortune. The surge can be attributed to several factors.

  1. The Republican field- The Republicans have fielded a very poor assortment of candidates in this race. Danny Tarkanian has no political experience at all, Sue Lowden is the Nevada GOP chair, and Sharon Angle is a former state assemblywoman. Sue Lowden, the presumed front runner, has been bogged down by numerous gaffes since launching her campaign. The most famous of these is when she suggested bringing chickens to healthcare providers was a good way of bringing down costs. Sharon Angle is the Tea Party favorite. Like many people conservative enough to be Tea Party affiliates, they do not match their electorate. Nevada is a swing state. Being associated with a right wing organization does not help you with the general electorate.
  2. The immigration debate- This is where most pundits have fallen short. The bounce comes as an extensive immigration bill is introduced into the Senate with widespread Republican opposition. This clearly drove Hispanics to Reid's camp in large numbers.
  3. Reid's war chest- Very, very large. It was $11 million at the beginning of the election season, but could now be as much as $25 million. Hard to top these numbers.
On top of all these factors, Democrats have been rebounding slightly in national polls. They hold the generic ballot once again, are surging in swing states, and are finally deploying a messaging strategy. If Harry Reid is not defeated for reelection, it will be very difficult for the RSCC to peel off other swing states.

Thursday, May 27, 2010

You won't see the GOP filibustering defense spending

First, it was Jim Bunning blocking an unemployment benefit extension because the cost of it was not offset. It ended up passing. Then they blocked it again, this time with additional support from their caucus. It also ended up passing. A further unemployment benefit extension is now about to come up for a vote, with Republicans vowing once again to block it unless the cost is fully offset by spending cuts. The Senate adjourned for their recess without voting on the measure, so on June 2, nearly 200,000 people will lose their unemployment benefits. This cuts nearly 200,000 people a week off from the money they need to put food on their table, their health insurance and their livelihoods. This is all to make the point that deficit spending is wrong.

Let's put this in perspective. The Republicans began this deficit with two wars which were not paid for. War funding is essentially a benefit program. The money goes to pay for the deployed soldiers, their equipment and their well being. This is a social support program paid for by deficit spending. See any parallels? If the Republicans were actually trying to make a point about deficit spending they would block votes on ALL spending bills, not only unemployment benefit extensions. Furthermore, blocking unemployment benefits at a time when near 10% of the working population is unemployed is a completely reprehensible thing to do. Just as it would be completely unforgivable to cut soldiers off from their supplies.

Don't get too cozy, Obama

Obama has made a huge mistake here. Since the gulf oil spill happened thirty seven days ago, the Obama Administration has shied away from striking a definitive tone on BP's handling of the effort. This has presumably been because it happened in the wake of Obama's offshore drilling expansion. The Obama Administration likely wants to avoid the appearance of flip-flopping on the issue. The ensuing environmental catastrophe has the potential to sink the newfound confidence within the Democratic establishment.

The handling of this situation did not have to be so horrible. The Obama Administration opened new offshore drilling, a relatively popular move with the electorate, even though policy wonks predicted it would not have much effect. Obama could have moved the response away from being a referendum on offshore drilling, and toward a referendum on big oil companies influencing the bureaucracies enforcing safety regulations. Instead, Republican lawmakers somehow are arguing that Obama is getting cozy with big oil. This is a ridiculous claim, if you compare parties receiving corporate contributions from oil companies.

Don't get me wrong. Offshore drilling will not solve our energy problems in a meaningful and sustainable way. This being said, a weakened Obama presidency is the last thing proponents of alternative energy need right now. Lets reflect on the implications of this spill, but also remember the Obama Administration is not the culprit here.

Wednesday, May 26, 2010

Derivatives trading reform transformed into a uniquely populist issue

It was three weeks ago when Blanche Lincoln (D-AR), the moderate Democratic chairman of the Senate Agriculture Committee, released her proposal to regulate derivative trading. Regulating derivatives is a mild way of describing this proposal. It effectively bans banks from participating in derivative trading altogether. Judd Gregg has described it as left as you can go on the issue of derivatives. Coming from a Southern Democrat, such a liberal economic proposal is extremely unusual. It is less unusual when you consider she is facing a runoff against the liberal Bill Halter.

Ok, so Blanche Lincoln is facing pressure when it comes to derivatives. So what then, is Chuck Grassley (R-IA) doing in voting for it? Chuck Grassley is an extremely conservative senator who did not even support the motion to begin debate on the financial reform bill. He has seen his approval ratings crash as a result of health care negotiations with Max Baucus (D-MT). On a similar note, Scott Brown ended up voting for a strengthened bill, even though he did not support the weakened one. Even in the House, moderates such as Mike Castle (R-DE) who did not vote for the weaker financial reform bill, are publicly considering supporting the more liberal version.

The reason so many Republicans are signing on to the derivative trading ban and to the larger financial reform bill is that they are scared. They know they have been trashing a popular president's agenda for almost two years now and it will eventually catch up with them. Something as shady as derivative trading is a good area to side with the Democrats on, as it is a uniquely non-partisan issue. Expect to see many GOP backers when the bill comes up for final consideration. This is only if Dodd does not go through with plans to scrap the ban.

GOP support for previous gay rights issues in 111th Congress paints good picture for DADT repeal

The White House has apparently reached a compromise on the push to repeal the controversial"Don't Ask Don't Tell" policy in the military. The compromise apparently entails a delayed implementation of the repeal. The policy would be repealed only after a Pentagon study group completed a review of the effects of repeal. This is moot, however. Robert Gates was appointed by President Obama therefore will likely sign off on any policy the President endorses. The repeal of DADT has picked up support among many GOP military leaders, notably Colin Powell. The major question people are asking is, will the repeal pass the house?

It is very possible, looking at previous Republican votes on gay rights issues this year. The Matthew Shepard Act, which extended the definition of hate crimes to cover sexual orientation, passed with 18 Republican votes in the House. It moved on to win 5 Republican votes in the Senate. The repeal of DADT will be a far more controversial issue, though if several Republican lawmakers vote yes, it is likely the Blue Dogs will go along. At this point it seems the prospects of passage are fairly good, though much remains to be seen.

Update: It seems John Larson (D-CT) agrees with me. This is only speculative, however, as House Democrats never actually talk to their Republican colleagues as they do in the Senate.

House Republicans oppose 9/11 first responder benefits
















This is appalling. Republicans are caught playing politics with the funding of 9/11 responder health insurance coverage. They have opposed an effort to make it a mandatory spending program, which does not have a spending limit. They go further to claim creating another entitlement program is far beyond the government's spending reach. Goes beyond our spending reach? If the United States of America does not take care of the men and women who risked their lives to save victims of our worst attack since the Civil War, then who can we take care of? How is this in any way patriotic? How can we ask for our men and women to put their lives on the line, be it in the army or fire department, if our country will not assure their well being? We have a fundamental duty to protect anyone who is part of our country who cannot protect themselves.

The same holds true for the impoverished. These are people who supply the labor for our leaders to become wealthy and enjoy good standards of living. Being in Oakland, I have seen many damaged people on the street. There is absolutely nothing being done for them. The only opportunity they have to succeed is to go from soup kitchen to soup kitchen for meals, while sleeping in city parks. There is no way the free market system can take care of people who are holding two full time jobs. There is no way individual responsibility can help a disabled veteran put food on his table. I am a firm believer that the strength of a system is revealed by its weakest point. In the United States, our weakest points are pretty weak. And there are millions of them.

Monday, May 24, 2010

Dem leadership battle shows itself in immigration debate

Ever since Harry Reid's reelection prospects headed south, two top Democratic senators have been pushing for his position as Senate majority leader. Charles Schumer (D-NY) and Richard Durbin (D-ILL) have been quietly building support for the leadership battle that will ensue if Harry Reid is defeated. Charles Schumer was chairman of the DSCC during the 2006-2008 election cycles and many senators owe him their job. Richard Durbin is the Senate majority whip and second ranking Democrat. There are absolutely no notable ideological differences between the two men. They are also roommates. This allows the race to avoid becoming a repeat of the 2006 House leadership battle, when moderate Representatives voted for John Murtha and liberals voted for Nancy Pelosi.

The split between the two men has showed itself on the issue of immigration. Charles Schumer is leading the charge with a comprehensive immigration bill. Durbin, however, is pushing for his DREAM Act. This bill would grant citizenship to U.S. born aliens who joined the military or completed college. The passage of either bill would undoubtedly give the upper hand to whichever author prevails, therefore watch for this battle to heat up in the coming weeks. This conflict comes as Harry Reid's standing appears to be improving. The GOP front runner is bogged down in controversy and the second pick is substantially weaker against Reid.

My take is the issue of immigration has been handled so sloppily by the Democrats, it would be better to leave a comprehensive bill for a later date. The DREAM Act would do well to appease angry Latinos, notably Louis Gutiererrez, while prolonging the real immigration fight for next year. The Democrats have a lot on their plate right now, from energy legislation to gay rights issues. Furthermore, immigration is an area in which finding Republican cosponsors will be relatively easy. Next year Democrats will see their majorities substantially reduced, and immigration could act as a good bipartisan issue to tackle in the first months of the 112th Congress.

Big tent parties require big tent policies

Political parties often have a decision to make about whether to adopt a certain group's stances on issues, or cede their votes. The Democratic Party resoundingly won over African-American voters in the 1960s when they passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The Democratic Party won over women when they supported the equal rights amendment to The Constitution, which eventually failed. As gay rights activists began to mobilize in the 1980s, the Democrats embraced their agenda with open arms. The Republicans continued to maintain their hold on their traditional demographic, upper/middle class white males. Since the 1980s, they have not won over any further emerging groups, with the possible exception of white evangelical Christians. The next group to be won over by a party will be Latino voters.

Democrats have been winning the battle over the Latino vote. Barack Obama won over 60% of the Latino vote in 2008. This kind of resounding electoral victory will only be intensified with conservative antics such as the 2010 Arizona Immigration Law. Latino voters are one issue voters. They will essentially support any party which signs on to comprehensive immigration reform. At this point, this is is the Democrats. Republicans previously supportive of immigration reform such as John McCain have backed off the issue due to right wing pressure. At the same time, Chuck Schumer is currently pushing a comprehensive immigration bill with widespread support among his Democratic colleagues.

It is impossible to create a big tent coalition without having many diverse views included. The Republican Party cannot become a viable alternative unless they stop pandering to their shrinking demographic base. This means endorsing progressive immigration reform.

Don't we all support small businesses?

A study done by the National Center for Policy Analysis has the current health care law negatively impacting the incentives for small businesses to hire more workers. This is likely due to the provision which provides a 50% tax credit for businesses with less than 10 employees, who make an average of $25,000 a year. The tax credit is reduced as more employees are hired. This naturally gives an incentive to keep businesses small. Why is this a bad thing? Local businesses do wonders for both working conditions and community development. Small businesses are run by locals, who keep most of the earnings in the community. This stimulates the local economy and keeps the wages of the management from skyrocketing out of proportion. In terms of the health care law, small businesses are the ones who need the most assistance with providing health coverage, and do wonders for the local community.

Friday, May 21, 2010

Why were we even talking about repealing the Civil Rights Act of 1964 in the first place?

Rand Paul, the winner of the Republican Senatorial primary in Kentucky, has since made statements indicating he is opposed to several portions of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The main title he was referring to the title which bars racial discrimination in private enterprise. He made the statements while being interviewed by Rachael Maddow of MSNBC and has come under fire from liberals and conservatives alike. Conservatives have gone as far as criticizing Rand Paul for not committing to a repeal of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Liberals, such as Jim Clyburn (D-SC) have called his comments "appalling."

Nonetheless, this debate over his comments couldn't come at a worse time. Portions of the voting rights act were almost struck down earlier this year in a closely watched Supreme Court decision. Not many people are still talking about it, but George W. Bush pushed for the privatization of Social Security less than 10 years ago. These pieces of legislation form some of the most important achievements in the history of the United States. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 is so important to who we are as Americans it is even taught so in public school textbooks.

So why are we even talking about it as if it is a campaign issue? It increasingly appears the political climate is moving closer and closer to what it was 100 years ago. We don't have to be moving backwards. This country was built on freedom, equality, and individual opportunity. Any person who claims to oppose such core aspects of Civil Rights legislation oppose these fundamental principles. Let's send a message to these politicians that we do not want our country going back 100 years.

Wednesday, May 19, 2010

Wall Street Reform fails to garner 60 votes needed to end debate

In what is possibly a sign of trouble to come, Senate Democrats have failed to achieve the 60 votes needed to move their "Wall Street reform" bill. The opposition comes from both the left and right, though it is widely expected the measure will gain the 60 votes needed to move it to conference once the differences have been settled between various senators and the leadership. Those voting "no" on the cloture motion but expected to votes "yes" eventually include Russ Feingold (D-WI), Maria Candwell (D-WA), and Scott Brown (R-MA). Chuck Grassley (R-IA) and George Voinovich (R-OH) are both considered gettable votes based on previous statements they have made regarding the bill. Additionally, Olympia Snowe (R-ME) and Susan Collins (R-ME) both voted to end debate.

What Christopher Dodd (D-CT) said earlier this month, that financial reform has been a uniquely non-partisan issue, seems likely to be true. The Senate Republicans who are considered in play are all considered fairly moderate, and most have a history of supporting the Obama Administration on key issues. The bipartisan support for this bill stands in contrast with statements John McCain and Lindsay Graham made earlier this year, which indicated bipartisanship would be dead for the remainder of the 111th congress because of the health care debate. Clearly it is not. These moderate Republicans in the senate may be what is left of the once noble GOP who knew how to compromise and did what is right for the country.

In contrast with these moderate GOP voices, Mitch McConnell blasted the "government takeover" of the financial industry. We have heard this argument repeated for every single controversial piece of legislation which has come up these last two years. It is one thing to be prudent about spending, it is another to not want anything done at all. The fact of the matter is, Mitch, you were elected to the United States government. Any decision you make is a government intervention. If you want so little government intervention, go work for a multinational corporation.

Update: The Senate has now passed the measure on a vote of 69-39. Chuck Grassley, Arlen Specter and Scott Brown joined the Senators previously supporting the measure. The measure now moves to conference committee with the House where the differences will be reconciled in the coming weeks.

Tuesday, May 18, 2010

Rand Paul wins Republican senate nomination in Kentucky

It is no surprise to anybody that Rand Paul has won the Republican nomination for senate against establishment candidate Trey Grayson. Though not suprising, the result is very significant. Rand Paul is well known to be a Tea Party movement sympathizer, even going so far as to quote Tea Party members during his victory speech earlier tonight. He has been riding a wave of anti-establishment anger in Kentucky, as Trey Grayson received the endorsement of its other senator, minority leader Mitch McConnell. He is currently the second Republican primary contender to lose because they did not get cozy enough with the Tea Party movement. The first of course, is lame duck Utah senator Bob Bennett. If a Tea Party candidate can defeat an establishment Republican with more votes than have ever been cast in a Kentucky senate primary election, one could conclude the movement is one to be reckoned with. If I were the GOP leadership, I would be very scared right now.

Goodbye, Arlen Specter.

It is official. Arlen Specter, who has served as Pennsylvania's senator since 1980, has lost the Democratic nomination to congressman Joe Sestak. This is very significant. Arlen Specter, since switching to the Democratic Party, has received the endorsement of many prominent Democrats. These endorsements include numerous local mayors all the way up to President Barack Obama. Many have been commenting that this proves an endorsement from the White House means absolutely nothing. Indeed, Obama campaigned with Specter earlier this year and many ads have featured his support. The question nobody is asking is: is the White House making the wrong endorsements?

Arlen Specter won the support of the Administration for several reasons. They needed his 60th vote for health care reform at its most critical stages, and knew he would not switch parties without firm White House support. Furthermore the White House clearly does not want to anger him by remaining neutral, as he might change his liberal voting record he has accumulated since his party switch. Finally, Arlen Specter is an old Senate buddy of Obama.

What we do know is, the White House has made a huge miscalculation here. The electorate is clearly frustrated with Arlen Specter and not impressed by his blatant political maneuvering. If the Obama Administration wants the 2010 midterm elections to turn out as an anti-incumbent year rather than an anti-Democrat one they should heed the will of the voters. Joe Sestak polls better against Republican nominee Pat Toomey than does Specter, therefore should have been a natural choice for a WH endorsement.

We will see how this dynamic plays out in the Arkansas Democratic primary currently in progress. More on what's going on in Arkansas later tonight.

So a budget resolution fails to move, is it the end of the world?

In February, the administration released its budget proposal for the 2011 fiscal year. There was significantly less press surrounding the President's release of the budget than there was for the 2010 budget, mostly because of the health care debate. Since its release, the budget has gone absolutely nowhere. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) has said she is looking for a way to satisfy her diverse caucus, but that it was proving very difficult. Many have wondered if a budget resolution will pass through Congress at all. Kent Conrad (D-ND), the chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, has said the prospect for a 2011 budget resolution is "fading". Congress has not failed to even consider a budget blueprint since 1974. If Congress does not end up passing a budget resolution, will this be a major setback for the Obama Administration?

The fact of the matter is it probably would. The 2011 budget blueprint does a lot of things which would be very good for the country. It allows most of the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy to expire, creates a $90 billion dollar bank tax, increased infrastructure spending, and major reductions in oil/gas/coal subsidies. These are things that will not likely come up for consideration this year, due to the huge number of legislative items currently waiting to be marked up in committee. Furthermore, the failure of the 2011 budget resolution would send a message to voters that Democrats cannot govern effectively, even with one of the largest congressional majorities for decades.

Congress has until October 1st of this year to complete the budget process, though if the ball is not rolling yet, it is unlikely they will have enough time to complete it.

Richard Blumenthal, what on Earth are you doing?

Democratic Senator Chris Dodd announced he did not wish to seek reelection in January 2010. Dodd had been trailing in polls against GOP front runner Rob Simmons, who had successfully exploited Dodd's relationship with the financial industry in the wake of its meltdown. Richard Blumenthal, Connecticut's attorney general, announced his candidacy shortly following Dodd's withdrawal. Initial polls taken shortly after he entered the race showed him with a 19-36% lead. As AG, Blumenthal enjoys unusually high favorability ratings during an election cycle in which incumbents are extremely vulnerable. This was until the gaffe.Blumenthal was giving a speech at a veterans' ceremony when he said:

We have learned something important since the days that I served in Vietnam. And you exemplify it. Whatever we think about the war, whatever we call it -- Afghanistan or Iraq -- we owe our military men and women unconditional support


This would sound fine if it were not for the fact that Blumenthal never served in Vietnam. In fact, it appears he received at least five deferments from the draft. Why would anyone say something like this? What I think Blumenthal is suffering from is a bad case of Martha Coakley syndrome. Here's how it goes. Polls show a Democratic senate candidate running extremely well against their Republican opponent in a very liberal state. They become extremely cocky, making extremely wrong and damaging comments that sink their polls numbers and their campaign. Martha Coakley claimed Curt Shilling is a Yankee fan. Blumenthal claimed he was a veteran. Sadly, these two comments will probably turn out to be equally inflammatory.

Will this comment turn out to be as damaging as some of Coakley's gaffes during the 2010 special election? We don't know yet, but it is certain Blumenthal is far too cocky at such an early stage of the election season.

Monday, May 17, 2010

Location, location.












Does this look familiar to anyone? It is a picture taken shortly after the 1995 Oklahoma City Bombing that was eventually tied to a American militia movement sympathizer. The attack claimed 168 lives and destroyed an entire United States federal building. Lets look a little more recently. Does anybody recall on February 18th of this year, Joseph Stack flew a small plane into the IRS building in Austin, Texas? How about the shooting of two Unitarian Church members who were antagonized for having liberal social beliefs?

These events have nowhere near the gravity of incidents of international terrorism in the United States in our current media. The Times Square bomb plot of 2010 attracted so much media and political attention, it is worth thinking about more serious threats that exist within our own borders. The bomb plot in question killed nobody. Imagine if the Muhammad Omar flew a small plane into a federal building instead of Joseph Stack. The reaction would be enormous. Imagine if an Iraqi politician put gun targets on freshman Democratic representatives as part of his campaign. My point is that the reaction would be completely different.

Freaking out about international terrorism is a convenient way to distract the public from pressing issues within the United States such as right-wing violence, but it is not even close as dangerous as right wing extremism at home. What should happen within our politics is that all acts of terrorism should be treated with equal attention, no matter where they originated. A white southerner killing 5 people is just as invidious as Muhammad Omar doing the same. It complicates things when southern white extremists constitute the political base of one of our major political parties. That is a different matter, however.

A storm brewing in Arkansas?

Blanche Lincoln is about to face her party's primary voters in Arkansas on Tuesday. Up against her are liberal Bill Halter and conservative D.C. Morrison. Polling has consistently shown Lincoln leading Halter by around 7 points. Morrison will not top 10% of the vote. Lincoln is clearly trying to get over 50% to avoid a runoff primary, which would tilt the race towards Halter whose supporters are much more motivated to return to vote at a later date. This race and the one in Pennsylvania will clearly show if the anti-incumbent spirit is as strong as pundits have predicted. This is a race to watch.

Financial reform is an issue of unique agreement

This is strange. The financial reform bill has moved through the upper chamber with no GOP filibusters whatsoever. Many of the amendments, such as the Audit the Fed measure, have garnered near universal backing. The amendment in question passed the Senate 96-0. This is unheard of. During the health care debate, amendments were filibustered just to slow down the process. Furthermore, the bill has become more and more liberal as it has passed through the upper chamber. The health care and climate change bills, in contrast, become significantly more conservative when moving through the Senate. This is true of most legislative proposals. So my question is, what has changed?

The atmosphere certainly has not changed. Republicans are emboldened by the Democratic Party's dropping poll numbers and have been opposing Obama's agenda more than ever. I think the difference is the issue. The public is extremely angry over the greed of wall street, and headlines saying the GOP is obstructing wall street reform don't fly very well. Harry Reid made a uniquely good calculation by forging ahead without Republican votes. Earlier this month, when the motion to begin debate came up, the Republicans filibustered a total of three times before breaking. It seems the "liberal" media won them out once again.

Sunday, May 16, 2010

Nominations should not be made for political reasons

It has recently been revealed that President Obama offered the position of Secretary of Education to Colin Powell before nominating Arne Duncan, the CEO of the Chicago public school system. Colin Powell is the former Secretary of State under George Bush (43), former National Security Adviser (1987-1989), and former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (1989-1993). Before this he was a four star general. He is known to be a moderate Republican, advocating for a repeal of Don't Ask Don't Tell, among other things. Why on earth did Obama nominate him to be Secretary of Education if he has no experience in the matter?

President Obama, upon taking office in 2009, began to nominate moderate Republicans to high up positions within his Administration. Ray LaHood, a moderate Republican House member from Illinois, was nominated and confirmed as the Secretary of Transportation. He served on the House Transporation and Infrastructure Committee, though held no other qualifications for the position. John Huntsman, the moderate Republican senator from Utah, was nominated and confirmed to become the Ambassador to China. Though he is fluent in Mandarin, many viewed this nomination as a potential way to remove a strong 2012 presidential election contender from the country.

That is not to say the picks have all been chosen for political considerations. Robert Gates, the Secretary of Defense under Bush and now Obama, was widely regarded as a strong man for the position. John McHugh, a moderate Republican from upstate New York, was nominated as the Secretary of the Army after being the ranking Republican on the House Armed Services Committee. These were very deserved picks.

For the most part, the Obama Administration has clearly been selecting moderate Republicans and placing them in his administration, far from where they could have an effect on the direction and policy of their party. This is especially true of John Huntsman, who was a vocal critic of the rightward swing of the GOP until his nomination. Preventing a Republican messiah from appearing is an effective way to prevent an upswing from their 18 point approval ratings. It is not, however, an effective governing strategy. Colin Powell was not qualified to be the Secretary of Education and Ray LaHood was equally unqualified to be Secretary of Transportation. Politics will only get you so far, but governing well will get you even farther.

The role of health-care and retirement benefits in a postindustrial economy

It is not news to anyone that the United States produces nothing anymore. We have transitioned from an industrial to a service based economy in roughly thirty years in a process dubbed deindustrialization. The typical job in the 1950s was a life long, well paid, pensioned, unionized, and relatively secure manufacturing job. These jobs have recently been replaced by mechanization or outsourced to Southeast Asia. The American economy is now a service sector economy, specialization in the provision of services such as food, medical care, education among other things. The jobs found in the service sector are for the most part short term, lacking in job security, non-unionized, and with few retirement or healthcare benefits. My question is; how do pensions and healthcare coverage fit in with this new organization of our economy?

In our former industrialized economy, health-care was provided primarily by the unions and the corporations themselves. Pensions were provided by the government through Social Security and through the corporations. In a service sector economy, it is impossible for employers to provide adequate health-care and pensions to their employees. Many of them are relatively temporary and low paid, leaving little reason to provide benefits. It is extremely inefficient to constantly shift between health-care policies. The same goes for pensions. It is impossible for modern service sector workers to acquire pensions because of their constantly shifting work situation.

Who should provide these services, if not the employer? My answer: the federal government. Jobs may shift endlessly and their employers go through periods of success and failure, but the government will always be there to pick up the tab. By having the federal government take over health-care coverage from the workers (preferably in a single payer system), it would consolidate the health care system and give the government a direct incentive to promote public health. By providing a strengthened Social Security system, workers could contribute a portion of their income to one source that would always be there, not one that will only be built during the duration of their employment.

The cost of the health care and pension shift to the federal government would be paid for by increased taxes on businesses. This might not even be necessary because the increased productivity and job creation of businesses without the constraints of health insurance for its workers would translate into an increase in tax revenue. The key to a service sector economy is portability. By giving responsibility to the federal government, workers' pensions and health care coverage would be absolutely portable, and likely save a lot of money along the way.

This is all hypothetical. The fact that we could barely pass a health care bill the Heritage Foundation was advocating for 16 years ago shows how unrealistic this is.

Saturday, May 15, 2010

Is there evidence of a Democratic Party surge?

This doesn't quite fit in with the Republican Party's narrative about the November midterm elections. The Democrats have regained the lead in the congressional ballot poll according to an Associated Press/GFK poll released today. This coincides with a surging approval rating for President Obama in numerous polls, including the Gallup Tracking Poll. Does this mean the Democrats are headed for less significant losses in November, and if they are, what is driving this reversal of fortune?

As Bill Clinton would say, it's all about the economy stupid. After recent economic reports, it's looking like the economy will be adding more jobs in the first two years of the Obama Administration than were created during the entirety of the Bush years. This should be sending shivers down Republicans' spines as they have been campaigning against the Administration's economic policies for much of the election season. This narrative will be difficult to hold once the economy is in a distinctive upswing, which looks more and more likely now.

One other conclusion is that the oil spill has solidified the public's opinion against the corporatism the Republicans in congress espouse. Rush Limbaugh telling his viewers the oil spill is not a problem may be acceptable for uber-conservative primary voters, but the average American really likes beaches in Florida (and maybe are worried about some dead sea gulls). The financial reform bill before congress could have this same effect. Republicans will have a hard time facing the voters if they outright oppose financial reform. The polls do not show a successful Democratic year, but may help to alleviate fears of a 1994- like disaster for the incumbent party.

Friday, May 14, 2010

Who will be riding the Ron Paul blimp in 2012?

There is a spirited debate over who actually constituted Ron Paul's base in the 2008 presidential primaries. Ron Paul successfully captured the young Republican vote and created much enthusiasm among this demographic. This is insignificant, however, as young Americans are overwhelmingly Democratic or independently affiliated. The key to Ron Paul's base is the current following of the Tea Party.

Ron Paul's son, Rand Paul, is currently the front runner in the Republican senatorial primary in Kentucky to fill the open seat of retiring senator Jim Bunning. He has never held political office before this campaign and shares many of the libertarian views of his father. He has quickly pulled away from the establishment candidate, Trey Grayson, capturing much of the die-hard Republican base that one needs to win any Republican primary fight. His campaign is relevant, because it is drawing on much of the Tea Party movement's enthusiasm and supporters.

So my question is, will Ron Paul run for president in 2012? And if he does, will he become the Tea Party insurgent for the Republican nomination? Ron Paul is no orthodox conservative. Instead, he is a paleo-conservative, a dying breed of anti-interventionist Republicans. It would be easy to criticize many stances he has taken which pitted himself against the neo-conservatives in his party, particularly on international issues. For instance, he opposes the Iraq wars and all foreign involvement. He also does not believe in free trade, favoring protectionism. Some of these stances could be criticized by the modern conservative base who love to point out flaws in a candidate's credentials.

Sarah Palin, once thought to be the darling of the Tea Party movement, is now completely irrelevant from the 2012 elections. Ron Paul could fill this vacuum of anti-establishment anger present in the primary electorate. It would be easy for him to overcome a moderate candidate such as Mitt Romney, but he would have to change some of his stances. It will be interesting to see if Paul molds himself into something more digestible, or continues to pursue his unique path of libertarianism. If the Kentucky senatorial primary stands as any lesson, it is likely that conservative voters will hop on the Ron Paul blimp, only to pull it down during the general election.

Thursday, May 13, 2010

Just give up, Arlen





















So it looks like Arlen Specter's blatant political opportunism is finally catching up to him. After trailing in polls against his conservative Republican primary opponent, Pat Toomey, he switched to the Democratic Party and has since become a reliably Democratic vote. This stands in contrast with his increasingly conservative voting record while a Republican senator. His current Democratic primary opponent, Joe Sestak, is running against his "false" issue stances and his coziness with both Obama and Bush.

I have never been a fan of Arlen Specter. Though I think moderate Republicans are essential to a working bipartisan coalition, Specter was becoming increasingly pressured by his base to be a reliable Republican vote. Now that he is a Democrat, he has been a reliable vote though there is nothing stopping him from resuming his "independent" voting record when the election is over. People like Arlen Specter are not the type of people we need in Washington. They respond to public pressure in the most manipulative possible way, putting their job ahead of millions of unemployed and underemployed Americans. Specter has been preserving his job since 1980, its time we elect somebody who actually represents the people of Pennsylvania.

Kagan won't have the conformation battle we predicted

Many liberals, including President Obama, predicted the Senate Republicans would try to block whoever he nominated for Supreme Court. This was part of his decision to choose one of his more liberal candidates, rather than a moderate such as Merrick Garland. One can question whether Kagan will actually be as liberal as Obama likely wants, but she is definitely not a moderate. Given the Republicans' recent track record on supporting Obama's agenda, this news is surprising. Several moderate Republicans are giving her good marks, indicating the GOP may not have the votes to block her conformation.

This is likely for several reasons. Moderate Republicans have much to lose by trying to play culture wars with the Supreme Court nominee. Grilling the nominee on abortion looks good if you're from Alabama, but middle class Bostonians may not judge it so highly. Also, there is the fact she is a woman. It would be easier to oppose the nomination of a woman if the court had 5 women. Opposing a woman from Harvard isn't as easy when she would be the third woman on the court. Lastly, many moderates don't want any more publicity about them opposing President Obama's agenda. Primary voters are much more riled up about economic issues, supporting a Supreme Court nominee won't cause them much harm. All in all, it looks like the conditions are right for a smooth conformation.

How can the GOP say they care about job creation after this?

This week, house Democrats began to move a bill they named the COMPETES Act, which would increase funding for science, research and training programs. This would lead to job creation in these areas. It would also lead to indirect benefits such as technological innovation, individual opportunity and a more specialized workforce. The GOP, acting in good faith of course, introduced a motion to amend the legislation with a provision which would prohibit federal funds from providing salaries to employees charged with pornographic offenses while at work. This began a snowball effect among moderate Democrats, and the amendment passed. This creates serious policy issues and therefore the bill has been withdrawn from the house floor by the Democratic leadership.

These kind of wedge issues have not been uncommon during the 111th United States Congress. During the healthcare debate, Republican Senators such as David Vitter, began introducing random amendments meant to divide the Democratic Party. One of these would have prohibited federal funds from providing Viagra for registered sex offenders. Though many of these steps should be taken, they are not introduced in good faith. Vitter publicly declared he introduced many of these with the goal of slowing the bill.

These kind of amendments do not belong in our national politics. When the Republican Party says they are serious about job creation, they should not be trying to sink Dem efforts to help put Americans to work.

Wednesday, May 12, 2010

Yay, spending cuts!

House Republican minority whip Eric Cantor has now released a fun online interactive tool. It allows participants to choose their favorite spending cut, and the winners will be voted on in the house sometime in the future. How fun! Lets take a loot at some of these cuts:

1.) Presidential Election Fund
2.) Taxpayer subsidized union activities
3.) HUD program for doctoral dissertations
4.) Welfare
5.) Community Development Block Grants

This all seems really fun. Lets take a pick; do you want to cut funding for presidential elections so corporations control our elections? How about reduce wages and benefits? Maybe eliminate your safety net if you are unemployed and cannot find a job? Or maybe tell your community to fend for itself if its economically disadvantaged?

This interactive tool masks the true cost of spending cuts. Spending cuts should be the last option on the table when our taxes are at our lowest levels since the Truman administration. Why are we even considering the most painful option first, without even considering raising our unrealistically low taxes? When we have to make painful decisions, we should not even be considering spending cuts during a recession. And if you're going cut welfare for poor Americans, lets have the decency not to make a game out of it.

Finally, a new direction in the War on Drugs

President Obama yesterday, unveiled the most comprehensive drug abuse prevention program ever seen in the United States. Among its many provisions, it seeks to promote intervention-based programs through medical care and creates a "community based national prevention system". This plan is the latest development in a series of progressive steps by the Obama Administration to combat illicit drug use. The ban on needle sharing was lifted, the DEA was instructed not to prosecute people in legalized marijuana states, and stiffer incarceration sentencing for crack cocaine over sniff cocaine was abolished. These all appear to be steps toward the acceptance of drug use, but this is discounting the deeper they will have in the war on drugs.

One of the most problematic issues in the war on drugs is the gap in enforcement. A black man who lights up behind his home in New York City is much more likely to get arrested and sentenced for drug possession than a white middle class student who goes to UVM. This is wrong, as it misses the true effect of punishment. Schools like the University of Vermont have established anti-drug policies that spend money combating student use of marijuana and other substances. A little increased enforcement of the state's drug laws would effectively discourage much of the drug consumption on campus. We need to move these programs to poorer areas where people aren't using drugs because they think they can get away with it. People in our economically depressed areas are using drugs because there is no opportunity, little education, and no hope. Why should these areas be the focus of our enforcement efforts? Our enforcement efforts should be focused on discouraging casual users in affluent areas.

Reduced incarceration times and increased intervention programs are essential for achieving a drug-free society. The threat of imprisonment will not deter a crack cocaine addict, but if a health worker correctly identifies the problem and puts the individual in treatment, the cost to the state and personal benefit are much higher. Placing people in prison for drug related crimes, while doing nothing to combat the socioeconomic conditions that led to their drug use is morally wrong. Furthermore, we should be focusing our efforts on drugs that are seriously hazardous to people, such as cocaine, heroin and amphetamines. Wasting our time enforcing marijuana laws is a complete waste of scarce funds.

Good job Obama, glad to see you reversing some of the failed policies of your predecessor. Hopefully this is only the beginning.

Tuesday, May 11, 2010

Elena Kagan, a lesbian?

Probably not. But the rumors about SCOTUS nominee Elena Kagan's sexuality have gotten the conservative base riled up. They point to several friends of Kagan's who have claimed she is a closeted lesbian. They also believe it explains the instance where she banned military recruiters from Harvard University because of their Don't Ask Don't Tell policy. It could be the lack of a husband past child bearing age. Whatever the motivations for these rumors, or their truthfulness, this debate raises an interesting question. Should we have an openly gay Supreme Court justice? As with most liberals, I would say definitely. We should have a supreme court that accurately reflects the population as a whole. Gays represent about 10% of the population. Does this mean that we should have one gay justice? I am all for choosing the most qualified nominee regardless of their race or sexual orientation. We don't necessarily need a gay justice, we just need to discard sexual orientation as a qualification for serving on the Supreme Court.

White House, stop meddling in Dem primaries!

Anti-incumbent rage is sweeping the nation. Incumbent Utah Senator Robert Bennet just lost the Republican nominating process, after being in the senate for 18 years and earning himself a spot on the Republican leadership circle. West Virginia Rep. Alan Mollohan is now about to suffer the same fate. Arlen Specter, the Democrat turned Republican turned Democrat, is now trailing in polls against primary challenger Joe Sestak (D). Blanche Lincoln is being given a run for her money against primary challenger Bill Halter.

There is no doubt that many of these incumbents' situations were made worse by votes they cast, but there is no denying that the electorate wants new people representing them. In the case of Blanche Lincoln and Arlen Specter, the primary electorate thinks them too conservative for their constituencies. This is healthy. Strong primary challenges to incumbents is a sign of a healthy democracy. If the party/constituents are fed up with a particular officeholder, they can either vote them out of office or pressure them to represent them in a better way.

President Barack Obama clearly doesn't think so. He has shown consistent support for both Blanche Lincoln and Arlen Specter, even though they both have voted consistently against his agenda (Arlen Specter when he was a Republican). He is likely protecting them because of the personal relationships he forged with them during his time in the senate. This is wrong. The United States senate can no longer be treated like a country club. Neither can the United States government. Obama, lets allow the people decide who they want to represent them, not their former friends in the senate.

Is this even a climate bill anymore?

John Kerry and Joe Lieberman have finally unveiled their "climate change" bill. It is very surprising that it does not have significant Republican backing as it hardly does anything good. It promotes nuclear power, regulates some offshore drilling, gives 2 billion dollars to the coal industry for research, among other things. It does not address the huge carbon footprint of industrial agriculture, as the entire agricultural sector is exempt from the carbon trading scheme. The bill does very little to promote renewable energy or public transportation, two central pillars of a green economy. It contains huge carve outs for industries that senate Democrats will need on board such as coal and natural gas. The bill sets a 17% reduction in carbon emissions by 2020 as its goal, but this is exactly that, a goal.

This bill is in its current form because of bipartisan negotiations with Lindsay Graham, who pulled his support at the last minute due to his frustration about the immigration debate. I won't comment much on this move, but it does present a problem. If this is the starting legislation in the senate, the final legislation will be significantly more conservative than this. Anything more conservative than this will start to do more harm than good. I've always argued the most sound way to combat climate change is to restructure the economy through incentives to one that is more environmentally friendly. This bill really will not do this. It can be thought of as more of an "energy independence" plan. After all, that is why the authors named it the American Power Act.

With legislation like this, the argument for a piecemeal approach to climate change solutions grow. Harry Reid declared earlier this week that he is open to a smaller bill that is targeted at renewable energy such as wind and solar. To many environmentalists, this may seem like a non-starter. Though a piecemeal approach would ultimately be less effective, it would be a much more efficient way of doing things at the moment. Harry Reid claims there is bipartisan backing for a renewable energy bill in the senate right now. If he is right, we would do well to move a very progressive energy bill without 2 billion for coal stuffed in. This could be followed by increased energy efficiency standards from the EPA and other congressional measures to address agriculture, such as a sensible farm bill. One thing is for certain, this bill will not do.

Monday, May 10, 2010

Attack Kagan but leave Thurgood Marshall out of it

The RNC is now attacking Elena Kagan's ties to the iconic Supreme Court justice, Thurgood Marshall. Thurgood Marshall was the first African American Supreme Court justice, serving the high court from 1967-1991. He presided over many major rulings notably Roe v. Wade. He put individual rights above all else in his decisions and understandably came down on the left side of the court. He is arguably one of the best Supreme Court justices we have had this century.

There is nothing to excuse this indecency. They are attacking Elena Kagan's agreement with Marshall's 1987 remark in which he called the constitution "defective" and said it was the duty of the court to stand up for those disadvantaged by the law. There is absolutely nothing wrong with this. The conservative wing of the court has no problem saying the constitution is flawed when they want to amend it to include a clause that bans gay marriage. So why is saying the lack of an Equal Rights Amendment is a bad thing? Why does saying that all people should be protected under the law make you a liberal or conservative justice? Even if you agreed with this principle, lets show some respect for a man who helped facilitate great positive change in this country.

As for the criticism of Kagan, her assumed liberal views should not be a sticking point in the debate over her conformation. John Paul Stevens was the leader of the liberal wing. Placing another liberal in his position should not be a problem for any decent senator. This being said, it is not even known if she is a liberal senator. Many of her friends say they do not even know of her judicial interpretation. I'd advise Obama to do a little research to avoid another David Souter-like mix up.

Sunday, May 9, 2010

Did you remember the Great Depression? How about WW2?

The Foundry's Kathryn Nix correctly pointed out on Friday that Obama is spending at levels never seen since World War II. She goes on to claim that Obama is going against public opinion in doing so. Lets not take these numbers out of context. In 1945, America had just pulled itself out of one of the most severe economic slump in American history and won one of the most costly wars it ever involved itself in. The spike in government spending was due to a combination of economic relief programs and military expenditures. That was then.

What has changed now? We are going through the Great Recession, fighting wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and are feeling the effects of an restructured economy. As business activity is down, the GDP shrinks, and public spending for the unemployed rises. This leads to government spending taking up a considerably larger percent of GDP than it would otherwise. Yes, the stimulus bill and TARP did not help, but that's because nobody wanted to raise taxes to do so. Which is what you wanted right? I'm not saying the level of debt we have is acceptable, I'm only hoping people will look at the whole picture when it comes to GDP spending.

Privatization of the military IS a bad thing

To the delight of liberals and anyone who knows anything about foreign policy, it looked like Blackwater Worldwide would finally be gone from our military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. This was after the 2007 Baghdad shooting in which Blackwater security personnel opened fire needlessly on a group of civilians, killing 17. Their license was revoked and those responsible were sent to court. Afterwards, the company changed its name to XE, and everybody forgot about the issue. They are somehow still operating in Iraq, however, as are dozens of other "mercenary" armies. Their primary duty is to assist in day to day security operations within Iraq's major cities. They have become so successful at their job that they have even begun to develop their own variants of armored cars, Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) and other sensitive military hardware.

Few have characterized the increase in private contractors in Iraq as the privatization of the military. I will do so here. Privatization has been happening throughout the bureaucracy over the last several decades. Private contractors are now tasked with many of the operations that our agencies used to do. This is problematic enough in areas such as public education, where school choice has led to racial and class segregation of schools, but in the military it is reprehensible for several reasons.

When the private sector comes into a market, they will almost always offer higher wages and better benefits than its public counterpart. In the military, this will be especially true, ceding the most qualified strategists and foot soldiers to the mercenary armies. The regular military, which is our REAL safeguard against foreign threats, will have a lessened potential to resist a foreign invasion. The mercenary armies do not and never will have the type of organization to conduct offensive military actions against sophisticated forces. The mercenary forces also make it difficult to organize an effective PR campaign with the local people on the ground. The U.S. Army does a very good job at this, employing interpretors and handing out candy. Blackwater shoots 17 people. Not very consistent. Another problem with having a divided armed forces would mean the military's scarce funds would be stretched even further. Having to fund another several forces within our funding structure is fine when there are only one or two contracting firms with a limited role within the country. If the trend continues, corporations like Blackwater will have a much larger role in our military. They will need more money to continue developing their technologies and organizational structure. It would be like splitting the cost of one army between two. Our regular armed forces would be shafted.

One darker issue is the issue of corporate power. Allowing the military to be controlled by large corporations like Blackwater dangerously undermines the authority of the United States government. Multinational corporations already control our legislative branch of government. Do we want to give them the armed forces too?

This is what is so surprising. Politicians go on and on about protecting our troops by continuing to fund expensive fighter aircraft, but ignore a serious threat to one of our most important institutions. Public education is in crisis because of privatization. We cannot afford to have the military follow that path, especially while we are engaged in two wars. Strengthening the military? Republicans, you want to be listening to this.

Come on Obama, we need your leadership!

Harry Reid is now saying he will not commit to passing comprehensive immigration reform this year. Climate change legislation is now predicted dead in the senate. The public health insurance option died in the health bill. All of these are attributed to the failure of Obama to take a more aggressive stance in shaping the legislation that forms the core of his agenda. Many would say this is the sign of a president who knows where to wade into the fight and when to stay at the sidelines. This is a virtue, true, but you can't only get involved in the final push.

You can spend a year completing a health-care bill, but for every day you aren't shaping its direction it will move in the wrong direction. This will undoubtedly happen with the immigration and climate change legislation the senate is currently debating. Obama can't just clap his hands and pass anything that congress gives him. It is time for some backbone.