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.

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.

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.

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.

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.)

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

What the UK elections say about our current political climate

As polls close across the United Kingdom, the Conservative Party under David Cameron stands to win a plurality of seats in the House of Commons. The center-left Labor Party, under Gordon Brown, stands to take a hit in the polls due to public outrage over the government's handling of the global economic recession. A third variable in the equation is the center-left Liberal Democrats, who have surged since the debates and will undoubtedly become a swing vote in the hung parliament that most pundits expect. The UK election, though much different than our own midterm elections, can give us some insight into the current political problems facing the Democratic Party (US).

The Democrats and Labor are in similar situations. Both are center-left parties that have come to power recently after a string of bad decisions by the center-right party. Both of them held majorities during the economic crisis and therefore had to make a lot of tough decisions that apparently did nothing to improve the economy. Let me clarify that though the Democrats did not control the presidency during the crash, they controlled both branches of the legislature and later the presidency during the economic fallout that was caused by the crash. The main difference between the parties is that Barack Obama appears to be generally improving the position of the Democrats whereas Gordon Brown appears to be driving discontent with the Labor Party.

What is important is both of these parties stand to take a major hit in their respective elections, likely losing their majorities. It is easy to forget that neither of these parties caused the recession. The Democrats generally opposed recent efforts to deregulate the financial markets and the Labor Party had little to do with it as the problem originated in America. Pundits have been talking about polls that show something like 60% of Americans would vote out their incumbent representative or senator. In most of these cases, the incumbent will be a Democrat. It is not clear, however, that most of these independent minded Americans want to vote Republican either. Last time I checked, the Republican Party's favorability rating stood at 22% whereas the Democratic Party stood at 38%. A similar trend is happing in the UK. Many people don't want Labor, but they also don't want to vote Conservative. Conservative is the lesser of two evils in their eyes. But the funny thing about a parliamentary system is there aren't only two choices. Enter Liberal Democrats.

The Lib Democrats generally follow similar policies to Labor, though they favor a free market economy and other centrist measures. Generally speaking, if support is shifting from Labor to Liberal Democrats, it isn't the policies that are drawing support from Labor. This is most likely true in America. People want to blame someone for the harsh economic conditions, so they blame the ruling party. They don't, however, want their lifeline cut by a center-right party so they are confused. The bottom line is that if there was a strong third party in America, they would be surging right now. We would likely be better off because of it.