Remembering Senator Edward M. Kennedy

At two o’clock this morning I was woken by nearly half a dozen text messages. The reason: the ‘Lion of the Senate’, Senator Edward M. Kennedy had passed away.

In his 47 years in the Senate, he never failed to defend the poor, the downtrodden, and the underrepresented. When it was asked, ‘who among the 80 will stand up for the 20?’ his answer never failed to be ‘I will’. He championed the Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act. He delivered peace in Northern Ireland, multiple minimum wage increases, greater education funding, and healthcare for our nation’s poorest children through SCHIP.

Click ‘Read More’ to continue viewing this commentary.

Just Say No. Well… Kind Of

Californians, facing a $21 billion budget shortfall, are now clamoring for a bailout of their own. I have very little sympathy for them. For years, with a growing economy, they irresponsibly demanded a massive expansion of government services along with a decline in the taxes that would pay for them. Citizens must, in one way or another, be brought to understand that those are competing desires. For too long, our politicians have told an all-too-ready-to-believe populace that they could have tax cuts and benefit increases. That is the conservative myth of supply-side economics. It is nothing but a license to abuse the government coffers.

In 1978, at the height of California’s conservative renaissance, the voters passed Proposition 13, an amendment to the California constitution to require any tax increases to pass with a 2/3rds vote and capped property taxes. The cap slashed property taxes by an average of over 50% according to government records. California might have been able to sustain such a blow, but the 64.8% of Californians who voted for Proposition 13 also elected a series of State Governments that cut all manner of taxes.

Virginia Democratic Primary Results – Deeds Wins

Creigh Deeds won the Democratic Party’s Gubernatorial Primary on Tuesday night with nearly 50% of the vote. Two weeks ago it appeared that Terry McAuliffe would win the nomination in close competition with Brian Moran. At that point, the polling looked like McAuliffe would get a huge lift from northern Virginia but relatively little support anywhere else, especially in the most rural areas. Not only that, but McAuliffe was able to raise over $7 million for his primary challenge alone.

However, that was just not how it turned out. About a week ago, McAuliffe, by some polls, fell nearly ten percent: firmly into second place. Creigh Deeds, who was a long shot behind McAuliffe and Moran just a week and a half ago, was able to make a strong showing in northern Virginia. His more moderate positions and rhetoric helped him gain way in the south and west. The result was a massive swing of undecideds to his candidacy in the final week.

Sunday, The Washington Post‘s Chris Cillizza joined us to preview the race.  Click here to listen.

Enough! Close Guantanamo Bay

Opponents of closing Guantanamo ask questions like: where will you put them? In the United States? In American Prisons?

Yes!!! Every year we trust those maximum security prisons to keep us safe from serial killers, the plethora of murderers, and convicted rapists. We don’t worry that they might get out. Neither do the residents of Florence, Colorado which has a maximum-security facility with a capacity for 490 prisoners. Among the hardened criminals housed there are 33 terrorists. Among those is Zacarias Moussaoui, a 9/11 conspirator, Ramzi Yousef, leader of the first WTC bombing, and the shoe-bomber Richard Reid. Fox News doesn’t have a conniption fit over their threat to the United States. Hint: it’s because there isn’t one.

The 90 – 6 vote in the Senate against allocating funds to transfer prisoners is unacceptable. It represents an abdication of moral and constitutional responsibilities by the same Senate Democrats that were elected spicifically to restore the supremacy of the rule of law.

In Guantanamo Bay, the prisoners have (or had) in many cases been denied access to legal counsel, have been held for years on end without charges or evidence presented against them, and, in several situations have been abused. While the abuse has not been on the scale of Abu Ghraib, the interrogations have included the use of rabid-like dogs, waterboarding, prolonged sleep deprivation, and other ‘enhanced’ interrogation techniques. Meanwhile, the cruelty of some prison guards outside of the interrogation room has led to such famous incidents as the defamation and flushing of a prisoners Koran.

Republican Fear-tactics Continue

A new Ad. from House Minority Leader John Boehner:

Public officials have a responsibility to not traffic in fear. Blind terror does not advance effective public policy or aid our political decision making. This is just another example of Republican arrogance and irresponsibility and a final indicator that they have failed to learn ANY lessons from the last 8 years.

Debate Over AIG: Was the Attorney General Right?

Not All Americans Believe Healthcare is a Right

President Obama has proposed a bold new plan for restructuring out healthcare system to make it more accountable, more efficient, and to make it cover everyone. Unfortunately, not everyone sees this as a step forward. Congressional Republicans have been on the war path since the measure was called for. Representative Zach Wamp, in an interview that went from conservative to extreme began by saying: “It’s probably the next major step towards socialism.”

Making sure that people don’t die or go bankrupt because they can’t afford treatment is the next step towards a government controlled economy where everyone makes the same wage? Forgive me if I laugh.

He said that we are moving towards a system where the “government is bigger than the private sector.” Excuse me, do you know anything about government? The Federal Government, all told, spent $2.6 trillion last fiscal year. Half a trillion of those dollars were directly spent on hiring private contractors. So, real public sector spending is $2.1 trillion. While that is certainly a lot of money, it does not even begin to approach the amount of money spent in the private sector. Thinking further, how many of the services that you receive on a daily basis are from the government? Relatively few. These are scare tactics that should ring hallow.

He said that “of the 45 million people without health insurance, about half of them choose not to have health insurance.” Not to be impolite, but no they don’t. If they don’t receive health benefits from their employers, which normally means they make below the average American income, then they are expected to pay high premiums for purchasing their own insurance. That’s not to mention that the actual number of uninsured was 47 million before the economic collapse and is probably a lot higher now.

He then explains that Americans who do have health insurance would be taxed to pay for those who don’t currently have health insurance. After accurately describing taxes (as if we needed help) he called it “class warfare”. This is another moment where I have to pause the tape. Does a sitting congressman really believe that taxes are class warfare? If you take Rep. Wamp at his word, then yes. He could have stopped there but that would have merely made him look ignorant. Instead he dug himself deeper by saying that “healthcare is a privilege”.

You know, there’s a theory in psychology that therapists should repeat insane people’s words back to them in the hope that they’ll understand just how ridiculous they sound. I don’t put too much stock in it, but at this point in the interview, that’s what Tamron Hall tried. Here is exactly what he said: “for some people it’s a right, but for everyone, frankly, it’s not necessarily a right”. You’re right, that was frank.

“The problem with the Obama approach is: healthcare for everybody.” This is a point in the interview where I feel it’s important to actually be watching him puerilely wiggle with sarcasm as if the proposition were utterly ridiculous.

He closed with the following statement: “we better stand up and defend our system or it’s going to go away.” Let me address him directly. Congressman, I don’t think you’re going to get many takers for defending the current system. That anyone would defend our healthcare system speaks ill of our values as a nation. I’m not saying that everyone has to get behind Obama’s approach, but I don’t think it’s acceptable that there are people in this country that believe that healthcare is a privilege. People that believe that your chance to survive a disease should be correlated to your personal wealth. People who believe that our society should more vigorously defend the rights and lives of the rich than those of the poor. The transition to universal healthcare is ultimately an affirmation of the American value that “all men are created equal” and to attack that value is to attack the heart of our founding ideals. Ideals which we have yet to live up to, but for which we have fought for over two centuries.

Hear, Hear Mr. Brown! A Renewed Partnership of Purpose

British Prime Minister Gordon Brown finished his US visit with a speech before a Joint Session of Congress. In a tribute to the strength of the bond between our two nations he proclaimed that our friendship is “not an alliance of convenience” but “a partnership of purpose.” Through every trial of the last 100 years, the United States and Great Britain have stood together in forging a new way forward. And so we must do now.

Focusing on human rights, climate change, national security, and the economy, Mr. Brown laid out a framework through which the US and the UK would rally the global community to alleviate this moment of crisis. Calling trade “the engine of prosperity”, he recognized the need for all the nations of the world to pass economic stimulus bills to maximize the impact of each and rejuvenate the global economy. But recognizing that our prosperity is wounded by the absence of international law governing global finance he proposed that:

“So that the whole of our worldwide banking system serves our prosperity rather than risks it, let us agree at our G 20 summit in London in April to rules and standards for proper accountability, transparency, and reward that will mean an end to the excesses and will apply to every bank, everywhere, and all the time”

And speaking against the craven greed that led us to believe that sub-prime mortgages could back attractive securities, he recognized that “we have learned through this crisis that markets should be free. But markets should never be values-free.”

But he also reminded us of the liberal human values that unite our two nations in an understanding that we cannot forget “our duty to the least of these: the poorest of the world.”

“Let us never forget in times of turmoil, our duty to the least of these, the poorest of the world. In the Rwandan museum of Genocide there is a memorial to the countless children that were among those murdered, in the massacres in Rwanda. And there is one portrait of a child, David. The words beneath him are brief, yet they weigh on me heavily. It says, name: David, age: 10, favorite sport: football, enjoyed: making people laugh, dreamed: to become a doctor, cause of death: tortured to death, last words: the United Nations will come for us. But we never did. That child believed the best of us. That he was wrong is to our eternal discredit. We tend to think of a day of judgment as a moment to come. But, our faith tells us, as the writer says, that judgment is more than that: it’s a summary court in perpetual session.”

America’s bond with Great Britain is the indispensable alliance. In times of trial such as these, we must heed Mr. Brown’s call and renew our partnership for a new century of challenges that we must face together.

Alabama – Redistricting

Due to a strong Alabama Democratic Party, although national Democrats are less popular, the Democrats have control of 2/3 of Alabama’s state government. In 2008, there were two extraordinarily close races in Alabama. In the 2^nd District, Democrat Bobby Bright squeaked out a win with 50.2% of the vote against Republican Jay Love’s 49.6%. And in the 5^th District, Democrat Parker Griffith narrowly edged out Wayne Parker with 51.5% of the vote. As first term Democrats facing re-election in conservative Alabama, they will want help from new district lines assuming they make it past the 2010 elections. The 5^th district is boxed in by the 4^th which, because they earned a mere 25.1% of the vote in the last election, is a lost cause for Democrats. By reshaping the district lines slightly, they could bolster Congressman Griffith’s standing enough to help him fight back when rage against Republicans wanes. As for Congressman Bright, the2nd district is bordered by the 1^st, 7^th, 6^th, and 3^rd. By shifting some population with Rep. Artur Davis’ 7^th district stronghold, Bright could gain enough to hang on. Alabama is an excellent display of something that Democrats need to be thinking a lot about in redistricting: protecting vulnerable new members.

State of the States – Redistricting

With redistricting around the corner after the 2010 elections (a year and a half away), it’s about time to begin looking at partisan control in State governments now versus during the last redistricting in 2001. Although many of the current governors and none of the current sessions of state legislatures will be in office when it comes time to redistrict, it says something about what things are likely to look like in a year and a half.

My maps combine the Gubernatorial, State Senate and State House of Representatives maps into one map by indicating either all Republican, all Democratic, or two thirds of the bodies being in either direction. Here’s 2001:

First, a couple of quick notes about the grey spots on the map. In Minnesota, Governor Ventura (yes, the wrestler) was an independent while the Senate was Democratic and the House was Republican. In Washington, the House of Representatives was tied 49-49 while the Governor’s house and the State Senate were in Democratic hands. In Nebraska the governor was a Republican however they have a unicameral non-partisan legislature (hint: they’re still republicans). Meanwhile, Maine couldn’t get their stuff together so they had an Independent Governor, a tied State Senate, and a Democratic State House.

With that out of the way, let’s get to the numbers. The Democrats dominated government (all 3 posts) in states that had a total of 103 House seats. Republicans dominated government in states with a total of 103 House seats. Although they had parity there, the Republicans had control (2/3) of governments with a total of 125 additional House seats. Democrats came up short by only adding 71 Seats to their total by that measurement. Thus, in total, the Democrats had the opportunity to re-district 174 seats while Republicans re-districted 228 Seats (33 were re-districted by neutral governments).

However, it’s never that simple. At issue is that with the exception of Arkansas, constituents in the South were not about to vote for National Democrats despite the strength of their State Democratic Parties. Those states account for an amazing 59 Seats out of their 174 Seat total. Although their redistricting power might have blunted the power of Republicans there enough to dissuade me from flowing those 59 Seats to some non-partisan column, we certainly have to note that the Democrats didn’t get much mileage out of those opportunities. The actual number of Seats that the Democrats had the power to re-district to the benefit of the National Party was something closer to 115 Seats. Not surprisingly, the Republicans kept control of the House after this redistricting.

Now, to say the least, things have changed. Here’s the 2009 map:

In this model, Democrats dominate the redistricting process in 141 Seats (+38) while Republicans dominate in only 92 Seats (-11) with a net change of 49 Seats in favor of the Democrats’ power to redistrict. Where the real difference is is in control where the Democrats grab redistricting power over an additional 162 Seats (+91) while the Republicans hold sway over a mere  28 additional seats (-97) for a net change of 189 Seats! Totals are the Democrats majority power to redistrict over 303 seats and Republicans with the same power in 120 Seats.

There are other issues which I’ll address at length in later posts. First, Republicans dominate in several states that are at-large-districts which, of course, gives them no power to redistrict. Second, redistricting holds a limited set of advantages especially in urban districts and in states where the national party and the state level party have vastly different popularity levels. Third, the power to redistrict is distinctly opportune if your state is losing or gaining a seat. Fourth, many states sit on the edge of a party switch in 2010 that would greatly influence the outcome of redistricting. I’ll get to these issues and more in the next week.