The Citizens

Bell Curve

The Law Talking Guy

Raised by Republicans

U.S. West

Well, he's kind of had it in for me ever since I accidentally ran over his dog. Actually, replace "accidentally" with "repeatedly," and replace "dog" with "son."

Friday, December 10, 2010

China as Enfant Terrible

Hi Everyone,

According to the Mirriam Webster online dictionary there are multiple definitions of "enfant terrible" and both apply to China: "a person known for shocking or outrageous behavior" or "a usually young and successful person who is strikingly unorthodox, innovative, or avante garde." So much is true of all great powers in history.

China has fit the second, more flattering definition when it managed a difficult transition away from totalitarian, Maoist communism towards a significantly less oppressive market oriented authoritarian dictatorship. In doing this China has established itself as a major world economic power while dramatically improving the standards of living for millions of its citizens. China's management of this transition has been far more successful and innovative than the Russian transition. China has also shown its innovative side when it devotes large resources to researching renewable energy (a farsighted policy for a country with rapid growth and not enough domestic fossil fuel reserves to meet future needs).

But China has also fit the less flattering definition. When China hypocritically claims to be the champion of non-interference in domestic affairs by major powers all while bullying aid recipients into buying Chinese or while supporting the horribly dysfunctional North Korean regime against the interests of the North Korean people and the entire region. China also fits this less flattering definition when it reacts so childishly to the Nobel Committee's award of the Peace Prize to the Chinese dissident, Liu Xiaobo.

China is on the verge of becoming a major global power. But they are still often stuck in the mind set of a petty dictatorship. Two recent events; one in North Korea and now this Nobel Peace Prize award highlight the ways in which China's leaders are not ready for prime time.

Tuesday, November 30, 2010

Leaky, Leaky

Despite the high drama in the media about wikileaks latest disgorging, I don't see why the content is such a big deal. Most of what I've heard about so far seems rather typical and mundane. Of course people call world leaders names in cables. These are like private letters.

I think this event, and those to come raise several questions:
1) Who really did the leaking, and what was the real motivation or agenda?
2) What does this continued data dumping mean for governments trying to conduct private business?\
3) The 24 hour news cycle plays a serious role in the inability of government to function. It is partly responsible for the growing polarization we see among our political leaders, so how does such open and easy technology contribute to this?
4) How much can you disable technology, such as deactivating USB ports as the DoD has done, without paralyzing the functions of government?

I don't see think it is fair to compare this to the Pentagon Papers. That was the leaking of a specific report about a specific issue and it was done out of concern for the public good. This was indiscriminate and done to prove it could be done. The public good be damned.

What do the Citizen's think?

Federal Employee Pay Freeze

What do you think about the federal employee pay freeze? I'm surprised to find myself for it. State employees in my state have faced pay freezes for years now along with furloughs and layoffs. I don't see why federal employees should be let completely off the hook.

That said, I'd rather the federal employee pay freeze happen sooner rather than later because we do face the potential of future inflation because of the high debt levels. I'd rather see federal employees have their pay frozen during a period of flat prices than rising prices.

Monday, November 22, 2010

You are now Free to Roam the Country

The new TSA regulations about airport screenings are riling a lot of people. I have complained about them before on this blog. Needless to say, I very much hope I am not expected to travel anytime soon because I refuse to be strip searched by a scanner and I will not allow anyone to "touch my junk" either, unless it is part of a larger civil protest. I am not a criminal because I have chosen to fly. With that in mind, I encourage you to participate in the "Opt Out Day" if you are flying for Thanksgiving. This is acceptable civil disobedience.

And please, file your complaints about screening with the TSA. They keep saying that they are getting "minimal complaints". They are either lying or no one is bothering to file complaints. This article has information about IPhone aps for filing complaints. Let them hear you!

I have also been reading the blog Of John Tyner, the San Diego resident who used his cell phone to record his TSA encounter. He makes some very good points about contracts. I'd be interested what LTG thinks of his point of view.

I am most put off by the fact that the TSA threatened this man with fines because he left the screening area. He forfeited his ticket and agreed not to fly, at which point they threatened him.

And what is very disheartening is to hear people in the Obama Administration using the same scare tactics as Bush's people did. Here is what John Pistole said to the New York Times about the "Opt Out" protest, "If terrorists can anticipate that, it gives them an opportunity." Sad, very sad.

Wednesday, November 17, 2010

Income Taxes and Small Businesses

Hi Everyone,

The Republican argument against allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire for tax payers making more than 250k/year is that raising taxes on this income bracket would kill off small businesses or at least slow their growth/recovery. They say this as if it is self evident but it raises a number of questions for me that I'd like to hear the opinions of some tax experts about (like maybe LTG or Seventh Sister).

First, are all small business profits treated as income for the owner for tax purposes?

Second, is there a way for a small business owner to reinvest their profits in their business before it can be taxed as income?

Finally, depending on the answers to the first two questions, shouldn't it be fairly straightforward to prevent what is intended to be a tax increase on the richest portion of the population from directly affecting small businesses in general?

Or is this just a typical Republican canard based on dishonest presentations of the facts?

Friday, November 12, 2010

Mandate? What Mandate?

Hi Everyone,

In a recent thread, a roving Republican commenter posted that in her opinion the country voted clearly to "stop Obama." As vague as that might be, it's probably a fair expression of where the Tea Party/Republican activists are. But what about the country as a whole?

I looked up some things on pollingreport.com and found these little tidbits:

A poll by Pew Research Center found that 55% of Americans want Republicans to work with Obama while only 38% want Republicans to "stand up to Obama." That 38% is about the same as we see for any issue where the Republicans really differ from the rest of the country. So what this suggests to me is that the only people who think President Obama "has to be stopped" are the hard core of Republican activists. In other words, they are not riding a wave of broad support.

Similarly, 62% of Americans want Democrats to work with Republicans. I think we can assume that the 62% who want Democrats to work with Republicans overlap somewhat with the 55% who want Republicans to work with Democrats. I take this as an indication that the center of the political spectrum is sick and tired of the politics of intransigence and obstruction. It's a pity they keep voting for divided government.

When Pew asked Americans who should "take the lead" in Washington, 49% said Obama compared to just 30% who said Republicans. Again, not exactly what we'd expected to see if the 2010 election was really a broad based movement of opposition to President Obama.

Recent Polls by Pew and CBS both found that the number of Americans who approve of President Obama is about the same as the number who disapprove of him. Again, not really what we'd expect to see if there was really a fundamental change in American attitudes in general.

Wednesday, November 10, 2010

Speaking of Google

Not to reignite old posts, but I had the pleasure today of reading two articles about Employee compensation.

The first is that old saw from USA (on a mission obviously since they love publishing these) about how Federal workers are getting fat and happy on huge salaries and how the Republicans are going to try and crush Obama's proposed 1.4% raise for all us spoiled workers. Well, I for one am willing to give up the 1.4% if it helps the country recover (although I doubt it will). I also hope that these Congresspeople are willing to sacrifice as well. They live pretty well and bring up the average for all of us. The salary for the rank and file House Rep. and Senator is $174K a year. The Speaker earns a cool $224K. They get the same benefits as everyone else in government. And their wages affect those for all judges and the like.

For a pretty well balanced look at this debate see The Federal Salary War . It is pretty much a lot of smoke and mirrors.

My favorite part of these articles is when the Cato Institute says, "BLS data shows that a federal employee is more than 8 times less likely to quit than a private sector employee. We’ve argued that this indicates that federal employees recognize that the generous combination of wages, benefits and job security is hard to match in the private sector, so they stay put." Of course, you idiot. So we should raise job insecurity and the struggle to hang on the middle class status as some sort of higher value? Why such disdain for the American worker? The ultimate value of any job, or any product really, is what someone else is willing to pay for it. Why is it fair for a Wall Street banker to sew up sweet pay deals and compensation packages, but unfair for a middle class American to have some job security and a decent salary? The bankers say they have to pay a lot to get the best and brighest. This leads me to the second, happier article.

The Wall Street Journal reports that Google is offering its people 10% raises to retain them. Yeah for Google and it's "do no evil" mantra.

The irony is striking. Google has obviously highly skilled employees that it values. The government does too. It employs an awful lot of IT specials, Cyber security specialists, doctors, lawyers, technicians etc. And these people have to be paid adequately to keep and retain them. And we won't mention how many private sector jobs the government subsidizes through tax incentives and the granting of contracts. The American people deserve the best and they aren't getting it. The American people suffer when the federal government, ah-hem, can't entice the best and the brightest. Those guys move over to Google.

Thursday, November 04, 2010

Some Interesting Things About the Recent Election

Hi Everyone,

I thought I would blog about some interesting things about the election last week. Here is a link to the CNN.com exit polls that I will use for most of the blog post.

I'll begin by pointing out that if Republicans think that this election represents a coherent mandate for conservative retrenchment they are mistaken. The first bit of evidence against what I'll call the conservative "tsunami" interpretation of the election results is the turnout. It was low. In low turnout elections, the electorate is older, whiter and more male than in high turnout elections. That tends to favor conservatives right from the start. So rather than representing a shift of opinion the 2010 election represents a shift in attentiveness to the election. In other words, its not that more Americans agree with conservatives now. It's that more conservatives voted. Here is a link to the CNN.com exit poll from 2008. One thing that stands out is that in the 2008 election 44% of voters self identified as moderates. In 2010, moderates only made up 39% of the voters. In both elections most self identified moderates voted for Democrats. This begs the question of whether voters really wanted what the Tea Party and the Republicans were offering.

Now, what did the people who did vote really want? Did they - as the Republicans argue - vote in favor a Republican agenda of reversing what President Obama and the Democrats have done in the last two years? The answer is more complicated than Fox News would like to admit. On the one hand 53% of voters had an unfavorable opinion of the Democratic Party. 88% of that group voted for Republicans. On the other hand, 52% of voters had an unfavorable opinion of the Republican Party. 75% of that group voted for Democrats. So really the Republicans won not because people love them now but because more people were holding their nose and voting for them than were holding their nose and voting for the Democrats. That's not exactly a basis for a rousing mandate (see tables from: CNN.com 2010 Exit Poll).

What do 2010 voters want Congress to do and could Republicans possibly deliver it even if they had the kind of total control they had between 2000 and 2006? 19% think Congress should cut taxes. 39% think Congress should cut the deficit. And 37% think Congress should spend more to create more jobs. You might assume the people who want to spend for more jobs are all Democrats. But 30% of these people voted for Republicans. Cutting taxes and deficit reduction are clearly contradictory. When you throw in the significant number of Republican voters who want more spending and you have a tricky situation for the Republicans. What exactly are they going to propose? No matter what they do they risk alienating a significant portion of their vote (see table taken from CNN.com 2010 Exit Poll).

Now consider that the Republicans don't have control over legislation. What they do have is some control over the agenda in the House and a blocking minority in the Senate. If they really want to change things, they'll have to compromise with Democrats to do it. If they insist on the ideological purity espoused by the most vocal elements of the Tea Party set, the best they can hope for is to lock in place the policies Obama and the Democrats instituted in the last two years. Speaking as a Democrat, that's a deal I'd gladly take. It's at least as likely that the Republicans would win more support from working to compromise with the Democrats on some less contradictory options than trying to respond some incoherent "mandate" that they imagine they have. As a Democrat, I'd accept reasonable compromises with the Republicans on some major issues. It wouldn't make me vote for Republicans in 2012 but it would make me think people who did vote for Republicans weren't insane.

Wednesday, November 03, 2010

If California were a country

If California were a country, the Democrats would be said to have scored a huge victory yesterday.

First, Jerry Brown was elected governor. Second, Barbara Boxer was reelected.

Third and probably at least as important as the other two, was that Proposition 25 passed. Prop 25 removed the requirement of a 2/3 majority to pass a budget and returned the rule to simultaneous majorities in both houses of the state legislature combined with the governor's signature. This means that the sizable Democratic majorities in the state legislature will be able (finally) to pass the kind of budget that the majority of Californian's clearly want. Second, it means that governor of California is no longer a weak figure head. Under the old system, the same vote was needed to pass a budget as was needed to override a veto. This meant that the governor was largely shut out of the legislative process especially if the governor in question was unable to exert any influence among the blocking minority. Governor elect Brown (and his successors) will be much more powerful than either Schwarzenegger or Gray Davis. This is a good thing in my opinion.

This new budget arrangement means that when one party controls both houses and the governorship, they will actually be able to govern. This also means that even when there is divided government (different parties controlling different houses of the legislature or the governorship), that the governor become a much more important player than had been the case before. What's more, in the event that one has one party controlling both houses of the legislature and a different party controlling the governorship, the new rules makes obstructionism a much more high profile strategy.

Consider the situation that California faced during Schwarzenegger's years in Sacramento. The Democrats controlled both houses of the legislature but not by the required 2/3. Schwarzenegger might have been inclined to compromise with them but he was not the reason compromise was so difficult. Rather it was radical conservative legislators, from districts far from typical for California, that held things up. The result was a deadlock that was imposed (repeatedly) by one party on the entire state under circumstances where the political costs one might expect to result from such behavior were either shared out or not imposed at all because of the narrowness of the constituencies of the legislators in question. If California had had the new budget rule in place back then however, the real fight over the budget would have been between Governor Schwarzenegger and the Democratic legislative majority. If Schwarzenegger had wanted to be as intransigent as the Republicans in the legislature had been, he would have had to do so under a spot light. He would have had to take center stage in the state and make his case for a veto. That's much harder to do because he would have had to appeal to a much broader cross section of the electorate than any one legislator would. And, as governor, he would get a lot more media attention for what ever actions he chose to take. I suspect that it would have made a Republican governor like Schwarzenegger much more reluctant to adopt the kind of scorched Earth approach so favored by Republicans in the California state legislature.

This won't solve California's problems. But it does at least make a solution possible. So let the healing begin California!

Some Good News For the Left

So progressives are probably a little down today. That's OK, the Democratic party took a bit a beating last night. But here are two bits of good news to consider.

First, the results last night do not indicate a shift to the right ideologically. Despite what the Tea Party crowd would like us to think, the results last night were driven by two things unrelated to their ideological agenda: high unemployment and low turnout (which boosts the share of voters who were white, male and older).

Second, in an election year with a large swing in favor of Republican candidates (because of the reasons stated above), Iowans crushed a move to hold a constitutional convention. The proponents of holding the constitutional convention were hoping the mandatory ballot measure (held every 10 years) would pass so they could amend the state constitution to forbid same sex marriage. Such a convention may only be held every 10 years and Iowans said "no" to the chance 67% to 33% in favor.

Tuesday, November 02, 2010

Election 2010 Blogging

Dems appear poised to win the WV Senate race and Ohio governor's race (based on exits). House is looking not so good. Struggling with incumbent seats in IA, VA, KY- all three early-poll-closing states (note: early poll closings are favored by the GOP to reduce turnout among workign people especially, which tells you about these three states).

Sunday, October 24, 2010

The Limits of the Welfare State

Hi Everyone,

US West's post about the protests in France provoked a response from me which provoked a response from LTG. All of that got me thinking it would be interesting to open a thread about what the limits of the welfare state are. I'll get things started by saying that there are two limits: a practical limit (i.e. what society can afford), and a philosophical limit (i.e. what society is obligated to provide).

For the purposes of this discussion let's use a really broad definition of the welfare state that includes direct transfer payments, government funded pensions, subsidies, funding for public education, bail outs of big companies to prevent layoffs, public works projects etc. I'm thinking of pretty much everything a government can spend money other than the military.

I'll start with the practical limit first. Obviously this varies by country quite a lot. I think the obvious hard limit is that governments cannot afford to risk ruining their national economies for the sake of providing additional welfare benefits. There is a point at which borrowing to pay for welfare states becomes unsustainable. There is also a point at which taxes become so burdensome that it hinders economic growth significantly. The Tea Party crowd are of the opinion that the US has already reached both of these practical limits. I disagree. We are among the least taxed people in a democracy and we currently pay among the lowest tax rates in modern American history. To the extent that our debt and deficit have become a problem it is largely because of the exceptionally low taxes that we pay (and the military adventures in which the previous administration embroiled us). A marginal increase in our tax rate could solve the other problem. This will be politically controversial but I tend to vote for candidates that advocate this solution.

Countries like France are bumping up against their practical limit. Debt and deficit levels are very high in France and their tax rate is relatively high (especially when you include sales taxes and value added taxes). They have to make adjustments and since they are probably at the point where they get diminishing if not negative returns to raising taxes the best way to make that readjustment is to reduce benefits. This will be political unpopular and people have a right to protest their reduced benefits. But if I was a voter in France I'd vote for a reduction in those benefits for the good of the society and the long term sustainability of the welfare state.

As for the philosophical limit, I think the purpose of the welfare state should be to ensure that being born with the deck stacked against you economically or having made poor decisions should not be a fatal condition. Basic human needs such as shelter, food, access to health care and education should be provided by the state if an individual cannot provide for them themselves. But I do not think that society has an obligation to ensure that everyone has a prosperous life style. We have a right to expect that our basic human needs will be met and it is reasonable to expect society to be willing to invest in our education to make us more productive members of society. But I do not believe we have a right to expect much beyond that.

Unless we are willing to insist that everyone regardless of their effort on their own behalf (or on society's behalf) is entitled to an identical standard of living, we must allow for variance in life style according to the variance of people's luck of birth, decision making in life and their own work effort. I contend that allowing for such variation is desirable because it provides a useful incentive for individuals to work not only on their own behalf but also on behalf of society. But at the very least the practical limit on the welfare state probably makes it necessary. Once we agree that such variation in living standards is desirable or at least necessary, then any debate about the welfare state boils down to where exactly we should draw the line for benefits levels based on what we can afford.

Tuesday, October 19, 2010

French Protests Are Over the Top

French President Sarkozy wants to raise the minimum retirement age from 60 to 62 and the age for receiving full state pensions from 65 to 67. This would be gradually introduced, adding 4 months to the requirement each year, reaching full implementation by 2018. The reforms he proposes are quite modest and much needed. The government has been borrowing from banks to make pension payments and now, with debt rising, the French government can no longer postpone reforms. Sarkozy, I think is correct to push reform now. With the Greek crisis, attention is mounting about national debt across Europe. The French system is actually quite flexible when it comes to retirement.

In general, the mandatory retirement age in France is 65. However, under current rules, one can opt for retirement at age 60 so long as one has worked 41-42 years. (Civil servants have to have 40 years of service). In 2008, the law changed so that mandatory retirement age is 70. So once one hits 60, retirement is an option. But one can also opt to work longer. In some professions, there are “special retirement regimes” such as public transport, mining, bus driving, etc. where retirement can start at 50-55. Then there are the early retirement programs. For instance, women earn two years for each child. These will remain unaffected by Sarkozy’s reform.

Students are protesting with the workers because they see the increase in age as a threat to their employment. Unemployment among the young is notoriously high, 23% among 15-24 year-olds. So they would like those at the top to cycle out so that they can cycle in.

The French have tinkered with the system for years. In 1981, Mitterrand actually reduced the mandatory retirement age from 65 to 60, something Sarkozy is now criticizing, saying that it postponed the inevitable, making it harder to reform now. In 1993, the government increased the number of years required for private sector employees to work from 37.5 to 40. It wasn’t until 2003 that the government succeeded in extending public sector employees to 40 years.

Currently only 12-15% of French workers between the ages of 60-65 are working (20% in the US). The average age of retirement age in France is 59 years (64 in the US). For those of us born in the US after 1959, the age for full benefits is 67. This change was made with little notice back in 1983. The earliest that Americans can start receiving benefits is 62. Civil servants are eligible for retirement after 30 years of service. There is no mandatory retirement age in America. (For a nice round up on retirement ages in OECD, visit The Society for Human Resources Management page.)

Many French workers received 50-60% of their incomes under state run programs, plus there are the company pensions and union benefits. Civil servants receive up to 75% of their final salary for life. Retirement benefits for American civil servants are based on the last 3 years of their income. In the current economy, this is encouraging many people to stay in the workforce longer so as to increase their last 3 years of income, and thus their benefits.

French students are blockading refineries. They may be arrested for this because under French law, preventing those who wish to from doing is punishable with prison time and possible civil penalties. Some 20 of 219 refinery are blocked. 4000 gas stations of 12,500 are out of gas. Distributors are pooling their reserves for distribution. In the end, the French Senate will approve the reform and the French economy will have taken a hit as a result of fuel shortages. So given the options for protest movements, I'll keep the whacky Tea Partiers.

Monday, October 11, 2010

"The Beats" vs. the "Tea Partiers"

I thought I'd share this rather interesting take on the "Tea Partiers" from the New York Times Book Review .

All protest movements are the same at their base- they are often against some notion of "elitism" and they are often driven by some sense of marginalization. I didn't know much about the "Beats", so I found this article rather interesting.

Thursday, September 30, 2010

Religious Knowledge VS Religiosity

Pew did a research study on Americans' knowledge of religion. It probably should not surprise us that the more religious you are the less you seem to know about religion. This is, of course, does not apply to our own Law Talking Guy. He is certainly an outlier. But the trend is pretty clear. If you click on the link provided in the first sentence you can take a short version of the quiz yourself and compare to different demographic groups. This story from the Daily Telegraph in the UK reports the full survey results.

I'm an atheist. I do not believe in the supernatural. I scored a 93% on the quiz and only missed scoring 100% because I misread a question and it won't let you edit your answers. Atheists and Jews performed the best overall. Hispanic Catholics the worst. According to the Daily Telegraph story, the region of the US that performed the worst was the South, the most religious demographic group in the country by far.

I think this shows evidence of a trend we already knew about. Namely that education and religiosity are generally negatively correlated. The better educated you are, the less likely you are to be strongly religious.

I also think this shows evidence of something most atheists know but most religious people refuse to acknowledge. Most atheists have given a good deal more thought to religion than most religious people have.

From a political perspective this really shows where politicized religious conservatism is coming from. In contrast to how they see themselves, the religious right is not a movement of orthodox religious people trying to apply to policy the Bible's teachings honestly and faithfully. It is far more accurate to say that they claiming the Bible supports the social views that they hold independently of any serious religious consideration or examination. In short, they are little different how they come to their views than the semi-literate graduates of the madrasahs in the Middle East and South Asia. We who oppose the religious right have thought this for years. But now we have a little chance to say "we told you so."

Saturday, September 25, 2010

Your Modern GOP

Michelle Malkin: it's okay for a Republican Senate candidate to say she dabbled in witchcraft because she was using that anecdote to explain why Halloween is bad.

No further commentary needed.

Are Democrats Institutionally Constrained to be Wussies?

I was thinking about this the other day and wanted to bounce it off the inter-tubes.

If Republicans are the party of the status quo (or reactionaries) and the Democrats are the party of progressivism and the US constitution's system of checks and balances (and supermajority requirements in the Senate) lead to a strong bias in favor of the status quo, are the Democrats doomed by the institutional context of the US government to be a bunch of wussies? That is, are they doomed to forever come up short of their supporters' expectations?

Republican have less of this problem. If they do nothing other than block changes to the status quo, they can make a real claim of success to their base. It is only when the Republican base starts demanding a return to the policies of the 19th century that Republicans run into the same problem that the Democrats always have.

And of course this means that the Republican base will ALWAYS be more supportive of their party when it is in the minority. Democrats look at their party in minority and complain (unreasonably) about how the Democrats don't do anything to advance the cause of progress. Republicans though see intrinsic value in obstructionism. Since our system is designed to favor exactly that strategy, Republicans have an advantage.

What do you think?

Tuesday, September 21, 2010

Noting the Absurd

There are moments when I suddenly get a real sarcastic mood going and everything I hear in the news seems absurd. So here are some random thoughts on some of the absurdities that have caught my eye. They probably aren’t worth much for commentary, but maybe John Stewart will pick up a few ideas. And there is something in here for everyone.

The UN is meeting this week to “re-energize” the fight against poverty. HRC is promoting the use of “low-emission” cook stoves in “pre-industrialized” nations to improve the quality of life. Well, just great. Let them live longer so they can enjoy that poverty longer.

This comes the same week that the census bureau released U.S. poverty figures (useless as they are since they probably "mis-underestimates") showing a 3% rise on 2009. Well everyone, better pick up your low-emission cooking stove now. You can get the cheap model in straight black or a higher end model in your choice of colors.

The Fed says it’s ready to do more to aid the economic recovery. But we all know that the the “recession” is officially over. So what is there to recover? This is new norm.

The Vatican is involved in a money laundering probe. Well, surprise, surprise. How else was it going to shield its cash from the lawyers of molestation victims? Indulgence anyone? Sale next week at St. Peter’s- the sight of money in the temple is bound to bring Jesus back.

I just got back from Switzerland. Great trip, fine country. Loved it. The travel itself sucks. Jammed into to 2 inches of space, nearly threw my back out trying to climb over the armrest so I could get out to use the toilet, the indignity and stupidity of airport screening, having United Airlines remind you of your plight by telling you every 10 minutes that there are seats available in economy plus (an extra $100 per seat) where you get an extra 5 inches (I won’t go there on that Freudian publicity), being death marched past the 1st class cabin with its 6 seats that take up the space of 10 in economy (oh, but they get to board crossing over a red floor mat, you don’t.) etc. All that said, the airline profits are up. They are expecting $9 bil in profits this year. Gee, glad to see that the $1400 /ticket I paid went to a good cause.

Brazil is holding elections now. Dilma Rousseff is running strong. Check her out on the web. Where do you think the inspiration for her campaign logo came from? Posers.
Among the many candidates for several governmental positions, I hear there are entertainers, such as a clown called “Tiririca” running for the chamber of Deputies. There are also former residents of mental wards. Glad to see we aren’t the only ones who bring our nuts out at election time.

And a sure sign that pop cultural has passed me by: I listened to a local radio station and heard the ever romantic lycis from Jordan Sparks, "You're on my heart just like a tattoo. Just like a tattoo. I'll always have you ..."
Sigh.

Saturday, September 18, 2010

The New American Conservatism

Christine O'Donnell is the GOP candidate for US Senate in Delaware.

Some interesting facts about her:

She makes a lot of noise about "fiscal responsibility" but: She had her house foreclosed on by the bank for failure to make mortgage payments on a $90,000 loan (that's a fairly small mortgage and must have been a really small monthly mortgage payment!). It was about to be sold by the bank when she sold it first to her own Senate campaign's lawyer (do you smell a scandal brewing? that's fishier than anything involving the Whitewater investigation that plagued the Clinton administration for most of its two terms).

She owes $11,000 in backed taxes.

She was sued (successfully) by her alma mater because she hadn't paid her tuition.

She also still owes $23,000 to the staff of her failed 2008 Senate campaign.

But she's got all the far right wing pseudo-Christian fundamentalist street cred. For example, there is this little blast from her youth where she got herself on MTV arguing that masturbation was tantamount to adultery (but what if you masturbate while thinking about your spouse I'd ask). She also believes that "American scientific companies" are crossbreeding humans and animals. So she's a "Tea Party" favorite.

So what does this all mean? First, like Sarah Palin, O'Donnell is a publicity starved moron with little actual substance and a personal past full of hypocrisy. Her one and only skill is self-promotion.

To the extent she is a typical Tea Party activist/candidate, this shows us the true face of the Tea Party. The Tea Party is not the non-partisan, fiscal conservative movement it (and FOX News) wants to sell itself as. Rather they are just a rebranding of the Bush-Republicans that spend like drunken sailors and rant about their fringe religious views.

Candidates like this is why people like my father, a high income accountant in his 70s from a small midwestern town, have left the Republican party.

Friday, September 17, 2010

Thoughts on the Midterm Elections

We are past Labor Day, past the primaries, and finally coming into the general election campaign for real. It has been a lousy summer for Democrats largely because the BP oil spill and an economic "stall" of sorts dampened the public enthusiasm and economic recovery that had been building in the Springtime. Voters are unhappy by and large, somewhate fearful, and uncertain about their future. The voter who is not a committed partisan is largely unenthusiastic about Democrats but uncertain and unsure about Republicans. The far-right (Tea Party) is making waves and headlines, but they have not convinced the independent voters, by and large, that the GOP offers a better alternative to solving the country's economic problems.

The GOP has not offered the kind of unified slate and platform that they did in 1994 with the Contract on America. This will hurt their chances for winning the Congress. In fact, the 'enthusiasm gap' between Democrats and Republicans gets all the press, but the more enthusiasm important gap right now is between mainstream Republicans and the Tea Partiers. As one might have expected after 2006 and 2008 shrank the size of the GOP electorate, the far right has nominated some very far right candidates. But this is not a normal strategy to win the Congress back. For that, one would have expected a move to the center. Democrats are moving there as quickly as they can, into the void Republicans are leaving with their primary ballots for Tea Party candidates.

A midterm is expected to be a referendum on the sitting president. Here, it may also be a referendum on the Tea Party. To the extent it is, it will help the Democrats. Today, Alaska's center-right Murkowski announced a right-in campaign against the Tea Partier Miller who narrowly beat her in the primary. This gives the Democrat a possible opening. In Delaware, the lurch rightward may cost the GOP an easy pickup. Florida is seeing the same dynamic. The big story of 2010 is the intra-party GOP fight right now. Betting on enthusiasm for an the party's base rather than a centrist candidate is a tough bet. Democrats are becoming more optimistic as they see this happen.

This is not to say that the Democrats haven't had their own primary battles. They have. But these have not produced a strong leftward shift. The only real losers (see Specter) were Democrats who were substantially to the right of their party or who (see Specter) weren't real Democrats. These battles have probably strengthened the Democrats.

So what do I expect? (1) there will be some better economic news in September and October. While it's too late for a game-changer in terms of economics (this I had expected in the summer), it is fair to say that the public will be more optimistic and more disposed to the current admnistration than it is now. In other words, we won't see the building momentum we saw in 1994. (2) Tea party candidates will cost the GOP some seats they might otherwise have gained. This gives the Democrats a very good chance of retaining the Senate and an even chance of retaining the House. (3) The polls have largely focused on "likely voters" with strong assumptions about heavy GOP enthusiasm and participation. I expect the polls to tighten in favor of the Democrats as these assumptions become more realistic. (4) It's going to be ugly. Democrats have to win by portraying their adversaries as too extreme to be elected, and the Tea Party only knows how to be abrasive and ugly to begin with.

Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)