Saving the Democratic Party

2006-04-07T15:32:00.000-05:00

Vast Left-wing Conspiracy

What if George Bush isn't a republican at all? I know he's been registered Republican his entire life, but bear with me here.

George Bush's poll numbers are down as low as they've ever been, hovering near the 35% mark in most polls. Even among conservatives, his numbers have dropped, and many Americans are beginning to doubt whether Bush's leadership is really leadership or just directional stumbling. Sort of like a field sobriety test - we've asked the President to stay on the line, and he's doing just sort of OK at the job.

This lack of popularity, and the Republican Congress's lock step with the President on such issues as national security and domestic policy, are costing Republicans in the polls as well. Democrats will almost without a doubt win more seats in Congress, and have an outside shot at taking control of both houses.

Which brings me to my point - what if this were George W. Bush's plan all along? What if he was hand-selected by the Democrats to screw up SO badly and expose most Congressional Republicans as such idealogues that the country would naturally swing back to the left come election time?

Now, admittedly 9/11 screwed things up for the Dark Leftist Masters. But then the Democratic overlords hinted to Bush that he should invade Iraq. They'd support him at first of course, until they found out he was wrong (a wrongness which they, the Democrats, knew about but also knew the Repubs would believe).

And now they're back on track, and only four years behind schedule....

The Democrats craft a medicare "reform" bill that they knew would completely alienate seniors, and have Bush introduce it while seeming to have created this monstrosity while in the pocket of the the pharmaceutical industry. Then immigration reform. And rampant spending - all of it done with one goal in mind: to crush the Republican Party's hopes of creating a lasting majority in Congress.

And conservatives say we on the left don't have a plan...

2006-01-27T09:23:00.000-06:00

Samuel Alito

An interesting point of politics, and one that is too very often forgotten by both sides of the aisle, is that you can't always get what you want. More often than not, when you are the minority, the party in the majority will do as they please and you have a hard time stopping them.

Such is life.

It's hardly fair, especially if you are actually right, but there isn't much you can do about it unless you gain the majority and then enact laws or rules to protect the minority, in the event you fall into that hole again. Which given the cyclical nature of politics, you probably will.

Samuel Alito is one of those cases. I, for one, am not a big fan of him. The guy's definitely a wingnut from the right, and will probably do his best to overturn a lot of rulings that the Left in the United States considers sacred. Perhaps it will be politics, but more likely he will be able to find what to many seems to be logical reasons behind doing so.

Stare decisis was an oft-quoted term in these last two Supreme Court nominations that made it to the Senate Commitees. It basically means, "What was will stand," though the literal translation is "stand by the decisions." John Roberts, for his part, used it for everything from discussion about Roe v. Wade to his interest in putting sugar in his coffee. Nominee Alito didn't use the term as much, and simply watching him in his hearings was enough to indicate why: he really doesn't believe in a lot of the decisions of the last, oh, 150 years. That said, Samuel Alito is not going to be the chief justice of the Supreme Court (probably ever) and so his interest in standing by the decisions of previous justices isn't as important as it was for Chief Justice, then nominee, Roberts.

John Kerry and Ted Kennedy today announced plans to attempt to filibuster the Alito vote, on the hopes that enough people in the Senate would take their side and not try to break the filibuster. There are currently 55 votes for Alito that have been anounced (52 Republicans, three democrats) and chances are good that there are more than 60.

Kerry and Kennedy are doing the noble thing, but at the end of the day, it's going to be a political failure. The majority of Americans support Samuel Alito for the court, not because the majority of Americans are conservatives, but because many on the left and in the middle recognize that regardless of his politics, Samuel Alito is actually qualified to be a justice. He is intelligent and by all accounts very thoughtful and methodical. He is someone who will do a decent job on the court, regardless of politics. So attempting a filibuster will make these two gentlemen, and all who are affiliated with them, look pouty and out of touch.

The cyclical nature of politics relates to court appointments, too. It creates a lagging cycle of justices and federal judges just as much as it creates a leading wave of ideologues out for personal power and their own ideas. Samuel Alito is part of that lagging cycle, and regardless of his politics, he is qualified to sit on the Supreme Court. The left will eventually have its chance to place its own men and women on the bench, and I'm sure we'll take it. But with a majority of United States citizens behind confirmation, the Democrats should obey the will of the people and at least not stand in the way.

2005-12-01T11:44:00.000-06:00

Vote Them Out.

If government were run like the NCAA, today would be the day that a full-blown investigation into Major Infractions would begin, and it would probably end with a sanction for what is known in the world of athletics as "lack of institutional control."

To continue the allegory, let's say that the President and his administration are the College football team. We'll say Congress represents the Athletic Department, and we, the People, along with our Inspector Generals in each governmental administration, are the NCAA.

Normally, a school can get away with a recruiting violation here and there, and just have to pay a fine, maybe lose a scholarship or two. Sometimes, though, the violations are so big and flagrant that the NCAA has to really bring down the hammer. This most often happens in the case of severe and, more importantly, repeated violations.

And that's what the Administration has gotten itself into.

In 2004, viewers of many legitimate news stations saw "news stories" reported by a young man named Mike Morris, describing the new White House efforts against drug abuse. Problem is, Mike Morris wasn't a newscaster - he was a paid actor in a propaganda spot produced by the office of National Drug Control Policy.

Congress's investigative arm, the non-partisan General Accounting Office, said that this was illegal propagandizing, because among other things, the fake news release made itself out to be a legitimate news story.

That wasn't the GAO's first ruling on this sort of case - they said the same thing about a DHHR release that ended in "In Washington, I'm Karen Ryan reporting," which is the sort of thing that the public expects to hear from, say, a reporter. It also includes the words "Reporter Karen Ryan helps sort through the details." The GAO said that this sort of fake news story broke two laws, partly because Karen Ryan isn't a reporter - she's a PR consultant who was retained by DHHR at the time.

Anyone with half a nerve cell should also remember the Armstrong Williams fiasco, in which Williams, who was up until then a legitimate media type, got paid $240,000 to tell his readers just how great the No Child Left Behind Act was. Williams's career is now, thankfully, over.

Two days ago the Washington Post, and yesterday the New York Times reported that the Pentagon had hired a consultant, Lincoln Group, to do things like pay Iraqi reporters a few bucks to publish stories written by the Lincoln Group under their own names. These stories are unfailingly positive, because that's what the Pentagon's Information Office likes to have said about the US. It's their job.

But, of course, interfering in another country's media is not going to go over well with our citizenry here, either. Any more than the ONDCP and DHHR fake news did. And interfering in the proper training of foreign media isn't really a great PR move. Ironically enough, the Lincoln Group is a PR firm, so maybe they should have known the benefits of ethical behavior before going into this.

The Times story linked to above (if you don't have a login, go to BugMeNot) also mentions that the White House and General Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs, had no idea that this was going on.

As President Bush once said, "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on...well, you're not gonna fool me again!" I agree with him. There's no reason for us to get fooled again by this chicanery. The President, or at least the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, or both, knew full well that this nonsense and meddling was going on, and once again didn't bother to make sure it was ethical, moral, or even legal. The White House says it's concerned, which we should all know by now is only a half-truth. They aren't concerned that the Pentagon and the Lincoln Group engaged in this behavior.

They're concerned that they got caught.

Maybe it's time for the NCAA to step in and end the football program at this school. Get us a new coach. And probably a new AD too. You can't have "lack of institutional control" without the institution being the problem too.

2005-10-24T15:23:00.000-05:00

On Harriet Miers

Perhaps the single-best part of being a Democrat these days is that George W. Bush is a Republican. Between Katrina, Iraq, Afghanistan, bin Laden, the economy, jobs, fuel costs, and controversial "fixes" to programs that the public doesn't want, he's made a fine job of opening himself up to criticism.

Some people, mainly from the Right, say that the Democratic Party is not offering any legitimate solutions for people, only criticism of the current administration. I disagree with their argument, but the wisdom is there; if we on the left do not find ways to differentiate ourselves from the Republicans currently in power, and if we don't find a way to actually offer real alternatives, then the electorate at large will lose faith in both parties and won't come out to vote.

Fair enough.

But sometimes alternatives aren't called for. The case of Harriet Meirs is one of those times. She has not made a positive impression on the Senators who would confirm her, and today President Bush denied release of any papers related to his discussions with her (citing attorney-client privelege).

Story here.

It's not so much a bad thing that Bush didn't want to release notes of his discussions with his lawyer; that's fine. Attorney-client privelege must be protected today if Democrats hope to have it protected for their own future presidents.

The problem is that Bush had to make a public announcement that he wasn't going to offer the papers up to Republicans. His party, if he still had any control over it, wouldn't be asking for private papers because they'd have faith that she was the right candidate for the job, simply based on his own ability to lead a vetting process for candidates.

The fact that Republicans are asking for these documents tells everyone that they don't believe right now that she's the best candidate. They should never ask for protected documents otherwise. And now, knowing that they want to know everything they can, means that those Senators on the committee don't believe she's been totally forward with them in terms of answers or other documents they've requested.

Another notch in the President's cane of goofups and failures.

2005-10-10T12:50:00.000-05:00

What I've Learned

When Bush was elected, I figured he'd be wrong for the country because he was a Conservative. I didn't really know what a neocon was.

Now I do.

George W. Bush is NOT a conservative. He espouses family values, but saying that you support the idea of "family values" doesn't make you a conservative. It could make you a liberal who still believes in the idea of a two-parent household. "Family values" is a buzzword that means absolutely nothing regarding your own political slant.

Conservatives tend to be more reactive than proactive. Again, George Bush and his cohort are not conservatives - that reactive nature tends to lend itself to an aversion to large federal spending.

These guys in power now are not right wing, per se. They're way off the starboard rails. They spend and spend and spend, then say, "We're not wasteful! Don Young Way is vitally important! National Security! Nine eleven!" Then they go off and try to weaken government so that it will fail, giving them ammunition to say, "Government fails! Private industry! Nine eleven!"

Let me say something, and I'm generally not this clear: Neocons are very, very bad for this country. The real reason that GWB won re-election is because he became a fearmonger in the year leading up to the election, and managed to convince people in North Dakota (where the unemployment rate is well above the national average, so job growth SHOULD have been their major statewide issue) that terrorism could happen anywhere. I watched an interview with a guy from Montana saying he was voting for Bush for that specific reason.

Montana? FREAKING MONTANA?!?!?!? What is al Qaida going to do, blow up a log cabin and a few FREAKING ELK?!?!?

The current group of powerful neocons has managed to take a hugely devastating event and use it to play on the population's basest fears. They've used it to justify an invasion of a sovereign nation that posed no threat to us while distracting us from our real mission in Afghanistan, which was to wipe out the Taliban (which we haven't done), establish a democratic government (it's alright), and capture Osama bin Ladan and Ayman al-Zawahri (George Bush: "Who?").

Now we're in Iraq because we were:
-Looking for WMDs (Oops. Our bad.)
-Wait, No! We're protecting our allies and ourselves from terrorists like Saddam Hussein! (see previous justification)
-Never mind. Now we're protecting the people of Iraq from terrorists like Saddam Hussein (Yeah, we're sorry about creating more of them, by the way.)
-Go back a second! We're fostering Democracy in the Middle East (Except for Sunnis.)
-Forget those last four. We were really protecting us abroad from Terrorism at home (How a Syrian angry at the US would decide to blow up Baquba rather than Washington is beyond me.)

Neoconservatives aren't conservatives. They're power-hungry idealogues who believe that if they can thwart government, they can have it dismantled. Sounds a lot like Marxism, actually, that people would be better off in a totally anarchic environment. So they lead us off into pointless wars to create profits for their oil buddies, they forget what the hell we're supposed to be fighting, and they spend the government into what they hope will be an irreparable slide into failure and incompetence.

I don't dislike conservatives. Conservatism, on its face, is an understandable and in some cases correct way to go. But I loathe neoconservatism. It's a political bent that does nothing but encourage fear and hatred and unthinking loyalty and whose single, though unstated, goal is the ruination of this country.

2005-10-03T16:11:00.000-05:00

The Magnet I Wish I Had

What can I say? I think this is an idea whose time has come:

Alas, I don't think it'll happen anytime soon.

2005-09-28T08:48:00.000-05:00

"You want me to be some kind of superhero..."

In the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, Democrats began pushing for an independent, 9/11-style investigation into the hurricane response. Republicans, with the White House leading the charge, opposed that style of investigation, and instead have opened their own Congressional hearings.

Keep in mind that Republicans, with the White House at the head, opposed the original 9/11 commission as well.

Comes out today that 80% of United States citizens believe that an independent Katrina investigation is the way to go.

Democrats can't let this one go. There are a few issues where it's better to let the Administration have its way - Judge Robers, for example. But making sure that the US has a full accounting of everything that went wrong with the preparation and response to Hurricane Katrina, at every level, is not something that the Party should let its officials ignore.

Time to start agitating.

(story here.)

2005-09-13T09:29:00.000-05:00

Shooting at the walls of ignorance

I was recently conversing with one of my more conservative acquaintances about the realities of Hurricane Katrina, and how I thought that the root problem was abject poverty. Believe it or not, my friend (let's call him Tom) agreed that poverty was the problem, the reason that so many people were trapped for so long in the hideous environs of the Superdome and Convention Center in New Orleans.

But then ignorance raised its ugly head.

"Whose fault is it," he asked, "that these people spend their welfare checks on crack, rather than good cars? Why should the Federal government come in and save these people who don't care about their own basic survival? Why can't people in poverty just get a damn job?"

Get a job? What jobs? Have you been to, say, North St. Louis, or the south side of Chicago? Watts? There are NO jobs to be had in those areas. I live in St. Louis, and I can tell you that there aren't even any freaking grocery stores for miles around. There aren't any jobs to be had.

And why is it that people, very often on the right, assume that just because somebody lives in poverty, they're a crackhead? Or that they waste their money? More often than not, they don't HAVE money to waste.

Poverty is a circular problem - if you grow up poor, chances are very good that you will die poor. And that your children will do the same. And so on and so forth until the end of time. Sure, some people get out, and we celebrate them as great stories, inspirations, yadda yadda yadda. But they are the exception, and not the rule.

What are the odds that righties are in favor of job-training programs? Learn-to-work programs, job fairs, this that and the other thing? I'm sure most conservatives know they'd almost have to be government-funded; chances are good that very few companies would be willing to foot the bill for programs like that, when they can just ask middle-class folks to work for them, without having to invest in a program to teach people who want to work and who want job skills but just don't have that knowledge.

And even WITH that knowledge, where would they work? Someplace miles away. Would you be willing to ride an hour on a city bus each way to work? Try it for a week. Then tell me you'd be willing to do it for months at a time, until you can save up the money to buy and insure a car. And maintain that car. It's very difficult, something that people who have never known true need just never seem to realize.

And let's pretend you're poor and want to move. Fine, go for it. But save up for a damage deposit on an apartment closer to work - probably 500 bucks, plus first month's rent due before you move in. And, in a lot of cities, you'll have to pay another hundred bucks for an apartment inspection by the city. Call that 1200 bucks, all told. I'd be impressed if you can save up for that on a wage less than 10 bucks an hour without getting discouraged. Oh, and don't forget to eat.

Forget about going to college. If your school system is unaccredited, and even if you graduate from high school, you can't get into most schools. So, tough nuts, I guess, if you're too poor to go to Country Day.

The root cause of poverty isn't the people, it's the lack of jobs and good role models in the home - folks who have jobs, work hard, et cetera. That's not because the poor are crackheads - it's because government and private industry, together, have failed to educate citizens in and around the poorest areas of cities and have an unwillingness to invest in those neighborhoods. Government has abandoned them, and industry is fearful of them. And the end result is that what we see when the rich abandon a town is that the poor, who were swept under the rug so long ago, still exist and are real people, just as scared as the middle and upper classes - and when the rug is pulled up, we realize it's us who've been pushing them aside.

2005-09-02T09:34:00.000-05:00

Just a Quick Link

Are you interested in making a donation to a relief fund for Hurricane Katrina? If so, click here:
Liberal Blogs for Hurricane Relief

2005-09-01T14:15:00.000-05:00

Who's really to blame

In the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, there are few things that we really need to occupy our minds beyond the huge scope of devastation and human loss that Katrina and its (her?) resultant floods caused. Look at the New Orleans Convention center, for example. (link for the lazy)

But one thing that everyone around the nation will undoubtedly rally around is the increase in gas prices. In Saint Louis, Missouri, gas prices rose sixty cents between Monday evening and Tuesday evening, when the scope of the damage became clear to gas stations and fuel distributors.

Frequently, and throughout the summer, those on the right have blamed environmentalists and liberals in general for the increase in prices. Nevermind that environmentalists are far less likely to drive 12 mile-per-gallon Ford Excursions than, say, a Toyota Prius, or even a sensible Civic. Increased demand increases prices, we should all know that by now.

In reality, however, the real root cause of the gas crunch is refinery operation. Most refineries are now operating at nearly 95% capacity in the US, meaning that there's not a lot of wiggle room if, say, one refinery were to be shut down for one reason or another.

There are currently 149 refineries that are theoretically operating in the US, including on the coast of the Gulf of Mexico - most of those are offline right now while oil companies figure out how to turn them back on. So, 149 refineries operating at 95% capacity...we should just build more refineries, right?

Not exactly. The last refinery built in the US was built in 1976, nearly 30 years ago.

Alone, that fact might put a lot of weight behind the idea that environmental regulations are to blame for the dearth of refineries in the US. Alone, I'd certainly agree, especially as my wallet takes a beating.

BUT....

In 1981, there were 324 refineries operating in the US. Doing the math means that 175 refineries have been closed just in the last 24 years. Part of that was natural slack in the system that came from low demand, and therefore low prices. But there's no reason that some of the refineries couldn't have been kept open, or at least been kept intact, in the event of a demand crunch.

Well, there is one reason: it would have been good for profits of oil companies to create a demand crunch as they merged together to form superlarge conglomerates. They had excess refining capacity when they existed as independent companies, and they closed some refineries when they merged.

And that's what has happened: oil company profits are higher than they've ever been, and we're paying more at the pump than we ever have before, and it's because refineries have been closed, not because there's been no construction. It's not environmentalists' fault that gas is over three bucks a gallon.

It's the oil companies' policies. Profit is the name of the game. And while that's not a bad thing by any stretch of the imagination, the unwillingness of these companies to cut into profits a little bit and make things easier for consumers here in the US does make you ask a lot of questions as to what's more important: the long-term health of the American economy, or the short-term price of your own shares.

2005-08-11T13:48:00.000-05:00

More than Criticism

I was recently told (on a message board, not on real life) that when it comes to the Global Struggle Against Violent Extremism, liberals don't ever offer real solutions - we just bash the current Administration. In the words of my detractor, "I guess its easier for some to point fingers and criticize then to actually suggest a possible alternative."

Actually, most folks on the left favor trying to solve the root causes of international terrorism...things like capturing Osama bin Laden. You know, little things.

</easy dig>

Here are some alternatives to stopping terrorism (or violent extremism, or whatever) before it strikes:

1)Stop supporting totalitarian regimes.
Did you know that the US Government has openly supported the regime of president Bashir Assad in Syria since he took power 16 years ago, until the assassination of Rafik Hariri in Lebanon? People in Syria connect Assad's brutal dictatorship with the US, and so that feeds into the hatred of the US that already simmers because of our support of Israel. We were also a huge fan of Saddam Hussein until he invaded Kuwait. Sad, really, how the Reagan administration just loved the guy, but as soon as he invades another country, he very quickly becomes a thug. Pervez Musharraf may be our friend, and the same goes for Hosni Mubarak, but neither one is going to live forever. If we're really so keen on encouraging democracy in the middle east, we need to start leaning on our allies a little more to start having elections, at least at the municipal level. Otherwise, we just come across as hypocrites who look for excuses after we've already knocked down someone's house.

2)Openly support (more) democratic, open, majority-muslim countries.
We may not like it, but Iran DOES have a democratically-elected government. The hardline Supreme Council has the real power, that's true...but what should we do? Install another Shah? That worked out really well, didn't it? We should find ways to interact positively with Iran. Why not offer to foot the bill on a nuclear power plant, to be constructed by us and training done by us? If you think it costs too much, read point three.

3) Fund major aid projects to a far greater degree.
President Bush proposed $11.4 billion on foreign aid in 2004-2005. That's less than 3.4 percent of the war spending on Iraq and Afghanistan thus far. Most Americans believe that we spend close to 1/4 of our annual budget on foreign aid, which is 25 times what we actually DO spend. Why not spend more? We can spend 80 billion dollars at the drop of a hat on a war that 60% of US citizens disagree with, and $286 billion on a 10-year highway bill with more than 6000 pet projects, but if somebody asks to increase foreign aid by, say, $2 billion a year, to improve our image abroad, they're a tax-and-spend liberal nutjob. And with every project we fund, with every school or power plant that is built, we should require the recipient country to post a sign saying, "This project was completed with the assistance of the United States of America" in the local dialect. There is no better way to improve our standing with a populace than by buying their hearts.

4) Seriously. Quit with the invasions. Isn't two enough?

5) More strenuously tell Israel that enough is enough. We are their single biggest source of income, and so they should listen to us when we offer strong criticism, but we never said anything more than "we are disappointed" when an Israeli "targeted strike" took out a few innocent kids along with the target. We missed so many chances to improve our standing in the Arab world because we never told Israel to shape up, under Netanyahu or Sharon. It's not too late - Syria still wants the Golan Heights back. We ought to start leaning on Israel to make that their next project.

6) Forgive international debts. "We give because we ought" should be our motto, not "We give now, but you better pay up by 2041, with interest."

7) Stop making aid payments to regimes that commit human rights violations. African nations have received billions of dollars in aid over the last 20 years, and the continent as a whole is worse off thant it was before. Instead, when we're making aid payments to a country and they've committed crimes against humanity, we should stop paying cash to their government, and instead should use the money to buy food and equipment (from American farmers and factories) and just do giant airdrops, with big ol' American flags plastered on the boxes.

And that's just a start, as far as I'm concerned. There are many more ways to stunt the grown of terrorism before it has a chance to really take root. Maybe it's time for the Party to more seriously push some of them in Congress and with the American people.

2005-07-22T12:46:00.000-05:00

What a long, strange trip it's been

It has been quite a while since I posted to this weblog. Odd, really, that I'd let it go, but here I am posting again, so let's just pretend the hiatus never happened and move on with our lives, mmkay?

President Bush on Tuesday nominated Judge John Roberts for the vacancy that's been left on the Supreme Court by Sandra Day O'Connor's decision to retire. Roberts is, by all accounts, a non-activist judge and someone who isn't nearly as divisive a human being as, say, John Bolton. Or even Michael Bolton, if some of the Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee are to be believed.

So where does that leave Democrats?

With Karl Rove, of course.

Roberts is not a judge who is so far to the right of American politics that he's worth a fight with the President and his cronies. He may be conservative, and that's fine - the President is entitled to nominate folks who agree with him. Anything else and people would wonder what the President is thinking.

Reports out of Washington are that the timing of the Roberts nomination was due in some part to the continued pressure that Democrats are putting on the President and Vice President for Karl Rove's head on a platter, or atleast his tookus out the door. Rove's role in the Valerie Plame leak isn't yet publicly known, and he may well be the only person right now who knows the truth.

However, rumors are starting to emerge that at the very least, Rove and Scooter Libby could be charged with perjury, because his testimony to the grand jury doesn't sync up with Matthew Cooper's testimony, or even those piddly little things some people call facts. Like that memo with Plame's name in a paragraph marked "Secret."

That's the sort of thing that will allow Democrats to continue their so-far-relentless pressure on the Bush White House over Rove's role in the leak. Roberts's nomination should not distract Democrats from what may very well be the best target that the Administration has put on the range so far. In fact, the most politically wise thing that the Democrats could do is not make a concerted challenge to Roberts at all. He should be interviewed, of course, but just because his answers don't jive with Dick Durbin or Barbara Boxer shouldn't be the end-all be-all. To polish off an old acorn, "A nation divided against itself cannot stand." Same goes for political parties.

2005-03-02T12:24:00.000-06:00

Flop!

Onomatopoiesis is, admittedly, not my best subject. So the title is supposed to be the sound of a flop. I assume that sounds like the action, so there you go.

Bill Frist and Tom DeLay have both publicly admitted now that the President's plan for Social Security reorganization will not pass the litmus test of public approval. Never mind the fact that it would actually cut benefits for those of us currently young enough to actually have to worry about the darned thing.

The organization AARP, however, still approves making minor, yet important, changes to the current Social Security system, not the least of which is increasing the ceiling for payroll tax deductions. Currently, only the first $90,000 of a person's salary is subject to FICA deductions, because it's just sort of assumed that everyone who earns more than that probably won't need Social Security anyway.

What a crock - Look at the guys who wash out of football (minimum NFL salary: 255k for a rookie) or baseball. Most of them don't find jobs that pay quite that much, and unless they've played for 5 years, they don't get a retirement benefit from their unions. But all of that money that wasn't taxed could go a long way towards making sure that they can still live out a decent retirement.

The first change, and one that could probably shore up Social Security for a very long time, is to increase payroll tax deduction limits to $150,000. It's time for Congress, and the Democratic Party, to convince the President and the Republicans that doing so, while also decreasing the current tax amount (to, say, 12 percent even, from 12.8 percent) would be a pretty good start to Social Security's course.

2005-02-24T13:53:00.000-06:00

Not a peep?

I thought we learned from Steve Forbes's failed run at the presidency in 1996 that a flat tax was a bad idea. Does anyone else remember this? Forbes was pushing a tax rate of 17% across the board as an income tax as his method to simplify the tax code, which is an election issue for every presidential candidate.

When people pointed out that Forbes's personal income taxes would fall by half, which happened at pretty much every single news conference, he'd say things like, "Yes, I am aware of that." And when people would point out that the tax rate for people earning less than, at the time, about 25,000 USD per year would nearly double, he'd say things like, "Well, maybe we could graduate the rate a bit." It should be noted that what we have now is a graduated tax rate, and that this is precisely the sort of thing that simplifying the tax code is supposed to avoid.

And so the Flat Tax fell to the wayside, along with Forbes's presidential ambitions.

Until yesterday.

President George W. Bush announced that he was happy with the way that Bratislava had implemented their own tax code changes, which included a flat tax (story here). As a matter of fact, the President almost drooled over the idea of a flat tax, which as in the case of Mr. Forbes would cut his and his family's personal income tax payments by half, while increasing tax payments for less-filthy-rich Americans.

And, of course, the Democratic party has been dead silent on the issue.

I recognize that the Republican Party has far more money than the Democrats, and that the Democrats really aren't in a position to do things like make major nationwide ad buys. But just as in every other case where the President has done something stupid, the Party has remained silent. Not even so much as a news release.

Dr. Howard Dean was elected to the Democratic Party chairmanship to add vitality to a party that has been too beltway for too long. So where's the fire?

2005-02-03T09:55:00.000-06:00

On Death Pay Benefits

Recently, the 109th Congress has been mulling the idea of increasing the "death pay" benefit that goes to US military personnel killed fighting the War on Terror. Currently, it's about $12,000, which is a nice chunk of change - if you're in high school.

The current proposal, which has bipartisan support, would increase pay to families of military personnel killed in certain theatres (read: Iraq, Afghanistan) since 2001 to $100,000 and increase life insurance payments, which come several months after the fact, to $400,000. All told, this will cost maybe five hundred million dollars.

I mentioned in a previous posting to this weblog that Democrats shouldn't whine or moan about military spending that went towards troop protection or support - body armor was my subject du jour that day.

This is another case where Democrats, who have spent a lot of time complaining about the President's fiscal policy, should shut up and do the right thing. This actually could play into spending policy critiques of the President and the Republican Party in general, especially since the Party bounced the previous House Veterans Affairs Committee Chair, Chris Smith (R-NJ) because he asked for precisely this sort of thing - a death pay benefit (story here).

Thankfully, this pay increase has bipartisan support, but it would behoove the Democrats to ask for one thing: replace the War on Terror stipulation in the bill with "All combat zones," so that US military personnel killed in, say, Bosnia, or any other theater, would receive the same pay. Just because you're not being shot at or mortared by jihadists doesn't make you less valuable to your family.

Seems like a good idea to me.

(Good story on death pay increase here)

2005-01-24T14:41:00.000-06:00

True colors

In an interview with "Meet the Press" on the 23rd of January, Bill Thomas (R-CA) who chairs the House Ways and Means Committee, suggested tying Social Security benefits to a person's race or gender:
"We also need to examine, frankly, ... the question of race, in terms of how many years of retirement do you get based upon your race. And you ought not to just leave gender off the table, because that would be a factor."

The presumption that Thomas was working off of was that women live longer than, but that minorities don't live as long as, white males. So the thinking, I guess (I can't tell if he's thinking or not) should be that minorities would get more money per year (because they live shorter lives), but that women should get less money per year (because they live longer), so that everyone in the end receives an amount of money equal to what they put into the accounts.

Republicans have been the party of sexual and racial inequality for the last two decades or so - let's not forget that Head Start funding was drastically cut during a Republican administration, or that restrictions on reproductive health and equal-pay bills have been put forth under Republican leadership.

Democrats need to seize on this and remind people that this is a Republican talking. Trent Lott didn't get away with saying what he said, and neither should Bill Thomas - the fact that he's not Senate Majority Leader should mean nothing.

The Democratic party, as yet (nearly 24 hours after the statement) hasn't even issued a statement condemning Rep. Thomas's remarks. It's time to get on the ball, McAuliffe.

2005-01-19T11:18:00.000-06:00

It's good to know where she stands

During questioning yesterday in front of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, National Security Advisor Condoleeza Rice was asked by a member of the committee to explain the administration's policy on torture and the Geneva Conventions with regard to terrorism suspects. Keep in mind that the Geneva Convention and US law both currently protect prisoners of war from certain punishments.

Rice's response?

She doesn't think terrorists are deserving of protection.

On the surface, this isn't too very bad. After all, terrorists are especially bad people, who follow the "Kill one, frighten ten thousand" philosophy of Sun Tzu. There is no doubt in my mind that they don't find God's paradise when they die - and if they do, then I have no desire to go there myself, thank you very much. More to the point, they pervert a religion for political aims, which is one of the lowest things any human being can do for any reason.

However, keep in mind that we as Americans, and really most of the western world, were absolutely appalled at images being broadcast from Falluja last year when US contractors were killed and their bodies were mangled.

Keep in mind also that we tend to be grossly appalled at the manner of death of most of the victims of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, who has a habit of beheading his prisoners, which from the screams of the victims must be a very painful way to die.

But we are OK with inflicting pain on other human beings? Seems awfully hypocritical and ethnocentrist of us if you ask me. To oppose torture of ourselves but support it for others is a good bit of both.

That said, Condi Rice's approval as secretary of state is pretty much a foregone conclusion. Most Democratic members of the Senate will approve her nomination when it comes up, which will be pretty swift considering her approval by the Foreign Relations Committee today by a 16-2 vote (Barbara Boxer and John Kerry dissented).

However, Democrats need to push Rice, and the administration, to extend protections of US law and the Geneva Conventions to all people held within our criminal and military justice systems. Until we can proclaim that we are better than Zarqawi and his ilk, and mean it, then we'll always be at his level.

2005-01-07T10:36:00.000-06:00

Objecting to Certification: A Bad Idea

For the first time since 1877, and just the second time ever, Congress has agreed to discuss the certification of an Electoral College result, because some members of Congress objected to Bush's election as president on the grounds that Ohio's election was riddled with irregularities.

That is certainly possible. Actually, it's probable - there are irregularities in every state, probably in just about every precinct. John Q. Public might vote at the wrong precinct, and his conditional ballot might be tossed straight into the voting bin. It's happened. Or maybe there's a malfunction with the voting machines, and some votes are miscounted. In most cases it doesn't make a difference. In others, like the state of Washington, it very well could be the difference between one candidate and another moving into the governor's mansion.

But in Ohio, which Bush carried by 118,000 votes, all that any recount would establish is that the vote might actually have been a little bit closer. But just a little.

The effort to stop the electoral certification, if only for a moment, was led by Barbara Boxer, D-CA.

Barbara Boxer represents an extreme element of the Democratic Party, and while I generally side with her, her politics actually weaken the Party as a whole. She, and other elected officials like her, need to stop putting their own political biases ahead of the interests of Democrats everywhere on some issues. On others? Yes, she should sound off. But there are certain cases where she goes too far.

Let me say this: John Kerry conceded defeat in the presidential election in the early morning hours of November 3rd. He said he wouldn't challenge the results, and he held true to his words. In the joint session of Congress to certify, he offered no challenge to George W. Bush's electoral victory.

This time, Boxer has done nothing but reinforce those who clamor on the television and radio stations calling Democrats "sore losers," a title which should have been limited only to the election of 2000, when we had the right to complain. But now? In Ohio?

Congratulations, Representative Boxer. You've given ammunition to the opposition.

2005-01-03T13:39:00.000-06:00

New Year's Resolutions

The Democratic Party is run, theoretically at least, by average everyday American citizens. And the average every day United Statian (the correct term) makes resolutions for him or herself as the New Year rolls around - generally, these are public promises to oneself that will in some way cause improvement in this person's lifestyle or fitness level, or simply their betterment as a human being.

So, if the Party is run by John Q. Public, shouldn't the Party make its own resolutions?

Of course it should.

These are the resolutions that, in my not-so-humble opinion, the Democratic Party ought to make this year:

This year, the Democratic Party resolves:

to dress better. This means figuring out a stand on issues that real United States voters care about and making that position known to the public before the Republicans find a way to marginalize the party.

to lose weight. It's time for us to find some new leadership - maybe some leadership that knows how to do more than just work the Party out of debt. Last I checked, the Party won its biggest elections when it spent more money than it had. Since we've gianed solvency, we've only lost seats in every major category.

to keep in touch with old friends. There are many parties and NGOs out there with much better connections and better grassroots efforts than the Democratic Party. Perhaps its time we gave those folks a call and chatted for a little while.

I realize how general all of this sounds, but you can't work out specifics until you have a goal in the first place.

Time to get to work, me hearties.

2004-12-15T15:00:00.000-06:00

Wedge Issues: God in Society

One of the hallmarks of the "Religious Right" is that they are, by and large, a fundamentalist Christian wing of the Republican Party. That's not to say that members of other religions can't be conservative - one merely has to look at militant Islam to find hyperconservatism. Nor is that to say that religious Americans can't be progressive - one merely needs to look as far as the Quakers.

But the American (strict interpretationist) religious right is the single one that wields the most political power. Roy Moore comes to mind; you'd never find a supreme court justice who builds monuments to nonsectarianism and puts them in a state supreme court building.

In the schools, the religious right does everything they can to foist the idea of fundamentalist Christianity on the next generation of United States citizens. This does such a great disservice to the children that I really ought not need to point it out - however, think of the uproar there would be if someone tried to force a call to pray to Mecca on our schools.

While it's all well and good to point out the hypocrisy of the religous right, and to point out their power, that's no the purpose of this weblog.

The purpose, as noted in the header, is to point out ways that the Democratic Party can gain ground on issues that Americans pay attention to.

The Republican Party has admitted that they mailed out literature implying (although not implicitly saying) that Democrats in West Virginia and Arkansas intended to ban the bible entirely. This is both patently untrue, and powerful propaganda, especially in areas where the religious right holds so much sway. Consider for a moment - if you're dumb enough to believe this, and you're a conservative Christian, wouldn't it mean a lot to you to support candidates who support the Bible?

At the same time, a California school has banned the Declaration of Independence, because they've banned a teacher from handing out documents that mention God.

This is where the liberals give the Democrats a bad name - because of somebody's idea that secularism should take precedence over both history and intelligence. Because a large portion of the American public constantly confuses political parties with liberal or conservative ideologies, the Democratic Party is going to take the heat for the decision a hyperliberal idiot principal at a California high school made.

And, of course, there's the Pledge of Allegiance flap from the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.

Democrats have a hard enough time convincing swing voters, and potential conservative voters, that the party is not out to completely secularize the country. Moves like the three above merely confuse voters whom the Party needs to connect to.

Solving these problems is a multi-step process.

Firstly, the party must release a statement recognizing that this country was founded on Judeochristian ideals.

Secondly, the party must maintain a strong stance on opposing organized prayer in schools.

as well as

Thirdly, the Party must push its legislators to release statements opposing the sanitization of education.

Just because the religious right has political power doesn't mean they're the only ones qualified to talk about God, or religion's place in society. It just means they're louder than the Democratic Party. It's time to fix that.

2004-12-01T13:10:00.000-06:00

Wedge Issues: Taxation

Today, FoxNews ran a story hidden in the basebar of the organization's homepage that said that Bush Administration officials were huddling with members of Congress to hammer out alterations to the tax code, including one that really took me by surprise; the Administration is floating the idea of eliminating the IRS altogether.

(here's the story: FoxNews link)

Now, normally I'd greet this idea with at least a modicum of joy. After all, nobody likes being taxed, even those of us who barely earn enough to come up onto the IRS's radar.

However, there is the simple matter of funding the federal government, and that's where the Administration, as usual, becomes a collection of right-wing moneyhoarders: they want a national sales tax.

In order to fund the government at the level it is now, the national sales tax would have to be somewhere between 23 and 30 cents on the dollar, for every dollar spent on taxable expenditures (rent and mortgage are not taxable, so more on that later). In simpler terms, presuming you spend about one third of your income on rent OR on mortgage (which is about the average), your tax rate will be between 14 and 20 percent on every dollar you spend at stores, online, or elsewhere. Anywhere an item crosses a state line, it becomes federally taxable, and will become fair game for the feds.

This is, to put it bluntly, an idiotic idea. The only people that this will benefit are those who currently pay more than 23 percent income tax, which is people who earn $68,800 dollars or more, or families that earn more than about $120,000. Otherwise, you're going to end up paying more in federal sales tax than you would otherwise.

Here's an example: I've earned $20,726 this year. My rent has, thus far, been $6,600. That means my taxable expenditures shold be about 14,100 dollars. Problem is I've actually spent more than that, about $18,000 all told (as have most Americans - private debt load is increasing, which means that Sally and John Public are spending more than they're earning). So my taxable expenditures are around $18,000 this year. At the lowest possible federal tax rate, I'd have paid $4140 in additional income taxes.

But wait! My federal witholding taxes this year have only been $2300! That means that my tax rate would almost double under the administration's plan.

The Democratic Party must act. First, it must begin to run ads indicating what the Administration intends to do. Secondly, these ads must be run 24/7, in all 50 states, and must use real people. These ads must explain why the federal sales tax is a bad idea, using these same real people.

Finally, these ads must point out that the only people who would see any tangible benefit to this program would be those who earn above a certain level. In the end, it's about the top 10% of people within the United States - the people who tend to be protected by the Republican Party anyway.

Secondly, the party must push its own tax agenda - this agenda must include the John Kerry platform of taxation - extending tax cuts to the poorest, increasing the income floor for taxation, and increasing the tax rate on all persons earning $175,000 or more, per year. That way, when the Republicans vote against it, the Democrats can instantly begin accusing Republicans of voting against making the Bush tax cuts permanent - precisely the sort of attack the Democratic leadership needs.

Since the 1950s, the Republican Party has been one which promises fiscal restraint and ends up hitting hardest those who are least able to bear the burden. This Administration has shown itself no different, and the Party must react.

2004-11-23T15:03:00.000-06:00

Wedge Issues: National Defense

The Democratic party, and liberals in general, are often portrayed as being weak on defense; the spirit of the label is often true, as the Party and the left-wing idealogues tend to find that social causes are more their forté, both in terms of expertise and ability.

But, of course, the undecided moderate conservative doesn't care as much about social issues as she does about national defense - very often the conservative base can be well-riled up by having a guy say things like "Forces armed with what? Spitballs?" More to the point, they're often willfully ignorant when such a speech is 98% untrue.

The party failed to respond to Zell Miller's speech in any way, shape or form in August, instead choosing to trumpet John Kerry's own Purple Hearts and say "He's big on defense! He got shrapnel in his buttock!" What the party failed to do in any way, shape, or form, was to come out and accuse Zell Miller of lying (which he did) or to back up their own members and candidates' records on defense spending (which they didn't).

It's time for the party to give up. The military-industrial complex is here to stay, and if I may say so, it's a good thing. While our armies and navies may not be the most agile weapon-bearing force in the world, they remain the best-trained soldiers this planet has ever seen, and our military remains the most powerful in the world...greater even than China's 100-million-man army. We have the best equipment, the best training, and generally, the best soldiers on Earth. While I hate to admit it, those are all results of Republican efforts at continually increasing defense spending.

Nevermind that the increase in the defense budget is hard on other programs - the money can be found pretty easily if we're willing to look for it. At the very least, the Democratic party must stop caterwauling about defense spending, and must instead attempt to keep it steady, at the rate of inflation. While I don't agree with the war in Iraq at all, we are there, and spending money on the military is the only way to keep our men and women who ARE there safe.

Now, that said, there are ways to keep costs down while at the same time appearing strong on defense.

Keep contracts open

Contract Accountability

Increased funds for body armor

Visit the troops

Being "strong on defense" has too long been a Republican tagline. It's time for the Democratic Party to get their act in gear. There's no reason not to oppose overboard Pentagon spending, but at the same time, "Support our Troops" is a rallying cry for the right - it should be a rallying cry for everyone.

2004-11-13T22:01:00.000-06:00

Wedge issues: gay marriage

One of the factors that perhaps managed to swing a lot of undecided voters towards Republican candidates in this most recent election cycle was the topic of gay marriage. After a federal judge ruled in March of 2004 that marriage in his district (which included Boston) could not be limited to man and woman, a floodgate was opened that really revealed how much animosity towards homosexual rights this country has.

The Republican seized the momentum, going so far as to actually push a proposed Constitutional Amendment onto the floor of the US House of representatives. It failed, but it left liberals and those who viewed themselves as protectors of the constitution on the defensive.

Left with nothing to do but oppose whatever the Republican majority supported, the Democrats got stuck with the position of supporting the idea of civil unions. No major Democratic candidate for the presidency came out in favor of gay marriage itself - but the labels applied by conservatives stuck. And John Kerry, once he earned the Democratic nomination, didn't do a damned thing to support the idea.

Then came the state constitutional amendments during this most recent cycle, all 11 of which passed, and all 11 of which banned gay marriage as such.

Who would have thought that a Federal district court ruling in favor of gay rights would set gay rights back so far?

The thing that the Democratic party must do, in order to both protect the rights of gay Americans and to protect itself, is to come out strongly supportive of civil unions. More than 70 percent of Americans are opposed to the idea of gay marriage as an institution, and while it's not fair, the party and its supporters must understand that the US simply isn't ready for wedding bells to ring for Adam and Steve, as well as for Adam and Eve.

In order to make this work, the party is going to have to work with civil libertarians and gay rights leaders to make them understand that this is a case where baby steps are needed. This is a case where, if the movement starts small, eventually the equality will be achieved that should be achieved. It may take a while, but eventually, equality will be there waiting.

In conclusion: The party, and gay rights leaders, must come out united for Civil Unions. The rights of gay partners who lead committed relationships must not be sacrificed for political gain - they must instead be gained piecemeal for the Democratic Party to earn the respect of liberals and moderates, as well as moderate rightists, alike.

2004-11-10T14:40:00.000-06:00

And so it Begins

This is the first official post of this blog, so I thought I should flesh out how I'm going to run this thing.

Every week, preferably Saturday, I'm going to put up a bit of a treatise on how I, as a Democratic-leaning voter, think the party should address certain issues. I'm going to focus, at least at the start, on what are traditionally considered "wedge" issues. I'd like to address things like gay marriage, God in the classroom, and tax policy.

While it is currently about as much of a wedge issue as any other, the War in Iraq (or Operation Iraqi Freedom, depending on which side of the fence you're on) will get its own separate chapter in this blog.

So, here we go. I'm kind of curious as to what I'll cook up around here.

2004-11-05T00:41:00.000-06:00

They Certainly Are Out of Touch, Aren't They?

I was reading the Drudge Report, and I noticed a Terry McAuliffe quote from an article on BlackPressUSA.com, saying, and I'm quoting here from the article:

"This party is stronger than its ever been. Were in the best financial shape," he says. "We now have, unlike four years ago, millions and millions of new supporters of this party. We're debt-free for the first time ever and were beginning to build towards 2008."

Did I read that right?

Terry, I know you're a good guy and all, but dude, it's time to stop living in fantasy pink world, or wherever you are. Your presidential candidate lost, giving George W. Bush his first truly legitimate election victory for the White House, and you lost seats in both houses of Congress. Oh, yeah, and you only broke even in gubernatorial races.

Stronger than it's ever been? I don't want to be mean, but how weak did the party used to be?

(Here's the article)

2004-11-04T15:15:00.000-06:00

And so another four years begins

Even before this most recent election, I had been noticing, especially among potentially sway-able voters, that a lot of people simply didn't understand the general Democratic Party platform, or what John Kerry's oft-mentioned plans were to improve the well-being of United States citizens and residents.

The more I read or heard statements like, "The Democrats don't have a real platform," or "Kerry's just answering to the polls, not to the people," I began to realize that one thing that plagues Democrats, as well as Republicans, is that they simply don't have a connection to John Q. Public.

That's not to say that I don't think that Democrats care about the people - on the contrary, they are a populist party, and as such they have a natural tendency to be, well, populist. Sort of the nature of left-wing politics, really.

But the party as a whole, and many of its top-flight candidates, tend to not be able to get that across. And I think that most of the party's platform in't well-explained or particularly well-defined.

So I'm creating this weblog. Really, it's just for me. It's just a way for me to put my thoughts onto paper, or something like it, and for me to have a place to ponder how to best explain what I believe that moderate-liberal politics ought to be about.