Citizen's Rent 2005

Securing the Future through Election Reform

In 2000 and 2004, Democrats and Republicans pointed accusatory fingers at each other, claiming "They're trying to steal the election!". Accusations of vote stuffing, ineligible voting, mislaid votes, rigged computers, purged voter rolls and voters that should have been purged and weren't, inadequate voting machines, inaccurate voting machines, political tricks to suppress votes, and manipulative use of the courts to invalidate results - these are just a sampling of the complaints raised from Washington to Ohio to Texas to Florida and in between.

• In Washington, the Republicans are challenging the results in the governors race, where the Democrat won by less than 200 votes after multiple recounts. The Pubs believe that felons that should have been  purged from the voter roles were allowed to vote.
• In Ohio, over three dozen non-Republican voters sued, contesting the results of the presidential election. Their suit alleging fraud was dropped in the Ohio courts, although they say they'll pursue the issue in federal court.
• In Texas, a 22-year incumbent in the state Senate challenged the 33 vote upset by a Democratic challenger. After two recounts, the incumbent is claimed illegal votes and fraud tilted the results in his opponents favor and planned to  ask the Republican-controlled senate to overturn the results. He dropped the challenge after a fellow Republican investigated and determined that he lost fair and square. (Extensive coverage was provided by Texas blogger Charles Kuffner at Off the Kuff.)
• In Florida, beyond the insanity of the 2000 election, the 2004 election gave rise to allegations of hacked electronic voting systems and rigged exit polls (details at Common Dreams), voter registration fraud, purged voter rolls, and illegal voter suppression. Some allegations were investigated but to my knowledge no legal actions were instigated in response to any allegations.

The heart of democracy is in the reliability of election results. When citizens don't trust the election process, the government formed by that election is weakened and suspect. This is clear in the response many citizens had to George Bush. He was accused of stealing the election, obtaining office by fiat, and he was seen as an illegitimate president. The problems continued in 2004, with many citizens convinced that the election process was fundamentally unfair. Clearly, there is an outstanding need for the government to get involved and improve the election system so that citizens have confidence in the results.

An effort to address the issue has been made jointly by Senators Clinton, Kerry, and Boxer and Representative Tubbs. The Count Every Vote Act would require that electronic voting systems product a paper trail, that felons be allowed to vote, that election day be proclaimed a federal holiday,that early voting be allowed in every state, that voters could register to vote on election day, and that officials of companies manufactoring voting machines wouldn't be allowed to engage in specific political activies. The bill provides $500m to the states to improve their election process and requires that these changes be implemented for the2006 mid-term election.

Julie Saltzman provides an overview of the proposed legislation before lamenting the lack of a Republican sponsor. She's convinced that the Republicans will work to kill this bill and recognizes that felon voting rights is a rich target for them, though she's curious to see how else they spin an unwillingness to support election reform. Charles Kuffner provides the basics on why felon voting rights are worth supporting while Kevin Drum picks up where Julie leaves off. Drum figures that the Republicans will either find a Willie Horton to attach to the felon voting rights component or barring that, they'll simply ignore the bill and propose their own, claiming credit for the initial concept.

Drum recommends dropping the felon voting rights component. I'm not sure if that's pragmatic politics or abandoning principle. I'm really not sure, but my tendency is to argue that the need for election reform is so fundamentally critical that we can't afford to lose it in favor of felons' rights. We may need to drop it and bring it back on its own. Alternately, there is an opportunity for us to push this issue at the state level and we should. There's no guarantee that the Republican controlled Congress will allow any election reform through,especially if we follow Drum's other advice and make it an issue that the public associates with the Democrats. The Republicans could easily pass it in the House and Senate and then let it die in committee. We need to push hard at the federal level and you can start by becoming a citizen co-sponsor of the bill here. But that's not enough. We need to push our state legislators and governors to act before 2006. If the feds won't address it, then the states have to. It's up to us to make sure they do.

Hastert Supports Torture Extraordinary Rendition

In a column in today's NYT, Bob Herbert writes about extraordinary rendition - the practice of shipping individuals accused of terrorism to other countries for incarceration. It so happens that these countries often are ones that are known to engage in torture. Herbert writes::

A Massachusetts congressman, Edward Markey, has taken the eminently sensible step of introducing legislation that would ban this utterly reprehensible practice. In a speech on the floor of the House, Mr. Markey, a Democrat, said: "Torture is morally repugnant whether we do it or whether we ask another country to do it for us. It is morally wrong whether it is captured on film or whether it goes on behind closed doors unannounced to the American people."

Unfortunately, the outlook for this legislation is not good. I asked Pete Jeffries, the communications director for House Speaker Dennis Hastert, if the speaker supported Mr. Markey's bill. After checking with the policy experts in his office, Mr. Jeffries called back and said: "The speaker does not support the Markey proposal. He believes that suspected terrorists should be sent back to their home countries."

Surprised, I asked why suspected terrorists should be sent anywhere. Why shouldn't they be held by the United States and prosecuted?

"Because," said Mr. Jeffries, "U.S. taxpayers should not necessarily be on the hook for their judicial and incarceration costs."

This is ridiculous. The biggest problem with the response from Hastert's office is that extraordinary rendition isn't the equivalent of deportation - sending an individual back to their country of origin. Instead, these people are sent to countries that they have no connection to at all - like Syria. That's what happened to a Canadian citizen who was not sent to Canada but was instead sent to Syria, where he was tortured. The intent of extraordinary rendition is not deportation, it's not a money saving exercise. It's moving the prisoner outside the scope of US law so that 'coercive interrogations' can occur with no repercussions. If our government leaders are going to endorse such a practice, they ought to have the courage of their convictions and say so.

Reclaiming Values and Faith

In his playbook for Republicans up for re-election to Congress in 2006, Frank Luntz writes:

The Democrats have attempted to redefine values and faith. You can't let them. Several speakers at the Democratic convention addressed the value of faith without overt religious appeals. in fact, they specifically attacked those who speak of religion or spirituality, an indirect assault on much of the GOP base.A majority of swing voters do not attend church weekly, and this appeal was, well, appealing.

That's encouraging. We need to continue talking about faith instead of religion, to focus on the actions driven by the values Pubs preach (you judge someone's values by what they do not how much they talk about values). The Republicans have gone too far in their "we're the party of values and faith" talk. Americans know that there are plenty of religious people who aren't Democrats and they know that Democrats aren't lacking values. We need to play the oppressed party here, maligned by Republicans who in their arrogance have accused Democrats of having no values, hating America, abandoning our core principles.The average American knows it's not true and we need to continue talking about faith and values in a way that's consistent with our, well, faith and values. Luntz quotes two examples in which Democrats did this effectively.

"My friends, we are constantly being told that America is deeply divided. But all Americans value freedom and faith and family." Pres. Clinton.

"Where I come from, you don't judge someone's values based on how they use that word in a political ad. You judge their values based upon what they've spent their life doing. So when a man volunteers to serve his country, and puts his life on the line for others - that's a man who represents real American values." John Edwards

Let's keep it up and remind our fellow Americans that we share common values that unite us, despite the fact that Republicans are trying to claim the moral high ground, labeling Democrats as without values, and dividing the country into a different sort of "have and have-not" society.

The New Fairness Doctrine?

In his playbook for Republicans up for re-election to Congress in 2006, Frank Luntz writes:

It's time for the Republicans to tackle and own the principle of fairness. Define fairness as "equality of opportunity". (emphasis in original text)

Let's think about how dedicated the Republicans are to equality of opportunity.

• When they fought against the use of race as a factor in determining university admissions, they didn't also argue against the use of 'legacy status' (having a parent or grandparent who attended the university) as an admissions factor. That's not equal opportunity to learn.

• When  Bush cut Pell grants, he made it much more difficult for children from low-income families to attend college. That's not equal opportunity to learn.

• When the steel industry was suffering a melt-down, Bush went against his free trade principles and imposed tarrifs on steel imports, increasing their profit but also increasing prices for every other industry that buys steel. That's not equal opportunity to compete.

• Bush proposed and Congress approved tax cuts that overwhelmingly benefitted the top1% of earners, providing limited relief to the poor and middle class. That's not equal opportunity to build wealth.

• The Republican drug prescription plan doesn't allow the government to negotiate volume discounts from the drug companies, discounts private insurers can and do obtain. That's not equal opportunity to provide low cost drugs or to pay market prices.

• The Republican Congress has wielded authoritarian control over the business of legislation, preventing Democrats from participating in the formation of and debate on bills. That's not equal opportunity to govern.

• Bush campaigns for office and for social security with town hall meetings that are open to Bush loyalists alone. That's not equal opportunity to interact with our national leader.

• Republicans opposed same-sex marriage and worked to deny same-sex partners the legal, economic and emotional benefits of marriage that heterosexual couples enjoy. That's not equal opportunity at all.

And that's just off the top of my head.

Republicans don't have the record that justifies their plan to own the principle of fairness as equality of opportunity. The opposite is true. They may want to own it, but it's not theirs. If the Republicans are listening the Luntz, we can expect to hear this theme emerging as we move towards the2006 campaign cycle. We need to be prepared, to maintain the Democratic dominance in the debate over who is fair, who cares more about making sure that every citizen has an equal chance to achieve their dreams. The best way to do that is to start now.

UPDATE: Further into the playbook, Luntz expands on this plan to own the principle of fairness. He writes:

The Democrats have their fair share of communicators who can rally Middle America by appeals to fairness. Remove that capability and you will havethe majority for a generation.

Note that he didn't say to go out their and beat the Dems at their own game. He said to remove the capability of Democrats to rally the country by appeals to fairness, to remove it. We can't let them. Luntz goes on to distinguish between equality of opportunity vs equality of outcome, promoting the former while defining the latter as unrealistic. What came to mind was Bush's education policy, which is focused on equality of outcome. So where do Republicans draw the line? What other policies if any, focus on equality of outcome? Where do they abandon equality of outcome and in doing so embrace unfairness?

There's room in here for  Democrats. We need to identify when equality in outcome is the right thing to pursue and when equality of opportunity is sufficient. I suspect that a focus on outcome is appropriate for children, and those unable to exploit opportunities. We also need to develop language that challenges the Republican presumption that equal opportunity is sufficient when it isn't and to be the realists in this debate - the truth is that equal opportunity is rare.

An Apt Metaphor

The Mahablog hits the nail on the head when it comes to the outrageous efforts of the Kansas Attorney General to look at the private medical records of women who have had abortions.

Now we've got the Attorney General of Kansas on a fishing expedition for the private medical records of women who have had abortions after 22 weeks' gestation. The purpose of this, he says, is to look for signs of lawbreaking. Doctors may be performing abortions too freely.

(Let's pretend this fellow were to obtain the private financial records of wealthy people just to look for signs these individuals were guilty of theft or fraud. I 'spect the righties would howl quite a bit.)

That's it exactly.

UPDATE: For more on the inane inconsistencies in the Attorney General's justification, check out this post  By Atrios.

Bush Misunderstands the "Keep It Simple, Stupid" Principle

This is the kind of stupidity on display that drives me crazy. In his opening statements for the joint press conference with Russia's President Putin, Bush said:

We've had an open and candid exchange of views and positions.  In our meeting earlier I said, "Vladimir, when we get in here I think people are going to be very interested in this press conference, for some reason, I'm not sure why."  Perhaps it's because you're a leader of a great nation and I'm fortunate to be one, too.  But you can see we've drawn quite a crowd here.  So I'm looking forward to answering their questions.

He's playing "every man", trying for self-deprecating humor and missing. He doesn't come across as funny, witty, amusing, or even wry. Does anyone really think he told Putin that he wasn't sure why people would be interested in the press conference, said it with the kind of naive wonder he implies here? I don't think so. When he says things like this, he sounds simple. He is the leader of a great nation. He ought to sound like one.

Bush Got Stoned, Media Yawns

In Thursday's World Opinion Roundup by Jefferson Morley (WaPo), the topic is the world media's coverage of Bush's indirect confession to smoking marijuana (those tapes, where he says he won't admit smoking pot because he doesn't want kids doing what he did). I like the healine used by Morley: Bush Gets Stoned by the World Media.

The point made by Morely is that 'Bush was pothead' was news for most of the leading media outlets throughout the world - Asia, Africa, Europe, Latin America. Headlines and anchors across the world announced that Bush is a former toker.  In the US, the news was 'liberally' covered (pun intended) by local news outlets, while the national media outlets didn't headline the news (except for one instance by ABC). Instead, they included the information in longer stories. But it wasn't treated like the headline information the rest of the world thought it was.

Morley sees this as continued proof that the national press is shy of doing anything that might garner the attention of the conservative screamers looking for proof of liberal media bias. He thinks the lack of coverage is an example of the national press caving in to pressure from the right. I'm not so sure. I don't think it's big news that Bush indirectly confirmed using pot. Hell, we knew that already. Perhaps he hadn't confirmed it but is there anyone out there who really thought he hadn't toked up? No, Bush smoking pot in the past isn't news.

What would be news is confirmation that he was a cokehead. That would be a headliner. The difference? There's actually still some debate over whether or not he snorted, and no proof that he did or didn't. And coke is a bigger deal than  pot. It is, despite what the "just say no" crowd says. (And don't misunderstand, I'm not a user of either substance so don't sign me up for NA.)

I don't think the lack of coverage here is convervative bias or cowering fear. I think it's cynicism and the desire to cover either big news or big scoops. This just wasn't big enough for the big guys. Except for one - Jon Stewart. But I forget - his is a fake new show so it doesn't count.

The Real Crisis

In an ideological fervor, Bush and his acolytes have been fanning the flames trying to convince the American public that there's a social security crisis. With claims of future bankruptcy and the implication that without significant reform today's young people are tomorrow's destitute elderly, the Bush team is waging a full-bore campaign to eliminate them most successful social program we have and to replace it with a high-debt, high-risk alternative straight out of the GOP handbook.

This campaign is well underway though it's not yet a resounding success. Millions and millions of government and corporate funds are being expended to win this battle All the while, the real crisis goes unnoticed, unmentioned, and largely ignored.

The real crisis, both social and economic, is detailed in a Knight Ridder story by Tony Pugh. It's health care, stupid.

The federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services have released new projections on health care costs and coverage and the picture they paint is dire. The report findings include:

• From 2006 to 2014, private health care spending will grow at an average annual rate of 6.7% - well above inflation and wage increases.
• By 2014, public funding of health care is expected to exceed 49% of total health care spending, of which a significant component is the small-government-Republican's drug prescription plan.
• By 2014, health care spending will represent 18.7% of GDP.

Thirty-four states are already restricting Medicaid benefits. In Bush's first term, the number of uninsured increased from 40 to 45 million. It's only going to get worse. The Knight Ridder story puts the numbers into the equation, making it easier to figure out when you won't be able to pay your premiums any longer.

The annual Medicare-Medicaid report found that public and private spending for health care will total $3.6 trillion by 2014 - about $11,045 per person - and eat up a record 19 percent of gross domestic product. That's up from a projected $1.9 trillion in 2005 that will likely account for 15.4 percent of annual GDP and average $6,423 per person. The government will fund 49 percent of all health spending in the United States by 2014 - a record share - due largely to the new Medicare prescription drug benefit.

I wonder how much that number would decrease if the government had the right to negotiate volume discounts from the pharmaceutical companies. Quite a bit I suspect. But that might provide a small amount of relief for the government and therefore for us as taxpayers, it does nothing to address the growing costs for citizens covered by private insurance. Nor does it help the businesses that fund much of that coverage.

So what is Bush doing about this real crisis that affects individuals and businesses? If he is a proponent of the 'culture of life' then surely he's doing something to ensure that we have access to the medical care we need to tend to our physical health, to extend our lives.

Bush's plan is simple. He's going to provide a $1000 tax credit to the poor for use in paying health insurance premiums. Let's do the math.

$11,045 annual premium in 2014
    1,000 tax credit                                                   
$10,045 remaining premium costs for a poor person

Even if wages skyrocket, this will easily represent a fifth to half of that person's income. They simply can't afford insurance and Bush's tax credit provides no solution. Sure, it will be nice for those with enough income to buy insurance but will they qualify for the tax credit? They're unlikely to make the cut for the "who is poor" list.

Okay, so that's no help. What else is Bush doing?  Surely, he has an innovative plan, bold and daring. That's his second term shtick after all. And there is another ingredient in his health care plan. Health savings accounts. You get to put pre-tax dollars into an account and use them to pay medical costs. How generous is that? Very, if you've got enough income to save some in one of these accounts. But let's think about those uninsured poor. They're hardly paying any taxes already so their benefit is minimal. And they're POOR! They don't have money to put in an account. They're hoping they can pay their rent! Health savings accounts are nice for the 401k users among us. But to the poor they're one more ingredient in a giant government shell game (pick the right shell and, voila, you're insured).

There must be something else. And there is. Bush wants to expand Medicaid coverage to more people. Now that sounds promising. But there's a problem you see since without any expansion we're already predicting serious budget hits in 2014 because the government will be carrying almost half the country's health care costs. Can we really afford to take on more? Sure. It won't even cost us any money. You see, at the same time that we expand coverage, we'll reduce benefits. So more people will receive care but the care they get will be less generous. 

Maybe health care rationing exists in our future, but have we really done everything we can to address this problem in a way that doesn't cut off care because of costs? Have we created federal commissions, held town hall meetings, directed federal agencies to work the issue, enlisted Congress in the fight, and raised millions of dollars to solve the problem and sell the solution? I didn't think so.

We are  facing a crisis. Not in 2042 or  2018  or even 2014.  In this advanced, big hearted,  wealthy nation  of  ours,  45 million people don't have access to  preventative care let alone emergency care.  It's estimated that 50% of bankruptcies are connected  to unpaid medical bills.  Seniors,  the disabled, the poor are choosing between shelter and  medical attention. It's happening in  every state. It's happening to  people you know. And it's going to get worse. 

THIS is the crisis. And Bush doesn't care.

Subverting the Dominant Link Hierarchy

In gratitude for being included in Brad DeLong's Subvert the Dominant Link Heirarchy actions (see When Links are Chains), I offer readers the following links to blogs that I frequently visit and enjoy, but that I have not included as yet on my blogroll (though some are in the PBA). I've also included a few links to blogs that have linked to me but that I haven't yet returned the kindess to. Cheers also to Super Hanc Petram for expanding the subversion.

Comments from Left Field
Streak's Blog
Swerve Left
Rising Hegemon
Left at the Altar
Nick Lewis
NewsRack
Political Parrhesia

If you want a break from the poliblog world but still want to read the words of progressives, check out these two blogs by women who write, and write well.

MomBrain
Odious Woman

Help!

My blog needs a new name. The one I have is unoriginal, boring.... a placeholder that became permanent. I find myself stuck in a creative black hole trying to come up with a new name. My sister though she had a fab name: Poli-Dent. HUH?!? Geez, I may not be a gen-x blogger but I'm far from the polident crowd She laughed and said it was something like putting a dent in politics...and that I'd get traffic from the denture-wearing crowd.  I don't think so. Clearly, I need help.

Anyone out there got a good suggestion?