A quick aside... in case you still aren't convinced that any poll can be spun any number of different ways by the media, here are headlines from two state newspapers today reporting on the same exact poll about the Tea Party/Bagger movement:
'Tea Party' making inroads, poll finds (San Bernardino Sun)
State poll: Few hooked on Tea Party (San Diego Union-Tribune)
Just for giggles, here's the Sun's leadoff sentence: "A poll of California voters released Tuesday reports that many Democrats and independent voters say they identify to some extent with the conservative tea party groups that have sprung up over the past year."
...and the Union-Trib's: "The majority of California voters are aware of the Tea Party protest movement sweeping the country but don’t identify with it, a new Field Poll shows."
And the print media wonders why they're doing so poorly these days.
Wednesday, January 27, 2010
Tuesday, January 26, 2010
Health Care Hypocrites
Matthew Spieler, at a website called The Faster Times (hat tip to Jonathan Cohn of The New Republic for linking to it), makes a really good point about "progressive" Democrats in Congress who would rather kill health care reform entirely than pass the Senate bill.
Spieler correctly points out that the Senate-bill-versus-no-bill argument, at least for those left of the center, effectively boils down to this: either (a) insure upwards of 30 million people (two-thirds of the uninsured, approximately) using the current private, for-profit system, thus granting billions of dollars in profits to the insurance companies; or (b) deny the evil, horrible insurance companies all of those profits, but also deny the 30 million people the ability to get health insurance. These are the choices, given that the public option seems to be dead and buried forever.
Liberals who are against the Senate bill simply because it would put more money in the pockets of insurance company executives are the worst kind of ideologues. If you can do something good for 30 million mostly low income people who can't afford insurance as it is, why not just do it? Worry about who profits off of it later; let's get these people insured. (Full disclosure: I am twenty-five years old, have a part-time job and was dropped from my parents' insurance when I turned twenty-four over a year ago. So I'm not exactly impartial on this topic. I would love to go see a doctor at some point. Maybe a dentist too. Why are Anthony Weiner and Raul Grijalva opposed to me seeing a dentist? And how about Howard Dean? I voted for you in 2004, dude. I campaigned for you. I donated money to you. Are you going to pay for my fillings?)
For that matter, they're also the worst kind of hypocrites. None of these people - Weiner, Grijalva, Dean - receive their insurance from a public system like Medicare or Medicaid, I promise you. Which means that they're all okay with their dollars lining the pockets of wealthy insurance CEOs; they just don't want any of the 46 million uninsured Americans to have that ability. Come on, guys. Start acting like the party Americans elected to lead in 2006 and 2008, not the party we just threw out.
Spieler correctly points out that the Senate-bill-versus-no-bill argument, at least for those left of the center, effectively boils down to this: either (a) insure upwards of 30 million people (two-thirds of the uninsured, approximately) using the current private, for-profit system, thus granting billions of dollars in profits to the insurance companies; or (b) deny the evil, horrible insurance companies all of those profits, but also deny the 30 million people the ability to get health insurance. These are the choices, given that the public option seems to be dead and buried forever.
Liberals who are against the Senate bill simply because it would put more money in the pockets of insurance company executives are the worst kind of ideologues. If you can do something good for 30 million mostly low income people who can't afford insurance as it is, why not just do it? Worry about who profits off of it later; let's get these people insured. (Full disclosure: I am twenty-five years old, have a part-time job and was dropped from my parents' insurance when I turned twenty-four over a year ago. So I'm not exactly impartial on this topic. I would love to go see a doctor at some point. Maybe a dentist too. Why are Anthony Weiner and Raul Grijalva opposed to me seeing a dentist? And how about Howard Dean? I voted for you in 2004, dude. I campaigned for you. I donated money to you. Are you going to pay for my fillings?)
For that matter, they're also the worst kind of hypocrites. None of these people - Weiner, Grijalva, Dean - receive their insurance from a public system like Medicare or Medicaid, I promise you. Which means that they're all okay with their dollars lining the pockets of wealthy insurance CEOs; they just don't want any of the 46 million uninsured Americans to have that ability. Come on, guys. Start acting like the party Americans elected to lead in 2006 and 2008, not the party we just threw out.
Just a quick note on how much I hate polls. Early polls especially. And it’s not even the polls’s fault that I hate them so much; it’s the media’s fault, for overemphasizing what’s in the polls.
Take, for instance, this year’s U.S. Senate election here in California. Media outlets up and down the state, from the Associated Press right on down to the smallest blogs, reported on the recent Field Poll results showing that, among other things, incumbent Democrat Barbara Boxer leads all three potential Republican challengers, and that among those challengers getting ready to square off in the June primary, Tom Campbell leads both Carly Fiorina and Chuck DeVore.
The poll actually asked about two separate elections: the June primary and the November general. For the primary, I think the media should have discarded the results entirely. Yes, Campbell technically is in the lead – with a whopping 30 percent, compared to Fiorina’s 25 percent and a meager 6 percent for Chuck DeVore, the preferred candidate of Teabaggers and birthers. The leading candidate in the race was “Undecided,” who also goes by the name “It’s Only January And I’m Much Too Busy Peeing My Pants Over Scott Brown’s Win In Massachusetts To Give A Hoot About The Damn California Election Yet.” That candidate was pulling down 39 percent.
That’s right; fully four out of ten likely Republican primary voters still have no opinion on this race. Among voters at large (i.e., not just Republicans), 64 percent have no opinion of Campbell, 66 percent don’t know enough about Carly Fiorina to make a judgment, and 85 percent haven’t heard of Chuck DeVore. (Either that, or based on his name they assume he’s a drag-queen stripper and therefore not a serious candidate.)
So is this an "Underdog Campbell unexpectedly in the lead" story or a "Multimillionaire Fiorina falling behind despite loaning millions to her own campaign" story? Neither! At best, this is a case of "Results inconclusive; check back when more people care." Shame on the Associated Press, the Mercury News, and other media outlets for over-reporting on this one. (For one thing, they’re getting poor Tom Campbell’s hopes up. The man supports same-sex marriage and proposed a temporary hike in the gas tax last year to pay down California’s budget deficit; mark my words, he is not winning a Republican primary.*)
On the other hand, the second half of the poll – asking all likely voters, regardless of party, how they might vote in the November general election – has a little more meaning. That’s because more California voters than not are familiar with Barbara Boxer, who’s represented us in Washington for 17 years, and because an election featuring an incumbent tends to become a referendum on that incumbent’s job performance. Overemphasized in the poll was the fact that Boxer’s favorability rating is “only” 48 percent, as if the other 52 percent automatically dislike her and plan to vote against her. In reality, her unfavorability is only at 39 percent, meaning that 13 percent of prospective voters have no opinion of Barbara Boxer.
For that matter, Boxer is ahead of all three potential challengers. She leads Campbell by a margin of 48-38%, Fiorina by 50-35%, and DeVore by 51-34%. Assuming I’m right that Campbell can’t win the Republican primary and that DeVore’s candidacy is DOA, that leaves Carly Fiorina and her millions as the most likely candidate to take a shot at Boxer in the fall. Fifteen points behind, with ten months to go, and a full 50 percent of voters already backing the incumbent, in a state where Democrats outnumber Republicans by a full 13 points? That’s one poll that can’t be over-reported.
* A note on Tom Campbell – I like the guy, I really do. He’s thoughtful, very intelligent (Ph.D from the University of Chicago, former Stanford professor), and puts forward specific, detailed plans on what he’ll do if elected, rather than generic platitudes like “lower taxes” or “shrink government.” But I predict, with all my heart, that he will be massively outspent by the multimillionaire Fiorina and out-conservatived by both Fiorina and DeVore.
The only possible way Campbell could win the GOP primary is if Fiorina tacks hard enough to the right for her and DeVore to split the conservative vote, thus allowing moderate voters to dominate. But how many moderates are left in the California Republican Party? Consider these two statistics: First, the Field Poll breaks down likely GOP voters by ideology, and a full 43 percent call themselves “strongly conservative.” That leaves “moderate” and “moderately conservative” at 57 percent, combined. What percentage of those do you suppose identify simply as "moderate"? Forty percent? Less? I'm thinking probably less, more like 30 to 35 percent.
Second, in 1992, the last time Campbell faced a contested primary, there were a lot more moderates around, he won just 36 percent of the vote; he’ll need at least that much, probably four to six points more, to win in 2010. (Given his startlingly poor polling, DeVore’s probably either going to drop out or simply fade into obscurity by June, making the primary into more of a two-person contest between Campbell and Fiorina.) You tell me how well a pro-choice, pro-same-sex-marriage, former professor from the Bay Area who has supported tax increases in the past is going to fare among today's Republican voters.
Take, for instance, this year’s U.S. Senate election here in California. Media outlets up and down the state, from the Associated Press right on down to the smallest blogs, reported on the recent Field Poll results showing that, among other things, incumbent Democrat Barbara Boxer leads all three potential Republican challengers, and that among those challengers getting ready to square off in the June primary, Tom Campbell leads both Carly Fiorina and Chuck DeVore.
The poll actually asked about two separate elections: the June primary and the November general. For the primary, I think the media should have discarded the results entirely. Yes, Campbell technically is in the lead – with a whopping 30 percent, compared to Fiorina’s 25 percent and a meager 6 percent for Chuck DeVore, the preferred candidate of Teabaggers and birthers. The leading candidate in the race was “Undecided,” who also goes by the name “It’s Only January And I’m Much Too Busy Peeing My Pants Over Scott Brown’s Win In Massachusetts To Give A Hoot About The Damn California Election Yet.” That candidate was pulling down 39 percent.
That’s right; fully four out of ten likely Republican primary voters still have no opinion on this race. Among voters at large (i.e., not just Republicans), 64 percent have no opinion of Campbell, 66 percent don’t know enough about Carly Fiorina to make a judgment, and 85 percent haven’t heard of Chuck DeVore. (Either that, or based on his name they assume he’s a drag-queen stripper and therefore not a serious candidate.)
So is this an "Underdog Campbell unexpectedly in the lead" story or a "Multimillionaire Fiorina falling behind despite loaning millions to her own campaign" story? Neither! At best, this is a case of "Results inconclusive; check back when more people care." Shame on the Associated Press, the Mercury News, and other media outlets for over-reporting on this one. (For one thing, they’re getting poor Tom Campbell’s hopes up. The man supports same-sex marriage and proposed a temporary hike in the gas tax last year to pay down California’s budget deficit; mark my words, he is not winning a Republican primary.*)
On the other hand, the second half of the poll – asking all likely voters, regardless of party, how they might vote in the November general election – has a little more meaning. That’s because more California voters than not are familiar with Barbara Boxer, who’s represented us in Washington for 17 years, and because an election featuring an incumbent tends to become a referendum on that incumbent’s job performance. Overemphasized in the poll was the fact that Boxer’s favorability rating is “only” 48 percent, as if the other 52 percent automatically dislike her and plan to vote against her. In reality, her unfavorability is only at 39 percent, meaning that 13 percent of prospective voters have no opinion of Barbara Boxer.
For that matter, Boxer is ahead of all three potential challengers. She leads Campbell by a margin of 48-38%, Fiorina by 50-35%, and DeVore by 51-34%. Assuming I’m right that Campbell can’t win the Republican primary and that DeVore’s candidacy is DOA, that leaves Carly Fiorina and her millions as the most likely candidate to take a shot at Boxer in the fall. Fifteen points behind, with ten months to go, and a full 50 percent of voters already backing the incumbent, in a state where Democrats outnumber Republicans by a full 13 points? That’s one poll that can’t be over-reported.
* A note on Tom Campbell – I like the guy, I really do. He’s thoughtful, very intelligent (Ph.D from the University of Chicago, former Stanford professor), and puts forward specific, detailed plans on what he’ll do if elected, rather than generic platitudes like “lower taxes” or “shrink government.” But I predict, with all my heart, that he will be massively outspent by the multimillionaire Fiorina and out-conservatived by both Fiorina and DeVore.
The only possible way Campbell could win the GOP primary is if Fiorina tacks hard enough to the right for her and DeVore to split the conservative vote, thus allowing moderate voters to dominate. But how many moderates are left in the California Republican Party? Consider these two statistics: First, the Field Poll breaks down likely GOP voters by ideology, and a full 43 percent call themselves “strongly conservative.” That leaves “moderate” and “moderately conservative” at 57 percent, combined. What percentage of those do you suppose identify simply as "moderate"? Forty percent? Less? I'm thinking probably less, more like 30 to 35 percent.
Second, in 1992, the last time Campbell faced a contested primary, there were a lot more moderates around, he won just 36 percent of the vote; he’ll need at least that much, probably four to six points more, to win in 2010. (Given his startlingly poor polling, DeVore’s probably either going to drop out or simply fade into obscurity by June, making the primary into more of a two-person contest between Campbell and Fiorina.) You tell me how well a pro-choice, pro-same-sex-marriage, former professor from the Bay Area who has supported tax increases in the past is going to fare among today's Republican voters.
Wednesday, January 20, 2010
Bits & Pieces
U.S. Senate candidate Carly Fiorina (R-Suckup) told a group of business leaders, “Only in America could a woman who is a medieval-history major, a law-school dropout, a full-time receptionist, rise to become the chief executive of one of the largest companies in the world and now be privileged to run for the U.S. Senate.” That’s right, Carly, only in America… because in any other sensible, semi-literate country, you would be seen as the flagrantly unqualified hack that you are.
She also said, in what must qualify as one of the least politically risky statements any candidate for office in the history of the universe has ever uttered, “I think we need a little more practical problem-solving (in Congress) and a little less back-room deal-making.” Really, Carly? You’re for practical problem-solving and against back-room deal-making? Gosh, how bold of you. I bet you’re also for education and against crime! Anyway, has she forgotten how many legitimate problems (health care, the economy, global warming) went unsolved, and how many corrupt, middle-of-the-night back-room deals were cut (as documented brilliantly by Matt Taibbi in Rolling Stone) the last time her party controlled Congress?
What I’d really like to hear Fiorina (and every other Republican running for Congress this year, but especially those running against Democratic incumbents) answer is this: Do you think the country was better off under George W. Bush and the Republicans than it is under Barack Obama and the Democrats? It’s a simple yes-or-no question, and as far as I’m concerned it is now the job of every sensible reporter in this country to get an answer to that question out of every Republican candidate for Congress, everywhere. And then print that answer. On the front page.
* * *
The New York Times notes that Senator-elect Scott Brown of Massachusetts, who has promised to join his 40 fellow Republicans in blocking health care reform, voted for - and still strongly supports - Massachusetts’s landmark health care legislation as a member of the Bay State’s legislature back in 2006. Anyone who knows a hoot about the two plans knows how strikingly similar they are (the Massachusetts plan served, in many ways, as a model for the federal bill), but Brown, on the campaign trail, has “sought to portray [the federal proposal] as fundamentally different from the Massachusetts plan.” According to the Times’s “Prescription” blog, however:
The federal law, like the one in Massachusetts, is built around a system of government-subsidized, private insurance coverage with subsidies on a sliding-scale based on income. The federal law, however, also includes a number national steps aimed at controlling health care costs, and new taxes and fees aimed at paying for the legislation. Massachusetts has continued to struggle with its costs.
So, let me get this straight: the big difference between the Massachusetts bill and the federal legislation is that the federal bill actually pays for itself, and takes steps toward controlling health care costs for everyone! Massachusetts, meanwhile, has failed to do either of these things so far, and the costs of their reform – both to individual consumers and to the state treasury – have been spiraling out of control. And Scott Brown sees the federal bill as being worse than the Massachusetts bill. Hmm.
* * *
University professor Timothy Jost agrees with me that, in the wake of yesterday’s Massachusetts election, the House should just adopt the Senate health care bill, in its entirety, no amendments, to avoid a second vote in the Upper House. Of course, by “agrees with me,” I mean that he makes essentially the same argument I made, but better informed and much more articulately. Check it out.
* * *
Meanwhile, back in the Golden State, somebody named Martin Garrick was elected leader of the Assembly Republicans yesterday. Thus far he seems to be your standard, assembly-line (no pun intended) Limbaugh-Palin conservative who hates abortion, taxes, and government, and loves guns, God, and vague references to “freedom.” Here’s a real head-scratcher – the Bee speculates about how Garrick’s selection will affect the painful annual budget process, and has Jaime Regalado of CSU Los Angeles predicting that bipartisan compromise will somehow be even more difficult under Garrick than it has been in the recent past. “I think when you get ideologues on either side in such important positions, it threatens more of the same (partisan fighting) – and perhaps even worse,” says Regalado.
News flash, Jaime – the Republican caucus is almost entirely composed of ideologues! Even if a sensible, open-to-compromise legislator like Roger Niello were somehow chosen as leader, he or she would be kicked to the curb if they dared to commit the unforgivable sin of compromising with the other party by voting for tax increases. Ever heard of Dave Cogdill? Or Mike Villines? Me neither.
She also said, in what must qualify as one of the least politically risky statements any candidate for office in the history of the universe has ever uttered, “I think we need a little more practical problem-solving (in Congress) and a little less back-room deal-making.” Really, Carly? You’re for practical problem-solving and against back-room deal-making? Gosh, how bold of you. I bet you’re also for education and against crime! Anyway, has she forgotten how many legitimate problems (health care, the economy, global warming) went unsolved, and how many corrupt, middle-of-the-night back-room deals were cut (as documented brilliantly by Matt Taibbi in Rolling Stone) the last time her party controlled Congress?
What I’d really like to hear Fiorina (and every other Republican running for Congress this year, but especially those running against Democratic incumbents) answer is this: Do you think the country was better off under George W. Bush and the Republicans than it is under Barack Obama and the Democrats? It’s a simple yes-or-no question, and as far as I’m concerned it is now the job of every sensible reporter in this country to get an answer to that question out of every Republican candidate for Congress, everywhere. And then print that answer. On the front page.
* * *
The New York Times notes that Senator-elect Scott Brown of Massachusetts, who has promised to join his 40 fellow Republicans in blocking health care reform, voted for - and still strongly supports - Massachusetts’s landmark health care legislation as a member of the Bay State’s legislature back in 2006. Anyone who knows a hoot about the two plans knows how strikingly similar they are (the Massachusetts plan served, in many ways, as a model for the federal bill), but Brown, on the campaign trail, has “sought to portray [the federal proposal] as fundamentally different from the Massachusetts plan.” According to the Times’s “Prescription” blog, however:
The federal law, like the one in Massachusetts, is built around a system of government-subsidized, private insurance coverage with subsidies on a sliding-scale based on income. The federal law, however, also includes a number national steps aimed at controlling health care costs, and new taxes and fees aimed at paying for the legislation. Massachusetts has continued to struggle with its costs.
So, let me get this straight: the big difference between the Massachusetts bill and the federal legislation is that the federal bill actually pays for itself, and takes steps toward controlling health care costs for everyone! Massachusetts, meanwhile, has failed to do either of these things so far, and the costs of their reform – both to individual consumers and to the state treasury – have been spiraling out of control. And Scott Brown sees the federal bill as being worse than the Massachusetts bill. Hmm.
* * *
University professor Timothy Jost agrees with me that, in the wake of yesterday’s Massachusetts election, the House should just adopt the Senate health care bill, in its entirety, no amendments, to avoid a second vote in the Upper House. Of course, by “agrees with me,” I mean that he makes essentially the same argument I made, but better informed and much more articulately. Check it out.
* * *
Meanwhile, back in the Golden State, somebody named Martin Garrick was elected leader of the Assembly Republicans yesterday. Thus far he seems to be your standard, assembly-line (no pun intended) Limbaugh-Palin conservative who hates abortion, taxes, and government, and loves guns, God, and vague references to “freedom.” Here’s a real head-scratcher – the Bee speculates about how Garrick’s selection will affect the painful annual budget process, and has Jaime Regalado of CSU Los Angeles predicting that bipartisan compromise will somehow be even more difficult under Garrick than it has been in the recent past. “I think when you get ideologues on either side in such important positions, it threatens more of the same (partisan fighting) – and perhaps even worse,” says Regalado.
News flash, Jaime – the Republican caucus is almost entirely composed of ideologues! Even if a sensible, open-to-compromise legislator like Roger Niello were somehow chosen as leader, he or she would be kicked to the curb if they dared to commit the unforgivable sin of compromising with the other party by voting for tax increases. Ever heard of Dave Cogdill? Or Mike Villines? Me neither.
Tuesday, January 19, 2010
Why the House should just pass the Senate health care reform bill
Given the frightening results of today’s special Senate election in Massachusetts, the prospects for health care reform passing both houses of Congress and making it to the president’s desk have dimmed somewhat. Republican Senator-elect Scott Brown has pledged to vote against pretty much any health reform bill that comes before him, once he is seated.
But wait, you say! Hasn’t a bill already passed in both houses? Wise you are, young grasshopper – the House passed health care reform by a vote of 220 to 215 in early November of last year; six weeks later, on Christmas Eve the Senate passed similar legislation, 60 to 39. (Thanks to the phony filibuster the Republicans don’t have the cojones to actually use, 60 is now the minimum number of votes it takes in the Senate to pass any bill more controversial than, say, a nonbinding resolution commemorating Mother’s Day.)
But the legislation passed by the Senate was only similar to the House version, not exactly the same, and therein lies the rub. Under ordinary circumstances, what would happen is that the two houses would hammer out a compromise between each version of the bill, then return to their respective body and vote the bill out a second time. The problem is that, with 41 members of the Upper House (or, 40 members plus one soon-to-be-inaugurated member), the Republicans are sure to pseudo-filibuster any compromise legislation on the Senate floor.
This leaves the Democrats with only a few options for actually passing a bill in 2010. They could try cajoling the Senate’s last remaining “moderate” Republican, Olympia Snowe of Maine, into supporting the bill. Fortunately, if they are able to accomplish such a feat, global warming won’t be much of a problem anymore, since the earth’s temperature will have dropped significantly due to the freezing-over of hell. Two other options, both very politically risky, would be to either (a) hurry up on that compromise so that the Senate can get a bill out before Scott Brown is inaugurated, or (b) pass the bill through the controversial “reconciliation” process, by which legislation bypasses the normal route and becomes filibuster-proof, thus requiring only 51 votes to pass. Either of these would make the Democrats look like political opportunists going out of their way to subvert the democratic process; at least, that’s how the right-wing media would spin it.
The most sensible option, which has the advantage of being both perfectly legal and legitimate, and also the least politically risky path, would be for the House to simply pass the Senate version of the bill as is, with no amendments whatsoever. This would bypass the requirement for the Senate to hold another vote on the bill, since their prior 60-to-39 vote is still valid. Yes, yes, there’s a million reasons – from the abortion compromise to denying coverage of any kind to undocumented immigrants to setting up state-based exchanges rather than a national one – for the House, and sensible progressive Americans, to object to the Senate bill.
But there’s one big, overriding reason to just pass the thing and get this whole ordeal over with, and that’s the huge political victory the Democrats would be handing the teabagger wing of the Republican Party by failing to pass a health care bill at all. Think of the boost it would give the GOP heading into this year’s midterm elections if they could boast of having defeated President Obama’s single biggest domestic policy initiative despite having only 41 percent of the seats in each House of Congress.
On the other hand, if the Democrats can swing into election season having passed at least some bill, however imperfect, their message will be that much stronger: “Look, you elected us in 2006 and 2008 to make some changes, and as a result of those elections, insurance companies won’t be able to deny you coverage for a preexisting condition or drop you if you’re sick; you’ll be able to keep your health care if you change or lose your job; we’re slowing the rapidly rising cost of health care; and it’s going to be a lot easier for low-income people to purchase and keep health care. If you have a problem with all of those policies and you want them repealed, by all means, vote for the other party. If, on the other hand, you like the direction health care is going and you think we can build on these reforms just like we did with Social Security and Medicare, vote for us.”
The Senate health care bill is far from perfect – heck, parts of it barely even rank as adequate – but defeating it, and thus probably defeating health care reform in any form, would effectively cede the 2010 (and possibly) 2012 elections to the Palin-Beck Republican Party. Doing so would doom America’s chances of passing any major health care reform legislation for at least the next decade.
But wait, you say! Hasn’t a bill already passed in both houses? Wise you are, young grasshopper – the House passed health care reform by a vote of 220 to 215 in early November of last year; six weeks later, on Christmas Eve the Senate passed similar legislation, 60 to 39. (Thanks to the phony filibuster the Republicans don’t have the cojones to actually use, 60 is now the minimum number of votes it takes in the Senate to pass any bill more controversial than, say, a nonbinding resolution commemorating Mother’s Day.)
But the legislation passed by the Senate was only similar to the House version, not exactly the same, and therein lies the rub. Under ordinary circumstances, what would happen is that the two houses would hammer out a compromise between each version of the bill, then return to their respective body and vote the bill out a second time. The problem is that, with 41 members of the Upper House (or, 40 members plus one soon-to-be-inaugurated member), the Republicans are sure to pseudo-filibuster any compromise legislation on the Senate floor.
This leaves the Democrats with only a few options for actually passing a bill in 2010. They could try cajoling the Senate’s last remaining “moderate” Republican, Olympia Snowe of Maine, into supporting the bill. Fortunately, if they are able to accomplish such a feat, global warming won’t be much of a problem anymore, since the earth’s temperature will have dropped significantly due to the freezing-over of hell. Two other options, both very politically risky, would be to either (a) hurry up on that compromise so that the Senate can get a bill out before Scott Brown is inaugurated, or (b) pass the bill through the controversial “reconciliation” process, by which legislation bypasses the normal route and becomes filibuster-proof, thus requiring only 51 votes to pass. Either of these would make the Democrats look like political opportunists going out of their way to subvert the democratic process; at least, that’s how the right-wing media would spin it.
The most sensible option, which has the advantage of being both perfectly legal and legitimate, and also the least politically risky path, would be for the House to simply pass the Senate version of the bill as is, with no amendments whatsoever. This would bypass the requirement for the Senate to hold another vote on the bill, since their prior 60-to-39 vote is still valid. Yes, yes, there’s a million reasons – from the abortion compromise to denying coverage of any kind to undocumented immigrants to setting up state-based exchanges rather than a national one – for the House, and sensible progressive Americans, to object to the Senate bill.
But there’s one big, overriding reason to just pass the thing and get this whole ordeal over with, and that’s the huge political victory the Democrats would be handing the teabagger wing of the Republican Party by failing to pass a health care bill at all. Think of the boost it would give the GOP heading into this year’s midterm elections if they could boast of having defeated President Obama’s single biggest domestic policy initiative despite having only 41 percent of the seats in each House of Congress.
On the other hand, if the Democrats can swing into election season having passed at least some bill, however imperfect, their message will be that much stronger: “Look, you elected us in 2006 and 2008 to make some changes, and as a result of those elections, insurance companies won’t be able to deny you coverage for a preexisting condition or drop you if you’re sick; you’ll be able to keep your health care if you change or lose your job; we’re slowing the rapidly rising cost of health care; and it’s going to be a lot easier for low-income people to purchase and keep health care. If you have a problem with all of those policies and you want them repealed, by all means, vote for the other party. If, on the other hand, you like the direction health care is going and you think we can build on these reforms just like we did with Social Security and Medicare, vote for us.”
The Senate health care bill is far from perfect – heck, parts of it barely even rank as adequate – but defeating it, and thus probably defeating health care reform in any form, would effectively cede the 2010 (and possibly) 2012 elections to the Palin-Beck Republican Party. Doing so would doom America’s chances of passing any major health care reform legislation for at least the next decade.
Monday, January 11, 2010
Read Their Lips, No New Taxes... or, How California Learned to Stop Worrying and Love Spending Cuts
As the Legislature comes back into session to consider Governor Schwarzenegger's final budget proposal, the Sacramento News & Review (Sactown's free weekly) has an excellent piece on how the Taliban wing of the California Republican Party has helped drive the Golden State into a ditch. It's well worth a read, even if you're not a political insider or junkie like I am.
So what's the solution? I don't really know. The new redistricting system we're going to be using for elections beginning in 2012 may help, but it's no panacea; California is a politically divided state, with liberal Democrats tending to dominate the North Coast, Bay Area, and urban Los Angeles, and conservative Republicans cleaning up in Orange County, the Inland Empire, and much of the Central Valley. Changing the shape of a rabid antitax Assemblymember's district from, say, Irvine isn't going to make that legislator more likely to negotiate or compromise on budget issues; nor is putting the drawing of a Marin County senatorial district in the hands of a "nonpartisan" commission going to make that county's representatives see eye-to-eye with businesspeople who may legitimately be burdened by government regulations.
On the other hand, the Open Primary Initiative (officially known by the goofy-sounding name "The Top Two Primaries Act") which will appear on this June's statewide ballot may actually produce some more thoughtful, compromise-oriented legislators in both parties. (Assuming it passes, that is; an exactly identical measure pushed by the Governor in 2004 lost by eight points. Oh, and that's back when Arnie's approval rating was 61 percent. Let's see how many votes his endorsement can get a measure in 2010.)
Until then, there's not much to do except wait and watch the tragicomic opera that is our state political process play out. The Democrats will balk at the Governor's proposed spending cuts, and try to offset them with some mild tax and fee increases, like a severance fee on oil extraction; Republicans will dig in their heels and cry foul that California is the most overtaxed, over-regulated political entity in the history of the universe, perhaps (but not necessarily) including the Soviet Union and Mao's China.
Meanwhile, real people are hurting; according to Alicia Trost, who works for Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg, the Governor's budget proposal would cut the average state welfare grant for a family of three in a high-cost county to $585. Twenty years ago it was $694, not adjusted for inflation. Run those numbers through an inflation calculator and California's poorest, most vulnerable families (and their children, who have no say in their parents' financial condition, keep in mind) would be getting less than half of what they got to live on in 1989. Would that every Republican state legislator had to live on $585 per month before they voted on cuts that will literally take food out of the mouths of poor children.
So what's the solution? I don't really know. The new redistricting system we're going to be using for elections beginning in 2012 may help, but it's no panacea; California is a politically divided state, with liberal Democrats tending to dominate the North Coast, Bay Area, and urban Los Angeles, and conservative Republicans cleaning up in Orange County, the Inland Empire, and much of the Central Valley. Changing the shape of a rabid antitax Assemblymember's district from, say, Irvine isn't going to make that legislator more likely to negotiate or compromise on budget issues; nor is putting the drawing of a Marin County senatorial district in the hands of a "nonpartisan" commission going to make that county's representatives see eye-to-eye with businesspeople who may legitimately be burdened by government regulations.
On the other hand, the Open Primary Initiative (officially known by the goofy-sounding name "The Top Two Primaries Act") which will appear on this June's statewide ballot may actually produce some more thoughtful, compromise-oriented legislators in both parties. (Assuming it passes, that is; an exactly identical measure pushed by the Governor in 2004 lost by eight points. Oh, and that's back when Arnie's approval rating was 61 percent. Let's see how many votes his endorsement can get a measure in 2010.)
Until then, there's not much to do except wait and watch the tragicomic opera that is our state political process play out. The Democrats will balk at the Governor's proposed spending cuts, and try to offset them with some mild tax and fee increases, like a severance fee on oil extraction; Republicans will dig in their heels and cry foul that California is the most overtaxed, over-regulated political entity in the history of the universe, perhaps (but not necessarily) including the Soviet Union and Mao's China.
Meanwhile, real people are hurting; according to Alicia Trost, who works for Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg, the Governor's budget proposal would cut the average state welfare grant for a family of three in a high-cost county to $585. Twenty years ago it was $694, not adjusted for inflation. Run those numbers through an inflation calculator and California's poorest, most vulnerable families (and their children, who have no say in their parents' financial condition, keep in mind) would be getting less than half of what they got to live on in 1989. Would that every Republican state legislator had to live on $585 per month before they voted on cuts that will literally take food out of the mouths of poor children.
Thursday, January 7, 2010
Say it like "Pay-daze," not "Purr-ezz"
Kudos to John A. Perez on being elected Speaker of the State Assembly this morning. He has overcome a lot of challenges on his way to this post, although I suspect being related to powerful Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa hasn't hurt much. The state political media is making a big to-do about Perez's being the first openly gay Speaker in history. It's even been suggested by some that his sexuality was what prevented Perez from being elected by a unanimous vote.
(The Republicans rarely vote against the Democratic nominee for Speaker these days, because of their essentially permanent minority status; but this morning, pearl-necklace-attired Assemblymember Audra Strickland nominated her party's leader Sam Blakeslee for the top post. He lost on a completely unsurprising party-line vote of 48 to 26.)
For all the media attention it's getting, however, I doubt Perez's sexual orientation will have any substantive effect on public policy during the five or so years he might potentially serve. For one thing, the Legislature has already done about all it can do for gay rights; last year's Senate Bill 54, by Mark Leno (D-San Francisco), is more likely than not the most substantial piece of gay-rights legislation we're likely to see debated under the Dome for a long time. Besides, with center-left Democrats commanding a solid majority in both the Assembly and Senate, almost any LGBT equal-rights bill is certain to pass, no matter who is Speaker.
A more significant development to watch will be whether or not Perez serves the full five years he is constitutionally eligible to serve as Speaker (provided, of course, that he is re-elected to his Assembly seat in 2010 and 2012), and if so, what impact he has on the institution and the legislation that comes out of it. Most Speakers in the post-term limits era (aka the post-Willie Brown era) have served pretty short terms. Antonio Villaraigosa and Bob Hertzberg, two of the more memorable holders of the office in recent memory, each served a shade over two years; most of the others haven't even made it that far.
Fabian Nunez, probably the most powerful and influential Speaker since Brown, served for a little over four years, and the jury is still out on whether or not he had any long-term influence on public policy or state politics. Sure, the state's most significant piece of environmental legislation so far this century, the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, technically bears Nunez's name in the bill title; but it's pretty well known that Assemblymember (now Senator) Fran Pavley was the lead negotiator on the bill, along with representatives of the Schwarzenegger administration. And Nunez's mild healthcare reform proposal of 2007 was vetoed by the Republican Governor because it didn't provide enough health coverage.
So maybe there isn't much power to the Speakership, but if there is, I wish Perez the best of luck in using it. And even if there isn't, think of all the great jokes Capitol insiders can throw around: "So a gay Latino from Los Angeles and a bodybuilding action-movie star from Austria walk into a bar..."
A quick note on the homophobia thing: Like I mentioned briefly earlier, there's been some speculation that the reason Republicans didn't symbolically line up and vote for Perez like they have for every Democratic Speaker in the last decade has something to do with Perez's being openly gay. For my part, I really doubt it; I just think that, coming out of the hyper-partisan year that was 2009, and heading into what looks like an even nastier, more divisive election year, the Reps felt the need to assert themselves. Good for them. And who knows? Maybe they'll one day be able to nominate a candidate for Speaker who has a chance of winning.
(The Republicans rarely vote against the Democratic nominee for Speaker these days, because of their essentially permanent minority status; but this morning, pearl-necklace-attired Assemblymember Audra Strickland nominated her party's leader Sam Blakeslee for the top post. He lost on a completely unsurprising party-line vote of 48 to 26.)
For all the media attention it's getting, however, I doubt Perez's sexual orientation will have any substantive effect on public policy during the five or so years he might potentially serve. For one thing, the Legislature has already done about all it can do for gay rights; last year's Senate Bill 54, by Mark Leno (D-San Francisco), is more likely than not the most substantial piece of gay-rights legislation we're likely to see debated under the Dome for a long time. Besides, with center-left Democrats commanding a solid majority in both the Assembly and Senate, almost any LGBT equal-rights bill is certain to pass, no matter who is Speaker.
A more significant development to watch will be whether or not Perez serves the full five years he is constitutionally eligible to serve as Speaker (provided, of course, that he is re-elected to his Assembly seat in 2010 and 2012), and if so, what impact he has on the institution and the legislation that comes out of it. Most Speakers in the post-term limits era (aka the post-Willie Brown era) have served pretty short terms. Antonio Villaraigosa and Bob Hertzberg, two of the more memorable holders of the office in recent memory, each served a shade over two years; most of the others haven't even made it that far.
Fabian Nunez, probably the most powerful and influential Speaker since Brown, served for a little over four years, and the jury is still out on whether or not he had any long-term influence on public policy or state politics. Sure, the state's most significant piece of environmental legislation so far this century, the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, technically bears Nunez's name in the bill title; but it's pretty well known that Assemblymember (now Senator) Fran Pavley was the lead negotiator on the bill, along with representatives of the Schwarzenegger administration. And Nunez's mild healthcare reform proposal of 2007 was vetoed by the Republican Governor because it didn't provide enough health coverage.
So maybe there isn't much power to the Speakership, but if there is, I wish Perez the best of luck in using it. And even if there isn't, think of all the great jokes Capitol insiders can throw around: "So a gay Latino from Los Angeles and a bodybuilding action-movie star from Austria walk into a bar..."
A quick note on the homophobia thing: Like I mentioned briefly earlier, there's been some speculation that the reason Republicans didn't symbolically line up and vote for Perez like they have for every Democratic Speaker in the last decade has something to do with Perez's being openly gay. For my part, I really doubt it; I just think that, coming out of the hyper-partisan year that was 2009, and heading into what looks like an even nastier, more divisive election year, the Reps felt the need to assert themselves. Good for them. And who knows? Maybe they'll one day be able to nominate a candidate for Speaker who has a chance of winning.
Wednesday, January 6, 2010
My inaugural post and Schwarzenegger's last year
The Governor of California, who is still Arnold Schwarzenegger (no, this hasn’t all been a dream), delivered his final State of the State address today. My first impression was that the man really is an excellent public speaker – whatever you may think of his politics, his intellect, or his ability to govern a nation-state of 39 million people, any politician alive would be jealous of Arnold’s ability to deliver a speech and connect with an audience. (This owes a lot, no doubt, to his training as an actor; our last actor-governor, Ronald Reagan, turns out to have been a hell of a speechmaker also, even if that’s just about the only thing he was good at.)
Having said that, though, I’d like to focus on one of the more off-putting elements of the speech – the Governator’s wrongheaded attack on the healthcare reform proposals currently being debated by the Democrats in Congress. (I say “debated by the Democrats” because the Republicans have clearly given up on actually debating the merits of the proposal, and at this point are simply trying to obstruct it.) You know, the one that’s about to pass and make it to the president’s desk and get signed into law, probably sometime in the next month or so.
Why is Arnold even wasting his breath on this? He calls the bill “a trough of bribes, deals and loopholes,” and insists that California’s congressional delegation either vote against the bill or fight to load it up with pork and “sweetheart deals” for California just like Ben Nelson did for Nebraska. News flash, Governor: all Democrats representing California in Congress (including our two Senators) are pretty certain to vote for the final healthcare bill, whatever it looks like; all Republicans are certain to vote against it, no matter what. Those “sweetheart deals” you’re railing against were put in there to guarantee the votes of red-state senators like Nelson and Mary Landrieu, who have to go home to constituencies where less than four out of every 10 voters went for Obama in 2008 and explain their vote.
Neither Barbara Boxer nor Dianne Feinstein would be able to secure similar perks for California because neither of them has the political capital to hold their vote on this bill hostage until they get what they want, like red-state Dems do. Boxer, Feinstein, and most of our House Democrats (especially Speaker Pelosi) all have a vested interest in this bill, their president, and their party succeeding; Ben Nelson doesn’t, really. He just has an interest in Ben Nelson succeeding.
Having said all of that, the Governor was absolutely right to insist that, if the bill will place new mandates on California (or any other state, for that matter), the federal government should fully fund those mandates. And if Boxer, Feinstein, or Pelosi fail to fight for even that much, then none of them is worthy of representing California in Washington.
I look forward to writing more about the healthcare bill later, particularly about how it affects California…
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)