Monday, February 14, 2011
Planned Parenthood struggles to cover up scandal
This is more than a little scary considering the amount of federal funding Planned Parenthood receives. Very similar to the ACORN scandal.
More on the Republican Presidential Field for 2012
Here's Nate Silver's analysis of the 2012 Republican Presidential field. His basic argument is that the potential Republican nominees for 2012 are less popular than any field of candidates in either party since at least the 2000 elections. For me, his analysis illustrates two things. One, that Obama is going to be very difficult to beat, and two, that a dark horse candidate could end up winning the nomination. Huckabee and Romney have pretty large name recognition but fail to garner high favorability ratings. If one of the lesser known candidates (Thune, Daniels, T-Paw, DeMint or Barbour) could increase their name recognition and favorability at the same time, they could potentially win the nomination. This fails to take into account a lot of other factors, but its still pretty interesting to look at. What does everyone else think?
Eat the Future
In light of Thursday's debate, I thought I'd post this op-ed piece by Paul Krugman. Krugman blames a misinformed electorate, Republicans' rigidity on taxes, and a lack of concern for the future as the cause of a budget proposal he claims will "save remarkably little money but would do a remarkably large amount of harm."
While I am just beginning to understand the issues surrounding the budget and there is much I still do not understand, Krugman's piece strikes me as over-simplified. While he hits at some key issues, it seems to me that solving the national debt is a matter of more than just "reining in health-care costs" (the only solution that Krugman offers).
Any thoughts?
While I am just beginning to understand the issues surrounding the budget and there is much I still do not understand, Krugman's piece strikes me as over-simplified. While he hits at some key issues, it seems to me that solving the national debt is a matter of more than just "reining in health-care costs" (the only solution that Krugman offers).
Any thoughts?
So...How 'Bout That Budget...
Interesting WSJ analysis of President Obama's 2012 Fiscal Year Budget by Senior Economics Writer Stephen Moore, which notes, among other things, the lack of serious consideration regarding entitlement programs reform. [Only need to watch through 4:40]
Anti-abortion v. Anti-family planning could restrict Republican votes
As three pieces of legislation are being tossed around regarding limitations to abortion access, it is unclear whether Republicans are going to be able to pass their proposals with internal disagreement (Tea-party opinion is unclear, according to the article) over anti-abortion and anti-birth control legislation -- Pence's bill would "would deny federal family-planning funds under Title X to groups that offer abortion access", leaving groups like Planned Parenthood out of commission. Pelosi notes that while the bills could theoretically be passed with majority support, some internal party conflicts over anti-abortion v. anti-family planning could hinder the success of the legislation.
Sunday, February 13, 2011
Debate: Battle of the Budget
On Thursday we'll be discussing the GOP's proposed budget and the forthcoming White House budget (released tomorrow). Here are a few articles to brief you on the issue:
A Terrible Divide
"A Terrible Divide," the division between "the have and the have nots" is an interesting OP-ED about our country's economic crisis and the effects it has on the livelihood of the American people. Herbert says that there are not enough tax revenues to pay for basic public services. He blames the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, the "rich not sharing their fare share of the tax burden," and the lack of available jobs that pay decent wages....which makes it impossible to increase the tax rate among ordinary workers. Herbert believes the budgets cuts to Medicaid, Social Security and public schools will be detrimental.
While Herbert states that "new ideas on a grand scale" need to be proposed and enacted to aid American workers, he does not provide readers with suggestions for improvement. Perhaps we can look abroad to countries such as Japan, Britain, and France, that believe that services such as health care for example are a public good. Even with the recent health care reform, our philosophy in the United States is certainly not rooted in this idea. So what should be do to prevent citizens from permanently living a low standard of living? How can Republicans and Democrats come together and make change before we face complete "social destabilization"?
[P.S. Patty Landers- Herbert uses the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities as a reference!]
Fix the Deficit with the Click of a Button!
Found this tool online a little while ago that shows you how much certain policies could affect the deficit. I'm not sure what some of the options even mean, and they may be somewhat limited, but its still fun to play around with.
Post-CPAC 2012 Presidential Election Thoughts
CPAC has come to a close, so I thought it might be a good time to review the Republican field related to the primary and general election cycles. After all, for the party leaders (Obama, Reid, Pelosi, Kaine, Soros, etc. vs. Boehner, McConnell, Rove, Priebus?, Koch brothers) the next two years are not about addressing little things like the nation's problems. They are about the 2012 Presidential election cycle and shaping the two years after that.
Click here for detailed data on the CPAC Straw Poll (which we all know is extremely limited). Quick thoughts on the poll respondents- their average age is at least half that of the Republican party electorate, but many are similar to the Tea Party in favoring addressing government fiscal issues first. The Tea Party still seems to be driving source of energy for Republicans, so perhaps if we discount the Ron Paul and Gary Johnson (a libertarian ex-Governor who attracts the same sliver of the Republican party) vote this straw poll isn't completely useless.
Obviously Ron Paul's dead in the water (Gary Johnson as well- while he is less famous than Paul, this means that he has fewer supporters to go along with the fewer haters that he has compared to Ron has among Republicans.).
Romney still seems to be the front-runner- which is a problem because he's actually LESS exciting than watching paint dry. Romney is a perfectly solid candidate and would probably make a solid President- and in different cycles he'd actually do well because he's SO classically Presidential. Unfortunately he's running against Obama, who has deep reservoirs of strength and personal popularity with Americans even as they (including many independents and moderates) hate his policies. Obama has a great back-story, a picturesque family, and is an extremely talented speaker. While elections are almost entirely determined by the economy, Obama has enough pizazz factor to give him some breathing room (several points at least) among independent voters, which he'll need with nearly everyone (CBO, Bernanke, etc.) predicting 8% unemployment in 2012. While she says some of the most spiteful and ridiculous things, Ann Coulter is actually cold-blooded enough to frequently make realistic evaluations of Republicans, and at CPAC she noted "If you don't run Chris Cristie, Romney will be the nominee and we'll lose." (see video at 9:30). I suspect that she's referring to the fact that going up against someone like Obama with a closely divided electorate, you need someone with wow factor to energize your base (getting them to vote) and attract media attention which captures undecided voters. Also, Romney is a Mormon and RomneyCare=ObamaCare.
So that takes us to Christie (or another governor with umph factor- Rick Perry). Both have disavowed running. Christie has only been governor for one year (no foreign policy experience- foreign policy conservatives and independents care about this a lot), does not adequately satisfy social conservatives, and is starting to encounter the difficulties of actually governing a state in shambles (which will be a drag on his popularity as he inevitably makes decisions that irritate conservatives and moderates- not just liberals). While both are liked in a "he's feisty" kind of way, I'm not sure Americans would vote for presidential candidates so partisan and lacking in civility.
Gingrich- old news!!! Why doesn't he just go away? Plus he's not trusted on personal issues (divorces, being generally slimy, etc.)
Bachmann/Palin. While they are both exciting, attract media attention, and motivate the base, their policy views and perceived (which may or may not be true) lack of substance means that independents and moderates will flock to Obama. Even if they dislike Obama, he doesn't strike them as crazy! At the same time the liberal base will motivate like crazy against people they consider to be she-devils.
Pawlenty. Seems like a Romney 2.0- solid moderate state governor without the Mormon and RomneyCare flaws. However, he looks a little less Presidential than Romney and even with months of hard, if unofficial campaigning, he still isn't attracting a ton of support among Republicans. Also, he has minimal name recognition among politically uninformed voters, which is a problem because they are often the undecided, independent voters who determine close elections.
Mitch Daniels. Thought to be great on fiscal issues and good governance, which is actually false- he was George W. Bush's OMB director which means he oversaw probably the worst deterioration in the United States' fiscal situation in history. This sin is so unforgivable that even some Republican fiscal hawks are cool to him. While loved by inside-the-Beltway conservatives desperate for an intellectual Republican leader, he has already received heated opposition from social conservatives. I'd have thought he would do well among the young, fiscal conservatives at CPAC- he did so poorly even there that I question his viability. He also does not look like a President.
Huckabee- a big question mark. He might not want to run since it's so demanding and fiscally draining (have to give up millions from Fox News), but if he did he'd do very well in Iowa and elsewhere among Republicans. He's someone who I think could win, and poll numbers support this as he often polls second after Romney or fairing well in matchups against Obama. The question is how well he'd do among moderate/independents- sometimes Huckabee says crazy stuff like making offensive religious pronouncements (a trait exacerbated by the Republican electorate) which would turn off many undecided voters.
Herman Cain/Rick Santorum: one-issue group, no-name, no chance candidates.
Thune- kind of boring but photogenic. Does well on every issue type for Republicans. However, he recently got good committee assignments so he might decide to say in the Senate. He's a darkhorse who would need other candidates to implode and allow him to rally support from other groups as their second-favorite candidate.
Huntsman- another Romney 2.0, but this time he served in the Obama administration. I don't see how he does well among Republicans.
Barbour- an exciting candidate who, like Huckabee or Bachmann, says offensive things and, like Christie, may strike people as slimy due to his lobbyist-background. Also, he does not look like a President, and doesn't do well among social conservatives. And he might not run.
In conclusion, while it's extremely early (probably too early to really know the factors that will determine who wins), I think Romney or Huckabee look good by default for the nomination. I know- unoriginal prediction. Obama looks good for the Presidency by default, kind of like 2004 when Bush won partly because Kerry was such an awful nominee.
Thoughts/Responses?
A Plan for Peace That Still Could Be
What this piece (which I think is a must read for anyone interested in the Israel/Palestine dilemma), as well as the Al Jazeera leaks from last month demonstrate is that that despite all the overblown public rhetoric, there's reasonable evidence that there are people on both sides that are willing to make a deal here. Mahmoud Abbas has demonstrated in the past that he's willing to make pretty significant concessions, especially in regards to the Jerusalem question. The proposed solutions that they were working with in the 2006 negotiations, such as a council of global trustees helping oversee the religious monuments in Jerusalem, are certainly a little wacky, but what it also demonstrates is that a little creative thinking can go a long ways in these negotiations.
Now, Benjamin Netanyahu seems to be less interested as the days go by to try to do expend the necessary political capital to get a deal done, especially with Avigdor Lieberman breathing down his neck. But despite all the doomsday scenarios being played out in the media regarding the Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas, and the changing Egypt equation as being disastrous to the Palestine/Israel question, the changes sweeping through the Middle East could very well make it even more sensible to move towards a peace agreement. Shimon Peres, Israel's president, said, "The dramatic events of the recent period make it necessary for us to take Israeli-Palestinian conflict off the regional agenda. We must do this as soon as possible because the conflict is being exploited to the detriment of all sides."
That's not to say that there aren't some huge challenges ahead in coming to an agreement. In particular, I think a real weakness of this Times piece is that it more or less glosses over the Hamas problem by arguing that they have said they will accept a peace agreement as long as it is submitted to a national referendum. What that referendum looks like, and how much hell Hamas tries to raise in trying to turn public opinion against Abbas and Fatah, is a question that is a little difficult to answer.
The Obama Administration's decision to confront Israel over settlement expansion last year appears in hindsight to have been a tactical error, as it soured relations between Obama and Netanyahu without making any significant progress in the peace process. For any progress to be made, Obama has to find a way to win Netanyahu and Israel's trust again (not to mention AIPAC's). But if Obama is looking for the sort of transformational accomplishment that makes or breaks presidential legacies, this is a real opportunity for him. Get the Israelis and Palestineans in the room again and push hard for an agreement with the Olmert/Abbas negotiations as a starting point. It won't be easy. It's probably not even likely that a lasting agreement can be made. But it would be be far more damaging in the long run not to at least try.
Why the US will prevent the fall of Ali Abdullah Saleh in Yemen
Where does Yemen align with Egypt? As the celebration continues in Egypt, the protests continue in Yemen. The Egyptian victory, which has cast a shadow over the other protests taking place in the middle East, will inevitably provide a spark-plug for the Yemeni people in their attempts to overthrow president Ali Saleh. Yet, the millions of people who cheered for a Egyptian revolution now find themselves in a predicament. The protests in Egypt, though hostile at times, failed to present an eminent political threat internationally. In fact, Americans especially, see a resemblance between what happened there to what happened during the beginnings of our own country. It is a situation where the people progress enough to be able to effectively govern themselves and render obsolete the role of oppressive dictatorship. However, Yemen is NOT ready. As much as the victory in Egypt is a step toward democracy in the Middle East, the Yemeni protests will be a step backwards if Ali Saleh falls before the 2013 election. The fear, unlike in Egypt, is that the alternative WILL be worse than
the current government. Yemen is far behind both socially and politically than Egypt. Almost HALF the population in Yemen lives on less than 2$ a day and the illiteracy rate is even higher. What is even more troubling is that there are 3 guns for every SINGLE citizen. (http://www.jpost.com/MiddleEast/Article.aspx?id=173369) This concoction makes a revolution meaningless. It is guaranteed that this same pattern of civil unrest will continue regardless of who takes power next. In Egypt, the people will vote for a new leader, in Yemen, the people with be taken over by the person who can quarter the most deadly weapons. In a place that ALREADY harbors many of the world's terrorists what will happen when the US has zero leverage over a new Yemeni government? Even worse is the position the US now finds themselves in. The US will HAVE to help the Yemeni government to prevent its collapse yet, after continued refusal to help the Egyptian government during their turmoil, the US will unveil a glaring flaw in our foreign policy. Democracy does not work for everyone.
Should Judges Be Politicians?
As we get closer to sitting in on the oral arguments before the Supreme Court, I thought it would be interesting to explore the political attitudes of the various Justices. It seems that most Americans believe that the Supreme Court is some sort of holy order that is above the fray. While I think this would be ideal, the 5-4 split along party lines in the Bush v. Gore decision shows that Justices are just as partisan as the rest of America. I found this op-ed in the NY Times that, instead of trashing the political nature of the Justices, argues that the partisan nature has always been there and that it should be accepted. I do not entirely agree with this argument as I would like to think that Justices make their own decisions apart from any kind of partisan agenda. Still, I do think that each of the Judges makes a conscience effort to interpret the Constitution in a consistent way, which may be far more important than a Justice's political attitudes. Regardless, I do think that all Judges should be appointed (as all federal Judges are) instead of elected (as most state and local Judges are), as the potential for abuse is too great for such a powerful body.
Is the Senate Broken?
Interesting essay about change in the Senate, mostly for the worse. One reason for recent retirements?
Interesting piece about Jim Webb
Jim Webb seemed an especially poor fit for the modern Senate, but some have argued that hyperpartisanship, gridlock, and the loss of deliberation are driving others out too.
Saturday, February 12, 2011
GOP Honeymoon Over?
Another interesting poll, this one about a generic poll swing towards Dems since the November elections. On another note, I think it will be interesting to see how Obama and the Dems' "Win the Future" campaign plays against the GOP's cut and repeal agenda once Obama's budget comes out. We will have to wait and see how that affects the polls.
House Committee Hearing
On Thursday I had the opportunity to attend a House committee hearing for my internship. The hearing was entitled "Education in the Nation: Examining the Challenges and Opportunities Facing America's Classrooms". It was incredibly interesting (and long). One of the things that made the hearing unique was that education is a relatively bipartisan issue and people from both sides of the aisle were agreeing and making similar comments. Even the chairman and the ranking member commented that they could have switched speeches for their opening testimony.
This hearing is important because the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) also known as No Child Left Behind, is up for renewal this year, and there is much speculation as to how to improve it.
The four witnesses testifying were:
Lisa Graham Keegan- Education Breakthrough Network
Dr.Tony Bennett- Indiana Department of Education
Andrew Coulson- Director of the Cato Institute's Center for Educational Freedom
Ted Mitchell- President of the NewSchools Venture Fund
The main topics discussed revolved around holding teachers accountable if their students perform poorly, ways to measure achievement aside from state testing, and having local governments and school districts have much more control over education. Other interesting topics mentioned include: the importance of parental responsibility, evaluating teachers annually even if they have tenure, revising the tenure system, extending the school day, and revising the licensing process for becoming a teacher so that adults changing careers who have knowledge in a topic are more easily able to become teachers.
Over the past 50 years, the United States has spent over $2 trillion on education, but students still have not been improving. Only 69% of students will get a high school diploma and many employers are noticing that the people they hire do not have sufficient reading, writing, and math skills.
This hearing is important because the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) also known as No Child Left Behind, is up for renewal this year, and there is much speculation as to how to improve it.
The four witnesses testifying were:
Lisa Graham Keegan- Education Breakthrough Network
Dr.Tony Bennett- Indiana Department of Education
Andrew Coulson- Director of the Cato Institute's Center for Educational Freedom
Ted Mitchell- President of the NewSchools Venture Fund
The main topics discussed revolved around holding teachers accountable if their students perform poorly, ways to measure achievement aside from state testing, and having local governments and school districts have much more control over education. Other interesting topics mentioned include: the importance of parental responsibility, evaluating teachers annually even if they have tenure, revising the tenure system, extending the school day, and revising the licensing process for becoming a teacher so that adults changing careers who have knowledge in a topic are more easily able to become teachers.
Over the past 50 years, the United States has spent over $2 trillion on education, but students still have not been improving. Only 69% of students will get a high school diploma and many employers are noticing that the people they hire do not have sufficient reading, writing, and math skills.
Friday, February 11, 2011
E-Smoking banned on Planes
I am 100 percent for this ban. Because there are alternatives for nicotine users, like gum and patches, I do not think they should have the right to "pretend" to smoke on planes just because the E-cigarette is advertised to be safer than "normal" cigarettes. If I were flying and the person next to me was using one of these devices I would be severely alarmed. My first reaction, which is probably the same as the other passengers on board, would be unpleasant for the people around me. It may have something to do with the fact that there are signs everywhere saying NO SMOKING on board, IT IS ILLEGAL! While the E-Cigarette doesn't release smoke like a real cigarette does, there is still a vapor that emits from the device that contaminates the air. I think the airlines did the right thing joining the national bandwagon attempting to curb nicotine addiction. Heck even Obama has apparently kicked the habit.
Thursday, February 10, 2011
Want to see Michelle Bachman, Ann Coulter, Newt Gingrich, and Mitt Romney? Your in Luck..
CPAC is only two blocks away at the Marriott outside the Metro. I thought something was funny this morning when I saw someone in the Metro dressed in colonial garb waiving a "Don't Tread on Me" flag. Anyone know how you can get in? I actually think it would be pretty interesting.
Good point but....
I agree that Sarah Palin was treated unfairly by the mainstream media and that violent rhetoric was flying on both sides, but that is entirely different than the nation's most popular "news" station encouraging their employees to promote exaggerations or flat-out falsehoods to the public. Fox News is a large part of the public discourse, whether we like it or not, and its constant distortions of the truth, whether regarding death panels, the "hoax" that is climate change, or the Muslim Caliphate trying to take over the Middle East, are worse for public discourse than one cable news week worth of criticism towards a figure that seems to seek attention from and to thrive off of controversy. The media blaming Sarah Palin for the Tuscon violence is now mostly over, but Fox is still poisoning the public debate on important policy issues every day. I would consider that a gaping difference between these two instances of biased media that illustrates how much more dangerous Fox News is.
Further, no one accused Palin of murder, they just argued that she created an atmosphere that could have promoted the violence in Tuscon. Those are two very different things.
On another note, even if you don't believe in the accuracy of an anonymous Fox News insider, this link discusses some recently leaked Fox memos that help make a similar argument.
Further, no one accused Palin of murder, they just argued that she created an atmosphere that could have promoted the violence in Tuscon. Those are two very different things.
On another note, even if you don't believe in the accuracy of an anonymous Fox News insider, this link discusses some recently leaked Fox memos that help make a similar argument.
It Goes Both Ways
Sarah Palin may not have the best judgement, but I think the initial instinct from the press after a shooting of this magnitude should have been sorrow and respect, not blame. Trying to convince the American people that an innocent woman is guilty of murder is far more dangerous than anything on Fox News.
Inside Fox News
Interesting interview with former Fox News employee who exposes the insides of their political operation. I think the scariest part of an organization like Fox News is that they will never bring to light this completely legitimate story. It's also scary to think about Fox News' power in the news world, and that it is unlikely that other sources pick up this story out of fear of being pummeled by Fox News and other right-wing media outlets.
Lizard People
Marc Elias was the lead attorney for Al Franken in the MN recount. Here's a video of Marc arguing about the famous "lizard people" ballot.
Wednesday, February 9, 2011
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
