Jump to content

American Politics MDCLXVIII - Warning! May contain non SB1070 posts


lokisnow

Recommended Posts

Although as Peter points out, the vast majority of the benefits don't kick in until 2014, which means that repeal wouldn't be depriving most people of the benefits of an existing program.

But you may be right -- maybe they won't repeal or defund anything. We'll have to wait and see.

I've been doing even more checking, and I think that the states are not required to set up exchanges, but they are required to meet certain benchmarks in terms of health insurance coverage. So a Republican House that chooses to defund the program is really just sticking states with the entire cost of the legislation, and not preventing the legislation from taking effect. If Speaker Boehner (shudder) wants to take on that fight...well, I'd like to sell tickets.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've been doing even more checking, and I think that the states are not required to set up exchanges, but they are required to meet certain benchmarks in terms of health insurance coverage. So a Republican House that chooses to defund the program is really just sticking states with the entire cost of the legislation, and not preventing the legislation from taking effect. If Speaker Boehner (shudder) wants to take on that fight...well, I'd like to sell tickets.

I'll just say that the benefits attorneys I know who have discussed this whole thing believe that there are administrative essentials to almost everything in the bill, and that if you kill the discretionary administrative essentials, huge chunks of the legislation can't be implemented. The CBO itself estimated that somewhere between $10-20B would have to be appropriated to the IRS and HHS to enable the implmentation of the legislation. The IRS in particular needs a lot of money because they're the ones who are supposed to regulate/monitor a lot of these requirements.

For example, if the states have to comply with certain federal requirements, someone in the federal government has to gather the relevant information and make the determination as to whether states are in compliance. If the particular IRS/HHS appropriations bill bars the use of any federal funds for gathering information or analyzing information regarding state compliance, you essentially eliminate the compliance requirement. They do that through "fencing" or "carve-out" language.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just out of curiousity, does anyone have a listing of the biggest government contractors and their profit margins?

Here is a list I found for 2009:

http://washingtontec...lists/2009.aspx

I looked around for a chart listing their profit margins but I couldn't find anything. I did look up the top few contracts individually though:

Lockeed Martin:

For the recent quarter (4th 2009), the Bethesda, Md., builder of fighter aircraft, satellites and data-analysis technology earned $823 million, or $2.05 a share, up from $799 million, or $1.89 a share, in the final three months of 2007.

http://www.marketwat...09-view-lowered

Boeing:

Full-Year 2009

  • Revenue grew to $68.3 billion while earnings reflected solid core operating performance affected by previously announced events
  • Operating cash flow of $5.6 billion reflects strong management of working capital
  • Cash and marketable securities of $11.2 billion provides strong liquidity for 2010
  • Backlog of $316 billion - over four times current annual revenue

http://boeing.mediar...?item=1043&s=43

Northrup:

Northrop Grumman posted a $1.7 billion profit in 2009, officials at the Los Angeles-based defense contractor said Thursday. It was a stark contrast to the $1.3 billion in losses the company incurred the previous year, when it had to account for the decline in value of companies it bought earlier in the decade.

http://www.washingto...0020404371.html

I'm not going to look them all up though :)

ETA: Didn't notice before but you can click the links in the first chart and it will link you to a breakdown including earnings for 2008

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Weird. Arizona, a state that is more than 1/4 indian reservation, is just now having it's first Native American to run for statewide office.

Window Rock state Representative Chris Deschene filed more than 10,000 ballot petitions with the Arizona Secretary of State's Office yesterday, qualifying him to run for that office in this year's election.

Deschene, a former Marine Corps major, claims he's the first native American to ever file to run for statewide office in Arizona. While that may not quite be on par with the groundbreaking, Barack Obama moment his campaign's pimping it as, he appears to be right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They didn't have control of Congress and the Presidency until Bush. When they did, they passed legislation to double the number of border agents and start construction of the fence on the southern border.

Hm? I thought we were talking about the federal ID law that no one has enforced. That step AZ just took that caused the latest flare-up, that you were hypothesizing Obama and the Dems are just after political mileage because they consider illegals potential Democrats to be co opted (along with legal Hispanics) through lax law enforcement.

My reply is simply that you can also read Bush's failure to enforce that law the same way, if one were inclined to that point of view. In that vein, I also note that the measures you mention were taken after Bush's re-election. *shrugs*

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Weird. Arizona, a state that is more than 1/4 indian reservation, is just now having it's first Native American to run for statewide office.

There's nothing "weird" about the lack of native Americans running for state-wide government positions.

And good for him. I hope he has a good platform and a good chance of winning.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it's weird that he's the first guy to even run, in a state with the second-highest (I think) number of natives in the country.

I don't think it's weird considering a lot of people's attitudes toward natives, especially in places where there are more reservations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think it's weird considering a lot of people's attitudes toward natives, especially in places where there are more reservations.

The various reservations are mostly self contained from a geographic, governmental and population standpoint. People on the rez concentrate on "local" offices, rather than running for say, Maricopa County Recorder or Pinal County Treasurer, which makes it hard to develop a political following.

They're also something like 99+ percent Democratic, which doesn't work out well in a right leaning state like Arizona.

Weird. Arizona, a state that is more than 1/4 indian reservation, is just now having it's first Native American to run for statewide office.

1/4 by land area. A whole bunch of empty Navajo land doesn't count for shit in an election.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The various reservations are mostly self contained from a geographic, governmental and population standpoint. People on the rez concentrate on "local" offices, rather than running for say, Maricopa County Recorder or Pinal County Treasurer, which makes it hard to develop a political following.

They're also something like 99+ percent Democratic, which doesn't work out well in a right leaning state like Arizona.

1/4 by land area. A whole bunch of empty Navajo land doesn't count for shit in an election.

I think the Res being self contained has more effect on the people outside it than in it as far as political aspirations go. If you were lucky enough to somehow get the education that would qualify you as a viable candidate coming off the Res, it's still like coming to the election as an outsider. At best people might question your ability to govern a place so different than where you come from, at worst they think you are going to push a radical racial agenda.

edit- also most Natives on the Res don't vote in elections outside of the tribe at all, the ones that do are usually liberal, but so few vote that it's hard to say they are 99% anything

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hm? I thought we were talking about the federal ID law that no one has enforced. That step AZ just took that caused the latest flare-up, that you were hypothesizing Obama and the Dems are just after political mileage because they consider illegals potential Democrats to be co opted (along with legal Hispanics) through lax law enforcement.

My reply is simply that you can also read Bush's failure to enforce that law the same way, if one were inclined to that point of view. In that vein, I also note that the measures you mention were taken after Bush's re-election. *shrugs*

I was speaking more broadly about border enforcement in general. But interestingly, Obama just ordered 1000 national guard troops to Arizona. It's not much, but you could certainly argue the squeaky wheel.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the Res being self contained has more effect on the people outside it than in it as far as political aspirations go. If you were lucky enough to somehow get the education that would qualify you as a viable candidate coming off the Res, it's still like coming to the election as an outsider. At best people might question your ability to govern a place so different than where you come from, at worst they think you are going to push a radical racial agenda.

Probably somewhat true on the first parts. We don't mix that much. We have our own schools, organizations, power structure etc. The reservations are their own countries, more or less. Even standard business deals have to go through all sorts of BIA rules, IIRC from a company I used to work for.

None of the various tribes are pushing any sort of agenda outside the rez, let alone racial.

edit- also most Natives on the Res don't vote in elections outside of the tribe at all, the ones that do are usually liberal, but so few vote that it's hard to say they are 99% anything

You may be right on this. I could have sworn that in 2004 and 2008 some of the Arizona results had absolutely silly USSR style returns, like 99.7% going D. I can't dredge anything up on this, and most of what I do show is far more balanced, but still D. Around 60%

Link to comment
Share on other sites

None of the various tribes are pushing any sort of agenda outside the rez, let alone racial.

Well, the Free Lakota Bank was a little controversial, but there are a lot of things that are considered pushing a Native agenda in a lot of places that really shouldn't be. There are a lot of issues on the Res that should be addressed (granted, I don't know what they're like in AZ, just here) but a Native candidate going after that would be seen as a candidate for the Res and not the rest of the state. Not that that is right, it's just how it would play out, especially in a state as prone to race baiting as Arizona.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was speaking more broadly about border enforcement in general.

Well, it does fit within that discussion so it wasn't wasted at least. :)

But interestingly, Obama just ordered 1000 national guard troops to Arizona. It's not much, but you could certainly argue the squeaky wheel.

Oh I think so, yes. From what I've read it mirrors what Bush did, which evidently few thought was effective even in greater numbers. If that's the case, I do hope it's a short term political placation and not actually reflective of his long term plan (assuming he has one in mind).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

FLoW,

Just out of curiousity, does anyone have a listing of the biggest government contractors and their profit margins?

It appears that no one has.

EDIT: I would like to plead this was an attempt at irony, but clearly this is a lie. Apologies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hard to believe no one has yet posted about an important step towards ending "don't ask, don't tell."

It's sad to see just how few Republicans voted in favor of ending this discriminatory rule. Jonathan Chait said it best:

Instead of voting overwhelmingly to keep gays out of the military, and then apologizing for doing so in a few decades, why not just skip a step and vote to let gays in the military now?

Of course, in twenty years, conservative commentators will be insisting that conservatism was never about discrimination against homosexuals.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1/4 by land area. A whole bunch of empty Navajo land doesn't count for shit in an election.

Out of curiosity, what is the NA population in Arizona? I mean, are we talking several million, several hundred thousand, or what? My point being, to what extent would a solid voting block of NA voters be able to influence a statewide election?

Hard to believe no one has yet posted about an important step towards ending "don't ask, don't tell."

That's interesting. I've seen a few articles on this lately and I was a bit surprised, as I was under the impression that Obama simply needed to sign an Executive Order to end this policy, just as Truman signed one to desegregate. Why is there any need for debate, when Obama has executive authority over the DoD?

Or, more bluntly, what am I missing?

ETA - Woot, 500th post!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's interesting. I've seen a few articles on this lately and I was a bit surprised, as I was under the impression that Obama simply needed to sign an Executive Order to end this policy, just as Truman signed one to desegregate. Why is there any need for debate, when Obama has executive authority over the DoD?

Or, more bluntly, what am I missing?

ETA - Woot, 500th post!

An executive order would just say "Ignore this policy", it wouldn't actually get rid of DADT.

The way he's going about it now is slower but 100% permanent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Tracker

:lol:

That's an entirely futile argument, because it presumes that the conservatives, in twenty, or hell, forty, or eighty, years will feel remorse about how they sanctioned legal discrimination against gay people. It's a honking big presumption to make. The people who oppose gays in the military now will probably carry that attitude to their graves. The next wave of conservative will then tell us that they didn't personally endorse the discriminatory policies of the past, and so they are not answering for those practices.

Apologies? Yeah, right. :rofl:

Re: Wrath

That's interesting. I've seen a few articles on this lately and I was a bit surprised, as I was under the impression that Obama simply needed to sign an Executive Order to end this policy, just as Truman signed one to desegregate. Why is there any need for debate, when Obama has executive authority over the DoD?

Or, more bluntly, what am I missing?

It's about political capital. The folks running the Pentagon need to be mollified. Also, the Congress people can, and will, continue to try to undo the executive order if Obama issued it without support. It's better to do it "right" the first time, than it is to have to fight the same battle over and over again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...