US Politics XI

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Hereward,

Off topic.

My Dad has learned of my recent fascination with beer and decided to teach me about the wide variety of scotchs available to expand my palette. I've always found whiskey to be too strong to enjoy. Any suggestions of where to start?

[Hereward]

I'll PM you to avoid a threadjack too far even for me!

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Hereward,

Thank you.

:)

[Inigima]

Could you make it a thread instead? I'm interested too and I'm probably not the only one.

[Shryke]

This is where Tracker and I part company. Spending money you don't have is only a good idea if the alternative is worse in economic terms. So, there is no point in balancing the books at a time when doing so would actually cripple what remains of the economy and make the real level of debt higher through deflation.

Economically speaking, it makes no more sense to spend money you don't have on UHC rather than a war. Morally, yes. Economically, no. If you want to have UHC, and I think you should, you need to make it economically self-sustaining, either through efficiencies, greater labour market mobility, tax reallocations, etc.

Bear in mind the British experience of introducing UHC, which was done in the late 1940s when the debt burden was 250% of GDP, dwarfing what the US or Britain is experiencing now. Britain chose to introduce UHC first, and use money that could have been used to retool industry for civilian purposes. It sold the idea as not only a moral imperative, but one that would save money. It never did. What followed was 30 years of economic decline and 60 years of industrial decline. Lesson: you can't build such a vast edifice on sand, the foundations have to be strong first.

Except Health Care in the US IS an economic crisis.

[Annelise]

California may be the headliner, but Arizona is also interesting:

In January, Napolitano moved to Washington to become secretary of Homeland Security, and Jan Brewer, a staunch fiscal conservative who was then Arizona's secretary of state, took her spot. "We thought, we've got a friendly face in the governor's office and we'll be able to do some good things," said Bob Burns, president of the state Senate.

It didn't work out that way.

Instead, Brewer called for a hike in the sales tax to preserve essential services, and the Legislature and the governor became enmeshed in what many call the nastiest fiscal fight in Arizona history.

Republican lawmakers refused to send Brewer a budget that she has signaled she would veto. Instead, they tried to delay until the end of the fiscal year -- June 30 -- when she would either have to sign it or shut down the government.

Brewer sued Burns and Kirk Adams, the speaker of the Arizona House, to force them to send her the budget, but the Arizona Supreme Court ruled against her this week. On Friday afternoon, the governor and legislative leaders announced an agreement that would basically kick the debate over to the voters, asking them to approve Brewer's $1-billion, three-year tax increase in November.

[...]

But Arizona finds itself in a particularly challenging spot. A shortfall of more than $3 billion amounts to 30% of its annual budget, a higher proportion than even California, which faces a 26% shortfall.

Scott Pattison of the National Assn. of State Budget Officers said that it's almost impossible to compare state budget deficits because accounting differs so widely but that Arizona's situation is "among the worst, if not the worst."

Arizona's predicament has been made more difficult because voter initiatives here (as in California) mandate how one-third of the state's money must be spent. The only way to raise taxes is through a practically unobtainable two-thirds majority in the Legislature or via a simple majority at the ballot box. Like California did this spring when it asked voters to approve a series of tax hikes, Arizona is putting the hard choices on the electorate.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/na...0,1546521.story

I'm curious if voters ever approve a tax hike via a ballot initiative.

[Annelise]

Cross your fingers...

BAGHDAD – Iraqi forces assumed formal control of Baghdad and other cities Tuesday after American troops handed over security in urban areas in a defining step toward ending the U.S. combat role in the country. A countdown clock broadcast on Iraqi TV ticked to zero as the midnight deadline passed for U.S. combat troops to finish their pullback to bases outside cities.

"The withdrawal of American troops is completed now from all cities after everything they sacrificed for the sake of security," said Sadiq al-Rikabi, a senior adviser to Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. "We are now celebrating the restoration of sovereignty."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090629/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_iraq

[Ormond]

I'm curious if voters ever approve a tax hike via a ballot initiative.

I don't know if Arizona ever has, but plenty of other places have. For example, by Googling "voter approved sales tax increase", I immediately found that Minnesota's sales tax rises tomorrow, because of a voter approved initiative that passed last November:

http://www.taxes.state.mn.us/taxes/sales/t..._increase.shtml

[TrackerNeil]

One that is exacerbated by greater economic crises because almost everyone who loses their job loses their health care. COBRA is a crap option for the most part.

Well, COBRA isn't bad, at least my experiences with it weren't. It's expensive as hell, however, and only available if your employer keeps the group plan open. My employer, who is closing soon, ended its plan in May, and the employees were left to their own devices. We were unable to use stimulus funds, either, because the stimulus was predicated on the assumption that one's employer would always be solvent. In these economic times, that is not a safe assumption.

[Annelise]

I don't know if Arizona ever has, but plenty of other places have. For example, by Googling "voter approved sales tax increase", I immediately found that Minnesota's sales tax rises tomorrow, because of a voter approved initiative that passed last November:

http://www.taxes.state.mn.us/taxes/sales/t..._increase.shtml

Cool, thanks. It's another interesting situation to watch. See where voters draw the line on essential services and so on.

[Annelise]

On another topic.. campaign finance rules. With regard to the FEC:

That's happened with increasing frequency at the FEC lately. Election-law experts, supporters of campaign-finance regulations, and even some members of the commission itself are expressing growing concern about a string of cases in which the three Republicans on the commission -- led by Tom DeLay's former ethics lawyer -- have voted as a block against enforcement, preventing the commission from carrying out its basic regulatory function. As the normally mild-mannered Washington Post editorial board wrote recently: "The three Republican appointees are turning the commission into The Little Agency That Wouldn't: wouldn't launch investigations, wouldn't bring cases, wouldn't even accept settlements that the staff had already negotiated."

Craig Holman of Public Citizen told TPMmuckraker the commission is currently "defunct." (The FEC's press office declined to make any of the commissioners available for interviews.)

FEC watchers say the commission's three Republicans -- Donald McGahn, Matthew Petersen, and Caroline Hunter, each nominated by President Bush -- are acting out of philosophical opposition to the very idea of regulating campaign money. "It's the Republican caucus that actually believes there shouldn't be campaign-finance regulation," said Holman. "It is ideological. They are ideologically opposed to the purpose of the Federal Election Commission."

It may also have become personal. At an open meeting of the commission last week, there was barely concealed animosity between the Republican and Democratic commissioners, according to one attendee.

http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/...w_1.php?ref=fpa

Further, this SCOTUS case:

WASHINGTON — A Supreme Court case concerning a quirky documentary critical of Hillary Rodham Clinton may result in a major overhaul of rules governing campaign spending by corporations, the court signaled Monday.

Rather than deciding the case, the only one the justices left unresolved before leaving for their summer break, the court asked for more briefs and a second argument, to be held on Sept. 9, almost a month before the start of the next term.

The parties were asked to offer their views on whether the court should overrule a 1990 decision, Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce, which upheld restrictions on corporate spending to support or oppose political candidates, and part of McConnell v. Federal Election Commission, the 2003 decision that upheld the central provisions of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law.

The court is poised to reverse longstanding precedents concerning the rights of corporations to participate in politics,†said Nathaniel Persily, a law professor at Columbia. “The only reason to ask for reargument on this is if they’re going to overturn Austin and McConnell.â€

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/30/us/polit...ml?_r=2&hpw

[Annelise]

MSC rules for Franken:

ST. PAUL, Minn. – A unanimous Minnesota Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that Democrat Al Franken should be certified the winner of the state's long-running Senate race, paving the way for the former "Saturday Night Live" comedian to be seated after an almost eight-month fight.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_minnesota_senate

[TrackerNeil]

MSC rules for Franken:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_minnesota_senate

Ah...sixty never smelled so sweet!

Edited to add: When I tried to browse to Redstate to lurkingly gloat, I got only "500 - Internal Server Error." Yeah, I'll bet. ;)

[Altherion]

Coleman has conceded the election: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_minnesota_senate .

[The Iceman of the North]

Edited to add: When I tried to browse to Redstate to lurkingly gloat, I got only "500 - Internal Server Error." Yeah, I'll bet. ;)

Down for mourning I guess.

[Ormond]

Coleman has conceded the election: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_minnesota_senate .

My dumb question is:

Does Franken get back pay for the six months since January? Or does he only start getting paid from the day he's sworn in?

[Frog Eater]

Coleman has conceded the election: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_minnesota_senate .

He should have conceded after the first re-count, and then again after the first court ruling. he is a tool, and I am truely surprised he conceded. I expected him to draw this out until the next election cycle.

[DanteGabriel]

Wow, I guess even Norm Coleman has a limit as to how far he'll push counterproductive tantrums of electoral obstruction.

[TrackerNeil]

Wow, I guess even Norm Coleman has a limit as to how far he'll push counterproductive tantrums of electoral obstruction.

John Quincy Adams and I were discussing this in person the other day, and the question we asked was what would Norm Coleman get out of an extended court fight? Answer: nothing, really. I suspect he's already been promised a plum party position, and not only would a protracted federal drag-out likely get him nowhere, but it would cost an arm and a leg. Who's going to pay that bill?

[Frog Eater]

Thank God Coleman did that. It would have been so ugly and unnecessary to fight on. I wonder how Pawlenty (sp) feels about this. I wonder if he was like "Norm, please just let it go."

Probably. I was reading where Pawlenty said he would Franken if the court sided with him.