American Politics MDCLXVIII - Warning! May contain non SB1070 posts

[TrackerNeil]

Rasmussen's final pre-election poll had Christie winning by 3. He actually won by 4. Meanwhile, FD was busy crowning Governor Corzine.

What does this have to do with his approval rating?

I think Christie is going to find himself increasingly unable to get much done not just because he's a Republican in a very blue state, but because there's very little he can do that Corzine couldn't to pull New Jersey out of the fiscal hole. Like every Republican he has a genetic inability to raise taxes, and the spending cuts required to pay off the $32 billon debt simply won't be accepted by the majority of the Garden State. Christie ran on a promise to cut waste, but the simple truth is that nobody is ever going to find tens of billions of dollars of savings.

What's worse is that Christie is playing a shell game. He's cutting state funding to school districts in the name of fiscal responsibility, but leaving those districts with the unenviable choice of either raising property taxes (which isn't easy to do in NJ) or cutting services that residents want. Instead of biting the bullet and taking a share of the pain Christie is laying off responsibility for the fiscal problems on local authorities, which have far less flexibility than state government and cannot absorb budget shortfalls nearly as well.

So you may think, FLoW, that Christie "just does what needs doing", but it looks to me like he makes the cuts and lets others staunch the wounds. And at the end of the day, I think he'll do one of two things: either fund tax cuts through deficit spending (a favorite Republican pastime), or else just rearrange the deck chairs until the economy recovers and then try to take credit for the stabilizing fiscal situation. And it might work...heaven knows that Republicans have certainly gotten away with it in the past.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

You know sometimes I'm really embarrased by my State of residence. The worst part is this guy is a State Senator from my home county and he said this in the beer pub I frequent. I present to you Jakey Knotts Moron:

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jiI8Xa_bsTjd-Ofy6yySS0xV1zVQD9G47EU80

From the link:

COLUMBIA, S.C. — A South Carolina lawmaker on Thursday called a Republican gubernatorial candidate of Indian descent a "raghead," saying we have one in the White House, we don't need one in the governor's mansion.

Republican state Sen. Jake Knotts later apologized for the slur, saying the remarks about President Barack Obama and state Rep. Nikki Haley were meant as a joke.

They came on Internet political talk show, Pub Politics. Co-host Phil Bailey said Knotts said, "We've already got a raghead in the White House, we don't need another raghead in the governor's mansion."

[TrackerNeil]

You know sometimes I'm really embarrased by my State of residence. The worst part is this guy is a State Senator from my home county and he said this in the beer pub I frequent. I present to you Jakey Knotts Moron:

Ser Scot, my natural urge to say "tee-hee" is dampened by the fact that my own state must own up to Rick Santorum and Stephen Freind.

[Nymeria Sand]

Ser Scot, my natural urge to say "tee-hee" is dampened by the fact that my own state must own up to Rick Santorum and Stephen Freind.

Pat Toomey? **shudder**

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Rasmussen doesn´t really help its reputation with polls like CT-Sen and KY-Sen.

CT: After Blumenthal´s "scandal" Rasmussen on May 18th had it 48-45for Blumenthal. This obviously raised interest in the race and other pollsters got involved.

Just days later partisan GQR(D) found Blumenthal up 55-40

Less than week from that Quinnipiac pegged it at 56-31 and R2K for dailykos at 52-33.

On June 1st Rasmussen polls CT-Sen again. Less than 2 weeks after they found 3 point spread it´s 56-33. CT voters sure change their minds fast.

KY: After the primaries, on May 19th Rasmussen polls Paul up 59-34.

About a week later R2K for Dailykos has it 44-41 and SUSA 51-45.

On June 1st Rasmussen is also back in KY and the race is suddenly 49-41. Another huge change in the last 2 weeks.

Why do you assume that Rasmussen is wrong in those instances? It is entirely possible that voters reacted emotionally when polled shortly after the events, and then simmered down after a bit.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

What does this have to do with his approval rating?

Because it addresses the ability of the two polling entities you compared to provide accurate information. You said FD was more reliable than Rasmussen, and that Rasmussen was biased towards Republicans. The only way to ever know which firm's methods are more accurate is by comparing polls with what actually happened on election day when ballots were counted. Yet, when you compare their predictions for election day, Rasmussen actually underestimated Christie's margin by 1 point -- which is not suggestive of a pro-GOP bias - and FD actually predicted the Democrat would win.

Based on those facts, it would appear that Rasmussen is accurate, and that Farleigh Dickenson is biased against Republicans. Or at least, that FD's methodology, if honest, is less accurate. And there is no logical reason to assume that their polling methodolgy post election is any different from their polling methodology pre-election. Hench, it's relevancy to approval ratings.

I think Christie is going to find himself increasingly unable to get much done not just because he's a Republican in a very blue state, but because there's very little he can do that Corzine couldn't to pull New Jersey out of the fiscal hole.

Sure he can. He can refuse to spend. The difference is that Christie isn't beholden to the public employee unions, and doesn't care if he pisses them off. Corzine was. And it is Christie's very public challenge to those unions, particularly the teachers, that has fueled the rage against him. That is THE key issue in NJ right now. Christie is savvy enough to know that in a time of economic hardship, most voters are not going to have a problem with cutting wages and benefits for public employees.

http://habledash.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=711:chris-christie-goes-after-new-jersey-teachers-union&catid=45:the-nook&Itemid=59

Like every Republican he has a genetic inability to raise taxes, and the spending cuts required to pay off the $32 billon debt simply won't be accepted by the majority of the Garden State.

I wish every Republican was like that, but the vast majority buckle under the pressure. Christie has figured out what should be an obvious truth -- that sticking with the ideas that got you elected ends up being more popular in the long run. And if not, at least you accomplished what you set out to do.

What's worse is that Christie is playing a shell game. He's cutting state funding to school districts in the name of fiscal responsibility, but leaving those districts with the unenviable choice of either raising property taxes (which isn't easy to do in NJ) or cutting services that residents want.

There's the whole "cutting outrageous teacher salaries/benefits" thing as well. But if residents really don't want things cut, they'll pay higher local taxes.

Instead of biting the bullet and taking a share of the pain Christie is laying off responsibility for the fiscal problems on local authorities, which have far less flexibility than state government and cannot absorb budget shortfalls nearly as well.

So the same voters that are unwilling to raise local taxes are going to support higher state taxes? And they're somehow better off if the money comes from their pockets indirectly through the state rather than directly through property taxes?

So you may think, FLoW, that Christie "just does what needs doing", but it looks to me like he makes the cuts and lets others staunch the wounds.

He proposed a budget, so he's not ducking his responsibilities and has said publicly he's willing to take the blame. If the Democrats choose not to pass his budget, and force him to veto, he'll do that. Fortunately, he has the hammer of a balanced budget requirement that the Democrats in the legislature can't evade.

And at the end of the day, I think he'll do one of two things: either fund tax cuts through deficit spending (a favorite Republican pastime), or else just rearrange the deck chairs until the economy recovers and then try to take credit for the stabilizing fiscal situation. And it might work...heaven knows that Republicans have certainly gotten away with it in the past.

That's possible, but I don't think so. Christie does not appear to be, at least yet, the type of compromising waffler who gives up just because he's taking flak. He's popular precisely because he has refused to take the easy way out and increase taxes. Which isn't surprising because New Jersey already is the most heavily taxes state in the entire country.

Here's why I love Christie. Politicians usually don't talk this straight.

http://urbangrounds.com/2010/06/gov-chris-christie/

[DanteGabriel]

You know sometimes I'm really embarrased by my State of residence. The worst part is this guy is a State Senator from my home county and he said this in the beer pub I frequent. I present to you Jakey Knotts Moron:

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jiI8Xa_bsTjd-Ofy6yySS0xV1zVQD9G47EU80

From the link:

You gonna say anything to him if you see him in the pub, Scot?

I'd give you five bucks to tell him, "Eat a bag of Hell and die, you ignorant pigfucking troglodyte. Oh, wait, that was a joke."

[awesome possum]

There's the whole "cutting outrageous teacher salaries/benefits" thing as well.

Yeah, to hell with those teachers. Who do they think they are, people incredibly important to the development and well-being of children or something? Sheesh. Take those fuckers down a notch.

:rolleyes:

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

DG,

You gonna say anything to him if you see him in the pub, Scot?

I'd give you five bucks to tell him, "Eat a bag of Hell and die, you ignorant pigfucking troglodyte. Oh, wait, that was a joke."

Unlikely, he's a really big guy. Getting my ass kicked isn't going to make him less of a racist shitbag.

[TerraPrime]

Re: TN

What's worse is that Christie is playing a shell game. He's cutting state funding to school districts in the name of fiscal responsibility, but leaving those districts with the unenviable choice of either raising property taxes (which isn't easy to do in NJ) or cutting services that residents want. Instead of biting the bullet and taking a share of the pain Christie is laying off responsibility for the fiscal problems on local authorities, which have far less flexibility than state government and cannot absorb budget shortfalls nearly as well.

To be fair, that is not a uniquely Republican trait. Any politician who claims to not raise tax, and quite a few Democrats play that tune, will end up passing the responsibility to local governments.

Besides, what's more small-government-Republican than letting the local government do all the work? ;)

Re: FLoW

Christie is savvy enough to know that in a time of economic hardship, most voters are not going to have a problem with cutting wages and benefits for public employees.

Yes, but is that a good governing policy?

Presumably, the non-government employees out-number the government employees. So why is it that the cuts are taken directly from government employees?

But if residents really don't want things cut, they'll pay higher local taxes.

:rofl: :rofl:

[DanteGabriel]

The Redneck Rampage in South Carolina develops further... Apparently that racist fuckwit of a state senator wasn't content with just calling Obama and Nikki Haley "ragheads" -- he also opined that Haley, a Sikh who converted to Christianity (or whatever passes for "Christianity" in those benighted parts) is a Manchurian candidate under the control of a sinister Sikh conspiracy. The wingnuts were saying the same shit about Obama, of course.

Knotts says he believed Haley has been set up by a network of Sikhs and was programmed to run for governor of South Carolina by outside influences in foreign countries. He claims she is hiding her religion and he wants the voters to know about it.

"We got a raghead in Washington; we don't need one in South Carolina," Knotts said more than once. "She's a raghead that's ashamed of her religion trying to hide it behind being Methodist for political reasons."

"We need a good Christian to be our governor," he said. "She's hiding her religion. She ought to be proud of it. I'm proud of my god."

Knotts says he believes Haley's father has been sending letters to India saying that Haley is the first Sikh running for high office in America. He says her father walks around Lexington wearing a turban.

"We're at war over there," Knotts said.

Asked to clarify, he said he did not mean the United States was at war with India, but was at war with "foreign countries."

http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/06/report_knotts_called_haley_f---ing_raghead_attacke.php?ref=fpblg

[Ormond]

The Redneck Rampage in South Carolina develops further... Apparently that racist fuckwit of a state senator wasn't content with just calling Obama and Nikki Haley "ragheads" -- he also opined that Haley, a Sikh who converted to Christianity (or whatever passes for "Christianity" in those benighted parts) is a Manchurian candidate under the control of a sinister Sikh conspiracy. The wingnuts were saying the same shit about Obama, of course.

"What passes for Christianity?" --

You do realize that in South Carolina being a member of a United Methodist congregation puts her on the liberal to moderate end of the Protestant theological spectrum?

If she hadn't been born a Sikh, the "wingnuts" would undoubtedly just try the tactic that as a United Methodist she belongs to the same denomination as Hillary Clinton.

[DanteGabriel]

"What passes for Christianity?" --

You do realize that in South Carolina being a member of a United Methodist congregation puts her on the liberal to moderate end of the Protestant theological spectrum?

If she hadn't been born a Sikh, the "wingnuts" would undoubtedly just try the tactic that as a United Methodist she belongs to the same denomination as Hillary Clinton.

Meh, all them Protestant splinter cults look the same to me. :P

In seriousness, thanks for that bit of education. I really wasn't commenting on Haley's brand of Christianity, specifically, so much as whatever twisted version of selfish, hateful, exclusionary McJesusite ranting that Knotts would accept. Knotts thinks South Carolina needs a "good Christian" as governor... Maybe someone with unimpeachable McJesusite bona-fides like Beverly Russell?

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Yes, but is that a good governing policy? Presumably, the non-government employees out-number the government employees. So why is it that the cuts are taken directly from government employees?

That strikes me as an odd question. When private employers need to trim costs, they take it from private employees, and the private employees don't have a vote or say in that. Why should public employees be any different? If they don't like the pay cut, they have the same option as private employees -- quit.

In a really tough economic climate where a lot of private sector employees have had wages and benefits frozen or cut, it seems odd to suggest that taxes should be increased on those same private employees so that public employees don't have any cuts at all.

And forgetting the tough economic climate for a moment, government is supposed to provide the most bang for the buck it can in terms of the services it provides. If it can reduce wage/benefit related costs without materially affecting services provided, those wages/benefits are too high and should be reduced or limited. Just as they are for private sector employees.

ETA: okay, and no matter how much you may hate Christie, I think this is something most of us would applaud, though it's going to make all the bureaucrats even more pissed at him:

http://www.newjerseynewsroom.com/state/christie-puts-end-to-government-supplying-tickets

[TerraPrime]

That strikes me as an odd question. When private employers need to trim costs, they take it from private employees, and the private employees don't have a vote or say in that. Why should public employees be any different? If they don't like the pay cut, they have the same option as private employees -- quit.

That's a specious comparison, because in private sectors, the firing decisions were not made by elected officials in the name of saving money for everyone. If Xerox closes down a call center to save money, it does not benefit everyone. It only benefits the stakeholders. When you lay off a government employee, that benefit is enjoyed by all tax payers.

The burden to rectify budgetary woes should be shared by everyone, not disproportionately shouldered by public employees.

[IheartTesla]

"We're at war over there," Knotts said.

Asked to clarify, he said he did not mean the United States was at war with India, but was at war with "foreign countries."

The last time the US was at war with non-foreign countries, South Carolina instigated it.....

[C S]

"What passes for Christianity?" --

You do realize that in South Carolina being a member of a United Methodist congregation puts her on the liberal to moderate end of the Protestant theological spectrum?

If she hadn't been born a Sikh, the "wingnuts" would undoubtedly just try the tactic that as a United Methodist she belongs to the same denomination as Hillary Clinton.

Not likely as it is also the same denomination as George W. Bush.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

That's a specious comparison, because in private sectors, the firing decisions were not made by elected officials in the name of saving money for everyone. If Xerox closes down a call center to save money, it does not benefit everyone. It only benefits the stakeholders. When you lay off a government employee, that benefit is enjoyed by all tax payers.

So what? Every time a public sector employee gets an increase in wages or benefits, it's paid for by all those taxpayers too, who likely don't "enjoy" that extra burden. Further, unlike the Xerox employees, the public employees have their wages paid entirely from forced payments from taxpayers, whether an individual taxpayer wants to pay or not.

Private sector employers balance income against expenses, and don't have the option to "raise taxes" if their income drops. Private sector employees often pay the price for those economic hardships. Why shouldn't public employees be subject to the exact same standard as everyone else? When your employer takes in less money, it eventually comes out of your pocket. Why shouldn't public employees bear the same risk?

The burden to rectify budgetary woes should be shared by everyone, not disproportionately shouldered by public employees.

I couldn't disagree more in the context of wages. The question of burden-sharing is irrelevant to the question of what we should pay government employees in general. Private sector employers try to minimize costs, including labor costs, all the time. They only pay what they need to pay to attract and keep suitable employees. Likewise, the government should pay public sector workers whatever it needs to attract and keep a qualified workforce, and no more. That should be true all the time, in good times and in bad. Anything else is an irresponsible use of taxpayer money.

So what it really boils down to is whether these changes are adverse enough to chase needed, qualified government workers out of the workforce, and adversely impact the government's ability to hire qualified workers when needed. Because if not, then those folks were overpaid -- at taxpayer expense -- before the crisis ever hit.

Finally, if a private sector employee gets her wages cut by 10%, how does the public employee share that sacrifice? All these private sector cuts, and public employees should be immune? The rest of us should share their employer's burden, but they don't share ours?

[TerraPrime]

So what? Every time a public sector employee gets an increase in wages or benefits, it's paid for by all those taxpayers too, who likely don't "enjoy" that extra burden.

Everyone wants free stuff. But do these people who do not enjoy the tax burden enjoy the services that are paid for by this tax burden? That is the question.

Further, unlike the Xerox employees, the public employees have their wages paid entirely from forced payments from taxpayers, whether an individual taxpayer wants to pay or not.

Am I talking to Tormund? "Forced payments?" I guess I'll just respond by using the advice you offer to public employees: If they don't like it, they can quit. I hear The Republic of Congo has very low tax rates.

Private sector employers balance income against expenses, and don't have the option to "raise taxes" if their income drops.

Various government agencies also work with a budget in which they have to balance income and expense. Also, is there a case where a government raises taxes for the purpose of raising median income of their employees? I can't think of any.

Private sector employees often pay the price for those economic hardships. Why shouldn't public employees be subject to the exact same standard as everyone else? When your employer takes in less money, it eventually comes out of your pocket. Why shouldn't public employees bear the same risk?

Public employees are sharing the risks, already. Lack of cost-of-living-adjustment increases are common. Cost reduction from attrition is also common. Several states are using furlough days to save cost.

The other bit to add, too, is that in good economic times, public employees do not see commensurate levels of increase in compensation. One of the differences between public and private sector is that wage levels are less volatile in the public sector. We do not get double year-end bonuses when the times are good, so we should not have to bear extra burden in cost-saving when the times are bad. In the private sector, you take high risks for higher potential rewards. In the public sector, you trade the higher rewards for lower risks.

Finally, if a private sector employee gets her wages cut by 10%, how does the public employee share that sacrifice? All these private sector cuts, and public employees should be immune? The rest of us should share their employer's burden, but they don't share ours?

What? why should a public employee share the burden of a private employee's pay cut, when the public employee does not share in the benefit?

Still, ultimately, public employees do share the burden, because the wages for public employees are derived from taxes. When people earn less, they pay less taxes, which will eventually find its way to the budget for the wages of public employees. That typically results in lack of pay increase for the public employee, which is a de facto pay cut given the rise in cost of living.

[lokisnow]

the ideal is to have no public employees whatsoever (then government will run smooth) or to have public employees, but only by employing slaves. Slaves are the ultimate ideal. it's a goddamned shame we have so many anti-business slavery laws on the book. The free market with slaves would do a better job!