US Politics - Rampant Voter Fraud Fraud

[Fez]

new jersey has the second lowest gas tax in the country and it was in dire need to be raised. The need to raise it conflicted with Christie's need to not raise taxes per his campaign promise. So instead of funding the transportation fund the right way he needed to do some creative accounting. To get people to swallow the creative accounting he lied tremendously about cost overruns.

To save the transportation fund he refused to fund through the tax that funds it he had to make transportation in NJ worse by stealing funds from transportation projects.

To be fair, New Jersey already has one of the highest tax burdens in the country; raising taxes some more really isn't an option. Now personally I still would've gone through with the project, but in this case I somewhat understand the desire not to.

Of course he could've tried to be creative in ways to get around this problem (ex. use this as leverage to sway public opinion to his side in his attempts to get the teachers' unions there to agree to some concessions) and instead he took the easy option to score some Republican street cred.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

new jersey has the second lowest gas tax in the country and it was in dire need to be raised. The need to raise it conflicted with Christie's need to not raise taxes per his campaign promise. So instead of funding the transportation fund the right way he needed to do some creative accounting. To get people to swallow the creative accounting he lied tremendously about cost overruns.

To save the transportation fund he refused to fund through the tax that funds it he had to make transportation in NJ worse by stealing funds from transportation projects.

You could argue that he should have raised the gasoline tax, but that hardly qualifies as the nefarious, unmentioned "pet project" you referenced. Gasoline taxes are inherently regressive.

Of course he could've tried to be creative in ways to get around this problem (ex. use this as leverage to sway public opinion to his side in his attempts to get the teachers' unions there to agree to some concessions) and instead he took the easy option to score some Republican street cred.

First, had he done with you said with the teacher's contracts, people here would have gone twice as nuts. Second, getting money out of teacher's contracts would have given him even more "street cred" with Republicans than what he actually did.

The truth is that the teachers would never have agreed to concessions to help the transportation funds.

[Guest Raidne]

I'm not sure why you're focusing on "west coast" investment groups doing that. I'm aware of a lot of provate equity funds in my area that do -- or at least, did -- a lot of that. It's much more common than gambling on commercial paper.

I read something about West Coast investment groups being born from scratch because Wall Street just wasn't capable of doing that kind of thing on that scale anymore at that time. Can't remember where. Heard a related NPR story the other day about too. Also started to read some book with that thesis that I accidentally left on the plane.

Anyway, look at the Wiki on Venture Capitol - it's dominated by Kleiner Perkins and Draper Johnson. I guess you could think of it as a Sand Hill Road vs. Wall Street kind of thing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sand_Hill_Road

[lokisnow]

I just caught up with the This American Life on Citizens United, "Take the Money and Run for Office"

My favorite part is when McCains trashes Scalia for his ignorance and arrogance.

http://www.thisameri...-run-for-office

The episode just cemented my assessment that Citizens United is the worst supreme court decision since Plessy v Ferguson. I say that as a non lawyer who knows only of about a dozen supreme court cases older than I am.

I have started referring to SuperPac financiers like Adelson or the Kochs as Robertsbarons. Combines the stench of the Roberts court with the 19th century rule of the robber-barons the court is so eager to return us to.

***

Regarding voter fraud. I don't want to enable it, but voter fraud mattered more 100 years ago when it was easy to vote early and often and hard to catch or enforce voter fraud. That isn't happening now because the modern reality is far different from the reality of Boardwalk Empire or Boss Tweed. I would even say that in an era of Citizens United it matters even less, in 2010, Rove's superpac spent 34 million, two years later they're going to spend more than 300 million. And that's just one of many superpacs that will spend that much.

I think that dozens of unaccountable groups sloshing around billions of dollars on an election to be FAR more worrisome than a bereaved grandmother sending in an absentee ballot for herself and her recently deceased husband (since that is the only sort of voter fraud with evidence it happens).

The finger dye seems like a fabulous thing to implement, to me, Tormund would howl, but eh. We'd probably have some crazy groups eventually claiming the dye gave her child autism via lead or mercury or something, though.

It is funny that it's Republicans like FLOW & Republican affiliated groups with detailed outlines of how to perpetrate voter fraud. It's the Brietbart types that do it, but you never see the Maher types doing it. Funny that.

[Guest Raidne]

I can see how it's in line with past precendent, but I think tossing it was one of the Court's largest failures. It's a standing principle - if your ruling leads to an absurd result, it's bad.

We have PACs that aren't-but-are Mitt Romney's, and it's totally not a secret. Absurd results. Terrible decision. I'm not saying that nine second-tier law students with a 3.0 average could do better, but I think we expect more from the Court. Having said that, it's not easy to create new distinctions, which is what they would have had to do. O'Connor would have managed it, IMO.

[Fez]

First, had he done with you said with the teacher's contracts, people here would have gone twice as nuts. Second, getting money out of teacher's contracts would have given him even more "street cred" with Republicans than what he actually did.

The truth is that the teachers would never have agreed to concessions to help the transportation funds.

Not saying it would've worked, but I think it would've at least helped his argument. My evidence is mostly anecdotal, but I think a lot of people are realizing that, fair or not, the situation with the NJ pension funds is becoming a much more immediate problem for the state's finances. He'd never get the unions to agree to any rollbacks of existing pension plans, but changes to future plans might be doable, particularly if more people become invested stakeholders. Its very easy for people to say "The state should honor its contracts no matter what" when it doesn't have an impact on them; if people can be convinced though that its preventing an easier commute into NYC, that changes matters.

At the very least its a fight probably worth having. On the other hand, its bipartisan, and you can't be seen as helping the Democrats in any way if you want to run for the Republican nomination in 2016.

[ants]

Not sure if this was posted in this thread or the last one (waaaayyyy too far behind to catch up).

http://www.charlierose.com/view/interview/12265

An interview on Charlie Rose from the two heads of the debt committee. One R, one D. Really interesting stuff on the debt, solutions, the issues. Also some good insights into Ryan, Obama and others. I found it very interesting watching.

[Shryke]

I can see how it's in line with past precendent, but I think tossing it was one of the Court's largest failures. It's a standing principle - if your ruling leads to an absurd result, it's bad.

We have PACs that aren't-but-are Mitt Romney's, and it's totally not a secret. Absurd results. Terrible decision. I'm not saying that nine second-tier law students with a 3.0 average could do better, but I think we expect more from the Court. Having said that, it's not easy to create new distinctions, which is what they would have had to do. O'Connor would have managed it, IMO.

I just remember the write-up by Kennedy containing some of the honest-to-god stupidest and most naive things I've read in ages.

[Shryke]

Not sure if this was posted in this thread or the last one (waaaayyyy too far behind to catch up).

http://www.charliero...interview/12265

An interview on Charlie Rose from the two heads of the debt committee. One R, one D. Really interesting stuff on the debt, solutions, the issues. Also some good insights into Ryan, Obama and others. I found it very interesting watching.

Simpson and Bowles are dumbasses. Bowles is also Blue-Dog-D.

They are your standard deficit hawk dumbasses that many in the beltway love to fawn over.

[ants]

Simpson and Bowles are dumbasses. Bowles is also Blue-Dog-D.

They are your standard deficit hawk dumbasses that many in the beltway love to fawn over.

I did get the opinion that he wasn't very left leaning. But that said, a lot of what they talked about appeared to be reasonably sensible. Is there some specific element you think they were wrong on?

[Shryke]

Their deficit hawkery.

"We must pay down the debt right now or it will destroy us all by 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013! The poor must burn.".

[IheartTesla]

So we're going to have a representative form of government, except the government is going to place all these additional qualifiers on who the voters can choose? Isn't that sort of what happens in one-party states?

I can't believe I'm the one attacked for being anti-democratic. Sheesh.

Yeah bro, asking for a few more qualifications for our elected representatives is a slippery slope towards Mao-Stalinism.

No offence to anyone who really thinks this way, but if you consider legislators as employees and us as employers, then there is nothing wrong with a little initial screening. I don't see how it is any more anti-democratic than putting limitations on voters. In fact, it is a whole lot less than the voter ID intimidatory tactics.

And we already have age qualifications for representatives. Why? How did we ever not turn into North Korea?

[IheartTesla]

Tess - You really think this: "More non-lawyers, because lawyers are trained to argue both sides of an issue (not my idea, Neil deGrassi Tyson's)"? Is there anywhere where he lays this out in print, by the way? All I'm getting is clips from Real Time with Bill Maher.

No, its pretty much his appearance on Bill Maher. Granted, it isnt a refined argument, but from what I recall the conversation was about how courts were not about truth, but the truth did emerge somehow (when both sides presented their best arguments). And I think there was some stuff in there about 'debate teams, which I took to mean lawyers could convincingly play both prosecutor and defence attorney for the same case (based on the same facts).

He also said we need more of the rest of 'life', not just lawyers. That would include engineers and poets, and yes, scientists too. I think it isnt controversial to say that while an understanding of the law helps greatly, we probably need a little more diversity in Congress.

[Guest]

I just caught up with the This American Life on Citizens United, "Take the Money and Run for Office"

My favorite part is when McCains trashes Scalia for his ignorance and arrogance.

http://www.thisameri...-run-for-office

The episode just cemented my assessment that Citizens United is the worst supreme court decision since Plessy v Ferguson. I say that as a non lawyer who knows only of about a dozen supreme court cases older than I am.

I have started referring to SuperPac financiers like Adelson or the Kochs as Robertsbarons. Combines the stench of the Roberts court with the 19th century rule of the robber-barons the court is so eager to return us to.

I heard that episode. It's flat-out incredible. Everyone needs to listen to it so that they understand the how much that decision is going to impact things and in what ways. How it impacts smaller races is something that I don't think many people are worrying about. People are focusing on the POTUS race, but it's much bigger than even that.

[Lightning Lord]

I truly don't understand what you're talking about here. Legal "technicalities" matter in terms of the adversarial legal process, but I don't see what they have to do with anything else. Can you give an example of what you mean?

I really have no idea, either. Sorry...I got into the wine last night. :(

[TrackerNeil]

new jersey has the second lowest gas tax in the country and it was in dire need to be raised. The need to raise it conflicted with Christie's need to not raise taxes per his campaign promise. So instead of funding the transportation fund the right way he needed to do some creative accounting. To get people to swallow the creative accounting he lied tremendously about cost overruns.

Republicans frequently get themselves into trouble by pledging not to raise taxes when they are not 100% sure that won't be necessary. These kinds of contortions help careers, I suppose, but they don't serve the public weal. Not that most Republicans care about good governance; the party is convinced that government is bad, so what does it matter if they mismanage it?

[WrathOfTinyKittens]

Regarding Santorum. Previously I believe his voting bloc would have gone to Newt, but at this point I think the whole thing will collapse and everyone will fall in line.

Look for a major jump for Romney in the next week, unless Newt actually is capable of pulling Santorum's support to himself; that could really make this primary interesting.

(null)

[DanteGabriel]

Regarding Santorum. Previously I believe his voting bloc would have gone to Newt, but at this point I think the whole thing will collapse and everyone will fall in line.

Look for a major jump for Romney in the next week, unless Newt actually is capable of pulling Santorum's support to himself; that could really make this primary interesting.

(null)

Newt is out of money. His campaign bounced a $500 check to get on the primary ballot in Utah. Which, granted, wasn't worth competing in anyway for him. He may not have announced, but he's basically not competing any more.

[Guest Raidne]

What do current occupational demographics in Congress look like?

[IheartTesla]

Tyson said they were 38% lawyers, IIRC. The others may be from business and miscellaneous.