Everyone, meet Annabel Park:
So what is this Coffee Party really about? To start, it’s about civility. One of the first things you see on their website (which, by the way, is here: http://www.coffeepartyusa.com/) is the following pledge: “As a member or supporter of the Coffee Party, I pledge to conduct myself in a way that is civil, honest, and respectful toward people with whom I disagree. I value people from different cultures, I value people with different ideas, and I value and cherish the democratic process.” Wow, an actual conversation? Sounds like something I could get behind.
Although the media has already begun to try to pit the coffee party against the tea party, the two movements actually have a lot in common. First of all, everyone’s angry. Both sides are afraid for the financial stability of the country and are sick of politicians who seem painfully out of touch with ordinary Americans. Both movements are planning to elect their own people, normal citizens, to office, although the Coffee Party might be a little late to the party to get into the 2010 election.
If you’d like to find out more about them, here’s a good Washington Post article: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/25/AR2010022505517.html
If you’d like to follow them on Facebook, go here: http://www.facebook.com/home.php?#!/coffeeparty?ref=search&sid=35802366.3302691802..1
At the end of the day, whichever movement you identify most with… enjoy your caffeinated beverage!
Sunday, March 14, 2010
Wednesday, March 10, 2010
Reconcile Yourself to Reconciliation
The word of the day is reconcile:
1. to cause (a person) to accept or be resigned to something not desired: He was reconciled to his fate.
2. to win over to friendliness; cause to become amicable: to reconcile hostile persons.
3. to compose or settle (a quarrel, dispute, etc.).
4. to bring into agreement or harmony; make compatible or consistent: to reconcile differing statements; to reconcile accounts.
As the time for the reconciliation vote on the healthcare bill approaches, all four of those definitions seem rather appropriate depending on the side of the aisle you’re on. The GOP is laughing at the Dems for passing a hotly debated piece of legislation in what appears to be a shady underhanded way. Yup, thanks for handing them the election next fall. Oh, but wait! Hypocrisy abounds!
As Senator Orin Hatch put it in the Washington Post last week, reconciliation would be, “unprecedented in scope. And the havoc wrought would threaten our system of checks and balances, corrode the legislative process, [and] degrade our system of government.”
Oh, puuuuh-leeze! I wonder if he felt that way when he voted for the 2003 Bush tax cuts under reconciliation rules (by the way, V.P. Dick Cheney had to come in and cast his vote to break a 50-50 tie in that vote). In fact, of the 22 bills passed under reconciliation through 2008, 16 were passed under a Republican controlled Senate.
You know what else came about thanks to a reconciliation vote? The Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act, more fondly known as COBRA.
At the end of the day though, here is what’s most likely going to happen:
If you’ll remember, the Senate has already passed a healthcare bill. Remember the Night Before Christmas? Unfortunately, the House doesn’t like certain parts of the Senate bill and are likely to tweak it, undoing certain compromises that were made to pass the bill with 60 votes. In order to re-pass the bill through the Senate with those tweaks in place, they will probably have to use reconciliation rules. Ironically, this happens all the time. The difference here is that those tweaks will happen very quickly, in a matter of days rather than years.
But in reality, legislation is constantly being tweaked. A bill that you hear has passed one chamber of congress will, most likely, not be the bill that is ultimately enacted into law.
1. to cause (a person) to accept or be resigned to something not desired: He was reconciled to his fate.
2. to win over to friendliness; cause to become amicable: to reconcile hostile persons.
3. to compose or settle (a quarrel, dispute, etc.).
4. to bring into agreement or harmony; make compatible or consistent: to reconcile differing statements; to reconcile accounts.
As the time for the reconciliation vote on the healthcare bill approaches, all four of those definitions seem rather appropriate depending on the side of the aisle you’re on. The GOP is laughing at the Dems for passing a hotly debated piece of legislation in what appears to be a shady underhanded way. Yup, thanks for handing them the election next fall. Oh, but wait! Hypocrisy abounds!
As Senator Orin Hatch put it in the Washington Post last week, reconciliation would be, “unprecedented in scope. And the havoc wrought would threaten our system of checks and balances, corrode the legislative process, [and] degrade our system of government.”
Oh, puuuuh-leeze! I wonder if he felt that way when he voted for the 2003 Bush tax cuts under reconciliation rules (by the way, V.P. Dick Cheney had to come in and cast his vote to break a 50-50 tie in that vote). In fact, of the 22 bills passed under reconciliation through 2008, 16 were passed under a Republican controlled Senate.
You know what else came about thanks to a reconciliation vote? The Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act, more fondly known as COBRA.
At the end of the day though, here is what’s most likely going to happen:
If you’ll remember, the Senate has already passed a healthcare bill. Remember the Night Before Christmas? Unfortunately, the House doesn’t like certain parts of the Senate bill and are likely to tweak it, undoing certain compromises that were made to pass the bill with 60 votes. In order to re-pass the bill through the Senate with those tweaks in place, they will probably have to use reconciliation rules. Ironically, this happens all the time. The difference here is that those tweaks will happen very quickly, in a matter of days rather than years.
But in reality, legislation is constantly being tweaked. A bill that you hear has passed one chamber of congress will, most likely, not be the bill that is ultimately enacted into law.
Sunday, February 28, 2010
So What Are You Doing on Friday?
After the now infamous demon sheep ad, the Republican candidates for U.S. Senate have agreed to a debate. Carly Fiorina, Tom Campbell, and Assemblyman Chuck DeVore are all running in the GOP primary to ultimately challenge Senator Barbara Boxer for her Senate seat. If Boxer wins in November, she will serve her fourth term (wow, at six year terms, a fourth term is… well... you can do the math).
The debate will be hosted by Eric Hogue of Sacramento’s KTKZ radio station. In Mr. Hogue’s blog (http://erichogue.townhall.com/blog) he discusses all three of the candidates. I have two favorites though. The first is his most recent blog entry “Campbell Sympathetic Toward Terrorists?” Apparently, in another move by Carly Fiorina to demonize (bah bah black sheep) Tom Campbell, her campaign manager commented that Campbell is clearly anti-Israel and insinuated that he is, in fact, a terrorist sympathizer.
As a former California Representative in the U.S. House, he voted several times to redirect money away from Israel and is accused of having personal relationships with two convicted Palestinian terrorist sympathizers. Yikes.
My other favorite blog entry of Eric’s sheds some light on why exactly Campbell switched races from being a Gubernatorial candidate to the Senate GOP primary race. In a word: abortion. As the only clearly pro-choice Republican candidate, many moderates believe that he is the only candidate with a chance against Boxer in November.
So if you have a chance, Friday at noon you should tune in and learn a little bit about these people who might very well be your next Senator. http://www.ktkz.com/
The debate will be hosted by Eric Hogue of Sacramento’s KTKZ radio station. In Mr. Hogue’s blog (http://erichogue.townhall.com/blog) he discusses all three of the candidates. I have two favorites though. The first is his most recent blog entry “Campbell Sympathetic Toward Terrorists?” Apparently, in another move by Carly Fiorina to demonize (bah bah black sheep) Tom Campbell, her campaign manager commented that Campbell is clearly anti-Israel and insinuated that he is, in fact, a terrorist sympathizer.
As a former California Representative in the U.S. House, he voted several times to redirect money away from Israel and is accused of having personal relationships with two convicted Palestinian terrorist sympathizers. Yikes.
My other favorite blog entry of Eric’s sheds some light on why exactly Campbell switched races from being a Gubernatorial candidate to the Senate GOP primary race. In a word: abortion. As the only clearly pro-choice Republican candidate, many moderates believe that he is the only candidate with a chance against Boxer in November.
So if you have a chance, Friday at noon you should tune in and learn a little bit about these people who might very well be your next Senator. http://www.ktkz.com/
Wednesday, February 24, 2010
The Healthcare Summit - Be There or Be Republican
Tomorrow President Obama is hosting the televised bipartisan summit on healthcare! You remember, the one that the Republicans were so nervous about?
Although on the eve of the summit (why do they call everything a “summit” these days, I mean this seems like more of a meeting and less of an overdramatic “summit”) it’s not the Republicans who are feeling uneasy. Basically, it would be a shame for the Democrats to come up empty handed on an issue that has taken up so much of our national conversation in the last year, especially in an election year. But the Dems aren’t even sure they can get enough votes on their own side of the aisle.
Obviously, if you’ve been paying attention at all in the last year, bipartisan solutions are… umm… unlikely seems like it might very well be the understatement of my life. Republicans are demanding that the work done thus far on healthcare be scrapped and that reform should start over from the beginning. (So that we can watch this all happen again until the Republicans are back in the majority in the Senate? I’m exhausted just thinking about it.)
Since the Dems clearly won’t be able to pass a healthcare bill under the traditional method where they need 60 votes to avoid a filibuster, they are considering passing the bill under the reconciliation process. I know, what the heck is the reconciliation process?! Apparently, there is an entirely different process for passing budget related bills which only requires a majority vote to pass a bill. It looks something like this: “The House and Senate pass the budget resolution in the spring of each year. It is a budget blueprint which Congress imposes on itself, and which establishes the rules that limit how much various committees can spend in the legislation they produce. A budget resolution can contain one (or in rare cases, up to three) reconciliation instruction(s). Reconciliation instructions create reconciliation bills.” I’m not sure who this guy is, but he gives a great and complete definition at http://keithhennessey.com/2009/08/05/what-is-reconciliation/.
So, for this reconciliation bill to pass at all the healthcare bill would first have to become a reconciliation bill. Then, the House Democrats would have to approve the Senate version of the bill. And then there’s the minor detail of the underlying shadiness of the whole thing. All I can say is that if the Dems want to go down that road in an election year, they better do a fantastic job of communicating what the heck they’re doing to the public and why it has to be that way.
If you’d like to watch the six hour summit it will be streaming live from http://www.foxnews.com/ and will re-air on CSPAN and CSPAN-2 after the House and Senate adjourn for the day.
Although on the eve of the summit (why do they call everything a “summit” these days, I mean this seems like more of a meeting and less of an overdramatic “summit”) it’s not the Republicans who are feeling uneasy. Basically, it would be a shame for the Democrats to come up empty handed on an issue that has taken up so much of our national conversation in the last year, especially in an election year. But the Dems aren’t even sure they can get enough votes on their own side of the aisle.
Obviously, if you’ve been paying attention at all in the last year, bipartisan solutions are… umm… unlikely seems like it might very well be the understatement of my life. Republicans are demanding that the work done thus far on healthcare be scrapped and that reform should start over from the beginning. (So that we can watch this all happen again until the Republicans are back in the majority in the Senate? I’m exhausted just thinking about it.)
Since the Dems clearly won’t be able to pass a healthcare bill under the traditional method where they need 60 votes to avoid a filibuster, they are considering passing the bill under the reconciliation process. I know, what the heck is the reconciliation process?! Apparently, there is an entirely different process for passing budget related bills which only requires a majority vote to pass a bill. It looks something like this: “The House and Senate pass the budget resolution in the spring of each year. It is a budget blueprint which Congress imposes on itself, and which establishes the rules that limit how much various committees can spend in the legislation they produce. A budget resolution can contain one (or in rare cases, up to three) reconciliation instruction(s). Reconciliation instructions create reconciliation bills.” I’m not sure who this guy is, but he gives a great and complete definition at http://keithhennessey.com/2009/08/05/what-is-reconciliation/.
So, for this reconciliation bill to pass at all the healthcare bill would first have to become a reconciliation bill. Then, the House Democrats would have to approve the Senate version of the bill. And then there’s the minor detail of the underlying shadiness of the whole thing. All I can say is that if the Dems want to go down that road in an election year, they better do a fantastic job of communicating what the heck they’re doing to the public and why it has to be that way.
If you’d like to watch the six hour summit it will be streaming live from http://www.foxnews.com/ and will re-air on CSPAN and CSPAN-2 after the House and Senate adjourn for the day.
Sunday, February 21, 2010
The Conservative Political Action Conference Lives Again!
This last weekend saw the annual Conservative Political Action Conference (more commonly known as CPAC) come and go. And boy was it exciting! Put on by the American Conservative Union, the conference hosts approximately 10,000 attendees and boasts speakers such as John Ashcroft, Newt Gingrich, Rep Ron Paul, John Bolton, Gov Tim Pawlenty, Mitt Romney, George Will, Ann Coulter, Liz Cheney, Tucker Carlson, and this year’s keynote speaker: Glenn Beck.
The mission of the conference? Well, after perusing the website, I’m not too sure, but if you can figure it out by all means please let me know: http://www.cpac.org/
Some of it sounds pretty scary, some of it sounds downright infuriating, but mostly it sounds like celebrities playing to the crowd. Listen to some of the speeches for yourself and let me know what you think (If you can handle a whole speech, I will be very impressed. I can only make it through about 45 seconds at a time.). Enjoy! (Or at least, please don’t cry.)
Glenn Beck - Part 1 of 6:
Ann Coulter:
Liz & Dick Cheney - Part 1 of 2:
Newt Gingrich - Part 1 of 3:
Ron Paul:
The mission of the conference? Well, after perusing the website, I’m not too sure, but if you can figure it out by all means please let me know: http://www.cpac.org/
Some of it sounds pretty scary, some of it sounds downright infuriating, but mostly it sounds like celebrities playing to the crowd. Listen to some of the speeches for yourself and let me know what you think (If you can handle a whole speech, I will be very impressed. I can only make it through about 45 seconds at a time.). Enjoy! (Or at least, please don’t cry.)
Glenn Beck - Part 1 of 6:
Ann Coulter:
Liz & Dick Cheney - Part 1 of 2:
Newt Gingrich - Part 1 of 3:
Ron Paul:
Wednesday, February 17, 2010
OOoooohh! Drah-mah in the Courtroom!
And the Proposition 8 drama continues! A little over a week ago, two San Francisco Chronicle writers did the (almost) unthinkable. They outed Judge Vaughn Walker, the U.S. District Judge who is currently hearing arguments in the Proposition 8 case. (To read the original article, go here: http://articles.sfgate.com/2010-02-07/bay-area/17848482_1_same-sex-marriage-sexual-orientation-judge-walker)
Now, I don’t know if you’re thinking what I’m thinking, but the phrase “conflict of interest” somehow leaps to mind. On the other hand, Judge Walker was appointed to his current position by President Bush Sr, implying that he is, by nature, conservative leaning. But again, if you’ll recall from my blog last month (because I know you hang on every word I’ve ever written!) gay marriage could actually be a conservative issue. Man, that sounds like a double whammy.
So with the news that’s new to all of us, will the judge remove himself from hearing the case? HA! Not surprisingly, anti-prop 8-ers claim that this is a non-issue and many cite a case he took as a private attorney on behalf of the U.S. Olympic Committee to keep San Francisco’s Gay Olympics from using the name. The U.S. Olympic Committee won the case and consequently, Judge Walker, “pissed off a lot of gay people” (http://sfist.com/2010/02/08/prop_8_trial_judge_is_gay_should_th.php)
As you might imagine, the other side of the courtroom has a lot to say about it:
''Walker's entire course of conduct has only one sensible explanation: that Walker is hellbent to use the case to advance the cause of same-sex marriage.'' - Ed Whelan, National Review’s The Corner
''At every turn he's displayed extreme bias in favor of his similarly situated homosexual activist plaintiffs.'' And ''This is no different than having an avid gun collector preside over a Second Amendment case.'' – Matt Barber, The Liberty Counsel (By the way, avid gun collectors DO occasionally preside over Second Amendment cases without any violation of the rules of judicial conduct.)
Walker is ''far more akin to an activist than a neutral referee.'' – Brian Brown, National Organization for Marriage.
I have to admit that I don’t know much about the rules of judicial conduct, but I do know that if I was for Proposition 8 and it was struck down by a gay judge, you better believe it would be the first (and maybe only) thing I would point to on appeal. And I would really hate to see a ruling as important as this one overturned by a higher court because of a technicality.
Now, I don’t know if you’re thinking what I’m thinking, but the phrase “conflict of interest” somehow leaps to mind. On the other hand, Judge Walker was appointed to his current position by President Bush Sr, implying that he is, by nature, conservative leaning. But again, if you’ll recall from my blog last month (because I know you hang on every word I’ve ever written!) gay marriage could actually be a conservative issue. Man, that sounds like a double whammy.
So with the news that’s new to all of us, will the judge remove himself from hearing the case? HA! Not surprisingly, anti-prop 8-ers claim that this is a non-issue and many cite a case he took as a private attorney on behalf of the U.S. Olympic Committee to keep San Francisco’s Gay Olympics from using the name. The U.S. Olympic Committee won the case and consequently, Judge Walker, “pissed off a lot of gay people” (http://sfist.com/2010/02/08/prop_8_trial_judge_is_gay_should_th.php)
As you might imagine, the other side of the courtroom has a lot to say about it:
''Walker's entire course of conduct has only one sensible explanation: that Walker is hellbent to use the case to advance the cause of same-sex marriage.'' - Ed Whelan, National Review’s The Corner
''At every turn he's displayed extreme bias in favor of his similarly situated homosexual activist plaintiffs.'' And ''This is no different than having an avid gun collector preside over a Second Amendment case.'' – Matt Barber, The Liberty Counsel (By the way, avid gun collectors DO occasionally preside over Second Amendment cases without any violation of the rules of judicial conduct.)
Walker is ''far more akin to an activist than a neutral referee.'' – Brian Brown, National Organization for Marriage.
I have to admit that I don’t know much about the rules of judicial conduct, but I do know that if I was for Proposition 8 and it was struck down by a gay judge, you better believe it would be the first (and maybe only) thing I would point to on appeal. And I would really hate to see a ruling as important as this one overturned by a higher court because of a technicality.
Saturday, February 13, 2010
Colorado Loves California, How Sweet (not really)
Everyone I talk to seems to be at least mildly aware that California is not the most business-friendly of states. And I’m not surprised, given our current state of budget imbalance, constant bickering, and general partisanship, that everyone knows this is a bad time to be a business in this state.
Other states, if they were smart, would definitely make a move to steal some of those businesses right out from under us. Well, last week Colorado finally got smart. Governor Bill Ritter declared last Friday to be, “Colorado loves California day!” Cute Bill, very cute. The announcement though was actually driven by the Metro Denver Economic Development Corp (MDEDC), and you can check out their Colorado loves California website right here: http://www.colovesca.com/
In an effort to take their message to the streets, 20 Colorado-ians dressed up as Cupid invaded downtown Los Angeles on Friday (wings and all) and handed out chocolates. (They call them “love ambassadors” at the MDEDC.) Here are some of the “auditions” (can we say so staged?) to become a cupid:
On a more serious note though, should California be seriously worried that business is going to start migrating elsewhere? Quite possibly. Joining Colorado’s campaign are several other states including Nevada and Arizona who claim that businesses have already reached out to them with questions about tax rates and other expenses.
Tina Sumner, an economic-development director from the city of Clovis even commented on meeting another economic-development official from Phoenix in a Sacramento Bee article last year, “One of the things that struck me was how enthusiastic he was about how easy the pickings were, for taking businesses from California and bringing them over to Arizona. He was kind of almost giddy.” (http://www.sacbee.com/business/story/1994615.html?mi_rss=Business) Yikes.
In fact, to make matters worse, non-profit organization The Tax Foundation ranked California in the bottom 5 (yea, we’re 47 out of 50) in their 2010 State Business Tax Climate Index (SBTCI). The index is based on five factors: corporate income tax rates, individual income tax rates, sales tax rates, property tax rates, and unemployment insurance tax rates (this last one is the one that really hit California where it hurts). To read more about the SBTCI check out their site: http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/25212.html.
Other states, if they were smart, would definitely make a move to steal some of those businesses right out from under us. Well, last week Colorado finally got smart. Governor Bill Ritter declared last Friday to be, “Colorado loves California day!” Cute Bill, very cute. The announcement though was actually driven by the Metro Denver Economic Development Corp (MDEDC), and you can check out their Colorado loves California website right here: http://www.colovesca.com/
In an effort to take their message to the streets, 20 Colorado-ians dressed up as Cupid invaded downtown Los Angeles on Friday (wings and all) and handed out chocolates. (They call them “love ambassadors” at the MDEDC.) Here are some of the “auditions” (can we say so staged?) to become a cupid:
On a more serious note though, should California be seriously worried that business is going to start migrating elsewhere? Quite possibly. Joining Colorado’s campaign are several other states including Nevada and Arizona who claim that businesses have already reached out to them with questions about tax rates and other expenses.
Tina Sumner, an economic-development director from the city of Clovis even commented on meeting another economic-development official from Phoenix in a Sacramento Bee article last year, “One of the things that struck me was how enthusiastic he was about how easy the pickings were, for taking businesses from California and bringing them over to Arizona. He was kind of almost giddy.” (http://www.sacbee.com/business/story/1994615.html?mi_rss=Business) Yikes.
In fact, to make matters worse, non-profit organization The Tax Foundation ranked California in the bottom 5 (yea, we’re 47 out of 50) in their 2010 State Business Tax Climate Index (SBTCI). The index is based on five factors: corporate income tax rates, individual income tax rates, sales tax rates, property tax rates, and unemployment insurance tax rates (this last one is the one that really hit California where it hurts). To read more about the SBTCI check out their site: http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/25212.html.
Wednesday, February 10, 2010
Resources and Re-education
Today I am giving you the opportunity to stop reading my blog. (Wow, did I really just say that?! I didn't mean it! I love that you read my blog!) What I'm really doing is giving you the opportunity to find out more about what you want to find out about.
http://www.opencongress.org/
Everything you need to know about the United States Congress in one place. As a joint project between two non-profit foundations, the site combines official government data (you know, all that legal mumbo-jumbo that only those crazy lawyers understand) with relevant Google news articles, and campaign contribution information from OpenSecrets. Which leads me to the next site you should definitely take a look at:
http://www.opensecrets.org/index.php
Their mission at OpenSecrets? "Inform, Empower & Advocate!" Let's face it, I'm all about empowerment so next time I need (or am just wildly curious for) information about campaign contributions or lobbying data, I'm definitely going there.
http://www.followthemoney.org/
Show me the money!! Need I say more? (But seriously, for the more graphically inclined this site is pretty neat.)
http://maplight.org/
Last, but certainly not least (drumroll please) maplight.org! The data compiled by this website actually lets you see the timeline of contributions (including who's doing the contributing) and votes for each bill, and will actually show when the legislator received large donations before or after the vote. Yes, that's right, you can actually see that shady business right up in your face!
Happy researching!
http://www.opencongress.org/
Everything you need to know about the United States Congress in one place. As a joint project between two non-profit foundations, the site combines official government data (you know, all that legal mumbo-jumbo that only those crazy lawyers understand) with relevant Google news articles, and campaign contribution information from OpenSecrets. Which leads me to the next site you should definitely take a look at:
http://www.opensecrets.org/index.php
Their mission at OpenSecrets? "Inform, Empower & Advocate!" Let's face it, I'm all about empowerment so next time I need (or am just wildly curious for) information about campaign contributions or lobbying data, I'm definitely going there.
http://www.followthemoney.org/
Show me the money!! Need I say more? (But seriously, for the more graphically inclined this site is pretty neat.)
http://maplight.org/
Last, but certainly not least (drumroll please) maplight.org! The data compiled by this website actually lets you see the timeline of contributions (including who's doing the contributing) and votes for each bill, and will actually show when the legislator received large donations before or after the vote. Yes, that's right, you can actually see that shady business right up in your face!
Happy researching!
Sunday, February 7, 2010
Demonizing Political Ads
Ok, so you’ve probably already seen it, but it’s so funny that it bears repeating (or replaying). Check out my new favorite political ad of all time:
What on earth were they thinking?! Well, according to Allan Hoffenblum, “I thought the spot was right on as far as its message.” Hmmm… I wonder what the message was supposed to be exactly. I didn’t learn much from it except that Carly Fiorina thinks that Tom Campbell is a FCINO/wolf with glowing red eyes dressed up like a sheep! (And perhaps that everyone in Fiorina’s campaign camp is on the same psychedelic pills.)
Coming through with an amazingly cheesy retort was Campbell himself, saying, "Carly Fiorina's campaign is in full Mutton Meltdown mode.” Ah geez!
So who exactly is responsible for my new favorite ad? Republican consultant Fred Davis III who is the former Chief Creative Consultant to 2008 Presidential Candidate John McCain. Ok, he has a much longer resume than that. You can check it out for yourself at his website: http://www.strategicperceptioninc.com/samples.php
I confess, I am surprised that someone who seems so legit would come up with something so extremely nuts. Although, to him, “if nobody sees it and nobody talks about it, you have wasted your money.” In that respect, since the official version hit over 450,000 views on Friday, the ad is a smashing success. Way to go Fred Davis III. In fact, the ad is so popular that there are already T-shirts. No joke, they are completely fantastic! http://www.zazzle.com/demonsheep_2010_tshirt-235821840421345343
I know, I’ll go away so you can watch it again. Enjoy!
Wednesday, February 3, 2010
Revisiting Campaign Finance Reform
After the Supreme Court decision on January 21st (see January 21st rant), Congress is in a tizzy! Ok, not all of Congress, more like the Democrats on the Senate Rules Committee (Dick Durbin, Russ Feingold, Chuck Schumer and John Kerry to be exact) are in a tizzy.
The plan? To attempt to limit election spending by government contractors (who have a direct monetary interest in who gets elected) and U.S. subsidiaries of foreign companies (I don’t really have to explain that one do I?). Under the old rules, U.S. subsidiaries could form Political Action Committees as long as they were funded solely by donations from U.S. employees and foreign nationals are not the ones deciding how to spend the money. The trick here, for all you accounting nerds out there, is what percentage a company must be foreign owned before regulations kick in?
Possibly the most interesting facet of the whole issue is Senator John McCain’s reaction to the Supreme Court’s ruling. McCain, who broke ranks with Republicans in 2002 to cosponsor the McCain-Feingold act (part of which was overturned in the Supreme Court ruling), will not back efforts to address the court’s ruling. Most fascinating.
Also fascinating is the fact that the media is already saying that the Senate Democrats will probably need 60 votes to get the legislation (that isn’t even written yet) passed. The only reason 60 votes would be necessary would be to avoid a Republican filibuster. After Scott Brown is sworn in tomorrow (dang that was fast), the Democrats will officially “control” (as if the Democrats could actually keep anything really under control) 59 seats.
The plan? To attempt to limit election spending by government contractors (who have a direct monetary interest in who gets elected) and U.S. subsidiaries of foreign companies (I don’t really have to explain that one do I?). Under the old rules, U.S. subsidiaries could form Political Action Committees as long as they were funded solely by donations from U.S. employees and foreign nationals are not the ones deciding how to spend the money. The trick here, for all you accounting nerds out there, is what percentage a company must be foreign owned before regulations kick in?
Possibly the most interesting facet of the whole issue is Senator John McCain’s reaction to the Supreme Court’s ruling. McCain, who broke ranks with Republicans in 2002 to cosponsor the McCain-Feingold act (part of which was overturned in the Supreme Court ruling), will not back efforts to address the court’s ruling. Most fascinating.
Also fascinating is the fact that the media is already saying that the Senate Democrats will probably need 60 votes to get the legislation (that isn’t even written yet) passed. The only reason 60 votes would be necessary would be to avoid a Republican filibuster. After Scott Brown is sworn in tomorrow (dang that was fast), the Democrats will officially “control” (as if the Democrats could actually keep anything really under control) 59 seats.
Sunday, January 31, 2010
And the Healthcare Debate is On... In California?
In the midst of the national debate on healthcare, the California State Senate passed Senate Bill 810 this week in the hopes of creating a single-payer healthcare system for California residents. The bill would basically allow for a public option while also allowing those with private insurance to continue that coverage.
If you’d like to read the bill in its entirety, knock yourself out: http://info.sen.ca.gov/pub/09-10/bill/sen/sb_0801-0850/sb_810_bill_20100113_amended_sen_v97.pdf
Not surprisingly, the vote went almost exactly down party lines with one Democrat from Santa Ana (the reddest part of the state) voting no on the bill. Ultimately though, even if the bill makes it through the state assembly and through the Governor’s desk (which is extremely unlikely given that he has vetoed similar legislation twice already), the citizens of California will have to vote it into law in an election.
I know what you’re thinking, if this is already being done at the national level why are we putting an extra burden on ourselves? Glad you asked! After last week’s special election in Massachusetts, supporters of healthcare reform don’t believe that any meaningful reform will come out of Washington and it is now up to the states to take up the cause. (Fun fact of the day: newly elected Scott Brown of Massachusetts actually voted FOR the universal health care bill in Massachusetts when he was in the state senate. Oh and by the way, so did then-Governor, now- Republican Senator Mitt Romney.)
California is certainly not the only state to take up the cause. We’re in good company with Massachusetts, Vermont, New Mexico, Maine, and Connecticut. (http://www.newrules.org/equity/rules/singlepayer-and-universal-health-care)
Alright Schwarzy, so what’s the big problem? Well, there is the small issue of the $200 billion price tag at a time when we can’t even get a balanced budget passed. On the other hand, according to the bill’s author, Mark Leno (D-San Francisco), we’re already spending $200 billion on healthcare and this bill is, “the same $200 billion used in a more efficient, cost-effective fashion."
I don’t have a hard time believing that we’re already spending that much on healthcare, but the fact that the bill includes $1 million to set up a commission to decide how to pay for the new system does not make me feel warm and fuzzy inside.
The one thing that everyone (except Republicans) seems to agree on: even if we don’t pass this legislation, it’s at least good that we’re having a debate and getting the information about healthcare (and its ginormous issues) out there.
If you’d like to read the bill in its entirety, knock yourself out: http://info.sen.ca.gov/pub/09-10/bill/sen/sb_0801-0850/sb_810_bill_20100113_amended_sen_v97.pdf
Not surprisingly, the vote went almost exactly down party lines with one Democrat from Santa Ana (the reddest part of the state) voting no on the bill. Ultimately though, even if the bill makes it through the state assembly and through the Governor’s desk (which is extremely unlikely given that he has vetoed similar legislation twice already), the citizens of California will have to vote it into law in an election.
I know what you’re thinking, if this is already being done at the national level why are we putting an extra burden on ourselves? Glad you asked! After last week’s special election in Massachusetts, supporters of healthcare reform don’t believe that any meaningful reform will come out of Washington and it is now up to the states to take up the cause. (Fun fact of the day: newly elected Scott Brown of Massachusetts actually voted FOR the universal health care bill in Massachusetts when he was in the state senate. Oh and by the way, so did then-Governor, now- Republican Senator Mitt Romney.)
California is certainly not the only state to take up the cause. We’re in good company with Massachusetts, Vermont, New Mexico, Maine, and Connecticut. (http://www.newrules.org/equity/rules/singlepayer-and-universal-health-care)
Alright Schwarzy, so what’s the big problem? Well, there is the small issue of the $200 billion price tag at a time when we can’t even get a balanced budget passed. On the other hand, according to the bill’s author, Mark Leno (D-San Francisco), we’re already spending $200 billion on healthcare and this bill is, “the same $200 billion used in a more efficient, cost-effective fashion."
I don’t have a hard time believing that we’re already spending that much on healthcare, but the fact that the bill includes $1 million to set up a commission to decide how to pay for the new system does not make me feel warm and fuzzy inside.
The one thing that everyone (except Republicans) seems to agree on: even if we don’t pass this legislation, it’s at least good that we’re having a debate and getting the information about healthcare (and its ginormous issues) out there.
Sunday, January 24, 2010
And The Gloves Can Come Off!
The California Governor’s race has gotten a shake up in the last few weeks as Tom Campbell dropped out, to make a run instead for Barbara Boxer’s Senate seat.
Folks, things are about to get ugly! (Isn’t it exciting?!)
As noted in a San Jose Mercury News article this week, “Before, Whitman and Poizner would have had to keep a lid on nastiness for fear the famously genteel Campbell would ‘slip through the middle’ as the public became repulsed by multimillion-dollar mudslinging.” (http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_14251951?source=most_viewed&nclick_check=1)
Now why does that scenario sound familiar? Not that long ago, in the 1998 race for the Governor’s seat, when we elected none other than recently ousted Former Governor Gray Davis. The poor man in the race, Davis eked by while airline mogul Al Checchi and Rep. Jane Harman from Southern California spent massive amounts of their personal wealth attacking each other.
Afraid of a historical repeat, Whitman and Poizner have, thus far, run a cordial race. However, with Campbell out of the running, the mitts can come off.
Whitman, worth an estimated $1.3 billion, has already donated $29 million to her own war chest while Poizner, who is refraining from disclosing his personal net worth, has only given himself $15 million. Not surprisingly, since he (or she) with the most money wins, Whitman is currently leading the Republican primary race 45 percent to Poizner’s 17 percent. I know, I can do math, 38 percent of voters are still undecided.
To see whether or not the candidate’s have any actual differences in their platforms, check out this cute little chart: http://www.mercurynews.com/portlet/article/html/imageDisplay.jsp?contentItemRelationshipId=2832973
Thursday, January 21, 2010
Citizens United v. FEC - an update
If you’ll recall (way back when, i.e. September) we talked about an interesting Supreme Court case Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. Well, the highest court in the land finally came to a decision, and not one that I am particularly fond of. I know, I’m not usually that blunt in my blog, but I have to admit, my hackles are up.
As a blogger, I like to think that I help to inform the electorate! Now, I have no illusions that my effect on the electorate is… well… itty bitty… and that’s if it actually exists at all. But this is my soap box, and I like that I have one (when I’m old I hope to have a real soap box and be crazy enough to actually stand on it on a street corner and yell at people – and not just about politics, but about anything… “Hey you, stop picking your nose! That’s disgusting!”).
Today though, my effect on the electorate (who, in reality, are my family and friends – thanks for reading my blog by the way!) went directly to zero. And it definitely did not pass go or collect $200.
The Supreme Court’s decision today overturned a decades old rule limiting direct spending of corporations on elections. Heard of political action committees (PACs)? Well, after today, they basically no longer exist. Previously, PACs acted as a middleman between corporations and candidates. Corporations had to set up a PAC, register it, solicit donations, and file separately with the IRS. Now, that accounting firewall and limits to how much a corporation can raise are out the window. Now, a corporation can dip into its own cash, and give it to whomever it wants or independently advertise on behalf of (or against) a candidate.
To summarize, corporations can spend unlimited amounts of money to influence the electorate, and I have my blog. As proud as I am of my blog, somehow that just seems way unfair. And while I’m not saying that my first amendment rights don’t still exist, clearly I still have the right to say whatever I want, clearly I can’t say anything as loudly or as often as a multi-million dollar corporation. So, to that end, I feel that I have to say, shame on you Supreme Court! How dare you make me, as a United States citizen, feel like I have less of a voice today than I had yesterday.
As a blogger, I like to think that I help to inform the electorate! Now, I have no illusions that my effect on the electorate is… well… itty bitty… and that’s if it actually exists at all. But this is my soap box, and I like that I have one (when I’m old I hope to have a real soap box and be crazy enough to actually stand on it on a street corner and yell at people – and not just about politics, but about anything… “Hey you, stop picking your nose! That’s disgusting!”).
Today though, my effect on the electorate (who, in reality, are my family and friends – thanks for reading my blog by the way!) went directly to zero. And it definitely did not pass go or collect $200.
The Supreme Court’s decision today overturned a decades old rule limiting direct spending of corporations on elections. Heard of political action committees (PACs)? Well, after today, they basically no longer exist. Previously, PACs acted as a middleman between corporations and candidates. Corporations had to set up a PAC, register it, solicit donations, and file separately with the IRS. Now, that accounting firewall and limits to how much a corporation can raise are out the window. Now, a corporation can dip into its own cash, and give it to whomever it wants or independently advertise on behalf of (or against) a candidate.
To summarize, corporations can spend unlimited amounts of money to influence the electorate, and I have my blog. As proud as I am of my blog, somehow that just seems way unfair. And while I’m not saying that my first amendment rights don’t still exist, clearly I still have the right to say whatever I want, clearly I can’t say anything as loudly or as often as a multi-million dollar corporation. So, to that end, I feel that I have to say, shame on you Supreme Court! How dare you make me, as a United States citizen, feel like I have less of a voice today than I had yesterday.
Wednesday, January 20, 2010
The Masses in Massachusetts
Last night in a special election to fill the late Ted Kennedy’s Massachusetts Senate seat, the voters elected Republican candidate Scott Brown. I know, I know, you’re like, who cares? They’re all the way across the country from me!
Oh, but you care. Believe me.
First the good news: Gone is the Democrats “supermajority”. Personally, I don’t think any party or any person should have a “supermajority”. Maybe that the balanced Libra in me, but I’m all about balance of power even within one of the branches of government.
Now the bad news: The Democrats actually needed that supermajority to bring the health care bill to a straight up and down vote on the Senate floor! I don’t care what party you’re from, you have to admit that it would be a shame for Congress to have spent so much time and effort on a health care reform bill only to have it filibustered (which I personally consider cheating) by the Republicans.
So what’s going to happen to health care now? Within hours of the election results, Democrats laid out a new approach that would still include major provisions such as 1. No longer allowing insurance companies to deny people coverage based on preexisting conditions, 2. Allowing young adults to stay on their parents insurance for a longer period, 3. Helping small businesses and low-income people pay premiums, and 4. Changing Medicare to encourage quality care rather than simply more care.
Clearly, as the president said in an interview with ABC, “We know that we have to have some form of cost containment because if we don't then our budgets are going to blow up.” (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_health_care_overhaul;_ylt=AlJcU4LrjA7SQ1dkWs3gYLKs0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTNuaWM5dWQ4BGFzc2V0A2FwLzIwMTAwMTIwL3VzX2hlYWx0aF9jYXJlX292ZXJoYXVsBGNjb2RlA21vc3Rwb3B1bGFyBGNwb3MDMQRwb3MDMwRwdANob21lX2Nva2UEc2VjA3luX3RvcF9zdG9yeQRzbGsDZnVsbG5ic3BzdG9y)
Just in Fiscal Year 2010, the Federal Government will spend more on Health Care than any other individual line item including education and defense. And, more importantly, health care costs are expected to increase by $0.1 Trillion every year for the next four years. http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/breakdown?year=2010
Granted, I don’t have the answers, but I can see that there’s a problem and I really hope that the Senate can find it within themselves (I’m not sure if their hearts have turned to stone yet) to actually come to a compromise and pass some sort of health care plan that will contain costs. Good luck!
Oh, but you care. Believe me.
First the good news: Gone is the Democrats “supermajority”. Personally, I don’t think any party or any person should have a “supermajority”. Maybe that the balanced Libra in me, but I’m all about balance of power even within one of the branches of government.
Now the bad news: The Democrats actually needed that supermajority to bring the health care bill to a straight up and down vote on the Senate floor! I don’t care what party you’re from, you have to admit that it would be a shame for Congress to have spent so much time and effort on a health care reform bill only to have it filibustered (which I personally consider cheating) by the Republicans.
So what’s going to happen to health care now? Within hours of the election results, Democrats laid out a new approach that would still include major provisions such as 1. No longer allowing insurance companies to deny people coverage based on preexisting conditions, 2. Allowing young adults to stay on their parents insurance for a longer period, 3. Helping small businesses and low-income people pay premiums, and 4. Changing Medicare to encourage quality care rather than simply more care.
Clearly, as the president said in an interview with ABC, “We know that we have to have some form of cost containment because if we don't then our budgets are going to blow up.” (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_health_care_overhaul;_ylt=AlJcU4LrjA7SQ1dkWs3gYLKs0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTNuaWM5dWQ4BGFzc2V0A2FwLzIwMTAwMTIwL3VzX2hlYWx0aF9jYXJlX292ZXJoYXVsBGNjb2RlA21vc3Rwb3B1bGFyBGNwb3MDMQRwb3MDMwRwdANob21lX2Nva2UEc2VjA3luX3RvcF9zdG9yeQRzbGsDZnVsbG5ic3BzdG9y)
Just in Fiscal Year 2010, the Federal Government will spend more on Health Care than any other individual line item including education and defense. And, more importantly, health care costs are expected to increase by $0.1 Trillion every year for the next four years. http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/breakdown?year=2010
Granted, I don’t have the answers, but I can see that there’s a problem and I really hope that the Senate can find it within themselves (I’m not sure if their hearts have turned to stone yet) to actually come to a compromise and pass some sort of health care plan that will contain costs. Good luck!
Sunday, January 17, 2010
Proposition 8 Goes to Court!
This week was an exciting week for gay and lesbian couples throughout California (although, let’s face it, it’s been an exciting last two years really). This week, a federal court judge in California started hearing arguments for and against upholding Proposition 8, passed by California voters in 2008.
The attorneys bringing suit, Ted Olson and David Boies, make a strange pair since after the 2000 election the two were on opposite sides of the aisle in Bush v. Gore, deciding who would run the United States for the next four years. But, as Olson (the conservative one of the group) reminds us, and as we all were reminded by Newsweek’s cover this week, (http://www.newsweek.com/id/229957) there is a very strong conservative case for gay marriage. I highly recommend reading the whole article, but if you don’t have time here’s the gist:
1. Marriage is a fundamental right of all Americans
2. Depriving gay and lesbian couples the right to marry causes serious emotional and mental harm
3. There’s no societal benefit to depriving gay and lesbian couples the right to marry
Sounds pretty solid to me. In fact, the way I understand conservative values, big government is a big, fat no-no. Most conservatives I know don’t want the government involved in their personal lives, especially not in their bedrooms. So it makes sense that the case against Proposition 8 would ultimately be a conservative argument. Strange, considering the Republican party’s stance on gay marriage (for their official stance go to their website: http://www.gop.com/2008Platform/Values.htm). I confess, I sincerely hope that the irony of “Ensuring Equal Treatment for All” listed only four bullet points above “Preserving Traditional Marriage” is not lost on anyone.
Unfortunately, the judge ruled against showing the trial on television so there are no YouTube clips available (otherwise you would be inundated with them right about now), but there is plenty of information out there if you’d like to find out more about the case. At last count there were over 5,000 articles for your perusal. Happy reading!
The attorneys bringing suit, Ted Olson and David Boies, make a strange pair since after the 2000 election the two were on opposite sides of the aisle in Bush v. Gore, deciding who would run the United States for the next four years. But, as Olson (the conservative one of the group) reminds us, and as we all were reminded by Newsweek’s cover this week, (http://www.newsweek.com/id/229957) there is a very strong conservative case for gay marriage. I highly recommend reading the whole article, but if you don’t have time here’s the gist:
1. Marriage is a fundamental right of all Americans
2. Depriving gay and lesbian couples the right to marry causes serious emotional and mental harm
3. There’s no societal benefit to depriving gay and lesbian couples the right to marry
Sounds pretty solid to me. In fact, the way I understand conservative values, big government is a big, fat no-no. Most conservatives I know don’t want the government involved in their personal lives, especially not in their bedrooms. So it makes sense that the case against Proposition 8 would ultimately be a conservative argument. Strange, considering the Republican party’s stance on gay marriage (for their official stance go to their website: http://www.gop.com/2008Platform/Values.htm). I confess, I sincerely hope that the irony of “Ensuring Equal Treatment for All” listed only four bullet points above “Preserving Traditional Marriage” is not lost on anyone.
Unfortunately, the judge ruled against showing the trial on television so there are no YouTube clips available (otherwise you would be inundated with them right about now), but there is plenty of information out there if you’d like to find out more about the case. At last count there were over 5,000 articles for your perusal. Happy reading!
Sunday, January 10, 2010
A Sad State of the State
Last Friday in Gov Schwarzenegger’s annual State of the State address, he unveiled his budget plan for the upcoming fiscal year. If you’d like to watch it, check it out here: http://gov.ca.gov/ And let me tell you, you’re in for a laugh!
In a bold (and honestly not-too-bright) move on his part, Schwarzenegger has written additional federal funding (that we can’t and shouldn’t count on) into the 2010-11 budget. How much would the plug be for? Oh, only about $6.9 billion. In an interview this morning with David Gregory on Meet the Press, Gov Schwarzenegger stated that for every dollar that California sends to Washington DC, we only get about $0.78 back. This would be grim indeed, if it were an updated figure. However, since California is receiving so much more than other states under the Federal Stimulus packages, the current amount is closer to $1.45.
Don’t get me wrong, the state of California certainly has some unfair disadvantages compared to the rest of the country. For example, immigration. We only received about $96 million from the Federal government to incarcerate illegal immigrants convicted of felonies (these prisoners account for approximately 10% of inmates and cost around $973 million every year).
But, I think our current Governator might be going about this the wrong way. In his interview with Gregory, Schwarzenegger said, “We also will inspire and push extra hard the California congressional delegation, the bipartisan delegation, because they’re not …. representing us really well in this case.” If he thought that writing extra Federal funds into the budget was going to be “inspiring”, well… here are some of the actual comments that his statement inspired:
“[Schwarzenegger] sounds like he’s trying to avoid responsibility. He’s the governor. We’re not. There has been a financial storm brewing in California for years. They haven’t dealt with it." - Rep. Zoe Lofgren of San Jose, head of the California Democratic delegation in Congress.
“What I don’t think is helpful is it’s the federal government against the state government. We’re representing the same people here.” - Sen. Barbara Boxer.
“The federal government is not responsible for the state of California's budget, and we look forward to hearing a sustainable plan for the state to get its house in order.” - Drew Hammill, spokesman for Rep. Nancy Pelosi of San Francisco, Speaker of the House.
Hmm, good luck with getting the dough from those guys Schwarzenegger.
At the end of the day though, all the finger pointing is pretty useless (although it is what makes for entertaining politics!) since the chances that the California legislature will actually pass this particular budget are slim to zero. So never fear everyone, there is plenty more budget madness to go around!
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/09/AR2010010902207.html?wprss=rss_politics
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/nov05election/detail?blogid=14&entry_id=54968
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2010/01/governor-says-california-doesnt-get-its-fair-share-of-federal-money.html
In a bold (and honestly not-too-bright) move on his part, Schwarzenegger has written additional federal funding (that we can’t and shouldn’t count on) into the 2010-11 budget. How much would the plug be for? Oh, only about $6.9 billion. In an interview this morning with David Gregory on Meet the Press, Gov Schwarzenegger stated that for every dollar that California sends to Washington DC, we only get about $0.78 back. This would be grim indeed, if it were an updated figure. However, since California is receiving so much more than other states under the Federal Stimulus packages, the current amount is closer to $1.45.
Don’t get me wrong, the state of California certainly has some unfair disadvantages compared to the rest of the country. For example, immigration. We only received about $96 million from the Federal government to incarcerate illegal immigrants convicted of felonies (these prisoners account for approximately 10% of inmates and cost around $973 million every year).
But, I think our current Governator might be going about this the wrong way. In his interview with Gregory, Schwarzenegger said, “We also will inspire and push extra hard the California congressional delegation, the bipartisan delegation, because they’re not …. representing us really well in this case.” If he thought that writing extra Federal funds into the budget was going to be “inspiring”, well… here are some of the actual comments that his statement inspired:
“[Schwarzenegger] sounds like he’s trying to avoid responsibility. He’s the governor. We’re not. There has been a financial storm brewing in California for years. They haven’t dealt with it." - Rep. Zoe Lofgren of San Jose, head of the California Democratic delegation in Congress.
“What I don’t think is helpful is it’s the federal government against the state government. We’re representing the same people here.” - Sen. Barbara Boxer.
“The federal government is not responsible for the state of California's budget, and we look forward to hearing a sustainable plan for the state to get its house in order.” - Drew Hammill, spokesman for Rep. Nancy Pelosi of San Francisco, Speaker of the House.
Hmm, good luck with getting the dough from those guys Schwarzenegger.
At the end of the day though, all the finger pointing is pretty useless (although it is what makes for entertaining politics!) since the chances that the California legislature will actually pass this particular budget are slim to zero. So never fear everyone, there is plenty more budget madness to go around!
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/09/AR2010010902207.html?wprss=rss_politics
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/nov05election/detail?blogid=14&entry_id=54968
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2010/01/governor-says-california-doesnt-get-its-fair-share-of-federal-money.html
Wednesday, January 6, 2010
Midterm Elections Wreaking Havoc Already
2010 is officially in full swing and already full of midterm election drama! With two democratic Senators announcing today that they would not be seeking reelection in the fall, the pundits are out in full force attempting to predict which party will lose seats and which party will gain.
Please don’t be confused by all the hypotheses, let me tell you right now: the Democrats will lose more seats than the Republicans. Why am I so confident?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1738236/posts
Historically speaking, every single President since Lincoln (with four notable exceptions – the Roosevelts, Clinton, and Bush 43 after 9/11) has lost seats in the midterm election. Don’t think that the Democrats losing seats is some sort of mandate for someone or that it should give Congress a bigger message. It’s simply probability.
What will be interesting to see is exactly how many seats the Democrats lose. Voters hate overspending, so the question is: How much spending in the last two years will voters think really mattered? (Oh, and hopefully they can get their timing straight too with the bailouts that passed in the 11th hour of 2008 BEFORE this Congress took over.)
The chances that the Democrats will lose control of either Congressional house is slim. Republicans would have to pick up 40 seats in the House and 11 seats in the Senate to reclaim control. I know that doesn’t sound like a lot, but current projections (from those pesky pundits I just warned you about) show that in a regular midterm election Democrats would lose between 10-15 seats total because of the way voter turnout falls in midterm elections. Of course, throw in the “great recession” and the numbers jump to between 20-30 seats total. Now I’m no math whiz (ok, that’s a lie, I actually kind of <3 math), but I’m pretty sure that’s not enough to regain control over both branches of Congress! Oh, and in case you were wondering, the historical average loss of seats for the President’s party is 3 Senate seats and 34 seats in the House.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0110/31209.html
So who were these two Senators announcing their lack of reelection plans? Senator Chris Dodd (D-CT), and Senator Byron Dorgan (D-ND). Way to cause some serious commotion guys. No candidates have officially come forward yet in either state to run for the newly vacant seat, but no to worry, I’ll keep you posted!
Please don’t be confused by all the hypotheses, let me tell you right now: the Democrats will lose more seats than the Republicans. Why am I so confident?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1738236/posts
Historically speaking, every single President since Lincoln (with four notable exceptions – the Roosevelts, Clinton, and Bush 43 after 9/11) has lost seats in the midterm election. Don’t think that the Democrats losing seats is some sort of mandate for someone or that it should give Congress a bigger message. It’s simply probability.
What will be interesting to see is exactly how many seats the Democrats lose. Voters hate overspending, so the question is: How much spending in the last two years will voters think really mattered? (Oh, and hopefully they can get their timing straight too with the bailouts that passed in the 11th hour of 2008 BEFORE this Congress took over.)
The chances that the Democrats will lose control of either Congressional house is slim. Republicans would have to pick up 40 seats in the House and 11 seats in the Senate to reclaim control. I know that doesn’t sound like a lot, but current projections (from those pesky pundits I just warned you about) show that in a regular midterm election Democrats would lose between 10-15 seats total because of the way voter turnout falls in midterm elections. Of course, throw in the “great recession” and the numbers jump to between 20-30 seats total. Now I’m no math whiz (ok, that’s a lie, I actually kind of <3 math), but I’m pretty sure that’s not enough to regain control over both branches of Congress! Oh, and in case you were wondering, the historical average loss of seats for the President’s party is 3 Senate seats and 34 seats in the House.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0110/31209.html
So who were these two Senators announcing their lack of reelection plans? Senator Chris Dodd (D-CT), and Senator Byron Dorgan (D-ND). Way to cause some serious commotion guys. No candidates have officially come forward yet in either state to run for the newly vacant seat, but no to worry, I’ll keep you posted!
Sunday, January 3, 2010
A New Year and New Laws
Happy 2010 everyone! To usher in the New Year and celebrate the 696 bills signed into California law last year (fewer than any year in recent history, but still an outrageous amount) here are some of the laws that went into effect on January 1, 2010 (in alphabetical order).
Air safety: Allows airports to kill birds that pose a danger to aircraft without violating state fish and game laws.
Blueberries: Creates a California Blueberry Commission, to be funded by an industry fee of up to $0.025 per pound of berries sold.
Burial fees: Allows state-owned cemeteries to waive the fees for interment of the spouses and children of honorably discharged veterans if they determine the families cannot pay the costs.
Charter schools: Allows such schools access to about $900 million in voter-approved bond money for construction. A separate law gives districts more incentive to approve them by cutting red tape.
College violence: Allows universities to obtain restraining orders on behalf of students against a person who has threatened them with violence.
Cow tails: Bans the dairy-industry practice of shortening cows' tails unless necessary to protect the health of the animals. Some argue that tail-docking is inhumane.
Delta restoration: Creates a new Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Conservancy to oversee restoration of the failing delta ecosystem. Sets goals of "providing a more reliable water supply for California and protecting, restoring, and enhancing the delta ecosystem." Part of the larger water package.
Dog fights: Raises the maximum penalties against those convicted of being spectators at dogfights, subjecting them to as much as a year in jail and a $5,000 fine.
Drunk driving: Creates a test program in four counties, including Los Angeles County, in which judges can require that first-time drunk-driving offenders install a breath-testing device on every vehicle they own and pass a test on it before the vehicle will start.
Education: Allows school and student performance data to be used to judge the quality of instruction. The change will allow California to compete for federal Race to the Top education grants.
Fat in food: Requires restaurants to use oils, margarine and shortening with less than half a gram of trans fat per serving of regular foods. The standard will apply to deep-fried bakery goods next year. Trans fat has been linked to heart disease.
Football stadium: Exempts a professional football stadium proposed in the City of Industry from state environmental laws, so it can proceed despite a lawsuit filed by opponents.
Fire prevention: Requires government officials to improve guidelines for protecting property from wildfires, including larger brush-clearance zones and better access roads in regions vulnerable to such fires.
Fire safety: In response to evacuation problems during a 2008 wildfire that destroyed dozens of mobile homes in the San Fernando Valley, a new law requires owners of mobile home parks to adopt and post notice of an emergency preparedness plan.
Gangs: Allows tougher penalties, including a fine of up to $1,000 and up to a year in jail, for gang members who return to school campuses within 72 hours of being asked to leave.
Gasoline: Increases the underground storage fee paid by gas retailers to help fund grants and loans to those who need to meet tank cleanup rules and install devices that capture more vapor from gas nozzles.
Gay marriage: Recognizes same-sex marriages performed in other states before California voters banned gay marriage in 2008 by approving Proposition 8.
Hanging nooses: Makes it a misdemeanor to hang a noose, "knowing it to be a symbol representing a threat to life," in order to terrorize a person who lives, works or attends school at the property where the noose is hung. The law is in response to a series of incidents at California colleges.
Harvey Milk: Proclaims gay-rights activist Harvey Milk's May 22 birthday as a day of recognition and encourages schools to consider commemorating his life.
High-speed rail: Requires the state's High-Speed Rail Authority to prepare, publish and adopt a business plan by Jan. 1, 2012, and every two years thereafter, so the public knows how its money is being spent.
Hospital fee: Imposes a new fee on hospitals to make them eligible for $2 billion in federal funds. The funds are subsidies for Medi-Cal, the state's health insurance program for the poor.
Human trafficking: Quadruples the fine, to $20,000, for those convicted of human-trafficking crimes and allows law enforcement officers to seize traffickers' assets.
Inhalants: Makes it a misdemeanor for a person to sell or furnish products containing nitrous oxide to a minor.
Jail guards: Allows jail guards and custodial assistants to have the blood of people taken into custody tested for specified communicable diseases when exposed to the suspect's bodily fluids.
Liquor ads: Waives rules prohibiting indoor alcohol advertisements in one club that sells the featured products: Club Nokia, a downtown Los Angeles venue owned by billionaire Philip Anschutz.
Mammogram safety: Requires facilities that operate mammogram machines to post any notices of "serious violations" they may receive in an area visible to patients. Serious violations are those posing a significant threat to public health.
Mortgage crimes: Creates a new offense, "mortgage fraud," punishable by up to a year in prison. Such crimes are defined as those in which someone makes "any misstatement, misrepresentation or omission during the mortgage lending process with the intention that it be relied on by a mortgage lender, borrower, or any other party to the mortgage lending process."
Office bets: Changes the penalty for participation in a non-commercial or office "sports betting pool" from a misdemeanor, punishable by fines up to $1,000, to an infraction, punishable by a fine not to exceed $250.
Paparazzi penalties: Allows celebrities and others to sue for up to $50,000 when someone takes and sells their pictures without permission while they are engaging in "personal or familial activity," such as taking their children to school.
Plastic surgery: Enacts the Donda West law, named after the deceased mother of rapper Kanye West, that prohibits elective cosmetic surgery unless the patient is first cleared by a physical examination.
Political spouses: Prohibits political candidates from paying their spouses or domestic partners to work on their campaigns to enrich their own households.
Prostitution arrests: Allows local government agencies to impound vehicles used in the commission of prostitution-related crimes.
Rental cars: Allows car-rental companies to recover from customers an increase made last year in the vehicle license fee from 0.65% to 1.15%.
School books: Expands the use of digital textbooks in public schools by allowing districts to use textbook money to buy electronic viewing devices.
School buses: Extends to school buses the $300 penalty already applicable to commercial vehicles that idle too long. Existing clean-air regulations prohibit school buses from idling for more than five minutes within 100 feet of a school, but the fine has been $100.
School safety: Makes it a misdemeanor to possess a razor blade or box cutter on school grounds.
Talent agents: Prohibits talent representatives from charging advance fees.
Teen voting: Permits a California resident who is 17 to pre-register to vote.
Snake food: Requires pet stores to use specific, "humane" methods for killing rodents before they are used as food for another animal.
Toll roads: Allows toll road operators to use license-plate-reading technology to bill motorists who use their roads.
Used car sales: Bars car dealers from selling a used vehicle until action is taken to cover any previous loan or lease obligations held by a previous owner. Also boosts by $25 fees for dealers' state business licenses.
Vietnam veterans: Establishes an annual Welcome Home Vietnam Veterans Day on March 30.
Water management: To better manage California's water supplies, creates a statewide monitoring program to track groundwater levels.
Water softeners: Allows local governments to ban residential water softeners if regulators find that salts discharged into municipal sewer lines pose a pollution problem.
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-new-laws1-2010jan01,0,3437892,full.story
To sum it up, 1/1/10 was a good day to be a dog and a cow, but a bad day to be a bird near an airport. Even though gay marriage remains illegal under the California constitution, those previously married in same-sex ceremonies will continue to be recognized as legally married under the law and May 22nd is now considered a holiday in recognition of Harvey Milk. It was a good day to be Jennifer Aniston and Kayne West, but a bad day to be a talent agent. For the rest of us, don’t text while you’re driving and don’t be surprised if fast food doesn’t taste quite the same. Happy New Year!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
