Senator Patty Murray of Washington debuted the Democratic budget today. The most notable thing about the budget, particularly in comparison to the Republican offering, is its modesty. The Murray budget would reduce the deficit by $2 trillion over the next ten years. That number needs to be qualified with the fact that the budget replaces the sequester's spending cuts (approximately $1.2 trillion) with alternate spending cuts and tax increases. Thus, depending on one's accounting it reduces the deficit by either $1 trillion or $2 trillion.
Half the savings come from tax increases. The budget fails to specify which deductions would be capped or eliminated, but the best bet is that it would entail some type of cap on the amount of deductions wealthy taxpayers could claim. This would be similar to one of Mitt Romney's many tax proposals from the 2012 campaign. The other half comes from various spending cuts-$275 billion in healthcare cuts (most likely provider-side cuts to Medicare), $218 billion in other domestic cuts, $240 billion in defense cuts, and $242 billion in reduced interest payments. Also, like all good Democratic budgets, it starts by spending more money. $100 billion would be spent on infrastructure projects and job retraining programs.
The main thing that stands out about the budget is how modest it is. A modest tax increase and modest spending cuts to go along with a small stimulus package. Comparatively, the Republican budget repeals Obamacare, voucherizes Medicare, block-grants Medicaid, and cuts nearly $1 trillion from anti-poverty programs. In addition, it completely restructures the tax code, reducing it to only two brackets and dropping the top rate to 25%. This speaks to where we are in American politics at the moment: Democrats have achieved most of their major policy goals and now seek to protect them. Republicans want to undo the Democrats achievements and restructure the budget. In the end, the compromise budget will look much more like the Democratic budget than the GOP budget-simply because the status quo is always the best bet in American politics.
Wednesday, March 13, 2013
The Radical, Gingrichean "Conservatism" of Paul Ryan's Budget
Paul Ryan rolled out the Republican budget proposal yesterday. The document will look familiar to anyone who has seen his previous budgets: nothing has really changed from the previous proposals. Like all GOP deficit reduction proposals, it starts with a large tax cut. Ryan's plan would reduce the top tax rate, which currently stands at 39.6%, down to 25%. As always, Ryan says that he would make up the lost revenue by eliminating unspecified loopholes in the tax code. Non-partisan analyses have shown that cutting the top rate by such a large amount would require eliminating nearly every major deduction in the tax code.
The Ryan budget repeals Obamacare, which nets $1.8 trillion in savings. Medicaid would be block-granted to the states, with substantial reductions in federal funding. This would also be the case for food stamps, Temporary Aid to Needy Families, and every other program for the poor. The Ryan budget would cut close to $1 trillion from so-called "mandatory" spending, which primarily encompasses anti-poverty programs. There would be modest cuts to Medicare and non-defense discretionary spending. Social Security and defense spending would be unchanged.
After ten years, Medicare would be converted into a voucher program and funding would rise substantially slower than healthcare costs are projected to rise. This has the effect of significantly increasing out-of-pocket costs to seniors on the program.
This is all to say that the budget changes almost everything. Numerous programs would be totally altered and have their funding slashed. The tax code would be totally scrapped and reformed. It is true that if Ryan's assumptions are to be believe this budget would substantially reduce the deficit in the ten-year window. But that isn't the true point of the budget. The real point is to completely change the welfare state and tax code, with deficit reduction being a side-effect. The budget is conservative in the modern American sense of the word in the sense that it shrinks the size of government. But it's not even remotely conservative in the traditional, Burkean sense. It dramatically alters existing institutions to meet ideological goals. That's Newt Gingrich conservatism, where everything has to be a profound, fundamental alteration.
Why are sweeping changes necessary? America is the richest country in the world and has one of the highest living standards. While our long-term budget outlook is gloomy, those are merely projections for decades in the future. In the present, America does not face difficult in borrowing. In fact, interest rates are so low that it seems as if our creditors wish we would borrow more. The unemployment rate is high, but this is not caused by budget deficits. It is caused by insufficient aggregate demand, a result of the financial crisis of 2008. The answer to the "why" question is simple: ideology. No matter what economic or budgetary situation we were in, Ryan would be proposing the same solutions. When America had a surplus under Bill Clinton, Ryan proposed privatizing Medicare and Social Security while slashing taxes on the rich. When America had a modest deficit under George W. Bush, Ryan had the same proposals. And now that America is facing large deficits under Barack Obama, Ryan once more has the exact same proposal. No matter what the question, Paul Ryan's answer is always the same.
The Ryan budget repeals Obamacare, which nets $1.8 trillion in savings. Medicaid would be block-granted to the states, with substantial reductions in federal funding. This would also be the case for food stamps, Temporary Aid to Needy Families, and every other program for the poor. The Ryan budget would cut close to $1 trillion from so-called "mandatory" spending, which primarily encompasses anti-poverty programs. There would be modest cuts to Medicare and non-defense discretionary spending. Social Security and defense spending would be unchanged.
After ten years, Medicare would be converted into a voucher program and funding would rise substantially slower than healthcare costs are projected to rise. This has the effect of significantly increasing out-of-pocket costs to seniors on the program.
This is all to say that the budget changes almost everything. Numerous programs would be totally altered and have their funding slashed. The tax code would be totally scrapped and reformed. It is true that if Ryan's assumptions are to be believe this budget would substantially reduce the deficit in the ten-year window. But that isn't the true point of the budget. The real point is to completely change the welfare state and tax code, with deficit reduction being a side-effect. The budget is conservative in the modern American sense of the word in the sense that it shrinks the size of government. But it's not even remotely conservative in the traditional, Burkean sense. It dramatically alters existing institutions to meet ideological goals. That's Newt Gingrich conservatism, where everything has to be a profound, fundamental alteration.
Why are sweeping changes necessary? America is the richest country in the world and has one of the highest living standards. While our long-term budget outlook is gloomy, those are merely projections for decades in the future. In the present, America does not face difficult in borrowing. In fact, interest rates are so low that it seems as if our creditors wish we would borrow more. The unemployment rate is high, but this is not caused by budget deficits. It is caused by insufficient aggregate demand, a result of the financial crisis of 2008. The answer to the "why" question is simple: ideology. No matter what economic or budgetary situation we were in, Ryan would be proposing the same solutions. When America had a surplus under Bill Clinton, Ryan proposed privatizing Medicare and Social Security while slashing taxes on the rich. When America had a modest deficit under George W. Bush, Ryan had the same proposals. And now that America is facing large deficits under Barack Obama, Ryan once more has the exact same proposal. No matter what the question, Paul Ryan's answer is always the same.
Tuesday, March 12, 2013
Previewing the 2013 Papal Conclave
Today marks the beginning the Conclave to select a new pope. 115 cardinals from around the world have convened at the Vatican, where they will meet in seclusion for as long as it takes to select a new pope. Let's go over the rules and politics surrounding the process:
Rules
-115 electors. Must be under the age of 80, are replaced by the sitting pope when they cross the age threshold.
-2/3 majority required to select a new pope. Voting will continue for as many ballots as necessary until a pope is selected. Generally four votes are taken per day: Two in the morning and two in the evening.
-Any baptized Catholic male can be elected pope. In practice, no non-priest has been elected pope since 1521.
Fun Facts
-The longest Papal election lasted nearly three years, from November 1268 to September 1271.
-Prior to the institution of the waiting period many popes were elected the same day as the death of their predecessor.
-The youngest known pope was Pope John XII, who was 18 at the time of his election in 955. The oldest elected popes were Pope Celestine III (elected 1191) and Celestine V (elected 1294). Both were 85 at the time of election.
The Electors
-60 Europeans (28 Italians)
-19 Latin Americans
-14 North Americans (11 Americans)
-11 Africans
-9 Asians
-1 Australian
-67 were appointed by Pope Benedict, 48 by Pope John Paul II.
What the major issues facing the church are depend on who is asked. Among the more conservative, European electors the answer would likely be the decline of Catholicism in Europe and decline of traditional "morality" throughout the western world. Reformers would point to the priest rape scandal and lack of transparency in the church's finances. Asian, African, and Latin American members of the church tend to place a greater emphasis on poverty, economic and social "justice," and debt forgiveness for third-world countries. Given that the majority of electors are of European or North American origin, it's fair to say that their top issues will be prioritized when selecting a pope.
Word from well-places sources indicates that two major coalitions have emerged: the Curia, which primarily consists of the European Vatican bureaucracy and favors the status quo, and a reformist group led by American cardinals who seek to shake things up. In an institution as old and traditional as the church, it's always a good bet to bet against anything being shaken up.
My Take
The European domination of the electorate makes it very likely that a European pope will be elected. The Italian domination of the European bloc in conjunction with the large number of Italians among the candidates make it likely that the pope will be Italian. Anyone hoping for a liberalization of church doctrine will be disappointed, the electorate is overwhelmingly old, white, and conservative. They will produce a nominee in their own image.
Rules
-115 electors. Must be under the age of 80, are replaced by the sitting pope when they cross the age threshold.
-2/3 majority required to select a new pope. Voting will continue for as many ballots as necessary until a pope is selected. Generally four votes are taken per day: Two in the morning and two in the evening.
-Any baptized Catholic male can be elected pope. In practice, no non-priest has been elected pope since 1521.
Fun Facts
-The longest Papal election lasted nearly three years, from November 1268 to September 1271.
-Prior to the institution of the waiting period many popes were elected the same day as the death of their predecessor.
-The youngest known pope was Pope John XII, who was 18 at the time of his election in 955. The oldest elected popes were Pope Celestine III (elected 1191) and Celestine V (elected 1294). Both were 85 at the time of election.
The Electors
-60 Europeans (28 Italians)
-19 Latin Americans
-14 North Americans (11 Americans)
-11 Africans
-9 Asians
-1 Australian
-67 were appointed by Pope Benedict, 48 by Pope John Paul II.
The Odds
Oddschecker.com gives the following odds:
Angelo Scola (Italy)-23%
Peter Turkson (Ghana)-22%
Tarcisio Bartone (Italy)-16%
Marc Ouellet (Canada)-12%
Angelo Bagnasco (Italy)-10%
Gianfranco Ravasi (Italy)-8%
Leonardo Sandri (Argentina)-7%
Peter Erdo (Hungary)-6%
Christoph von Schonborn (Austria)-6%
Oscar Maradiaga (Honduras)-5%
Francis Arinze (Nigeria)-5%
Sean O'Malley (USA)-4%
Luis Tagle (Philippines)-4%
Jorge Bergoglio (Argentina)-4%
The Issues
Oddschecker.com gives the following odds:
Angelo Scola (Italy)-23%
Peter Turkson (Ghana)-22%
Tarcisio Bartone (Italy)-16%
Marc Ouellet (Canada)-12%
Angelo Bagnasco (Italy)-10%
Gianfranco Ravasi (Italy)-8%
Leonardo Sandri (Argentina)-7%
Peter Erdo (Hungary)-6%
Christoph von Schonborn (Austria)-6%
Oscar Maradiaga (Honduras)-5%
Francis Arinze (Nigeria)-5%
Sean O'Malley (USA)-4%
Luis Tagle (Philippines)-4%
Jorge Bergoglio (Argentina)-4%
The Issues
What the major issues facing the church are depend on who is asked. Among the more conservative, European electors the answer would likely be the decline of Catholicism in Europe and decline of traditional "morality" throughout the western world. Reformers would point to the priest rape scandal and lack of transparency in the church's finances. Asian, African, and Latin American members of the church tend to place a greater emphasis on poverty, economic and social "justice," and debt forgiveness for third-world countries. Given that the majority of electors are of European or North American origin, it's fair to say that their top issues will be prioritized when selecting a pope.
Word from well-places sources indicates that two major coalitions have emerged: the Curia, which primarily consists of the European Vatican bureaucracy and favors the status quo, and a reformist group led by American cardinals who seek to shake things up. In an institution as old and traditional as the church, it's always a good bet to bet against anything being shaken up.
My Take
The European domination of the electorate makes it very likely that a European pope will be elected. The Italian domination of the European bloc in conjunction with the large number of Italians among the candidates make it likely that the pope will be Italian. Anyone hoping for a liberalization of church doctrine will be disappointed, the electorate is overwhelmingly old, white, and conservative. They will produce a nominee in their own image.
Monday, March 11, 2013
The GOP's Startling Medicare Hypocrisy
Paul Ryan revealed over the weekend that his budget will contain the Medicare cuts passed as part of the Affordable Care Act. This is a truly staggering display of hypocrisy after the Romney/Ryan ticket and Republicans as a whole ran in 2010 and 2012 attack Democrats for cutting Medicare. To refresh your memory, here's an ad from the Romney campaign:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XbCsRsMUA5Y
Got that? Obama cuts Medicare. Which is a bad thing. Romney and Ryan ran on undoing the Medicare cuts in Obamacare. So did the vast majority of Republicans running for Congress and Senate. Here's one from Richard Murdock, who had previously questioned the constitutionality of Social Security and Medicare.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VmjZIPHNCRY
Once again, clear message: cutting Medicare is bad. If Republicans run in election on cutting Medicare, shouldn't they oppose cutting Medicare when they govern? It's hard to think of a real precedent for this in American political history. Politicians break promises, but this is a much more deliberate lie. Republicans bash Democrats for cutting Medicare while supporting the exact same Medicare cuts and also proposing deeper cuts.
This is an issue where the neutral press needs to take a stand. They shouldn't just report on the fact that Republicans are proposing Medicare cuts. They should point out that they ran against these exact cuts in the last two elections and continue to rhetorically oppose them while supporting them legislatively. This is out of bounds for traditional politics. Parties should be held accountable to the promises they make during elections-otherwise the elections are illegitimate.
So who else is ready for Republicans to run in 2014 by attacking Obama for cutting Medicare?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XbCsRsMUA5Y
Got that? Obama cuts Medicare. Which is a bad thing. Romney and Ryan ran on undoing the Medicare cuts in Obamacare. So did the vast majority of Republicans running for Congress and Senate. Here's one from Richard Murdock, who had previously questioned the constitutionality of Social Security and Medicare.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VmjZIPHNCRY
Once again, clear message: cutting Medicare is bad. If Republicans run in election on cutting Medicare, shouldn't they oppose cutting Medicare when they govern? It's hard to think of a real precedent for this in American political history. Politicians break promises, but this is a much more deliberate lie. Republicans bash Democrats for cutting Medicare while supporting the exact same Medicare cuts and also proposing deeper cuts.
This is an issue where the neutral press needs to take a stand. They shouldn't just report on the fact that Republicans are proposing Medicare cuts. They should point out that they ran against these exact cuts in the last two elections and continue to rhetorically oppose them while supporting them legislatively. This is out of bounds for traditional politics. Parties should be held accountable to the promises they make during elections-otherwise the elections are illegitimate.
So who else is ready for Republicans to run in 2014 by attacking Obama for cutting Medicare?
Wednesday, February 13, 2013
State of the Union 2013: Obama Goes Big
In last night's State of the Union President Obama proposed a surprisingly ambitious agenda. After a presidential campaign that featured few major new policy ideas, the president proceeded to propose everything Democrats could want in his speech: education reform, gun control, tax reform, environmental legislation, and so on. Let's go through the big ideas:
-Universal Pre-Kindergarten- the biggest ticket item in a speech full of them. While some details are still vague, Obama proposed government aid to ensure that all children have access to pre-kindergarten classes. All available studies indicate that Pre-K correlates with improved performance in school. Two big questions: how is the funding delivered (tax credit, direct subsidy, ect.) and how is the program paid for? I can't see a GOP House voting to approve a large expansion of federal education funding and authority proposed by a Democratic president.
-Voting Commission-an idea dear to my heart. Obama announced a bipartisan commission to recommend changes to American voting laws. Unfortunately, it sounds like the commission is focused mainly on reducing waiting times rather than focusing on broader issues (voter ID, registration complications, residency laws, purges). The commission is not authorized by Congress, and thus has no special fast-track authority and is not guaranteed to receive a vote. Beyond that, elections are administered at the state and local level in the United States, so laws passed by Congress aren't necessarily the best way to bring about change. Overall, I wouldn't expect much of note to come from this commission.
-Cap and Trade-This effort was abandoned by Democrats in 2009 when it became apparent that Republicans like John McCain who had previously supported it were no longer in favor. Unlike in 2009 Republicans control the House and Democrats have a non-filibuster proof majority in the Senate. It's not even clear that Democrats could get 50 votes in the Senate to pass such a bill, much less the 60 they would need in addition to a majority in the House. There is no chance at all of cap and trade becoming law this year, next year, or anytime in the near future. Unilateral executive action is a much more promising path on the environmental front.
-Averting the sequester-Automatic spending cuts take effect in early March. Despite the fact that neither party wants them to happen, it appears likely they will. Obama proposed closing tax loopholes and cutting other spending in order to avert the sequester while Republicans have proposed an all cuts plan. The parties are far apart, but the odds of them coming to an agreement to at least delay the sequester are decent.
-Immigration reform-Obama said little about the subject beyond tipping his hat to the bipartisan Senate group working on the bill (Grupo de Ocho?). While the Republican Senators working in the group were supportive, the overall reception from Republicans was chilly. Speaker Boehner applauded only when Obama proposed expanding legal immigration. Still, I'm optimistic about the passage of immigration reform this year. It just looks like it might be more difficult than it initially appeared.
-Gun control-Nothing new, just the reiteration of Obama's proposals on gun control. The assault weapons ban is definitely not going anywhere. Expanded background checks are a possibility, but if the NRA decides to fight it (as they have indicated they will) it's hard to see the House passing anything on guns. This was definitely the strongest portion of the speech rhetorically, but rhetoric doesn't change the deep-seated beliefs of congressmen.
-Minimum wage increase-Obama proposed raising the federal minimum wage to $9/hour. Economically, this makes sense. Politically, it makes even more sense: it's overwhelmingly popular and forces Republicans to defend business interests over the working poor. Republicans have no interest in doing this and the proposal is absolutely dead on arrival. Obama also proposed tying the minimum wage to inflation: that proposal makes sense economically and politically. Republicans could permanently defuse this political issue by having the wage rise automatically every year.
-American Jobs Act-remember that? In September 2011 Obama proposed a series of economic stimulus measures-an expanded payroll tax cut, extended unemployment benefits, job training programs, and infrastructure funding. Ultimately, only a partial payroll tax cut and unemployment benefits became law. This was thrown into the speech solely so that Obama could say that he proposed a jobs plan. It has no chance of passing the House or Senate.
-Expanding trade with the European Union-Again, not much in the way of details. Obama announced the beginning of negotiations for a trade pact with the European Union. Trade negotiations are massively complex and take years, so this won't be coming up for a vote for awhile. Generally, trade between wealthy countries is a win for both sides, in contrast to trade between rich and poor countries. When this comes up for a vote years from now, it will almost certainly pass as trade agreements (particularly those negotiated by Democratic presidents) almost always do.
-Something with the housing market-This might literally be the tenth housing plan Obama has proposed. None of them have made any difference. Failure on the housing market is by far Obama's biggest failure as president.
Overall: an ambitious agenda much broader than expect. Not much of it will become law, but that's not really the point. When a president makes a policy proposal, it becomes part of the platform of the party. It stays embedded in the party for years to come. Partisans who pay little attention to politics become educated as to the positions their party supports and come to support them as well. Obama's agenda is still broad and ambitious, and thus so is the agenda of the party as a whole.
-Universal Pre-Kindergarten- the biggest ticket item in a speech full of them. While some details are still vague, Obama proposed government aid to ensure that all children have access to pre-kindergarten classes. All available studies indicate that Pre-K correlates with improved performance in school. Two big questions: how is the funding delivered (tax credit, direct subsidy, ect.) and how is the program paid for? I can't see a GOP House voting to approve a large expansion of federal education funding and authority proposed by a Democratic president.
-Voting Commission-an idea dear to my heart. Obama announced a bipartisan commission to recommend changes to American voting laws. Unfortunately, it sounds like the commission is focused mainly on reducing waiting times rather than focusing on broader issues (voter ID, registration complications, residency laws, purges). The commission is not authorized by Congress, and thus has no special fast-track authority and is not guaranteed to receive a vote. Beyond that, elections are administered at the state and local level in the United States, so laws passed by Congress aren't necessarily the best way to bring about change. Overall, I wouldn't expect much of note to come from this commission.
-Cap and Trade-This effort was abandoned by Democrats in 2009 when it became apparent that Republicans like John McCain who had previously supported it were no longer in favor. Unlike in 2009 Republicans control the House and Democrats have a non-filibuster proof majority in the Senate. It's not even clear that Democrats could get 50 votes in the Senate to pass such a bill, much less the 60 they would need in addition to a majority in the House. There is no chance at all of cap and trade becoming law this year, next year, or anytime in the near future. Unilateral executive action is a much more promising path on the environmental front.
-Averting the sequester-Automatic spending cuts take effect in early March. Despite the fact that neither party wants them to happen, it appears likely they will. Obama proposed closing tax loopholes and cutting other spending in order to avert the sequester while Republicans have proposed an all cuts plan. The parties are far apart, but the odds of them coming to an agreement to at least delay the sequester are decent.
-Immigration reform-Obama said little about the subject beyond tipping his hat to the bipartisan Senate group working on the bill (Grupo de Ocho?). While the Republican Senators working in the group were supportive, the overall reception from Republicans was chilly. Speaker Boehner applauded only when Obama proposed expanding legal immigration. Still, I'm optimistic about the passage of immigration reform this year. It just looks like it might be more difficult than it initially appeared.
-Gun control-Nothing new, just the reiteration of Obama's proposals on gun control. The assault weapons ban is definitely not going anywhere. Expanded background checks are a possibility, but if the NRA decides to fight it (as they have indicated they will) it's hard to see the House passing anything on guns. This was definitely the strongest portion of the speech rhetorically, but rhetoric doesn't change the deep-seated beliefs of congressmen.
-Minimum wage increase-Obama proposed raising the federal minimum wage to $9/hour. Economically, this makes sense. Politically, it makes even more sense: it's overwhelmingly popular and forces Republicans to defend business interests over the working poor. Republicans have no interest in doing this and the proposal is absolutely dead on arrival. Obama also proposed tying the minimum wage to inflation: that proposal makes sense economically and politically. Republicans could permanently defuse this political issue by having the wage rise automatically every year.
-American Jobs Act-remember that? In September 2011 Obama proposed a series of economic stimulus measures-an expanded payroll tax cut, extended unemployment benefits, job training programs, and infrastructure funding. Ultimately, only a partial payroll tax cut and unemployment benefits became law. This was thrown into the speech solely so that Obama could say that he proposed a jobs plan. It has no chance of passing the House or Senate.
-Expanding trade with the European Union-Again, not much in the way of details. Obama announced the beginning of negotiations for a trade pact with the European Union. Trade negotiations are massively complex and take years, so this won't be coming up for a vote for awhile. Generally, trade between wealthy countries is a win for both sides, in contrast to trade between rich and poor countries. When this comes up for a vote years from now, it will almost certainly pass as trade agreements (particularly those negotiated by Democratic presidents) almost always do.
-Something with the housing market-This might literally be the tenth housing plan Obama has proposed. None of them have made any difference. Failure on the housing market is by far Obama's biggest failure as president.
Overall: an ambitious agenda much broader than expect. Not much of it will become law, but that's not really the point. When a president makes a policy proposal, it becomes part of the platform of the party. It stays embedded in the party for years to come. Partisans who pay little attention to politics become educated as to the positions their party supports and come to support them as well. Obama's agenda is still broad and ambitious, and thus so is the agenda of the party as a whole.
Monday, January 28, 2013
Will Republicans Rig the Electoral College?
In the aftermath of the 2012 presidential election Republican state legislators in several states have come forward with plans to change the allocation of electoral votes in their states. Currently, all states other than Nebraska and Maine award all of their electoral votes to the candidate who receives the most votes statewide. The plans that have been discussed so far are generally similar to the Nebraska and Maine models, in which the electoral votes would be awarded by Congressional district rather than statewide. So far, such plans have been proposed in Florida, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Virginia. It's worth noting that all of those states were carried by President Obama but also elected Congressional delegations comprised mostly of Republicans. In all of the previously listed cases Mitt Romney would have carried a majority of that state's electoral votes despite losing the statewide popular vote. This boils down to the fact that the Congressional districts are draw in ways favorable to House Republicans: the Democratic votes are all compressed into a small number of urban districts while Republicans control the outlying areas. It is not clear whether or not Romney would have won the election if those states had all divided their votes by Congressional District, but he obviously would have done much better.
So, in a purely rational sense, it seems like Republicans have an incentive to "rig" the Electoral College by changing how blue states award their Electoral Votes. I don't think this is going to happen, and it would probably be a bad idea for Republicans to do it.
First, why it won't happen: 1) Republicans have fairly narrow majorities in a lot of these states. There will be enough Republicans with a conscience (or who view the political situation differently) to prevent it from happening. 2) Republicans in these states don't want the national party to give up on those states in presidential elections, which would be what they would be asking them to do if they changed the way their votes worked. Do Republicans in Pennsylvania really want to admit that Republicans can't win Pennsylvania in presidential elections? I doubt it. In fact, I think they would be worried if the national party decided not to devote resources to that state.
Leading me to my second point: it's probably a bad idea to do this. It would have helped Republicans this year. But this was a year where Obama was trying to win the statewide popular votes in those states. If he had been contesting at the Congressional District level, he would have poured his resources into the marginal outlying districts in those states. Instead of targeting Cleveland and Columbus in Ohio, he would have been targeting rural Ohio districts. Who would be worse off if Democratic campaign resources were deployed into rural areas? Many sitting members of state legislatures. In fact, it's probable that dozens of them across the country would have lost their seats if the Obama campaign had been doing heavy GOTV and advertising in their districts. And that's the core of the problem here: the people who benefit from this plan (Republican presidential candidates) are not the ones who get to decide whether or not it happens. It's possible that Republican state legislators will put the national party before their own electoral interests. But it is unlikely. Politicians are rational being obsessed with survival. Risking their careers to help the national party is not something that Ayn Rand would look favorably upon.
So, in a purely rational sense, it seems like Republicans have an incentive to "rig" the Electoral College by changing how blue states award their Electoral Votes. I don't think this is going to happen, and it would probably be a bad idea for Republicans to do it.
First, why it won't happen: 1) Republicans have fairly narrow majorities in a lot of these states. There will be enough Republicans with a conscience (or who view the political situation differently) to prevent it from happening. 2) Republicans in these states don't want the national party to give up on those states in presidential elections, which would be what they would be asking them to do if they changed the way their votes worked. Do Republicans in Pennsylvania really want to admit that Republicans can't win Pennsylvania in presidential elections? I doubt it. In fact, I think they would be worried if the national party decided not to devote resources to that state.
Leading me to my second point: it's probably a bad idea to do this. It would have helped Republicans this year. But this was a year where Obama was trying to win the statewide popular votes in those states. If he had been contesting at the Congressional District level, he would have poured his resources into the marginal outlying districts in those states. Instead of targeting Cleveland and Columbus in Ohio, he would have been targeting rural Ohio districts. Who would be worse off if Democratic campaign resources were deployed into rural areas? Many sitting members of state legislatures. In fact, it's probable that dozens of them across the country would have lost their seats if the Obama campaign had been doing heavy GOTV and advertising in their districts. And that's the core of the problem here: the people who benefit from this plan (Republican presidential candidates) are not the ones who get to decide whether or not it happens. It's possible that Republican state legislators will put the national party before their own electoral interests. But it is unlikely. Politicians are rational being obsessed with survival. Risking their careers to help the national party is not something that Ayn Rand would look favorably upon.
Will Immigration Reform Become Law?
A bipartisan group of Senators today announced a framework for a immigration reform bill. This is the best chance for a major immigration reform package since the 2007 Bush/McCain/Kennedy package fell apart. With Republican Senators John McCain, Lindsey Graham, Jeff Flake, and Marco Rubio on-board passage in the Senate appears to be a near certainty. Focus now shifts to the House of Representatives, where a different question emerges: Will John Boehner let his majority get rolled?
The House is not a democratic body. It does not operate by a simple majority. Instead, it operates with a party cartel dynamic: the majority party does not allow legislation on the floor unless a majority of the members of the majority party support it. This is known as the "Hastert Rule" as it was popularized by Speaker Dennis Hastert, who held the Speaker's gavel from 1999 to 2006. Hastert refused to allow legislation to reach the floor unless a majority of the GOP caucus supported it. In many cases, John Boehner has gone even further. The Boehner Rule prevents legislation from coming to the floor unless it can be passed with the support of only House Republicans. That is, legislation can only come to the floor if 218 Republicans support it. This eliminates any role for the minority in policymaking and moves the critical vote dramatically to the right. The 218th most conservative Republican is extremely conservative, whereas the 218 most conservative member of the House as a whole is a moderate.
The House is not a democratic body. It does not operate by a simple majority. Instead, it operates with a party cartel dynamic: the majority party does not allow legislation on the floor unless a majority of the members of the majority party support it. This is known as the "Hastert Rule" as it was popularized by Speaker Dennis Hastert, who held the Speaker's gavel from 1999 to 2006. Hastert refused to allow legislation to reach the floor unless a majority of the GOP caucus supported it. In many cases, John Boehner has gone even further. The Boehner Rule prevents legislation from coming to the floor unless it can be passed with the support of only House Republicans. That is, legislation can only come to the floor if 218 Republicans support it. This eliminates any role for the minority in policymaking and moves the critical vote dramatically to the right. The 218th most conservative Republican is extremely conservative, whereas the 218 most conservative member of the House as a whole is a moderate.
Boehner has violated not only the Boehner rule but also the Hastert rule on a few recent critical votes. The deal to resolve the fiscal cliff passed with only 85 Republican votes in favor. The bill appropriating funding for Hurricane Sandy relief similarly passed with only 49 GOP votes. These were both bills that absolutely had to pass. Not resolving the fiscal cliff would have resulted in a massive tax hike. Not passing Sandy relief would have been a political disaster, especially after Chris Christie blasted House Republicans for delaying its passage.
Drawing this back around, it is clear that an immigration bill backed that passes the Senate would also pass the House. Almost all Democrats would vote for it and enough Republicans would vote in favor to pass it. But it is unlikely that a majority of the House GOP caucus would support it. The Senate contains a number of members who either represent large Latino constituencies (John McCain, Jeff Flake, Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz, John Cornyn) or are natural dealmakers (Linsdey Graham, Mark Kirk, Susan Collins). The House of Representatives does not have anywhere near that large a bloc. Instead, it has members in safe conservative districts who are much more afraid of a Tea Party primary challenge than losing to a Democrat. Boehner has broken his rule before. But will he let it be broken this time?
I suspect he will. The key here is while most Republicans don't want to vote for immigration reform, a lot of them want it to pass. The reasons for this are obvious: Hispanics are a rapidly growing voting bloc and Republicans are terribly unpopular with them. However, a large chunk of Hispanic voters have indicated that they would consider voting Republican if the party were to soften its stance on immigration reform. Republicans need to win more Hispanic votes if they are going to be competitive in future elections. Thus, it's probably fair to say that passing a major immigration law is a political imperative for Republicans. Similar to the fiscal cliff deal and Sandy aid, Republicans want the bill to pass, but they do not want to vote for it. The obvious solution here is for the majority to let themselves get rolled: put the bill on the floor and let Democrats provide most of the votes. Immigration reform becomes law, Republicans appear less intolerant on immigration, and Democrats enact a major part of their agenda. Everyone wins. Is Congress sane enough to let it happen?
Drawing this back around, it is clear that an immigration bill backed that passes the Senate would also pass the House. Almost all Democrats would vote for it and enough Republicans would vote in favor to pass it. But it is unlikely that a majority of the House GOP caucus would support it. The Senate contains a number of members who either represent large Latino constituencies (John McCain, Jeff Flake, Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz, John Cornyn) or are natural dealmakers (Linsdey Graham, Mark Kirk, Susan Collins). The House of Representatives does not have anywhere near that large a bloc. Instead, it has members in safe conservative districts who are much more afraid of a Tea Party primary challenge than losing to a Democrat. Boehner has broken his rule before. But will he let it be broken this time?
I suspect he will. The key here is while most Republicans don't want to vote for immigration reform, a lot of them want it to pass. The reasons for this are obvious: Hispanics are a rapidly growing voting bloc and Republicans are terribly unpopular with them. However, a large chunk of Hispanic voters have indicated that they would consider voting Republican if the party were to soften its stance on immigration reform. Republicans need to win more Hispanic votes if they are going to be competitive in future elections. Thus, it's probably fair to say that passing a major immigration law is a political imperative for Republicans. Similar to the fiscal cliff deal and Sandy aid, Republicans want the bill to pass, but they do not want to vote for it. The obvious solution here is for the majority to let themselves get rolled: put the bill on the floor and let Democrats provide most of the votes. Immigration reform becomes law, Republicans appear less intolerant on immigration, and Democrats enact a major part of their agenda. Everyone wins. Is Congress sane enough to let it happen?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)