This is the website of Abulsme Noibatno Itramne (also known as Sam Minter).
Posts here are rare these days. For current stuff, follow me on Mastodon
|
That’s a nice mouthful. I am way behind on these things. Election day is today. My ballot has to be postmarked today, or I need to actually go and vote in person. I’m thinking I’ll try to get it in the mail. I got up a little early to try to finish going over this before I have to head in to work. I’m also still feeling under the weather ever since Sunday and that sucks. Perhaps I should just stay home. Dunno. Anyway, for now, election stuff.
The ballot text of this one is:
The legislature has proposed a constitutional amendment on establishment of a budget stabilization account.
This amendment would require the legislature to transfer 1% of general state revenues to a budget stabilization account each year and prohibit expenditures from the account except as set forth in the amendment.
More complete explanation and pro/con statements are here. Full text is here.
On this one I think it is a good idea to have such a fund. If anything I would make the restrictions on its use more strict, not less. In general I am consistently against using state constitutional amendments to implement policy decisions. But I do not see this as a policy decision, I see this as a governmental structure issue, which I think is appropriate for an amendment. So, on this one, I’m going to vote:
APPROVED
It seems that there are now more than 50 votes in the Senate to confirm the AG nominee. This is a shame. The whole waterboarding discussion was a distraction from the larger issue of which it was just a special case.
Namely, is the President obligated to enforce… and obey… the laws passed by the congress, or is the President allowed to substitute their own personal judgement in cases where they disagree. The fact that the President, and through them the entire executive branch, are subject to the law (at least until a law is contested and deemed unconstitutional) should be an absolute no brainer. It completely baffles me that there is apparently a huge portion of the public that just does not see this as an important pillar of our society. The fact that this belief is not a minimum requirement for an AG (or frankly anybody in government) deeply saddens me.
The fact that it isn’t possible to even muster a majority of the Senate to be willing to stand up for their own power and authority in our constitutional system is just frightening in the extreme. As usual, Andrew Sullivan puts it well:
Schumer and Feinstein Surrender
(Andrew Sullivan, The Daily Dish, The Atlantic)
Every time the Democrats fold on these matters, Cheney tucks a precedent under his belt. Every time they cave into their cowardice and fear, another critical part of our liberty disappears. These precedents are designed to destroy the rule of law and replace it with the rule of a Decider. And they will last for ever, as will the right to torture, because this war is for ever. This is how democracies perish. The rule of law no longer has any party to defend it. The Republicans want no check on the powers of our de facto protectorate. And the Democrats have no spine. We live under the lawless protectorate we deserve. And such lawlessness is always the result when cowards refuse to confront bullies.
Merrill Begins C.E.O. Search
(Landon Thomas Jr, New York Times)
E. Stanley O’Neal, the embattled chairman and chief executive of Merrill Lynch, stepped down from the brokerage firm today, capping a tumultuous 10 days that included a significant quarterly loss and write-down.
…
“We would like to thank Stan for the contribution he has made leading a major transformation of Merrill Lynch into a global and diversified company with enormous potential ahead of it,” Mr. Cribiore said in the statement. “His commitment to the company, its clients, shareholders and employees has never wavered and the company will reap tremendous benefits in the future from his work.”
(via Consumerist)
The text on the ballot:
The legislature passed Engrossed Substitute Senate Bill 5726 (ESSB 5726) concerning insurance fair conduct related to claims for coverage or benefits and voters have filed a sufficient referendum petition on this bill.
This bill would make it unlawful for insurers to unreasonably deny certain coverage claims, and permit treble damages plus attorney fees for that and other violations. Some health insurance carriers would be exempt.
Of course I also read the explanatory and pro/con statements and the full text.
On this one it seems the main effect is to allow for punitive damages and legal fees to be rewarded in cases where Insurance companies are being sued for denying claims. It would also somewhat expand the cases where such a suit was possible. The courts would of course retain the ability to decide on the merits of the cases and the exact penalties imposed, it just gives some wider latitude.
The counter case is that this will lead to lots of frivolous lawsuits etc and it is actually all just about giving trial lawyers more opportunity to make money.
I am OK with this balance. I’m going to vote “Approved” on this one.
I thought I had registered too late for this election, but I got my absentee ballot in the mail a few days ago, so I guess I’m golden. This election is all state and local, so I pretty much know nothing about any of the issues or the people. So I need to educate myself. As I did for the last election I voted in (2004 in Melbourne, FL) I’ll post about each of the items as I decide how I am going to vote.
The first item on the ballot is Initiative 960. The summary text on the ballot itself is:
Initiative Measure No. 960 concerns tax and fee increases imposed by state government.
This measure would require two-thirds legislative approval or voter approval for tax increases, legislative approval of fee increases, certain published information on tax-increasing bills, and advisory votes on taxes enacted without voter approval.
But of course the summaries are not a good way to make a decision. I glanced over the pro/con statements in the voter info packet, but then went to the full text and spent 30 minutes or so reading it.
I started out with a fairly positive feeling about it. All about disclosure and making sure all proposed tax laws have the potential effects analyzed and published, etc. Good stuff in general I guess. Something that one would expect to be part of a reasoned process anyway. And I’m all for the requiring a 2/3 majority for tax increases. And for tightening some loopholes that were used to avoid this in the past. I’m not so sure about the ability to sometimes submit the tax increase proposals directly to a popular vote. I’m not sure that is really how such things should be done. But I was still in favor at that point in general. The ability to refer a tax increase to referendum is already current law. Right now that is optional.
But then they killed it by in cases where through one of several methods a tax increase happened WITHOUT a public vote an “advisory vote” would be required. That would be a vote to gauge the opinion of the people but which would be non-binding. If this requirement had been for a binding vote to determine if the increase stayed or went, I might have still been good. (Although I think I would still be on the edge.)
But non-binding votes are stupid and should just not happen. There are better ways to gauge public opinion. It is called a poll. There are better ways to raise awareness as well, which I think is the only real purpose of this section. Things which are put up on a ballot in a public election should always be binding, otherwise they are a huge waste of time.
I think this is also true of votes in legislatures. Every time they pass a “non-binding resolution” or “Sense of the Senate” or whatnot they are just showing their uselessness. Whatever though.
Hmmm.
There is still a balance here though. Yes, it adds the insanely stupid advisory votes… why not just make the referendums mandatory instead of optional if you really always want a vote… and make it binding… such that you need the 2/3 majority in both houses AND a majority referendum (or maybe even 2/3 there too) rather than just an “OR”. But on the other hand, it does add some additional transparency and close some loopholes that let tax increases happen without the 2/3 vote.
Grrr. Unfortunately most legislation is like this (and ballot initiatives I guess). Bundling things that make sense with things that are crap. The trap is if you vote for the good, you get the bad too.
I don’t think I am going to do that. Give me the same thing without the stupid advisory votes and I’ll consider it. In the mean time, I am voting “No”.
Just got to the Frontline episode from last Tuesday on my Tivo. As usual for Frontline, it was very well done. Basically a summary of Cheney’s efforts over the years to strengthen Presidential authority and reduce or eliminate the ability of congress and the courts to restrict that power. There wasn’t much here that I didn’t already know, but it put it all together in a very compelling package.
I listen to some of the things said by Cheney and the various people surrounding him, and I am just dumbfounded. It is so 100% contrary to what seem like basic values like the rule of law, constitutional government, checks and balances, human rights, etc… These are very scary people with very scary ideas about what good government looks like.
I fear though that much of the damage they have done will not be undone, even after a change of administration in 2009. Even if that administration is of a different party. While Rudy would probably even try to one up what Bush and Cheney have done, I don’t frankly see Hillary flat out rejecting the powers claimed by this administration. No, she will just use them in different ways, not necessarily better ways.
Sigh.
In any case, it is well worth watching. The whole thing is available to watch on the Frontline website for Cheney’s Law if for some reason you forgot to Tivo it.
Charts: Swapping Gingrich for Paul
(Mark Blumenthal, Pollster.com)
While it may have gone unnoticed by all but our most devoted readers, we made a small change earlier today to the charts that display results for Republican presidential candidates nationally and in each of the early primary states: We dropped the trend line for Newt Gingrich and added a trend line for Ron Paul.
Newt Gingrich has finally made it clear he will not be a candidate, and so the many pollsters that had included his name on trial heats will now stop. Meanwhile, Ron Paul’s support in New Hampshire now increased to 3.8% on our trend estimate, within a whisper of Mike Huckabee (at 4.2%).
I noticed yesterday when I checked the charts shortly after getting up in the morning. I have been checking the detail charts that show all of the candidates individually to keep up with Ron Paul. This will be much more convenient.
Ron Paul trends of note at the moment in the early states:
- Nationally, pretty flat.
- Rising rapidly in Iowa, but he’d still have to almost double his support to overcome McCain for 5th… or McCain just has to keep falling
- Rising slowly in New Hampshire and Michigan, but neck in neck for 5th place with Huckabee in both
- South Carolina, Florida: rising slowly, but has a little way to go to catch #5
- Nevada, California, New York: Nowhere
OK, now we all know Ron Paul isn’t going to suddenly rise up and be an actual contender for the nomination. But his trends in most of the early states are upward, in some cases fairly rapidly upward. If he starts breaking the 5% mark in a bunch of these states, he is going to be a major pain in the ass for the 4 or five candidates above him in the polls.
As of a few minutes ago I am completely caught up on watching all of the presidential debates of this election season so far. The first debate was on April 26th. The most recent was on September 27th. In that time there have been 13 Democratic debates and 7 Republican debates. And I have watched them all. (Even the one in Spanish where I couldn’t understand very much, but I still watched the whole thing!)
6 more Democratic debates and 8 more Republican debates to go. (Assuming the current schedule holds.) Whew. That is a bunch.
I must say, they do get a bit repetitive. But there are usually a couple good moments in each one.
At the moment, if I had to pick a Democrat I think it would be Joe Biden. If I had to pick a Republican it would be Ron Paul. Of the whole field Ron Paul is still my #1 choice. I just mailed in my voter registration a couple of days ago. In Washington you don’t need to declare a party, but if nothing changes between now and then I’ll vote in the Republican primary so I can vote for Ron Paul. It will be my first time ever voting in a Primary. (Generally I’ve considered that I am not a Republican or Democrat and therefore it is none of my business who the parties nominate, and that my decision comes in the general election, but I’ll make an exception for Mr. Paul.)
Of course, by the time we get to the Washington Primary (February 19th) the nominations in both parties may well both be wrapped up. 32 states will have already had their primaries or caucuses, including most of the big ones. But it isn’t like Ron is going to win anyway. (Although he has been showing an upward trend in polls in the early states and may even manage to squeak out a double digit showing in some of the primaries before all is said and done… we shall see.)
I’m still hoping though that the strategy of front loading all the primaries to get an early winner backfires if there are several strong contenders who manage to make it through all the early states, bringing us out of super-duper Tuesday (February 5th) without a clear winner in one or both parties. That would be awesome fun.
I really want to see a candidate actually decided by the conventions sometime. That hasn’t happened since 1976 (when I was five years old), but I think it really is time for it to happen again.
If we get a 3rd or 4th party candidate who is semi-competitive on top of that it would just make my 2008. We shall see. :-)
Oh well. Next debate is Wednesday at 01:00 UTC on MSNBC. Republicans this time. Time to check that the Tivo has it scheduled.
I normally disagree with most of what ends up on the blog I’m about to link to, but I found this post particularly amusing. And although I’m not ready to advocate a coup or anything, it makes some good points:
If Congressional Approval Falls Below 10%, Do We Get to Have Another Revolution?
(John Bambenek, Stop the ACLU)
The latest Zogby poll shows that only 11 percent of Americans approve of the job Congress is doing. This is contrasted with Bush’s underwhelming 29% approval rating. These polls show that Americans of all political stripes are losing faith in their government. Congress’ all time low (prior to this poll) is 18% approval. Do we get to disband the government and write a new Constitution if it falls below 10%? For comparison, most foreign governments suffer a coup at these approval ratings.
The partisans on both sides will likely use this poll to show how the other party is ruining America. That’s what they do and most people have adopted this approach. It doesn’t matter who has the most coherent policy, it just matters how you can spin things to show the other party as a moral evil. This line of thinking misses the point.
The poll shows that the average American and the average politician are simply disconnected. The concerns of the average American aren’t represented inside the Beltway and it shows that what’s huge news on the cable news channels and in the latest partisan shouting matches isn’t what matters most to Americans. And America is fed up.
It’s not about a single issue, it’s about the sum total of all the issues that America cares about that go ignored or are actively worked against by our politicians. Our candidates are pre-selected by party insiders where people who aren’t “team players†(i.e. party hacks) are actively discouraged from running. Sure, they’ll take your money but they want yes men in office.
We have representatives from every corner of this country in D.C. Yet all issues are effectively nationalized. How does a representative vote on a particular bill? With his caucus, not with the intentions of his constituents. There are rare exceptions, some of those are honest principled men, many are just media whores who like the press image of being a “maverickâ€. And America is fed up.
…
In every direction one looks, one can find a promise of government to help and that promise being broken. Corruption is rampant in both parties and the talking points that one party is more corrupt than another are simply absurd. Looking at the field of 2008 presidential contenders, it looks like it’ll be more of the same. How much lower do approval ratings need to fall until Americans insist that things change?
11% for Congress and 29% for President is indeed pretty sad. Wouldn’t a sign of a properly functioning democracy be approval ratings over 50% at least a decent fraction of the time?
Last time the President was over 50% was in early 2005 right after his reelection. Congress hasn’t been over 50% since 2002.
So the public hates the whole lot of them. But even when new people get voted in, we seem to hate them just as much. Doesn’t this indicate we’re voting in the wrong people? Not a Democratic/Republican sort of thing… just people of all political stripes voting for people they don’t actually like. If people would only stop doing that “lesser of two evils” thing and instead pushed for and voted for other people en masse, maybe things would change a bit.
Of course, that won’t happen. Cause voting for someone without a chance of winning is a “wasted vote”. Bleh. Of course it isn’t really wasted. It is the one and only time you get to register your opinion on who you think should have the job. Vote for who you think would be best. If they are on the ballot, great. (Definitely consider third parties and independents there!) But if you dislike everybody on the ballot, don’t turn up your nose and pick one anyway… think of someone you would approve of and write them in. It is better than voting for someone that you know you don’t like. And if enough people did it, it WOULD be noticed.
But of course enough people never do.
Sad.
I got an email recently from a regular reader of this blog in Canada with the following question:
Can you please tell me why a Bill would have two or more totally different items on it. For example H.R. 1905 has lets give DC representation and “Amends the Internal Revenue Code to increase (from 110% to 110.1%) the estimated tax payment safe harbor percentage for determining the amount of estimated tax payable by individual taxpayers whose adjusted gross income for the preceding taxable year exceeds $5 million.”
Don’t get me wrong, I totally understand why they do this. It’s like quid quo pro but why have the people of United States tolerated it for so long. It is so obviously manipulative it’s baffling. A vote on these two topics on their own is the only true way of serving best interests of the people of United States.
Democratic Senator from California, ” I want to protect the Albino Chipmunk”
Republican Senator from Ohio, “Well throw in a new pork belly subsidy and you got my vote!”
Well, I have no extremely profound answer to that question. As mentioned, why it is done is obvious. It is a way for everybody to get what they want by bundling it with what other people want. There might not be enough support for item A on the merits of that item alone, but stick it to something else that people want, and maybe you can make it happen that way.
As to why it is tolerated? Well, mainly because very few people pay attention to what is going on at that level of detail, and most of those who do accept it as “just how things are done”. Every once in awhile you get someone proposing solutions to this sort of thing, or to bills that are thousands of pages long that no human being ever reads all of (at least not before voting). But none of those proposals ever go anywhere. Why? Because of the people who could make the changes directly (the rules committees in congress, etc) it would not benefit any of them, because they all take advantage of the existing system. And experience has shown that the public doesn’t care or notice, so they don’t have to worry about it come election time either.
It is a bad system. But it is a system that reinforces itself and resists change. If it ever did become a huge popular issue in the public consciousness, perhaps there would be change. But this sort of thing is so wonkish and inside the beltway that it would take massive abuse on a huge front and center issue right before an election for anybody but the news junkies to ever notice… and perhaps not even then. And of course even if you DID have the right combination of political events to enact some changes, they would probably be superficial and start to be rolled back as soon as the public looked the other way again. (For examples of this see the post-Watergate restrictions on Presidential power, and the immediate resumption of budget deficits almost as soon as there had been a balanced budget for a couple of years.)
Anyway. Yes, this is an extremely frustrating thing. They really SHOULD only vote on single issue bills that are in easily digestible chunks. But I’m not thinking that will ever happen.
|
|