It was fun watching SOPA and PIPA go down in flames in spectacular fashion from the angered raging of the entire friggin’ Internet. It was equally amusing watching Senator Orrin Hatch, a co-sponsor of PIPA, do contortions to try and distance himself from the bill faster than a cat from a tub of water. In the process, an amazing amount of doubletalk came from the Senators numerous paid staffers. You shouldn’t be too surprised when Sen. Hatch comes back with the same or a similar bill in the not too distant future.

(more…)

Whenever an incumbent is running for office, they will almost invariably turn to talk about how the length of time they have spent in that office as a means of proving that they know how to work things. You’ll see that same claim made at the federal, state, and local levels. Just as certainly, challengers will point to the length of service as a bad thing, a sign that they have made a comfortable career of what should be public service. Both of these sides have been going at it for years, but it looks like the pro-seniority side is starting to lose out.

One of the few positive things of the Tea Party crowd (and the members they are electing) is a vehement opposition to political elitism, including the practices associated with seniority. Instead of accepting that you have to outlast your peers to get your desired committee assignments, they have pushed for significantly more technocratic ways of committee selection based on ability. Senators like Rand Paul and Mike Lee (the latter of whom I have significant disagreements with) have managed to wield significant influence in the “deliberative” body of Congress despite being the new kids on the block.

So now that the influence of seniority isn’t as solid of an indicator of influence in the body, does it still have value? Not likely. Now that good ideas and ability are the currency of influence, being in office for a significant period of time without a significant list of accomplishments is a huge negative. Guys like Bennett, who seemingly accomplish little of what the general electorate cares for, get replaced by the brash go-getters who make things happen in short order.

Former State Sen. Dan Liljenquist accomplished two major reforms, state employee pensions and Medicaid, in just three years in office. Doesn’t this seem like the kind of guy who’d get things done in Washington? And, more importantly, don’t those seem like the right things to get done?

Glenn Greenwald has spent a lot of time calling for more intellectual honesty from alleged progressives during this campaign season, and rightfully so. After putting all of their anti-war and pro-civil liberties fervor into a candidate that has proven to be the polar opposite, they’ve engaged in some serious contortions to try and justified their continued  unqualified support of now-President Obama. While a few brave souls (including both Greenwald and Boing Boing’s Cory Doctorow) will express their disgust at warrantless GPS tracking, indefinite detention, and escalating militarism, the vast majority of progressivedom instead choses to ignore, justify, or tepidly disapprove of these actions. Greenwald summarized the honest justification for continuing to support Obama over someone like Paul thusly:

Yes, I’m willing to continue to have Muslim children slaughtered by covert drones and cluster bombs, and America’s minorities imprisoned by the hundreds of thousands for no good reason, and the CIA able to run rampant with no checks or transparency, and privacy eroded further by the unchecked Surveillance State, and American citizens targeted by the President for assassination with no due process, and whistleblowers threatened with life imprisonment for “espionage,” and the Fed able to dole out trillions to bankers in secret, and a substantially higher risk of war with Iran (fought by the U.S. or by Israel with U.S. support) in exchange for less severe cuts to Social Security, Medicare and other entitlement programs, the preservation of the Education and Energy Departments, more stringent environmental regulations, broader health care coverage, defense of reproductive rights for women, stronger enforcement of civil rights for America’s minorities, a President with no associations with racist views in a newsletter, and a more progressive Supreme Court.

On the surface, this seems to be an accurate portrayal of a “lesser of two evils” scenario, but I think that perhaps Glenn hasn’t accurately portrayed the reality of a Paul presidency. Yes, Paul would absolutely slash federal programs with aplomb, maybe even many of which you heartily approve. Ask yourself, however, if this really does mean the end of the programs. It is highly likely that many, if not all, states would continue entitlement programs as a replacement of the eliminated federal ones. With the elimination of those federal programs and many federal laws, the Supreme Court wouldn’t have as much sway in our political discourse, much of it, again, being left up to the states. If Greenwald’s argument is accurate, it’s not a simple “pick which half is most important to you” argument.

And even if it is, which half matters most in a President? While you can most assuredly tackle the issues with entitlements and abortion and civil rights, etc. at the state level, can you do anything about targeted assassination of American citizens? What about warrantless wiretapping? Or a war with Iran to replace the “winding down” (if you can call it that) of operations in Iraq and Afghanistan? Those are all issues which you either fix at the federal level or not at all. But social issues and entitlement spending? Even blood red Utah is likely to keep some of them around. If we were keeping score, Paul would fulfill a lot more of your requirements for the office of the presidency.

If you crunch the numbers and still believe that Obama is a better choice for you, that’s perfectly fine. All I’m asking is that you exercise some honesty and soul-searching, ditch the tribalism of unwavering support for a Democratic president no matter how neo-conservative he may be, and choose who actually best fits your views.

Today, John Huntsman recognized reality and, after lackluster showings, withdrew from the GOP primary. What was unexpected, however, is his endorsement of Romney, a man that just days prior he said wasn’t fit to be President. It’s also no secret that Romney and Huntsman don’t really care for each other. So what gives? Simply put, Huntsman is playing his cards once again for 2016. The endorsement isn’t so much of Romney as it is of the GOP political establishment and elite that are chomping at the bit for Mitt’s coronation to be over and done with. Huntsman is likely hoping that this act of fealty and deference will win him some support from party insiders next time around. Unfortunately, it’s also sorely disappointing. I can’t be the only one thinking it.

Just a few things about Iowa.

• It was hilarious to watch people say that Iowa only matters if the “right” person wins. Most of them were actively talking about Ron Paul as the “wrong” person. The logical contortions required to take this position, that the result dictates the relevancy of the result, are astounding at best.
• Speaking of Ron Paul, he didn’t exactly “lose”. He scored as many delegates as Romney and Santorum and got more supporters elected to party positions than the other folks. He has a lot of caucus state ground game, and that matters when the “real” delegates get selected.
• Rick Santorum is the new Mike Huckabee. He pandered to evangelicals, has no money or ground game outside of Iowa, and will likely fade out after a few more states. I give him no longer than Super Tuesday before he drops out after many dismal showings. The idea that a good showing in a single early state can create momentum is laughable at best. There’s 49 other states, dude, and you’ve done nothing in any of them.
• Romney is calling this a “win”, but let’s consider a few facts. He’s been more-or-less campaigning constantly since at least 2007, spent a crapton of money, and won by just 8 votes over a guy who can’t come up with a campaign message beyond “I hate gay sex and abortions”. To have such a dismal showing in a state where ground game matters should be considered an unmitigated disaster. Consider that Romney has been stuck at a 25%-ish ceiling for most of the race and is counting on a crowded field to split up the Not Romney vote. Bachmann has just dropped out and Perry isn’t far behind. If Gingrinch continues to tank and Santorum falters, that can put a quarter or more of the vote back on the table, or roughly the entirety of Romney’s support. This should be scaring the crap out his campaign and supporters, but they seem to take for granted that Mitt can just coast to victory.

If you’re looking for a somewhat entertaining read, look no further than the response to the Utah Democratic Party’s request for redistricting information. The Office of Legislative Research and General Council (OLRGC) responded to what can only be described as a fishing expedition of a request, a massive trolling net designed to scrape up all kinds of irrelevant flotsam in the hope of finding one small thing of value.

And how broad is it? It demands every single record related to House, Senate, and Congressional redistricting to or from any legislator or their staff. As I’ve mentioned before, the House and Senate maps both passed their respective houses almost unanimously, so what good does it to to request all of the records relating to these maps? It’s almost designed explicitly to be rejected as a freebie, and it hints that there’s really no evidence to support a lawsuit. Anyone who has actually worked with GRAMA knows that the most successful requests are specific and targeted, not overly broad.

More hilarious are the ground upon which the Party is requesting a fee waiver. The law provides that fees can be waived if the primary beneficiary of the release is the general public. In the request, however, the Party says rather bluntly that they intend to use the records in a potential lawsuit. They still insist, however, that the public is the primary beneficiary. Uh, what? Last I checked, the OLRGC is not designed to be a legal research team subsidized by the taxpayers, and if your intent of the request is to start suing people, it’s insulting to try and pretend that your primary objective is to look out for the public good.

Another portion of the law provides that a fee can be waived if it is related to the individual filing the request. Stunningly, the Party tried to insist that it is an individual under the law (ironic since most of them oppose Citizens United), a claim that OLGRC saw right through. They also dismissed the claim that because the fee “may” be waived that they are required to.

I find myself wondering if the legal eagles planning their lawsuit are rank amateurs or if they just want to see what sticks. I’ve said before that the legal threats are both poor strategy and a waste of time and money. This latest sloppy move only confirms it.

It seems like there are a number of conservatives who have an unhealthy fixation on the issue of vote fraud. This fixation usually results in making it a lot more difficult to register to vote with requirements to register far in advance and produce copious identification. This focus, however, is horribly misdirected.

The reality of vote fraud is that it is rare, often uncoordinated, and unlikely to change the outcome of most elections. In cases where an election is close enough to make a difference, additional scrutiny is placed upon the ballots to ensure that they were properly cast. Any attempt to game an election from the front end would be quickly discovered and result in huge penalties for people who usually have little to gain from it.

Election fraud, however, is a real specter. Time and time again, electronic voting machines are shown to be easily gamed and changed to result in substantially different outcomes. Because the results can be modified to show a significant victory for a given party with the involvement of very few players, it becomes less likely that it will draw attention and scrutiny. As Joseph Stalin, someone well-versed in manipulating elections, has said, “He who votes does nothing. He who counts the votes decides everything.”

Most of us want elections to be fair and square, so let’s focus on the parts that can actually be gamed.

For far too long now, our electoral process has been broken. We often get candidates that are far too beholden to donors and not responsive to those who elected them. We also see a lot of good candidates pushed out of the picture because they refuse to play the “business as usual” games. While a significant part of the problem rests in our current “winner take all” system, there is a sizable amount of vitriol being lobbed at the caucus/convention system. I say it’s time for some blended reforms that take the best of all systems.

(more…)

One of the most important parts of taxation is being able to tell how much you are paying and what is it being spend on. The best example of this transparency in taxation is the itemized property tax bill you get in the mail once a year. You get a break down of how much you’re paying, what the money is going towards, and how it compares to last year. This creates a connection between what you pay and what you get. Gasoline excise taxes, which are clearly posted on pumps, create the same effect. Sales taxes get a little fuzzier since while portions of them are often earmarked for specific purposes, most of it goes into a slush fun. By the time you get to the “who knows where it goes” personal income tax, you have a level of taxation so opaque that we can’t quite figure out what the money is spent on, but at least we know how much we’re paying.

No so for corporate income taxes. As much as we’d love to believe the myth that cigar-chomping mustachioed men in smoke-filled rooms are having to dip into their Scrooge McDuck vault to pony up their tax bill, it just isn’t so. Businesses always build their costs into their products and services, and most of them aren’t really going to let on as to how much of their retail cost goes to specific purposes. Quick: how much of Ford’s taxes did you pay when you purchased that new pickup? You have no idea, and that’s the problem. It’s not just that you’re paying a hidden tax either. Companies spend as much (or, in the case of  GE more than) finding ways to not pay taxes as they do in checks to Uncle Sam.

And this gets down to a very simple truth: companies do not pay taxes, people do. The consumers of the product are the ones shouldering it, but they don’t even get the benefit of knowing how much it is. Ending the corporate income tax doesn’t raise taxes on people, it just makes those previously unknown costs known while eliminating the loopholes that corporate collectivists are so fond of using. Doesn’t that sound like a refreshing idea?

For far too long, those who want to shrink the federal government have been focused on the ineffectual arguments that individual programs are immoral, illegal, and/or unconstitutional. Despite decades of making these arguments, the scope of the federal government continues to increase as they fail to gain traction with the greater public. It is a much more effective argument to instead attack the efficacy (or lack thereof) of federal programs. It is a much easier argument to conclusively prove and appeals to our collective sense of local is better. It also does not proscribe state and/or local governments from considering such programs should their citizens so choose it.