Bad news for Mid-east peace

Bad poll news

It looks like the right and the far right in Israel are going win the next election. This, more so than anything domestic, will test Obama's ability to work with foreign policy hawks. Because these folks are not going to be interested in finding much common ground for peace.

With Hamas in charge of Palestine and Likud in charge of Israel, we're in for some more shooting wars, I think.

Giving him a chance

A pretty common thing I'm hearing from a lot of pundits and friends who didn't vote for Obama is that they're going to give him a chance for 6 months to a years or so.

Please don't.

After all, what does giving him a chance mean? That you'll fairly evaluate his proposals? Or not instinctively disbelieve everything he says? Why would that end after six months? Should you start being unfair and petty at that point?

Or does it mean that you'll refrain from criticizing him? I suppose you could do that, but I hope you won't. He's the President, his actions affect us all and we should be giving a skeptical look to those in power. Some of the biggest failures of the Bush administration occurred when his approval ratings were sky-high because people didn't want to find fault in what he did.

I'm an Obama supporter, and I'm asking you to treat him like a President. If you disagree with him, criticize him, if you agree, go with that. If you think he's messed the hell up, say so. I plan on doing so.

It's a democracy not a monarchy.

It's on

I know it's irrational, but I really do think President Obama is going to change the way we view government.

I really, really hope the next few years provide the nation with a new shot in the arm. I think we have a chance to make sure America's best days are still ahead of it.

Happy Obama Eve!

http://www.mefeedia.com/entry/yes-we-can-with-lego/13463405/

Obama is Unelectable

Talking Points Memo had a deep thought today, reminding me of all the arguments that said Barack Obama was unelectable.

Foremost among them was Mark Penn, the man who did more to lose Hillary Clinton's campaign than anyone else on her staff. Who she still apparently owes $5.4 million to.

Check out his memo, where he argued that Obama was unelectable because he was fundamentally unamerican.

It's nice to point out how wrong this guy was. And the fact that Clinton chose to keep him employed and pay him huge amounts of money reaffirmed that I picked the right horse in the primary.

But that little bit of gloating is just in fun. I'm just freaking thrilled that in less than 2 days, we will have a real President again.

I Don't Want People to Know I Supported Hate!

From the L.A. Times.

Gay marriage foes want campaign contributions anonymous, citing 'harassment'
5:42 PM, January 8, 2009

Proponents of a ballot measure that banned same sex marriage filed a lawsuit in federal court this week seeking to overturn state campaign finance laws that require that names and personal information of donors to state political campaigns be made public.

They claimed that donors to Proposition 8, which banned same-sex marriage in California after one of the most heated campaigns in recent memory, have been the victim of threats and harassment because of their support for ending same-sex marriage was made public.

“This harassment is made possible because of California’s unconstitutional campaign finance disclosure rules as applied to ballot measure committees where even donors of as little as $100 must have their names, home addresses and employers listed on public documents,” Ron Prentice, head of the Protect Marriage Coalition, said in a statement.

Since 1974, state law has required that donors who give more than $100 must have their names disclosed.

The law was intended to prevent money laundering and to provide disclosure of who is making contributions to political campaigns. It has withstood several previous legal challenges. Experts on the 1st Amendment experts said they did not believe the suit stood much of a chance of success.

“This trashes the 1st Amendment and it is a thinly veiled attempt to eliminate transparency as to the role of money in state election campaigns,” said Mark Rosenbaum, legal director of the ACLU of Southern California. The ACLU was a major opponent of Proposition 8

Why is it that all the people who dumped money into passing proposition 8 don't like the idea of people protesting them? You want to play politics, you should expect that people may care about it.

If you don't want to be seen as picking sides, then don't pick sides. Don't whine about the fact that we require disclosure of where funding for propositions come from.

Screw the California budget process!

Another quick one today.

California is the only large American state that requires 2/3rds of the votes in both house of the legislature to pass tax increases. There are many other states with large Democratic majorities in their legislatures that don't suffer any greater tax burden than we do.

Why the hell do we make California's budget process a hostage of the most extreme elements of a party that the voters have chosen to make the minority? Government services are important, and we need to have them function! Roads need to be paved, kids need to be educated, police need to patrol.

California is one of the largest economies in the world, we need to have a functioning government. This 2/3rds voting requirement has effectively rendered it moot. We need to get rid of it!

Seat Burris!

Another quick one, as some exciting things are happening in the world of Ethan Quinn. I'll probably write up some stuff about it when it becomes more solid.

So I'll just make a quick statement:

Gov. Rod Blagojevich should have resigned. Even if the guy hasn't done anything illegal, he's violated the trust of his state, and he no longer has the political capital to be an effective governor.

That being said, he is still the governor. He hasn't been convicted of anything illegal yet, he hasn't been impeached, and no new laws have been passed restricting his power of appointment. I don't think the Senate should being deciding who is going to sit in the senate as long as the appointment is legal. Unless there is something to Illinois law that I don't know about, there is nothing illegal about Burris's appointment.

Burris should be the new junior Senator from Illinois.
I don't think Harry Ried or the rest of the Senate is doing the right thing here, though I understand where they are coming from. The Illinois legislature can impeach Blagojevich if they want, and pass a law calling for a special election for the Senate seat, cutting Burris's appointment short. But just not seating him because we don't like the guy who appointed him is not good government.

Burris should be the new junior Senator from Illinois.

Politics Related Scams

Busy day today, so just a quick copy-paste from The New Republic

Gotta love a good politics-related scam:

Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2009 01:01:19 +0200

From: "Internal Revenue Service"

Subject: Please submit your Stimulus Payment online form

After the last annual calculations of your fiscal activity we have determined

that you are eligible to receive a Stimulus Payment.Please submit the Stimulus Payment Online Form in order to process it.A Stimulus Payment can be delayed for a variety of reasons.For example submitting invalid records or applying after the deadline.To submit your Stimulus Payment form, please download the document attached

to your email.Note: If filing or preparation fees were deducted from your 2007 Refund or you received a refund anticipation loan, you will be receiving a check

instead of a direct deposit.Regards, Internal Revenue Service

Eliminate the California Integrated Waste Management Board!

I worked at the CIWMB as a law clerk during my third year of law school. I was impressed by the staff and the mission. I felt like the agency really is on the forefront of the unglamorous but very important world of dealing with waste.

However, the agency is run by a board of part-time, $132,000 a year salary people who play no real role. The Board positions are used to rewarded termed out legislators and formers aides to governors, and they lack any sort of real expertise in their field. There is absolutely no reason why this agency could not be run by a single, appointed head.

However, the reason it probably will not happen is that the legislature will not want to give up it's ability to appoint some of the members. Unlike the federal government, there is no constitutional separation of powers issue when it comes to the legislative branch appointing members of executive agencies. It's not something a Democratic legislature wants to give up in a state that routinely elects Republican governors.

Arnold is proposing getting ride of the CIWMB, and while I'm not one of his biggest fans, I hope he gets his way on this one. That money can be better spent elsewhere.

What the New Deal did wrong

Happy new year, and just 20 days until we have a President with the political capital to actually get things done.

People on the right like to say that the success of the New Deal is largely exaggerated, many arguing that it prolonged the great depression. The is an element of truth to that, but I don't think it's for the reasons they argue.

The New Republic has a nice, short opinion piece on it that I think is worth the read

Here's the part that struck me:

The more important failure of the New Deal, however, was what it did not do. The only way to break the deadlock that paralyzed the U.S. economy in the 1930s was to enormously expand economic activity--quickly and decisively. Instead, the New Deal wavered and equivocated--spending large sums of money with one hand while reducing spending with the other. One of the first acts Congress passed for Roosevelt in 1933 was the Economy Act, which slashed government spending in ways that reduced economic activity. It cut the salaries (and, in some cases, the jobs) of government employees and dramatically reduced payments to World War I veterans, taking $500 million from the economy in a single stroke. The Social Security system, so valuable over the long term, was in the short term a drag on the economy. It began collecting taxes in 1936 but paid out few benefits until the 1940s. In 1937, deluded by a weak economic recovery, Roosevelt (urged on by his Treasury secretary) set out to balance the budget through severe spending cuts. The result was a sudden and dramatic economic downturn--a recession within the Depression that produced some of the highest levels of unemployment and lowest levels of production of the decade.

The reason that stands out is, while I don't think the federal government is going to fall into that same trap, state governments are often constrained by balanced budget laws that prevent them from dealing with economic downturns. My state of California is really hurting because of that.

Between the requirement that our budgets be balanced and the 2/3 voting requirement to pass a budget, California's state government is gradually becoming non-functional. We're going to be laying off state workers, cutting benefits, and stopping infrastructure improvements. All things that are going to work to reduce economic activity in the state, increasing the problem.

Balanced budgets are important in better times, but mostly so the state will have the flexibility to spend during down times to keep the economic engine pumping. But I'm hoping Obama doesn't make the mistake of trying to balance the budget until economic growth returns. Because state governments are effectively useless.