The Washington Blame Game

For the first time in our nation's history our credit rating has been downgraded.  Any way you look at it, that's bad.  Perhaps the worst part of it is that instead of doing their jobs and trying to fix our financial problems, Congress is doing all they can to blame this on somebody else.  Republicans say it's Obama's fault, Democrats say it's the tea party's fault.  But in the end, does it really matter?

Politicians are always concerned about re-election, as they probably should be.  If nobody had to worry about re-election there would be little incentive for our representatives to do a good job.  But in recent years our politics has become more about demonizing the other side than convincing the voters that either side is more capable, competent, or effective at governing.

As former Senator Robert Bennett (R-UT) said after he lost his bid for re-eection, he wouldn't miss Congress because he'd "gotten tired of being told to plot against the democrats to make them look bad."  That's not what being a member of Congress should be about.  It should be about getting together to solve problems.  That's the kind of representation the American people deserve.  Let's hope for our country's sake that our elected officials can do better.

Women's interests are America's interests

Yesterday the Special Joint Committee on Redistricting for the State of Massachusetts held it’s thirteenth and final public hearing on redistricting.  As the Boston Herald mentioned in their coverage of the hearing (which took place at the Statehouse), a number of people stressed the importance of minority representation, including Rep. Stephen Lynch of South Boston.  And they were right to point this out.  Effective minority representation is essential to our democracy, for we must ensure that all voices are heard in our communities, not just those of a few classes of people.  

What the Herald article didn’t mention was the testimony of a state representative who spoke shortly after Rep. Lynch.  She argued that not only do we have to preserve minority representation, but we also need to protect underrepresented majorities - specifically women.  Despite the fact that women make up a majority of the population, she said, Massachusetts only has one Congresswoman (Niki Tsongas of Lowell).  The other nine are all men.

The problem is not unique to Massachusetts.  Out of all 535 members of the current Congress, only 89 of them are women – 72 in the House of Representatives and 17 in the Senate.

I’m not saying that men can’t do a good job representing women’s interests - women have had some great male advocates in Congress like Ted Kennedy - nor am I saying that women are always better at representing the interests of women than men are (for instance, GOP Presidential hopeful Michelle Bachmann voted against equal pay for women last Congress).  What I am saying is that women's interests need to be protected.      

The bottom line is that women make up a majority of the population, a majority of college graduates, and - for the first time - a majority of the workforce.  The well-being of our country is inextricably connected with the well-being of women.  It's about time we started looking after the interests of the majority for the good of the country.

Read My Lips: No More Voodoo Economics

As I understand it, a representative democracy is a system of government in which the people elect individuals to advocate for them in legislative bodies.  In theory, our legislative bodies represent the greater populace, and, through effective deliberation and a spirit of civic responsibility, our representatives ensure that the general will of the people will prevail.

Apparently the Republican Party didn’t get that memo.

Throughout the country state legislatures face massive budget shortfalls and tough decisions have to be made to ensure fiscal stability in the coming years.  Yet all republicans seem to care about is ensuring that the uber wealthy never have to share in any of the sacrifices that the rest of the country is forced to face.

Over the weekend the state of Minnesota went into a government shutdown because it failed to pass a budget, resulting in the layoff of more than 20,000 state workers and countless other Minnesotans being cut off from essential government services.  You would think that the republican state legislature and the democratic governor could have come to an agreement.  After all, weren’t they elected first and foremost to make the necessary compromises and sound policy decisions required to serve the interests of the people of Minnesota? 

The reason: the republicans in the Minnesota state legislature refused to go along with any plan that raised taxes on even the 0.3% of the wealthiest members of the state.  The concept of shared responsibility was unthinkable to them.  Instead, they proposed to shift the burden to everyone else.

Democratic Gov. Mark Dayton refused to go along with the republican proposal, because, he said, “I cannot accept a Minnesota where people with disabilities lose part of the time they are cared for by personal care attendants so that millionaires don’t have to pay $1 more in taxes.  I cannot accept a Minnesota where young people cannot afford the rising tuition at the University of Minnesota or a MnSCU campus so that millionaires do not have to pay $1 more in taxes.”

Spoken like a true patriot.

We’re seeing this trend at the national level as well.  As we all know, the Republicans took over the U.S. House of Representatives last fall after promising to create jobs and reduce the national debt (as is no doubt the will of the nation).  But since they took over Congress the republicans have pursued a radically different path.  Six months into their term in the majority the republicans in Congress are yet to pass - or even consider - a single jobs bill.  In fact, they’ve proposed not to create, but to CUT over 6 million jobs nationwide http://politicalcorrection.org/factcheck/201106270010 in addition to taking away benefits like Medicare and Social Security that hard working Americans have spent their lives paying into. 

So far the republicans haven’t been successful in these endeavors, but they have been successful in enacting one of their agenda items, which to them seems to be the only thing that matters: cutting taxes for millionaires.

They say that this is what the people want, and that Americans would NEVER accept any attempts at deficit reduction that involved tax increases for even the most well-off.

Perhaps they haven’t been listening lately http://www.capitalgainsandgames.com/blog/bruce-bartlett/2292/americans-support-higher-taxes-really

The purpose of our government is to protect the interests of all of the people, not simply the privileged few.  It’s time the republicans got that through their heads.   

Is Right-to-Work Good for Jobs?

In an opinion piece in Politico this morning, U.S. Senate hopeful George Allen expounded upon his hardline position on the issue of right-to-work laws.  States with right-to-work laws do not allow employers to require their employees to pay union dues as a prerequisite for employment.  Because of the impact this policy has on labor unions, right-to-work has become an incredibly controversial issue nationwide.

Opponents of right-to-work laws argue that it’s simply a ploy to cut off financial support from the unions.  Right-to-work laws create a scenario where workers can receive the benefits of membership in a union without having to pay the price of union membership (sounds like a pretty good deal, doesn’t it?).  The problem is, when workers don’t pay union dues the unions can’t afford to effectively advocate their positions, whether it’s through litigation, lobbying or any sort of worker’s rights campaign.  Without the means to fund these endeavors, the unions essentially fall apart.

Supporters of right-to-work laws, like George Allen, claim that this policy is good for business and ultimately beneficial to the economies of the states in which they are enacted.  Allen writes, “Having been governor, one would think Tim Kaine, my opponent in the Virginia Senate race, would know about the desirability of right-to-work laws for Virginia jobs...”

The question is: do right-to-work laws actually benefit state economies?

If we take state unemployment rates as the indicator for the relative health of state economies, as George Allen appears to, the results are actually pretty mixed.  There are states with right-to-work laws that have high unemployment and states with right-to-work laws that have low unemployment; the same goes for states without right-to-work laws.  However, if we look at the states in which unemployment has been dropping the most rapidly, a trend begins to emerge.

There are currently 22 right-to-work states, about half of the states in the union.  Of the five states in which unemployment has dropped the most since its high point after the recession – Michigan, Nevada, Indiana, Illinois, and Oregon – only one is a right-to-work state, Nevada.  Despite the fact that Nevada’s unemployment rate has dropped nearly 3% since it’s high point of 14.9%, it still has the highest unemployment rate of any state in the union.  If we take a slightly broader sample and look at the ten states in which unemployment has dropped the most, the picture doesn’t get any better for right-to-work states.  Of those ten states (the five already mentioned plus Ohio, Oklahoma, Minnesota, Vermont, and New Hampshire) only two are right-to-work states.  It looks like union busting may not be the answer to the country’s economic woes after all.

What’s really been fueling the U.S. economic recovery (no pun intended) is the success of policies like the U.S. auto bailout.  The states that are seeing the fastest and most successful recoveries are the states like Michigan, Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and New York, the rust belt states that benefitted the most from the auto bailout; and coincidentally, none of these states have right-to-work laws.  

This country doesn’t need more union busters, what we need is courageous leadership and the good ideas that will keep us on a path to recovery.

A Great Day For America

I believe that the primary role of our government is to protect and secure individual rights in the name of the pursuit of happiness, not to bow to the whim of corporations or stand in the way of social progress.  Today I can say that we’re seeing a step in the right direction thanks to the courage of a group of public servants in Albany. 

Last night the state of New York officially legalized gay marriage, becoming the sixth state to recognize the right of all gay and lesbian couples to the same legal protections enjoyed by heterosexual married couples.  This is no doubt a big win for America and anyone who cares about our country’s commitment to human rights.

There are a couple of things to note about this landmark vote.  First, this measure was passed after having been voted down in the last legislative session, which means that there’s hope for other states where marriage equality initiatives recently failed (like my home state of Maryland).  Last night’s vote by the New York State Senate also marks the first time that gay marriage has passed in a majority republican chamber, a sign that marriage equality can win with bipartisan support. 

Although most of the strongest supporters of gay marriage are of the left-wing persuasion, the marriage equality movement has gained a number of high profile adherents from the right as well.  To put things in perspective, George W. Bush’s wife, daughter, Vice President, and Campaign Manager have all come out in support of gay marriage in the past few years.  A lot can change in a short period of time.

Now that New York has shown their mandate of support for gay marriage against these odds, I expect this to open the door for many other states to follow suit.  Like the fight for desegregation and voting rights in the 1960’s, the fight for equality based on sexual orientation has become the defining civil rights issue of our generation.  The recognition of all couples as equal citizens with equal rights is a key step towards civic equality.  The kind of civic equality America can be proud of.

Massachusetts Redistricting Competition

Common Cause Massachusetts will be holding a citizens redistricting competition this summer for the state of Massachusetts.  The Congressional maps should have 9 districts, State Senate maps should have 40 districts, and State House maps should have 160 districts.  See information below.

Ten years ago redistricting was politics as usual.

This time around we can make sure things will be different.

The state legislature is set to draw new legislative districts for the Commonwealth this fall. Now it’s your turn to get involved.

Help raise the standard of fair redistricting in Massachusetts by submitting your own map to Common Cause MA’s first Redistricting Olympics. You can make sure the peoples’ interests are truly represented. Winning maps will be submitted to the legislature for review and will also be awarded cash prizes ($750 State House Map; $500 Congressional Map; $500 State Senate). Your map(s) should also include a brief (no more than a page) explanation as to why you think the map(s) should be drawn as you propose.

Now accepting submissions. Maps will be accepted until August 15th subject to extension. Please email all maps and questions to redistrictma@gmail.com.

The criteria for evaluating the maps can be found here:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1wJEPff_ov0dh_wgRDfbe2lqUbvVIF6b7VL-gefDpx1Y/edit?hl=en_US&authkey=CLef4ng      

To create your maps you may use any software of your choosing.  Here is a link with instructions for how to use one possible free redistricting software:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1C_UPcFNnVb6n25c7n503VUSuwbHoXVPNYl23MkhJGXc/edit?hl=en_US&authkey=CKXwqtQL

Journalism in the Public Interest

Over the weekend I attended Common Cause Mass’s annual brunch at the Charles hotel in Cambridge.  This year’s theme was journalism in the public interest.  What was clear from the brunch was that in an era where most people get their news online instead of subscribing to newspapers, journalism has become a much less lucrative profession.  As a consequence, many small papers are going under, and even the most successful papers continue to dramatically reduce the sizes of their staffs to make up for lost revenues.  As a number of the brunch’s honorees pointed out, this trend is not only a shame for the hardworking journalists but it’s also a significant threat to the efficacy of our government. 

The maintenance of a free press is the single most important safeguard against abuses of power in our democracy.  Without a free press, those who govern would be able to keep the inner workings of our country secret from the people who are supposed to be sovereign.  Our government would then become a government of by, and for the bureaucrats instead of the people.  Perhaps that’s why the framers of the Constitution put the guarantee of a free press in the First Amendment, before the right to bear arms, due process of law, and even the prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. 

Think of the things that our elected officials would try to get away with if they thought nobody was watching, or reporting; mishandling public funds, trading votes for campaign contributions, packing courts, and even launching misguided wars, the list goes on and on.  As my father always said, never say or do anything that you wouldn’t be comfortable seeing on the front page of the New York Times.  Public officials like Anthony Weiner learned that the hard way, as did the Tom DeLays, Rod Blagojevichs, and Scooter Libbys of the world. 

Contrary to what Sarah Palin may say (shocking, I know), the ‘gotcha’ media serves a public purpose.  The media helps keep public officials governing in a way they’d be happy to see on the front page of the New York Times.  The potential for getting caught and the fear of public humiliation keeps in line those who we entrust with the direction of our country, and when they do betray our trust the free press can call them out on it.  

On this day the 21st anniversary of my birth.

Today is my 21^st Birthday.  Rest assured I shall take advantage of my newly acquired 21-year-old status by hitting the bars in Boston, but I’d like to spend the rest of this blog post talking about something else. 

This is also the 796^th anniversary of the signing of the Magna Carta (Great Charter), designated with the official seal of King John of England on June 15, 1215.  This occasion marked the first time the people of England were able to impose limits on the King’s absolute authority, and proved to be a milestone on the way to establishing the rule of law over the rule of man throughout the world.

We’ve come a long way in those nearly 800 years, but our work is not yet done.  As I write this blog post, small groups of elites continue their assault on the middle class in America, with little respect for the sanctity of our institutions or the rights of the people.  Our elected officials seem to view tax cuts for millionaires as a higher priority than collective bargaining rights or protecting benefits like Medicare and Social Security, benefits that the workers who form the backbone of our country have spent their lives paying for.  Last time I checked the American middle class didn’t cause the financial crisis, and they are not responsible for our nearly $15 trillion national debt.

Back in 1215, King John had to answer to the people for his abuses of power.  796 years later, it’s time for our leaders to answer for their abuses.  The era of our leaders cutting their own taxes and raising their own pay at the expense of the middle class must come to an end.

Some Thoughts on Independent Redistricting Commissions

Last week I had the good fortune to attend a public forum in Lexington on the redistricting process in Massachusetts.  The forum’s attendees were acutely aware of the importance of redistricting to the effectiveness of their representation on multiple levels of government, as well as the potential for foul play in the process - particularly on the issue of gerrymandering.

By engaging in partisan gerrymandering, public officials artificially redraw legislative districts so as to maximize their party’s interests instead of accurately reflecting the interests of the communities in question.  As a protection against this dangerous practice, a number of states across the country have decided to put control of the redistricting process in the hands of an independent commission.  These independent redistricting commissions ensure that the people running for these districts are not the same people drawing them, a practice that subverts the democratic process such that candidates select voters instead of voters selecting candidates. 

Among the panelists at the forum in Lexington was the Chairman of the Joint Committee on Redistricting Rep. Michael Moran (D-Brighton), who is a staunch opponent of independent redistricting commissions.  When pressed on his position by a number of the forum’s attendees, Moran claimed that he opposes independent commissions on the grounds that the district maps they produce face just as many legal challenges as the maps drawn by state legislatures. 

If we take Rep. Moran’s point of view and use the quantity of lawsuits per redistricting cycle as a barometer for the fairness of the districts, independent commissions actually come out looking pretty good:

In the six states that used independent commissions to oversee redistricting a decade ago (Alaska, Arizona, Idaho, Hawaii, Missouri, and Montana), none of the maps they produced resulted in more than a handful of lawsuits, if any.  And in the states in which there were lawsuits, there were no charges of partisan gerrymandering.

When state legislatures controlled redistricting last decade, the results were much more mixed.  In states like Alabama, Illinois, and Texas charges of partisan gerrymandering were rampant and each of these states faced lawsuits numbering in the double digits. 

Last time there were four lawsuits filed in Massachusetts against the state legislature’s redistricting plan, which was more than the number of challenges filed against any of the plans submitted by independent commissions.  If the people of Massachusetts want to reduce the number of legal challenges to their legislative districts, next time they may want to look to an independent commission.