Pro-Death Bona Fides

In a strange twist, Republican candidates now must seemingly prove their pro-death bona fides to the Tea Party extremist base.  In the last two Republican debates the crowd has made it clear that death is preferable to life, eye-for-an-eye-tooth-for-a-tooth is preferable to love thy neighbor and blessed-are-the-peacemakers and good-samaritanism and so forth.  (Videos below)

First, last week, the crowd erupted in cheers when Rick Perry's record of over two hundred executions was brought up (including at least one innocent man, and probably others):



Next, this week, the crowd yelled out in favor of and cheered the idea of letting an uninsured man die:



Add to this list the generally hawkish, pro-war Republican stances and suddenly the pro-life, anti-abortion wing of the Republican party seems oddly out of place.  After years of sowing the seeds of fear-mongering politics, the Republican strategy has worked:  I am scared for America.

Down With the Two-Party System

. . . kind of.

As it stands now, there are two major political parties that are supposed to somehow represent the infinitely more complex political views of hundreds of millions of Americans.  It's a political duopoly.  Our two political parties, meanwhile, are failing us spectacularly.

Not only are the two parties failing us, but the two-party system itself, regardless of which parties are in control, is failing us.  It is a system which actively suppresses diverse ideas and candidates and thinking-outside-the-box, which results is less choice and less democratic representation for Americans.

The 2000 presidential election is an apt illustration of this problem.  More people voted for Al Gore than George W. Bush, but Bush became president of the United States.  So you have a situation where the president of the United States did not garner a majority vote of Americans.  This might be attributed to two major factors.  First, the electoral college and, second, the presence of Ralph Nader.

As to the electoral college, there's not much else to add.  It is archaic and anti-democratic and nonsensical and needs to be done away with.

As to the presence of Ralph Nader, he actually did end up taking enough votes away from Al Gore in Florida to flip the state in Bush's favor, thereby turning the election.  I imagine that most of the people that voted for Ralph Nader would have had Al Gore as their second choice, but by voting their conscience and refusing to vote strategically (which I applaud), they showed how a multi-party system fails.  Many people were afraid to vote for Nader because of how it might have skewed the election in favor of Bush.  The two-party system, then, suppressed the valid concerns of Nader-ites, and any other potential third party, because there is only room for two parties.  So how to fix it?

There are actually different and better ways to run an election than simply marking an "X" next to the name of the person you are voting for, often referred to as Plurality Voting.  This is the system that punishes third party candidates and skews the entire process like what happened with Bush, Gore, and Nader.  It seems weird to conceive of a different way to elect our government at first, given that we have voted in a certain way for so long, but it is nonetheless true that better ways exist.  Much better ways.

One better way to run an election for an executive office is called Instant Runoff Vote.  Under this system voters rank their preferences one through however many candidates are on the ballot.  If no candidate receives a majority vote right off the bat the candidate with the fewest votes is eliminated and the second choices from that ballot are distributed amongst the remaining candidates.  This process is followed until one candidate has a majority.  Under instant runoff voting, the person elected always has a majority and there is no punishment for third-parties (or fourth, fifth, etc.)

That's simple enough, but the more difficult issue is the problem with voting for legislatures, councils, and the like.  Imagine a state where 40% of the people vote for candidates from Party A, 35% vote for candidates from Party B, and 25% vote for candidates from Party C.  Also imagine that the party makeup is the same in each individual district.  In this case even though Party A only makes up 40% of the electorate, they get 100% of the power in the legislature.  The dominant party, then, generally gets greater representation in government, and thus more power, than they proportionally receive among the electorate.

There are several methods used in different American cities and states, and federal elections in different countries, that fix this problem, all of which try to attain the most fair way to achieve Proportional Representation.  They are all more complicated than the system we use now, but much more fair and representative of the electorate.  Choice Voting is similar to IRV in that voters rank their preference of candidates, and second and third preferences are redistributed until all the seats are filled.  This requires that the seats be at-large and that candidates obtain a threshold of votes to be elected according to the Droop Formula, which is the number of votes cast, divided by the number of seats available, plus one.

Mixed Member Voting has the voters cast two votes: one for a specific candidate and one for a party.  In this method, the party receives the number of seats proportional to the number of party votes it gets.  The seats are filled first by those that win the specific candidate vote and the rest filled by the party.

Party List Voting is where parties order a list of candidates and voters just vote for their favorite parties.  The seats are filled by the parties according to how the proportion of the vote they receive in the order the party ranked the candidates.

These are very basic overviews of the systems, and there are different variants for each one, but the overriding concept is that they all do a better job of representing the diverse and complex political characteristics of the public than our current Plurality Vote system.  They allow for more voices and more ideas, which inevitably leads to less political stagnation and fewer stale ideas to fix problems.

As an example of how this might change things, let's take a look at good old Utah.  To get an idea of the general proportion of Democrats to Republicans in the state, I took the results of the 2010 governor's race between Peter Corroon and Gary Herbert.  Herbert won 64-32.  A two to one margin is probably about right.  The state senate, meanwhile, is made up of 22 Republicans and seven Democrats, which is a 76-24 split.  The state house of representatives is made up of 58 Republicans and 17 Democrats, which is a 77-23 split.  In both cases Republicans are over-represented compared to the electorate.  A Proportional Representation system would correct this problem and lead to something like a 19-10 split in the state senate (a pickup of three seats for Democrats) and a 51-24 split in the state house (a pickup of seven seats for Democrats).

This isn't even factoring in the increased opportunity for third parties, which would change the political landscape even more.  And this is just a liberal whining about Utah and the 2000 elections, there are plenty of conservatives that would embrace a Constitution Party or Libertarian Party if they had the chance, and I would welcome that.  More parties, more ideas, more choices, more democracy.

The last few years have made it clear that democracy in America is weakening drastically.  There are many good ideas for how strengthen it again, and changing the way we elect our officials is perhaps one of the most important.  It is also the least likely to happen because it would mean that the parties in control would voluntarily weaken themselves and give away power, and as we know, "We have learned by sad experience that it is the nature and disposition of almost all men, as soon as they get a little authority, as they suppose, they will immediately begin to exercise unrighteous dominion."

Huntsman the Environmentalist

I think Jon Huntsman might be campaigning for my specific vote.  I'm not sure he even cares if he becomes president, as long as I vote for him.  Because, really, I can't see who his constituency might otherwise be.

Huntsman recently had dinner with a bunch of environmentalists and declared that "conservation is conservative."  Add this to a list of other moderate-to-liberal stances, and I'm not sure Huntsman has a firm grasp on today's Republican Party.  This is not a party of moderation, generally, and certainly not a party hospitable to even inklings of environmentalism.

I've already expressed a little political crush on him, so if he keeps reaching out to me personally like this I'm in trouble because my steamy new political partner is the Green Party and I don't want them getting jealous.  But a moderate Mormon environmentalist as President of the United States?  That's hot.

Two More Debt Ceiling Facepalms

1.  If one didn't know any better, one might conclude that our elected officials don't care whatsoever about the American people.  I know it may sound shocking, but I have this sneaking suspicion.  As evidence, I give you this Washington Post-ABC poll which asked people, among other things, if they would oppose or support certain items in an effort to reduce the national debt.  Here's a summary:

Cut spending on Medicaid:  26% support, 72% oppose

Cut military spending:  43% support, 56% oppose

Raising taxes on Americans earning over $250,000 a year:  72% support, 27% oppose

Gradually raising Medicare age from 65 to 67:  46% support, 54% oppose

Changing the way SS benefits are calculated so they increase slower:  42% support, 53% oppose

Raising taxes on oil and gas companies:  59% support, 39% oppose

Means testing Medicare:  61% support, 36% oppose

Removing SS tax income cap currently at $107,000:  66% support, 33% oppose

Raising taxes on hedge fund managers (essentially changing capital gains taxes to income taxes):  64% support, 25% oppose

In sum, Americans support raising taxes on the wealthy and corporations to match recent historical levels and only making very small changes to Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security (such as means-testing, which I'm okay with) to help fix the national debt problem.  The only quibble I personally have with the majority of Americans is that I think military spending needs to be cut dramatically.

Yet, in the debt ceiling negotiations in Washington the exact opposite is being considered.  Tax increases for the wealthy and corporations are off the table and big changes to Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security are a near certainty.  Up is down, left is right, sane is insanity, and what the American people want is irrelevant.

2.  The House recently passed their pie-in-the-sky Cut, Cap, and Balance bill.  The bill was so draconian that it had no chance, absolutely zero chance, of passing the Senate or not being vetoed by the President.  It was a waste of time and Harry Reid, bless his soul, called it "some of the worst legislation in the history of this country." the worst piece of legislation every passed by the House.

It worked by first making massive cuts to government spending starting next year and going into the future.  Second, it capped government spending at around 18% of GDP per year and required 2/3 vote in Congress to ever raise taxes.  Third, it required the passage of a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution before the debt ceiling was raised.

All three of those ideas are bad.  The first because the cuts come at the expense of the poor and elderly almost exclusively.  The second because it gives no flexibility to respond to crises like the one from which we are still recovering.  The third because it gives even less flexibility than the second and degrades the beauty of our Constitution.  It would ruin our economy, I have no doubts about that.

It was, then, seen as a way for the please-don't-compare-yourselves-to-the-real-Tea-Party Congresspersons to show their ultra-conservative chops.  It was a political stunt, nothing more and nothing less.  They knew it didn't have a chance for passage because it was so conservative, they knew it was just to satisfy their base.

But the Republicans control the House and it is their right to pass whatever they want.  I think it is a dangerous bill and a waste of time when we are so close to an economic meltdown, but they've earned the right to be irresponsible I guess by winning elections and anyway everyone knew it never had any chance to become law.  So it is not the mere passage of the bill that I consider a facepalm.

What really bothers me is that Utah Democrat Jim Matheson voted for it.  JIM MATHESON VOTED FOR CUT, CAP, AND BALANCE!  Are your *&%#^@ kidding me?  Even all of his Blue Dog Conservative Democrat associates called it a horrible bill just meant to give ultra-conservatives a message vote.  I would rather, much much rather, have a Republican in that seat than Matheson.  He's an embarrassment.  He is the worst Congressperson in the country.  I hope the state legislature redistricts him right out of office, I really do.

The Debt Ceiling Drama Makes Everyone Look Incompetent

The debt ceiling stuff makes me sick to my stomach.  Despite the fact that the warnings about default are clear and dire, our elected leaders seem to be only interested in political showmanship and not actually solving the problem.

On the one hand you have the Republicans who are the party much more responsible for our unwieldy debt, refusing to raise the debt ceiling unless all of their suddenly austere measures are met without any inkling of desire to compromise on any issue.  They are the major cause of the problem, are completely hypocritical about government debt and size now that they believe it is politically advantageous, and are unwilling to negotiate like responsible adults to avoid the catastrophe they precipitated.  They are more interested, it seems, in pleasing their corporate overlords than doing what is right for the American people.  Here is one graph, among many many many, that illustrates the level to which Republicans are at fault for the debt:

From the New York Times

On the other hand you have the Democrats who seem to only care about reelection, not solving problems, caving on almost every issue because they think the more they move to the right the more electable they will become.  Every time they make a move towards a compromise, without anything offered in return, the Republicans pull the chair out from under them and move it a little further to the right.  The Democrats get up, brush themselves off, offer fresh cuts to Social Security or offer trillions in cuts without any increases in revenue (e.g. raising taxes on the wealthy), without any compromises from Republicans in return, and go to sit back down again only to come crashing to the ground as the chair is pulled out from under them yet again.  Too stupid to learn, I guess.

Meanwhile, the public is overwhelmingly in favor of raising taxes on the rich; closing huge tax loopholes for corporations; keeping Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid intact; and raising the debt ceiling to avoid another economic downturn.  Somehow the Democrats have turned all that into a losing hand and seem destined to weaken the liberal legacy in return for some non-existent political victory.

I am all for big cuts in spending in order to get the debt under control.  I'm all for cutting out some of the enormous amount of fat in government.  But it has to be done responsibly, and that means raising taxes on the rich and corporations and not gutting the social safety net for millions of poor and elderly Americans.  It mostly means doing everything we can to make the economy strong again, which hinges mostly on creating local and sustainable jobs for average Americans and not showering the wealthy and corporations with more tax breaks and kickbacks.

No one wins no matter what happens in the next few days.  What a miserable time to be a political partisan.

Good News Everyone: Corporations Are Doing Great

The economic recovery isn't going so well for Americans.  The unemployment rate is still over nine percent and hiring is actually slowing down again.  Home foreclosures are still occurring at an alarmingly high rate.  Regular people are not doing well.  In short, as the Wall Street Journal notes: "Across a wide range of measures—employment growth, unemployment levels, bank lending, economic output, income growth, home prices and household expectations for financial well-being—the economy's improvement since the recession's end in June 2009 has been the worst, or one of the worst, since the government started tracking these trends after World War II."

In contrast--stark, ugly contrast--corporations are doing great.  Corporate profits are at an all-time high.  Corporations are holding onto a record amount of cash, around $2 trillion.  The GDP is higher now than it was pre-recession, but virtually all increased income was captured as profits by corporations.  Stocks are the highest they've been since the recession began.  Taxes on the wealthiest Americans are at all-time lows.  The Wall Street Journal astutely noted that there is a "dichotomy between corporate performance and the overall health of the economy."

It is time to stop babying corporate America and the ultra-wealthy, and to stop pretending that their successes or failures equate to general success and failure of everyday Americans.  They are not in the business of creating jobs, protecting the environment, or generally improving economy and the lives of regular Americans.  They are in the business of making profits, and that does not necessarily, or even regularly, translate to better lives for regular people.  Our 30 year experiment in supply-side, trickle down economics should now come to an end.

So what sorts of things should we be doing to take our economy back from corporations?  The first is to skew the tension between the pure profit motive and social responsibility way towards the latter.

Greens believe the legal structure of the corporation is obsolete. At present, corporations are designed solely to generate profit. This legal imperative -- profit above all else -- is damaging our country and our planet in countless ways. We must change the legal design of corporations so that they generate profits, but not at the expense of the environment, human rights, public health, workers, or the communities in which the corporation operates.

The practical solution is "federal chartering of corporations that includes comprehensive, strict and enforceable social responsibility requirements."

Second is for our economy to focus more locally:  "Greens support decentralization, and call for a community-based economics whose aim is local prosperity and self-sufficiency."

The overall idea is to shift power from corporations to people, from national or international to local.  This is a more sustainable way to run an economy.  I also really appreciate the focus on self-sufficiency.  One of the important purposes of self-sufficiency is to be able to help other people.  In our civic lives, we are self-sufficient as individuals and families so that we are stable and comfortable, to be sure, but also so that we can help our neighbors and create a self-sufficient community.  Greens care about self-sufficiency and community welfare because they are tied together.  And large, unwieldy corporations play virtually no part in that scheme.

The current painfully slow recovery for average Americans while corporate America and the wealthiest thrive is further evidence that it is time to reevaluate our economic structure.  It is time to demand social responsibility from corporations and time to stop pretending that that "trickle-down" economics is sound policy.

Mormon and Green

It seems to me that every instinct that the current American political class has is wrong.  The economy is faltering badly after banks and insurance firms drove it to disaster with too many risks and bad investments?  Let's deregulate, cut programs to the poor and those most vulnerable, and lower taxes on the rich.  The western forests are unhealthy and in bad shape because of decades of mismanagement?  Let's manage them with an even heavier hand.  The debt ceiling is about to be reached, and default by the government could have dire consequences for an already weak economy?  Let's play political games with it.  Climate change problem?  Scientists are communists.  No one seems to have the gumption or desire to stand up for something better.

As I looked over and contemplated my glib list of problems, politically, with America, it became glaringly clear that the Democrats and Republicans don't have the solutions.  They are too entrenched and powerful to come up with big, new ideas to fix big, new problems.  I've known this for quite a while, of course, on some level I think we all do, but the idea is continually sharpening in my mind.  As a Mormon with the political convictions that I have, I feel more and more compelled to cast my lot with the Green Party.

The Green Party is best known for running Ralph Nader in the 2000 presidential election and siphoning off a small but substantial number of votes that may or may not have given the election to George W. Bush over Al Gore.  Nader argued, though, essentially, that this is no big loss because there were no major differences between Bush and Gore: "Both parties are selling our government to big business paymasters. . .  That's a pretty serious similarity".  In retrospect, with Pres. Bush turning out to be one of the worst presidents in American history, the difference between Bush and Gore might have been more pronounced, but in general terms I'm with Nader on this.

Nader never actually joined the Green Party, however, and generally runs as an independent, and that was probably the peak of the party's influence.  But the Green Party is still one of the largest third parties in America and offers real choice to Americans who don't get it in a D v. R election.  But I'm not naive enough to think that we'll start getting Green Party candidates elected in any real numbers any time soon.  No, this is about ideas and starting conversations that we're generally not having.

The Green Party is based on 10 Key Values:

1. Grassroots Democracy
2. Social Justice and Equal Opportunity
3. Ecological Wisdom
4. Non-violence
5. Decentralization
6. Community Based Economics
7. Feminism and Gender Equality
8. Respect for Diversity
9. Personal and Global Responsibility
10. Future Focus and Sustainability

There's a lot packed in there, as you will see if you want to follow that link, and of course as a thinking adult I can't get behind everything the Green Party stands for, but this lines up more with my political and religious convictions than anything else out there.

The economic ideas remind me of the early days of the church, and especially the early church in Utah: economies based on local communities and the idea of local self-sufficiency and sustainability.

The social ideas are closer to the principles taught by Christ than what we see in our political parties today: non-violence, respect for diversity, personal responsibility, and intense caring for the poor and vulnerable.

And as an ardent environmentalist, and someone who thinks ecological wisdom is a proper fit with Mormonism, the Green Party is a natural fit.

I haven't lost all hope for America, but I'm not enamored with how things are going.  I think the Green Party offers ideas that deserve serious consideration and I want to try to express some of them on this blog and show how they are fully compatible with Mormonism.  It's time to explore the union of Mormon and Green.

What's Wrong With Us? Some ideas.

Perhaps I'm just in a bad mood, politically, but I made a list of what's wrong with America right now.  Enjoy:

1. Pointless, horrible wars that we won't end.
2. An assault on our civil liberties, mostly due to the Patriot Act.
3. A complete lack of initiative and desire to do something about climate change and out-of-control consumption of fossil fuels.
4. The deterioration of our public school system.
5. The ever-growing income disparity chasm between the rich and poor.
6. A broken health care system and no universal health care on the horizon to fix it.
7. Underregulated crony corporatism.
8. Insulated, unaccountable politicians.
9. Incivility and bigotry.
10. The New York Yankees.

To sum it up: we have a bipartisan assault on peace, liberty, niceness, the poor, and the environment.  Am I missing anything?

Don't You Make This Difficult For Me, Jon Huntsman

It's early, and my feelings are confused right now, but I think I'm starting to really like Jon Huntsman.  I mean, I liked him a lot when he was governor because we just never had governors like him in Utah.  He supported cap-and-trade legislation, he moved us forward on civil rights by supporting gay rights and civil unions, he supported immigrant rights, he called out those ridiculous congressional Republicans for being useless (his word was "inconsequential"), and he generally talked and acted like a moderate in a state where Republican politicians are almost universally crazies.  I even started to like that weird thing he does with his eyebrows.  He wasn't perfect, but he was pretty good.

Then he praised Obama and Clinton and went to work as the ambassador to China in the Obama administration, even when everyone knew he had national aspirations.

Now it is clear that he's running for president and he continues to talk like a moderate, reasonable conservative and, frankly, it's jarring.  Take a look at this article by the Deseret News and in particular the transcript of the interview he did with CNN's John King.

 When asked about the praise he has given Pres. Obama and Sec. Clinton he said:

"Well, occasionally you write thank you notes, which I think is, for a lot of people, an important tradition. I also believe in civility. I believe that we ought to have a civil discourse in this country. You're -- and you're not going to agree with people 100 percent of the time, but when they succeed and do things that are good, you can compliment them on it. I think we need to come together more on the issues that really do matter. I believe in civility and I believe in complimenting people when they do a good job."

When asked about his support for gay rights he said:

"Well, I'm for civil unions. I believe in traditional marriage. But I think subordinate to that, we don't do an adequate job when it comes to equality and fairness. And I'm going to say take a look at my total record. And like every person who's been elected to office and tried to do things, some things you'll like, some things you won't.  On balance, we hope you like us. But if you don't, there are always other alternatives."

When asked about his support for cap-and-trade and whether climate change is human-caused he said:

"Well, I think the science of the community would -- would suggest that to be the case. And I think in a world like we have, we should be deferring to the scientific community and not the political community to make decisions that are best left in the hands of scientists. . . . So by the time that, you know, in the years to come, people want to have this conversation in a serious way, because people care about their environment, they care about air quality, I think we're going to face a whole lot more in the way of options other than just a tax on carbon and a cap and trade proposal."

He also opposed sending our military to Libya.  He likes the idea of privatizing Medicare, which I think is a disastrous idea, but that's not ever going to happen anyway (knock on wood) so I'll overlook it.

These are not the types of things Republican nominees for POTUS say, though.  They typically stick with catchy soundbites and heated rhetoric (also, some Democrats, but we're talking about the current Republican field here).  They don't praise Pres. Obama for his successes, they call him a communist, anti-American, Muslim outsider who is hell-bent on destroying our nation (note: not exaggerations at all . . . for real).  They don't support civil unions and say we aren't doing a good job with equity and fairness (socialist buzzwords, people!), they say that gays are destroying traditional marriage and the very moral fiber of America and will bring our downfall as a Christian nation.  They don't admit that climate change is human caused and leave the door open to cap-and-trade and talk about love for our environment, they apologize profusely for ever admitting something so awful and talk about how scientists are just in a power grab to drag us down in a socialist plot.

But here is Huntsman being a mature, thoughtful adult addressing issues seriously and acknowledging that the other side has good ideas.  Which raises some conflicting feelings within me.

First, I don't consider myself particularly moderate in a lot of areas.  I'm pretty well fully liberal.  So your average moderate conservative isn't all that appealing to me in normal circumstances.

But second, I'm not particularly enamored with Pres. Obama, as I have written a few times before, for the reason that I'm fully liberal and the president doesn't seem interested in sticking his neck out for liberal positions.  I like that he plays the adult and compromises and gets things done, but I also want him to make strong cases for liberal causes along the way, which he doesn't seem to want to do.  If you're a Democratic president, you have to do both to impress me.

So, third, if you are going to have a president that is moderate and practical that isn't really interested in being a strong voice for liberal issues, what does it matter if she or he is a Democrat or Republican?  And who knows, Huntsman may well be even better than Pres. Obama on some key issues, in particular civil rights.  Maybe he'll support repealing the Patriot Act, ending indefinite imprisonment of detainees without a civil trial, and getting us out of wars we have no business fighting.

Finally, Jon Huntsman is Mormon.  I know he's been a little evasive about his Mormonism, but he is Mormon, saying "I believe in God. I'm a good Christian. I'm very proud of my Mormon heritage. I am Mormon."  I like how he describes the religion as "a very diverse and heterogeneous cross-section of people," which I believe is absolutely true.

Now, I'm on record as saying that I would never vote for a person just because of religion.  That is a very, very poor way to choose political leaders.  But at a time when the Democratic president isn't scratching my liberal itch, and when there is a very good Republican candidate who is somewhat iconoclastic and says some things I agree with on issues I think are important, I find that Huntsman being a Mormon I can be proud of adds a little extra luster.  It's a point, a single point, in his favor.  Tipping the scales, if I may mix my metaphors, in his direction just a bit.

But my potential enthusiasm is tempered by the fact that there used to be this other Mormon Republican ex-governor who took decidedly moderate or liberal stands on issues like gay rights and health care who all of the sudden when he wanted to become president started changing his positions and pandering to the please-don't-compare-yourselves-to-the-real-Tea-Party and became as unlikeable as possible.  His name, of course, is Mitt Romney.

So, if you want me to love you, Jon Huntsman, and I'm vulnerable right now and just might be able to, don't become another Mitt Romney.

Liberal States' Rights

My visceral opposition to strong states' rights comes from a variety of sources.  First, I don't like the way my state generally does things.  Utah is a drag.  This is an intellectually shallow argument against states' rights, but its real for many people.

Second, I think the constitutional arguments behind it are pretty weak, or have become weaker in a changing world that the Founding Fathers could not possibly have foreseen.  I went into detail about this here.

Third, I think there are certain basic privileges and protections that the federal government should ensure that many states are hostile to, such as health care, which we'll discuss more below.  I support the federal government setting minimum standards for health care, the financial sector, etc. that are binding on states and put all Americans on a more equal footing.  As long as we are the United States of America, what's bad for one of us is bad for all of us.

Fourth, I distrust corporations more than government and think corporations have too much power, and decentralizing their main counterweight, the federal government, strikes me as a way to strengthen corporations and allow them to run amok (think Gilded Age abuses and oppression, and go read The Jungle by Upton Sinclair).

Fifth, and related to the previous two points, is the threat of a race to the bottom.  This occurs where, in economic competition, competing political entities will race to deregulate and dismantle consumer protections in an effort to attract businesses.  Wal-mart, for instance, is not going to be relocating its headquarters to a state with strong union laws on the books.

Sixth, the history of states' rights isn't exactly inspiring.  States' rights has been synonymous with slavery, Jim Crow, anti-segregation, and a whole slew of civil rights atrocities.  The latest incarnation is for certain states to take an incredibly hostile view towards immigrants, which I find despicable and not very Christian.  Certain states don't seem to be able to mind themselves when it comes to civil rights and it just won't due for them to drag us all down to their level.

Finally, conservatives have ruined the issue for me by attaching it to their social agenda and supporting states' rights when it suits them (abortion, immigration) and opposing it when it doesn't (drug control, gay marriage).  There are actually hardly any people anywhere on the political spectrum with a consistent stance on states' rights and I therefore find it hard to get on board.
 
Despite all of this, I can't help but agree with the famous line from Justice Brandeis that, "It is one of the happy incidents of the federal system that a single courageous State may, if its citizens choose, serve as a laboratory; and try novel social and economic experiments without risk to the rest of the country."  The individual states as laboratories of democracy is an appealing metaphor that works on many levels.  I like the idea of states being courageous and searching for new, progressive solutions to our problems.  But it only works if states find themselves out ahead of nation as a whole as opposed to falling behind, and if the state doesn't have an elevated stature above the others in a certain area.

For example, New York and Delaware hold the keys to the corporate and financial engine of the nation.  If they aren't out ahead of rest of us in governing corporations and banks and protecting consumers, then the whole nation suffers.  So when they dropped the ball and the nation slunk into the Great Recession, the federal government had to step in and try to fix things.  It would have been better if those states had taken the lead and reformed the financial system before disaster struck, but they didn't and that's why we have the feds to step in and clean up their mess.

It became clear many years ago that there was a serious problem with the health care industry.  Tens of millions of Americans couldn't get coverage, coverage wasn't portable which tied people to their crappy jobs, and those with coverage were facing rising premiums greatly outpacing inflation with benefits falling by the wayside.  If various states had taken this seriously and fired up their bunsen burners and tried to find real solutions perhaps the federal government would not have had to play such a heavy hand.  The one state that did, Massachusetts, became the basis for the federal reform.  But otherwise they didn't.  But now they are.

Vermont is about to create a single-payer system.  California and Oregon have progressive systems aimed and covering all residents.  This is good, and could be the beginning of real health reform in the country.  The states should be out in front, and when they are the whole federalism system works better.  Unfortunately, that race to the bottom almost always means that they are not, and that is why it is too risky to put too much faith in states' rights, for now anyway.

Nearly Half of Americans Aren't Paying Income Taxes: Bad But Maybe Not in the Way You Suppose

It has recently exploded all over the internet that nearly half of American households do not pay income taxes.  There are enough deductions and credits for families making around $50,000 and less to avoid the income tax completely, though they still are paying federal payroll taxes, sales taxes, property taxes, and others.

While some see this as a broken tax system, I see it as a broken economy.  While some gripe that half of Americans aren't pulling their weight, I see it as nearly half of Americans are not making enough money to pay income taxes.  They live below the line where we have decided that a person is only making enough to cover basic expenses and should not bear the weight of income taxes on top of it.  Instead of trying to figure out how to get those people to start paying income taxes at their current salary, lets instead focus on how to get these people making enough money to be able to afford taxes after their basic needs are met.

If we want to broaden the tax base, and I agree that that should be one of our goals, we need to narrow the gap of income inequality.  We are more free as a nation, and have increased agency as individuals, when the wealth and income gap is narrow.  That is perhaps part of why the Lord said, "For if ye are not equal in earthly things ye cannot be equal in obtaining heavenly things."  Here is a site, called Business Insider, with all the charts you will ever need to help understand just how serious an issue this is.  Here is an example:

Health Care and the Budget

On the one hand I tip my hat to Republican Paul Ryan for actually submitting a proposal for the federal budget which addresses some of the important issues that are looming.  On the other hand he did a really bad job.  So it's a mixed bag.

The fundamental problem is that he puts fiscal responsibility squarely on the backs of the poor and elderly, mostly by slashing Medicare and Medicaid and lowering taxes on the rich.  Nor does his plan address "defense" spending, which is a subject we've addressed before here.

We pretty much exhausted the health care debate here last year, but it bears mentioning once again that there is a very good argument that a single payer system would do more to solve our entitlement-budget problems than anything else.  A single-payer system would save costs in a few of ways.  First, you would immediately slash most of the administrative overhead that is currently a massive drag on the system.  Second, you remove the perverse profit motive that skews the system and leads to appalling results.  Third, by covering everyone the risks are spread evenly and fairly amongst all Americans and the uninsured can no longer crash the party without paying in.  Fourth, since everyone is covered preventive care is universally available.  Fifth, bankruptcies as a result of medical emergencies no longer exist.

There are other points, and counterpoints, but that gives a pretty good idea of where health care savings might come from in a single payers system.

The United States currently pays more per capita for health care than developed countries which have a single payer system, without the benefits of actually better health.  We should have no problem studying those systems and creating one that works for us.  I understand that there trade-offs for universal health care, but none I'm not willing to pay.

A single payer health care system is a nice, elegant way of both fixing the broken health care system and taking a huge step towards fixing the federal budget.

Speedy and Public Trial by Jury

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, from The Economist

"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed."  -- 6th Amendment

This seems pretty straightforward, right?  I believe the historical impetus for this addition to the Bill of Rights was the fact that kings and rulers were accusing the people of crimes and convicting them without a trial by jury, without witnesses, without due process of law, essentially without any safeguards or protections whatsoever against corruption and unchecked power.  The founders wisely ensured that if government has the ability to deprive a person of property, freedom, or life (which it does) then the Constitution should require that the government has to submit to certain safeguards against the abuse of that power.  I believe those on both the political right and left can feel good about that.

Of course, America isn't alone in guaranteeing a public jury trial for criminals.  Other countries have such requirements, and stick to them even in cases of terrorist attacks, as Glenn Greenwald outlined:

People in capitals all over the world have hosted trials of high-level terrorist suspects using their normal justice system.  They didn't allow fear to drive them to build island-prisons or create special commissions to depart from their rules of justice.  Spain held an open trial in Madrid for the individuals accused of that country's 2004 train bombings.  The British put those accused of perpetrating the London subway bombings on trial right in their normal courthouse in London.  Indonesia gave public trials using standard court procedures to the individuals who bombed a nightclub in Bali.  India used a Mumbai courtroom to try the sole surviving terrorist who participated in the 2008 massacre of hundreds of residents.  In Argentina, the Israelis captured Adolf Eichmann, one of the most notorious Nazi war criminals, and brought him to Jerusalem to stand trial for his crimes.

But not in America.  In America we are stricken with fear that our criminal justice system is suddenly inadequate and that the safeguards found in the Constitution regarding trials of criminals, which have served us well for a couple hundred years, fall short.  So we have a Democratic administration, which is daily showing itself to be nothing like liberal as to civil liberties, reversing its promise to close Guantanamo Bay and hold criminal trials for Khalid Sheik Mohammad and the 9/11 plotters.  Instead, the administration has decided to hold military tribunals (straight news story here) and eschew our time-tested criminal court system.  Tribunals without a jury, behind closed doors, in a different country.

We are allowing, some even demanding, that the government brush aside the important Constitutional safeguards against abuse for merely political considerations.  We are also setting up a system where different classes of criminals receive different levels of Constitutional protection.  All out of fear, and all backed by "liberal" Pres. Obama.  I like the guy, but his record on civil liberties is appalling.

In Which I Whine About Our Political Parties

Pres. Obama is certainly a better president that Pres. W. Bush was, and is certainly better than Sen. McCain would have been, not to mention the mediocre crop of hopefuls lining up to challenge him next year.  He's done some good things such as at least making an effort to end our wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, not starting any new wars (. . . yet, but we're keeping our eyes on you, Libya), making an effort to reform the health care and financial systems, and, importantly, changing the tone of discourse in the White House.  But it hasn't really been that great, overall.  Where he has tried to make some progress in areas of war and regulation reform, they have been meager and more or less disappointing.  I went over some of the failures before here.

Now we learn that Pres. Obama will not be shutting down Guantanamo Bay any time soon, like he promised, will reinstate military tribunals and not use our world-class criminal justice system, and will continue indefinite detentions without hearings.  He also fired the State Dept. spokesperson for criticizing the brutal detention of Bradley Manning, the Wikileaks leaker.  His record on civil liberties is no better than Bush's, which make me sick.

As a result of this frustration, and general political malaise, I've felt like I've been wandering a political desert for a while.  I've spent some time looking at the Green Party, which has a lot to offer, especially for someone like me with strong environmental and pacifist leanings.  I feel pretty strongly about social democracy.  When it's really time to think outside the box there is nothing like libertarian socialism.

The point is, the basic political struggle we all have is reconciling that space between what we really believe and our choices in the ballot box.  Many people, most I suspect, instead of embracing this problem do their best erase the distinction and become party loyalists, buying the party line and giving up critical thought.  I admit to falling into this trap from time to time.  This is where you find absurd contradictions like states' rights conservatives being pro-federal government when it comes to abortion and marriage laws, or anti-death penalty and anti-war liberals being extremely pro-choice.  To paraphrase John Stewart's book, America, (because I don't have it in front of me right now):  You believe in protecting the environment?  Congratulations you are also anti-gun.  You oppose gay marriage?  Great, you are also anti-amnesty for illegal immigrants.  The current political party system in America clearly doesn't add up to intellectual consistency.

Many other people simply choose to become one-issue voters, which is more dangerous than the party loyalists.  At least the party loyalists are vaguely aware of most of the issues that the candidates espouse, whereas a single-issue voter doesn't care.

So what is the correct response?  Continue to enable the bloated and intellectually dissonant existing political parties by choosing "the lesser of two evils"?  Reform from within?  Vote for the third party candidate and give the election to your ideological opposite instead of your ideological near miss?  Fight the beasts who will out-spend and out-everything you to try to create a multi-party system?  I feel like there aren't any good, practical solutions because of the power the two parties hold.

There is really no point here except to whine about how the two parties are failing us, which is a complaint as old as the nation, I presume.  But we worship in a religion that urges us to stay true to our convictions and zealously maintain and cherish our agency, and I feel like modern day American politics forces us, to some degree at least, to sacrifice both.

Divide and Conquer, Religious Style

NYDailyNews.com

Rep. Peter King is using his position as chair of the House Committee on Homeland Security to terrorize Muslims.  He is instituting hearings on the radicalization of American Muslims based on vague accusations that ordinary Muslims and their leaders have not done enough to speak out against terrorism.  He has yet to produce, of course, any proof of any of his claims that American Muslims are becoming more radicalized and that they are not adequately assisting the police and counter-terrorism officials.

The impetus for these hearings likely has nothing to do with the radicalization of Muslims, and everything to do with politics.  By turning Americans against each other politicians can pursue the old divide and conquer technique.  Anyone who knows American Muslims knows that they are just like everyone else.  They are mostly good, hardworking, honest people who value their freedoms and abhor oppression.  They are serious about their religion and embrace their cultural and familial roots.  While most are good, some are not.  The same could be said about nearly every group of Americans, no matter how you dissect them.  You could say the same about Catholics, Mormons, atheists, middle class, lower class, New Yorkers, Utahns, blacks, whites, and on and on. It is cliche but still basically true that the things that tie us together are both more numerous and more important than the things that differentiate us.

But politicians know, and Rep. King best of all, apparently, that creating connections based on virtuous commonalities is bad politics.  So King is finding ways to divide us, and his weapon of choice is religion.  Instead of pointing to all the ways that Muslims are a valuable part of our nation, and world, he is making false allegations and fomenting fear and dividing us artificially along religious lines.  It suddenly becomes very comforting for the average white Christian to identify with Peter King and his brand of politics against the sinister "other" that is, in this case, Muslims.  Proof and logic have no place in this debate, this is about emotion.

It won't do any good to point to studies that show that Muslims are becoming less and less likely to radicalize and how helpful Muslims have been in anti-terrorism cases.  It won't do any good to point out that in America there is no guilt of identity.  It won't do any good to point out that every group has extremist wings and that we don't require every Christian, for instance, to denounce White Supremacists or else be considered anti-American and come before a McCarthyite congressional hearing.  It won't do any good to point out King's own ties to the Irish terrorist group, the IRA, and that therefore he is a hypocrite.

We can't allow our leaders to use our religion against us.  If we're concerned about freedom of religion, and we should be, then we should stand up with Muslims against this oppression.  Because Mormons could always be next.  Have you publicly denounced Warren Jeffs, the FLDS, and Mountain Meadows yet?

Utah State Legislature Fails Constitutional Interpretation

I got a really nice laugh this morning on the way to work.  KUER, the local NPR radio station, ran a story about the Utah legislature defining rules for how it sues the federal government.  One of the sections of this legislation is a list of powers given to the federal government.  Rep. Ivory explained the need for this list by stating:

I thought it was fascinating. There oughta be a list out there that just lists the enumerated powers. There's just not. There's just not, and we talk so often about the government being one of enumerated powers, but there's no list anywhere.

There oughta be a list?  Uh, I believe that "list" is the United States Constitution itself.  In fact, within the Constitution there is an actual section known as the Enumerated Powers.  Is Rep. Ivory too lazy to read the Constitution and therefore needs a nice, simplistic list for him to understand?  Or is it possible that Rep. Ivory doesn't like how the Constitution is written and would like to re-write it in a way a bit more pleasing to himself?  Is there something wrong with the Constitution that he believes needs fixing or clarifying?

The bill also requires the state to "judge federal action against that list, using the meaning of the provision at the time it was drafted - as far back as 1789."  So the touchstone for all Constitutional interpretation by the Utah state legislature is now not the Constitution itself, but a hackneyed, superficial, and biased list of enumerated powers as interpreted by Rep. Ivory?  Sounds like a real logical step forward.
 
And I've laid out before why it is inane to try to interpret the Constitution based on "original intent" -- because there was no single original intent and because it doesn't make sense to try to overlay 18th century understanding on an infinitely more complex 21st century world and because the Constitution was intentionally written broadly to adapt to changing circumstances -- but now the Utah legislature has made state law.

We now have further evidence that the Tea Party extremists who profess such love and fealty to the Constitution neither understand it nor respect it.

Democracy in Egypt and the Middle East

What you are hearing from Washington insiders regarding the uprising, or revolution, in Egypt is that Pres. Obama is in a very tough spot.  Republicans are surprisingly supportive of this view and are standing behind the president as he tries to figure out what to do.  It's tricky because we've been supporting, through billions of dollars in aid, Mubarak for decades, this despite the fact that he is an undemocratic autocrat who excludes his people from legitimate public debate and involvement.  But the US is okay with that because he has been friendly with Israel, he has been moderate in keeping fundamentalism at bay in Egypt, and the country has been stable under his rule.

This is the classic foreign policy realism point of view.  Realism is not concerned with right or wrong, moral or immoral, and the like.  Realism is concerned with who has power and how does that effect me?  The paramount concern for a foreign policy realist is one's own security and self-interest.  From the realist's point of view, Mubarak has been perfectly acceptable.  The idea of a revolution in Egypt, with the possibility of chaos or fundamentalism taking hold as a counter-weight to the possibility of real democracy taking hold, is a risk probably not worth taking.  So the establishment is treading very carefully, not really sure what to do about it.  Of course a stable democracy is the very best thing for America's self-interest, but the cost/benefit analysis is tricky.  This is why the Obama administration is making wishy-washy statements and being blamed for being one step behind the situation, and why Republicans are supportive.

And it's all wrong.

America's self-interest is second to the inherent right of all people to live under conditions of democracy, peace, and human rights.  This is called foreign policy idealism, that our foreign policy is led by our internal philosophies, and America was founded on the ideals of freedom, democracy, and human rights (well, we got there eventually, anyway).  These are, for the most part, peaceful demonstrations of people who are throwing off an oppressive dictator and they should have nothing but our full support, and should have had it from the beginning.  The same is true of the recent protests in Tunisia, Iran, Jordan, and Yemen.

"Stability in lieu of freedom," as a recent Wall Street Journal editorial stated, was the long-time realist approach to the Middle East, but that is changing now.  Even the realists are seeing some value in a democratic and free Egypt.  In this case, the realists are on the wrong side of history, flat-footed as they realize that the old conventional wisdom that democracy could not take root naturally in the Middle East was nothing more than haughty American exceptionalism at its worst.  The Bush Doctrine of spreading democracy through war has been trounced and we now realize, more than ever before, that peaceful democracy and Islam are not mutually exclusive.

I'm not saying that Pres. Obama's famous Cairo Speech prompted this organic revolution, but as has been noted, the president put himself in the best position possible to support it when he said these words: "America respects the right of all peaceful and law-abiding voices to be heard around the world, even if we disagree with them.  And we will welcome all elected, peaceful governments -- provided they govern with respect for all their people."

Pres. Obama has not always backed those words with concrete actions, and he has been slow to react correctly to the political upheaval in the Middle East and North Africa, but he at least staked out the correct amount of foreign policy idealism and gave America the flexibility to reject a stable Middle Eastern dictator when the people chose to overthrow him.

For too long America has supported dictators in the Middle East, even Saddam Hussein at one time, in the name of foreign policy realism, and it has left us weaker and more vulnerable, and morally bankrupt.  It is now time for America to support democracy and human-rights in the name of foreign policy idealism.  Next stop, by the way, must be Palestine.

Senate Tea Party Caucus: "We Hate Transparency and Efficiency"

The Senate used to have a process where one senator could place an anonymous secret "hold" on any nomination or bill to prevent it from coming to a vote.  It represented all that was wrong with the Senate.  It was undemocratic, anti-transparent, and cowardly.  The Senate voted to end secret holds by a 92-4 vote.  Who were the four opposed?  The Senate Tea Party Caucus, of course, with Utah's own baby-faced tea-party senator, Mike Lee, included.

Mike Lee, Rand Paul, Jim DeMint (all founding members of the TPC), and John Ensign voted against ending secret holds.  They voted against democratic procedures, against transparency in our legislative process, and for cowardliness.

When asked why he voted against the rule change, his anemic answer was, "It may be one of those things where sometimes, you throw up an idea and see if it gains traction.  You know, I respect that strategy, even if I don’t agree with the objective."  Which is no answer at all, he just didn't want to change Senate rules and maybe has some other unstated ulterior motives.

The Senate also voted against ending the filibuster, which is a shame.  It voted to end the delay tactic of having an amendment to a bill read in its entirety and to streamline some of the hundreds of stalled Obama administration nominees.  It was a good start to making the Senate work again, but ending the filibuster should have been priority one.  In the end, I'm not really sure the TPC is up to here, and I'll be interested to see where this leads.

State of the Union Highlights

I was at scouts last night and couldn't watch the State of the Union Address, but as I've browsed through it there are several items that I believe are worth highlighting.  The theme was Win the Future, which I guess is the new Hope and Change.  In both cases, President Obama wants to exude optimism, which is something, as I've said before, we dearly lack around here.  So with optimism in mind, here are a few things worth looking at.

As some of you know, I'm a proud and moralistic environmentalist, so I appreciated the renewed emphasis on renewable energy:

Already, we're seeing the promise of renewable energy. Robert and Gary Allen are brothers who run a small Michigan roofing company. After September 11th, they volunteered their best roofers to help repair the Pentagon. But half of their factory went unused, and the recession hit them hard. Today, with the help of a government loan, that empty space is being used to manufacture solar shingles that are being sold all across the country. In Robert's words, "We reinvented ourselves."

That's what Americans have done for over 200 years: reinvented ourselves. And to spur on more success stories like the Allen Brothers, we've begun to reinvent our energy policy. We're not just handing out money. We're issuing a challenge. We're telling America's scientists and engineers that if they assemble teams of the best minds in their fields, and focus on the hardest problems in clean energy, we'll fund the Apollo projects of our time.

At the California Institute of Technology, they're developing a way to turn sunlight and water into fuel for our cars. At Oak Ridge National Laboratory, they're using supercomputers to get a lot more power out of our nuclear facilities. With more research and incentives, we can break our dependence on oil with biofuels, and become the first country to have a million electric vehicles on the road by 2015.

We need to get behind this innovation. And to help pay for it, I'm asking Congress to eliminate the billions in taxpayer dollars we currently give to oil companies. I don't know if — I don't know if you've noticed, but they're doing just fine on their own. So instead of subsidizing yesterday's energy, let's invest in tomorrow's.

Now, clean energy breakthroughs will only translate into clean energy jobs if businesses know there will be a market for what they're selling. So tonight, I challenge you to join me in setting a new goal: By 2035, 80 percent of America's electricity will come from clean energy sources.

Some folks want wind and solar. Others want nuclear, clean coal and natural gas. To meet this goal, we will need them all — and I urge Democrats and Republicans to work together to make it happen.

First, there is almost nothing so offensive, in my mind, as the billions of dollars in tax relief that we give to oil companies.  Those should end immediately.  Second, I've been contemplating a post about the world's population crisis, and one of the most important points in that discussion is energy.  Where are the billions of people we are going to be adding to our world's population going to get their energy?  How can we add billions more people to the Earth and not completely destroy the environment in the search for and consumption of cheap energy?  Renewable energy, of course, is the answer, and the longer we wait to make the President's goal a reality the harder it will be.  We simply have no choice but to invest aggressively in renewable energies.  And it will be good for our economy in the long-term, as well.

As to education, and to allay concerns that liberals are masked communists who want to destroy the family:

That responsibility begins not in our classrooms, but in our homes and communities. It's family that first instills the love of learning in a child. Only parents can make sure the TV is turned off and homework gets done. We need to teach our kids that it's not just the winner of the Super Bowl who deserves to be celebrated, but the winner of the science fair. We need to teach them that success is not a function of fame or PR, but of hard work and discipline.

As a parent of children who are starting to make their way through school, I simply could not agree more that the most important factor in determining whether our schools are successful is the efforts of the home.  We wouldn't be talking about failing schools and teachers if families bore more of the burden and responsibility of education.  That is nearly impossible, however, when parents are facing foreclosure, unemployment, insurmountable medical bills, neighborhood violence, and the like, and where the stresses of oppressive poverty crowd out most other concerns.  The stability of the family is one reason why it is so important to build and maintain a robust social safety net.

Finally, one point that I wish was hit more forcefully.  When the president spoke about reducing the deficit he spent quite a bit of time talking about reducing non-discretionary domestic spending, which he acknowledged made up only 12% of the nation's budget.  Then he blithely stated, concerning the deficit commission:

And their conclusion is that the only way to tackle our deficit is to cut excessive spending wherever we find it — in domestic spending, defense spending, health care spending, and spending through tax breaks and loopholes.

I believe I've linked to this before, but take a look at the a visualization of the budget found at the New York Times.  What jumps out immediately?  National Security and Social Security.  Those are certainly worthy of a lot of money, and we talk all the time about ways to control Social Security costs.  What we never talk about is controlling National Security costs.  It is virtually unheard of for a politician to seriously suggest bringing defense spending down in any meaningful way, which is a travesty.  Here are an assortment of charts to help put our military spending in context

From the Center for Arms Control:

From Think Progress:

From the Daily Mail:

If we want to seriously get the budget under control, we should cut defense spending, which is filled with corruptions, special interests, and waste.  Pres. Eisenhower correctly predicted this in his farewell speech where he warned:

This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence -- economic, political, even spiritual -- is felt in every city, every State house, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.

I thought the State of Union was good.  I think it had the right tone and struck the right balance between government waste and government investment.  A focus on families, peace, and renewable energy, among other things, is the kind of liberalism I support.

Update: Expanding the House of Representatives Just Got Cooler

My post a few weeks ago about the need for our House of Representatives to be expanded just got some support from people smarter than me with slightly more conspicuous platforms.

A couple of PhDs, Jacqueline Stevens from Northwestern and Dalton Conley from NYU, wrote an op-ed for the NY Times touting the need for a dramatic expansion of the House of Representatives and the attendant benefits it would create.  Ms. Stevens also appeared on NPR's Talk of the Nation to discuss the issue.  Thanks for picking up where I left off, professors.

Now is the time to jump on the expansion bandwagon if you want to seem cool in a couple of years when this gets big.  You'll want to hear yourself saying, "I was back reading the Mormon Left about expansion when you were still in diapers."