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.

Social Justice in Book of Mormon-Era Governments

I recently came across the following verse in the Book of Mormon, Helaman 6:39:

And thus they did obtain the sole management of the government, insomuch that they did trample under their feet and smite and rend and turn their backs upon the poor and the meek, and the humble followers of God.

At this time in the history of the Book of Mormon, the Lamanites are righteous and the Nephites are not, so much so that the Nephites have allowed the Gadianton robbers to take control of the government.  Upon taking control the Gadianton folks immediately started harassing and making life miserable for the poor.

 

There are various ways to interpret this verse, we don't really know for sure exactly what was going on, but it struck me that this verse may be evidence of social justice in Book of Mormon-era government.  The assumption of the verse seems to me to be that previous to the robbers taking over the government, the government was in the business, to some unknown degree, of helping the poor.  Following the take-over the policy is reversed and the robbers used the government as described.  Why else would the author describe of the oppression of the poor and meek in the same sentence he states that the Gadianton's took over the government if not to draw that contrast?

Many moderate Mormon conservatives contend that the government should not be running programs like Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and welfare because those are properly the the domain of the private sector, and maybe charities in particular.  I have no problem with the argument, I happen to disagree strongly but understand the reasoning behind it.  The problem is that they often use the gospel or Book of Mormon as the basis for their arguments, which I do have a problem with.

I think a righteous people, or even people just trying to do their best, as the pre-Gadianton Nephites were, could have, and indeed did, view the government as an efficient and justifiable means to helping the poor and meek, perfectly in line with their gospel beliefs.  Perhaps their beliefs even required that they use every means and institution available to them to aid the poor and underprivileged, as that is a basic requirement that God gives to all his covenant people.  I think this verse may give us a glimpse of that in the Book of Mormon.

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.