Domestic Policy – Page 51 – The Wrongologist

RIP Guy Carawan

Unless you were around for the folk revival era in the late 1950’s − early 1960’s, you probably don’t know who Guy Carawan was. He co-wrote and popularized the protest song “We Shall Overcome” in the American Civil Rights Movement by teaching it to the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC) in 1960. He just died at the age of 87.

Wrongo has written about the genealogy of this song:

The story behind the story of We shall Overcome is that the song is based on the early hymn “U Sanctissima.” Charles Albert Tindley, a minister in Philadelphia, added new words in 1901 and called his new hymn “I’ll Overcome Some Day.” In the ensuing decades, the song became a favorite at black churches throughout the American south, often sung as “I Will Overcome.” Eventually, the song was brought to a workshop at the Highlander Folk School in Monteagle, TN. The school’s cultural director was Zilphia Horton. Pete Seeger visited the school and changed “We will overcome” to “We shall overcome.” Guy Carawan, a great folk artist who plays the hammer dulcimer, was then a music director at the Highlander School. He introduced it to civil rights activists during a Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC) meeting in 1960. Frank Hamilton was in Seeger’s band.

The song’s copyright includes Zilphia Horton, Frank Hamilton, Pete Seeger and Guy Carawan, but omits Charles A. Tindley.

Carawan lived in California at the beginning of the folk revival movement, but ended up at Highlander, a place famous for its role in left-wing southern organizing in the 20th century. Few know that Rosa Parks had already trained at Highlander on civil rights issues before refusing to move to the back of the bus which led to the Montgomery Bus Boycott. Martin Luther King had visited Highlander as well.

In 2013, NPR’s Noah Adams had a piece about Carawan and the song. Apparently, Carawan heard the song in the early 1950’s when he was finishing graduate work in sociology at UCLA and doing some singing on the side. He also learned about the Highlander Center, and eventually that’s where he spent most of the rest of his life. He told a history of the song:

I first heard this song from a friend of mine, Frank Hamilton. He taught me this song, and he also had put some chords to it [on guitar]…When I came to Highlander in 1959, Zilphia Horton had died, and I had some singing and musical skills and they needed somebody there. So by the time I came to Highlander, I was playing it with the guitar…

Today, few people sing at civil protests. Somehow, outside of concerts and church, we have lost an understanding of the power of shared singing, of unrestrained sincerity, and the strength it provides to the group.

But its power was important to Dr. King. Here is what he said about the song on March 31, 1968, just days before his death:

There’s a little song that we sing in our movement down in the South. I don’t know if you’ve heard it…You know, I’ve joined hands so often with students and others behind jail bars singing it: ‘We shall overcome.’ Sometimes we’ve had tears in our eyes when we joined together to sing it, but we still decided to sing it: ‘We shall overcome.’ Oh, before this victory’s won, some will have to get thrown in jail some more, but we shall overcome.

One difference between the civil rights movement, which resulted in political change, and the Vietnam demonstrations which did not, was the power of churches working together with students, singing a song that reflected the struggle. Regardless of whether it was sung by Mahalia Jackson, the earnest Carawan, Pete Seeger, or simply kids carrying signs, it had a power to inspire.

A successful movement also required a charismatic leader like Martin Luther King, Jr. who could tell a story, and take America on the journey with him.

Guy Carawan isn’t well known today, but he was really important to the civil rights movement of the 1960s, and he will be missed. Here is Guy Carawan singing “We Shall Overcome”:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tftdes9dp-A

For those who read the Wrongologist in email, you can view the video here.

Sunday Cartoon Blogging – May 3, 2015

Baltimore riots, Nepal earthquakes, same sex marriage in front of the Supremes, Bernie Sanders runs against Hillary. Quite the week.

Did the Baltimore riot result in a move towards justice for Freddie Gray? It is more than an exaggeration to say the rioting caused manslaughter indictments against 6 Baltimore police officers. With the city electing Marilyn Mosby, a daughter and granddaughter of police officers as the Maryland state’s attorney for Baltimore City over an incumbent white Democrat, maybe the indictments would have happened without the riots. Could the justice system now be working a bit better because people in Baltimore voted?

Seven months after Michael Brown, systematic failure to deliver justice in our cities is playing with fire, possibly, a little like 1965 all over again. The number of people in the streets in other cities in solidarity with Baltimore has been growing. And the hot spots are New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, Oakland, St. Louis, Philadelphia, Baltimore, Atlanta and poor suburban cities with police departments that grift with fines and court penalties.

Indictments notwithstanding, this is Baltimore and many other cities:

Clay Bennett, Chattanooga Times Free Press

If you watched mainstream media coverage, all of Baltimore was on fire:

Gay marriage discussion brought out the best in our politicians:

And ministers now have a new take on the old question:

Same Sex wasn’t the only type of marriage decided by the Supremes:

Bernie Sanders threw hat in the ring, and almost no media covered it:

Nepal was on everyone’s mind, including Christian bigots:

Ever hear of Tony Miano? He’s a former LA cop who seems to be a Christian. He should ask “What would Jesus tweet?” because what he did was an epic fail for a human, much less a Christian. Miano could be organizing a drive to collect donations, but instead, he’s tweeting about “pagan temples” and how the people of Nepal need to repent and receive Christ.

Onward, Christian soldiers!

Moving the Goal Posts on Obamacare

Gallup has an informative chart about the declining percentage of uninsured in the US:

The percentage of uninsured Americans climbed from the mid-14% range in early 2008 and peaked at 18.0% in the third quarter of 2013. The uninsured rate has dropped sharply since Obamacare (the Affordable Care Act) took effect at the beginning of 2014.

It is possible to argue that an improving economy and a falling unemployment rate may have accelerated the steep drop in the percentage of uninsured over the past year. However, the uninsured rate is significantly lower than it was in early 2008, before the Great Recession, suggesting that the recent decline is due more to Obamacare than to just an improving economy.

From NY Magazine on this trend:

It is starting to look possible that this trend is not some random fluke that has happened six straight quarters but is somehow related to the enactment of Obamacare. So any day now, we can expect conservative politicians and intellectuals to begin publicly rethinking their analysis of this law.

They were correct. Here is the 2010-2014 short version of the Republican viewpoint on the ACA:

The ACA will not reduce the number of people without health insurance. Indeed, it might make this problem we don’t consider a problem, even worse.

Now that the ACA looks to be doing the job, the 2015 short version of the Republican viewpoint is:

Everyone knew that the ACA would result in a huge drop in the number of people without health insurance — what does that prove? Besides, how can we really know that it all isn’t a big coincidence?

This is called “Moving the Goal Posts”. Wikipedia says it means

To change the criterion (goal) of a process or competition while still in progress, in such a way that the new goal offers one side an intentional advantage or disadvantage.

Here is an example of moving the goal posts. From Cliff Asness: (emphasis by the Wrongologist)

In contrast, the rise in coverage is heralded by a myriad of Obamacare supporters as one of two major pieces of proof the law is working. But, how can something we knew before the fact be proof of anything?

Shorter: If we predict that something good will happen as a result of a new law, and that good thing happens, it doesn’t count as proof that the law served its purpose or was any good at all, unless Republicans say so.

The goal post movers also said Obamacare was a job killer. House Speaker John Boehner announced on March 17, 2010, five days before President Obama signed the ACA into law:

The President … continues to push his job-killing government takeover of health care that will hurt small businesses at a time when they need certainty, not more Washington tax hikes and mandates.

In 2011, House Republicans even passed the “Repealing the Job-Killing Health Care Law Act” — the first time that any piece of congressional legislation ever had “job-killing” in its title. Sadly for both Mr. Boehner and the House Republicans, we have added 12 million new private sector jobs since the bill was passed.

There is a new J.D. Power survey which looks at enrollee satisfaction with the ACA. It finds that people who signed up for insurance on the exchanges were slightly more satisfied (69.6%) than people with non-exchange plans, usually through employers (67.9%). People re-enrolling on the exchanges were 74.4% satisfied. New enrollees for 2015 were 5.5% more satisfied than 2014 enrollees, who endured the disastrous roll-out of healthcare.gov. So people like the subsidies and they like their actual insurance policies.

Think about it: ACA forecasted costs have been consistently revised downwards. The number of uninsured are dramatically lower. Satisfaction with Obamacare is higher, and it didn’t kill jobs.

It’s utter Tyranny.

Maybe that’s why the Senate’s top five Republican leaders have cosponsored legislation to extend Obamacare insurance subsidies until 2017. The extension will give Republicans more time to again move the goal posts.

They should try this one: Now that Republicans control Congress and most state governments, we have way fewer uninsured.

Conservative policies work!

Tax Day and the Estate Tax

Today is tax day, and most good American doobies will have filed their taxes by midnight tonight. It takes the temperament of an accountant who’s passed the relevant CPA exam parts to self-prepare your taxes, and Wrongo has that temperament for less than 2 hours a day, so doing the Wrong family taxes never gets easier.

You might like “Tax Rap” by Go Remy. It was a submission to a Turbo Tax contest. While it didn’t win, it is very funny:

For those who read The Wrongologist in email, you can find the song on YouTube here.

On Tax Day, we have to talk about the Estate Tax, or as the Republicans call it, the “Death Tax”. Why? Because House Republicans are going to repeal the Estate Tax this week. In their ham-handed way, they will link the two events to show Americans that Republicans are lowering taxes for the people.

But as Bloomberg points out, the Estate Tax is now paid by only 0.2% of US estates. That translates into about 5,500 households a year. The Hill reports that the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that repeal of the Estate Tax would add $269 billion to the federal deficit from here to 2025.

The Republican logic for repeal is that the tax unfairly steals the family jewels from ordinary hard-working Americans, but the current estate tax doesn’t kick in unless an individual has assets totaling more than $5.43 million. For married couples, the threshold for avoiding the tax is $10.86 million.

Not chump change.

Under the Republican plan, estates would pay no taxes. Furthermore, families would be able to pass assets across generations and avoid paying capital gains taxes on both real gains and so-called phantom income attributed to inflation, a loophole called “stepped up basis” in the tax code. Subsequent heirs could continue this strategy so that the gain is effectively never taxed.

Here are a few quotes from Republican supporters of Estate Tax repeal:

Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.):

This tax doesn’t just hit the big guy, it hits the little guy — like the small business and the family farm.

Rep. Kevin Brady (R-TX) made the “double taxation” argument:

The death tax is the wrong tax at the wrong time, and it hurts the wrong people…They are double and triple taxed.

Sen. John Thune (R-SD):

The death tax imposes a tax rate as high as 40 % on family farms, ranches and small businesses, which hurts economic growth by discouraging savings and development.

But, the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center estimates that only 120 farms and small business, where at least half the assets are in farm or business assets, had to pay the estate tax in 2013. And double-taxation shouldn’t be so hard for Republicans to understand. No one claims that when a worker gets paid a wage, and pays a tax on that income, and who later spends some of that after-tax income paying someone to mow their lawn, that it is double-taxation for the lawn guy to pay income tax. This is really simple: Money moves from entity, to entity, to entity, and each time, tax applies.

So, the facts don’t support the case against the estate tax, but this does not matter to Republicans.

It has become an ideological issue, even if the data show that that relatively few small farms or businesses appear to be affected. Even if it’s only a handful, that’s apparently too many for Republicans.

The truth is that repealing the Estate Tax would mainly benefit the very wealthiest Americans. In 2016, the wealthiest 1,300 or so estates (those worth $20 million or more) would receive 73% of the benefit, with each receiving a tax windfall averaging roughly $10 million, according to the Joint Committee on Taxation’s analysis of the repeal proposal approved by the Ways and Means Committee.

This is a special kind of welfare. It is welfare for the rich. This will give multimillionaires, who are the only people we are talking about, an additional 40% of wealth transfer upon the death of a parent. This undresses Republicans as planning to create a permanent aristocracy based on inherited wealth.

And Republicans say they will address income inequality if only America votes for them in 2016?

The GOP proves again that they are not what they claim. They claim to be for balancing the budget and decreasing the deficit, but leap at the chance to lavish more $ billions on the rich, while increasing the deficit.

The facts mean nothing to President Nordquist, or to our right-wing friends when discussing taxes.

Happy Tax Day!

Sunday Cartoon Blogging – April 5, 2015

What a week! An Iran deal that may lead nowhere, or that may be a reset on our Middle East adventure, and continued blowback on the anti-gay, pro-religious bigotry legislation in Indiana and Arkansas. Couple these things with Easter and Passover, and you have a jam-packed weekend in America.

Easter is a good time to talk about “Homeless Jesus”. It is a sculpture by Timothy P. Schmalz that depicts a homeless person sleeping on a park bench, with holes in his feet. Schmaltz, a Catholic, says that Homeless Jesus is intended as a visual reminder of the passage in the Book of Matthew, in which Jesus tells his disciples,

As you did to one of the least of my brothers, you did unto me.

Here is the statue:

Several casts of the original are installed in the US, Europe and Canada. In Davidson, NC where the photo above was taken in 2014, a woman actually called police the first time she drove by; she thought it was an actual homeless person. Obviously, the irony was lost on her, or maybe she was just more comfortable with a Jesus-as-crucified statue.

Politics deals with power in society, and in the last 50 years, we have made economic class a sub-category of our politics. America’s rampant homelessness goes straight to the heart of the Christian message. Some Republicans should reflect on why they insist on objectifying people (think Mitt’s 47% comment), when we should be helping them as humans in need. Now, it is possible to materially help someone while still objectifying them. From a Christian viewpoint, this is morally wrong.

Link that thought to the current Republican budget. Their planned social safety net cuts are ruinous. Those in need include people with disabilities, under-fed children, abused women, the mentally ill, veterans, and oh yes, the working poor.

When you hear politicians who would deny these funds because “My taxes might go up”, we should ask, what part of Christian teachings, and where on the moral spectrum, do these ideas come from?

So, on to the cartoons of the week.

Jesus takes the fall for Republicans in Indy:

Republicans retreat to revise legislation after hearing from the Big Guy:

Iran deal is framed in eye of the beholder:

Johnny Volcano doesn’t like Iran announcement:

Easter eggs may contain better message this year:

Friday Music Break – April 3, 2015

A final thought about Indiana. The Financial Times has an article about corporate backlash to the RFRA laws in Arkansas:

The Arkansas u-turn followed a rare intervention by Walmart in a sensitive social policy debate. Doug McMillon, the retailer’s chief executive, said on Twitter the bill ‘threatens to undermine the spirit of inclusion present through the state of Arkansas and does not reflect the values we proudly uphold.’

Who is the moral arbiter for 21st century America? Wal-Mart. Big business has become MORE of a moral arbiter for equality in our society than religious right legislators.

We also are seeing a love-fest between Progressives and Big Business over the Arkansas/Indiana fracas. This isn’t the first time Progressives and Big Business have seen eye-to-eye, but the spectacle of Tim Cook, CEO of Apple, taking his brave position on Indiana’s lack of discrimination protection for the LGBT community begs the question about whether he would ever take the same position about China’s discrimination of LGBT individuals. Would he reward states in the US that had already protected LGBT rights even before big business made it trendy, maybe by pulling a factory or two out of China and relocating them to those states?

You already know the answer.

On to music, well, to a story about music. The Smithsonian has an exhibition of the art and music of Mingering Mike. Mingering Mike is a fictitious funk and soul recording artist created in the late 1960s. Mike’s work might never have been seen if Dori Hadar hadn’t visited a flea market in Washington, DC in 2003. Digging through a crate of used LPs, he found 40 album covers that Mingering Mike had created for his non-existent music career:

I came upon this one crate that contained albums like I had never seen before…There were approximately 40 LPs that had hand-painted covers and handwritten liner notes and lyrics. And they were all made by someone named Mingering Mike.

Hadar later met Mike, and learned that starting in the late 1960s, Mike recorded hundreds of songs on a reel-to-reel recorder with his cousin. Today his music is only available on the subscription service eMusic.

To Mike, the album covers seemed like a natural way to archive his music in case a record label ever came calling. That never happened. In 1970, he was drafted into the military. He made it through basic training, but when it was time to fly to Vietnam, Mike just went home. In 1977, after President Carter pardoned Vietnam draft dodgers, Mike got a job and put his hand-painted albums in a storage unit. After 20 years in storage, when he fell behind on the payments, his albums eventually ended up at the flea market.

NPR reported that Leslie Umberger, who curated the exhibition, Mingering Mike’s Supersonic Greatest Hits at the Smithsonian, was drawn to one cover, made just after Mike went AWOL, because it shows his feelings at the time:

It kind of shows him as the civilian on one side, back to back with himself as a soldier…On the back side it shows the singer and the artist making people happy, and the other Mike, the soldier, going to war and standing in formation.

Here is a clip of Mingering Mike at his art show at Duke University in 2010:

Here are two images of his album art:

See you on Sunday.

Corporations Are Using Free Speech To Undermine Regulations

There is a Corporatist supremacy movement operating below the radar in America. US Corporations are using the First Amendment to undermine the corporate regulatory fabric that has been built up since the founding of the Republic. You know about the Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United, which said that corporations were legal persons entitled to free speech rights. You remember last year’s decision in Burwell vs. Hobby Lobby, where the Supreme Court decided that the mandate in Obamacare requiring corporations to pay for some of their employees’ contraception is a violation of the company’s First Amendment right of religious expression.

Here are a few examples you may not know about:

On April 14, 2014, a federal court ruled that corporations have a First Amendment free-speech right not to tell anyone if they’re financing “war and humanitarian catastrophe” in Congo. The court decided that although corporations can usually be required to disclose “purely factual and uncontroversial information,” but, in this case, that this principle is limited to government efforts to protect consumers from deception.

The regulation was an obscure provision of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Dodd-Frank) that requires companies to inform the public if their products use conflict minerals. In the case of conflict minerals, the Act’s goal is to let consumers know if the products they are buying are helping to finance war.

To the court, that provision of Dodd-Frank is unconstitutional, because “it requires an issuer to tell consumers that its products are ethically tainted, even if they only indirectly finance armed groups.”

This is part of a growing Corporate movement to use their rights of Free Speech under the First Amendment to escape regulation, and it has been steadily winning victories in the federal courts.

Another case: In 2011, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), released a rule requiring businesses to put up an 11”x17” black-and-white poster notifying employees of their rights under federal law. Beneath the official NLRB seal and above the phrase “This is an official government poster,” it informed employees that they have the right to join, or not to join, a union, and that they cannot be coerced into doing either.

The National Association of Manufacturers sued the NLRB and In May, 2013, the US Court of Appeals in the DC Circuit struck down the NLRB’s rule on First Amendment and statutory free speech grounds. The Court said it did not matter that the “speech” in question was a non-ideological poster that stated US law. And it did not matter that the rule placed no constraints on companies’ speech or on the free flow of information. The Court held that the act of compelling a company to “host or accommodate another speaker’s message” was enough to violate its free speech.

Over the past few years, corporations like Nike, Verizon, Google, and the credit ratings agencies like S&P and Moody’s have been crafting (and winning in court) with innovative new First Amendment defenses to blunt all sorts of “government intrusions”.

What’s going on? The right of free speech was closely connected with the defining idea of government by “We the People“. James Madison explained that in his view, “free communication among the people” is “the only effectual guardian of every other right.”

From the Country’s founding until late in the 20th century, the courts didn’t rule that the First Amendment protected very much of corporate speech. But now, Corporations are busy collecting a portfolio of First Amendment case law that establishes that corporations have a First Amendment-protected right to avoid much of government regulation. If this continues, it will change our society:

• There will be no corporate transparency
• No way to enforce workers’ rights
• No way to compel companies to protect investors or shareholders

Most financial regulations will cease to provide meaningful value to consumers.

Perhaps we have to ask our Courts to remember Justice John Marshall, who wrote in 1819, “A corporation is an artificial being, invisible, intangible, and existing only in contemplation of law.”

All of the regulations that helped foster a strong economy and a strong middle class during the 1940’s through the 1970’s are now being weakened through a Corporatist revolution, enabled by our courts.

America is looking at the start of another period of unfettered capitalism. The rise of the Corporatists is at hand. We have reached the point now where we have government of the Corporation, for the Corporation.

What are you (we) gonna do about it?

Why Are Republicans Actively Undermining Obama’s Foreign Policy?

“Your purpose, then, plainly stated, is that you will destroy the Government, unless you be allowed to construe and enforce the Constitution as you please, on all points in dispute between you and us. You will rule, or ruin, in all events.” – Abraham Lincoln, Cooper Union Speech

This is a short meditation about the Republican Party. Last week Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) took to the Senate floor, to encourage the Israelis to bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran:

The Israelis will need to chart their own path of resistance. On the Iranian nuclear deal, they may have to go rogue. Let’s hope their warnings have not been mere bluffs. Israel survived its first 19 years without meaningful US patronage. For now, all it has to do is get through the next 22, admittedly long, months.

Those 22 months would be the remainder of Mr. Obama’s term as president. You can see a video of McCain’s speech here.

And so, the Republican effort to make our foreign policy a partisan mess continues.

You may have heard the phrase, “politics stops at the water’s edge”. That thought dates to 1948, when the idea of a Treaty to establish NATO was debated in Congress. The Senate was controlled by Republicans, Harry Truman was president. Senator Arthur Vandenberg (R-MI) worked with the Truman Administration to create and pass the Vandenberg Resolution, which paved the way for the US to negotiate an agreement with our European allies.

Vandenberg was chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and it was he who said “politics stops at the water’s edge”. He helped the Truman administration get bi-partisan support for the Treaty.

You can connect the dots from John McCain’s love affair with Middle East war, to John Boehner’s (R-OH) love affair with Bibi, to Sen. Tom Cotton’s (R-AR) letter to Iran, undermining Obama’s negotiations on their nuclear program. In them, we see a complete repudiation of Vandenberg’s principle.

The Lincoln quote should remind us that he was speaking to his fellow Republicans in February, 1860. The issue then was slavery, and it was dividing his party along with the country. Lincoln urged fellow Republicans not to capitulate to Southern demands to recognize slavery as being right, but to “stand by our duty, [opposing slavery] fearlessly and effectively.” But, his comment about “rule or ruin” has resonance today.

As the 2016 presidential race picks up speed, we can expect foreign policy to be the key issue for Republicans. The strategy starts from Mr. Obama’s foreign policy approval ratings holding at 37% in a January 2015 NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll. As we can already see today, the Republican presidential contenders will inevitably compete to appear more hawkish on foreign policy.

Republicans will run away from the economy and towards their testosterone-laden policy positions of more guns, less butter, lower taxes. The public clearly believes that Mr. Obama should have done more to manage Iraq, Syria, Ukraine, Iran, and Yemen. And with so much to be unhappy about, Republicans should have little trouble making the case that it is time for a change.

The ISIS stalemate most likely is helping Republicans. A recent CNN poll finds that 58 % disapprove of his handling of the campaign against ISIS. It will play even better for Republicans if the situation worsens, and Americans grow more frustrated with setbacks, or just a lack of progress. The Republicans will try to lure Mr. Obama into sending in ground troops. If he does, there is a high likelihood of things going wrong, which will only help the Republicans in 2016. The GOP has cards to play on Iran, Syria and ISIS, but sadly, they may only be playing politics, positioning the Democrats for a failure that cannot be explained or papered over in the 2016 election.

The Vandenberg precedent is not a part of our Constitution, so there is nothing illegal about the Republicans abandoning it. It is also a good thing to review principles and historical precedents to see if they are still useful. But the precedents the GOP are so busy abandoning are the guidelines established years ago to allow our representatives to work together, despite their differences, for the good of this country.

This new, more politicized approach will hurt us all.

Sunday Cartoon Blogging – March 29, 2015

The Republican-controlled House and Senate have each passed budgets for the coming Fiscal Year. The Senate plan seeks $5.1 trillion in domestic spending cuts over 10 years while boosting military funding.

Each budget plan derives more than two-thirds of its non-defense budget cuts from programs for people with low or modest incomes, even though these programs constitute less than one-quarter of federal program costs. One question needs to be asked: Why do Republicans insist on passing legislation that they know Mr. Obama will veto, rather than attempting to draft more palatable and bipartisan proposals (something that actually has a chance of passing) rather than grid-locking all government functions?

The newest Senate budget plan repeals Obamacare, since it’s working pretty well. Their budget guts Medicare and turns it into a voucher-driven private insurance program (another gift to the health-care industry). It cuts back even farther on Medicaid and food stamps; but, it provides a nice tax break to the highest-paid Americans, who don’t deserve a break today. It is evident to anyone who reads that Republicans do not want to eliminate Medicare nor reduce government.

What they want is to privatize it to make their donors even richer than what they are. This budget is similar to what Wisconsin and Kansas both have tried. You could check and see how their economies have tanked as a result of following discredited trickle-down Republican ideology. Now, for a few cartoons to provide some levity to an otherwise bad week.

Republicans give more $Billions to Pentagon than it asks for:

How the budgets compare:

GOP tries usual old trick again:

Obama decides on new plan for withdrawal from Afghanistan:

New screening should check for Pilots’ REAL baggage:

Senate Dems look to replace Harry Reid with Big Head Chuck:

Is Compulsory Voting a Problem, or a Solution?

At a town hall event in Cleveland last Wednesday, President Obama (nearly) said the US should make voting compulsory, like it is in Australia. Eleven countries, including Australia, Brazil, and Singapore, enforce compulsory voting laws. Another 11 have compulsory voting laws, but don’t enforce them.

The response to Obama’s suggestion was predictable. Fox News host Andrea Tantaros along with her fellow panelists on the show “Outnumbered” on Thursday, bashed Mr. Obama’s suggestion, saying:

Do we really want everybody voting? I don’t think so.

Co-host Melissa Francis said:

If you’re not engaged enough to vote, please don’t…Stay home.

Meanwhile, another co-host, Harris Faulkner, argued that mandatory voting would be un-American because our military:

Fought for our right to decide for ourselves.

Whatever that means. The Wrongologist does not support mandatory voting, but not for the vacuous reasons you might hear on Fox News.

Compulsory voting raises questions. First, is voting a right or a duty? If it is a right, then participation in elections is voluntary. If it is a duty, then participation should be mandatory. In countries where voting is considered a duty, voting is compulsory and is regulated in their constitutions. Some countries impose sanctions (like a fine) on non-voters.

Second, what would happen if all citizens voted? Studies show that turnout increases quite a bit. A Harvard study indicated that there are secondary gains as well:

• Compulsory voting could reduce the role of money in politics. Political parties would not spend as much money on their get-out-the-vote efforts since high turn-out would already be ensured and would be fairly inelastic
• It might increase political awareness and engagement. Compulsory voting would change the ways in which candidates and political parties develop campaign strategies. For example, it might lead to fewer negative campaigns featuring attack ads
• Compulsory voting might increase government’s relevance by bringing in groups that are underrepresented among today’s voters, since the population that shows up for US elections is whiter, older, richer and more educated than the general population

But, America is a place where our “right to be left alone” is foundational. Would being legally compelled to vote deprive anyone of a part of their liberty? Yes, if you believe voting is a right, not a duty. And how big would that “deprivation” be, compared to what we have already lost of our 1st and 4th Amendment rights since 9/11?

Perhaps the final question is: Isn’t one goal of a representative democracy to maximize voter participation? Today, registering to vote isn’t easy for every American, but it ought to be. It shouldn’t be the job of the individual election boards to say who is worthy of registration.

It should be the state’s responsibility to issue every citizen a voter registration card. If the state wants to maximize voter participation, it should mail a voter ID card to each of us. How we would deal with those of us who slip through the cracks would need to be worked out.

We have seen the way that barriers to voting emerge. They create enough of a hurdle that a significant percentage of voters fail to clear it. It is not a terrible thing to demand that we have eligibility requirements for voters, but they are often enforced inequitably, and are enough of a nuisance that a significant minority will end up not voting. For the past decade in America, many individual states have been raising barriers, because barriers to voting confer partisan advantage. With mandatory voter registration, the state’s job would be to reduce the barriers to the lowest possible level.

It is arguable if citizens should be compelled to vote, or not. Wrongo believes that is the individual’s business. Yet, as voter participation drops, a self-selected minority determines who runs the country. They then set policy that primarily reflects their interests.

That isn’t the kind of society we need. We should want our country to see all citizens as full political equals, not just in theory, but in fact. The more that barriers to voting rise in America, and the further voter participation falls, the less we resemble that ideal society.

So, issue a universal voter registration card. Move voting to the weekend, or have an entire voting week. Make it frictionless, so it’s not a big effort. Go and vote, say hi to the neighbors, and then go home to view the results.

It wouldn’t be the end of the world.

The Wrongologist

Geopolitics, Power and Political Economy

Category: Domestic Policy