This is news?

The Morning Call front page on November 30 might have featured the attack on two Iranian nuclear scientists on the streets of Tehran.  It might have included a column or two on President Obama’s freeze on federal salaries.  It could have headlined the upcoming international climate talks.  It might have discussed the international implications of continued North Korean saber rattling.  

What it did feature, above the fold, was a story about a failed former U.S. Senator discussing “earmarks” in Manchester, New Hampshire.  The former senator, Rickie Santorum, has about as much chance of winning the Republican nomination as former mayor Giuliani.  Santorum was railing about earmarks, which make up less then 1% of the federal budget, and a non-issue everywhere except in Republican campaigns.  And he was making a speech in Manchester, New Hampshire.

I once was so proud to show out-of-state visitors our Morning Call.  Now I hide it.

Voter Fraud, My Butt

It is important to understand the language of Republicans.  Republican calls for “policies to prevent voter fraud” must be translated.  What is meant is “policies to suppress voting.”  Every time a law is passed requiring picture ID, proof of citizenship, or an actual registration card to vote, that is an effort to discourage voters. 

At the Rod and Gun Club polling site in Towamensing Township this November, a young Republican operative was sitting by the sign-in table all day.  I heard him tell the poll workers that legally they needed to check picture ID for each new voter.  If a poll worker knows a voter, why would he or she ask for picture ID?

What is amazing is that a party that managed to steal a presidential election in 2000 (and that has been established by independent research) would have the chutzpah to rail about  voter fraud.  And please do not bring up one isolated and unproven case of intimidation by the “New Black Panthers” in Philadelphia to justify a nationwide effort to discourage poor people or new voters from casting a ballot.

By the way, if we really are worried about people voting twice, why don’t we adopt the method used in many countries and require voters to dip a finger into indelible ink.  It has been proven inexpensive and effective.  You don’t even need picture ID.

Defeating Doyle Heffley

     The "recruitment pool" for credible presidential candidates is limited largely to governors, U.S. Senators, vice presidents, and an occasional general.  If we drop down to U.S. House candidates, the recruitment pool grows considerably larger, including mayors, state legislators, county officials, business owners, and labor leaders.

     Which brings us to the 122nd House District in the Pennsylvania legislature, the seat just won by Doyle Heffley.  The pool of potential candidates is wide indeed.  If we look at last year's primary, the six candidates included a county party chair, two council members, a township supervisor, a county solicitor, and a county coroner.  All six were credible.

     Heffley hasn't even been sworn in yet, but consider that the U.S. House Republicans began plotting their strategy in December '08, before President Obama was inaugurated.  Democrats can't wait until 2012 to recruit a candidate to oppose Heffley.

     I suggest that party volunteers, local Democratic office holders, club leaders, and potential candidates hold a meet in January to discuss candidates, strategies, and fundraising.  We're burning daylight--we need to move on this.

    

    

Nancy Pelosi

     Jim Zbick, editorial writer for the Times News (Lehighton), recently criticized House Democrats for re-electing Nancy Pelosi as their leader.  He pointed out that the Republicans gained a large number of seats and implied that this was Nancy Pelosi’s fault.  

      The Times News, of course, is Carbon County’s wannabe “Fox News,” and intelligent readers have long ago learned to discount its right-wing claque of editorial writers. I’m aware that by not ignoring Mr. Zbick, I may be encouraging him, but I need to make a few points about Nancy Pelosi, a political acquaintance (and friend) when I lived in California.

     If the United States had a parliamentary system under Speaker Pelosi’s leadership, we would now have an effective climate policy, a reasonable immigration policy, a stronger health care bill, an end to “don’t ask, don’t tell,” campaign finance disclosure laws, and a card check system for labor unions. All of those policies would have easily passed the House with large majorities under Pelosi’s leadership.

     It is easy to see why the conservatives hate her.  She’s smart, effective, respected by her peers.  You can’t say that about our new House Speaker.

Nature Bats Last

     You could make an argument that human activity has no relationship to global climate change.  You could argue that global warming is a natural phenomenon.   You'd have a tough time convincing me, but I would listen to the arguments and treat them with some respect.

     On the other hand, if you said global warming was a hoax, I'd know you were delusional.  The data is there.  The glaciers are melting.  The oceans are rising.  The Greenland ice cap is receding.  Yearly temperature averages are climbing. These are cold hard facts.

   

     Republican Congressman Darrell Issa, soon to be in charge of the Oversight Committee in the House, questions the whole idea of global warming.  He's planning to hold hearings on the issue.  Mr. Issa can hold all the hearings he wants--he can deny reality, but he can't change it.

     The same Republicans who keep warning us about what the deficit will do to our grandchildren seem bent on leaving them a blighted and uninhabitable world.  What a mess we have gotten ourselves into.  We have put the inmates in charge.

He's one of us?

The "Other" is a term used by sociologists to describe groups defined as outside the dominant culture.  The Other might be a racial, religious, ethnic, or language minority, but the dominant group fears this minority and works to keep it apart and subjugated.

So why would Doyle Heffley, Republican candidate for the Pennsylvania House of Representatives, use on his billboards the slogan "He's one of us"? Who is the "us"?  White people?  Christians?  Non-hispanics?

One of the reasons I won't run for office is because I might find it impossible to make the obligatory congratulatory phone call to my opponent if I lost.  How can candidates--or voters, for that matter--not remember campaign lies and smears?

Campaigns don't have to be dirty.  When Steve Serfass defeated Carole Walbert in the 2009 Carbon County judicial race, both candidates ran respectful campaigns.  Their primary opponent, Greg Mousseau, however, campaigned with "hit pieces" and smears.  I can't forget that.

Nor will I forget Heffley's recent campaign.  His mailer using a Yaich family quarrel that had absolutely no bearing on his opponent Justin Yaich showed just how low he'd go to win.  And this from a candidate who lectures us about family values.  If he is one of us, I'm pleased to be the Other.

Cowards

It is a brave politician who takes on the rich and powerful. Politicians who oppose the National Rifle Association or the AARP or the Chamber of Commerce show real courage, whether or not you agree with their positions.

Then there are the politicians who make a career of picking on the powerless, on people who can't fight back. Lou Barletta, our newly elected Congressman, made his reputation attacking a small minority of immigrants.  He diverted attention to his own failings by targeting newcomers to Hazleton.

Now I see that Jerry Knowles, Representative from Schuylkill, has joined Barletta. In a letter to the Times News last week, Rep. Knowles wrote that he supported legislation modeled on the Arizona law to require law enforcement to verify citizenship status if a "reasonable suspicion" exists that the person is in the country illegally.

How many of us carry proof of citizenship around with us?  I don't, and probably Rep. Knowles doesn't.  Of course, Rep. Knowles is a white guy, so he will be above suspicion.

Econ 101 for dummies

In a recession governments generally simulate the economy using either monetary policy (in the U.S. that's done by the Federal Reserve Board) or fiscal policy (that's taxing and spending; in the US. the legislative and executive branches handle that).  The idea is to get money into people's hands.  They will spend the money--say on new cars--and the company that makes the cars will hire more workers, who will in turn receive wages that they will spend, and we will see an improving economy.

You can also put money into people's hands by hiring them (the WPA in the Depression), by giving them money (unemployment benefits),  by subsidizing businesses to hire more workers, and by cutting taxes.  If you do cut taxes, you better cut the taxes of people who will actually spend the money.  People who make more than a quarter of a million a year are not the kind of people who spend much money on consumer goods.

Stimulus programs or tax cutting makes the deficit worse.  Big whoop.  If you try to balance the budget during a depression (the Hoover policy) guess what?  It gets worse.  Anybody with half a brain can see that.  Unfortunately, that does not include most of the newly elected congressional Republicans.  What a disaster for the country.