The SoapBoxers

Last year I penned a “Things I Am Thankful For” article and I thought it would be fun to look back, see what I predicted and was thankful for then, and see if that still holds true today.

Last year I said, “I am thankful for my children. Two wonderful, healthy boys who were not “ruined” by my decision to breastfeed, delay solids until 6 months, baby wear and vaccinate. (I know, a crazy combination!)”  This year, I am thankful for my THREE wonderful, healthy boys. Unknown to me, I was already pregnant with our third child when I wrote that last year. I am still thankful for my children, and while three boys under 5 are quite a handful, I wouldn’t change anything.

I was thankful for my parents and my husband last year. I still am. I am also thankful that after the birth of our third son, my husband and I made the (difficult yet easy) decision for me to leave the corporate world and be a stay at home mom. While things are tight, I wouldn’t trade this for anything in the world, either. I am also thankful that this year I am using my college degree while being a freelance writer at home (Suite101, Yahoo! Contributor Network, and Mommy’s Recess). While calculating Pension was fun (yes, I know, I’m sick), it wasn’t what I thought I’d be doing with my degree in English. I get to do what I love while spending time with my boys. I am SO thankful for that.

And now on to the reason you love Crunchy. The Politics. Last year I said:

“I am thankful for 2010. This way we can give a nice retirement party to those who will vote for the healthcare bill.

I am thankful that 2012 is only 3 years away. I think Barack needs to spend a little more time in Chicago … as the FORMER President.”

Not to toot my own horn, but TOOT! TOOT! Did I call that one or what? Public option died and while the healthcare bill did pass, the people let their voice be heard and voted a lot of Legislators out. I wonder how all of those retirement parties are shaping up?

This year, I am thankful Americans are not allowing their Government to be hijacked by the uber libs. The House has been restored to Republican power and Crazy Pelosi has been demoted to Minority Leader (I still can’t believe they kept her in a power position). Next step, get the TSA agents under control. I am not a fan of the full body scans and I am against TSA agents depantsing the eldery and taking children into private rooms (without parents) while they stick their hand down the child’s pants. Being a TSA agent doesn’t give you the right to become a molester. Is this the punishment the American public is forced to take because we wouldn’t blindly accept the Administrations wishes? Not cool.

I am still thankful that the “Obamaworship” is WAY down. As of yesterday, only 26% of Americans Strongly Approve while 42% Strongly Disapprove. Finally people have decided that the grass isn’t greener.

I am thankful that President G.W. Bush is still a class act. While Obama has taken every chance to blame Bush, in a recent interview, Bush was asked if he approved of the job Obama was doing. He responded “President Obama has got plenty of critics and I’m just not going to be one.” Total class act. 

I am thankful that 2012 is only two years away. Palin, Gingrich, whoever it may be, will be better than “The Great Fingerpointer” we have in office now. That’s the kind of ‘change’ I’m ‘hoping’ for.

This Thanksgiving, keep in mind those less fortunate than us. But don’t feel too bad about the 64 Democrats who lost their seats (jobs) to Republicans. They brought it on themselves. I saw it coming a year ago. I hope everyone has a safe and wonderful Thanksgiving. Hopefully you don’t have to fly anywhere.

The elections are over, “the people have spoken,” and as far as I can tell, we’re still a heavily divided country.  Partisanship has reached a fervor not seen in US politics before.  It’s beginning to match the rivalry you normally see reserved for Yankees vs. Red Sox or Duke vs UNC.  Remember the bank bailouts?  They’re once again making near-record profits, and all indications point to them still not making small business loans.  For the last 2 years the Republicans have whined about how the Democrats haven’t been bi-partisan, haven’t reached across the aisle, yet they’ll be even less accommodating in the house for the next 2 years.  Who are the ultimate losers in all this?

We are.

Not the politicians.  Not the corporations.  The average Joe and Jill.

Partisan politics is great for stump speeches, to rally your base, and to be able to point to your record the next time you’re up for re-election, but in the vast majority of elections 40% still voted for the other guy.  When someone is voted into office, they take an oath to serve the whole city, state, or country they serve, not just the people who just happened to vote for them.  It’s gotten to such a level of “us vs. them” that it’s not even an extreme ideology to claim “he’s not MY president” – I’m certainly guilty about saying that of Bush, although that’s as much from me thinking Cheney really ran the country as anything else.  There’s been so much joking about certain southwest states seceding it’s not even a joke any more, and you’d probably get support in the thousands of people in those states (and a larger number in the other 48) of those who would truly and actually want to see it happen.

So what can solve this problem of division?  Well, throughout history a common enemy was always a good rallying tool, but this “war on terrorism” is just another point of contention.  Your average Republican just wants to throw more money at the Pentagon and use fear to get votes.  Your average Democrat is spineless enough to cave into the fear to not lose votes.  Meanwhile anyone perceived as having any kind of ties to anything middle-eastern is seen as an enemy and if they weren’t an enemy before we’re well on the way to making them a new one.  Besides, war should always be the absolute last option, the option you try when you’ve exhausted every other one.  If any politician wants to get my vote on national defense they’d have to outline a solid plan of upgrading the power grid, safeguarding our ports, and setting up a new government agency to deal with cyber-attacks.  I’m sure your average Tea Partier or conservative would decry that as simply more government spending, though, but while making those claims the military would continue to throw billions at aircraft carriers, tanks, and jet fighters.  Because those are so useful against Al-Qaeda. 

Heck, on the subject of “the party of small government” here’s a nice little factoid:  under the modern Republican demi-god, Reagan, the government grew at a faster rate than the Carter administration.  The G.W. Bush administration created one of the largest government departments our country has ever seen.  I guess when you combine that with not putting the cost of Iraq or Afghanistan on the books, they should change that slogan to “the party of small government, except in times of war.”  Oh, wait, they’re the hawkish party too, aren’t they?

The 2 party system is certainly part of the problem.  I sometimes doubt we even have 2 parties, just 1 group of politicians who join one club or the other to help move their career.  We need a viable 3rd party, or even a 4th one but that’s not likely to happen with the way Washington is currently run.  Politics is without a doubt an insiders game, and one of the biggest promises Obama gave was to change that, but it certainly hasn’t happened and won’t as long as campaign funding is allowed in the current form.  The solution?  Make corporate political donations illegal and have a manditory public fund for legitimate candidates.  Lower the cap on individual donations so politics doesn’t remain a rich-people-only club.  Make any kind of political media 100% transparent in terms of finance.

When politics is so partisan that Republican leaders are saying their primary goal is to make Obama a 1 term president, we’re all losers.  We the people should be their primary goal, and we’re all in this together.  When our country is divided, the only winners are the corporations, and as time marches on more and more of them are owned by non-Americans or ship their money overseas.

Note: this is a fictionalized account of a meeting that never occurred.  While each of The Political Observers gave some input, any accusations that their words were used out of context are most likely true.

Kosmo: Friends, Romans, countrymen … I welcome you  to the opulent Castel Kosmo.  I am gathered here tonight with The Crunchy Conservative, Zarberg, The Angry Squirrel, and Squeaky.  We are discussing the aftermath of the 2010 midterm elections, in which the Republicans gained controlled of the House in dominating fashion, while the Democrats saw their majority in the Senate reduced to perhaps a 51-49 majority.

We see Zarberg begin to unwrap a candy bar, whereupon Crunchy deftly snags it from his grasp.  Zarberg quickly grabs it back.

Zarberg: Hey, nobody better lay a finger on my Butterfinger.

Crunchy: Ok, whatever.  Enjoy your stupid candy bar.  At least I can bask in the joy of a conservative wave election.  Cheers, gang.

Crunchy holds up a wine glass filled with the cheap swill Kosmo can afford on his blogger’s salary.  Zarberg mutters under his breath, Squirrel throws a cashew at her, and Squeaky cracks open a bottle of New Belgium microbrew (which he brought in a cooler, being wisely untrusting of Kosmo’s choice of beverages) and returns Crunchy’s toast.

Kosmo: OK, the polls are now closed in all states except for Alaska and Hawaii, and we have a lot of things to digest.  Which decision made you happiest about the elections?

Squirrel: Well, as a progressive, I really wasn’t very pleased with much of anything during this election.  I guess perhaps the high point was Chris Coons defeating Tea Party darling Christine O’Donnell in the Delaware senate race.  There was some chatter about a Monmouth University poll released late last week that showed her cutting Coons’ lead in half – but it should have been apparent to everyone that this was just a Halloween-related surge, since Christine O’Donnell is a witch.  Witches are popular around Halloween.

Crunchy: It was a great night for me, personally.  The Republicans took control of the House, Senator Grassley was elected to another term, and Governor Branstad resumes control after a (relatively) short absence.  Wonderful to see that women are voting Republican.

Squeaky: As someone who is against medical marijuana, it was good to see the sometimes irrational voters in California send prop 19 (which would have legalized marijuana within the state, even for non-medicinal uses) down to defeat.

Zarberg: Oh, yeah.  Marijuana is so evil.  Have you read the recent British study that concluded that alcohol and tobacco are more harmful than marijuana?

Kosmo: Hey, guys, tone it down.  This is a family-friendly show.  Let’s move on.  What were some things that disappointed or surprised you the most?

Zarberg: Well, most of the evening was a disappointment.  I think we’re looking forward to at least two years of gridlock.  The country is going to struggle to return to prosperity until your average Joe has a few bucks in his pocket – tax cuts for corporations are not going to stimulate demand for their products.  On a personal note, perhaps the most disturbing thing was being approached by people with partisan pamphlets on Tuesday – three times.  I was tempted to see if they were within 500 feet of a polling place.  On election day, everyone can make informed decisions – the propaganda machine can shut down for a day.

Crunchy: While not a surprise, the O’Donnell loss in Delaware was a disappointment.  She is not, I repeat, NOT, a witch.  Harry Reid hanging on to his seat?  Seriously, what are you people in Nevada thinking?

Squirrel: Rand Paul winning in Kentucky.  Not a huge surprise, but still a disappointment.  He has said that he won’t add a cent to the debt – let’s start keeping a running count of earmarks for Kentucky.

Squeaky: Probably the biggest disappointment was Kosmo’s liquor cabinet.  What is this, store brand scotch?  As Crunchy mentioned, there really wasn’t a whole lot to be disappointed with – unless Senator Michael Bennet is able to withstand the challenge from Ken Buck in my home state of Colorado.  I’m confident that Buck will prevail when the dust clears, though.

There we have it, folks – our 2010 election reactions.  Come back for more post-election chatter in 2012.

Although I’m not much of a rah-rah political person, I do enjoy following things from an analytical viewpoint.  Here are my thoughts on what will happen on election day and beyond.

Christine O’Donnell will lose the race for the Senate in Delaware and return to her coven.  (That’s a joke – I don’t really think she is a witch).  There is some speculation that she may also cost the GOP the Pennsylvania race.  The logic is that O’Donnell has been quite visible in the Philadelphia market (grab a map, for those who aren’t familiar with the area) and that Democrats may be playing a winning game by saying that Pat Toomey is another Tea Party candidate … with the implied message that Toomey = O’Donnell.  It’s possible that this is not the reason that Joe Sestak has been making up substantial ground … Evan, any thoughts?

Marco Rubio leads a three way race in the Florida Senate race.  Former governor Charlie Crist is in the race as an independent.  You’d think Crist would be in a unique position to paint his opponents (Rubio and Democrat Kendrick Meek) as being the anti-Crist  …

Senate Majority leader Harry Reid continues his battle royale with Sharron Angle.  The compact nature of Nevada’s media market make it fairly inexpensive to run ads that reach a high percentage of constituents.  A loss by Reid would force the Democrats to choose a new leader.

In Alaska, incumbent Lisa Murkowski (a Republican) is running as an independent and has been polling roughly even with GOP candidate  Joe Miller (with both candidates comfortable ahead of Democrat Scott McAdams).  With Alaska lagging several hours behind Iowa,  I’ll be going to bed about the time the polls close up north.  At some point in the evening, the number of write-in votes that were cast (i.e. that someone marked the circle for write-in) will be known … but not who they were cast for.  If the write-in totals are high enough to put the winner in doubt, then the write-in votes will be tallied – and wrangled over in court.  The Democrats will probably laugh all the way to the bank, as they see Republicans spend millions of dollars deciding which conservative should represent Alaska.

In South Carolina, Republican Jim DeMint will score a decisive win over Democrate Alvin Greene.  Greene scored a stunning victory in the Democratic primary, despite having done negligible campaigning – leading to some accusations of fraud.  Greene was later indicted on a felony obscenity charge.  The real question to me – why didn’t another Democrat jump into the race and make it a three way contest?  As it stands, Greene is getting roughly 20% support in the polls.

In the governor’s races, Jerry Brown is starting to distance himself from former eBay CEO Meg Whitman, who has spent around $150 million (wow!) of her own money into her campaign.  Whitman’s campaign has been sidetracked by the revelation that she once employed an illegal alien as a made (and the allegations that the Whitman family were aware of this and did nothing). 

In Illinois, my former landlord (Bill Brady) is running a close race with incumbent Pat Quinn, who got his gig when Blago was forced out in the midst of a corruption scandal.  I don’t know Brady personally. but we had (legal) free cable when his management company got the rent checks, and had to pay for cable when another company replaced them.  Sure, it was only $17 (around 2000) and only a couple dozen channels, but nonetheless was a pretty sweet deal.

What do I see happening on the grand scale?  I see the GOP taking back the House and the Democrats probably retaining  slim majority in the Senate – quite possibly 51-49.  I also see the end of Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s tenure on the Supreme Court.  Ginsburg doesn’t want to be replaced by a conservative, and will likely retire while Obama is still choosing justices rather than risk dying in office and having President Palin choose her replacement.  What’s one likely characteristic of the Justice that will replace Ginsburg?  Youth.

Speaking of Ginsburg … time for a bit of trivia. Whom did she replace on the Supreme Court?  Byron “Whizzer” White, the former NFL star.  White took the term student-athlete to the highest level – leading the NFL in rushing in 1938 and 1940 being awarded two bronze stars for his service in World War II – and then embarking upon a legal career which took him to the peak of his profession.  You may agree or disagree with his opinions, but it’s hard to argue that he didn’t live an amazing life.  Whizzer died in 2002 at the age of 84.

[Editor’s note: In addition to her work here, Crunchy has picked up freelance gigs at Suite101 and Associated Content.  Check out her articles on those sites.]

I’m just waiting for that political ad. You know, the one that states their opponent eats small children or kicks kittens in the face. In Iowa, where I live, the ads are getting really, really dirty. What’s interesting is it is mostly Liberals (or groups that side with Liberals) slamming the Conservatives. The Conservatives, even those going against incumbents, are not getting that dirty…it’s the incumbent Liberals going after the challenging Conservatives. And if you watch any National news, you’ll see this is a trend nationwide.

The Liberals have gone on a literal witch hunt. Literal witch hunt. It’s not in Salem this time and it’s not the Puritans, but in Delaware and Liberals. The Liberals are scared–no, terrified. To bring out that Christine O’Donnell is a witch? Come on. Who hasn’t done something in high school or college that they’re not proud of? But witch? It’s not 1692.

The truth is, no matter how much I hate negative ads, I do know why they air. Six years ago, while working as a Communications Director for a Senatorial Campaign, we didn’t go negative. We didn’t have to. My boss wasn’t and isn’t that kind of a Senator. But working in politics, I did see more than my share of negative ads. It was Bush versus Kerry after all. In expressing my disgust for negative ads, one of our advisers said to me, “Sarah, do you know why they run negative ads? Because they work.”

Sadly, he was right. They do work. Not on those who seek out the truth, not on those who research the candidates for themselves, but they work on those who catch the 30 seconds, believe it and vote. Thankfully, uninformed people rarely vote in a midterm election. The polls show Conservatives winning many races. But the polls who questioned likely voters show the Conservatives WAY ahead. Which is why the Liberals are scared. They don’t have their base energized like they did in 2008. Maybe they ran out of kool-aid, maybe no one who voted for Obama got their mortgage paid or a $20,000 check like they were promised (I’m not kidding, I know of a voter who actually believed this) or maybe no one could think of a better slogan than “Yes we can”.

Liberals, it’s time to face it. You failed. You got the power you’ve been whining and begging for years for and you failed. You’ve taken over health care, given Wall Street bail outs, gave “cash for clunkers”, bailed out the failing auto industry, continued to lose more and more jobs and seem to think the only way to solve the problem is to throw money at it—er, I mean, economic stimulus…yeah, that’s it.

Liberals are a broken record. “Stimulus, stimulus, stimulus.” In a time where families are living on one income due to a lost job, prices of everything going up and pay increases have been frozen due to the economy we’re all having to tighten our belts. All we hear is “stimulus, stimulus, stimulus”. And that, to the working American sounds like, “spend, spend, spend.” As Ronald Reagan once said, “We could say [Democrats] spend money like drunken sailors, but that would be unfair to drunken sailors. It would be unfair, because the sailors are spending their own money.”

It’s time to take back OUR country. It’s OUR money they’re spending; not theirs. Watch “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington”, something I love to do every two years and then vote. Learn about the candidates. Really research the issues. View everything without looking at their party affiliation and then vote. Vote for the candidate, not the party. Whether it be Democrat, Republican or Tea.

And if you plan to vote for those who voted for the bailouts, Obamacare and all of the stimulus spending, don’t forget to vote on November 3rd.

Election day is looming – and with it, the decision of whom to vote for. 

For the majority of Americans, this won’t be a difficult choice.  As devoted members of the Democratic, Republicans, or Toga party, they will simply vote for the candidate with a D, R, or T next to their name.

However, millions of unaffiliated voters will face a choice when they stare at the ballot.  Conventional wisdom suggests that voters should cast a vote for the candidate whom they have the most in common with.  But is this a time to turn conventional wisdom on its head?

There are hundreds of issues that you can take a stance on, but the vast majority are irrelevant for one of three reasons:

• You don’t have particularly strong views on the issue
• Nearly everyone agrees with you
• Nearly everyone disagrees with you

By definition, an issue that you don’t care about very much shouldn’t sway your vote.  It really doesn’t matter if you vote for someone who agrees or disagrees with you – it won’t have much of an impact on your life.

If an issue has widespread support, it’s also irrelevant.  For example, I favor sustained peaceful relations with Canada (despite the fact that they have soiled the good name of bacon by releasing their own, inferior version).  Of course, so does nearly everyone else.  Regardless of whether I vote for a pro-Canada or anti-Canada candidate, I don’t see a war against Canada in the near future.

How about the flip side of this – an issue where nearly everyone disagrees with you.  Let’s say I support the deportation of all Nebraska residents to a colony on the moon (I’m fairly sure that I’m not in favor of this).    While this idea would likely get some support from people in other Big 12 states, it’s not likely to get more than token support in congress.  So even if I vote for the Nebraska-Moon party candidate, it’s not going to happen.

(Yes, these examples are both pretty contrived)

What does that leave us with?  Issues that are both:

• Important to you
• Competitive

I’ll quantify “competitive” as some with between about 43% of 57% support (among people who have an opinion on the issue).  This is an arbitrary range, but “feels right”.  These are issues where you can actually make a difference – if you and like-minded people elect a few people to congress who share your views, you may push support from minority to majority (or vice versa) and get new legislation enacted.

This year, two issues are front and center for me.

The first is gay marriage.  I have not friends that are openly gay, but I have become a strong proponent of allowing gay couples to get married (not just civil unions, but actual marriage).  I’ve written on this a number of times, and am not going to rehash everything I have said in the past.  Suffice it to say that it’s an issue that I feel strongly about.

The supreme court of Iowa (where I live) has deemed that a ban on gay marriage is unconstitutional.  Opponents of the rule would like to enact a constitutional amendment to trump this ruling … but state law dictates that such a proposal must pay in two separate state general assemblies, at which point it would be placed on the ballot.  The current makeup of the state legislature doesn’t have enough support to get the ball rolling – and I’ll do my part to ensure that this remains true.

On the judicial side, three of the justices (the only three up for renewal this November) who joined in the unanimous opinion are under attack by groups opposing the ruling, who are running ads asking voters to throw them out of office.  In Iowa, voters simply vote to retain a judge or not retain them.  It’s not common for this to become politicized.  The judges, of course, can’t simply have fund-raisers to run their own ads – as this would be a major conflict of interest.  A group siding with the judges has recently begun to run ads.

I’ll be voting “retain”.  If the justices are thrown out because of this decision, what sort of message is this sending to the court?  A pretty clear one – don’t make decisions that could be unpopular, even if the decision is correct.  That’s a disturbing thought.  I have no problem throwing out justices who engage is judicial misconduct – but not for simply making a controversial decision. 

The second issue is the privatization of social security.  This falls completely on the other side of the political spectrum from gay marriage – being supported only by conservatives.

I’m very puzzled by the politicization of this issue.  Groups who oppose privatization point to downturns in the stock market and suggest that turning over Social Security to Wall Street would be very risky.

Of course, nobody has ever suggested that people take the contributions that currently go to Social Security (12.4% of wages) and throw them into penny stocks.  In my particular situation, I can beat the return of Social Security by putting your money into 30 year treasuries (this is not an exaggeration – my rate of return on Social Security is projected to be slightly over 2%).  Your mileage may vary a bit, but the reality is that you don’t need to take on a lot of risk to beat the return of social security (in my case, no additional risk).

This issue is probably a bit outside my range, as I don’t know that it has 43%.  However, I do feel that the issue would have considerably more support if it were properly explained on a bigger stage.

I doubt that these are the two issues that you care most about.  However, I suspect that you have a number of issues that are important to you and also competitive  – make sure your view is represented on these issues.

I don’t hide the fact that I find the Republican party disgusting for giving massive gifts to corporate America, but I find the Democratic party at least as culpable for having no spine and allowing it to happen. With the Citizen’s United ruling on January 21st of this year, the floodgates opened completely in terms of buying elections. At this point in time political ads can now be paid for by any corporation and the ad itself does not have to disclose where that money came from. That doesn’t seem so bad, does it? Picture this: Imagine a television ad that shows police brutalizing people, or overbearing and threatening border guards harassing people. The ad says to vote for candidate X who will reign in police and border guard power, and slash spending on those things. Now picture that same ad paid for by North Korean or Chinese corporations, or even holding companies with terrorist sponsors. How about ads secretly paid for by the Westboro Baptist Church that wants guarantees of free speech rights at funerals regardless of state or local laws? (my simple solution for Fred Phelps is to have local laws that allow privacy in an certain radius for military funerals, as if the funeral were private property for that specific event only).

Those are just extreme examples, don’t worry, I’m not advocating those things.

The Republican butt-kissing of corporate power is so ingrained at this point that they actually have voted down The DISCLOSE Act, which would require the source of any money spent on all on political ads to be known and public. That’s corporate dollars, union dollars, and private dollars – DISCLOSE doesn’t discriminate. Seems like a no-brainer, right? I wonder what republicans have to hide – shady corporate money, maybe?

Ahh yes, those Republicans. The champions of small business. Small business like Bechtel and Koch Industries.

… wait, what?

That’s right, thanks to government business classifications, those companies and many more are called “S Corporations“. This means that they may have revenues well into the billions, but because that money is passed directly on to owners who then pay taxes, they are considered small business. What is a big business, then? One that takes in profits that are taxed and then passes those profits on to shareholders. John Boehner recently claimed that under the current Democrat tax proposal “about half of all small business income will be taxed [at a higher rate]. ” Well, if you take the actual number of businesses only 3% of REAL small business will be taxed at a higher rate. Boehner can only claim that 50% of small business income would be taxed at a higher rate when he includes multibillion dollar companies like Bechtel and Koch. These companies fit Boehner’s definition of a small business – being non-shareholder (private) companies – but have very little in common with the small business that used to line main street in your home town.

In other words, he’s holding up continuing tax breaks for Mom-and-Pop businesses because he wants to pass off Bechtel and Koch as small business without the average person knowing about it.  This is the same John Boehner who blamed the current financial crisis on “3 things – Fannie Mae, Freddy Mac, and subprime lending” without saying that it was de-regulation and laws pushed through by Republican majority congresses that allowed those things to happen. They call it freedom for business, I call it corporate power screwing people over because government allowed it.

What are the Democrats doing about it? Well, once again they’re looking for their spine. At least they have their heart in the right place; the current administration wants the George W. Bush tax cuts to be extended only for the first $200,000 of a person’s income, or $250,000 for families. While Republicans claim those tax breaks would affect us all because they keep pushing the trickle-down economy lie, the real numbers tell a different story: fewer than 750,000 people, less than .25% would be affected by the top tax rate under the Democrat proposal.  Trickle-down does not work. It is simply an expression created to hide the fact that big business is allowed to feed on the average Joe and legal loopholes and laws are created every year to favor corporations and the rich. Data simply does not support any claim that trickle-down does work.

With massive evidence that the disparity between income classes only continues to grow bigger, the Republican Party of No is just pushing for more laws to make the rich richer at everyone else’s expense. Hooray for the Corporate States of America – would you trust BP, Dow Chemical, or Toyota with unchecked power?

As some of you may be aware, there was a census in 2010.  A major result of the census will be a reapportionment of seats in the US House of Representatives.  States lose seats when they grow at a slower pace than the rest of the nation (and thus represent a smaller percentage of citizens) and gain seats when they grow at a faster rate than the rest of the nation.

For this reason, races for the state legislatures are critically important in many states.  In 36 states, the legislature is responsible for drawing the new districts.  The party that controls the state legislature controls the redistricting process.

On the surface, this would appear to be a rather straightforward exercise – but there is an ugly underbelly to the process.  Whichever party is in control of the legislature would prefer to consolidate the supporters on the other part into as few districts as possible.

Let’s look at a very simple example.  We have a state with six congressional districts.  There are thirty citizens – eighteen are affiliated with the Alpha party and twelve with the Beta party.  Let’s look at two different district maps.

The first map cuts the state of Confusion into two identical halves north/south and three equal sections east/west.  The resulting districts each have three Alphas and two Betas.  If everyone toes the party line, the states representatives in the US House will all be Alphas.

The second map cuts the state into three sections north/south and two sections east/west.  This time, the districts break down this way:

• District 1: 5 Alpha, 0 Beta
• District 2: 5 Alpha, 0 Beta
• District 3: 3 Beta, 2 Alpha
• District 4: 3 Beta, 2 Alpha
• District 5: 3 Beta, 2 Alpha
• District 6: 3 Beta, 2 Alpha

Now, the Alphas – comprising sixty percent of the voters, statewide – hold just two of the congressional districts, while the minority Betas will send four representatives to Washington.

These maps were drawn without any attempt to manipulate – just simply by splitting a rectangular state into six equal parts via the two most logical methods.  Yet, we end up with a situation where neither map will send a congressional delegation that accurate reflects the political distribution of the constituents.

Now, imagine that politicians were to get involved?  The party in control of the state legislature could do several things to minimize the political power of the opposing party.  They could consolidate the supporters of the other part into as few districts as possible (as I’ve done with the second scenario above) or draw the maps in such a way that two (or more) incumbents from the other party are now in the same district.

The courts help to reign in the worst of the gerrymandering (creating non-contiguous districts in an effort to strengthen the power of one party), but I wonder why we even need to travel down this road any more.

One solution would be to simply make the US House seats represent all constituents of the state.  If you have six representatives, they represent every citizen of the state.

This wouldn’t be a popular idea – or even a good one – in many states.  San Diego has issues that San Francisco doesn’t, and vice versa.  A generic “California” representative might not have enough knowledge to competently represent the entire state.

Earlier, I mentioned that state legislatures draw the districts in 36 states.  What do the others do?  Well, seven state have just one representative, making the issue academic.

Five states – Arizona, Hawaii, Idaho, New Jersey, Washington – have an independent bipartisan committee draw the districts without interference from the legislature.  In Iowa and Maine, an independent body proposes redistricting plans, which must then be approved by the legislature.

I’d like to see a move toward more states using a bipartisan group to redistrict.  It’s impossible for each district to reflect the political leanings of the entire state – and in many cases, you’ll see completely fair maps that happen to lean toward one party by mere coincidence – simply because some geographical area within the state are more liberal or conservative that the state as a whole.

However, intentional gerrymandering of districts undermines the will of the voters – and continued partisan involvement in the process can only serve to make the problem worse.

Why do solutions to problems have to be all or nothing these days? A few years ago, my state was reconsidering the deposit on cans and bottles. One group in our legislature wanted to put a five cent deposit on all cans, regardless of use. This would include soup cans and the like. Others wanted to drop the whole deposit effort. The question I had was; what problem were they trying to solve? The original intent of the can and bottle deposit was to put a financial stimulus in returning the items with the goal of reducing road side trash. From the data I could find, this was exceptionally successful. Not from people saving their cans and bottles, but because industrious people went around picking them up to redeem them.

So, if we look at what the legislature was taking up; was there a sudden increase in soup cans on the side of the road, or had the deposit suddenly become too big of a burden for the citizens of our state? Neither condition was evident. The deposit program is actually a pretty big money maker for the state, with many people simply throwing their containers away or people purchasing on their way through the state. At the end of the debate, no change was made, much to my relief.

Now we have new national legislation on health care, or rather health insurance. It was an all or nothing debate. The legislation completely dismembers the existing health care system by putting the government in as the primary health insurance provider (even though this is denied by many who voted for it). I do not understand why the specific problems were not addressed. The main reason seems to be that no one could define any real reasons or problems in the system. All of the arguments were nebulous. Some people can not afford insurance, true, but does this require an overhaul of the system? Some people are denied coverage, again true, but again is this a full fledged disaster?

My father chimed on the debate stating that we have a member of our family without insurance. What did we do before the government stepped in? Most of us depended on family to pay the bill. Those who could not went to the hospital and were cared for by the county (this is true for every county in the United States). So if some people cannot afford insurance, why not provide some sort of support? With the new law, many part time employees are losing what coverage they have due to cost. If some people are denied treatment, set up an agency to investigate and help those people who really need it get treatment.

I really wish I could take the time to really read legislation (before or after it is passed) since our legislators do not seem to be doing the job (the speaker of the house actually said we cannot know what is in the bill until we pass it). The problem is, I do not have the time or the training to comb though it. I could not find it, but at one time I knew where in the bill it stated that taxes in this bill will not be considered taxes. I hope there is no penalty associated with this statement, as I will definitely consider any extra charges as taxes.

I am not currently under threat of losing my health care or insurance. The company I work for has sent out informational sheets telling us that things will be changing, but they could not tell us how until they are told. My doctor has suggested retiring rather than dealing with the added costs and effort that the government program will entail. So I will still have insurance (of some kind) and still have health care (of some kind), but all will be well, right? My question is; how much should I be saving to pay for my free health care?

Happy Meals or Unhappy Meals?

Put on your seatbelt.  Put down that phone while you’re driving.  No smoking in establishments that serve food.  Speed limit is 35.  No kid’s meals with toys.  What?

We have become a nation filled with laws, statutes and ordinances.  I remember when the seat belt law took effect; I thought my Dad’s head was going to explode.  When cities and states began passing anti-smoking laws for restaurants, all the bars said that they were going to go under.  I don’t particularly like most of the speed limits because they get in my way and make me late.  Under the latest moves McDonalds won’t be able to include toys in Happy Meals—Seriously?  Is this where we’re going?

I struggle with this latest move by San Francisco and the private group CSPI.  They are both fighting McDonald’s and trying to regulate a parent’s job.  They’re not targeting the food at McDonald’s, but rather a toy.  The kids don’t eat the toys; they eat the fries and whatever else they order.  I’m a father of two kids (5 & 7) and when they ask to go to McDonalds, it has nothing to do with the toys.  I asked my kids why they like to go to McDonalds and Kiley said the hamburger and fries while Kayla said the chicken nuggets.  McDonalds has offered healthier choices like apple dippers, salad, juice, milk, etc for a few years.  The patrons are given a choice—let them decide.

None of this changes the fact that as a parent, it’s my job to regulate what my kids eat just like it’s my job to regulate what I eat.  I certainly don’t want anyone in the government making my meal decisions for my family.  I would hope that I have the basic intelligence to keep things in balance.

The Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) has threatened to sue McDonalds over toys being used to market Happy Meals.  They have indicated that 93% of Happy Meals are served with French Fries.  To that statistic I say no kidding!  I love french fries and I love McDonald’s french fries.  If this is the issue, why not sue McDonald’s to not serve Happy Meals with french fries?  Better yet, why not butt out of our business!  They could simply issue a statement that they don’t recommend Happy Meals, french fries or McDonalds. 

Interestingly enough, the CSPI indicates on their site that they are an advocacy group to research and provide information to consumers.  I’m curious when and why they decided to add sue companies to that list.

So the biggest question in all of this—-why do liberals feel that they need to legislate how I live?  I have a kegerator at home, and yes I enjoy quality craft beer.  Will I be targeted next?  No more beer sales?  No more steak?  No more unprotected sex with my wife?  Where does this stop?

I realize that the groups targeting McDonald’s Happy Meals are probably founded on good intentions.  Just like previous laws were: wearing a seat belt or helmet provides obvious protection, no smoking laws certainly have proven health benefits to everyone, both the smoker and those around them and outlawing texting was supposed to reduce crashes (but it has since been proven ineffective).

However, I for one am just sick and tired of people trying to regulate our lives.  We are a nation built on freedoms.  I believe that freedom includes eating a hamburger with fries and getting a happy little Barbie toy with it if that is what me or my kids choose.  I also believe that as a parent, I have a responsibility to take care of my children and that includes making healthy decisions for them.  I don’t want someone dictating how my wife and I should parent or what we should feed our kids.  This is a not a socialist government and it has no business meddling in how I raise my kids.

I’m hopeful that as we move forward, people will see the insanity of this latest move.  (Of course) San Francisco is trying to be the first to pass a law outlawing Happy Meal toys.  It shouldn’t be a surprise since they have already outlawed tobacco sales in some retail outlets and have even banned the sale of sweetened beverages from vending machines on city property.

The citizens of San Francisco have the equivalent of George Orwell’s Big Brother (1984) watching out for them and making decisions for them.  Obviously, Mayor Gavin Newsom doesn’t believe that they can make decisions on their own. 

In the immortal words of 2Pac in his work, Only God Can Judge Me, “Let me live baby. Let me live!” 

Are there any other conservative hip hop/rap fanatics or is it just me?

Squeaky…