Some Post-Recall Thoughts

The Wisconsin recall election is over; Scott Walker won.

That's a bitter pill to swallow for some, but it's the reality, and there's plenty to be discussed in the aftermath. Here are a few thoughts:


Money Talks
Some will write off the Walker win to his 8-1 advantage in fundraising. And having the money to saturate the state with his message certainly was a big help to Walker. We continue to see the threat that the Citizens United ruling has posed to our democracy. Even some on the right have raised concerns about a system that simply allows the most wealthy to have the loudest voice. Whether we can move the country toward meaningful campaign finance reform is a tough question. Unfortunately, the media is part of the problem. Elections are a cash cow for broadcast media in particular, and with print media withering on the vine, media companies are likely to welcome revenue from any source they can find. It's hard to imagine that will not influence coverage of this issue.

But I wonder if it's a little too easy to write this victory off to Walker's advantage in advertising. It's not like the issues weren't discussed at length, over time, in a variety of mediums. This wasn't really a case of voters being blinded by personality or a slick message. Living in Minnesota, I wasn't subjected to the advertising barrage, but I wonder if this was really the deciding factor.

The Generation Gap
I continue to think the biggest, and most underappreciated, political divide in the country is that between people under 40 and those over. Walker's strategy clearly included working up the resentments of older voters who no longer had school-age kids. A lot easier to put down educators when you're not dealing with them on a regular basis, and a lot easier to call for tuition hikes when you're not the one saving up college costs. Another possible big blunder on the Dems' side was the decision to hold this election in the summer, while college students were not in school and more difficult to organize.

Are Unions the Problem?
There are a lot of reasons to dislike Scott Walker's policies and approach to governance, but at essence this was perceived as a fight between unions and the governor. And most people aren't in unions. Should we say, "We just have to educate people about the positive contributions unions make" ?? Didn't we try doing that for the last six months? This is a problem that I have no answer for at the moment. Most people aren't in unions, and it's easy for politicians like Walker to use that as a wedge issue, suggesting that those in unions have it better than the rest of us--so why be sympathetic to them? The simple fact is, those in unions do, in some ways, have it better than some of us. Of course, the obvious question is why should we be in a race to the bottom in terms of wages and benefits? But that, apparently, is not how people are thinking of the issue.

It's a tough time for unions. One thing I feel pretty sure of: the Obama administration is not counting on the "ground game" and Democratic support that unions have traditionally been credited for. Whatever they can deliver will be appreciated, I'm sure, but the Obama Admin seems much more focused on its own efforts such as OFA.

Which brings us to another point.

Do Not Underestimate the Power of the Dark Side Republican Ground Game
The GOP got people to turn out to the polls in huge numbers. Huge. Democrats like to think they have the superior ground game but there's really little evidence of that in recent elections. All the hard work that campaigns put into getting people to the polls is important, but you have to win the messaging side as well. This was an election where the failure was with the message, and possibly the candidate, not the turn-out-the-vote effort.

OK, So Why Did the Democrats' Message Fail?
The Dem message was: "Walker is a big ole Meanie!" The Walker message was: "I'm only a big ole meanie because I have to be to fix our messed up government!"

Walker has done a masterful job of convincing people we need to take some strong medicine to fix the problems we face. Where he is kind of evil is the way he targets unions, teachers, college students, etc., as the people who have to take the medicine. But it's an effective message and obviously people responded to it. We're in for a very scary election if Mitt Romney is anywhere near as effective as portraying himself as a "reformer" who makes tough decisions.

And I do think the Dems had a little bit of an uphill climb because some voters simply did not think a recall was appropriate. Allegations and likely future indictments aside, Walker did not break any laws, was not obviously corrupt, and wasn't involved in a personal scandal. He was a duly elected official pursuing his policies, and he had the support in the Legislature to pass most of his agenda. I'm agnostic on whether his opponents were "right" to recall him. But obviously some voters had a problem with it on principle.

What Does this Mean for the Fall?
Looking at this from a national perspective, this recall election hurts Obama, but not as much as if he had been actually supportive of Barrett or made any effort to help him. I don't know why exactly Obama made the calculation, but obviously from the beginning he saw little or no upside to becoming involved in this dispute. That is no doubt disappointing to many, but as events have turned out, it might have been the right call. If he had gotten invested and the result had been the same, every.single.pundit.on.TV would be talking about what a devastating loss this was for Obama. That's not the headline today.

I think there's no doubt Romney will try to take a page from Walker's playbook and portray himself as the guy who will make tough decisions in order to fix big problems. It's a little harder sell, considering who Romney is and what his record as governor was, but it blunts the criticisms about his history with Baine--sure, people got hurt but on a larger scale he did more good than harm, right?

Obama needs to get out in front of this and co-opt that message. He can point to the auto industry bailout, the Stimulus Act, even the ACA, as tough decisions that pissed some people off but were good for the country in the long run.

Second-guessing an effort like this is easy. Armchair pundits such as yours truly can pick apart any effort with the benefit of hindsight. What shouldn't be forgotten is the hard work people put into this and the difficult realities that we're left with. Hopefully those who supported the recall effort will get over their dissappointment and keep working for the things they believe in. If the fight was worth fighting yesterday, it's just as worthwhile today.

The core of the problem

I don't think it will happen, but Norm Ornstein's reasonable, well-researched thesis should be something that EVERY voter reads and thinks about this election season.

"We have been studying Washington politics and Congress for more than 40 years, and never have we seen them this dysfunctional. In our past writings, we have criticized both parties when we believed it was warranted. Today, however, we have no choice but to acknowledge that the core of the problem lies with the Republican Party.

The GOP has become an insurgent outlier in American politics. It is ideologically extreme; scornful of compromise; unmoved by conventional understanding of facts, evidence and science; and dismissive of the legitimacy of its political opposition.

When one party moves this far from the mainstream, it makes it nearly impossible for the political system to deal constructively with the country’s challenges."

He's a little short for a Storm Trooper

The state's GOP continues to make news, with the Ron Paul Rebel Alliance creating the latest stir. ("The tighter you squeeze your fist, the more delegates will slip through your fingers.")

This amusing tho occasionally too snarky recap of the state Republican convention is a great inside look at how the party is united in hatin' libruls but not so much in other ways...

The bottom line is a Ron Paul-approved candidate won the party's endorsement to take on Amy Klobuchar for Senate (good luck with that) and the Paulites in general kind of took over the show. The author is clearly not a fan but nontheless manages to capture the moment, including a kind of sad encounter with a couple of Log Cabin Republicans. Here are a few of the better lines:

"Their fury is hard to fathom. The delegates and their families seemed like ordinary, reasonably successful middle-class people. There was a broad age range — yes, Democrats, young people were there in force and there were plenty of women, too, no matter the vaunted war against them. Some people wore suits; others came in jeans and flip-flops. Dads and moms rocked strollers in the back of the hall. They could have been an audience at a summer band concert. Oh wait, except there were no blacks. Well, almost none. I spotted two..."

"They all embraced small town life and 'Christian values' which made me feel left out, what with being Jewish and all."

"'President Paul! President Paul! President Paul,' screamed the crowd as he took the podium. That seemed beside the point since he had suspended his campaign only a few days earlier."

"Back in the hall, would-be delegates to the national convention were delivering one-minute pitches about their suitability. They were all asked whether they would support the nominee of the party. The subtextual clause would have been, if uttered, 'even if it's the hateful Romney.' Most said yes, but some laid on caveats, such as 'if he abides by the laws in Exodus' or 'if he follows the Constitution.'"

...The laws in Exodus?

Also, here's something from Daily Kos, which of course is a very liberal site, but it's one of the better big-picture explanations I've seen of what the Paul Rebellion means nationwide, with relatively little partisan sniping...

Dayton vs. the GOP revolution

It's been interesting to watch the political changes in Minnesota and Wisconsin over the past two years.

How's that for an understatement?

In both states, we saw something of a Republican revolution at the polls in 2010. In Wisconsin, Scott Walker was elected Governor, with a Republican-majority legislature. In Minnesota, Mark Dayton barely squeaked by to win the Governor's mansion for the DFL, but Republicans scored a historic win by taking both the House and the Senate.

We all know what's happened in Wisconsin since then. And we're just weeks away from seeing if the huge backlash that Walker inspired will be successful in ousting him from office.

Minnesota has not grabbed national headlines the way Wisconsin did, but politics here has been almost as lively. Dayton and the Republicans have clashed repeatedly, with the mild-in-appearance Dayton showing a surprisingly tough and confrontational side when faced with the Tea Party approach of state's GOP leadership. Dayton has thrown some real punches, and the GOP here, despite having some very strong-willed characters of its own, has not fared well, in part because the party has shot itself in the foot a few times.

In the last year, the GOP has weathered a sex scandal--which resulted in the Republican Senate leader resigning, and financial scandals, which badly undercut its message on being the best party to manage state government. Going bankrupt is not a good way to convince voters you're good with fiscal matters.

Who knows how much those issues affected the GOP's game in St. Paul, but Dayton for the most part seemed to outmaneuver them, despite the fact that he led the minority party. He got the stadium bill passed--with a bigger margin than most expected. He got a pared-down bonding bill--not as much as he wanted, but he always said he was willing to compromise on that one.

He also stood firm on not draining the state's financial reserves by vetoing the GOP's tax bills. He vetoed the first large tax-cut bill, despite the GOP's threats of torpedoing the stadium bill in retaliation. Then at the very end of the session, he vetoed a second, smaller tax-cut bill for the same reason—because it would lead to larger deficits and not spread the tax-cut goodness fairly to all Minnesotans, instead focusing on business tax cuts. If you think you hear a skeptical tone, you do. Since I moved to Minnesota, I’ve seen wave after wave of tax cuts, all promising to improve the economy. Usually, the economy has gotten worse.

But I digress. We were talking about Dayton vs. the GOP. And so what is the result of this clash-of-the-titans spectacle? Well, a recent Survey USA Poll suggests that Dayton is in pretty good shape at the moment; the GOP, not so much.

The poll shows Minnesota voters approve of the job Dayton is doing, 56 percent to 33 percent. The state Legislature, however, has a 21 percent approval rating to a 67 percent disapproval rating. Ouch. Now, that may reflect in part some dissatisfaction with the Vikings stadium deal, which is a bipartisan affair--plenty of DFL voters don't like the stadium deal.

But though the poll shows some of that ambivalence to the stadium deal, it also shows that when given a choice, the voters surveyed were relatively supportive: 43 percent saying they support building a new stadium, 36 percent saying renovate it, and 16 percent saying forget it. That's better than I would've expected.

(A note here to my progressive friends who have been bending my ear about how terrible it is to publicly-finance a stadium. I understand the argument, but there are certain realities to any business. And in the business of pro sports, the bottom line is that if Minnesota kept punting this issue down the road (football reference!) the owners would've eventually gotten a much better offer, with the NFL's blessing. And then it probably would've been too late. Maybe some would've been OK with losing the Vikings to make a point. But Minnesota has lost sports teams before, and what did that accomplish? Did it change anything?)

Two other small items from the poll: Obama leads Romney 52 percent to 38 percent in this survey, and 52 percent of Minnesota voters agree that same-sex couples should be allowed to get married. 42 percent disagreed. It's too early too throw any parties about those numbers, but they are encouraging. The constitutional referendum on the same-sex marriage issue gives Minnesota the chance to make history by being the first state to vote down a constitutional ban on gay marriage.

It's early. The Survey USA reading is just one poll. And who knows what will happen over the summer and into the fall. But right now it looks as though the Tea Party brand of Republican politics has not done well in either Minnesota or Wisconsin, two heartland states that gave that approach a chance in governance.

And I think it's fair to say Dayton has given a masterful example of how to counter a Legislature that is diametrically opposed to your political philosophy—while still accomplishing some of your main goals. It’s an impressive performance, though not unprecedented. After all, Tim Pawlenty wrote the book on being a successful Republican governor in a state capitol dominated by Democrats. But I don’t think anyone expected Dayton to have this kind of success. It remains to be seen if the GOP can keep their revolution alive after a session in which they were not terribly effective.

Thanks Mr. President, now, will you campaign against the marriage amendment in Minnesota?

In November, Minnesotans get a chance to make history by being the first state to reject a discriminatory, anti-gay marriage amendment to the state constitution. Such an amendment has never failed in a vote; it would be a sign of real progress if Minnesota changed that trend.

The GOP-controlled Legislature did an end run around the state's systems of checks and balances by pushing through two amendments that will be on this fall's ballot: one banning gay marriage, the other restricting voting access (Voter ID). I find them both to be pretty horrible laws. Minnesota has one of the most open and accessible voting systems in the country, and as a result has led the US in voter participation. The GOP is trying to change that, due to alleged voter fraud that they never seem to be able to prove beyond a handful of isolated cases.

But that's another topic. I do think Obama deserves credit for finally coming down on the side of fairness and equality for all Americans. It took too long, but there are political risks with that stance and Obama is not a big risk-taker. As others have noted, he probably just decided it was something he couldn't credibly put off any longer. (Thanks for opening your big yap and making history, Joe Biden!) I don't think gay marriage should be one of the top issues of the campaign, but I hope Obama is willing to talk about the Minnesota amendment and will urge its defeat.

For further reading check out the Minnesotans United for All Families site.

Now with more Chilton...

Finally figured out a way to embed the song that inspired this blog's name. My HTML skills are now caught up with the turn of the century. Yeah, I know the page is sort of a mess, but it's readable, and that's all I ask. Enjoy!

Is it time for Dick Lugar to go?

I've always liked Dick Lugar, senior (and then some) Senator from Indiana. He's been a great Senator and a great American. And in principal, I am very supportive of moderate Republicans who turn off Tea Party types. Goodness knows we need more of those people. But Lugar is very likely to lose his seat after today's GOP primary.

I happen to have met Dick Lugar. And therein lies the problem. I met Sen. Richard Lugar when I was a high school student, when he came and ran a couple miles with our cross-country team. Pretty cool, huh? We were impressed. But that was more than 30 years ago. And he was already in the Senate. Lugar is the longest-serving Senator in Indiana's history. And you can make a pretty good case that even though his experience is second-to-none, there has to be a time when new blood is needed.

What compounds the problem in Lugar's case is that he hasn't kept a residence in Indiana for many years. He has a farm there--which apparently he doesn't, or didn't, visit often. When he came back to the state he stayed in a hotel. To me, this is a bit more than just a problem with appearances.

His primary opponent, Richard Mourdock, seems halfway smart and capable, though typically for this scenario, extremely right wing. (Tea Party support, NRA favorite; your basic nightmare.) My gut feeling is that Lugar’s much-discussed friendship with Obama is less a problem than his nonresidency. That seeming disregard for his roots is a career-killer in a state like Indiana, where people are sensitive to even the smallest slight.

The fact that Lugar even has a primary challenge is another depressing example of the GOP’s continued move to extremism. But Lugar can’t just blame political trends. He made a very bad blunder in taking his home state for granted.

I confess--I liked Santorum

Oh, stop it.






So it took a while for the whole thing to wind down, but with Gingrich's weird (what about his campaign was *not* weird?) concession speech, we've just about closed the book on the GOP 2012 primaries.

I included the video clip above because I love Shep Smith's brutal honesty--all too rare on any cable channel--and it raises a point that I think really did not get enough attention.

Why were some of these guys ever, EVER, taken seriously as presidential candidates?

I mean, come on, Herman Cain? If you're talking about reality-show contestant, maybe. An entertaining speaker, OK. But a serious candidate for president of the United States?

Rick Perry was a dumber George W. Bush and yet still thought this country would go for him. Think about that--Or don't, he obviously didn't.

And Gingrich? How could anyone, especially those in his own party, think his candidacy was a good idea?

This isn't hindsight being 20/20. I was appalled at some of these candidacies from the beginning. Gingrich in particular is a disgraced former politician who damaged his party, has been consistently wrong about everything from foreign policy to education, and has exposed himself not only as a hypocrite but as a shameless shill who will say and do anything to get on television.

A few years ago, when it seemed his political career was effectively over, he was happily appearing at wonkish policy conventions, endorsing things like cap and trade and early iterations of Obamacare. Gingrich Badger didn't give a sh*t: he could pick up the check, get treated like a big shot, sell a few books—he was happy as a clam. But then Fox News started treating him as a go-to pundit when they wanted scathing put-downs of Obama, and his delusions of grandeur kicked in, again.

I'll be honest, I thought Rick Santorum was also kind of a joke at the beginning of this process. But something happened. Santorum went out and campaigned, and low and behold people responded. You can be appalled at his message, and scared that we have people who embraced it, but there was nothing fake about this guy. He had a vision, he articulated it, and people responded. He connected with people, in a way that a Gingrich or a Cain would never really try. I have to respect that.

You can also respect, to some degree, Ron Paul. Ron Paul is a classic third-party candidate. He's radical, idiosyncratic, and has a fervent if small following. It just shows how savvy he is to realize that he has to keep calling himself a Republican in order to get on Fox News. If not for that, he'd be totally ignored.

I know, the process had to play out; this is our system. But what an indictment of our political and media cultures that these frauds and con men could get this far as presidential candidates, simply because they had money and almost unlimited access to television cameras.

Politics, as usual

Well, with the winding down of the Republican primaries I guess we have to start thinking seriously about Obama vs. Romney.

Yeah, it's gonna get ugly.

So to try to spare some of my Facebook friends, I am firing up the ole' Mod Lang blog. No doubt I'll continue to annoy FB peeps with harangues on global warming, gun control, voter ID, health care, etc.

But I'll try to shift more of that stuff over here, especially when it comes to presidential politics and political campaigns in general.

Let's see how rusty my html skills are, shall we? (Talk about getting ugly.)

I Won't See These Bands at Summerfest, but You Should...

Years ago I was a Summerfest regular, spending several days there each time the festival ran, usually as a reviewer for local publications, sometimes as a musician. Now I live in Minneapolis and we have a comparable festival experience called…
 
Well, no, we don’t. Nothing anything really close to it, actually. That’s OK, there are few festivals in the same league as SF. And there are many nice things about the Twin Cities that more than make up for our lack of a huge, multi-day music festival.
 
But I have been looking at the SF schedule and a few thoughts came to mind, so since I haven’t fired up the blog lately, I thought I’d plop them down here.
 
This won’t take long. The number of band names I don’t recognize at SF this year includes, well, most of them. And there are many good acts that I won’t mention simply because I assume you’ve heard of them and can make up your own mind about seeing them.
 
But there may be a few, including a few from the Twin Cities, that may slip under the radar, so here’s an attempt to illuminate them a bit.
 
Weds June 29,
6pm, Cascio Interstate Music Groove Stage with Onion/A.V. Milwaukee and 91.7 WMSE (why such a short name??)
Pictures of Then
This edgy guitar band from Minneapolis (with some nice synth and keyboard touches) is a bit of a buzz band around here.
 
5 pm, Rock Stage
The Friendly Lens
(See, is that so hard? “Rock Stage.” Simple, timely, classic. All that a music stage name should be, and more.)
I had the pleasure of seeing TFL at the Scott Weinberger benefit and they were quite rocking—and fun. Actually not too different from that first act but a little more compelling in my book.
 
Sunday July 3
4:30 pm
Cascio Interstate Music blah blah stage
Me and My Arrow
Besides getting points for the cool name (all hail Harry Nilsson), MaMA boasts one of those fascinating, complex lineups with string players and multiple singers and a big, big wall of sound. They’re bursting with energy live, capable of dramatic dynamic shifts, and they rock pretty convincingly. I like ‘em!
 
Thursday July 7
Cascio Inter-aaaaaaaaagh!
7:30 and 9 pm
The Melismatics and Mark Mallman
Melismatics are another classic Minneapolis band that started out on Ed Ackerson’s Susstones Records and have been bubbling under, as they say, ever since. Have to confess I’ve never seen them but they have a rep for great live shows.
Mallman is a piano-playing maniac who I’ve always thought is more a great showman than a great songwriter but honestly, his songwriting is nothing to sneeze at. I’d bet good money that this will be a memorable show. (Although I’m surprised he’s headlining—does Mallman have a big Mke following I don’t know about?)
 
Saturday July 9
Harley Davidson Roadhouse with Miller Genuine Draft
(Because if there are two things that go together, it’s drinking bad beer and going for a joyride on a motorcycle)
4 pm
Purgatory Hill
Neither a Mpls band nor a Milwaukee band, but features former Milwaukeean MelanieJane and cigarbox bluesman Pat MacDonald. Their take on the blues is fun and fascinating as they do more with two strings and tamborine than most full bands can do. Highly recommended. (also on the same stage that night: Fever Marllene and The Flaming Lips. Good lineup!)
 
 
Other bands to check out Testa Rosa, The Danglers, Paul Cebar (duh!), Ike Reilly Assassination, 5 Card Studs (at the Martini Lounge—perfect!), Juniper Tar, Kings Go Forth (duh!), Semi-Twang--if I forgot your band or your favorite band sorry, it’s all a blur after a while...Say hi to Lake Michigan for me!

Best Band Name: Screamin’ Cucumbers
Worst Band Name: Doctor Woo

Get the whole lineup:
www.summerfest.com

The Tea Party Management Style

I think the ongoing situation in Wisconsin is a good lesson on where extreme, partisan politics can take us.

As I wrote in an email not long ago (and I promise to stop quoting myself...soon):

"Walker has always been controversial. He was deeply unpopular with Democrats when he was County Exec in Milwaukee. He took a lot of fire. He didn't care.

"He doesn't care now. He's getting national attention, he's a hero to the Right. It really is excellent news for him, as far as I can see. And I don't see him as being in a position of weakness. The Dem Senators are not going to become Illinois residents; they have to come back at some point. And every day they're away, he can say Democrats are shirking their duties. "Not being on the job" is pretty much perfect for the Right's critique of the labor movement anyhow.

"[recent actions] just confirm what the Rs have been saying. They have the votes. They will stick together. They've seen it work in DC, they're going to stick together in Madison. I would love to see some of them peel off, but don't see any signs it will happen."

As it turns out, one R Senator did peel off. But the hardcore partisan actions of Walker and crew did get them what they wanted. Whether that will have consequences down the road is another question.

My take: being governor is different than being county exec. The latter job is low profile, the public pays little attention to it. That has changed dramatically now that Walker has taken his damnthetorpedoes approach to Madison.

In any case, expect more of the same. This guy is no Barack Obama, he's not going to have beer summits or health care roundtables. He's not going to reach out to the other side, unless it's to smack them upside the head. Compromise is not his style. Some people will dig that. Some won't. We'll have to see how the people of Wisconsin take to the Tea Party style of management.

Blast from the past...

"Progressives will mourn the loss of Feingold, but Scott Walker’s win is a real nightmare for the people of Wisconsin. He is a true believer in downsizing government to the point where it basically ceases to function, as he has proven in his role as county executive for Milwaukee County. Expect Wisconsin’s next governor to be extremely partisan in fighting against health care reform, nixing mass transit projects, slashing education, etc. As George Bush so ably did, Walker believes government can do no good and is dead set on proving it."

Mod Lang, Nov. 1, 2010.

Bill talks about education

Jim commented earlier on my brief education post and raised a good point. And tho I'm not into the demonizing of unions, I do think trying to improve and protect our education system is something we should all be working on.

A Man Hears What He Wants to Hear

David Roberts does an admirable job of discussing how the whole "Climategate" mess was handled in the media.

"It's a numbingly familiar pattern in media coverage. The conservative movement that's been attacking climate science for 20 years has a storied history of demonstrable fabrications, distortions, personal attacks, and nothingburger faux-scandals -- not only on climate science, but going back to asbestos, ozone, leaded gasoline, tobacco, you name it. They don't follow the rigorous standards of professional science; they follow no intellectual or ethical standards whatsoever. Yet no matter how long their record of viciousness and farce, every time the skeptic blogosphere coughs up a new "ZOMG!" it's as though we start from zero again, like no one has a memory longer than five minutes.

"Here's the basic question: At this point, given their respective accomplishments and standards, wouldn't it make sense to give scientists the strong benefit of the doubt when they are attacked by ideologues with a history of dishonesty and error? Shouldn't the threshold for what counts as a "scandal" have been nudged a bit higher?"

Gov't Spending Equals American Jobs, pt. 2

A blogger at Moody's Analytics notes that if Congressional Republicans get the cuts they want, out economy will suffer a grevious hit. Their proposal, he writes, "would reduce 2011 real GDP growth by 0.5% and 2012 growth by 0.2 percentage points This would mean some 400,000 fewer jobs created by the end of 2011 and 700,000 fewer jobs by the end of 2012."

Talking Points Memo also notes that an ABC News report last week predicted that the Republican approach would cut economic growth by 2 percent of GDP--an even more dire analysis than Moody's.

I keep hearing from my conservative friends that if we raise taxes, it will hurt job creation. But that's really a hypothetical. Job creation is driven by many things, and maybe taxes play a role, but demand, business climate, workforce conditions, all of those play a role as well. Cutting government spending will destroy jobs that families are depending on Right Now. Real jobs, not possible jobs. With cutting government spending, you are certain to do one of several things: cancel someone's health insurance, reduce someone's services, cut someone's job. These are not good outcomes.

Government Spending Equals American Jobs

The ongoing protests in Madison have me thinking about what government spends money on. And in many cases, it's employing people like teachers, policemen, firemen, social workers, etc.

So what happens when we cut government spending?

The math isn't difficult.

More people on unemployment (and more government spending). Fewer taxes collected. Less money going into the retail sector. Purchasing decisions (new house, new car, new teeth) delayed or canceled.

That's good for our economy how?

I understand the argument that government is spending too much, and I'm sure there are cases where it's true. But too often this argument is framed this way: "We have to cut government spending so we can create jobs!" But that's not what happens at all. You may be saving the taxpayer some dollars. But what you're also doing is cutting jobs, and there's no reason whatsoever to think that the private sector will pick up the slack.

Right now many states are facing big deficits. A good number of these states, like Wisconsin, have Republican governors. So raising taxes is out. Cutting spending is in. And that means job losses, less revenue, and so on. It does not sound like a formula for economic recovery to me.

What If…?

I’d like to conduct a mental exercise. Let’s pretend the United States had a democratically-elected president back in 2000.

If that had happened, I think today’s headlines would not just be about Egypt and Libya and Bahrain. I think today, or maybe tomorrow or next week, we would be hearing about the overthrow of Saddam Hussein, as Iraq joins the irresistible lurch toward democracy in the Middle East.

Those who sought to justify the war in Iraq trotted out one reason after another. The terrorists who attacked us on 9/11 didn’t come from Iraq, so we heard about weapons of mass destruction. The weapons of mass destruction turned out not to exist, so we heard about democracy and the need to rid the world of this evil dictator.

But as it turns out, time might have done the trick, much more neatly and legitimately. It doesn’t take much imagination to think about a unified Iraq, whose citizens suddenly find themselves with fewer reasons to fight, now that they have worked together to rid themselves of a tyrant.

And think what could have been saved. Thousands of American lives. Hundreds of thousands of Iraqi lives—to say nothing of the refugee problem that afflicts Iraq's neighbors. Trillions of dollars that we still haven’t figured out a way to replace. The reputation of this country as a champion of democracy.

Maybe, right? Maybe it would’ve worked out that way. All we know now, as we stand on the sidelines, is that our slipshod, democracy-at-the-barrel-of-gun solution in Iraq now looks shaky, out-of-touch, and overly expensive. Maybe it will work out. Maybe.

Compare and Contrast

Two neighboring states have elected starkly different governors with starkly different ideas of how to solve their financial crises.

In Wisconsin, Scott Walker is charging ahead with tax cuts, evisceration of public unions, and a government-is-the-problem vision that is as pure, and as radical, as any state executive has articulated in modern times.

Facing a deficit twice as large, Minnesota governor Mark Dayton is similarly taking a blowtorch to government spending, but he is almost unique among governors in asking that the rich also pay a hefty price tag to address financial problems that have been ignored for too long.

Walker’s agenda will almost certainly pass in some form. It’s hard to see how Dayton’s tax increases will get by the new Republican majorities in the Minnesota Legislature.

It’s too bad. We might’ve had a chance to see how two opposite approaches would play out. Would wealthy business owners have stampeded out of Minnesota for the greener pastures of Wisconsin, taking their jobs with them? Would Walker’s gutting of schools and presumably health care programs (if you want to address spending you gotta go there eventually) have made Wisconsin an undesirable destination for employers?

It’s too early to tell how it will all play out. But the two men could hardly be further apart in their ideas about what their states should look like.

A random thought

(That I’ve shared elsewhere…)

As a parent, there is one thing I’m quite sure of.

Public school teachers deserve more compensation, not less.

Meet the New Congress

Heard a really remarkable interview on MPR today. It was with a Congressman from Florida who chairs a transportation committee, John Mica. In the short interview, Mica, who came across as a reasonable and likable guy, really did a remarkable job of downplaying the entire tea party movement.

First, he backpedaled on earmarks, saying that earmarks were necessary to keep the President from just doing whatever he wanted. Fair enough, but pretty different from what the R's were saying the last couple of months.

Then he said about the health care reform repeal, and I'm trying to not paraphrase too much: A) I'm going to vote for it, B) it's not going to pass (presumably he meant it would fail in the Senate,) and C) I don't really want to repeal health care reform anyhow.

He then went on to throw up a smokescreen of false and misleading points about the new health care law, for instance saying that it's wrong to mandate health insurance coverage when people can't afford it (the reform law specifically addresses that issue to make it affordable through subsidies), and saying it's too expensive (when in fact repealing the health care reform law will add $100 billion to the deficit).

By this point, I've come to expect R's to peddle in misinformation, tho it was disappointing to hear it from a guy who seemed reasonable otherwise. But it was really incredible to hear the mental gymnastics required to say, "I'm going to vote for something I don't agree with because I know it will eventually fail."

I may disagree with him on the larger points, but on this, I hope he's not wrong.