Tag: democracy

Categories
judiciary national politics & policies

Biden’s Court-Packing Scheme

Joe Biden, Supreme Court, court packing, election, Democracy

Hold on! What scheme am I talking about?

Joe Biden hasn’t said that he agrees with other Democrats (including former Democratic presidential candidates) who propose that the U.S. Congress act to dramatically expand the number of U.S. Supreme Court justices.

Joe Biden hasn’t said that at all. 

In his first and so-far-only debate with President Trump he refused to say, because if he did then that would become the issue.

“The issue is the American people should speak,” he said, and then turned to the camera. “You should go out and vote. . . . Vote and let your senators know how strongly you feel. Vote now. Make sure you in fact let people know.”

Know what, precisely? To vote to allow a Democratic administration to seize control of the Court, overcoming any constitutional objections to his (or her) socialist schemes?

But then Biden turned against the voters, when asked on Friday, whether voters deserve to know where he stands on court-packing: “No, they don’t deserve” to know. “I’m not going to play his [Trump’s] game. . . .”

So, officially, we “don’t know” whether Biden supports packing the High Court the way FDR tried in 1937.

Do voters deserve better from Biden? 

They do not! 

O, those voters — always demanding to know positions and agendas and things. Playing right into the hands of the opposition. 

Come on, man! Ya gotta vote for the guy to know what’s in him.

I know what’s on your mind. You’re asking, “Are you saying that Joe Biden’s coy covertness toward the imposition of one-party authoritarian government exemplifies a crude disdain for voters’ legitimate desire to know what their vote will get them and is even more disqualifying than his stealth court-packing scheme?”

Please. Don’t put words in my mouth.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts

Categories
ballot access initiative, referendum, and recall Voting

Worms for Early Bird Voting?

ballot box, voting, democracy, money, pandemic

Election Day is six weeks away. Yet, in my home state of Virginia, voting began last week.

Is it responsible to cast a ballot so early? 

You may know with metaphysical certainty how you’re voting for president — even in the event of some major cataclysm — but have all the state rep and city council and ballot measure campaigns also played out fully enough for you?

Here in Virginia, we get few candidate races in our split-up state and federal elections, much less ballot issues to decide. I could have made all my (very few) choices months ago. But I trust that in a more competitive and healthy representative democracy we would more want to hear out the candidates.

A lot can happen in six weeks. And you cannot change your vote once it’s cast.*

The new Democratic-controlled Legislature — in reaction to the pandemic, to prevent crowding at the polls — expanded the early voting period this year. It started September 18 and ends October 31.** 

There are costs to expanding early voting — including making campaigns more expensive to run and win. Disabled from marshaling advertising into a two-or-three-week period before the vote, campaigns are forced to sustain publicity for a month. Or longer. 

While better-funded incumbents have little difficulty with the added cost, it cripples challengers. It especially handicaps grassroots ballot initiative proponents battling public employee unions or the Chamber of Commerce. 

Make the voting process comfortable and easy for citizens. But let’s be certain not to make it comfortable and easy for incumbents and special interests.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

* In Sweden, you can change your early vote, informs my friend Bruno Kaufmann, a journalist and direct democracy advocate. They call it “second voting.” 

** Though several other states routinely allow more than six weeks of early voting.

PDF for printing

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts

Categories
Accountability incumbents

When More Is Better

Congress, representation, democracy,

On Monday, we considered how to get better representation in Congress for the 700,000 folks residing in our nation’s capital city, Washington, D.C.

Today, let’s tackle how the rest of us get any semblance of representation. We are sliced up into 435 congressional districts, each comprised of roughly 700,000 people electing a “representative” supposedly doing our business in Washington. 

Are they doing our business? 

The nearly universal and long-standing public disapproval of Congress answers that question.*

As the framers of the Constitution saw it, Congress would be the first and most powerful branch of government, as it would be closest to the people. The original idea was to create in members of Congress a “fidelity to their constituents,” James Madison wrote in Federalist No. 57, which “would be found very insufficient without the restraint of frequent elections. Hence . . . the House of Representatives is so constituted as to support in the members an habitual recollection of their dependence on the people.”

Madison goes on to say that congresspeople “will be compelled to anticipate the moment when their power is to cease.”

Yet well-funded congressional incumbents sporting 90 percent-plus re-election rates cycle after cycle, decade after decade — serving 20 and 30 and 50-plus years — cannot plausibly feel either compelled or dependent.

Looming large over the problem? Huge population districts. 

The more voters in a district, the more expansive and expensive campaigns must be . . . and the bigger the need for help from special interests . . . and the more powerful those groups’ influence.

Conversely, the smaller a district is, the more influence constituents individually have on their representative.

It may seem paradoxical, but it isn’t: citizens will wield more power when there are more representatives in Congress.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

* In April, after sending stimulus checks to the entire country, Congress did more than double its approval rating, though it is still seen unfavorably by a lopsided two-to-one margin.

PDF for printing

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts

Categories
ideological culture local leaders political challengers

Sans Champion, Again?

Rep. Justin Amash, democracy, presidential race,

For a moment there — a few weeks — a comparatively youthful candidate with a gentle, conscientious and respectful temperament seemed poised to challenge the major parties’ sausage-twisting septuagenarians,The Donald and Sleepy Joe. A congressman from Michigan had entered the Libertarian Party’s hat-strewn ring, offering us something serious for Death Race 2020.

Then, Saturday, Rep. Justin Amash sent a series of tweets announcing that he was ending his presidential bid.

Presidential campaigns aren’t easy. And between outrageous anti-democratic ballot access hurdles and the pandemic, it has gotten even more difficult. 

Win or lose — and Amash was going to lose — I’ll miss what the Great Lakes State representative might have gotten a chance to say to audiences across the country. 

About partisanship. 

About political control. 

In Washington. 

“That’s why we have so much discord,” Amash told constituents at a 2019 town hall, “because members of Congress are just following the party line all of the time.”

Party bosses?

“Right now, you have a system in which the Speaker of the House controls the entire process,” charges Amash. “That was true under Republicans and it’s true under Democrats. Under [Speaker] Paul Ryan, for example, we had for the first time in Congress’s history an entire term where we weren’t allowed to amend any legislation on the House floor. 

“And so far under Speaker Pelosi the same thing has happened,” he added. “No amendments have been allowed on the House floor.”

“You need the House to be a deliberative body where everyone participates,” Amash declares, “and everyone has a chance to offer their amendments, to offer their ideas.” 

Great point. 

We sure could use a champion for it.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

Rep. Justin Amash, democracy, presidential race,

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts

Categories
ideological culture political economy too much government

Ex-Californians

Texas, California, democracy, migration, immigration,

California, “the U.S. state most synonymous with all varieties of growth — vegetal, technological, and human — is at the precipice of its first-ever population decline,” writes Derek Thompson of The Atlantic. And folks in other states like Texas and Idaho are none too happy. 

You see, the Californians fleeing are finding new homes elsewhere. Especially in Texas and Idaho.

Oddly, Mr. Thompson breezes by the biggest source of anxiety: ideology. “Texas Governor Greg Abbott issued a warning on Twitter to Californians moving to his state: ‘Remember those high taxes, burdensome regulations, & socialistic agenda advanced in CA? We don’t believe in that.’ The sentiment was echoed in various warnings in Dallas newspapers about the awful ‘California-ing’ of North Texas.” Thompson quickly moves on to interrogate how real the general exodus from the Golden State is.

Which is interesting — but much more important is the main worry about all immigration: will these new citizens vote to overturn the order that attracted them in the first place?

There is certainly anecdotal evidence that this can be a real problem.

Also not mentioned in the The Atlantic squib is just how messed up California now is.

What can be done? The idea humorously floated by an Idaho politician — a “$26 billion wall to keep out people moving from the Golden State” — is just a joke.

And secession/expulsion of the 23rd state in the union is not realistic, either.

What is realistic is for non-California politicians to float in the U.S. Congress a willingness to break up the state into separate pieces, creating at least two new states. At least then, Jefferson State citizens could put up with West California émigrés. 

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

N.B. There are very serious political problems of representation in California that breaking up could help fix, by increasing the number of legislators and minimizing the ratio between representatives and the people they serve.

PDF for printing

Texas, California, democracy, migration, immigration,

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts

Categories
general freedom international affairs

Totalitarianized

Hong Kong, China, Taiwan, democracy, freedom,

Legislation introduced last April to allow the extradition of criminal suspects from Hong Kong to mainland China motivated millions into the streets in protests that have not yet ended . . . 

. . . including a major pro-democracy rally scheduled for tomorrow in Causeway Bay.

Traveling to Hong Kong and Taiwan months ago, the glimpse I caught of Hongkongers’ courageous struggle spurs me to applaud George Will’s judgment in Sunday’s Washington Post: “Nothing more momentous happened” in 2019. 

The extradition bill has been withdrawn, sure, but Hongkongers know well that without real democracy they have no long-term hope of avoiding the repressive rule of the Chinese Communist Party . . . which may no longer be “communist,” but remains totally totalitarian.

Ask a million Uighurs. 

Carrie Lam, the city’s Beijing-installed chief executive, has long labeled the protesters “selfish rioters.” But new pro-democracy candidates won nearly 90 percent of seats in last month’s local elections, demonstrating which side the public is on. 

This year began with newly un-term-limited Chinese President Xi Jinping threatening military action against Taiwan. The island nation of 24 million, some 100 miles off the coast of the mainland, has been offered the same “one country, two systems” arrangement China has with Hong Kong . . . what Mr. Will dubbed “a formula for the incremental suffocation of freedom.”

Taiwan’s president, Tsai Ing-wen, is “loathed by Beijing,” reports the South China Morning Post, “because her party refuses to accept the idea that Taiwan is part of the so-called one-China principle which denies the island’s independence.” 

Her opponent in the upcoming national election on the 11th, like some in the NBA, “favours much warmer relations with mainland China.”

The Taiwanese, however — like Hongkongers — appear increasingly resistant to being totalitarianized.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

2019 Commentaries on Hong Kong and Taiwan

PDF for printing

Hong Kong, China, Taiwan, democracy, freedom,

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts

Categories
political challengers

One of Us?

Tim Eyman, governor, Washington State, democracy,

As the Democratic Party presidential campaign began heating up earlier this year, one of the stars faintly streaking across the sky was Washington State Governor Jay Inslee. In the over-populated ranks of presidential wannabes, he stood out not for being exceptionally nutty, but for so memorably presenting the new Nut Normal of America’s oldest political party.

In August he dropped out for lack of support, but that doesn’t mean his political career is over. He is back in his home state demonstrating the case for term limits. 

That is, he is running for a third gubernatorial term.

Fortunately for Evergreen State voters, there are alternatives. Indeed, one in particular: Tim Eyman.

I mention Eyman often enough that I could almost get away without introducing him now. He is arguably the most effective user of initiative and referendum in the country — offering common-sense issues a majority of voters favor, especially tax limitation and reduction measures.

On his campaign website he sports a sweatshirt emblazoned with “Let the Voters Decide,” which is so democratic it almost makes you wonder why the state’s Democratic Party isn’t embracing him.

But we know why — the very last thing Democratic political machines want is democracy!

Running as neither an R nor a D, Mr. Eyman’s campaign slogan is “One of us as Governor!”

And considering the popularity of his many initiative measures designed to combat their elected representatives’ love of raising taxes and “fees” — especially on automobiles — as well as the way politicians in Olympia (including that ultimate insider, Inslee) freak out over the very name “Eyman,” it promises to be a very interesting and entertaining race.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Tim Eyman, governor, Washington State, democracy,

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts


Categories
initiative, referendum, and recall tax policy

My Favorite Control Group

Tim Eyman

Tim Eyman strikes again. 

In deep blue Washington State, the ballot measure activist celebrated another Election Day victory last week with Initiative 976, limiting vehicle taxes. Not to mention Referendum 88, whereby voters kept a ban on government use of racial preferences, enacted via an initiative Eyman had co-authored two decades ago.

And still, there were a dozen more issues on last Tuesday’s statewide ballot thanks to Mr. Eyman’s 2007 initiative, I-960, which mandates “advisory votes on taxes enacted without voter approval.” (Also thanks to state legislators, I guess, for racking up 12 new tax increases this year without bothering to ask voters!)

Yet, perhaps it matters not at all. Nearly two million votes cast on each of these measures? Three supported by a majority? Nine rejected? Two esteemed Evergreen State newspaper columnists pooh-pooh them as “meaningless.”

“The Legislature has never taken the voters’ advice when they say a tax should be repealed,” writes Spokane Spokesman Review columnist Jim Camden. 

That’s a failing of the Legislature, Jim,* not these advisory measures . . . which you seem to acknowledge when you write that these votes at least “provide a good control group for any experiment on the voters’ knee jerk reaction to higher taxes.”

If legislators cared to know. 

While dumping on the dozen measures as “an empty remnant of an earlier initiative,” The Columbian’s Greg Jayne notices that “their presence on the ballot this year reminded voters, over and over again, of the Legislature’s spendthrift ways.”

Helping create an anti-tax mood that spurred support for I-976.

Not bad for being meaningless.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

* I use his first name because I know Mr. Camden from decades ago when he was a reporter covering House Speaker Tom Foley, who after suing to overturn the 1992 citizen initiative for term limits became the only Speaker defeated for reelection since the Civil War. 

PDF for printing

Tim Eyman

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts

Categories
term limits

Term Limits Apply to Socialists,Too

Bolivia, term limits, democracy, elections,

We don’t see a lot of pro-term-limits writing in our major, “corporate” media outlets — but a New York magazine account of the ouster of Bolivian President Evo Morales is a welcome exception.

“The disgraceful and chaotic manner in which the once-beloved Morales is leaving office is an object lesson in why presidential term limits are important,” writes Jonah Schepp. “Running a country for more than a decade has a tendency to make people more susceptible to authoritarian impulses, whether or not they started their careers as dictators.”

The Atlantic also acknowledges term limits’ vital role. “Evo Morales Finally Went Too Far for Bolivia,” the “too far” being the “authoritarian powers” claimed “in the name of the popular will.” Yascha Mounk explains how Morales’ once-touted support for presidential term limits evaporated in 2016, when he placed before voters a binding referendum to allow him to stay in office indefinitely. Bolivians voted No, only to witness their supreme court set aside term limits using the bizarre rationale “that limits on the length of his tenure in office would violate Morales’s human rights.”

After irregularities in the October 20 presidential vote, Bolivians took to the streets. Morales resigned on Sunday. 

“For a socialist president who was until recently hailed as the great success story of the Latin American left,” New York’s Schepp explains, “this unseemly end serves as a cautionary tale of what happens when world leaders remain in office for too long.”

On a 2015 trip, President Obama remonstrated African leaders for their attempts to overturn popular term limits. “I’ll be honest with you,” he said before the African Union, “I’m looking forward to life after being president.”

Mr. Morales, Bolivia’s now-former president, is not so fortunate. Yesterday, he fled the country. 

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

Bolivia, term limits, democracy, elections,

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts

Categories
national politics & policies political challengers

Billions Of, By and For Bloomberg

Michael Bloomberg, president, democracy,

Might Gotham’s gun-and-Big-Gulp-grabber-in-chief catapult to Commander in Chief? 

Michael Bloomberg, the former New York City mayor, “is actively preparing to enter the Democratic presidential primary,” writes Alexander Burns in The New York Times.

Bloomberg’s estimated $53 billion could financially pummel even Democratic candidate Tom Steyer, working with a mere $1.6 billion. 

“More billionaires seeking more political power surely isn’t the change America needs,” chimed in Faiz Shakir, presidential campaign manager for Vermont socialist and Senator Bernard Sanders. 

Billionaires are the really evil ones. 

Millionaires? Not so bad anymore. 

In 2016, Bernie badmouthed both “millionaires and billionaires” . . . until found to be a millionaire himself — worth $2.5 million to be specific. 

Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren, Mr. Sanders’ rail-against-the-rich presidential rival, offered Mayor Bloomberg her “Calculator for Billionaires” — showing how much those sorts of people would have to pay per her Wealth Tax. 

No mention of what her own family, worth $12 million would pay.

Bloomberg’s entrance into the race is expected to hurt former Vice-President and multimillionaire Joe Biden the most, both appealing to the more “moderate” wing of the Democratic Party.

Still, Bloomberg is no Democrat messiah, however. He’s not particularly popular. In fact, Bloomberg’s last political campaign for a third term as New York mayor ten years ago was “the most expensive campaign in municipal history.” After double-crossing voters on term limits by supporting a council change allowing him (and them) a third term, Bloomberg had to spend a whopping $183 per vote to win an “unexpectedly close race.”

To garner as many votes for president as Hillary Clinton’s 2016 effort, at that same cost, adds up to $12 billion!

Bloomberg’s good news? He has it.

Bloomberg’s bad news? Hillary lost.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

Michael Bloomberg, president, democracy,

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts