Thoughts on the Smoking Ban

Alternative Title: “a post to prove I really was paying attention in economics”

The Governor passed the statewide smoking ban today (with the support of the Tavern League, no less). The exact ban that was passed was pretty much the “Madison” version of the smoking ban – as opposed to other, stricter versions of the ban. Cigar bars, hookah lounges, and similar establishments are exempted from the ban. The man concession was a delay in implementation – which was a compromise that was made for the City of Madison ban. For a full discussion of the news, check out the Wisconsin State Journal’s coverage.

I posted the news of this and my strong support of the legislation on facebook. To which I received a negative reaction from some of my friends. I think part of their negative reaction to the ban is that they haven’t heard a decent argument for the ban. While my argument probably isn’t prefect it probably is better than “cigarettes are bad” argument.

Initially, I was very sympathetic to smoker’s arguments. I am a debate coach and many of my debate friends are smokers – though not all of them are. I can certainly understand that it seems like you’re constantly getting picked on – U.S. taxes on tobacco are going up, Wisconsin taxes on tobacco are going up, and now the Governor has restricted the up until now only place you could engage in your activity without fear of persecution. That sounds a bit scary, but it’s not. Let’s explain the reason for taxation first.

Taxes raise the price of a good. At higher prices, people generally demand less of a good. That is, unless the demand for the good is inelastic. Because smoking is a very addictive activity, its demand is highly inelastic. Those who are hooked are going to want to continue. Given the difficulty of quitting, this is very true. From a public policy perspective, you want to tax goods that are inelastic because those items maximize the amount of revenue you’ll receive from the tax. As far as excise taxes go, cigarette taxes are about as efficient as you can get. In a world where both our state and federal government are hurting for revenues, it makes sense to maximize the amount of revenue that governments can collect. I will concede that excise taxes do not make a large portion of either governments’ budget – but as long as money is needed, how can we turn down a source of revenue? Also, as a society we want to discourage you from smoking (for social cost reasons I’ll explain later). A good way to discourage an activity is to tax it back to the stone age.

My justification for the smoking ban follows similar public policy reasons. From the outset, I will acknowledge that individuals are free to choose to visit smoke-laden establishments and that people are free to work at the same establishments. Many smoking-advocates define themselves as freedom advocates and similarly advocate the free market approach. The problem with their argument is that the free market fails when it comes to bars. Few tavern owners correctly guess the demand for smoke-free drinking, especially for those taverns that exist outside of a college town. In places like Sheboygan, there should be multiple non-smoking taverns to meet the demand. There are currently two – in a town that has approximately 50 to 75 bars. In state that loves its booze, it seems silly that this is an accurate approximation of the number of people who would prefer a non-smoking establishment. Perhaps this is a bad example (maybe people in Sheboygan love smoking). Madison, before its ban is a better one. Given that all of the state street/university avenue bars previously allowed smoking and now don’t and still do high volumes a business, should serve as an example that the demand for non-smoking establishments is significantly higher than what tavern owners estimate.

The problem (prior to the ban) lied within current law and its incentive structure. Tavern owners need to attract people to their bar. They get more people to their establishments by offering as few disincentives to come as possible – this means that it’s unlikely for any reasonable tavern owner to prohibit smoking because they may be turning away customers. This market leaves people who prefer non-smoking bars little place to go. And this is where the problem of second-hand smoke becomes really important: those who want to avoid second hand smoke have no option to do so in a world where no government regulation occurs. Return to a statement I made earlier – this state is booze crazy. The large number of people who prefer to drink in Wisconsin outweigh the number of people that like to smoke. This means the large majority of drinks are constantly exposed to the negative effects of second hand smoke. Exposure to second hand smoke creates a large social cost because we not only have to pay for the health care of those who smoke, but those who are around those who smoke. In Wisconsin – this is everyone who’s ever been to a bar, which I’m sure is everyone.

Granted my Sheboygan example (remember, I said there are two non-smoking bars) serves to prove that it’s possible that non-smoking establishments can exist – so it’s entirely possible that I’m wrong. I generally don’t think that is true because the ones in Sheboygan by and large survive because they also conceive of themselves as “high-class/upscale” establishments. (This is fine by me, but then I can’t drink with people who want their $1 Miller Lite.) In light of the large cost of second hand smoke, it seems risky and poor public policy for us to put the incentive structure in favor of smoking. Rarely, if ever, do you hear people argue that the common sense compromise (go smoke outside) is unfeasible. Those who smoke are free to do so outside, without harming the health of everyone else.

I’ve always been in favor of the ban because it seemed to be about promoting workplace safety for waiters/waitresses/bartenders. These individuals are at particularly high risk for second hand smoke, and they have few options to choose from in a society where the incentive structure prefers to allow smoking. Smoking advocates tend to be very existential about these individuals, claiming that they chose their profession and therefore chose the risks. In general, I have a hard time buying this claim for two reasons. First, because I’m way too much of Rawls-ian. It’s hard for me to think that a rational person would want this job – knowing all of the potential disadvantages. It seems unjust to create a person in society that is doomed to cancer.

Second, just because that you choose a profession, doesn’t mean that you accept 100% of the risk. Rather, it means that you will follow regulations/safety procedures to ensure that your personal risk is lowered. Think about people that work at a chemical plant or other hazardous material – they have specific procedures they follow in order to make sure that their work is conducted safely. What safety measures do we provide those that work in a bar? Again, I return to the common sense solution: smoke outside.

At this point, I’m almost wondering why my common sense solution isn’t more pervasive in the status quo. If you engage in an activity that’s unwanted by others/harmful to others, simply as a matter of being polite, wouldn’t you do the activity such that you wouldn’t offend/harm others? What’s so bad about being polite and using common sense?

On the Overture Center

There’s been much debate in the City of Madison over what to do with the Overture Center. The current issue has to deal with construction debt that is due in 2011. The Overture Center has $28 million in debt stemming from the construction of the facility. In part this is due to the economic collapse. The funds that were donated to Overture for construction debt and operating costs were placed in a trust. That trust fund had to be liquidated in order to make payments related to operating the facility and the center’s construction debt. The Overture Center proposed a plan to deal with its budget problems:

The trust that was set up to take care of the Overture Center’s debt was liquidated in the fall, leaving lingering debt that the Overture Center now wants to resolve.

The Overture Development Corporation has proposed a plan that would ask for $4 million from Overture donor Jerry Frautschi, $4 million from Madison Cultural Arts District reserves, $8 million in write-down from the three lending banks and have the city absorb $12 million of the cost by releasing the arts district from annual payments in lieu of taxes.

The Mayor, the common council, and the Board of Estimates all think the city cannot afford to take on this debt. They know the city’s finances better than other people, so I’m going to guess that they are right. But I still find the Mayor’s position short sided.

It seems to me that our city government has no interest in making sure that Overture is here to stay. And that has me concerned. There are a number of restaurants and business that exist on state street because people come to shows at Overture. That’s not to say without Overture people wouldn’t come down to State Street – but certainly less would. And in the middle of an economic recession it seems silly for me for the city to be actively discouraging the growth of downtown businesses.

Many individuals have staked significant resources into the expectation that the downtown Madison economy will not only stay its current level, but will be expanding in the near future. Think of the number of condos and business that have been developed recently. How many of them would have been built if the developer knew that Overture and the related state street business would go belly up?

More than that, if Madison wants to be seen as an important/growing/up-and-coming/choose-your-own-adjective city – a world class arts facility is as important as roads. And few of us would refuse to hold our city government accountable if it said, “Roads are just too much of a budgetary hassle with all of their operating costs.”

My argument is not that the arts are as integral to the function of a city as roads. Or even that Overture couldn’t stand to be improved in terms of the shows offered. But art facilities are public goods – and should be treated as such – rather than as hungry mouth to ignore.

Tom Brokaw is a terrible timekeeper

Seriously. I’ve seen awkward freshmen that barely understand the format of debate do a better job of cutting people off when their time is up. I hope that the next time my kids are in a debate that Brokaw is their judge. They could keep reading advantage after advantage.

If you haven’t guessed, this is my running commentary of the Town Hall debate. My reactions maybe a bit delayed – I’m trying to reheat chili. It’s not working out because I’m using the oven. I need a microwave. Anyway, to the debate.

I was a bit annoyed that the first question was clearly about older Americans and Obama failed to answer with anything close to the question. He even has a tax exemption for older Americans. And yet I didn’t hear anything about it. Nor did I hear anything about Social Security and Medicare.

Hey! Senator Feingold finally gets named dropped in this campaign. I’m sure Russ is really hating this. If anyone hasn’t noticed, Russ has laid pretty low in this campaign. In part it’s because his major legislative accomplishment shares the GOP’s name.

McCain is now making his typical pitch about how he combats earmarks. Cutting earmarks can’t solve anything. 18 billion dollars can’t solve anything. His other solution: an across the board spending freeze is even worse. I think most people don’t understand the enormity of what the Federal Government pays for. If there’s a spending freeze, then there’s no money to give out Pell Grants or Perkins Loans or Stafford Loans. How will any college student afford to go to college? The price of a college education is so high that without student aid, its unlikely that anyone – save the privileged few – would be able to attend college. Or how about aid to kids in foster care? Without IV-E dollars, many states would be without the ability to pay for kids in foster care. There would be no dollars being spent on the United States’ defense. No dollars spent on Social Security. No dollars spent on Medicare. That’s something that would be awful and more difficult for most Americans.

Brokaw finally forces the issue on entitlement spending that people have been asking around – without asking the question directly. Nice.

Obama seems to be off of his game. McCain had a good remark about not answering the question to Obama’s response to entitlement spending. This has been a looming issue for anyone that understands anything about public policy or has been listening to this debate. Obama said, he’d “take on social security” – this is not the best line. It’s committed to reform. However, that doesn’t play way well with anyone. He should say that he’s committed to maintaining benefits or something generally positive about the program. It’s also non committal on anything. Not the best way to take it to McCain on an issue that overwhelmingly favors democrats.

Obama’s lack of an answer here, allows McCain to get away with “putting people together” to be a plausible solution. Come on. We don’t call Social Security the “third rail” of politics for no reason. It’s extremely hard for anyone to make change. Bush in 2004 – with a republican house and a republican senate could not privatize socials security. If that doesn’t tell you that that Social Security and Medicare are major policies that are going to be difficult to change, I don’t know what will.

Obama is bringing up that McCain is old and has been the senate for the long time and doesn’t support the things that Candidate McCain has talked about. This is a pretty good comparison.

Holy crap. McCain spoke the name of the President-who-must-not-be named because he has the worst approval rating since approval ratings began to measured.

Obama gets a question about whether or not health care is a commodity. The initial response is meandering. He finally mentions the “moral” obligation. This is good, but it would have been nice to hear “health care is a right.” Talk up the talking points to your base. Alissa is loving Obama gushing about electronic medical records. She felt that McCain was naive in his response to medical records.

I’m loving Tom Brokaw right now. Forcing the candidates to answer the question of whether or not health care is a right. Obama finally figures out that this is what the question was about. Hillary Clinton thought she coached Obama better than that. I like that Brokaw has “interpreted” his role to force the candidates to answer questions.

Obama finally hits hard on health care. Democrats rejoice. Hitting McCain on S-CHIP and in general being very empathetic.

Obama turn on the phrase “I don’t understand” to things that are completely rational is so awesome. I’m loving it. Although I would have preferred him to use “without weapons of mass destruction” instead of “no connection to 9/11.”

Obama on the moral obligation line is pretty good. I think it communicates very well what Obama’s value’s are in relation to foreign policy. It also is a good base rallying cry.

McCain is talking about needed a cool hand at the tiller. I don’t know what the tiller is. I wish his language wasn’t from the 50’s.

I love looking the people in crowd. Many of them have reaction to other people’s question. This one woman was just like, “oh shit. That question on Pakistan was so smart. I hope they don’t call on me. My question was about Pandas.” The reserved reactions to candidates responses are also interesting. When people smile or nod is interesting.

I’m annoyed that McCain, who’s hero – according to McCain – is Teddy Roosevelt, can’t get the Teddy Roosevelt quotation correctly. It’s not “walk softly and carry a big stick” or even “talk softly and carry a big stick.” It’s speak softly. Come on. If the guy’s your hero – get the quotation correct.

Obama using “muddling through” to talk about policy. Seriously, is he courting the policy student vote? No one else sees that particular phrase as strategic unless you’re pursuing a degree in political science or public policy.

Obama’s answer on “what don’t you know and how will you know it” isn’t as good as it could be. It’s pretty good, but not the best. He should use this to talk about his values and that his values are the middle class. Obama sort of makes that point, but not quite.

Random Thoughts from the Veep Debate

There’s not a lot of consistency here. These are mainly my thoughts as I react to the debate as it unfolds for me. I’m watching it a bit behind on Tivo. I’m not watching the Cubbies (but gameday is up on my computer), because I’m convinced they’re going to lose the series in three games. I’m trying to be as neutral as possible – focusing on my experience in debate and rhetorical studies, instead of my political opinions or public policy training.

At the beginning of the debate I was so frustrated with Biden and his failure to look in the camera. Gov. Palin does a good job at always making sure that she does this. In that sense, she’s a natural at the television medium. Biden seemed to start sensing that he wasn’t in the camera and started doing so about fifteen minutes into the debate. Perhaps there are multiple sets of cameras – I’m not really sure how these things are setup, but it would be interesting to see. This format all seems to favor Palin too; being rapid fire its really easy to be vague and sound good.

I loved Biden’s dig on the “that’s the bridge to nowhere.” This may be a one liner that gets replayed over and over on CNN.

Biden seems to confuse this format with Meet the Press. He’s consistently defending his record and giving us something to think about, but he’s not convincing anyone. He’s not making the case that McCain-Palin is worse for America. Paul Begala on CNN had this great piece earlier this week about how to do well in American political debates. His most important point: don’t lose sight about the greater argument. Biden seems focused on the details, rather than the big picture.

A good example of this is on the issue of energy. Palin says she’s not focused on the causes of Global Warming, she’s focused on the solution. Biden responds saying that you need to understand the causes to find the right solution. While this is absolutely the truth about crafting good policy – you need to know what’s wrong to fix it – I don’t think this makes for a good sound bite and I don’t think that most people understand how important that is. It’s probably good that Biden did indict her on this, but I would have hit back much harder. Talk about how the house Republicans, now lead by McCain (although that’s a questionable claim), just voted against a measure that was all of the above solutions because it didn’t have enough tax breaks for the oil companies. It’s highly unlikely that Palin is going to be able to answer that. Biden should link the important issues, not just respond with a list.

Similarly, I was mad that Biden didn’t attack Palin on health care from a policy side. Instead Biden chose to attack from a coverage stand point. Which is fine and good. But a tax rebate for health care is a silly policy. How does this help people get health care? In order to get the benefit, you have to have a tax liability. This doesn’t help low income people who can’t afford health care coverage right now. On top, you have to wait until after you have submitted your taxes. How does that help you fix your immediate needs? It doesn’t. The McCain plan is coverage delayed and coverage denied. That’s a policy that fails doomed to fail and barely pays lip service to the problem.

Biden now is doing a good job of comparing McCain to Bush. Repetition and litany of issues reinforces the Obama camp’s claim that McCain is the same Bush.

Palin insistent that “words hurt our cause” to anything that is critical of any military efforts is down right disgusting. This is the same unless you are with us or you are against us, mentality that Bush administration has used for years. It’s as if the words perform some perlocutionary function that attacks our troops. It’s as annoying as a team that’s getting crushed returning to the 1AC advocacy in the 2AR. (Debate reference).

Did I just hear a sigh? I couldn’t tell who it was from, but in general Biden has held himself well. Smiling often.

Oh Christ. Did Biden just walk into the Kerry line of “I was for it before I was against it?” Yup. Palin doing a good job capitalizing on that now. This is where Biden should hit back on strait talk. All Biden has to do is to show, like Kerry did at the convention, how McCain has flipped positions for political purposes. Not to mention this gets us away from the typical Obama sound bite about needing the right judgment on the war in Iraq.

What? Did Palin just ask the Constitution if it could give the Veep more power over the senate? This conjurs a funny image. (Yes, I know its a reference to Cheney having a lot of power – but apparently she wants more.) I wish the constitution were a person to tell her no. And for all the reasons why that would be stupid.

I guess we don’t have to have a constitution to tell her. Biden just did. I hope this gets picked up as news. Who in the world thinks the executive branch should have more power? Especially power

Wow. Biden taking the Maverick lines to school. That was a really good response.

“I’ve worked together, but I’ve never had to compromise.” That sounds like a contradiction in terms.

Based on Actual Events…

The New York Times has a fantastic story today:

GERALD, Mo. — Like so many rural communities in the country’s middle, this small town had wrestled for years with the woes of methamphetamine. Then, several months ago, a federal agent showed up.

Mayor Otis Schulte of Gerald said Bill A. Jakob went to great lengths to make police officers think he was a federal agent. Arrests began. Houses were ransacked. People, in handcuffs on their front lawns, named names. To some, like Mayor Otis Schulte, who considers the county around Gerald, population 1,171, “a meth capital of the United States,” the drug scourge seemed to be fading at last.

Those whose homes were searched, though, grumbled about a peculiar change in what they understood — mainly from television — to be the law.

They said the agent, a man some had come to know as “Sergeant Bill,” boasted that he did not need search warrants to enter their homes because he worked for the federal government.

But after a reporter for the local weekly newspaper made a few calls about that claim, Gerald’s antidrug campaign abruptly fell apart after less than five months. Sergeant Bill, it turned out, was no federal agent, but Bill A. Jakob, an unemployed former trucking company owner, a former security guard, a former wedding minister and a former small-town cop from 23 miles down the road.

Mr. Jakob, 36, is now the subject of a criminal investigation by federal authorities, and he is likely to face charges related to impersonating a law enforcement officer, his lawyer said.

The strange adventures of Sergeant Bill have led to the firing of three of the town’s five police officers, left the outcome of a string of drug arrests in doubt, prompted multimillion-dollar federal civil rights lawsuits by at least 17 plaintiffs and stirred up a political battle, including a petition seeking the impeachment of Mr. Schulte, over who is to blame for the mess.

And the questions keep coming. How did Mr. Jakob wander into town and apparently leave the mayor, the aldermen and pretty much everyone else he met thinking that he was a federal agent delivered from Washington to help barrel into peoples’ homes and clean up Gerald’s drug problem? And why would anyone — receiving no pay and with no known connection to little Gerald, 70 miles from St. Louis and not even a county seat — want to carry off such a time-consuming ruse in the first place?

This sounds too good to be true. Almost like a movie. In fact, I think it would make an excellent movie. If only I could write a screen play.

Clinton or Obama?

The Democratic race for the Presidency has been a bit confusing to me. In any other year, if I were to have told you that a rich, white, good-looking former senator from the south would lose to a current female senator from New York and a Black man from Illinois – you would have said I was crazy. But this is 2008 and the historic candidates Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton cannot be ignored. Granted my phrasing of the issues is from the perspective of a frustrated and sarcastic Edwards supporter [I even went to Iowa (Dubuque) to help John in the caucuses], but the sheer history of the Political party that at one point supported slavery and opposed civil rights will nominate either a woman or a black Man is historic. But the historic candidates out fundraised Edwards and stole all of his good ideas. So what’s an Edwards supporter to think now?

On the day that Edwards stepped out of the race, both campaigns tried to spin his withdrawal as a boost to their campaign. The Obama people claimed that Edwards was a candidate for change and that they were likely to receive the Edwards vote. The Clinton people claimed that Edwards appealed to white and low to middle income voters – a demographic that Hillary Clinton did well in (but not as well as John Edwards) – so that she would receive the Edwards vote. The Clinton campaign missed the important point. If people in that demographic weren’t supporting Hillary before, what would make them support Hillary now that Edwards is out of the race. Past demographics can’t predict future changes in primary support (but it sure makes for good spin). Don’t misunderstand my point. The Obama campaign’s claim makes a similar argument, but at least its consistent with their message and is not overtly spin. For me this understanding was made clear with Obama’s press release on Edward’s withdrawl from the race.

John Edwards has spent a lifetime fighting to give voice to the voiceless and hope to the struggling, even when it wasn’t popular to do or covered in the news. At a time when our politics is too focused on who’s up and who’s down, he made a nation focus again on who matters – the New Orleans child without a home, the West Virginia miner without a job, the families who live in that other America that is not seen or heard or talked about by our leaders in Washington. John and Elizabeth Edwards have always believed deeply that we can change this – that two Americas can become one, and that our country can rally around this common purpose. So while his campaign may end today, the cause of their lives endures for all of us who still believe that we can achieve that dream of one America.

This was just awesome rhetoric compared to the Clinton Campaigns message which is half good, and half a pointless thank you:

John Edwards ended his campaign today in the same way he started it – by standing with the people who are too often left behind and nearly always left out of our national debate. John ran with compassion and conviction and lifted this campaign with his deep concern for the daily lives of the American people. That is what this election is about – it’s about our people. And John is one of the greatest champions the American people could ask for. I wish John and Elizabeth all the best. They have my great personal respect and gratitude. And I know they will continue to fight passionately for the country and the people they love so deeply.

This little battle I think captures the race for me. Clinton is all about spin. Nothing is more evidence on this than her position on the war in Iraq. Hillary says that her vote for the “Resolution Authorizing Military Force in Iraq” was to allow the inspectors to return to Iraq and do their work. This is just plain spin. Everyone knew this was a vote to go to war. I mean – for God’s sake – look at the title of the bill.

At this point in the game Hillary wants to pretend that Iraq is not the issue, but rather the slumping economy is. To a certain extent, she’s right. But what is at heart of the poor economy? As democrats, we like to put the blame on the Bush Administration. Which is fair, in so far as that you think the President has any control over the economy. I contend that a large reason for the slumping economy is the War in Iraq. You cannot spend billions of dollars and expect that expenditure to not devalue the dollar and to not increase foreign ownership of the United States economy. Much less raise the deficit and create the conditions ripe for a recession. (Thus making the deficit worse).

Rather than realizing the implicit connections between the two issues, the spin goes on. So what is Hillary’s argument? I was duped by a dope? I am one of the (hopefully not) few people who are still mad as hell about the war. There was not a single coherent argument for the war. We have yet to find Weapons of Mass destruction, there were no 9/11 terrorists in Iraq, and we don’t go to war with a country just because we don’t like who’s in charge of it (except now we do). As a rhetoric student and coach of debate the break down of deliberation and discussion, that are integral parts of our democracy, that lead to allowing a war is an inexcusable act. I cannot in good conscious vote for someone who was so cavalier with his or her responsibilities to our country. Congress is supposed to demand undeniable proof before allowing the President to go to war. Am I wrong in reading that Constitution does, in fact, give Congress the power to declare war? (Or “authorize a military action” in modern lingo.) Instead, Hillary was content to believe George Bush.

Of course, I’ll support the nominee – who ever that is. But we have an easier time winning the Iraq debate with Obama. Obama is dead correct that he can say he opposed the War from the beginning and that he can resist any negative attacks from McCain that he’s “flip-flopped” on the War. We know what the republican play book on this issue is, why not defeat it before the play is called?

Returning to where I started, John Edwards – if you remember – was also duped by a dope, a.k.a voted for the War. But at least Edwards that the intelligence to realize he made a mistake and said so, not just because he wanted to score political points, but because it was the right thing to do. Spin does not matter. Doing what is right for our country does.

Rock on Russ!

Senator Feingold has been making some serious waves recently. From the Washington Post two days ago,

Sen. Russell Feingold (D-Wis.) charged yesterday that Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales misled the Senate during his confirmation hearing a year ago when he appeared to try to avoid answering a question about whether the president could authorize warrantless wiretapping of U.S. citizens.In a letter to the attorney general yesterday, Feingold demanded to know why Gonzales dismissed the senator’s question about warrantless eavesdropping as a “hypothetical situation” during a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing in January 2005. At the hearing, Feingold asked Gonzales where the president’s authority ends and whether Gonzales believed the president could, for example, act in contravention of existing criminal laws and spy on U.S. citizens without a warrant.

Gonzales said that it was impossible to answer such a hypothetical question but that it was “not the policy or the agenda of this president” to authorize actions that conflict with existing law. He added that he would hope to alert Congress if the president ever chose to authorize warrantless surveillance, according to a transcript of the hearing.

Russ has caught the Bush Administration in a baldface lie, and unlike most democrats, is making a stand on the issue. And for that, I’m glad I voted for him and am proud to say, Rock on Russ.

Nelson, Rove, and Dean

About a month ago I had an interesting day that was cause for emotional and political reflection. Three major political events in Wisconsin and the nation were occurring on the same day. The mere fact that these three events all occurred on the same day should be cause for suspicion and conspiracy theorists a like. The events were: Senator Nelson’s Memorial Service, Howard Dean’s visit to Madison, and the continuing Karl Rove controversy.

Democrats, Judicial Nominees, and Filibusters. Oh My!

If you have not been following the news, President Bush has appointed several judges to the Federal Judiciary. This is not just a routine and constitutional function of the Presidency, but it also happens to be one of the most powerful influences the President has on the nation. The judges of the Federal Judiciary rule on, implement, and enforce decisions regarding Federal Statues and Supreme Court decisions. (For example, Federal District Courts were charged with enforcing Brown v. Board of Education.) Thus, these judges have considerable latitude in exerting and implementing a President’s political philosophy in the real world.

Whatever happened to “It’s the Economy, Stupid?”

After struggling with myself to get out of my warm bed to make the trek through the cold and snow to go to my 9:30 power lecture (Political Science 617; Comparative Legal Institutions, if you were curious), I finally arrived a minute late to find the lecture hall covered with leaflets from the College Democrats that question the appropriateness of President Bush’s $40 million inaguration. The back of the leaflet, I found equally as interesting. After noting all of the things that $40 million dollars could buy (aside from part of the unmentioned Pell Grants the President cut the other day), the leaflet turns to ask “Interested in a more fiscally responsible party?”

I found this pretty interesting. The Democratic party, was appealing to voters on the basis that they’re more conservative finacially than others. Finacial conservatives aren’t voters who are usually democratic. In fact, finacial conservatives tend to be more moderate republican’s than anything else. But the Democratic suggestion that republican’s are not holding true to their own philosophy of government, I find largely true and a truth that completely undermines their position. The amount of deficeit spending under the Bush Administration (with a republican controlled congress), is much larger than under Clinton and Regan. Clearly, the reality is that the Republican’s actions are different than their words.

Moreover, the democrat’s appeal to this idea though is particularly interesting. As I said before, people who vote democratic, tend to do so because of other issues. Appealing to the economics of the nation I think is something the democrats have lost. Democrats have ceded the issue of the economy to the republicans on the grounds that republicans don’t like taxes. Also, Al Gore in 2000 often talked about the economy, but did so in such a wonk-ish fashion that every democrat seems to fear that if s/he talks about the economy in way other than “taxes=bad,” then s/he too will be branded some kind of ivory tower robot. I found this leaflet particularly interesting because it appears to be an attempt to reclaim what was once lost; a democratic message on the economy. Clinton-Gore were effective in 1992 by emphasizing the message that “It’s the economy, stupid” in order to show how Bush the First was mishandling the economy. The existence of Ross Perot in that campaign only reinforces this point.

Commenting on a new book on American Centrists, John Stewart said, “Take to the streets and scream: Be Reasonable!” And clearly, this is what we need. The economy is not colored in black and white by the issue of taxes. We need to be able to see the shades of gray and make reasoned policies based on this ability. I think the facts show that the Republicans are being neither reasonable, nor are they handling the economy well, and this leaflet reflects this.