Voter ID bill

The bill to require ID in order to vote has passed both houses and is now ready for Gov Otter to sign.

If they're just trying to stop people from voting twice, why not use the simple method used in many other countries; dipping a finger in ink. This would also have the salutatory effect of showing who has and hasn't voted, possible shaming a few more folks into voting.

Good grief. Election years sure bring out some whacko politics.

Read it and weep, wingers

Economist Ed Lotterman has written a couple of articles lately debunking the cherished right-wing myth that cutting taxes leads to increased tax revenue. His most recent one in the statesman says

And virtually all such researchers come to the conclusion that while lower tax rates may motivate increased work or investment, they do not add enough revenue to offset the direct effect of tax rate cuts.

His article ends with ends with this classic:

Argue that low tax rates motivate more work and investment, all other things being equal, and thousands of economists will agree with you. Argue that the size of the federal government should be slashed and you will be among hundreds. But argue that tax cuts will increase tax revenues and you will find yourself in a small group of cranks, charlatans and cable TV entertainers.

And Republican politicians in Idaho.

Recall that one of Raul Labrador's key planks (it's also a pet idea of Marv Hagedorn) is to cut taxes in Idaho because that will somehow stimulate growth and with that an overall increase in tax revenue. From Labrador's web site:

Raul proposed comprehensive legislation that would have helped grow Idaho’s economy with broad based tax cuts for all Idaho businesses

Granted, that quote talks of growing the economy, not increasing tax revenue, but Labrador has offered statements that the way out of Idaho's budget crisis - i.e., insufficient revenue to meet budget needs - is by the increased tax revenue stimulated by budget cuts.

Cutting taxes thereby stimulating growth thereby raising more tax revenue is classic supply side (aka voodoo) economics. I'd wager that not a single Idaho Republican politician will publicly disagree with supply side economics. It's almost an article of faith with Republicans nationwide. And it's wrong.

Can't we all just get along

Apparently not.

John Edwards, before his fall from grace, used to talk about "two Americas." One for the haves, and one for the have nots and have littles. Well, I think there are two Americas, but I see the split a bit differently.

There's FoxAmerica, and there's everyone else. As it turns out, the two Americas don't seem to speak the same language, they have completely different cultural cues, quite different moral values, and are growing further and further apart. Idaho, of course, is squarely in FoxAmerica. It's in the running for the heartland of the place, and might even be the capital.

In FoxAmerica, when a Republican president gives tax cuts for the very rich and starts two wars, none of which is paid for, resulting the the largest increase in the national debt ever, the response is .... crickets. Not a peep. But when a Democratic president tries to extend health care to 30 million Americas, FoxAmerica shouts n***er, f***ot, throws bricks through windows, asks people to "RELOAD," files frivolous lawsuits to prevent giving health care to the uninsured, and generally pitches a huge fit. All of which is tolerated, and indeed egged on, by Republican leaders.

The point is, the two Americas can look at the same thing, and see two completely different, opposite probably, things. I do not get it.

It's in the best interests of the Fox leadership, Limbaugh, Hannity, O'Reilly, and their ilk, to stoke this split, not to bridge it. If they can keep people angry and afraid, people will keep tuning into Fox, driving up ratings, and making the Fox denizens big money. They get rich by exploiting divisions in America. Sadly, that exploitation is having real, negative consequences.

I think it will get worse before it gets better. Some people on the right are beginning to speak out about the insanity (so it appears outside of FoxAmerica). But, those voices are immediately attacked, and marginalized.

And to FoxAmericans, of course, I'm an idiot who can't see the plain truth. A deludinoid. A completely misguided person, probably a traitor. Certainly hopelessly naive. And for now, that's a chasm that can't be crossed.

Walt's expose'

In the previous post I reference the lengthy article written by Tara and Mountain Goat about Walt Minnick. If you haven't read it, you ought to at least have a look. 2 reasons (at least).

One, the amount of research, the detail and the length are unusual to the point of being astonishing for a blog. It's really a fine bit of work. Impressive by it's own right, but as a blog post, especially a political blog post, it's pretty amazing.

Two, it's very well written. And by that I mean, very readable. A nice, compelling narrative, easy to follow and quite interesting. I reads like a chapter of an unauthorized biography of Walt Minnick. Well done, ladies.

So long, it's been good to know you

Mountain Goat and Tara have written a lengthy and extensively sourced "expose" of Walt Minnick. If everything they write is true, it's a pretty unflattering picture. More on that below.

I have been hoping to find something about Walt that I could support, other than he is nominally a Democrat. By all accounts, he is one of the most endangered Democrats in Congress, in a district that is heavily Republican. And, frankly, I really don't mind him representing his Republican constituents as well as his Democratic ones. That cross-party representation is something I've wanted (and never gotten) from our Republican officials.

But, here's the rub. I can't say it any better than MG and Tara, so I'll quote from their post:

He has shown no interest in convincing moderates and independents that Democratic values are Idaho values and can make a difference in their lives. He's simply been trying to convince as many as will listen that he's not like other Democrats.

I saw this first hand at a tea party gathering. An old duffer asked Walt why Democrats would write a health care bill that would allow "euthanizing our seniors." Instead of denying that bit of idiocy, Walt instead just explained the conservative issues he wanted addressed by the bill; same money, private sector, all that. AS MG and Tara say, Walt made no effort to convince the crowd that Democrats aren't all bad. Instead, by contrasting himself with them, he made Democrats look bad. "I'm not like those Democrats, I'm a good guy."

Anyway, I decided after Walt's efforts to derail the consumer protection legislation, and now after his vote against health care, that I'm not going to vote for him nor support him. I won't vote for his Republican opponent, most likely, unless Mike Simpson changes districts, but I've had it with Walt.

I know; big deal. One guy, one vote. But it's one vote Walt will never get. And I've talked to at least two other Dems who feel the same way. I suppose Walt could do something to redeem himself before November, but to get my vote, that's what he'll have to do.

****

And about the sourcing of the MG/Tara post, they have listed some 45 sources. I haven't had time to check the sources, yet. But, the reason I say "If everything they write is true" is because I haven't checked the sources. What they say is pretty devastating, and I don't want to sign on until I'm sure I agree with it. It sure looks like it's accurate, and knowing them, I expect they did the job well.

All in all, it's clear they put a tremendous amount of work into the article. Hey! Why hasn't our traditional media done anything like that?

Standing on principle

Walt Minnick is hanging tough in his opposition to the health care reform bill, pretty much on fiscal grounds. He’s got some other reasons, sort of, but as MG shows here, they’re not well taken. It really just looks like Minnick opposes it because, well, because his inner Republican is making him do so. It seems to me that he is just trying to be in line with what he thinks the average Idaho voter wants, and, like most politicians, just says whatever sounds good at the moment to justify whatever position he’s taken.

Being in line with Idaho voters, well, normally that would be good, except Walt is a Democrat, and I believe that even Idaho Democrats would like to see health care reform. Thus, Walt is out of whack with his party.

But, he’s going to stand on principle and hold out against health care reform. Gonna let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

I wish it were one of his principles to help Americans avoid personal financial catastrophe due to health care expenses. The stories are plentiful, and really without question. Medical expenses are chief cause of bankruptcy for Americans. Then there are all the people who suffer because they can’t afford health care. And there are the increased expenses in emergency rooms and in end of life care because Americans can’t afford health care that will keep them out of emergency rooms, and will keep them healthier as they age. And the rapidly growing bite that health care takes out of the economy.

Sometimes you have to choose between competing principles. Walt is doing that very thing. He is choosing to posture himself for reelection over helping Idahoans. He has a chance to help achieve one of the greatest advances in public good in the history of the United States; universal health care. He has a chance to markedly improve the lives of millions.

Walt, I implore you to do the right thing and help the American poor and middle class, even if it costs you the election. Don’t you want to invest in human capital and infrastructure? Don’t you want to be on the right side of history? Don’t you want to help people?

Your vote will answer these questions.

Mallard Fillmore

I torture myself daily by reading "Mallard Fillmore" in the Statesman. It's put on the opinion page along with "Doonesbury," the idea being to counter the supposedly liberal Doonesbury. Well, there's certainly no question that MF is conservative.

A big difference, other than the political viewpoint, is that DB has story lines and jokes that are often funny. MF is just pretty much an unrelenting series of shots at "liberals" and the Obama administration. Around Christmas time, MF ran a few strips that didn't have a political point, instead opting for a religious point, but other than that his strips are pretty similar.

And it struck me today that his strips accurately depict the Republican mindset these days. Minimal humor, zero ideas, nothing positive, just criticism after criticism, shot after shot, at their political opponents.

I have a dream

This is how our Idaho Republican party rolls. They take care of their own personal issues to the detriment of the people of the State of Idaho. Two examples.

As Governor, Jim Risch jammed through a shift of taxes from property to sales. This was his signature achievement of his short term as Governor (or, as Geoff would say, his term as short Governor), and he crowed about it at every opportunity while running for Senator. Great. Jim manages the tax shift, rides it into the Senate. Unfortunately, the result was that the stable property tax funding source for schools shifted to the more volatile sales tax. As the economy tanked, so did revenues. So, the legislature just cut K-12 school budgets 7.5%, the first cut ever. The tax shift was good for Jim, not so good for the children of Idaho.

Likewise, the budget hawks in the legislature, and Governor Otter. This is an election year, and they have flatly ruled out any new taxes or revenue measures (except oddball stuff like making birdwatchers get a license). Well, see 7.5% K-12 budget cut above. Why completely refuse to even talk about taxes? Because it's an election year. "It doesn't matter that the children of Idaho will bear the brunt of the budget cuts, if it could harm my chance for reelection, it ain't happening." That's not political leadership; it's blatant self interest, and the citizens be damned.

I'm no fan of taxes; no one is. But I am willing to invest in our future. I say, do away with the sales tax exemptions, tax services, and lower the sales tax to 3 or 4%, or whatever it would be. Other than for the special interests who would lose their exemptions, this would be a relatively painless way to increase revenue. I know; it's a pipe dream. But a guy can dream, can't he?

Inconsistency in Wingnuttistan

Of course, that's nothing new.

Mike Moyle's bill to require voter ID has passed the House and is headed for the Senate. I suspect it will probably become law. This statement in Betsy Russell's report is telling:

Moyle said there’s no way to know if fraudulent voting is going on

Or, put another way, he doesn't know that fraudulent voting is occurring. We have a bill being passed despite there being no demonstrable need for it. Still, I guess it will serve some purpose. Per Dell Raybould:

I’m in favor of this bill if it does nothing else than put a halt to a lot of these rumors about fraudulent voting.

Yes! A bill to end rumors. Great use of legislative time. Actually, as noted by Mountain Goat, Sisyphus and others in the comments to Russell's story, the bill is intended to suppress minority voting, probably among the Hispanic community in Idaho. Voter fraud is a favorite topic of Rush, O'Reilly, Hannity, Beck and their ilk, and our deep-thinking and careful legislators are happy to pick up that baton and run with it. Again, admittedly without a demonstrable need.

And the inconsistency? Idaho legislators are famously for local control, except only down to the state level. Below that, local control, very bad. See, if counties are experiencing attempts at fraudulent voting, they already have the tools to discover that and expose it. If counties saw a need, they'd be asking for the bill, or otherwise taking steps to prevent fraud. Moyle's bill imposes some of that hated gumment regulation on folks. For no known reason (that he'll admit to). And it imposes the requirement on local government and voters.