4/9/2012: As a quick update - any doubt about the present dysfunctional state of the Maryland Democratic party should be put to rest by looking to the mess that is the final day of the 2012 legislative session. Seeing conference committees or vote-oramas on the final day is neither new nor a sign of chaos but seeing the House Ways and Means committee meeting to discuss gambling in PG county INSTEAD of the two chambers reconciling the budget is a sign of chaos. Two party competition has a way of focusing parties....
Original Post:
Senate Majority Leader Rob Garagiola's defeat in the MD-6 legislative primary will have reverberations felt well beyond the district. In many ways, the Garagiola defeat is a sign of hard times ahead for the Maryland Democratic party. First, let's address the Garagiola loss. Garagiola is a powerful member of the state Senate and he enjoyed the backing of most of the Democratic party establishment in the state. Senate President Mike Miller drew the district for Garagiola and Steny Hoyer backed Garagiola in the primary. John Delaney was a novice politician running in a Democratic primary on a platform of fiscal conservatism. Gargiola had the backing of the unions and Moveon.org. By all accounts, Garagiola should have won a closed Democratic primary. So why did he lose? Because Maryland's Democratic party is quite different from most other state Democratic parties.
Nationally, the Republican and Democratic parties have sorted rather neatly into two ideologically homogeneous parties. The Democrats have become the home of political liberals and the Republicans are home to conservatives. More moderate voters either loosely associate with one party or the other or eschew both. The ideological sorting is especially evident among elected officials and it began in earnest at the end of the 1960s.
But something odd happened in the Free State. In many respects the great American ideological realignment passed Maryland by. Maryland remains home to a species long thought extinct by many a political observer - the conservative Democrat. They defeated Senator Millard Tydings in 1950 and his son Joseph in 1970. They delivered the state to George Wallace in the 1972 primary. They nominated perennial candidate George Mahoney for Senator in 1952 and again for Governor in 1966 - only to see him lose both times to a moderate Republican. They nearly helped elect Ellen Sauerbrey in 1994 and embarrassed Kathleen Kennedy Townsend in the 2002 Democratic primary (Fustero who?) and in the general elected Republican Bob Ehrlich. They elected John Delaney on Tuesday night.
Democrats have long enjoyed a voter registration advantage in the state, though it has declined. In 1966 Democrats claimed 72% of the electorate, that fell to 67% in 1986, and 56% today. Republicans were 26% in 1966 and remain 27% today. Now the growing number of independent voters tend to vote Republican - suggesting they came from among the Democrats' once large conservative ranks, but conservative Democrats remain and are crucial to the party's dominance in the state Assembly. Conservative Democrats help send Kevin Kelly, John Donoghue, Johnny Wood Jr., John Bohanan, Roy Dyson, Jim Brochin, Ronald Young, John Astle, Jim Mathias and others to the Assembly from districts that could as easily elect Republicans.
The Democrats' success in Maryland has stemmed from the party's ability to maintain a balance between the interests of more rural southern Democrats an urban and suburban liberals and minority voters. For decades the party has done this well. Contrary to the claims of many Republicans, "the Peoples Republic of Maryland" has never been the overtaxed, over-regulated, business hating environment they claim. Rather Maryland's lawmakers have often found a middle ground. The balancing act has kept liberals happy and prevented conservative Democrats from casting, or defending, votes on many divisive issues. When conservative Democrats have considered a revolt, considered joining with minority Republicans, The House Speaker and Senate President could keep them in line via the power they enjoy to reward or punish.
The Assembly leadership is quite powerful in Maryland. They control committee assignments, they control access to the floor and the calendar. If you cross them they can harm your career and sideline your initiatives. Please them and they can reward you... but there are growing signs that there are limits to the rewards they can offer and power based only on the ability to punish cannot be easily maintained.
Consider some of the supposed rewards - I'll start with committee assignments. Most members of the Assembly want to advance in their careers. They want a shot at being chair, they want a shot at a significant committee. The problem is the Assembly is a body in great stasis. As chronicled by Josh Kurtz in a great piece at CenterMaryland Mike Busch is the "longest-tenured speaker in state history... Adrienne Jones... the longest-serving speaker pro tem... Kumar Barve... the longest-serving House majority leader... Joe Vallario and Sheila Hixson...the longest-serving chairmen of their respective committees." That long service may be great for some, but for others it just means no upward mobility. For Busch it means fewer prime spots to offer as rewards. Perhaps the next time Busch creates a dual committee supercommittee just to avoid the defeat of a bill he supports more members of his party will be speak up.
In the Senate, Majority Leader Rob Garagiola was supposed to be heading to Congress. Mike Miller gerrymandered a district just for him - MD-06. This would then create a reverse domino effect of open positions and allow for some advancement - even if it meant advancing to a figure head position like majority leader. It would also prove that loyalty to Miller can mean great things - like his endorsement and a tailor-made congressional district. But then a novice named John Delaney crushed Garagiola. The high powered help provided by Martin O'Malley and Steny Hoyer delivered nothing to Garagiola. The early pressure placed on Delaney by party higher ups to stay out failed. Now, Garagiola remains majority leader, so no advancements, no dominoes. Perhaps worse, the defeat calls into question Mike Miller's ability to deliver, his ability to reward. Perhaps next time a bill arises opposed by Republicans and conservative Democrats those Democrats won't fear joining a Republican filibuster. The loss also revealed schisms in the state party establishment - and it showed that even the support of the most prominent members of the party establishment is of little help. And never mind that to create the district for Garagiola, Rep. Chris Van Hollen's once safe 8th district was drastically redrawn and Van Hollen - chair of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee - will now have to fight for his seat. What a great way to treat a former colleague who has made the jump to Congress.
Even as Busch and Miller seem to have less to offer their members they seem to have plenty to offer themselves. Though very much ignored in the press, many members of the Assembly took note of how Busch and Miller treated themselves in the redistricting process. Speaker Busch has always been a little vulnerable in his Anne Arundel district - often finishing in a tight cluster among the top 4 candidates in a three member district. Busch remedied that situation by dividing district 30 into a new single member 30B and a two member 30A - 30A was made more Democratic and that's where Busch will run. Never mind that the division of districts into single member subdistricts was meant to be reserved for geographically large rural districts. Miller, not to be outdone, shifted his Prince Georges/Calvert county district 27 a bit further south into Calvert county to protect his own seat. But in doing so, Miller drew fellow Democrat Del. Joseph Vallario Jr. out of 27 and placed him in District 23B along with another Democrat Del. Marvin Holmes.
One may as well consider the treatment of Democratic Senator Jim Brochin. Brochin is a conservative representing a marginally Democratic district in Baltimore county. Frequently a thorn in the side of Miller and Gov. O'Malley. Brochin's district was shifted north and made decidedly more Republican so that Democrats in his district could be used to maintain the size of Baltimore City's delegation. Many members, even those who disagreed with Brochin, were shocked by the willingness to sacrifice a member to settle a political score.
Starting to get the picture? There's seemingly little to offer members other than punishment and the rewards are reserved for the leadership. What's to keep dissident voices in line? Even reliable Democratic voices are starting to openly challenge Miller.
With regard to Governor O'Malley, he was quite cautious during his first term. After an initial special session and modest tax increases the Governor spent the rest of his term holding most spending flat and avoiding any groundbreaking or controversial issues. Then he won reelection, then he became chair of the Democratic Governors Association, then he started thinking about 2016.... then things changed.
As his national star has risen O'Malley's Maryland star has dimmed. Prior governors have used redistricting to curry favor with members of the Assembly, to win support on key initiatives. Yet last session O'Malley introduced a modestly ambitious agenda and then stood on the sidelines and watched it be ignored - ignored after winning re-election by 14 points, by an Assembly dominated by members of his own party and soon to be subject to redistricting at his hands... but nothing. O'Malley watched as same-sex marriage legislation died and then only took it up as an important issue after New York Governor Andrew Cuomo was able to push it through a divided legislature - and then it was all about 2016 and a Democratic presidential primary. But who actually delivered same-sex marriage? It was Speaker Busch and his joint committee and it was President Miller and his ability to quash any threat of a filibuster by a coalition of Democrats and Republicans (at least on this issue).
This session Governor O'Malley rolled out his most ambitious agenda ever. The elimination of tax deductions for upper income earners, the application of the state sales tax to gasoline, a state-imposed ban on septic systems, off shore wind (again)... just to name a few initiatives. But the session started with O'Malley suggesting an increase in the sales tax on the opening day - suddenly a day always dedicated to ceremony found Busch and Miller answering questions about the sales tax. As the session began President Miller quipped that he hoped O'Malley would find more time to spend in the state. The Senate essentially dismissed the O'Malley budget and created their own. Miller was unable (or unwilling) to stop the Democratic and Republican coalition that joined to filibuster the septic bill. As the 90 day session nears a close the House and Senate are far apart on the budget and the one person who seems to have no role in the negotiations? Martin O'Malley. Rather than deal with the unfinished O'Malley agenda the Assembly is wasting time ratifying the 17th amendment - in effect since 1913. And as the Assembly is caught up in a budget debate that threatens much of the rest of the O'Malley agenda the Governor is suddenly talking about increasing the sales tax again.
Maryland's Democratic party is in disarray. The Garagiola defeat simply shined a bit more light on the problem. Leadership in the Assembly are faced with restless members eager to advance, yet there is little the leadership can offer. The state faces significant challenges, but its governor has shifted his gaze to a national stage. His proposals are more about national primary politics than about Maryland politics. O'Malley is forcing the state Democratic party to defend issues that are well in-line with the national Democratic party but more left of center than the Maryland Democratic party. As party leadership is less able to hold members in line many conservative Democrats and moderate Democrats from rural and even suburban parts of the state are going to become more concerned with their electoral needs than with the party's needs.
To look at the House and Senate today based solely on numbers it would be easy to dismiss any talk of a party in trouble. But Republicans hold 43 of 141 seats in the House. A review of the election results from 2010 suggests the party came close to holding quite a few more. If Democrats cannot fix their current problems they will face, within the next two election cycles, a House with over 50 Republicans - unprecedented in Maryland. In the Senate, Republicans took a hit in 2010 falling to 12 out of 47 seats - but consider the Democratic seats in Districts 3, 29, 30, and 38 - they are far from safe and a few other districts have seen Democratic margins shrink significantly since 2006. Republicans need only 19 seats to mount a filibuster and therefore alter the power balance in the chamber. So far, Democrats have been able to capitalize on the fact that the Maryland Republican party has been an organizational mess frequently unable to field credible candidates. There are signs that is ending.
After the 2010 elections Republicans for the first time hold 50% of all local offices - though some are quick to ignore this milestone to do so is narrowminded. This marked a significant movement by state Republicans. For 2012 Republicans are fielding credible challengers (as opposed to challenges) against Dutch Ruppersberger in the 2nd congressional district and Chris Van Hollen in the 8th. Dan Bongino is likely to make a serious run against Senator Ben Cardin - none of these GOP candidates are likely to win but it's a sign of life in a party that has often offered no or only token challenges. Even in the 5th district, Steny Hoyer faced a credible challenger (as opposed to challenge) in Charles Lollar in 2010 and will again from House of Delegates Minority Leader Tony O'Donnell. Hoyer is in no danger, but Republicans are learning that the party cannot afford to let Democrats go unchallenged. Yes, Lollar lost by 30 points, but his coattails elected many Republicans to county office in St. Mary's and Calvert county in 2010 - two counties that he won easily.
To focus only on the margin of victory or loss while ignoring the effects on the rest of the ballot is a mistake made by armchair analysts in some random blogger's forum. It's not a mistake that can be made by party leadership. It's from these local offices that the party develops a bench of potential candidates for the Assembly or other offices. Republicans are realizing that to win down ballot they must run up ballot - even if it's a losing race. Even if the Democrats' real registration advantage means winning a statewide race will likely always be a losing battle for Republicans it's a battle they seem to be waking to the need to fight. In 2010 the the state GOP hung its statewide hopes on Bob Ehrlich and did not bother to mount real challenges for any other statewide office - why would voters take such a party seriously?
Now I've been writing about Maryland politics long enough to know that I will soon be the recipient of numerous e-mails telling me how the "radical, right wing, tea party Republicans" will never be competitive in Maryland. Well sorry folks, regardless of how much the national Republican party has moved right the Maryland Republican party is little more conservative today than it was in 1994 when Ellen Sauerbrey came with 6,000 votes of being governor. But the Maryland Democratic party has moved left - moved closer to the national party. That movement is placing real pressure on the state party coalition. Perhaps more challenging for the party has been the Republicans' newly discovered weapon - the internet driven petition initiative and referendum. Now, when conservative Democrats cast a vote "for the party" on a tough issue they can't rely on voters' short memories. Likewise, even if they vote against the issue the petition and referendum will keep the public focused on it - it's only a matter of time until a hot button referendum vote coincides with a state election. The presence of same-sex marriage and the Maryland Dream Act on the 2012 ballot may well boost Republican chances in the 2nd, 6th, and 8th districts and in the senate race. Imagine the impact in a non-presidential election.
The Maryland Democratic party needs a shakeup. It needs leadership that is concerned with - of all things - Maryland. Democrats claim 56% of registered voters to Republicans 27% - but the fastest growing segment of the Maryland electorate is unaffiliated voters... and they vote Republican. Maryland is not a 2 to 1 Democratic state. At best it's about 60/40 in actual voting. Democrats have been able to use their institutional advantages to turn that 60% of the vote into 70% of House seats and 75% of Senate seats. But for how much longer? If the party continues to push conservative Democrats away a 55/45 state is not impossible to imagine - and with it a power balance in the General Assembly unseen in the modern era. And O'Malley's new found passion for tax increases (in the midst of a very weak economic recovery) and opposition to rural development (sorry about the collapse in value of your family's farmland) is providing Republicans with an incredible opening - 2012 and especially 2014 will tell whether the minority party is truly ready to compete.
The party also needs to ask whether it will continue to be the uniquely Maryland Democratic party that has dominated the state since the age of Jackson (never mind that little respite during Reconstruction) or whether it will become a state-based clone of the national party. That would make the party more ideologically homogeneous and as such much easier to mange. But, like the national party it would emulate, it would be smaller and less powerful than it once was. The next Democratic governor will have a lot to do with how that internal party conversation will go. I suspect much of the primary will be dedicated to that conversation and the election may well provide the decision. I hope it's a good one.
Thursday, April 5, 2012
Wednesday, April 4, 2012
Thoughts on the Maryland Primary
The headline of course is the Romney sweep of Maryland. Romney won the state and all 8 congressional districts. He won every county accept for Somerset and Garrett. Add that to the Wisconsin (and DC) win and this race is over - whether Rick Santorum wants to admit it or not. Santorum was strongest where one would expect - western MD, southern MD, and the eastern shore. But in those areas he was not a s strong as he should've been. He won Garrett but lost Allegany. In the south he ran well in St. Mary's but was crushed in Calvert, a pattern repeated on the shore. Romney won the state by 20 points and is on the cusp of 50% of the vote in a 4 man race. Maryland delivered the nomination to Romney.
In the Senate contest between Ben Cardin and Anthony Muse, Muse failed catch fire. Muse claimed 16% of the vote, but only ran strong in his home base of Prince Georges county - where he pulled nearly 40% of the vote. In Baltimore City he finished shy of 20%. Muse should've focused his efforts on Baltimore City. That said, Cardin received just under 75% of the vote and received 42,000 fewer votes than President Obama.
In 1970, incumbent Democratic Senator Joseph Tydings was seeking reelection against a relatively unknown GOP challenger. That same election Governor Marvin Mandel was running and widely expected to win comfortably. Indeed Mandel did win, but a sufficient number of voters withheld their vote from Tydings (he had taken some actions that angered the party base) that he narrowly lost the race. Cardin needs to find out why 25% of voting Democrats opted for someone else. Cardin was weakest in Baltimore City, Charles County and Prince Georges County - clearly suggesting a weakness with African American voters. The lesson to learn for Joseph Tydings is that Cardin cannot take for granted that folks who turnout in November 2012 to vote for President Obama will vote for Cardin as well. Cardin is the clear favorite to win, but there is an opening for the GOP nominee Dan Bongino.
The other big story of the night was in the newly drawn 6th Congressional District. The 6th district had been a reliably Republican district, but Maryland Senate President Mike Miller redrew the district specifically for MD Senate Majority Leader Rob Garagiola. He took care to draw the boundaries such that potential challengers lived outside the district. Garagiola had the backing of state Democratic party establishment including Steny Hoyer and Martin O'Malley. But he was crushed last night by John Delaney. Delaney has never held elective office and - to add insult to injury - he doesn't even live in the district. This was an embarrassing defeat for many Democratic bigwigs, especially O'Malley. Delaney was endorsed by current O'Malley foil Comptroller Peter Franchot. Delaney's victory raises questions about O'Malley's level of influence in the state and boosts Franchot's expected run for governor in 2014.
Another very interesting aspect of the 6th district contest was the number of Republicans and Democrats voting. As redrawn Democrats hold a voter registration advantage over Republicans of 183,000 to 141,000, with "Unaffiliated/Other" at about 90,000. The real contest in the 6th was in the Democratic primary as everyone expected GOP incumbent Roscoe Bartlett to win. Yet in this newly created Democratic district with a hard fought Democratic contest more Republicans cast ballots. In every other district (except the conservative 1st) Democrats outvoted Republicans - but not in the 6th. Come November, the presence of several high profile ballot measures (same-sex marriage, the MD Dream Act, and possibly even the new Congressional Districts) will boost turnout by Republicans and social conservatives. At this point, I would not be surprised to see the GOP hold onto the 6th district seat.
In the Senate contest between Ben Cardin and Anthony Muse, Muse failed catch fire. Muse claimed 16% of the vote, but only ran strong in his home base of Prince Georges county - where he pulled nearly 40% of the vote. In Baltimore City he finished shy of 20%. Muse should've focused his efforts on Baltimore City. That said, Cardin received just under 75% of the vote and received 42,000 fewer votes than President Obama.
In 1970, incumbent Democratic Senator Joseph Tydings was seeking reelection against a relatively unknown GOP challenger. That same election Governor Marvin Mandel was running and widely expected to win comfortably. Indeed Mandel did win, but a sufficient number of voters withheld their vote from Tydings (he had taken some actions that angered the party base) that he narrowly lost the race. Cardin needs to find out why 25% of voting Democrats opted for someone else. Cardin was weakest in Baltimore City, Charles County and Prince Georges County - clearly suggesting a weakness with African American voters. The lesson to learn for Joseph Tydings is that Cardin cannot take for granted that folks who turnout in November 2012 to vote for President Obama will vote for Cardin as well. Cardin is the clear favorite to win, but there is an opening for the GOP nominee Dan Bongino.
The other big story of the night was in the newly drawn 6th Congressional District. The 6th district had been a reliably Republican district, but Maryland Senate President Mike Miller redrew the district specifically for MD Senate Majority Leader Rob Garagiola. He took care to draw the boundaries such that potential challengers lived outside the district. Garagiola had the backing of state Democratic party establishment including Steny Hoyer and Martin O'Malley. But he was crushed last night by John Delaney. Delaney has never held elective office and - to add insult to injury - he doesn't even live in the district. This was an embarrassing defeat for many Democratic bigwigs, especially O'Malley. Delaney was endorsed by current O'Malley foil Comptroller Peter Franchot. Delaney's victory raises questions about O'Malley's level of influence in the state and boosts Franchot's expected run for governor in 2014.
Another very interesting aspect of the 6th district contest was the number of Republicans and Democrats voting. As redrawn Democrats hold a voter registration advantage over Republicans of 183,000 to 141,000, with "Unaffiliated/Other" at about 90,000. The real contest in the 6th was in the Democratic primary as everyone expected GOP incumbent Roscoe Bartlett to win. Yet in this newly created Democratic district with a hard fought Democratic contest more Republicans cast ballots. In every other district (except the conservative 1st) Democrats outvoted Republicans - but not in the 6th. Come November, the presence of several high profile ballot measures (same-sex marriage, the MD Dream Act, and possibly even the new Congressional Districts) will boost turnout by Republicans and social conservatives. At this point, I would not be surprised to see the GOP hold onto the 6th district seat.
Tuesday, April 3, 2012
Inappropriate and Uninformed Attacks on the Court
I support universal health care - I just want to make that clear. I understand and sympathize with the reasoning behind the health care reform law's individual mandate as well. The health care reform law precludes insurance companies from denying coverage to folks with pre-existing conditions. This means that many folks, needing costly medical care, will now come into the insurance market. Unless the cost of providing care to those sick folks can be offset by the premiums collected from healthy folks insurance premiums will skyrocket and more healthy people will opt to drop coverage - until they are sick. An individual mandate solves that problem.
But.... I happen to believe the individual mandate is unconstitutional. I certainly believe that it falls well outside Congress' "commerce clause" power. Though many legal commentators dismissed any suggestion that the mandate was unconstitutional that conventional wisdom was turned on its head last week when several justices on the Supreme Court asked very pointed questions about the constitutionality of the law. Indeed many court observers subsequently concluded that the individual mandate was likely to be overturned.
Now, proponents of the law have decided to start attacking the Supreme Court for daring to question an act of Congress, for behaving like a legislative body. Even President Obama broke his (very short period of) silence on the matter and warned the court to not overturn a law passed by a democratically elected legislature - Obama said to do so would surely be judicial activism. Legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin wrote "Acts of Congress, like the health-care law, are presumed to be constitutional, and it is—or should be—a grave and unusual step for unelected, unaccountable, life-tenured judges to overrule the work of the democratically elected branches of government."
These attacks on the court are as unjustified as was the confidence in the constitutionality of the mandate. It is quite correct that the Supreme Court has recognized tremendous authority within the commerce clause. The commerce clause allows for a federal minimum wage, it empowers Congress to limit crop yields for personal use, to protect our air and water, and to prohibit discrimination by private businesses. But what the Supreme Court has never recognized is a Congressional power under the commerce clause to compel a citizen to first engage in commerce and then regulate it. The individual mandate requires citizens to purchase a private product - health insurance - from a private company - an insurer. This is quite unprecedented. Under the 10th amendment such a power would be considered as reserved to the states like most health and welfare powers such as education. The Supreme Court has frequently expressed limits on Congress' commerce clause power. In US v. Morrison, NLRB v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp., and US v. Lopez (you look them up!) the court struck down attempts to expand the scope of the commerce clause and specifically referenced traditional state powers.
Had Congress simply imposed a new tax to fund health care subsidies and then granted a tax credit to anyone who show proof of health insurance there is no doubt it would have been a constitutional exercise of the power to tax. Had Congress made Medicare universal it would have been constitutional - as it would be a government provided service. The government collects taxes and provides Social Security - that's constitutional. But the government cannot compel us to purchase stocks or bonds or to start a 401k. There is a line between providing a service and compelling an action. The individual mandate crosses that line.
I offer my opinion not as a casual observer but as someone who wroked in healthpolicy for a decade and as a professor who regularly teaches commerce clause precedent in several classes. I'm well aware of the arguments in favor of the court upholding the mandate and I am well aware of the arguments for overturning the mandate - I find the arguments against the constitutionality of the mandate to be the more sound.
All this is to say no one should have believed the mandate would be a constitutional slam dunk.
Now that it's in question no one should be attacking the court for questioning the law. With all due respect to President Obama, Jeffrey Toobin, E.J. Dionne and the others aghast at the court I will defer to Alexander Hamilton in Federalist 78:
If the Supreme Court were to strike down the individual mandate it would be no more unprecedented or outrageous than when the courts over-ruled democratically elected legislatures with regard to white primaries, school segregation, inter-racial marriage, the right to privacy, or the line-item veto.
Rather it would be the courts acting as they were intended to act - as the final arbiter of the meaning of the constitution and all laws made under its delegation of power. I'm used to making this argument in response to conservative attacks on the court... clearly are equally in need of this basic civics lesson.
But.... I happen to believe the individual mandate is unconstitutional. I certainly believe that it falls well outside Congress' "commerce clause" power. Though many legal commentators dismissed any suggestion that the mandate was unconstitutional that conventional wisdom was turned on its head last week when several justices on the Supreme Court asked very pointed questions about the constitutionality of the law. Indeed many court observers subsequently concluded that the individual mandate was likely to be overturned.
Now, proponents of the law have decided to start attacking the Supreme Court for daring to question an act of Congress, for behaving like a legislative body. Even President Obama broke his (very short period of) silence on the matter and warned the court to not overturn a law passed by a democratically elected legislature - Obama said to do so would surely be judicial activism. Legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin wrote "Acts of Congress, like the health-care law, are presumed to be constitutional, and it is—or should be—a grave and unusual step for unelected, unaccountable, life-tenured judges to overrule the work of the democratically elected branches of government."
These attacks on the court are as unjustified as was the confidence in the constitutionality of the mandate. It is quite correct that the Supreme Court has recognized tremendous authority within the commerce clause. The commerce clause allows for a federal minimum wage, it empowers Congress to limit crop yields for personal use, to protect our air and water, and to prohibit discrimination by private businesses. But what the Supreme Court has never recognized is a Congressional power under the commerce clause to compel a citizen to first engage in commerce and then regulate it. The individual mandate requires citizens to purchase a private product - health insurance - from a private company - an insurer. This is quite unprecedented. Under the 10th amendment such a power would be considered as reserved to the states like most health and welfare powers such as education. The Supreme Court has frequently expressed limits on Congress' commerce clause power. In US v. Morrison, NLRB v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp., and US v. Lopez (you look them up!) the court struck down attempts to expand the scope of the commerce clause and specifically referenced traditional state powers.
Had Congress simply imposed a new tax to fund health care subsidies and then granted a tax credit to anyone who show proof of health insurance there is no doubt it would have been a constitutional exercise of the power to tax. Had Congress made Medicare universal it would have been constitutional - as it would be a government provided service. The government collects taxes and provides Social Security - that's constitutional. But the government cannot compel us to purchase stocks or bonds or to start a 401k. There is a line between providing a service and compelling an action. The individual mandate crosses that line.
I offer my opinion not as a casual observer but as someone who wroked in healthpolicy for a decade and as a professor who regularly teaches commerce clause precedent in several classes. I'm well aware of the arguments in favor of the court upholding the mandate and I am well aware of the arguments for overturning the mandate - I find the arguments against the constitutionality of the mandate to be the more sound.
All this is to say no one should have believed the mandate would be a constitutional slam dunk.
Now that it's in question no one should be attacking the court for questioning the law. With all due respect to President Obama, Jeffrey Toobin, E.J. Dionne and the others aghast at the court I will defer to Alexander Hamilton in Federalist 78:
The complete independence of the courts of justice is peculiarly essential in a limited Constitution. By a limited Constitution, I understand one which contains certain specified exceptions to the legislative authority... Limitations of this kind can be preserved in practice no other way than through the medium of courts of justice, whose duty it must be to declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void. Without this, all the reservations of particular rights or privileges would amount to nothing.
Some perplexity respecting the rights of the courts to pronounce legislative acts void, because contrary to the Constitution, has arisen from an imagination that the doctrine would imply a superiority of the judiciary to the legislative power. It is urged that the authority which can declare the acts of another void, must necessarily be superior to the one whose acts may be declared void.
There is no position which depends on clearer principles, than that every act of a delegated authority, contrary to the tenor of the commission under which it is exercised, is void. No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid. To deny this, would be to affirm... that men acting by virtue of powers, may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid.
If it be said that the legislative body are themselves the constitutional judges of their own powers, and that the construction they put upon them is conclusive upon the other departments, it may be answered, that this cannot be the natural presumption, where it is not to be collected from any particular provisions in the Constitution. It is not otherwise to be supposed, that the Constitution could intend to enable the representatives of the people to substitute their will to that of their constituents. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents.
Nor does this conclusion by any means suppose a superiority of the judicial to the legislative power. It only supposes that the power of the people is superior to both; and that where the will of the legislature, declared in its statutes, stands in opposition to that of the people, declared in the Constitution, the judges ought to be governed by the latter rather than the former. They ought to regulate their decisions by the fundamental laws, rather than by those which are not fundamental.In other words it is up to the courts, and not Congress, to decide whether an act of Congress falls within the powers afforded under the Constitution. The fact that Congress was elected and the justices were not is a meaningless point. The courts exist as an unelected body precisely because those subject to election may at times be driven to enact unconstitutional laws in response to electoral pressures - or to create electoral pressures.
If the Supreme Court were to strike down the individual mandate it would be no more unprecedented or outrageous than when the courts over-ruled democratically elected legislatures with regard to white primaries, school segregation, inter-racial marriage, the right to privacy, or the line-item veto.
Rather it would be the courts acting as they were intended to act - as the final arbiter of the meaning of the constitution and all laws made under its delegation of power. I'm used to making this argument in response to conservative attacks on the court... clearly are equally in need of this basic civics lesson.
Tuesday, March 6, 2012
It's Super Tuesday!
Guest post by Mark Snyder
The race up until this point has been about narrative, and it would be hard to imagine waking up to another Colorado/Minnesota/Missouri surprise. At this point Santorum is just shooting himself in the foot left and right, no one is willing to give Gingrich another surge because we've seen him fall too many times already, and Paul will never appeal to more than 30% of the electorate. The narrative is now that Romney has repeated beat back his opponents with his superior money machine and organization at the state level, even though much of that "organization" is a single office in the state it's still comparatively better.
So if Romney wins Massachusetts outright, a popular/delegate advantage in Ohio (bonus points if he wins by more than 5%), picks up some delegates in Georgia, takes all of Virginia, gets close or wins Tennessee, and doesn't get romped in Oklahoma/the caucus states he's going to lock this thing up in all but name. He'll have trouble in Alabama and Mississippi, but if he does better than expected in Tennessee and Oklahoma tomorrow he might sail through the states on the claim of inevitability. Republican voters will start seeing the advantage he has and settle. And after that it's even smoother sailing.
Now a warning. This contest seems to settle into the paradigm for just long enough to have people think they've figured it out, and then we have the revolt in South Carolina or Santorum's triple win. In the end Michigan really was the "anyone but Mitt" contingent’s Waterloo. The media keeps building them up only to have them torn down, first in NH, then Florida, then Michigan and Arizona; eventually voters will start listening less to how a candidate is doing right now and focus on the long term.
Romney continues to have an enthusiasm gap as compared to the supporters of Santorum and Paul, but in the general election much of his base will be made up of disaffected moderates who will be voting against Obama more than for Romney. The attacks of Romney’s moderate tendencies may in fact help him in the long run if a majority of the Republican electorate recognizes that he is their best bet to beat Obama.
After Super Tuesday we'll finally see that Republicans may not have fallen in love with Romney over the last few months, but they're going to fall in line to beat Obama.
Tonight looks like it'll be a pretty bleak night if your name isn't Romney. Gingrich will win Georgia, but won't get back 50% so it'll be by congressional district and Romney might be able to pick off some of those delegates, Virginia and Massachusetts are non-contests, and the fact Mitt is running only about a point behind Santorum in Tennessee really spells the end to the idea that "anyone but Mitt" might run away with this.
The race up until this point has been about narrative, and it would be hard to imagine waking up to another Colorado/Minnesota/Missouri surprise. At this point Santorum is just shooting himself in the foot left and right, no one is willing to give Gingrich another surge because we've seen him fall too many times already, and Paul will never appeal to more than 30% of the electorate. The narrative is now that Romney has repeated beat back his opponents with his superior money machine and organization at the state level, even though much of that "organization" is a single office in the state it's still comparatively better.
So if Romney wins Massachusetts outright, a popular/delegate advantage in Ohio (bonus points if he wins by more than 5%), picks up some delegates in Georgia, takes all of Virginia, gets close or wins Tennessee, and doesn't get romped in Oklahoma/the caucus states he's going to lock this thing up in all but name. He'll have trouble in Alabama and Mississippi, but if he does better than expected in Tennessee and Oklahoma tomorrow he might sail through the states on the claim of inevitability. Republican voters will start seeing the advantage he has and settle. And after that it's even smoother sailing.
Now a warning. This contest seems to settle into the paradigm for just long enough to have people think they've figured it out, and then we have the revolt in South Carolina or Santorum's triple win. In the end Michigan really was the "anyone but Mitt" contingent’s Waterloo. The media keeps building them up only to have them torn down, first in NH, then Florida, then Michigan and Arizona; eventually voters will start listening less to how a candidate is doing right now and focus on the long term.
Romney continues to have an enthusiasm gap as compared to the supporters of Santorum and Paul, but in the general election much of his base will be made up of disaffected moderates who will be voting against Obama more than for Romney. The attacks of Romney’s moderate tendencies may in fact help him in the long run if a majority of the Republican electorate recognizes that he is their best bet to beat Obama.
After Super Tuesday we'll finally see that Republicans may not have fallen in love with Romney over the last few months, but they're going to fall in line to beat Obama.
Thursday, February 23, 2012
Do Liberal Activists Control the Democratic Party? Yes, Yes They Do.
A few critics of the report I wrote for Third Way have targeted my assertion that liberal activists control the Democratic party. It's worth noting that the folks who have taken issue with that claim are themselves liberal activists - so their perception may be skewed. As a quick check I examined the DW-NOMINATE scores of all Democratic House members in the 112th Congress. The average first-dimension score of the Democratic caucus is -.429. Nancy Pelosi, the Minority Leader, scores a -.533 - well to the left of average. I then took the party leadership - Minority Leader, Whip, Assistant Leader, Whips, Caucus Chair, Steering Committee and Ranking Members on major committees - and the average score across those folks was a -.496. Fewer than a third of the leadership had a DW-NOMINATE score more conservative than the caucus average.
A study last year by Joseph Bafumi and Michael Herron found that Democrats in Congress are to the left of even the median Democratic voter in their respective states (GOP members are too the right of the median GOP voter). So essentially, in a Democratic caucus in the House that is already to the left of Democratic voters, the leadership of the party is to the left of the caucus - so do liberal activists control the Democratic party? Well yes, yes they do.
Some folks questioned my reliance on self-identified ideology. The research on that is actually quite extensive and shows without question that how one identifies on a liberal-conservative dimension reflects one’s core system of preferences and attitudes and is reliably correlated with a range of substantive policy preferences including the size and scope of government, traditional vs. progressive social values, and the use of military force. I would direct critics to the following works:Democrats are a diverse coalition of voters, but ideologically the party is home to a large number of moderates even though party activists are liberal. The party cannot win without the support of those moderates. It cannot afford to push them away. To those on the left that refuse to accept anything less than ideological purity consider - if candidate A shares 5% of your beliefs and candidate B shares 60% of your beliefs - and there is no candidate C - withholding your vote because B doesn't represent 100% of your beliefs does nothing more than help elect candidate A.There are no moral victories in politics. After the election the moral victor goes home. The actual victor makes policy.
A study last year by Joseph Bafumi and Michael Herron found that Democrats in Congress are to the left of even the median Democratic voter in their respective states (GOP members are too the right of the median GOP voter). So essentially, in a Democratic caucus in the House that is already to the left of Democratic voters, the leadership of the party is to the left of the caucus - so do liberal activists control the Democratic party? Well yes, yes they do.
Some folks questioned my reliance on self-identified ideology. The research on that is actually quite extensive and shows without question that how one identifies on a liberal-conservative dimension reflects one’s core system of preferences and attitudes and is reliably correlated with a range of substantive policy preferences including the size and scope of government, traditional vs. progressive social values, and the use of military force. I would direct critics to the following works:
- Abramowitz, A., & Saunders, K. (2006). Exploring the bases of partisanship in the American. Political Research Quarterly, 59, 175-187.
- Baldassarri, D., & Gelman, A. (2008). Partisans without Constraint: Political Polarization and Trends in American Public Opinion. American Journal of Sociology, 114(2), 408-46.
- Gerring, J. (1997). Ideology: A Definitional Analysis. Political Research Quarterly, 50, 957-994.JostNosek, B. A., & Gosling, D. S. (2008). Ideology: Its resurgence in social, personality, andpolitical psychology. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 3(2), 126-136.
- Gerring, J. (1998). Party ideologies in America. New York: Cambridge University Press.
- Jost, J. T., Nosek, B. A., & Gosling, D. S. (2008). Ideology: Its resurgence in social, personality, and political psychology. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 3(2), 126-136.
Maryland for Marriage Equality
45 years ago this week the Maryland General Assembly voted to repeal the state's ban on inter-racial marriage. The state hardly led on this issue, the state only passed the repeal once the Supreme Court accepted the Loving v. Virginia case that ultimately resulted in the declaration that all bans on inter-racial marriage were unconstitutional.
Last week the Maryland House of Delegates voted 72-67 to legalize marriage equality. Today the state Senate voted 25-22 to pass the measure. Governor O'Malley has promised to sign the bill.
This is historic. Maryland now becomes one of only 8 states to allow same sex marriage. More important, it's one of the very few to have have legalized same sex marriage via the legislature rather than through the courts. It is a distinction that will long be remembered. Maryland tends to be a cautious state, but on this issue the state has become a leader.
The law is sure to be subject to a petition challenge placing it before the voters in November. This the right of every Marylander. Proponents are worried. In every state where same sex marriage has been placed on the ballot it has been rejected. But of course, one state has to be the first to end that streak - perhaps it will be Maryland.
The most significant bloc of opposition in the state is African-American voters. Their collective vote will decide the fate of the law. There is a tremendous opportunity for Lt. Governor Anthony Brown to become a point person for the O'Malley administration arguing for public support of the measure. It wouldn't hurt if President Obama abandoned his support for civil unions and endorsed same sex marriage as well...
For now, however, Governor Martin O'Malley deserves credit for forcefully backing this measure. Last year his leadership was absent and that absence was felt. This year, though likely motivated by his own presidential aspirations, O'Malley staked his reputation on passing this bill - and it passed.
Now that battle moves on to the ballot box. It's unfortunate and inappropriate that a question of basic civil rights will be subject to voter approval- but such is the law of the state.
Onward.
Last week the Maryland House of Delegates voted 72-67 to legalize marriage equality. Today the state Senate voted 25-22 to pass the measure. Governor O'Malley has promised to sign the bill.
This is historic. Maryland now becomes one of only 8 states to allow same sex marriage. More important, it's one of the very few to have have legalized same sex marriage via the legislature rather than through the courts. It is a distinction that will long be remembered. Maryland tends to be a cautious state, but on this issue the state has become a leader.
The law is sure to be subject to a petition challenge placing it before the voters in November. This the right of every Marylander. Proponents are worried. In every state where same sex marriage has been placed on the ballot it has been rejected. But of course, one state has to be the first to end that streak - perhaps it will be Maryland.
The most significant bloc of opposition in the state is African-American voters. Their collective vote will decide the fate of the law. There is a tremendous opportunity for Lt. Governor Anthony Brown to become a point person for the O'Malley administration arguing for public support of the measure. It wouldn't hurt if President Obama abandoned his support for civil unions and endorsed same sex marriage as well...
For now, however, Governor Martin O'Malley deserves credit for forcefully backing this measure. Last year his leadership was absent and that absence was felt. This year, though likely motivated by his own presidential aspirations, O'Malley staked his reputation on passing this bill - and it passed.
Now that battle moves on to the ballot box. It's unfortunate and inappropriate that a question of basic civil rights will be subject to voter approval- but such is the law of the state.
Onward.
Wednesday, February 22, 2012
Democrats Need Moderates
In a piece in today's Washington Post, Ruth Marcus outlines a report I wrote for Third Way - a centrist Democratic organization. The report, Family Feud: Democratic Activists v. Democratic Voters - The Ideological Gulf that Thwarts a Sustained Majority, seeks to unravel a defining mystery of the modern political era. Since 1972, Democrats have held a lead in the number of Americans who identify with the party, but that hasn’t translated into sustained Congressional and White House dominance. In “Family Feud: Democratic Activists v. Democratic Voters,” I explain this quandary and its serious electoral consequences for Democrats. Essentially, the Democratic coalition is more divided between activists and rank and file members than are the Republicans. Most Democrats are moderates and this has not change in 40 years. Party activists are liberals. Republicans of all stripes are conservative, but many moderate Democrats find themselves situated between the extremes of the two parties and can "go either way." I conclude odds favor a re-emergent Democratic majority, but only if liberal party activists will cede control of the agenda and allow the party to move in the direction of its moderate non-activist voters.
Of course many in the political world argue there are no moderates and that the only strategy that matters is a base strategy - appeal to and turn-out your core voters. I think a base strategy can work - so long as 40% of the electorate stay home on election day. But a base strategy is the right choice only if your only concern is the current election cycle. The present base strategy approach being used by both parties is part of the reason we see such dramatic shifts in control of government. There are two parties with roughly matched bases. Each election comes to out motivating the other side. I argue the key to sustained party control is to move beyond the base strategy and bring moderate voters into the fold in a permanent way. The data I show in the report suggests Democrats have a real opportunity to do that - Republicans don't.
I have already heard from several members of the Democrats' activist base accusing me of trying to turn Democrats into "Republican-lite." This is simply not the case. My report shows the Republican party - activists and rank and file alike - have moved right since the 1970s and have reached a point where there is little divide between activists and non-activists. The Republican party is a uniformly conservative party. But there remains a divide between Democratic activists and non-activists. Non-activists are a very moderate bunch and include quite a few conservatives. Furthermore, non-activists make-up the vast majority of the party and those moderates are ideologically situated right between the liberal and conservative "peaks" of each party's activist base. Republicans have a smaller voting coalition, but can win by winning those moderate and conservative Democrats - the GOP is sunk without them. If Democrats can bring them securely into the fold they are unbeatable.
We see some of this playing out on the national scene right now. When President Obama essentially vetoed the Keystone XL Pipeline or issued the initial ruling on religious affiliated organizations providing contraception as part of their health care plans, he was following a path paved by party activists. If the U.S. does not partner with Canada on the pipeline another country will work with them. The tar sands will be tapped, the oil extracted. Blocking the pipeline was a symbolic measure with no actual effect other than to eliminate even modest job opportunities and contribute to more expensive fuel prices when the U.S. imports the extracted oil. The Obama administration realized its mistakes - the contraception order was hastily changed and the white House is now trying to backtrack on the Keystone decision by arguing that the White House had no choice in the matter. The initial actions created the impression of a party too far left.
On the GOP side we see a party that is moving too right, too fast to win over Democratic party moderates. The clash between Romney, Santorum, and Gingrich has resulted in an effort by each candidate to "out-conservative" the other. Add to that the fact that Republicans horribly overplayed their hand on the contraception issue. Witness Santorum's seeming attacking on the moral ills of contraception and the legislative efforts to limit coverage of contraception - this has created a clear picture of a party too far right.
President Obama is enjoying a resurgence in the polls - but this resurgence has little to do with anything the White House has done. Rather it's being driven by two things 1) signs of life in the economy and 2) and GOP veering right and making the President appear more moderate in comparison. This can work for the President but only if both factors remain. The rising price of oil may well derail the present boost of optimism and if the GOP does settle on a nominee and that nominee is Mitt Romney the intra-party battle that has resulted in the rightward shift will end. Romney will have time to reposition and focus will shift equally to the President.
The President must remain committed to keeping moderate Democrats in the fold. And there is reason to believe that he'll have difficulty doing that. A poll in December found that Americans see themselves as centrists - on a 5 point ideological scale voters rate themselves as a 3.3 - right or center. The rated Obama a 2.3 and most of the GOP candidates as around 3.5. In a new poll just out, 51% of voters described Obama as too liberal. Obama has a problem - his base is angry because they think he has been too moderate. Most voters, however, think he has been too liberal. Obama's advisor's are going to tell him to fire up that base - this is just bad advice. Think Rick Santorum is unelectable? Think again. 2012 will be a referendum on Obama. He needs to secure the support of the vital center.
The question for Democratic activists is clear, do you want to engage in a ping-pong battle for control and as a result have no coherent long term policy agenda or do you want to establish a sustained hold on power? With a sustained grasp on the mechanisms of government Democrats could begin to rebuild voters' trust in government, first through moderate and incremental changes - changes especially geared toward working class voters - and then, after trust has been restored, consider what larger reforms may be possible. At present, the American people fundamentally lack trust in their government. That lack of trust alone will derail the emergence of a truly progressive majority any time soon. As the anti-statist party, that lack of trust aids Republicans.
Democrats need to re-establish a permanent link with their moderate membership and then slowly work to build faith in a progressive agenda. There is a pervasive myth in America that at crucial times in our history strong leaders have emerged and through force of will these great leaders took the country in a new direction. This is myth. In presidential studies we refer to this as directors of change v. facilitators of change. Directors are revolutionaries, they change the system and take the people where they did not want to go. Facilitators are tacticians,the work the system to take the people where they already wanted to go. Directors of change are rare if the exist at all. Franklin Roosevelt came to power at a time when the people were ready for social change. His ideas weren't revolutionary, rather they were an extension of state-based reforms. And when Roosevelt tried to direct change through packing the Supreme Court or intervening in Democratic congressional primaries the public rose up and swatted him down. Ronald Reagan did not direct a conservative revolution, rather he channeled and gave voice to a growing public dissatisfaction with government. Reagan got his tax and regulatory reform. He got his defense budget. But he never unraveled he New Deal safety net. He never brought the force of the American people into his battle against communism in central America. He was not a director.
If Democrats on the left want a progressive revolution in America they need to understand that it will not happen from the top down - that's not how it works here. What they need to do is find the areas where activists and non-activists overlap. They need to facilitate the change that the vast and vital center is seeking. If they can accomplish that, then perhaps the vital center will become ever more open to a more progressive government. Then, when the people are ready, Democrats can help facilitate the change. Right now, however, Democrats need to focus on how they can win and win consistently - that requires engaging the party's centrists. Democrats can embrace the middle and win. If Republicans push too hard to embrace the middle they will lose too many of their activists and non-activists. The key to victory for Democrats is to force Republicans to fight for the middle.
Of course many in the political world argue there are no moderates and that the only strategy that matters is a base strategy - appeal to and turn-out your core voters. I think a base strategy can work - so long as 40% of the electorate stay home on election day. But a base strategy is the right choice only if your only concern is the current election cycle. The present base strategy approach being used by both parties is part of the reason we see such dramatic shifts in control of government. There are two parties with roughly matched bases. Each election comes to out motivating the other side. I argue the key to sustained party control is to move beyond the base strategy and bring moderate voters into the fold in a permanent way. The data I show in the report suggests Democrats have a real opportunity to do that - Republicans don't.
I have already heard from several members of the Democrats' activist base accusing me of trying to turn Democrats into "Republican-lite." This is simply not the case. My report shows the Republican party - activists and rank and file alike - have moved right since the 1970s and have reached a point where there is little divide between activists and non-activists. The Republican party is a uniformly conservative party. But there remains a divide between Democratic activists and non-activists. Non-activists are a very moderate bunch and include quite a few conservatives. Furthermore, non-activists make-up the vast majority of the party and those moderates are ideologically situated right between the liberal and conservative "peaks" of each party's activist base. Republicans have a smaller voting coalition, but can win by winning those moderate and conservative Democrats - the GOP is sunk without them. If Democrats can bring them securely into the fold they are unbeatable.
We see some of this playing out on the national scene right now. When President Obama essentially vetoed the Keystone XL Pipeline or issued the initial ruling on religious affiliated organizations providing contraception as part of their health care plans, he was following a path paved by party activists. If the U.S. does not partner with Canada on the pipeline another country will work with them. The tar sands will be tapped, the oil extracted. Blocking the pipeline was a symbolic measure with no actual effect other than to eliminate even modest job opportunities and contribute to more expensive fuel prices when the U.S. imports the extracted oil. The Obama administration realized its mistakes - the contraception order was hastily changed and the white House is now trying to backtrack on the Keystone decision by arguing that the White House had no choice in the matter. The initial actions created the impression of a party too far left.
On the GOP side we see a party that is moving too right, too fast to win over Democratic party moderates. The clash between Romney, Santorum, and Gingrich has resulted in an effort by each candidate to "out-conservative" the other. Add to that the fact that Republicans horribly overplayed their hand on the contraception issue. Witness Santorum's seeming attacking on the moral ills of contraception and the legislative efforts to limit coverage of contraception - this has created a clear picture of a party too far right.
President Obama is enjoying a resurgence in the polls - but this resurgence has little to do with anything the White House has done. Rather it's being driven by two things 1) signs of life in the economy and 2) and GOP veering right and making the President appear more moderate in comparison. This can work for the President but only if both factors remain. The rising price of oil may well derail the present boost of optimism and if the GOP does settle on a nominee and that nominee is Mitt Romney the intra-party battle that has resulted in the rightward shift will end. Romney will have time to reposition and focus will shift equally to the President.
The President must remain committed to keeping moderate Democrats in the fold. And there is reason to believe that he'll have difficulty doing that. A poll in December found that Americans see themselves as centrists - on a 5 point ideological scale voters rate themselves as a 3.3 - right or center. The rated Obama a 2.3 and most of the GOP candidates as around 3.5. In a new poll just out, 51% of voters described Obama as too liberal. Obama has a problem - his base is angry because they think he has been too moderate. Most voters, however, think he has been too liberal. Obama's advisor's are going to tell him to fire up that base - this is just bad advice. Think Rick Santorum is unelectable? Think again. 2012 will be a referendum on Obama. He needs to secure the support of the vital center.
The question for Democratic activists is clear, do you want to engage in a ping-pong battle for control and as a result have no coherent long term policy agenda or do you want to establish a sustained hold on power? With a sustained grasp on the mechanisms of government Democrats could begin to rebuild voters' trust in government, first through moderate and incremental changes - changes especially geared toward working class voters - and then, after trust has been restored, consider what larger reforms may be possible. At present, the American people fundamentally lack trust in their government. That lack of trust alone will derail the emergence of a truly progressive majority any time soon. As the anti-statist party, that lack of trust aids Republicans.
Democrats need to re-establish a permanent link with their moderate membership and then slowly work to build faith in a progressive agenda. There is a pervasive myth in America that at crucial times in our history strong leaders have emerged and through force of will these great leaders took the country in a new direction. This is myth. In presidential studies we refer to this as directors of change v. facilitators of change. Directors are revolutionaries, they change the system and take the people where they did not want to go. Facilitators are tacticians,the work the system to take the people where they already wanted to go. Directors of change are rare if the exist at all. Franklin Roosevelt came to power at a time when the people were ready for social change. His ideas weren't revolutionary, rather they were an extension of state-based reforms. And when Roosevelt tried to direct change through packing the Supreme Court or intervening in Democratic congressional primaries the public rose up and swatted him down. Ronald Reagan did not direct a conservative revolution, rather he channeled and gave voice to a growing public dissatisfaction with government. Reagan got his tax and regulatory reform. He got his defense budget. But he never unraveled he New Deal safety net. He never brought the force of the American people into his battle against communism in central America. He was not a director.
If Democrats on the left want a progressive revolution in America they need to understand that it will not happen from the top down - that's not how it works here. What they need to do is find the areas where activists and non-activists overlap. They need to facilitate the change that the vast and vital center is seeking. If they can accomplish that, then perhaps the vital center will become ever more open to a more progressive government. Then, when the people are ready, Democrats can help facilitate the change. Right now, however, Democrats need to focus on how they can win and win consistently - that requires engaging the party's centrists. Democrats can embrace the middle and win. If Republicans push too hard to embrace the middle they will lose too many of their activists and non-activists. The key to victory for Democrats is to force Republicans to fight for the middle.
Sunday, February 19, 2012
Same Sex Marriage Vote was a Test of Character
With a vote of 72-67 Maryland's House of Delegates passed legislation that would legalize same sex marriage in the Free State. The measure will now move to the state Senate where it passed last year. Early indications are the measure could see a vote by mid-week.
Even as the bill moved the floor of the House last week, it was unclear whether the votes were there to pass the measure. With a key supporter in the hospital the late support of a few members became key. Though the bill must pass the Senate and is likely to face a petition challenge and a referendum in November there are a few folks who warrant specific recognition for the role they played in the House vote - Dels. John Bohanan and A. Wade Kach and Governor Martin O'Malley and Lt. Governor Anthony Brown.
Del. John Bohanan (District 29B)
Bohanan stands out from most other supporters in very significant ways. Bohanan represents southern St. Mary's county. The county is the fatest growing county in the state and home to the Patuxent Naval Air station. The large military presence has steadily changed the political dynamic of the county. Once a solidly Democratic area (in local elections), St. Mary's has been trending Republican. Since 2008 the GOP has added 4,000 voters to its rolls - twice that of the Democrats. At present, Democrats and Republicans claim an equal share of voters. In 2010, Republicans swept all but one seat on the county commission and Bohanan won a narrow re-election against a very novice challenger. For Bohanan, the safe bet would have been to vote against same sex marriage. He would have paid no penalty. When asked about his decision to support the bill, Bohanan said “Once I began to look at this through the eyes of my own kids and other young people, it became pretty clear... You want them to have love, and if that’s how they want to express it, you want them to be able to do it openly.” Bohanan is likely to see serious political fallout in his home district. What he deserves is recognition for making the right call in an era when too many politicians care only about winning the next election.
Del. A. Wade Kach (5B)
Kach was one of two Republicans in the House to support the measure and as such their votes were crucial to ensuring passage (the other Republican, Bob Costa of District 33B, merits an honorable mention). In his role as chair of the Democratic Governors Association Governor O'Malley has been merciless in his attacks on Republicans as right wing extremists. Kach's conservative credentials stretch back to his college years when he was chair of the Maryland Federation of College Republicans. There is little doubt that when O'Malley is speaking about the dinosaur wing of the Republican party he is thinking of folks like Kach. Kach could've denied O'Malley this crucial legislative victory. In doing so, he would dealt an embarrassing blow to O'Malley's future aspirations. I'm sure for Kach the temptation was great - instead he did what he felt was right. Perhaps the best part of Kach's support, however, was his impassioned conservative defense of same sex marriage. Kach said that listening to the testimony of gay parents ultimately changed his mind. He then linked his vote to his pro-life beliefs, "As a pro-life Republican, I believe it’s my responsibility to make sure children are taken care of... If you care about children" vote for this bill. Kach reminds us that for many people, being pro-life is not rooted in a particular religious belief but is rather an issue of civil rights and protecting the vulnerable. By linking the two issues Kach has contributed greatly to the conservative argument for same sex marriage.
Martin O'Malley, Governor
After standing on the sidelines last year O'Malley realized his mistake and decided last summer that he would personally push for marriage equality in Maryland. O'Malley has national political aspirations and it would be easy to dismiss his decision as a simple political calculation - after all New York governor Andrew Cuomo was able to get same sex marriage through a Republican state Senate. But O'Malley actually took a big risk - something he rarely does. O'Malley made legalization of same sex marriage his highest profile priority in the 2012 legislative session - having no idea whether it would pass. Had the House again killed the measure O'Malley would have been viewed a failure. His ability to govern his own party, never mind his state, would have been called into question. Yet he decided to quite literally stake his reputation on passing this bill. He deserves tremendous credit for the House vote.
Anthony Brown, Lt. Governor
This may seem an odd choice, but hear me out... As Lt. Governor, Brown had no reason to say anything about the vote in the House. Brown could've stayed silent and that may have been the politically wise thing to do. The Democratic party in Maryland is divided over the issue of same sex marriage. While white Democrats clearly support marriage equality, Black Democrats just as clearly oppose it. This year, same as last, Many African-American religious leaders - especially in Brown's home turf of PG county - spoke out against gay marriage. Brown is very likely to seek the party nomination for governor in 2014. No Lt. Governor has made that jump since the office was reinstated in 1970. Given the likelihood of a four man race I consider Brown to be the early favorite in a primary owing mostly to the substantial African-American vote in the state. Just after the House approved the same sex marriage bill Brown issued this statement: "The Maryland House of Delegates has cast a historic vote in favor of stronger families, bringing us as close as Maryland has ever been to true marriage equality. When two people come together in union, regardless of gender, and commit themselves to loving and supporting one another, they deserve the privileges and the responsibilities of marriage." But 60% of black voters in Maryland oppose same sex marriage. Brown could've remained silent, but by coming out in favor he could be a crucial voice in the effort to fight the referendum effort in November. But he does so at the risk of weakening his support among a crucial voting bloc. That's political courage.
To be certain, there are many other members who deserve some recognition. Personally I have to wonder how any delegate could've voted no after Del. Maggie McIntosh's deeply moving recollection of her coming out and what that meant for her personally and professionally - but 67 members did. Certainly I do not wish to diminish the efforts of any lawmaker who made passage of this bill possible. But in this day, I think it is worth taking a minute to recognize folks who are willing to act in a manner that may be against their immediate best interest in pursuit of the best interests of the state.
Even as the bill moved the floor of the House last week, it was unclear whether the votes were there to pass the measure. With a key supporter in the hospital the late support of a few members became key. Though the bill must pass the Senate and is likely to face a petition challenge and a referendum in November there are a few folks who warrant specific recognition for the role they played in the House vote - Dels. John Bohanan and A. Wade Kach and Governor Martin O'Malley and Lt. Governor Anthony Brown.
Del. John Bohanan (District 29B)
Bohanan stands out from most other supporters in very significant ways. Bohanan represents southern St. Mary's county. The county is the fatest growing county in the state and home to the Patuxent Naval Air station. The large military presence has steadily changed the political dynamic of the county. Once a solidly Democratic area (in local elections), St. Mary's has been trending Republican. Since 2008 the GOP has added 4,000 voters to its rolls - twice that of the Democrats. At present, Democrats and Republicans claim an equal share of voters. In 2010, Republicans swept all but one seat on the county commission and Bohanan won a narrow re-election against a very novice challenger. For Bohanan, the safe bet would have been to vote against same sex marriage. He would have paid no penalty. When asked about his decision to support the bill, Bohanan said “Once I began to look at this through the eyes of my own kids and other young people, it became pretty clear... You want them to have love, and if that’s how they want to express it, you want them to be able to do it openly.” Bohanan is likely to see serious political fallout in his home district. What he deserves is recognition for making the right call in an era when too many politicians care only about winning the next election.
Del. A. Wade Kach (5B)
Kach was one of two Republicans in the House to support the measure and as such their votes were crucial to ensuring passage (the other Republican, Bob Costa of District 33B, merits an honorable mention). In his role as chair of the Democratic Governors Association Governor O'Malley has been merciless in his attacks on Republicans as right wing extremists. Kach's conservative credentials stretch back to his college years when he was chair of the Maryland Federation of College Republicans. There is little doubt that when O'Malley is speaking about the dinosaur wing of the Republican party he is thinking of folks like Kach. Kach could've denied O'Malley this crucial legislative victory. In doing so, he would dealt an embarrassing blow to O'Malley's future aspirations. I'm sure for Kach the temptation was great - instead he did what he felt was right. Perhaps the best part of Kach's support, however, was his impassioned conservative defense of same sex marriage. Kach said that listening to the testimony of gay parents ultimately changed his mind. He then linked his vote to his pro-life beliefs, "As a pro-life Republican, I believe it’s my responsibility to make sure children are taken care of... If you care about children" vote for this bill. Kach reminds us that for many people, being pro-life is not rooted in a particular religious belief but is rather an issue of civil rights and protecting the vulnerable. By linking the two issues Kach has contributed greatly to the conservative argument for same sex marriage.
Martin O'Malley, Governor
After standing on the sidelines last year O'Malley realized his mistake and decided last summer that he would personally push for marriage equality in Maryland. O'Malley has national political aspirations and it would be easy to dismiss his decision as a simple political calculation - after all New York governor Andrew Cuomo was able to get same sex marriage through a Republican state Senate. But O'Malley actually took a big risk - something he rarely does. O'Malley made legalization of same sex marriage his highest profile priority in the 2012 legislative session - having no idea whether it would pass. Had the House again killed the measure O'Malley would have been viewed a failure. His ability to govern his own party, never mind his state, would have been called into question. Yet he decided to quite literally stake his reputation on passing this bill. He deserves tremendous credit for the House vote.
Anthony Brown, Lt. Governor
This may seem an odd choice, but hear me out... As Lt. Governor, Brown had no reason to say anything about the vote in the House. Brown could've stayed silent and that may have been the politically wise thing to do. The Democratic party in Maryland is divided over the issue of same sex marriage. While white Democrats clearly support marriage equality, Black Democrats just as clearly oppose it. This year, same as last, Many African-American religious leaders - especially in Brown's home turf of PG county - spoke out against gay marriage. Brown is very likely to seek the party nomination for governor in 2014. No Lt. Governor has made that jump since the office was reinstated in 1970. Given the likelihood of a four man race I consider Brown to be the early favorite in a primary owing mostly to the substantial African-American vote in the state. Just after the House approved the same sex marriage bill Brown issued this statement: "The Maryland House of Delegates has cast a historic vote in favor of stronger families, bringing us as close as Maryland has ever been to true marriage equality. When two people come together in union, regardless of gender, and commit themselves to loving and supporting one another, they deserve the privileges and the responsibilities of marriage." But 60% of black voters in Maryland oppose same sex marriage. Brown could've remained silent, but by coming out in favor he could be a crucial voice in the effort to fight the referendum effort in November. But he does so at the risk of weakening his support among a crucial voting bloc. That's political courage.
To be certain, there are many other members who deserve some recognition. Personally I have to wonder how any delegate could've voted no after Del. Maggie McIntosh's deeply moving recollection of her coming out and what that meant for her personally and professionally - but 67 members did. Certainly I do not wish to diminish the efforts of any lawmaker who made passage of this bill possible. But in this day, I think it is worth taking a minute to recognize folks who are willing to act in a manner that may be against their immediate best interest in pursuit of the best interests of the state.
Friday, February 17, 2012
Decision Time on Marriage Equality
As a vote nears on marriage equality in Maryland it remains unclear whether the votes are there to pass the measure.
I offer the following as encouragement to wavering Democrats and Republicans.
For Democrats:
Writing in 2003 Rep. John Lewis, one of America's greatest heroes of the Civil Rights movement, declared in no uncertain terms “I have fought too hard and for too long against discrimination based on race and color not to stand up against discrimination based on sexual orientation. I’ve heard the reasons for opposing civil marriage for same-sex couples. Cut through the distractions, and they stink of the same fear, hatred and intolerance I have known in racism and in bigotry.”
For Republicans:
Ted Olson, Solicitor General under George W. Bush wrote this in 2010 "Many of my fellow conservatives have an almost knee-jerk hostility toward gay marriage. This does not make sense, because same-sex unions promote the values conservatives prize. Marriage is one of the basic building blocks of our neighborhoods and our nation. At its best, it is a stable bond between two individuals who work to create a loving household and a social and economic partnership. We encourage couples to marry because the commitments they make to one another provide benefits not only to themselves but also to their families and communities. Marriage requires thinking beyond one's own needs. It transforms two individuals into a union based on shared aspirations, and in doing so establishes a formal investment in the well-being of society. The fact that individuals who happen to be gay want to share in this vital social institution is evidence that conservative ideals enjoy widespread acceptance. Conservatives should celebrate this, rather than lament it."
Even Dick Cheney support same-sex marriage!
For Democrats and Republicans:
Fifty years ago, many states declared that African-Americans were not free to marry the person of their choosing. For a reason as arbitrary as the color of one's skin, a basic civil right was denied. Today, even more states deny the right to marry based on sexual orientation - is that truly any less arbitrary?
In Loving v Virginia, the 1967 Supreme Court decision that outlawed bans on interracial marriage in the U.S., the court declared marriage to be a fundamental civil right. I would ask every delegate two simple questions - Will you stand up for equality? Will you support this fundamental civil right?
The 14th Amendment to the Constitution states "no State shall... deny to any person the equal protection of the laws." Your vote today will determine whether that amendment has any meaning.
I offer the following as encouragement to wavering Democrats and Republicans.
For Democrats:
Writing in 2003 Rep. John Lewis, one of America's greatest heroes of the Civil Rights movement, declared in no uncertain terms “I have fought too hard and for too long against discrimination based on race and color not to stand up against discrimination based on sexual orientation. I’ve heard the reasons for opposing civil marriage for same-sex couples. Cut through the distractions, and they stink of the same fear, hatred and intolerance I have known in racism and in bigotry.”
For Republicans:
Ted Olson, Solicitor General under George W. Bush wrote this in 2010 "Many of my fellow conservatives have an almost knee-jerk hostility toward gay marriage. This does not make sense, because same-sex unions promote the values conservatives prize. Marriage is one of the basic building blocks of our neighborhoods and our nation. At its best, it is a stable bond between two individuals who work to create a loving household and a social and economic partnership. We encourage couples to marry because the commitments they make to one another provide benefits not only to themselves but also to their families and communities. Marriage requires thinking beyond one's own needs. It transforms two individuals into a union based on shared aspirations, and in doing so establishes a formal investment in the well-being of society. The fact that individuals who happen to be gay want to share in this vital social institution is evidence that conservative ideals enjoy widespread acceptance. Conservatives should celebrate this, rather than lament it."
Even Dick Cheney support same-sex marriage!
For Democrats and Republicans:
Fifty years ago, many states declared that African-Americans were not free to marry the person of their choosing. For a reason as arbitrary as the color of one's skin, a basic civil right was denied. Today, even more states deny the right to marry based on sexual orientation - is that truly any less arbitrary?
In Loving v Virginia, the 1967 Supreme Court decision that outlawed bans on interracial marriage in the U.S., the court declared marriage to be a fundamental civil right. I would ask every delegate two simple questions - Will you stand up for equality? Will you support this fundamental civil right?
The 14th Amendment to the Constitution states "no State shall... deny to any person the equal protection of the laws." Your vote today will determine whether that amendment has any meaning.
Wednesday, February 15, 2012
I Support a Minimum Income, but Oppose a Living Wage
On Thursday February 16th a forum will be held at St. Mary's College to discuss whether the staff at the college should be paid a living wage. According to material distributed by organizers of the forum, some staff at St. Mary's earn as little as $24,500 per year while the annual cost of living in St. Mary's County is $34,000. Many of the staff employed by the college are single parents.
I sympathize with the motives of the living wage proponents, unfortunately I cannot support them in their effort because it would harm the very folks it's meant to help and would do nothing to address the growing problem of income inequality in America. I hope this forum provides an opportunity to discuss alternate, and I think better, ways to raise the standard of living of working folks and address the problem of inequality.
To elevate the salary of someone earning $24,500 to the living wage of $34,000 would require nearly $10,500 when factoring in the College's share of Social Security and Medicare taxes. In the end, to raise the salary of two staff members would require an amount nearly equal to the salary of one staff member in the absence of a living wage. Assuming the state refuses to provide sufficient funds to pay for the raises required by a living wage (a reasonable assumption) the only way to fund the pay increases would be to reduce the number of staff. So for each two staff members who receive a pay increase, one staff member would receive a pink slip.
Economist David Neumark studied the effect of living wages after Baltimore City instituted such a policy in 1994 for workers paid through publicly supported funds. Neumark found forcing up wages causes demand for labor to fall. In his study he determined workers covered by the living wage law typically see a 3.5 percent increase in wages, but there was a 7 percent increase in unemployment among low-wage workers.
The living wage essentially creates an income transfer between low income people. In this case, two people see their standard of living rise at the expense of another person's job. Living wages are a poor means by which to increase living standards and do virtually nothing to deal with inequality. Worse, a living wage is a blunt instrument that does nothing to address actual need. A living wage would provide the same income to a working single parent with children as it would to a 17 year old dependent living at home.
But there is a better approach. The earned income tax credit (EITC) is a refundable tax credit offered by the federal government and the state of Maryland. The EITC offers low income workers additional income, and because it is linked to family size, earnings, investment income, and other measures it is based on need. The 17 year old living home with Mom and Dad would not qualify, but a single parent would, and the amount of the credit would reflect such crucial matters as the number of dependent children in the family.
Under current tax law, a single parent with one child earning $24,500 would qualify for approximately $2,000 through the federal EITC (the amount is larger as income declines). In Maryland, the typical EITC amount is roughly half the federal amount - in this case $1,000. So the staff member earning $24,500 in 2011 would actually receive $27,500.
But there's more. There is also the federal child tax credit (CTC) of $1,000 per child. The tax credit is used first to reduce your federal tax bill, but for low income parents if the amount of the credit exceeds the total taxes due the parent can receive the difference in a refund via the additional child tax credit (ACTC) - this could mean an addition $1,000 for a family with one child.
Perhaps more important, because the EITC and the ACTC are distributed via taxes they transfers income from those who pay income taxes to those whose incomes are so low that they do not - it redistributes wealth from those who have to those who have not. No employer needs to worry about firing one employee in order to increase the pay of two others. And living wage movements that target only specific employers distract from the larger and more important goal of reducing inequality in society.
If folks really want to address income inequality the better approach is to lobby the state to increase the EITC and ACTC for low income earners. If you believe in the basic premise of "from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" then the living wage is not the way to go. It removes from society the burden of responsibility to see to it that those who work are able to provide for their families. Only through a collective mechanism such as the tax code and the EITC and the ACTC can we address the issues of income inequality and ensure that we are not increasing the burden on the very folks we seek to help.
I sympathize with the motives of the living wage proponents, unfortunately I cannot support them in their effort because it would harm the very folks it's meant to help and would do nothing to address the growing problem of income inequality in America. I hope this forum provides an opportunity to discuss alternate, and I think better, ways to raise the standard of living of working folks and address the problem of inequality.
To elevate the salary of someone earning $24,500 to the living wage of $34,000 would require nearly $10,500 when factoring in the College's share of Social Security and Medicare taxes. In the end, to raise the salary of two staff members would require an amount nearly equal to the salary of one staff member in the absence of a living wage. Assuming the state refuses to provide sufficient funds to pay for the raises required by a living wage (a reasonable assumption) the only way to fund the pay increases would be to reduce the number of staff. So for each two staff members who receive a pay increase, one staff member would receive a pink slip.
Economist David Neumark studied the effect of living wages after Baltimore City instituted such a policy in 1994 for workers paid through publicly supported funds. Neumark found forcing up wages causes demand for labor to fall. In his study he determined workers covered by the living wage law typically see a 3.5 percent increase in wages, but there was a 7 percent increase in unemployment among low-wage workers.
The living wage essentially creates an income transfer between low income people. In this case, two people see their standard of living rise at the expense of another person's job. Living wages are a poor means by which to increase living standards and do virtually nothing to deal with inequality. Worse, a living wage is a blunt instrument that does nothing to address actual need. A living wage would provide the same income to a working single parent with children as it would to a 17 year old dependent living at home.
But there is a better approach. The earned income tax credit (EITC) is a refundable tax credit offered by the federal government and the state of Maryland. The EITC offers low income workers additional income, and because it is linked to family size, earnings, investment income, and other measures it is based on need. The 17 year old living home with Mom and Dad would not qualify, but a single parent would, and the amount of the credit would reflect such crucial matters as the number of dependent children in the family.
Under current tax law, a single parent with one child earning $24,500 would qualify for approximately $2,000 through the federal EITC (the amount is larger as income declines). In Maryland, the typical EITC amount is roughly half the federal amount - in this case $1,000. So the staff member earning $24,500 in 2011 would actually receive $27,500.
But there's more. There is also the federal child tax credit (CTC) of $1,000 per child. The tax credit is used first to reduce your federal tax bill, but for low income parents if the amount of the credit exceeds the total taxes due the parent can receive the difference in a refund via the additional child tax credit (ACTC) - this could mean an addition $1,000 for a family with one child.
Perhaps more important, because the EITC and the ACTC are distributed via taxes they transfers income from those who pay income taxes to those whose incomes are so low that they do not - it redistributes wealth from those who have to those who have not. No employer needs to worry about firing one employee in order to increase the pay of two others. And living wage movements that target only specific employers distract from the larger and more important goal of reducing inequality in society.
If folks really want to address income inequality the better approach is to lobby the state to increase the EITC and ACTC for low income earners. If you believe in the basic premise of "from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" then the living wage is not the way to go. It removes from society the burden of responsibility to see to it that those who work are able to provide for their families. Only through a collective mechanism such as the tax code and the EITC and the ACTC can we address the issues of income inequality and ensure that we are not increasing the burden on the very folks we seek to help.
Down to the Wire on Marriage Equality
A joint committee in the House of Delegates voted 25-18 Tuesday night to send the marriage equality bill to the floor. On Wednesday the bill was held over until Thursday. Proponents say they are a few votes short of the 71 needed to pass, but the speed with which the measure is moving toward a vote suggests the votes are either there or nearly there.
Recent efforts to court Republican support bore fruit when Anne Arundel Republican Bob Costa voted in favor of the bill. Republican Del. Pat Hogan (Frederick) had indicated that he was undecided, but has since declared his intention to vote "No." Democratic Del. Sam Arora continues to confuse - last year he supported marriage equality, then changed his mind and opposed it in committee, and then changed his mind and supported it on the floor. Arora abstained during the committee vote on Tuesday.
Arora and other members of the committee who subsequently voted against the bill, voiced support throughout the hearing for amendments that would make civil unions legal in Maryland rather than legalizing same sex marriage. All efforts to amend the bill were defeated.
The delay in floor consideration will give marriage equality opponents ample time to prepare amendments to the bill. The votes on the amendments will be an early indicator of whether the 71 votes needed for passage have been secured.
Several delegates have argued that the issue of same sex marriage should be decided by voters at referendum. Of course, we elect members of the Assembly based on the assumption that they are capable of making decisions on our behalf. Never mind that nearly all bills passed by the legislature and signed by the governor are subject to petition and referendum by the voters. Voters will have multiple chances to be heard on this issue - in the petition phase, in any resultant referendum, and in the 2014 election. In the meantime, members of the Assembly were elected for the express purpose of considering legislation and casting votes. Those who lack the courage or will to cast "the tough votes" need to do the folks of Maryland a favor and let someone else run for their seat in 2014.
On a final note, if the General Assembly does pass this bill then Martin O'Malley deserves a tremendous amount of credit for putting the full weight of his office behind the measure. I am a frequent critic of O'Malley - last year over his silence on marriage equality, in the summer and fall for his disgracefully gerrymandered congressional districts, and this session for a very regressive package of tax increases, and I'm especially bothered by O'Malley's happy descent into the polarizing Us v Them rhetoric of the extreme partisans who control the two national parties. But in this instance and on this issue O'Malley has literally staked his reputation on the legalization of same sex marriage in the Free State. He should be commended and, if the measure becomes law, credited.
The severe divisions that this measure will reveal within the state's Democratic coalition will be an issue for another day.
Recent efforts to court Republican support bore fruit when Anne Arundel Republican Bob Costa voted in favor of the bill. Republican Del. Pat Hogan (Frederick) had indicated that he was undecided, but has since declared his intention to vote "No." Democratic Del. Sam Arora continues to confuse - last year he supported marriage equality, then changed his mind and opposed it in committee, and then changed his mind and supported it on the floor. Arora abstained during the committee vote on Tuesday.
Arora and other members of the committee who subsequently voted against the bill, voiced support throughout the hearing for amendments that would make civil unions legal in Maryland rather than legalizing same sex marriage. All efforts to amend the bill were defeated.
The delay in floor consideration will give marriage equality opponents ample time to prepare amendments to the bill. The votes on the amendments will be an early indicator of whether the 71 votes needed for passage have been secured.
Several delegates have argued that the issue of same sex marriage should be decided by voters at referendum. Of course, we elect members of the Assembly based on the assumption that they are capable of making decisions on our behalf. Never mind that nearly all bills passed by the legislature and signed by the governor are subject to petition and referendum by the voters. Voters will have multiple chances to be heard on this issue - in the petition phase, in any resultant referendum, and in the 2014 election. In the meantime, members of the Assembly were elected for the express purpose of considering legislation and casting votes. Those who lack the courage or will to cast "the tough votes" need to do the folks of Maryland a favor and let someone else run for their seat in 2014.
On a final note, if the General Assembly does pass this bill then Martin O'Malley deserves a tremendous amount of credit for putting the full weight of his office behind the measure. I am a frequent critic of O'Malley - last year over his silence on marriage equality, in the summer and fall for his disgracefully gerrymandered congressional districts, and this session for a very regressive package of tax increases, and I'm especially bothered by O'Malley's happy descent into the polarizing Us v Them rhetoric of the extreme partisans who control the two national parties. But in this instance and on this issue O'Malley has literally staked his reputation on the legalization of same sex marriage in the Free State. He should be commended and, if the measure becomes law, credited.
The severe divisions that this measure will reveal within the state's Democratic coalition will be an issue for another day.
Monday, February 13, 2012
Romney and Inevitability by Any Other Name
A Guest Column by Mark Snyder:
After his decisive victory in Florida Mitt Romney looked all but assured to sail through the rest of the
contests and to the nomination, mostly due to Rick Santorum’s persisting inability to raise money
and organize volunteers and Newt Gingrich’s rapidly declining favorability numbers. He had shaken off the rebuke of South Carolina voters in Florida and ended up winning almost every major demographic group, winning the primary 46% of the vote and leading his next closest competitor, Gingrich, by 14 points.
After his decisive victory in Florida Mitt Romney looked all but assured to sail through the rest of the
contests and to the nomination, mostly due to Rick Santorum’s persisting inability to raise money
and organize volunteers and Newt Gingrich’s rapidly declining favorability numbers. He had shaken off the rebuke of South Carolina voters in Florida and ended up winning almost every major demographic group, winning the primary 46% of the vote and leading his next closest competitor, Gingrich, by 14 points.
Romney then went on the win Nevada with a full 50% of the vote, leaving Gingrich 29 points behind him. Even though Nevada was a state Romney was all but assured to win, the inevitability narrative seemed to be building. The month of February was not going to be a kind one to Gingrich, and Santorum still was not making enough money or building enough of a ground game to be taken seriously.
With Santorum’s sweep of Colorado, Minnesota, and the beauty contest in Missouri the inevitability narrative once again comes into some doubt.
Nate Silver opined after Romney’s win in Florida (and it looked even more true after his Nevada win) that there were a number of ways forward, but can be boiled down to four: the contest ends early and Romney
wins, the battle stretches on but Romney pulls it off, Santorum emerges as the anti-Romney that the media has been saying the Republican base is looking for, or the contest stretches on all the way to a brokered convention.
The first two looked like the likely scenarios, but now with Romney’s upset earlier this week are the latter too looking like better bets?
The answer, in my mind, is no. For several reasons.
First, Romney still holds a huge money lead. According to the latest FEC filing Romney has raised over $57 million, more than the rest of his competitors combined. Not only does this mean Romney will be able to control the airwaves if his campaign so chooses, but he will be able to go to the convention with just the money he has on hand at the moment, which differentiates him from his competitors. The super PAC
supporting Romney, Restore our Future, is also sitting high above the water financially, and showed its willingness to get involved aggressively on behalf of Romney in Iowa. The super PAC has also recently made a media buy in Ohio, a state seen as key for all of the contenders.
supporting Romney, Restore our Future, is also sitting high above the water financially, and showed its willingness to get involved aggressively on behalf of Romney in Iowa. The super PAC has also recently made a media buy in Ohio, a state seen as key for all of the contenders.
Second, though Romney’s favorability ratings have recently taken a hit he is not alone, as mentioned before Gingrich’s has as well, and now increased scrutiny of Santorum’s record and personal statements are
starting to have a negative effect on his ratings. Romney, though not seen as a good candidate by those who consider themselves very conservative, has maintained strong support from moderate Republicans and Independents in exit polls in the first four contests.
Finally the anyone but Romney contingent, Gingrich, Santorum, and Paul, face serious questions about how electable they actually are; all three trail Pres. Obama in Gallup surveys, while Romney is running even with him nationally, and beating him in many swing states. In Iowa, New Hampshire, and Florida voters who thought that the ability to defeat Obama is the most important characteristic in a candidate overwhelmingly supported Romney. The exception was in South Carolina, where they support Gingrich 51%/37%, which can be attributed to the mini-implosion of the Romney campaign, marked by their handling of attack on Romney’s time at Bain Capital, his refusal to release his tax records, and his subjugation by Gingrich during the debates.
Looking forward Romney should be able to prove his inevitability with wins in Michigan and Arizona, but look for Gingrich and Santorum to stay long past those primaries. Due to the way the RNC fashioned
the primary season it is impossible for any one candidate to win enough delegates to become the nominee this early, however if Romney can cement his front runner status and make it stick this time, look for him to suck all of the oxygen out of the room, leaving Santorum and Gingrich languishing with dwindling funds and even dimmer prospects.
Romney’s relatively weak finish in Maine, along with the incredible low turnout, only bolsters the importance of the Michigan and Arizona primaries in the coming weeks. The current polling number suggest an interesting scenario: Romney could win Arizona by a large margin (50% to Gingrich’s 26% and Santorum’s 14%) and lose Michigan to Santorum (40% to Romney’s 27%, and Gingrich with 18%) With polling numbers in those states few and far between the current numbers should be taken with a grain of salt.
The Michigan and Arizona primaries are February 28th.
Mark Snyder is a Senior Political Science major at St. Mary's College.
Mark Snyder is a Senior Political Science major at St. Mary's College.
Saturday, February 11, 2012
Will Maryland Lead on Marriage Equality?
In a very emotional hearing last week folks testified in favor of and against marriage equality in Maryland. Last year, after passing in the Senate, marriage equality legislation lacked the the 71 votes needed to pass in the House of Delegates. Since that time, much has happened. Marriage equality was legalized in New York, Washington state just legalized it as well, and the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that proposition 8 in California - which took away the right to same-sex marriage - was unconstitutional.
The march of history is clear. Marriage equality will come to every state, it's only a matter of time. Public opinion has shifted considerably in recent years and the trend is clearly in favor of same sex marriage. In 7 states, plus DC, same sex marriage is now legal. Voters in Minnesota, New Jersey, and North Carolina will soon consider the issue. Maryland still has a chance to lead on this issue, to set an example for other states.
I reiterate something I wrote last year on the day same-sex marriage died in the House of Delegates:
But would anyone argue today that it was the wrong choice to make? African-American voter registration skyrocketed in the South. African-American representation in Congress and state and local office grew considerably. It was simply the right choice to make.
Democrats in Maryland are faced with a similar test of their character. Yes, legalizing same-sex marriage will likely fracture your coalition and perhaps challenge your dominance of state politics. But it's still the right thing, the only acceptable thing, to do. I have been a frequent critic of Martin O'Malley, but his decision to champion this issue, even if it means dividing his party, is to be commended. I only hope that Democrats in the General Assembly will follow his example and lead on this issue.
I hasten to add, in 1964 a bipartisan coalition of Democrats and Republicans was crucial to securing passage of the Civil Rights Act over the objection of conservative southern Democrats - but it was the Democratic party that paid the price politically and Republicans that claimed the subsequent allegiance of angry southern whites. Governor O'Malley has recently made overtures to Republicans in the House of Delegates seeking the support of a few party moderates. It would be great if Republican votes helped ensure final passage - but one must ask, why would Republicans consider helping a Governor who has made a habit of referring to them as right-wing, dinosaur, tea party extremists? O'Malley may soon learn that there is a price to be paid for harsh rhetoric. It may help his party raise money and it may raise his national profile, but it undermines coalition building and legislating.
The march of history is clear. Marriage equality will come to every state, it's only a matter of time. Public opinion has shifted considerably in recent years and the trend is clearly in favor of same sex marriage. In 7 states, plus DC, same sex marriage is now legal. Voters in Minnesota, New Jersey, and North Carolina will soon consider the issue. Maryland still has a chance to lead on this issue, to set an example for other states.
I reiterate something I wrote last year on the day same-sex marriage died in the House of Delegates:
Today, I simply want to ask every member of the House of Delegates to look forward, beyond this vote, beyond 2012 or 2014. Look 20 years into the future, a future where same-sex marriage is legal everywhere - a likely scenario given the dramatic changes in public opinion on the issue. Future generations will look to this era in American history with the same confusion and embarrassment that our generation looks to the era of segregation and anti-miscegenation laws. That future generation will wonder how intolerance, hate, and bigotry could have so defined our public policy with regard to gender preference, much the same as we wonder how we ever believed that the color of one's skin should determine one's rights.Just over 45 years ago the Democratic party was divided over the issue of civil rights and the question of black equality. Democrats dominated national politics and party leaders and even presidents had tried to ignore the issue of civil rights out fear it would tear the Democratic coalition apart. In the end, President Johnson and committed activists in the House and Senate pushed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. And guess what? It shattered the Democratic party coalition. The party lost its national dominance. It lost the White House in 1968, 72, 80, 84, 88, 2000 and 2004. It lost its hold on Congress.
Many members of the General Assembly will have children, grandchildren, or great grandchildren among that future generation. I ask those members, what will you say when your child or grandchild ask what role you played in the fight for equality? Will you be able to say that you stood at the vanguard of the battle, that you cast a vote for equality that rippled across other states and set a new standard for tolerance? Or, will you lower your voice and your head and explain that when the time came to stand and be counted -- to lead -- you simply weren't up to the task?
Twenty years from now, will you be proud of the vote you'll cast?
But would anyone argue today that it was the wrong choice to make? African-American voter registration skyrocketed in the South. African-American representation in Congress and state and local office grew considerably. It was simply the right choice to make.
Democrats in Maryland are faced with a similar test of their character. Yes, legalizing same-sex marriage will likely fracture your coalition and perhaps challenge your dominance of state politics. But it's still the right thing, the only acceptable thing, to do. I have been a frequent critic of Martin O'Malley, but his decision to champion this issue, even if it means dividing his party, is to be commended. I only hope that Democrats in the General Assembly will follow his example and lead on this issue.
I hasten to add, in 1964 a bipartisan coalition of Democrats and Republicans was crucial to securing passage of the Civil Rights Act over the objection of conservative southern Democrats - but it was the Democratic party that paid the price politically and Republicans that claimed the subsequent allegiance of angry southern whites. Governor O'Malley has recently made overtures to Republicans in the House of Delegates seeking the support of a few party moderates. It would be great if Republican votes helped ensure final passage - but one must ask, why would Republicans consider helping a Governor who has made a habit of referring to them as right-wing, dinosaur, tea party extremists? O'Malley may soon learn that there is a price to be paid for harsh rhetoric. It may help his party raise money and it may raise his national profile, but it undermines coalition building and legislating.
Wednesday, February 8, 2012
Defensive O'Malley Hurts Only Himself
Maryland is unique in that it has two independently elected executive branch offices closely involved with state finances. The Governor has the power under the state constitution to set the state's budget and the General Assembly can do little to alter the Governor's priorities. The Comptroller is the state's tax collector and sits on the Board of Revenue Estimates and more important is an equal voice to the Governor on the Board of Public Works.
Our current Comptroller, Peter Franchot, would like to be governor. Our current Governor, Martin O'Malley, would like to be President - increasingly the career goals of these two men have been on a collision course.
Sporting a very modest record of accomplishments during his time as governor, O'Malley has put forth a very aggressive legislative agenda. His agenda includes significant tax increases during a time of a weak economic recovery. From decreased deductions for middle and upper income Marylanders to incredibly regressive increases in the gas tax and the state's so-called flush tax O'Malley has spared few from the pain of tax increases.
To quote President Obama, raising taxes during a weak economy is not a good idea. Unfortunately for O'Malley, the state's electoral calendar does not mesh well with his needs. The next governor and every member of the General Assembly will be on the ballot in 2014 - 2 short years from now. As such, O'Malley knows that no rational member of the Assembly would be willing to take politically costly votes the closer we get to the next election. Likewise, as each year passes, state term limits make O'Malley more of a lame duck. For O'Malley he must swing for the fences in the current legislative session. Neither the 2013 nor 2014 session will be any more favorable territory.
So O'Malley has put forward an unpopular package of tax increases and he is experiencing significant push back from within his own party. If O'Malley loses and his proposals are defeated or significantly altered he will appear weak - a Democratic governor that cannot get an overwhelmingly Democratic legislature in a solidly Democratic state to approve tax increases. Such a loss would hardly form a solid foundation upon which to launch a national campaign.
Enter Comptroller Franchot. As the state's tax and revenue collector and as an independently elected representative of the people Franchot, like Comptrollers before him, has exercised the power of his office to wade into the fight over taxes and spending. A likely candidate for governor in 2014, Franchot has been vocal in his opposition to tax increases during a weak economy. Not opposition to tax increases, just opposition during a weak economy. For a potential gubernatorial candidate it's not a bad position to take given a recent Washington Post poll that showed significant opposition to O'Malley's agenda. I hasten to add that Ken Ulman, Howard County Executive and another possible contender for the Democratic gubernatorial nomination, has been equally critical of other aspects of O'Malley's agenda - especially the Governor's proposal to improve the state's budget shortfalls by simply shifting a significant portion of the costs for teachers' pensions onto the counties (which would of course result in local tax increases).
Likely quite frustrated by all of the in-party push back, O'Malley lashed out at Franchot today calling him "our Mitt Romney." O'Malley explained that he views Franchot as an opportunistic flip-flopper simply voicing opposition for political expediency. Franchot's response was devastating "I’m sorry if I’m getting in the way of his presidential efforts."
For O'Malley the whole episode just looks bad. First, O'Malley has served to make the party divisions over his budget front page news. Instead of railing against tea party extremists, O'Malley is broadcasting the fact that in his own state many Democrats are opposed to his tax plans. Suddenly opposition to O'Malley's tax increases is not simply a partisan affair. Perhaps worse, by bringing Mitt Romney's name into the fight O'Malley plays right into the criticisms that he is too concerned with national politics and not paying sufficient attention to the state he was elected to govern. Why not call Franchot a "Pipkin Democrat" or an "O'Donnell Follower" or "another Jim Brochin"... anything that would demonstrate a connection to state politics?
What's more, O'Malley is the de facto head of the state's Democratic party. But his personal attack on Franchot and the dissension within the ranks that it spotlights suggests a chief executive unable to unify his party. Imagine if O'Malley had instead said of Franchot, "the great, and sometimes frustrating, thing about Democrats is that we do not insist on ideological purity. Unlike our Republican counterparts we embrace diverse perspectives. The Comptroller and I may disagree on this issue, but there are far more issues that unite us as Democrats." Instead, he launched an ill conceived attack.
In one sentence, O'Malley elevated the story of party divisions and opposition to his agenda and furthers the narrative that he is otherwise engaged in matters of national politics during a critical period in Maryland politics. He also gave Franchot a lot of free publicity and highlighted the fact that Franchot shares the opinion of most Marylanders when it comes to tax increases. In short, O'Malley hurt no one but himself.
Our current Comptroller, Peter Franchot, would like to be governor. Our current Governor, Martin O'Malley, would like to be President - increasingly the career goals of these two men have been on a collision course.
Sporting a very modest record of accomplishments during his time as governor, O'Malley has put forth a very aggressive legislative agenda. His agenda includes significant tax increases during a time of a weak economic recovery. From decreased deductions for middle and upper income Marylanders to incredibly regressive increases in the gas tax and the state's so-called flush tax O'Malley has spared few from the pain of tax increases.
To quote President Obama, raising taxes during a weak economy is not a good idea. Unfortunately for O'Malley, the state's electoral calendar does not mesh well with his needs. The next governor and every member of the General Assembly will be on the ballot in 2014 - 2 short years from now. As such, O'Malley knows that no rational member of the Assembly would be willing to take politically costly votes the closer we get to the next election. Likewise, as each year passes, state term limits make O'Malley more of a lame duck. For O'Malley he must swing for the fences in the current legislative session. Neither the 2013 nor 2014 session will be any more favorable territory.
So O'Malley has put forward an unpopular package of tax increases and he is experiencing significant push back from within his own party. If O'Malley loses and his proposals are defeated or significantly altered he will appear weak - a Democratic governor that cannot get an overwhelmingly Democratic legislature in a solidly Democratic state to approve tax increases. Such a loss would hardly form a solid foundation upon which to launch a national campaign.
Enter Comptroller Franchot. As the state's tax and revenue collector and as an independently elected representative of the people Franchot, like Comptrollers before him, has exercised the power of his office to wade into the fight over taxes and spending. A likely candidate for governor in 2014, Franchot has been vocal in his opposition to tax increases during a weak economy. Not opposition to tax increases, just opposition during a weak economy. For a potential gubernatorial candidate it's not a bad position to take given a recent Washington Post poll that showed significant opposition to O'Malley's agenda. I hasten to add that Ken Ulman, Howard County Executive and another possible contender for the Democratic gubernatorial nomination, has been equally critical of other aspects of O'Malley's agenda - especially the Governor's proposal to improve the state's budget shortfalls by simply shifting a significant portion of the costs for teachers' pensions onto the counties (which would of course result in local tax increases).
Likely quite frustrated by all of the in-party push back, O'Malley lashed out at Franchot today calling him "our Mitt Romney." O'Malley explained that he views Franchot as an opportunistic flip-flopper simply voicing opposition for political expediency. Franchot's response was devastating "I’m sorry if I’m getting in the way of his presidential efforts."
For O'Malley the whole episode just looks bad. First, O'Malley has served to make the party divisions over his budget front page news. Instead of railing against tea party extremists, O'Malley is broadcasting the fact that in his own state many Democrats are opposed to his tax plans. Suddenly opposition to O'Malley's tax increases is not simply a partisan affair. Perhaps worse, by bringing Mitt Romney's name into the fight O'Malley plays right into the criticisms that he is too concerned with national politics and not paying sufficient attention to the state he was elected to govern. Why not call Franchot a "Pipkin Democrat" or an "O'Donnell Follower" or "another Jim Brochin"... anything that would demonstrate a connection to state politics?
What's more, O'Malley is the de facto head of the state's Democratic party. But his personal attack on Franchot and the dissension within the ranks that it spotlights suggests a chief executive unable to unify his party. Imagine if O'Malley had instead said of Franchot, "the great, and sometimes frustrating, thing about Democrats is that we do not insist on ideological purity. Unlike our Republican counterparts we embrace diverse perspectives. The Comptroller and I may disagree on this issue, but there are far more issues that unite us as Democrats." Instead, he launched an ill conceived attack.
In one sentence, O'Malley elevated the story of party divisions and opposition to his agenda and furthers the narrative that he is otherwise engaged in matters of national politics during a critical period in Maryland politics. He also gave Franchot a lot of free publicity and highlighted the fact that Franchot shares the opinion of most Marylanders when it comes to tax increases. In short, O'Malley hurt no one but himself.
Sunday, February 5, 2012
O'Malley's Tax Plans May Hurt Democrats in 2012
In a recent post I criticized Governor O'Malley's proposed tax increase on gas and the plan to double the flush tax as too regressive to be acceptable. Now, the good folks at the Washington Post have done the math and show just how unfair O'Malley's tax increases would be.
According to an analysis by the Post low and then middle income Marylanders will face the most significant increases in their tax burden should all of O'Malley's proposals be accepted. And which group would see the smallest increase in their tax burden? Families earning over $500,000 per year. In fact, the percentage increase in tax burden for a single person earning $34,000 per year would be double that of a family earning $500,000 per year. Of the nearly $1 billion in tax and fee increases proposed by the governor only $200 million - 20% - would come from limiting tax deductions from higher income Marylanders. The remaining 80% on the increases come from regressive excise taxes.
President Obama has repeatedly argued for tax increases only on folks earning at least $250,000 per year, arguing that Republican opposition stems from the Republican party's desire to protect the wealthy at the expense of every one else. Martin O'Malley is no mere bystander in this national debate. As Chair of the Democratic Governors Association he is a spokesperson and symbol for his party. O'Malley's incredibly regressive tax proposals undermine the Democratic party message and suggest a party unconcerned with the plight of working class families - and that's no small problem. No doubt, defenders of the Governor's proposal will be quick to point out that the increased out of pocket costs for a family earning $500,000 per year will be $1,347 while the increase for a single person earning $34,000 will be $112. But ask yourself - who will feel the loss of income more acutely?
Working class voters will be crucial to the Democrats' success or failure in the 2012 elections. Forget all of the talk about Barack Obama winning in 2008 because of a surge in turnout by young or minority voters - by people who never voted before. Exit polls from 2008 show the share of first time voters in 2008 was exactly the same as in 2004. The real key to Obama's and the Democrats' victories in 2008 was the return of working class voters to the Democratic fold. As shown in the figure below, Democrats have been experiencing a steady erosion of support among working class voters since the late 1950s.
Democrats cannot win back working class voters by imposing regressive and punitive taxes on them in the midst of a weak economic recovery. Governor O'Malley's proposals would increase the cost of driving to work and the cost of goods and services through higher gas taxes, they would decrease disposable income by raising the flush tax (especially in rural and poor parts of the state where septic systems are common) and increasing utility costs.
And while Democrats nationally claim to favor progressive taxation that would ensure the wealthiest pay "their fair share" Governor O'Malley's plan would impose a greater burden (as a percentage of income) on low income, working, and middle class voters in Maryland as compared to the wealthiest earners in the state.
O'Malley has said that he gave a great deal of thought to his proposed tax increases. If true, that may be the saddest commentary of all. Democrats cannot win without the working class, and working class families cannot emerge from the great recession under the burden of regressive taxes.
According to an analysis by the Post low and then middle income Marylanders will face the most significant increases in their tax burden should all of O'Malley's proposals be accepted. And which group would see the smallest increase in their tax burden? Families earning over $500,000 per year. In fact, the percentage increase in tax burden for a single person earning $34,000 per year would be double that of a family earning $500,000 per year. Of the nearly $1 billion in tax and fee increases proposed by the governor only $200 million - 20% - would come from limiting tax deductions from higher income Marylanders. The remaining 80% on the increases come from regressive excise taxes.
President Obama has repeatedly argued for tax increases only on folks earning at least $250,000 per year, arguing that Republican opposition stems from the Republican party's desire to protect the wealthy at the expense of every one else. Martin O'Malley is no mere bystander in this national debate. As Chair of the Democratic Governors Association he is a spokesperson and symbol for his party. O'Malley's incredibly regressive tax proposals undermine the Democratic party message and suggest a party unconcerned with the plight of working class families - and that's no small problem. No doubt, defenders of the Governor's proposal will be quick to point out that the increased out of pocket costs for a family earning $500,000 per year will be $1,347 while the increase for a single person earning $34,000 will be $112. But ask yourself - who will feel the loss of income more acutely?
Working class voters will be crucial to the Democrats' success or failure in the 2012 elections. Forget all of the talk about Barack Obama winning in 2008 because of a surge in turnout by young or minority voters - by people who never voted before. Exit polls from 2008 show the share of first time voters in 2008 was exactly the same as in 2004. The real key to Obama's and the Democrats' victories in 2008 was the return of working class voters to the Democratic fold. As shown in the figure below, Democrats have been experiencing a steady erosion of support among working class voters since the late 1950s.
Source: American National Election Studies
In 2008 there was a reversal of the trend and working class voters returned to the Democratic party. These voters abandoned the party in the 2010 midterms and delivered control of the House of Representatives to the Republicans. If Democrats cannot win them back in 2012 the party will lose the White House and the Senate and Republicans will once again have unified control of the Executive and Legislative branches. Democrats cannot win back working class voters by imposing regressive and punitive taxes on them in the midst of a weak economic recovery. Governor O'Malley's proposals would increase the cost of driving to work and the cost of goods and services through higher gas taxes, they would decrease disposable income by raising the flush tax (especially in rural and poor parts of the state where septic systems are common) and increasing utility costs.
And while Democrats nationally claim to favor progressive taxation that would ensure the wealthiest pay "their fair share" Governor O'Malley's plan would impose a greater burden (as a percentage of income) on low income, working, and middle class voters in Maryland as compared to the wealthiest earners in the state.
O'Malley has said that he gave a great deal of thought to his proposed tax increases. If true, that may be the saddest commentary of all. Democrats cannot win without the working class, and working class families cannot emerge from the great recession under the burden of regressive taxes.
Friday, February 3, 2012
Peter Franchot's Anti-partisan Message
Comptroller Peter Franchot was gracious enough to set aside time to meet with my Maryland Politics class today. Though the topic of his political future and the 2014 gubernatorial race never came up, I believe that my class heard key elements of Franchot's argument should he seek the party nomination.
I was especially impressed with the decidedly anti-partisan nature of his comments. And I do mean anti-partisan, not merely non-partisan. Franchot was equally critical of national party politics. He accused Democrats of using the issue of tax increases for the wealthy not as means by which to restore fiscal discipline, but rather a cynical effort to dived people and win votes. Likewise, he argued Republicans' insistence on tax cuts, tax cuts, tax cuts has noting to do with promoting economic growth, rather as with Democrats it's simply a strategy to divide and target elements of the electorate. In a state dominated by Democrats, the safe choice would be to criticize Republicans and embrace the Democrats, Franchot's criticism was risky and refreshing.
According to Franchot, the parties each have one central and overriding goal - winning elections. Not sound public policy, not responsible budgeting, and certainly not the common good - just winning for the sake of winning.
It was a refreshingly honest assessment of the sorry state of contemporary American politics.
When the discussion turned to Maryland politics, Franchot explained that he believes the tenuous nature of the economic recovery requires that Marylanders have some degree of predictability with regard to their finances. To that end he said he believes that state needs a moratorium on any tax increases. He singled out Governor O'Malley's proposed increases in the income tax burden of Marylanders earning more than $100,000 a year.
With regard to job creation, Franchot dismissed frequent Republican accusations that the state is hostile to business and instead offered perhaps a more damning critique - that the state's bureaucracy all to often seems indifferent to business. The Comptroller argued the state's bureaucracy has become too inefficient with too many redundancies.
When asked about the legislative session and whether there were any bills that he favored or opposed he quickly singled out the Budget Reconciliation and Financing Act - otherwise known as BRFA - which he said is being used to push through tax increases in manor that limits debate and the General Assembly's input.
In a recent post I argued that in a four person race, the person best positioned to compete with Lt. Governor Anthony Brown would be the candidate with a message that resonates with Democrats outside of the I-95 corridor. Franchot may have the makings of a message that appeals to the folks in all parts of Maryland.
My students will be meeting with Howard County Executive Ken Ulman next month and I look forward to that meeting and hope to write a similar follow-up. I'm currently working to coordinate a meeting with the Lt. Governor.
I was especially impressed with the decidedly anti-partisan nature of his comments. And I do mean anti-partisan, not merely non-partisan. Franchot was equally critical of national party politics. He accused Democrats of using the issue of tax increases for the wealthy not as means by which to restore fiscal discipline, but rather a cynical effort to dived people and win votes. Likewise, he argued Republicans' insistence on tax cuts, tax cuts, tax cuts has noting to do with promoting economic growth, rather as with Democrats it's simply a strategy to divide and target elements of the electorate. In a state dominated by Democrats, the safe choice would be to criticize Republicans and embrace the Democrats, Franchot's criticism was risky and refreshing.
According to Franchot, the parties each have one central and overriding goal - winning elections. Not sound public policy, not responsible budgeting, and certainly not the common good - just winning for the sake of winning.
It was a refreshingly honest assessment of the sorry state of contemporary American politics.
When the discussion turned to Maryland politics, Franchot explained that he believes the tenuous nature of the economic recovery requires that Marylanders have some degree of predictability with regard to their finances. To that end he said he believes that state needs a moratorium on any tax increases. He singled out Governor O'Malley's proposed increases in the income tax burden of Marylanders earning more than $100,000 a year.
With regard to job creation, Franchot dismissed frequent Republican accusations that the state is hostile to business and instead offered perhaps a more damning critique - that the state's bureaucracy all to often seems indifferent to business. The Comptroller argued the state's bureaucracy has become too inefficient with too many redundancies.
When asked about the legislative session and whether there were any bills that he favored or opposed he quickly singled out the Budget Reconciliation and Financing Act - otherwise known as BRFA - which he said is being used to push through tax increases in manor that limits debate and the General Assembly's input.
In a recent post I argued that in a four person race, the person best positioned to compete with Lt. Governor Anthony Brown would be the candidate with a message that resonates with Democrats outside of the I-95 corridor. Franchot may have the makings of a message that appeals to the folks in all parts of Maryland.
My students will be meeting with Howard County Executive Ken Ulman next month and I look forward to that meeting and hope to write a similar follow-up. I'm currently working to coordinate a meeting with the Lt. Governor.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)