There has been a lot of talk about the new California districts; the consensus is that while there may be a limited case to be made for racial disparity and the disadvantaging of minority voters, California is likely stuck with what it has created.
The biggest complainers in this process are the very Republicans who saw this process as a way to remove the drawing of district boundaries from the hands of Democratic legislature.
A Sacramento Bee editorial on Sunday called this “carping” that this is “a failed experiment at permitting citizens to redraw legislative boundaries,” and “buyer’s remorse.”
They wrote, “Republicans ought to thank the commission for a job reasonably well done, and be happy that the lines commissioners have drawn were not far worse for the once-Grand Old Party of California.”
As we wrote last week, there seems to be a certain level of denial among Republicans about where they stand with California voters, this despite the fact that, other than the Governor Schwarzenegger regime, Republicans have been shut out of most major offices in California since 1994. And in most cases, it is not even a close call.
It is not that errors were not made. The Bee cited “Martinez, the Contra Costa County seat, is in a district that includes Yolo and Napa counties,” but the Bee also wrote, “But leaders should stop the bellicose warnings about funding a referendum to unravel the commission’s work and turn the redistricting responsibility over to a panel of judges.”
To be honest, I would prefer that a panel of judges do exactly this. However, the Republicans are being silly if they think it is going to help them.
The Bee echoed our argument from last week, “Any losses have nothing to do with the commission and everything to do with demographics and voter registration. This is a party that has been losing market share for years. A mere 31 percent of California registered voters call themselves Republicans.”
When you are dealing with numbers like that, you cannot win.
The other major concern is the notion that “white voters will dominate” in the new districts.
Jim Sanders of the Sacramento Bee, as is usual, did a good job of dispelling much of these concerns.
He wrote, “Districts drawn by the state’s first-ever redistricting commission may bolster the clout of other racial groups – particularly Latinos – but probably not end the longtime political dominance by whites.”
But beneath those numbers is a very different pattern. While it is true that California’s white population is now a minority in absolute terms, they remain the largest single group, which distorts their influence.
Wrote Mr. Sanders, “In six of every 10 new legislative and congressional districts drawn by the California Citizens Redistricting Commission, whites comprise more than 50 percent of the adult citizen population, exceeding the total of all other groups combined, according to statistics by Redistricting Partners, a research and consulting firm.”
But that imbalance has more to do with population distribution rather than discrimination.
However, increasing it does not matter.
“Minorities, more and more, are getting the ability to get elected almost anywhere,” said Paul Mitchell, a Democratic strategist and leader of Redistricting Partners.
The article cited two Asian-Americans, including Mariko Yamada, who were able to capture seats in districts where Asians represent a tiny fraction of the population.
Moreover, while there is no district in California that has a majority that is African-American, there are six blacks in the Assembly and two in the Senate.
Latinos hold a majority in just 14 districts, but hold 23 legislative seats.
Part of the problem is that whites tend to dominate the rural areas, coastline and Los Angeles suburbs according to Tony Quinn, a political analyst who was formerly a GOP legislative aide, as he told the Sacramento Bee. Moreover, as he pointed out, whites account for 60 percent of all votes that are cast.
The bottom line, the analysis suggests, is that Republicans will lose seats this year, not because of any bias by the commission that is required to have the support of all three groups (Democrats, Independents, and Republicans), but because they have lost numbers over the past decade.
Meanwhile, minorities whose numbers have grown but who remain concentrated in small geographic areas, will have increased clout but gained few seats in which they are the majority.
The Bee even was able to defend, with some credibility, the shortcomings of some of the districts.
For instance, the commission gave San Joaquin County, home of Stockton, its own Senate District. But that meant that other districts became distorted, such as one that now stretches from Rancho Cordova to Death Valley along the eastern edge of the state.
However, they defended it, “But given that so much of California’s population growth over the last decade has occurred in the south and along the coast, it is inevitable that some distant rural areas will have to be married with Sacramento’s suburbs.”
Indeed, there is nothing particularly unique about it. Recall the old state Senate District that Maurice Johannesson held in the 1990s. It extended from the Oregon Border to include Yolo County and Solano County up unto Benicia. In fact, that map had three districts in northern California, each of which extended from the Oregon Border south toward the Bay Area or Sacramento.
Or, recall our current Congressional District, which extends from the Oregon Border south to Santa Rosa and then veers across to capture Napa, parts of Solano and Yolo County.
Population density practically dictates that.
The Bee called this process “far preferable to the old system in which legislative leaders and their operatives picked their voters.”
Perhaps so.
To the Republican whiners, the Bee said, “Instead of griping about the lines, Republicans should focus on recruiting candidates who appeal to that fast-growing segment of the population. While they’re at it, they should find candidates who can attract moderates’ votes.”
Probably good advice.
The Bee stands by its previous position: “Under the current system, leaders of both parties meet in back rooms and carve up the state after each 10-year census. By dividing up communities based on party prerogatives, they ensure safe seats for incumbents or designated heirs, creating legislative districts that resemble a mix of distorted Rorschach blotches.”
At the end of the day, as the state of California now stands, it probably does not matter how the lines get drawn, the Republicans are going to be on the outside looking in. And the Bee’s advice is probably best as to how to combat that.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
The Republican Party has had a racist (and homophobic) element for quite some time now. They are getting their come-uppance in California. If they want to regain some popularity, they will need to change their position on a number of key issues. Arnold was able to transcend this by taking stand unpopular with many in his own party.
Personally, I’d like to see the fringe element of the Republican Party defeated (same for Democrats btw but the Republican extreme has been on the ascendance recently) and sanity restored.
LOL Just goes to show how out of step CA is with the rest of the nation…
“Just goes to show how the rest of the nation is out of step with CA.”
FTFY
[quote]Personally, I’d like to see the fringe element of the Republican Party defeated (same for Democrats btw but the Republican extreme has been on the ascendance recently) and sanity restored.[/quote]
I would say the loony left is in the ascendancy in CA – Nancy Pelosi being #1. At what point do the Democrats in CA take responsibility for what they have created and quite blaming Republicans? Even w the ability of the Democrats to vote a budget by simple majority, I guarantee the Democrats will continue to blame Republicans for CA’s continued fiscal mess. Blaming is easier than fixing things.
That said, on a more objective note, and I have said this many times before, the extreme elements of both parties have taken over the U.S. Congress, and we are seeing the results of that with the polarization we have witnessed lately. And the news media is fostering the polarization for their own less than savory ends. For instance the blame game going on with respect to which side is to blame for the downgrade of our nation’s credit rating. Both sides are so busy pointing fingers at the other (and the Obama side is blaming Japan, Israel, the credit rating agency, the weather, etc. ad nauseum), neither side is doing much to SOLVE THE PROBLEM. A pox on both houses…
[i]LOL Just goes to show how out of step CA is with the rest of the nation…[/i]
I know that is one of your favorite themes, but in fact California is very similar to many other states that voted for Obama in 2008. One could readily say that the southern states are “out of step” or Utah is “out of step.” In fact, the Republican party is shrinking to the bible belt (including Utah) nationwide, and to the rural counties statewide.
The distribution of voters along party lines can be looked at two ways.
1. The coasts are blue, the south is red, and the upper midwest states are the battlegrounds. This is how presidential politics plays out.
2. The cities are blue, the counties are red, and the suburbs are the battlegrounds. This is how congressional politics plays out.
California is not out of step. Based on public opinion polls, the Republicans are.
Don, how conveniently you forget the last election. The Democrats got pummeled.
[i]”the Republican extreme has been on the ascendance recently ….”[/i]
A well-liked moderate Republican, Sen. Mark Hatfield of Oregon, died yesterday ([url]http://www.oregonlive.com/politics/index.ssf/2011/08/mark_o_hatfield_oregons_first.html[/url]). Although Senator Hatfield was an Oregon native, I recall hearing (when I spent a summer as an intern in the office of the other Oregon moderate Repubican, Sen. Bob Packwood) that Hatfield descended from the Hatfields of West Virginia and Kentucky, famous for their feud with the McCoys of the same region.
[img]http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_EYdeHflgyIg/RhaEoMnJ9hI/AAAAAAAAAZE/_7dzRrBR-mI/s400/capt.a3a588d388994d748425803e6db65b37.hatfield_mccoy_secret_ny119.jpg[/img]
I don’t know if it means anything, but the AP had a story a few days ago stating that the California GOP is trying to move toward the center ([url]http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jj1UlRBH7wJOjsA93j4l3krQyeZg?docId=7edf30c79c9c4ff2b2a92fefb551e335[/url]): [quote](GOP) moderates are trying to push the party toward the center on immigration, guns and gay rights as the 2012 elections come into view.
The latest friction in a long tussle between conservatives and centrists in California comes as leaders search for ways to make their candidates more competitive in a state where Democrats control the Legislature, hold every statewide office and enjoy a growing registration advantage. It also mirrors tensions playing out nationally as presidential contenders maneuver in advance of next year’s primary season.
A proposed rewrite of the California Republican Party platform retreats from opposition to same-sex adoption, domestic partner benefits and child custody, avoids any mention of overturning Roe v. Wade and drops a demand to end virtually all federal and state benefits for illegal immigrants.[/quote]
@ rusty: I expect the Democrats to pick up about 20 congressional seats in 2012. If they pick up 25, they regain the House, and that is not implausible. The Senate is more even. Overall demographic data and polling trends support my contention: that the Republican party nationwide is following the trend of California’s Republicans, marginalizing themselves to the point of becoming a permanent minority party. Their voters are aging and declining in numbers. The only advantage they have is that their voters happen to be more likely to vote.
[quote]FTFY[/quote]
Sorry, I have no idea what this means!
[quote]Overall demographic data and polling trends support my contention: that the Republican party nationwide is following the trend of California’s Republicans, marginalizing themselves to the point of becoming a permanent minority party. [/quote]
Wishful thinking?
[quote]erm: LOL Just goes to show how out of step CA is with the rest of the nation…
DonShor: I know that is one of your favorite themes, but in fact California is very similar to many other states that voted for Obama in 2008. [/quote]
Don, you need to get out of this state more…
[i]”Part of the problem is that whites tend to dominate the rural areas, coastline and Los Angeles suburbs”[/i]
Interesting. “Part of the problem”?
Seems like we need political affirmative action in this state to mitigate the bias against whites.
I’m curious, is there some correlation with the level of multiculturalism and racial diversity and standard of living that anyone can point to as an example for why we should celebrate this proliferation of minority political power?
Unfortunately it does look like California will soon be completely dominated by Democrats.
Th record at states and cities where this happened (Detroit for example) do not bode well for the future of good government.
Soon it will not be Democrats versus Republicans in California.
Rather it will be Democrats versus reality.
I agree JR, Democrats soon to have super majority in CA. More taxes coming our way.
I’m with you too J. R. Scary stuff ahead for this once great state.
Note… apparently Obama is now blaming Standard and Poors too.
Obama = The Blamer In Chief
Related to the points about Clinton, Bush and Obama spending. This graph from the WSJ tells the story that social sending really got started with Nixon, Ford and Carter… got calmed a bit by Reagan and Bush Senior, and then jumped up with Clinton. It then flattened a bit again under Bush Jr. and now is going verticle with Obama.
[img]http://www.cscdc.org/miscjeff/EntNation.jpg[/img]
I will look for another similar graph of defense spending. I expect to see a reverse slope.
From usgovernmentspending.com:
[img]http://peoplesvanguard.com/defensespending.png[/img]
Don: Your graph is not “As a percent of Federal Outlays”
Here it is from Paul Krugman:
[img]http://www.cscdc.org/miscjeff/Defense1.jpg[/img]
As I expected the slope is the opposite.
Here is the link to the article:
[url]http://dickdestiny.com/blog1/2011/02/19/defense-spending-as-percent-of-national-outlay/[/url]
Note the quote from the always reliable Nobel Prize winning liberal economist:
[quote]Yes, there’s a lot of wasteful defense spending — in fact, it’s almost surely the most waste-ridden part of the federal budget, because politicians are afraid to say no to anything for fear of being called unpatriotic. And even aside from the question of the Bush wars, it has long been clear that we’re still spending a lot to head off threats that haven’t existed since the fall of the Soviet Union. Read Fred Kaplan for a sense of just how bad it is.
Then there are those wars. I was against Iraq from the beginning — and I was pretty lonely out there on the pages of major newspapers. Afghanistan made sense in 2002, but I have no idea what we’re doing there now.
But if we’re talking about fiscal issues, you have to bear the arithmetic in mind. We’re not living in the 1950s, when defense was half the federal budget. Even a drastic cut in military spending wouldn’t release enough money to offset more than a small fraction of the projected rise in health care costs.
So by all means, let’s try to crack down on the massive waste that goes on in matters military. But doing so would be of only modest help on the larger budget problem.
[/quote]
Hey, we’re almost there now, but with the Democrats to be in total control at least CA can be number #1 at something:
Soon to be the highest taxed state in the nation.
To me, the fact that we are spending more of our money on entitlements as a percentage of GDP, compared to defense, is a reasonable re-ordering of priorities after the end of the Cold War. Note that the reduction in defense spending was a bipartisan consensus begun during the GHW Bush administration and continued up until 9/11.
The actual dollars are the concern, of course, and how they compare to revenues.
An interesting ‘typology’ of political views: [url]http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1982/political-typology-2011-ideological-extremes-diverse-center[/url]
Don it is completely unsutainable. It is not just a “reordering of priorities” it is gross looting and gross deficit spending. You can make the argument that defense spending can be somewhat discretionary and variable… like Clinton proved by cutting. It was bipartisan and made sense at the time… just as the increases from Bush made sense after 9-11.
Now we need to do cutting on entitlement spending but the Democrats block the attempts… deflect the argument pointing to war costs and defense spending, which as I point out are lies.
Re: Jeff’s 08/08/11 – 12:22 PM post regarding our “Entitlement Nation.”
That is the rise of the seniors. That is the increase in Social Security and Medicare payments. Those are the entitlements you are referencing.
Much of that is due to the post-1964 trend of fewer children and people living longer, making seniors ever single year a greater share of the total population.
The rest of that is due to the great technological improvements in medical care, the higher and higher fees paid to doctors and nurses and other providers of medical services, the higher and higher cost of better drugs, and the COLA which was put on SS payments starting in the early 1970s.
We need to gradually cut entitlements, cut defense spending, and raise taxes. That is Simpson-Bowles, it is what the Gang of Six is working on, it is what public opinion polls show majority support for. Why do you use terms like “looting” for money that goes to Social Security and Medicare?
[i]like Clinton proved by cutting.[/i]
Again, it was GHW Bush and Clinton. Why do you not refer to the fact that a Republican president cut defense?
[i]deflect the argument pointing to war costs and defense spending, which as I point out are lies.[/i]
Why do you call them lies? Look at my chart above. Has defense spending gone up? Of course it has. Dramatically. It is not a lie to say that defense spending is a contributor to our deficit problems. Democrats will continue to block reductions in entitlements until tax increases are part of the bargain. But there is a willingness, and there is public support, for such a bargain.
Unfortunately, there will be little increase in Republican registration in California, and continuing marginalization of Republicans across much of the country, if the party continues to refuse to compromise.
The Black’n’Whiters are at it again, using the pejorative “entitlements” term for money they don’t want me to have. I’m 65 years old, and I’ve paid a sizable amount of money into Social Security and Medicare my entire working life (yes, I know Medicare is a more recent program). And in a rational time, I should retire now, opening up my job for someone younger.
To enlighten the Black’n’Whiters about my attitude, let me use a little analogy. If you own a home, you probably have homeowner’s insurance. If your house burned down, you’d expect that the insurance company would pay for your house replacement. But what if the company was having some difficulty with their investments, especially after today’s news? What would you think if they identified your policy as an “entitlement” and cut way back on your payment?
The long title for SSI is Social Security Insurance. That’s right – I’ve been paying into a life insurance policy for 45 years or so on the bet that I’d still be alive right now. So why do you Black’n’Whiters think the rules should change suddenly? If the home insurance company’s costs increased, for whatever reason, they’d raise rates. Same thing should happen with SSI. I’m still working, and would be happy to pay the premiums in return for staying out of poverty when I can’t work.
But because of the turmoil certain groups, including the Black’n’Whiters put this economy through, I’m going to keep my job as long as possible. My retirement fund took a huge hit today. Thanks, guys. Just remember, you can’t have it both ways…..
jrberg: [i]” I’m 65 years old, and I’ve paid a sizable amount of money into Social Security and Medicare my entire working life (yes, I know Medicare is a more recent program). … That’s right – I’ve been paying into a life insurance policy for 45 years or so on the bet that I’d still be alive right now.”[/i]
Medicare is about 45 years old. I think it started in 1965 or 1966. So, yes, in case others did not know when Medicare started or you were unsure if you paid into Medicare your very first years at work, you did.
A big problem with funding for Medicare is the fact that price inflation in medical care — due in good part to improved, but more expensive technologies and also due in part to higher trained and much higher paid doctors and nurses — has greatly outstripped the amounts we, as American workers, have paid in. So we spend far more now than we take in. This situation is unsustainable. Recent estimates suggest the breaking point is coming in 2017 ([url]http://www.seacoastonline.com/articles/20090513-BIZ-905130331[/url]).
Health Savings Accounts – HSA’s work to help connect the cost-value of healthcare and are effective at reducing and managing costs. Democrats have blocked the idea at every opportunity because its more widespread adoption would have caused them to lose their Ted Kennedy-inspired dream of government-run, single-payer healthcare.
Medical malpractice tort reform would help reduce the costs of medical practice operations so the cost savings could be passed on to patients. Democrats have blocked this idea at every opportunity because it would have caused them to lose their Ted Kennedy-inspired dream of government-run, single-payer healthcare.
Health insurance marketed and sold across state lines would create more competition that would drive down insurance rates while offering more coverage options better matching consumer needs and, by this, also lower costs. Democrats have blocked this idea at every opportunity because it would have caused them to lose their Ted Kennedy-inspired dream of government-run, single-payer healthcare.
The situation is unsustainable, and the liberal Democrats in charge hope you get fed up enough that you look to them to take care of you by allowing them to take over the healthcare industry.
Mr Boone – please give an example of where HSA’s have worked well in another country. Please give real numbers on medical malpractice costs. And please give examples of where real competition has worked in other countries.
By the way, Ted is dead. What’s with your fixation on him? There are no liberal democrats in charge these days. If there were, we would have a single payer system like a number of other civilized countries have, and health care costs would be half of what we now pay, just like those other countries enjoy.
Hmmm, OK. Let’s talk a little more about HSA’s. And let’s use the home insurance analogy again. Suppose everybody had to have Home Structural Savings Accounts, in case of fire or liability. Suppose your home, valued at $300,000, burned down tomorrow. How much would you have had to pay into your HSSA each year to cover that? Depends on how long you’d owned your home, yes? OK, say you’d owned your home for 20 years. That account, to cover all the loss, would be $15,000 per year.
But my insurance for a home valued at $500,000 is about $800 per year. Why the huge discrepancy? Because insurance costs take into account shared risk and many other factors. What is the likelihood that your home will burn down in any single year? What is the likelihood that you will get severe lung cancer next year? And could you pay for it?
Insurance is based on group risk factors. Anybody who thinks individual savings can save their butt if something drastic happens is living in fantasyland. There’s a reason all those midwestern immigrants established cooperative agreements for their communities years ago – they had the common sense to figure out community needs and act on them.
jrberg: Based on your comments, I think you do not know enough about HSAs. That is okay, because many people don’t know about them and are suspicious or even afraid of them because of what they do not know.
My company implemented HSA coverage six years ago. We switched from a low deductable HMO plan; and when we explained the switch to a high-deductable HSA plan… employees stopped listening at “high deductable”. However, since they had no choice, they eventually started asking questions. Now they are all happier with their HSA coverage.
My company puts the maximum contribution into their account at the beginning of the year: $5950 for families of two or more and $3050 for singles. Then we pay the full monthly premiums. The annual deductable is a bit less than the HSA contribution amount the company pays. The total employee out of pocket maximum is a bit more. The money in the HSA account belongs to the employee. They get an HSA Visa card connected to the account. It is tax free for the employee as long as they spend it on qualified medical expenses. If they don’t spend it they save it all for future out of pocket costs or out of network costs or elective procedure medical expenses… or for retirement… for example, to supplement Medicare if needed.
Here is the deal… we provide all of this for about 60% of the total cost for a low-deductable HMO plan. The reason the HSA plan is less expensive is that employees in HSA plans learn to become value shoppers for their healthcare. They have lower utilization and they purchase more generic drugs instead of the expensive name brands.
When the money to pay for healthcare comes out of someone’s own pocket, it changes spending behavior. It saves a lot of money because, frankly, when someone else is paying for it people have excessive utilization.
HSA coverage is THE fastest growing type of health care coverage in the market:
[quote] America’s Health Insurance Plans (AHIP) has released the latest update of its annual census of the market for health savings accounts (HSAs). As of January 2011, more than 11.4 million Americans were covered by HSA-eligible high deductible health plans (HDHPs), an increase of more than 14 percent from the prior year.
Other key findings of the census include the following:
Between January 2010 and January 2011, the fastest growing market for HSA plans was for large-group coverage, which rose by 26 percent, followed by individual market coverage, which grew by 15 percent.
In the individual market, 2.4 million covered lives are enrolled in HSA plans, while approximately 2.8 million lives were enrolled in HSA/HDHP coverage in the small-group market and over 6.3 million lives were covered in the large-group market.
Forty-nine (49) percent of all HSA/HDHP enrollees in the individual market (including dependents) were age 40 or over; 51 percent were under age 40.
States with the highest levels of HSA/HDHP enrollment were California (1,073,319 enrollees), Texas (844,832 enrollees), Ohio (728,868 enrollees), Illinois (690,509 enrollees), Florida (656,243 enrollees) and Minnesota (507,307 enrollees). [/quote]
HSA’S can compete on the health insurance exchanges under the health care act, as long as they meet the minimum actuarial requirements. The individual mandate may well drive more people into HSA’s due to their lower costs. Contrary to your statement that “Democrats have blocked the idea at every opportunity,” they were specifically included in the legislation by the Obama administration.
[quote]To me, the fact that we are spending more of our money on entitlements as a percentage of the total, compared to defense, is a reasonable re-ordering of priorities after the end of the Cold War. Why would we continue to spend high amounts on defense? [/quote]
How about 9/11? Or did you want Bin Laden/Taliban to get off scott free?
From wordpress.com:
[quote]Military Spending: Can It Continue to Drive San Diego’s Economy?
Posted on April 27, 2011
By Dr. Lynn Reaser
At least for the near-term, the military will remain a powerful driver of San Diego’s economy. Because of the nation’s strategic need to focus more on Asia, the Navy will continue to expand its operations here. By 2013, the Navy will bring in seven additional ships and twenty-five more helicopters. Including further growth of the Naval Medical Center in San Diego, this will mean the planned addition of more than 2,500 Navy personnel during the next three years.
The Marine Corps will also add more than 5,000 men and women through 2013 in its “Grow the Force” initiative. Although this strength level will ultimately be scaled back when the U.S. exits Afghanistan, that could be a number of years away. The Navy’s additions in personnel levels will be long-term in acknowledgement of the possible threats from China and other nations in Asia.
With respect to various contractors, military construction spending will reach an all-time high in 2011, with significant work continuing near-term. New orders and repair activity will retain the workforce in shipbuilding during the next two to three years. Defense cuts could cause a change in the mix, but technology contractors should see further sizeable business. The new focus on unmanned vehicles will also benefit San Diego firms.
The defense budget will see substantial cuts over the next decade as the U.S. is forced to deal with its deficit and debt problems. However, San Diego is likely to fare better than most other areas with a significant military presence and could benefit from further consolidation. Meanwhile, for the immediate future, the prospects are for more growth from the military sector as opposed to cutbacks in the region.[/quote]
[i]”Contrary to your statement that “Democrats have blocked the idea at every opportunity,” they were specifically included in the legislation by the Obama administration.”[/i]
Yes, as a compromise, but not as a primary solution. However, there are currently 25 states experimenting with HSAs for their Medicaid programs. It is inevitable.
The primary arguments against HSAs for Medicaid are interesting. One is that it will cause poor people to forgo preventive care because they will horde the cash in their HSA account. Another is that it will increase costs because the benefits will be more attractive and cause more to migrate from private insurance to claim financial need for Medicaid. The first illuminates the standard liberal elite view that there are so many people incapable of taking care of themselves so government needs to make their decisions for them. This argument should be rejected on ideological and humanitarian grounds. The second argument makes more sense… but the costs can be mitigated by better vetting of qualifications of Medicaid recipients and Medicaid fraud.
Here is a good article to remind us of the Democrats’ efforts to block and stifle Republican involvement in the healthcare reform policy development. Note too the glaring indication of left media bias pointed out in this story:
[url]http://washingtonexaminer.com/politics/2009/09/democrats-stifle-republican-health-care-plans[/url]
I would also print excerpts from various articles that show defense spending has created new technologies used in the public sector – e.g. the Internet. But unfortunately these documents cannot be cut and pasted…
Re. Military spending helping San Diego economy.
Good points Elaine. Why do Democrats not support defense spending as a jobs program that supplies benefit to young people and economic benefits to communities like they support the education system for similar reasons?
You do realize that
[i]Democrats have blocked the idea at every opportunity,”[/i]
and
[i]Yes, as a compromise, but not as a primary solution.[/i]
contradict each other, right? You’re back-pedaling. Democrats, specifically President Obama, accepted HSA’s in the health care bill. Yes? Therefore, your statement that “[i]Democrats have blocked the idea at every opportunity[/i]”
is provably, completely false.
Many Democrats support defense spending in their own districts. Many Democrats opposed the base closures in the 1990’s because of the economic impact on their districts. Basically, Jeff, most of what you say about Democrats and liberals (not one and the same, by the way) is just not true.
[i]” Why do Democrats not support defense spending as a jobs program …”[/i]
Don replied to this (correctly in my opinion) before I saw what you wrote. The notion that Democrats don’t favor defense spending as a jobs program is unfortunately terribly wrong. They do and always have.
The problem is a great percentage of the money we are pouring into defense has nothing to do with “defense.” It has to do with paying off the defense contractors who A) give tens of millions of dollars in campaign donations to members of Congress; B) get back in return billions of dollars of taxpayer money to waste on crap like the F-22 Raptor; and C) justify their wasteful spending by showing how many jobs this crap creates. Never mind that there is not a single economist with any integrity who will tell you that defense spending on airplanes like the F-22 Raptor creates a net positive for jobs or our economy. It takes money away from productive purposes soley to make Democrats and Republicans in Congress look good and to make a handful of wealthy contractors into wealthier contractors.
If anyone doubts how much waste we have in defense contracting, I recommend your taking a look at one of the U.S. military “boneyards.” Those are the places where we store the planes we bought 6 years ago or more and no longer need because our factories are pumping out new planes. Other boneyards are filled with tanks. Others with trucks and jeeps and so on.
Back in the late ’90s I was working on a special project for a feature film producer. We flew in his private airplane along the Texas-Mexico border on the U.S. side. By chance we flew over a military boneyard which had tens of thousands of perfectly good, but no longer used tanks and Humvees. They covered a huge area, at least 5,000 acres. Maybe some were put back into service in the Iraq War. I don’t know. But I was told at the time most of the surplus hardware (which includes sensitive technologies) is scrapped and recycled, only to become more military hardware for the contractors who “provide jobs.”
[img]http://www.vaticanassassins.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/Boneyard_Davis-Mothan-Air-Force-Base_Tucson_Arizona.jpg[/img]
I’m still very interested in an answer to this question I asked earlier:
“I’m curious, is there some correlation with the level of multiculturalism and racial diversity and standard of living that anyone can point to as an example for why we should celebrate this proliferation of minority political power?”
This and the effects of demographic shifts, I think, are two of the most important topics of our times.
See this link:
[url]http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0855617.html[/url]
What I find very interesting is that most of the countries having the most ethnic diversity are involved in internal civil conflict. Countries like Norway and Finland that US libs point to as a model for what the US should become are some of the most ethnically homogeneous countries on the planet.
The US has been the global exception… having profound levels of diversity but with people living in relative harmony. The reason is that the influx of people has always been at a level that allowed sufficient assimilation into the American culture and economy. However, with the tremendous influx of primarily poor and uneducated Mexicans over the last two decades they have imported and retained more of their culture and threaten the very process that has allowed the US to be the global example of functional diversity. For example, if Mexican immigrants were sufficiently assimilated more would register Republican.
The lack of Mexican immigrant assimilation combined with Democrats tendency to coop them for political power, will destroy our practice of racial and ethnic harmony in this country. California will lead the way. While California Democrats celebrate their political fortune, they should be advised to look at the rest of the world and consider that they are potentially driving a stake into the heart of the very thing that has made us a shining example for the rest of the world.
At a time when California’s economy and state budget is in the toilet after having been controlled by Democrats for decades, the fact that Democrats continue to increase their power should be a warning flag that our democratic political process is being corrupted by the Hispanic demographic. It is not something to celebrate from either side of politics.
[quote]The problem is a great percentage of the money we are pouring into defense has nothing to do with “defense.” [/quote]
Statistics please…
[i]”Jeff, most of what you say about Democrats and liberals (not one and the same, by the way) is just not true.”[/i]
Come on Don. Accept some position for your ideological affiliation. You would have me believe that Democrats and Liberals are all just a bunch of smart and objective individuals with differing opinions and open to all ideas… while you appear to hold the opinion that Republicans and conservatives cling to their guns and religion. At least I am not afraid of taking a stand and admit to what my fellow ideologues believe. You seem to play this game of “innocent until proven guilty” to deny any position of extremes by requiring the most extreme evidence before you are willing to admit it or concede.
The Obama, Reid, Pelosi trifecta kept the Republicans out of the discussions that led to Obamacare. It is well documented and accepted that this occurred. It is clear that they wanted to leverage their political capital to honor what Ted Kennedy wanted… a single-payer system that the government controlled.
The use of HSAs as a mechanism to control costs was rejected by Democrats. What they agreed to include in the final bill ensured minimal adoption would occur.
[i]”The notion that Democrats don’t favor defense spending as a jobs program is unfortunately terribly wrong. They do and always have.”[/i]
Rich, this defies conventinal wisdom and evidence to the contrary. For the last couple of decades, the left has routinely demanded reductions in defense spending to fund more social spending. I’m not talking about the old Kennedy and Reagan Democrats. Those guys are generally independents or Republicans these days.
I agree though that most objective and informed voters on both sides of the isle dislike the kind of wasteful spending we see. I’m not sure though about the F-22. If you look at the secondary benefits of advanced military weapons technology that have lead to new private sector products, that combined with the tactical benefits of these new weapons… we may in deed be spending our tax money wisely.
[i]You would have me believe that Democrats and Liberals are all just a bunch of smart and objective individuals with differing opinions and open to all ideas… while you appear to hold the opinion that Republicans and conservatives cling to their guns and religion.[/i]
I didn’t say any of that. I didn’t say anything like that. So I’m not going to argue with you based on these distortions.
[i]a warning flag that our democratic political process is being corrupted by the Hispanic demographic.
[/i]
Wow. I never knew that achieving political representation was a form of corruption.
It is really funny that someone would cite San Diego on the topic of defense spending. Google Duke Cunningham.
JB
” The Obama, Reid,Pelosi trifecta kept the Republicans out of the discussions that led to Obama care. It is well documented and accepted that this occurred. Maybe by the right wing press. I only wish that this were true. It conveniently neglects that the option favored by most liberals,
“single party payer”was never even put on the table. Proponents of this view were not even able to participate in early discussions.
So I guess your statement is only true if you start the clock running only after the liberal preference had already been eliminated.
On another note. I find it ironic that you feel in your post on HSA that most people have the knowledge and wisdom to effectively act in their own best interest in this sphere, but then assert that the Mexican immigrants are “coopted by the Democrats to increase their political power.”
So how is it Jeff, that the common man has enough wisdom to decide his best medical/financial interest, but not enough to not be duped by liberal politicians. could it really be that you only believe that people who agree with your ideology have enough knowledge and wisdom to make the correct choices ? And you assert that liberals are elitist ! I find it the Hightower of elitism to assert that your own ideology is demonstrably superior, as you have in many posts.
The argument regarding the utility of “defense related”technologies has always seemed to me to be a failure of societal priorities. Am I alone in seeing an irony in spending billions on technology designed to more efficiently kill people (yes, that is what that word “defense”has come to mean) but we cannot (will not) pour the same billions directly in to peacetime uses such as clean energy, medical /pharmaceutical research,
Computer technologies or any other of a host of research areas that literally beg for funding. Why exactly do we need the military as a middleman to develop these technologies before the private sector picks them up for general use?
[quote]Am I alone in seeing an irony in spending billions on technology designed to more efficiently kill people [/quote]
The best offense is a good defense… the fact that the U.S. means what it says and can back it up is what got Quadiffi (sp?) to hand over his nuclear weapons under Bush. Do you believe without our military might we would be as safe? 9/11 should give you pause – even w all our weapons we are not safe – but at least we can bring to justice those who would attack us. (And by the way, I am not arguing there is not waste in defense spending, just arguing a lot of good comes out of it for civilian use as w all R&D, including NASA). But under Obama, look at what has happened in Libia – what a mess – bc Obama was too much in bed w our enemies…
[i]”Wow. I never knew that achieving political representation was a form of corruption”[/i]
I have read somewhere and I will look for it, that Latino voters who prefer to speak Spanish are much more likely to vote Democrat. That makes rational sense given poor tend to vote for the party that hands them more free stuff. I also remember reading that about 40% of Latinos in CA fall into this category. Hispanic immigrants are also much less educated than the general population. The Democrats work this demographic to get more of them to vote and to vote Democrat. It is a demographic that would be much less a reliable and plentiful Democrat vote without the prior several decades of illegal immigration that allowed so many millions to sneak over the border and bring over their families. The Democrats pat themselves on the back for all the social services help they provide the Latino community that leads them to appreciate Democrats, and say that Republicans should only blame themselves for not doing the same, and for angering the Latino voters with a tough position on illegal immigration. The silly inference is that Republicans would somehow be better served allowing more illegal immigration and then by working the Latino neighborhoods teaching uneducated, Spanish-speaking immigrants American principles of independence and prosperity through self-determination. It can be done by the American experience in a generation or two without the concentrations of immigrants that allow them to import their culture too; however, these are people lacking fundamental comprehension of these principles… otherwise they would have stayed in their home country to make a living.
This demographic corrupts the democratic political process primarily because it is primarily poor and uneducated and it developed illegally and should not be here.
Just guess how you might feel and respond to a situation of millions of well-to-do Americans who migrated to Mexico, failing to learn Spanish, started voting in large enough numbers to affect Mexican elections to swing conservative… especially in the case where the population of Americans in Mexico was primarily from illegal immigration. Of course this is a theoretical scenario because well-to-do Americans would not break the law to sneak over the border.
[i]”So how is it Jeff, that the common man has enough wisdom to decide his best medical/financial interest, but not enough to not be duped by liberal politicians.[/i]
Medwoman, that is a very thoughtful and interesting question. I really appreciate your commitment to your views on this and other things.
The main problem I have with providing so much assistance to people is that it trains them to be dependent on, and to rely on, that assistance. It also cements a need for the assistance provider to have a plentiful supply of perpetual victims who support them. Poverty should be a temporary problem… so why is the war on poverty a perpetual thing? If this was Bush’s war, we would have pulled out long ago.
First we need to separate illegal and legal immigrants because without enforcement of our laws none of this argument makes any difference. However, assuming legal Latino immigrants, I support providing social services that have the single primary goal of teaching self-sufficiency through the principles and culture of America. One of the primary principles is prosperity through self-determination (e.g., competition). I believe this view is superior because it accepts short-term, temporary pain for the benefit of long-term permanent gain. Like Affirmative Action, the left view is that we are better served by legislating fairness to certain groups deemed disadvantaged. That view is destructive to the whole community because it creates more of the co-dependency of saver and savee.
If we provide HSA accounts and require/motivate people to manage more of their own healthcare decisions from a perspective of cost-benefit, over time people will develop a knowledge base, in consultation with the medical community, to help them optimize the value of their decisions. If we provide free healthcare, they will not develop the skills for optimization… in fact, they will lose any skills for this that they might possess. A high percentage of poor people have Internet access today. I would be fine with a mandatory high school class teaching kids how to search for information on health symptoms and healthcare treatment options so that they can make better decisions.
medwoman:
Here is someone’s explanation for what is causing the riots in Great Brition. Included in this is exactly what I fear from the liberalization of our country.
[quote]The welfare state really has left a generation of young people feeling both dependent on government handouts and entitled to more. Poor state education has left up to a fifth of British teenagers functionally illiterate. The slow economy means many will never find jobs and thus will never be integrated into the mainstream. The presence of the world’s oligarchs and billionaires in London means the city has an economic gap unusually wide for the developed world. The tabloid press thrives on envy of the rich and the cult-worship of boorish celebrities. Traditional institutions—the school system, the churches, even the BBC—long ago lost their ability to transmit older values. A spate of scandals has recently discredited the banks, the Parliament, the media, and the London police even further.[/quote]
ERM
I could not have said it better. Even with all our weapons, we are not safe. I take no satisfaction in the “bringing to justice”of bin Laden.
And I do not agree that the best defense is a good offense. Unfortunately too good an offense leads you to be perceived, or to actually act as a bully. The United States has done this repetitively. Using the word Defense”to institute what were clearly offensive actions. Iraq for example.
And yes, I believe that we would be just as safe with much less “might”. Check out Rich’s photos of the boneyards. This is equally true of the navy. I know because my father was a ship fitter in Bremerton where many “necessary”but unused ships were housed for years.
And your post ignores my post about the military “spin off technologies”. Again, why not just invest in the research directly instead of filtering the funding through the military ?
Finally, I agree with you that Libya is a mess. But no more a mess than Iraq. And every one seems to have conveniently forgotten that Saadam Hussein, while doubtless a monster, was at one time “our monster”. Talk about being in bed with your enemies.
JB
“I have read somewhere that Latino voters who prefer to speak Spanish are much more likely to vote Democrat. First, show me the numbers, and then show me the relevance to anything other than your totally unsupported belief that “looters,that disparaging comment you love to use to characterize a group of people about whom you appear to know nothing. During the times I have lived in Southern California, I have worked extensively and lived in close proximity to many of the Latino field workers, nannies, housekeepers, shopkeepers, waitresses and busboys, many of whom prefer to speak Spanish. I can guarantee you that these people work as hard as most anyone I have ever met, frequently for far less money and with more gratitude and appreciation for what they receive than any other group I have worked with. Now, while I don’t know if they all vote, or are eligible to vote, or who they choose to vote for. What I do know is that it is an insult to a very ambitious and productive group of people to imply that their decision to vote Democratic, if indeed they do is somehow less noble than your decision to vote Republican, if indeed you do.
And before I leave my experience in Southern California, many of the field owners knowingly encouraged illegal workers for their fields, while supporting right wing politicians who say the want border control, when what they really want is to hamstring the government to the point where it cannot impose any regulations or in any way interfere with their profits. Please do not tell me that I don’t know. I lived there and provided health care there for years.
“That makes rational sense given that poor tend to vote for the party that gives them more free stuff.” Are you implying that the rich are not likely to vote for the party that is giving them “more free stuff”in the form of tax breaks. Now some of this might be justifiable if the tax breaks were being provided as incentives to employee the unemployed as has been suggested. However, that is not how it goes is it. The same tax breaks occur whether you spend the money, horde the money, give the money to relatives who have never done a constructive thing in their lives.
Finally Jeff, you repeatedly state that you feel we should go back to the traditional culture of this country. At what point would you like to freeze the clock. If you choose too early, by your standards the European settlers should have had to conform to the language and traditions of one of the native American groups. Or somewhat later in history, had “we”not taken this region from Mexico by force , again by your logic, we should all be speaking Spanish. After all, all of the major cities in our area bear Hispanic names. Using your logic all the immigrants should have had to conform to that standard. Again, I see it as quite elitist to choose, of all the cultures that are represented in this country your own as superior and dictate that everyone else should conform to it. But having said that, I also respect your willingness to stand by your beliefs.
[quote]And I do not agree that the best defense is a good offense.[/quote]
Currently there is talk of cutting back severely on defense spending. Note the following:
1) Many communities thrive bc of defense spending, and will be decimated by base closures/R&D company closures – it will put out of work not only those working directly for the military, but the peripheral businesses that support it – restaurants, retail, etc. It could really set the country into an economic tailspin.
2) If we seriously degrade the Navy right now, for instance, who is going to keep the shipping lanes free of the Somali pirates, which are becoming a very huge concern to shipping.
3) There is nothing stopping our gov’t to decrease WASTEFUL defense spending, which certainly goes on. But there is also huge amounts of wasteful spending in EVERY gov’t program. Yet at least w the military, we actually have useful technologies to show for it, that benefit EVERYONE around the world – including medical technologies by the way.
4) Think about this – if you are approached by someone with a gun, how effective will you be in protecting yourself against such a threat unarmed? I am not necessarily advocating everyone carry a gun – just speaking metaphorically. One of the reasons the U.S. is able to protect itself, a la 9/11, is because we have the weapons and manpower stockpiled to carry out what is necessary. Having the stockpile is a deterrent in itself – as Pres. Reagan proved with the SDI initiative. It is not foolproof, but it is a deterrent. There will always be nutcases like Bin Laden that want to cause mayhem and destruction for the pure joy of it. I for one and very glad Bin Laden has met his maker, and the world is rid of someone who is truly evil incarnate.
ERM
1) I am not proposing closing bases without providing alternatives. I would propose using the money that we now pore into an overinflated military,into other needs. Infrastructure for instance. Maybe all those strong young men and women could be put to work improving roadways, bridges, etc. The instructors, they could work in tutoring and mentoring. Need improvement in medical technologies? Spend the research money directly into medical R&D. For the medics, let’s send them into inner cities and into rural areas to provide much needed health care ?I I see this as very unimaginative thinking. It doesn’t have to be the military or nothing. It could be any number of other projects. Or if you like, call it the military and put them to work for civilian projects. We already do this with the non arms bearing military providing medical care to our underserved population as payback for economic support for medical and nursing schools.
2) China ?
3) See point one. I don’t believe it has to be the military or nothing.
4) All of our military superiority did not deter Osama bin Laden. All of our nuclear stockpiles, ships, stealth fighters, tanks, submarines did not deter him. We are in an age where someone with a bit of ingenuity can wreak havoc regardless of all our weaponry. I also do not believe that Bin Laden acted as he did for “the joy of it”I take him at his word that he truly believed that the United States was evil and that he was justified in striking us just as we believe that we were justified in tracking him down “at any cost”. I doubt that the completely innocent Afgan village mother sees the loss of her child in an American military operation as any different than we view the loss of the innocents in the two towers.
Do I believe that Osama bin Laden was evil? Yes. And I believe that anyone who kills innocents to enforce their own will is committing acts of evil regardless of their religion, nationality or rationale. It is the act that is evil not the identity of the perpetrator.