(Translated from the Swahili version)
DC: Today I am here with our friend, Kevin Warnke. Kevin has been helping me by translating my words frequently here on KASSFM. He was also a Peace Corps volunteer in Kenya. He lived on the coast, close to Malindi, and met a beautiful girl there who is today his wife. They live together here in DC. Kevin works in Congress, advising a Member on various issues. Welcome to the show Kevin.
KW: Thanks Duncan. I'm happy to be here with you.
DC: Not long ago, we were discussing here on KASSFM the death of a politician here in America, Senator Kennedy, and how he was a leading politician here. Before his death, Kennedy asked politicians to change how they would choose his successor. How is this normally done?
KW: To understand how this is normally done, we have to remember how Congress was originally created. Here in America, we have an "upper house", which is known as the Senate, and a "lower House", which is called the House of Representatives. In the House of Representatives, the method is simple: an election. This is the same method used in Kenya: "by-elections".
DC: Right. But for the Senate, they do something different, right?
KW: That's right Duncan. Even Americans get confused by the rules, culture and traditions of the Senate. Instead of requiring an election, our Constitution says that each state decides how its Senators will be chosen. In Kennedy's state, called Massachusetts, the law says that if there is a vacant Senate seat, there is an election after three months. Before his death, Kennedy asked the state government to change the law to let the Governor select a temporary representative until the election is done.
DC: If an election would be held after three months, why did Kennedy think it was important to get another representative for this short period of time?
KW: Because of one very important number in the Senate: Sixty. If Senators want to do anything at all in the Senate, they need to have 60 Senators who agree. Altogether, there are 100 Senators--two for each state. If 41 Senators don't want a bill to move forward, they can stop it. When Kennedy was alive, there were 60 Democrats. When he died, there were only 59 Democrats, which made it difficult for Democrats to do what they wanted in the Senate.
DC: And if the Senate can't do its work, President Obama would fail to pass bills and change America's laws, right?
KW: Exactly. As you know, change laws here in America requires both the Senate and the House of Representatives to pass one identical bill and for the President to approve it as is.
DC: I read something about Kenya's history and I was surprised to see that even Kenya had a Senate and a House of Representatives for a few years. And in the Bomas Constitutional draft of five years ago, some again recommended that there be a Senate. Maybe you can advise us a little about the positives and negatives of this house of Congress.
KW: First, let's remember the reason why we have the system we do here in America. During colonial times, America was not one colony, but 13 colonies. These colonies joined together during the war against British rule. After becoming free, the leaders of the colonies thought they needed to work together. Like the Swahili say, "One finger doesn't kill a louse." During those times, our "louse" was Great Britain. But coming together to form a national government brought up some sensitive issues about how the people should be represented at a national level. Before uniting, each colony had its own government.
DC: And the leaders of states with fewer people wanted each state to be represented equally. Leaders of states with many people wanted to be represented according to the number of people who lived in each state. After some back-and-forth between the states, they agreed that there should be one 'house' that would protect the interests of the states, which is known as the Senate, and another 'house' to protect the interests of the people themselves, which is the House of Representatives.
KW: That's right. And if we look at the writing of those who came to this agreement, the Senate was to make sure that the bills passed by the House of Representatives were appropriate. It is said that our first president, George Washington, said that the work of the Senate was "to cool" legislation, just like a saucer is used to cool hot tea.
DC: Is this true? Does the Senate "cool" legislation?
KW: Without a doubt. The House of Representatives works very differently from the Senate. This 'house' is led by a party leadership. Passing a bill requires the support of just over 50 percent of Representatives. This is the same way that Kenya's Parliament works. When bills pass the House of Representatives, they often go to sit for a long time over at the Senate. Some say that this is a good thing. It prevents bad bills from passing without being carefully considered and requires a lot of people to say that the bills are appropriate.
DC: But others say that it's bad because Senators who represent sparsely populated states can obstruct a president and his party, even if they are really liked by the American people.
KW: That's right. When Bush was president, Republicans complained about Democratic Senators. Similarly, today Democrats complain about Republican Senators. So, the bad thing is that if the president and his party, even if they represent areas with many people, even if the majority of Americans agree with them and their policies, even if all of this is true, if 41 Senators disagree (many of them from sparsely populated states), that's it. It won't be done.
DC: Doesn't this make it difficult to pass legislation.
KW: Yes. The good thing about it is that, for example, if a state isn't liked, it represents a small area, and the philosophy of its people is different than most of the country, its representatives have the power to defend their interests.
DC: Kevin, Thank you for explaining all of this to us.
KW: Thank you. I'm happy to be with you all.
Showing posts with label American Politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label American Politics. Show all posts
Saturday, October 24, 2009
Mazungumzo ya 10-20-2009
DC: Leo niko hapa na rafiki yetu, Kevin Warnke. Kevin amekuwa akinisaidia kutafsiri maneno yangu mara nyingi hapa kwa KASSFM. Pia, alikuwa volunteer wa Peace Corps huko Kenya. Aliishi pwani, karibu na Malindi, na alikutana huko na msichana mrembo ambaye ni bibi yake leo. Wanaishi pamoja hapa DC. Kevin anafanya kazi kwa bunge kwa kumshauri mbunge mmoja kuhusu sera mbalimbali. Karibu Kevin.
KW: Asante Duncan. Nafurahi kuwa nanyi.
DC: Si kitambo, tulikuwa tunazungumza hapa kwa KASSFM kuhusu kifo cha mbunge mmoja hapa Amerika, Senata Kennedy, na jinsi alivyokuwa katika mstari wa mbele kwa wanasiasa hapa. Kabla ya kifo chake, Kennedy aliomba wanasiasa wabadilishe utaratibu wa kuchagua atakayemfuata. Je, huu utaratibu ukoje?
KW: Kuelewa utaratibu wenyewe, tunahitaji kukumbuka jinsi mfumo wa bunge letu ulivyoundwa. Hapa Amerika, tuko na bunge la juu, linalojulikana kama Senate, na bunge la chini, linaloitwa House of Representatives. Kwa House of Representatives, utaratibu ni wazi: kuna uchaguzi. Ni huo utaratibu unaotumika Kenya pia, kama "by-elections".
DC: Ndio. Lakini kwa viti vya Senate, wanafanya kivingine, si ndio?
KW: Kweli Duncan. Sharti, mila, na desturi za Senate zinachanganyisha hata Waamerika! Badala ya kulazimisha kuwe na uchaguzi, katiba yetu inasema kila jimbo litaamua jinsi ya kuchagua MaSenata wake. Katika jimbo lake Kennedy, linaloitwa Massachusetts, sheria inasema kama kuna nafasi wazi kwa viti vya MaSenata wake, kutakuwa na uchaguzi baada ya miezi mitatu. Kabla ya kifo chake, Kennedy aliomba serikali ya Massachusetts ibadilishe sheria kwa kumruhusu Governor kuteua mwakilishi wa muda kufanya kazi mpaka uchaguzi utafanyika.
DC: Kama kungekuwa na uchaguzi baada ya miezi mitatu, mbona Kennedy aliona ilikuwa muhimu kupata mwakilishi mwingine kwa huo muda mfupi?
KW:Kwa sababu ya namba moja yenye umuhimu mwingi katika Senate: Sitini. Kama MaSenata wanataka kufanya cho chote kwa Senate, inabidii kuwe na MaSenata sitini wanaokubali. Kuna MaSenata mia moja kwa ujumla--wawili kwa kila jimbo. Kama MaSenata arobaini na moja wanataka mswada fulani usiendelee, wanaweza kuusimamisha. Kennedy alipokuwa hai, WaDemokrat walikuwa sitini. Alipokufa, kukawa WaDemokrat hamsini na tisa tu, na ikawa vigumu kwa WaDemokrat kufanya wanavyotaka katika Senate.
DC: Na kama Senate inashindwa kufanya kazi yake, Rais Obama atashindwa kupitisha miswada na kubadilisha sharia za Amerika, si ndio?
KW: Ndio, ndio. Kama unavyojua, kubadilisha sheria hapa Amerika inabidii Senate na House of Representatives zote zipitishe mswada moja bila mabadiliko yoyote, na kwa Rais kuukubali hivyo hivyo.
DC: Nilisoma historia ya Kenya kidogo na nilishangaa kuona hata Kenya ilikuwa na Senate na House of Representatives kwa miaka michache. Na hata katika Katiba Bomas ya miaka mitano iliyopita, wengine walipendekeza kuwe na Senate tena. Pengine unaweza kutushauri na uzuri na ubaya wa bunge hilo.
KW: Kwanza, tukumbuke sababu ya kuwa na mfumo wetu hapa Amerika. Wakati wa ukoloni, Amerika haikuwa koloni moja, ila makoloni kumi na tatu. Makoloni haya yaliungana wakati wa vita kupigania uhuru kutoka kwa utawala wa Uingereza. Baada ya kupata uhuru, viongozi wa makoloni haya waliona bora waungane. Kama WaSwahili wasemavyo, "Kidole kimoja hakivunji chawa". Wakati ule, chawa yetu ilikuwa Uingereza. Lakini kuungana na kuanzisha serikali ya taifa ilileta swala nyeti kuhusu jinsi ya kuwakilisha wananchi. Kabla ya kuungana kila koloni lilikuwa na serikali yake.
DC: Na viongozi wa majimbo yenye watu wachache walitaka kila jimbo liwakilishwe kwa usawa. Viongozi wa majimbo yenye watu wengi walitaka kuwakilishwa kulingana na namba ya wananchi wanaoishi kwa jimbo lenyewe. Baada ya mvutano baina ya majimbo, waliafikiana kwamba kutakuwa na bunge moja kutetea maoni ya majimbo, ambalo ni Senate, na bunge moja kutetea maoni ya watu wenyewe, ambalo ni House of Representatives.
KW: Ndio. Na tukiangalia maandishi ya wale ambao waliafikiana hivyo, kazi ya Senate ilikuwa kuhakikisha miswada ya House of Representatives ilikuwa mizuri. Inasemakana Rais wetu wa kwanza, George Washington, alisema kazi ya Senate ilikuwa "kupoza" miswada kama kisahani kinavyotumika kupoza chai moto.
DC: Unaona hii ni kweli? Senate "hupoza" miswada?
KW: Bila shaka. House of Representatives hufanya kazi yake kivingine kabisa. Bunge hili linaongozwa na uongozi wa chama kimoja. Kupitisha mswada kunahitaji zaidi ya asilimia hamsini ya wabunge wake. Hii ni sawa na bunge ya Kenya. Miswada ikipita House of Representatives, huenda na kukaa kwa muda mrefu kwa Senate. Wengine wanasema ndio vizuri. Inazuia miswada mibaya isipite bila kuangaliwa sana na kuwe na watu wengi wanaoona inafaa.
DC: Lakini wengine wanasema ni vibaya kwa sababu MaSenata wanaowakilisha majimbo yenye watu wachache wanaweza kuzuia Rais na chama chake, hata ikiwa wanapendwa sana na wananchi.
KW: Kweli. Wakati Bush alikuwa Rais, WaRepublican walilalamikia MaSenata WaDemokrat kwa kuwazuia. Vile vile, leo WaDemokrat wanalalimikia MaSenata WaRepublican. Kwa hiyo, ubaya wake ni kwamba kama Rais na chama chake, hata kama wanawakilisha maeneo yenye watu wengi sana, hata kama wananchi wengi wanawakubali na kukubali na mapendekezo au miswada yao, hata kama haya yote ni kweli, kama MaSenata arobaini na mmoja hawataki (wengi wao kutoka majimbo yenye watu wachache), ni bas. Haitafanyika.
DC: Si hii inafanya iwe vigumu kupitisha miswada?
KW: Ndio. Uzuri wake ni kwamba hata kama, kwa mfano, jimbo moja halipendwi, eneo lake ni dogo, na falsafa ya watu wake ni tofauti, wakilishi wake watakuwa na nguvu kutetea matakwa yao.
DC: Kevin, Asante kwa kuja kutuelezea hayo yote.
KW: Asante. Nimefurahi kuzungumza nanyi.
KW: Asante Duncan. Nafurahi kuwa nanyi.
DC: Si kitambo, tulikuwa tunazungumza hapa kwa KASSFM kuhusu kifo cha mbunge mmoja hapa Amerika, Senata Kennedy, na jinsi alivyokuwa katika mstari wa mbele kwa wanasiasa hapa. Kabla ya kifo chake, Kennedy aliomba wanasiasa wabadilishe utaratibu wa kuchagua atakayemfuata. Je, huu utaratibu ukoje?
KW: Kuelewa utaratibu wenyewe, tunahitaji kukumbuka jinsi mfumo wa bunge letu ulivyoundwa. Hapa Amerika, tuko na bunge la juu, linalojulikana kama Senate, na bunge la chini, linaloitwa House of Representatives. Kwa House of Representatives, utaratibu ni wazi: kuna uchaguzi. Ni huo utaratibu unaotumika Kenya pia, kama "by-elections".
DC: Ndio. Lakini kwa viti vya Senate, wanafanya kivingine, si ndio?
KW: Kweli Duncan. Sharti, mila, na desturi za Senate zinachanganyisha hata Waamerika! Badala ya kulazimisha kuwe na uchaguzi, katiba yetu inasema kila jimbo litaamua jinsi ya kuchagua MaSenata wake. Katika jimbo lake Kennedy, linaloitwa Massachusetts, sheria inasema kama kuna nafasi wazi kwa viti vya MaSenata wake, kutakuwa na uchaguzi baada ya miezi mitatu. Kabla ya kifo chake, Kennedy aliomba serikali ya Massachusetts ibadilishe sheria kwa kumruhusu Governor kuteua mwakilishi wa muda kufanya kazi mpaka uchaguzi utafanyika.
DC: Kama kungekuwa na uchaguzi baada ya miezi mitatu, mbona Kennedy aliona ilikuwa muhimu kupata mwakilishi mwingine kwa huo muda mfupi?
KW:Kwa sababu ya namba moja yenye umuhimu mwingi katika Senate: Sitini. Kama MaSenata wanataka kufanya cho chote kwa Senate, inabidii kuwe na MaSenata sitini wanaokubali. Kuna MaSenata mia moja kwa ujumla--wawili kwa kila jimbo. Kama MaSenata arobaini na moja wanataka mswada fulani usiendelee, wanaweza kuusimamisha. Kennedy alipokuwa hai, WaDemokrat walikuwa sitini. Alipokufa, kukawa WaDemokrat hamsini na tisa tu, na ikawa vigumu kwa WaDemokrat kufanya wanavyotaka katika Senate.
DC: Na kama Senate inashindwa kufanya kazi yake, Rais Obama atashindwa kupitisha miswada na kubadilisha sharia za Amerika, si ndio?
KW: Ndio, ndio. Kama unavyojua, kubadilisha sheria hapa Amerika inabidii Senate na House of Representatives zote zipitishe mswada moja bila mabadiliko yoyote, na kwa Rais kuukubali hivyo hivyo.
DC: Nilisoma historia ya Kenya kidogo na nilishangaa kuona hata Kenya ilikuwa na Senate na House of Representatives kwa miaka michache. Na hata katika Katiba Bomas ya miaka mitano iliyopita, wengine walipendekeza kuwe na Senate tena. Pengine unaweza kutushauri na uzuri na ubaya wa bunge hilo.
KW: Kwanza, tukumbuke sababu ya kuwa na mfumo wetu hapa Amerika. Wakati wa ukoloni, Amerika haikuwa koloni moja, ila makoloni kumi na tatu. Makoloni haya yaliungana wakati wa vita kupigania uhuru kutoka kwa utawala wa Uingereza. Baada ya kupata uhuru, viongozi wa makoloni haya waliona bora waungane. Kama WaSwahili wasemavyo, "Kidole kimoja hakivunji chawa". Wakati ule, chawa yetu ilikuwa Uingereza. Lakini kuungana na kuanzisha serikali ya taifa ilileta swala nyeti kuhusu jinsi ya kuwakilisha wananchi. Kabla ya kuungana kila koloni lilikuwa na serikali yake.
DC: Na viongozi wa majimbo yenye watu wachache walitaka kila jimbo liwakilishwe kwa usawa. Viongozi wa majimbo yenye watu wengi walitaka kuwakilishwa kulingana na namba ya wananchi wanaoishi kwa jimbo lenyewe. Baada ya mvutano baina ya majimbo, waliafikiana kwamba kutakuwa na bunge moja kutetea maoni ya majimbo, ambalo ni Senate, na bunge moja kutetea maoni ya watu wenyewe, ambalo ni House of Representatives.
KW: Ndio. Na tukiangalia maandishi ya wale ambao waliafikiana hivyo, kazi ya Senate ilikuwa kuhakikisha miswada ya House of Representatives ilikuwa mizuri. Inasemakana Rais wetu wa kwanza, George Washington, alisema kazi ya Senate ilikuwa "kupoza" miswada kama kisahani kinavyotumika kupoza chai moto.
DC: Unaona hii ni kweli? Senate "hupoza" miswada?
KW: Bila shaka. House of Representatives hufanya kazi yake kivingine kabisa. Bunge hili linaongozwa na uongozi wa chama kimoja. Kupitisha mswada kunahitaji zaidi ya asilimia hamsini ya wabunge wake. Hii ni sawa na bunge ya Kenya. Miswada ikipita House of Representatives, huenda na kukaa kwa muda mrefu kwa Senate. Wengine wanasema ndio vizuri. Inazuia miswada mibaya isipite bila kuangaliwa sana na kuwe na watu wengi wanaoona inafaa.
DC: Lakini wengine wanasema ni vibaya kwa sababu MaSenata wanaowakilisha majimbo yenye watu wachache wanaweza kuzuia Rais na chama chake, hata ikiwa wanapendwa sana na wananchi.
KW: Kweli. Wakati Bush alikuwa Rais, WaRepublican walilalamikia MaSenata WaDemokrat kwa kuwazuia. Vile vile, leo WaDemokrat wanalalimikia MaSenata WaRepublican. Kwa hiyo, ubaya wake ni kwamba kama Rais na chama chake, hata kama wanawakilisha maeneo yenye watu wengi sana, hata kama wananchi wengi wanawakubali na kukubali na mapendekezo au miswada yao, hata kama haya yote ni kweli, kama MaSenata arobaini na mmoja hawataki (wengi wao kutoka majimbo yenye watu wachache), ni bas. Haitafanyika.
DC: Si hii inafanya iwe vigumu kupitisha miswada?
KW: Ndio. Uzuri wake ni kwamba hata kama, kwa mfano, jimbo moja halipendwi, eneo lake ni dogo, na falsafa ya watu wake ni tofauti, wakilishi wake watakuwa na nguvu kutetea matakwa yao.
DC: Kevin, Asante kwa kuja kutuelezea hayo yote.
KW: Asante. Nimefurahi kuzungumza nanyi.
Thursday, March 12, 2009
Thinking Ahead, 2010
So, it's more than a year and a half until the next Congressional elections. I thought it would be interesting to speculate where we're going to be, politically, in two years.
1) Battle for the Senate
It'll be an uphill battle for Democrats. Republicans successfully framed '60' as a scary number. But FiveThirtyEight argues pretty convincingly that the six most competitive Senate seats are currently held by Republicans. It seems likely that the Dems could pick up at least a couple seats in New Hampshire, Missouri, Ohio, and Pennsylvania.
But, depending on how things go for the next couple years, Dems may have to play significant defense in Nevada, Connecticut, Delaware, and maybe even Illinois (if Burris can split the opposition and win the primary).
The loss of any one of these seats will be seen as a serious blow for Dems: Reid (NV) is the Senate majority leader and Dodd (CT) was a presidential candidate, is chair of the Senate Finance Committee and a long-time incumbent, while Delaware and Illinois are solidly blue.
If Dems hold their own and pick up a couple, it'll be interpreted as wind behind Obama's back. As of this writing, this seems rather likely.
If Dems hold their own and fail to pick up seats, it'll be interpreted as a significant loss. With strong pick-up opportunities, it'll be interpreted that the Republican message has gained traction and will be seen as Obama losing his footing.
If Dems lose Nevada or Connecticut, they have to run the table to avoid being seen as election losers. That means they would have to pick up three or four seats.
If Dems lose more, it'll be interpreted as voter dissatisfaction with Obama and the Democratic agenda.
2) House Ebbs
Both 2006 and 2008 were considered "wave" years for House Democrats. No one wanted to be a Republican these years and Democrats were able to chalk up major gains. But the tide ebbs and flows. No one seriously thinks a third wave is coming. Congressional elections between presidential terms normally swing against the President.
The best case scenario is probably for Dems to hold onto their own numbers: ~255. (It's hard to imagine a world in which Dems can add any more than 10 seats in 2010.)
The most likely scenario, Dems lose seats. Maybe a dozen? This is not a line-by-line analysis of competitive seats. Just what is considered on the Hill as conventional wisdom.
3)Whither POTUS?
The third factor here is Presidential approval ratings. Much has been said about how Obama has sky-high approval ratings, though in a historical sense, they aren't really all that high.
Can Obama stay popular? I'm bullish on Obama and very optimistic about 2012. I doubt he'll get the turnout he got in 2008, or that he could possibly improve on his margin of victory, but I have a tough time finding a Republican who can seriously square off against him and come out ahead.
So what will be the final outcome of the 2010 elections? I imagine it's likely that it won't be seen as a strong vote in favor of Obama's agenda. At best, it'll be seen as mixed results. The most likely scenario I see is that Dems lose House seats and pick up some Senate seats.
How does that translate? Currently, the President sets the agenda, the House approves a liberal version and the Senate compromises on the liberal version to placate the moderates it needs to pass. What would be the effect of more Senate Dems and fewer House Dems?
Ironically, it might be easier to pass liberal legislation, even as the media narrative could shift to a notion that the country is turning away from supporting Obama and the Democratic agenda...
1) Battle for the Senate
It'll be an uphill battle for Democrats. Republicans successfully framed '60' as a scary number. But FiveThirtyEight argues pretty convincingly that the six most competitive Senate seats are currently held by Republicans. It seems likely that the Dems could pick up at least a couple seats in New Hampshire, Missouri, Ohio, and Pennsylvania.
But, depending on how things go for the next couple years, Dems may have to play significant defense in Nevada, Connecticut, Delaware, and maybe even Illinois (if Burris can split the opposition and win the primary).
The loss of any one of these seats will be seen as a serious blow for Dems: Reid (NV) is the Senate majority leader and Dodd (CT) was a presidential candidate, is chair of the Senate Finance Committee and a long-time incumbent, while Delaware and Illinois are solidly blue.
If Dems hold their own and pick up a couple, it'll be interpreted as wind behind Obama's back. As of this writing, this seems rather likely.
If Dems hold their own and fail to pick up seats, it'll be interpreted as a significant loss. With strong pick-up opportunities, it'll be interpreted that the Republican message has gained traction and will be seen as Obama losing his footing.
If Dems lose Nevada or Connecticut, they have to run the table to avoid being seen as election losers. That means they would have to pick up three or four seats.
If Dems lose more, it'll be interpreted as voter dissatisfaction with Obama and the Democratic agenda.
2) House Ebbs
Both 2006 and 2008 were considered "wave" years for House Democrats. No one wanted to be a Republican these years and Democrats were able to chalk up major gains. But the tide ebbs and flows. No one seriously thinks a third wave is coming. Congressional elections between presidential terms normally swing against the President.
The best case scenario is probably for Dems to hold onto their own numbers: ~255. (It's hard to imagine a world in which Dems can add any more than 10 seats in 2010.)
The most likely scenario, Dems lose seats. Maybe a dozen? This is not a line-by-line analysis of competitive seats. Just what is considered on the Hill as conventional wisdom.
3)Whither POTUS?
The third factor here is Presidential approval ratings. Much has been said about how Obama has sky-high approval ratings, though in a historical sense, they aren't really all that high.
Can Obama stay popular? I'm bullish on Obama and very optimistic about 2012. I doubt he'll get the turnout he got in 2008, or that he could possibly improve on his margin of victory, but I have a tough time finding a Republican who can seriously square off against him and come out ahead.
So what will be the final outcome of the 2010 elections? I imagine it's likely that it won't be seen as a strong vote in favor of Obama's agenda. At best, it'll be seen as mixed results. The most likely scenario I see is that Dems lose House seats and pick up some Senate seats.
How does that translate? Currently, the President sets the agenda, the House approves a liberal version and the Senate compromises on the liberal version to placate the moderates it needs to pass. What would be the effect of more Senate Dems and fewer House Dems?
Ironically, it might be easier to pass liberal legislation, even as the media narrative could shift to a notion that the country is turning away from supporting Obama and the Democratic agenda...
Tuesday, February 03, 2009
Nashville Post: Obama Encouraged Pelosi Revolt
Fascinating story about Obama's relationship with House Democratic leadership.
It's inside baseball for most of America, but it may be one of the most important pieces of news in the past few weeks.
Update: Jim Cooper misunderstood Rahmbo. Making this not the most important story of the week....
It's inside baseball for most of America, but it may be one of the most important pieces of news in the past few weeks.
Update: Jim Cooper misunderstood Rahmbo. Making this not the most important story of the week....
Thoughts on a Taxastrophe
Our tax system is enormously complicated. I'm not sure Geithner's woes were brought on by this complexity, though I'm inclined to think Daschle's were...
All of this makes for great political spectacle.
It makes me think that when you design an intensely complex system to reward some behaviors and discourage others, it shouldn't be much of a surprise that errors are common.
It also suggests that a simplified tax code would do a lot to promote fairness, ease an enormous amount of frustration felt by individuals all across this country, save money that would otherwise be spent on lawyers, increase the overall compliance rates, and generally make the world a better place.
Except, what would our politicians and lobbyists do? (Not to mention the lawyers...)
Seriously, though, the tax code is the place where government tries to coax individuals and businesses into making certain decisions. It's much easier politically to give a business or a group of individuals a tax break than it is to actually give them direct assistance. And once a tax break gets in the system, it's tough to ferret out.
All of this makes for great political spectacle.
It makes me think that when you design an intensely complex system to reward some behaviors and discourage others, it shouldn't be much of a surprise that errors are common.
It also suggests that a simplified tax code would do a lot to promote fairness, ease an enormous amount of frustration felt by individuals all across this country, save money that would otherwise be spent on lawyers, increase the overall compliance rates, and generally make the world a better place.
Except, what would our politicians and lobbyists do? (Not to mention the lawyers...)
Seriously, though, the tax code is the place where government tries to coax individuals and businesses into making certain decisions. It's much easier politically to give a business or a group of individuals a tax break than it is to actually give them direct assistance. And once a tax break gets in the system, it's tough to ferret out.
Friday, January 23, 2009
The New Bureaucracies
These three stories really just make me smile. Even if you argue that the Education Department, State Department, and the Interior Department are all filled with a bunch of liberals who would never like being led by a "republican", how important is it for the leaders of these bureaucracies to have a good working relationship with the staff in order to be successful in what they do?
Senator Whitehouse: We Must Look Back
This is a great piece of oratory. Not perfect, but good, thoughtful, and provocative.
Friday, January 16, 2009
Biden's Goodbye
Some may say Joe's the ultimate politician. I don't know. I think this is an excellent, straight-from-the-heart speech.
Full speech is here.
Wednesday, July 16, 2008
Thursday, July 03, 2008
Think Orange Juice
Wow. I guess Obama does have an elitist problem. The McCain family is remarkably down to earth!
Wednesday, July 02, 2008
Was Clark's Simple Argument Too Complex?
General Wesley Clark was the center of media attention this past week when his comments about John McCain's wartime experience generated a media firestorm.
There has been a lot of outrage from the media and, especially, John McCain. The consensus is that Clark has effectively ruined his chances of becoming Obama's VP.
Lost in all the outrage and media hype was a willingness to deal with the argument that Clark was making. It was not so complex that it was beyond the comprehension of the average person. His argument was as follows:
John McCain is a war hero. He should be respected for that and our nation owes him a debt of gratitude for his service.
His experience as a war hero demonstrated character and courage. His military experience is a valid credential for demonstrating character and courage--at any level, including the presidential one.
Military experience, in and of itself, however, does not mean that you have the knowledge, judgment, and skill needed to be a commander-in-chief. Privates serve honorably and admirably in their service. They demonstrate heroism, courage, and bravery in their service to America.
But spending two years as a private does not automatically qualify you to become a lieutenant. It does not automatically qualify you to become a general. It does not automatically qualify you to become the commander-in-chief.
In order to move up the rankings, you have demonstrate the appropriate knowledge, skill, and, yes, judgment required of the position.
This is not difficult to understand. It is simply common sense. The logic of experience and qualification is the same as the following analogy: Flipping burgers at Mickey D's does not make you qualified to become the CEO of McDonald's. Does someone with experience working at the bottom of a corporation bring unique, useful insight to the role of CEO? Perhaps, but not necessarily. It is perfectly logical to assume that the skills, knowledge, and qualifications to serve in one position do not necessarily transfer to another position.
I do not know enough about John McCain's military record to determine how much we ought to value his military service as a credential for his capability to serve as a commander-in-chief. Clark was simply making the argument that John McCain and the media were wrong to automatically grant him enoromous credibility on national security issues on the basis of his military service.
While that military service certainly does generate respect for McCain's character and courage, it does not necessarily follow that he would make better strategic decisions because of it.
I know none of this is difficult to understand. I know it is not really that complicated, nor is it really even all that nuanced. I also know that when it is boiled down into its simplest form (McCain's military service does not qualify him to be commander-in-chief), the media goes into hyper overdrive fueling a controversy that isn't really all that much to begin with.
There has been a lot of outrage from the media and, especially, John McCain. The consensus is that Clark has effectively ruined his chances of becoming Obama's VP.
Lost in all the outrage and media hype was a willingness to deal with the argument that Clark was making. It was not so complex that it was beyond the comprehension of the average person. His argument was as follows:
John McCain is a war hero. He should be respected for that and our nation owes him a debt of gratitude for his service.
His experience as a war hero demonstrated character and courage. His military experience is a valid credential for demonstrating character and courage--at any level, including the presidential one.
Military experience, in and of itself, however, does not mean that you have the knowledge, judgment, and skill needed to be a commander-in-chief. Privates serve honorably and admirably in their service. They demonstrate heroism, courage, and bravery in their service to America.
But spending two years as a private does not automatically qualify you to become a lieutenant. It does not automatically qualify you to become a general. It does not automatically qualify you to become the commander-in-chief.
In order to move up the rankings, you have demonstrate the appropriate knowledge, skill, and, yes, judgment required of the position.
This is not difficult to understand. It is simply common sense. The logic of experience and qualification is the same as the following analogy: Flipping burgers at Mickey D's does not make you qualified to become the CEO of McDonald's. Does someone with experience working at the bottom of a corporation bring unique, useful insight to the role of CEO? Perhaps, but not necessarily. It is perfectly logical to assume that the skills, knowledge, and qualifications to serve in one position do not necessarily transfer to another position.
I do not know enough about John McCain's military record to determine how much we ought to value his military service as a credential for his capability to serve as a commander-in-chief. Clark was simply making the argument that John McCain and the media were wrong to automatically grant him enoromous credibility on national security issues on the basis of his military service.
While that military service certainly does generate respect for McCain's character and courage, it does not necessarily follow that he would make better strategic decisions because of it.
I know none of this is difficult to understand. I know it is not really that complicated, nor is it really even all that nuanced. I also know that when it is boiled down into its simplest form (McCain's military service does not qualify him to be commander-in-chief), the media goes into hyper overdrive fueling a controversy that isn't really all that much to begin with.
Wednesday, June 04, 2008
Thoughts on the Democratic Primary, Part Three
The Calendar
There's a lot to think about for those who want to remake the Democratic Primary to balance all the different interests of the party. Not least of which was the calendar.
Yes, there was the problem of Michigan and Florida. And yes, there was the excessive front-loading on Super Tuesday. But just think about how the role of placement impacted our perspective on the race.
Imagine the first races (IA, NH, NV, SC) finished exactly the way they did. The candidates split the races evenly and seemed evenly matched at the end of January.
Then Super Tuesday, where Obama finished roughly even with Hillary. Take Georgia, Minnesota, and Colorado out and replace them with Pennsylvania, Kentucky, and Ohio.
Follow that up, not with the Potomac Primary, but states like West Virginia, Texas, Indiana, and the territory of Puerto Rico, and suddenly, by the end of February, it's hard to imagine Obama being able to justify staying in the race. Given his underdog status and his near burial in delegates at this point, he'd probably have been forced to call it quits before March even rolls around.
But this calendar, by accident, was custom-made for Obama. He took advantage and won.
A different calendar? Very easily a different result.
Thoughts on the Democratic Primary, Part Two
Identity Politics
Much has been made of race, gender, and age in this primary. More than in most.
One of the most controversial statements uttered by a Clinton supporter was the following by Geraldine Ferraro:
"If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position. And if he was a woman (of any color) he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is. And the country is caught up in the concept."
She may have received a lot of flak for that statement, but she was actually right. Barack Obama would not be the next Democratic Presidential Nominee if he was not black.
He would not be there if he was not a good speaker, she also could have added.
But why stop there?
He would also not be there if he was not straight. He would not be there if he was not college educated. He would also not be there if he was 20 years older than he is. He would also not be there if he was not a Christian. He would also not be there if he was transgendered. He would also not be there if he was deaf. He would not be there if he didn't have all of his teeth.
It's actually kind of a fun game to play. What characteristics are mandatory for the job of the presidency and which ones are (currently) forbidden?
The point of all of this is that this is really a stupid thing to say. Barack Obama is lucky to be who he is not only because of the color of his skin, but also because of his intelligence, political aptitude, speaking ability, strategic planning, good advisers, and everything else that it takes to get to where he is.
Nature, nurture, and a fair share of luck or chance or whatever you want to call it.
I don't really think it's fair to call Ferraro's statement "racist", which is a very loaded term. Why she's wrong, and why it's a stupid statement is because it implies that Obama is nothing more than the color of his skin and his supporters nothing more than guilty whites and proud blacks.
No black person has ever been a nominee for the American presidency and not just any black person could pull it off. Love or hate Obama, you have to give him this: He put together the right biography with the right message at the right time with the right strategy with the right voice. That's foresight, hard work, and more than a little bit of luck. It is not skin color.
Thoughts on the Democratic Primary, One
I just wanted to lay out some thoughts of my own about this Democratic primary. I have always favored Barack Obama, but I want to document some of my own impressions about the underlying issues surrounding the primary process.
Part One:
What does it mean to win the popular vote?
Hillary Clinton frequently claimed that she won the most popular votes. Barack Obama doesn't make the claim so often, but he has from time to time. The media has repeated Hillary's talking points, but downplayed the math that underlies those calculations.
So today I stumbled across this web site that lets you figure out how you want to add up the popular vote. You can take a look at all the different possibilities that the author considers and play with the math to come up with your version of the top vote-getter.
The catch? In his math, there are 972 ways to count the "popular vote".
Read enough of the comments and you begin to see arguments as to why, really, that number of 972 still leaves a number of interesting possibilities out (count the Texas primary for 2/3's vote and its caucus for 1/3, for example).
The point of all of this is that there is NO standard way of counting the popular vote. This primary has not been one person, one vote (neither is the general election, but I digress).
Why was there no standard way? Because the system is set up so that each state has its own rules and regulations for how it allocates delegates.
1. Some states had caucuses instead of primaries.
2. Some states do not report caucus turnout.
3. Other states had both primaries and caucuses, though voters were told one of them didn't matter.
4. Texas had both and both of them mattered.
5. Michigan and Florida broke the rules and voters were repeatedly told not to go to the polls because the votes would not be counted.
6. Obama and other candidates took their name off the ballot in Michigan. (They weren't allowed to do it in Florida.)
And the kicker? Superdelegates can choose anyone they want, regardless of the tallies.
If the Democratic party wants to make this a popular vote, they need to change the system. I think there are good reasons to maintain the delegate system and even to keep its proportional allocation. Having said that, the current system will have to undergo reform.
At the end of the day, the only metric that you could fairly measure was pledged delegates. Hillary was not wrong to argue that she had a very strong base of support. Mess around with the calculations enough and you come to the conclusion that for all intents and purposes, the popular vote was a tie.
In baseball, the tie goes to the runner. In the Democratic primary of 2008, it goes to the person who comes out in comfortable financial standing, with a strong appeal to the youth, and the potential to turn Republican states into Democratic ones not just in this election, but also in future elections.
Thursday, March 27, 2008
U.S. Dem Primary: A Numbers Experiment
Readers of this blog know that I favor Obama in the U.S. primaries. And while I can't really fault Clinton for staying in the race, I'm concerned that the next three months are not a great way to build party unity and develop a good strategy against John McCain in the fall.
Having said that, I ran the numbers last night. If Democrats counted up their delegates the same way Republicans do (giving the winner of the state all the delegates, not a proportion of them), Clinton would be the frontrunner right now.
It'd be close, but for Barack to win, he'd have to win 6 competitions (where he's currently favored) and then pick up at least one of the following states/territories: Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Puerto Rico, or Kentucky. Clinton is favored to win all of those.
In other words, if it weren't for this switch, made 20 years ago after a push by Jesse Jackson, Barack would be having this major uphill fight. And people would be calling on him to step down.........
Here's the math: http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=pLzwxoRcCDWckDVZDoUpiKw
Having said that, I ran the numbers last night. If Democrats counted up their delegates the same way Republicans do (giving the winner of the state all the delegates, not a proportion of them), Clinton would be the frontrunner right now.
It'd be close, but for Barack to win, he'd have to win 6 competitions (where he's currently favored) and then pick up at least one of the following states/territories: Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Puerto Rico, or Kentucky. Clinton is favored to win all of those.
In other words, if it weren't for this switch, made 20 years ago after a push by Jesse Jackson, Barack would be having this major uphill fight. And people would be calling on him to step down.........
Here's the math: http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=pLzwxoRcCDWckDVZDoUpiKw
Tuesday, March 18, 2008
A More Perfect Union
Obama's speech this morning was, for a political speech, incredibly intelligent, thoughtful, and moving. It is clearly the most significant speech of this presidential campaign, and perhaps of the past 20, 30, or 40 years.
It was extraordinarily bold in its scope and intent. While I think the delivery was mediocre at the start, once he got into his groove, he was powerful.
He displayed humility, understanding, and, above all, hope. I can't imagine listening to a better political speech in the next 20 years.
Unfortunately, as I watch CNN and I read the New York Times, I'm struck at how the whole speech, so sweeping, so remarkable, is being boiled down into comparing and contrasting Wright's comments to Obama's.
Obama's speech attempted to transcend this debate, to look at the larger picture in which all of this took place. It looks like the political analysts aren't ready or willing to do that.
A final thought: I can't understand why it was given on a weekday morning instead of primetime. Why give the speech when everyone's at work? The speech was so long (more than a half hour), that I think it's unlikely many people are going to watch it.
Despite all of this, it's interesting to see that, in the immediate aftermath of this, Obama still leads Clinton among registered Democrats, and still is ahead of John McCain in national polls. That's a bit surprising for me, especially since John McCain is essentially getting a free pass from all the political in-fighting among Democrats.
For what it's worth, it's reaffirmed to me that I was right to believe in Obama so strongly. I'm less than enthusiastic about his heavy-handed rhetoric on protectionism, but this speech, more than any other, makes clear why he would be a great president: an ability to transcend politics and identify the issues that unites us all.
In fact, his speech was more than presidential. While history will be the ultimate judge, sitting here, six hours after watching the speech, I believe it was transformational. I certainly hope so.
Update/Correction/Clarification: Originally I wrote that "he said things that no American politician has ever dared to say". I'm obviously wrong on that front. What I mean to say is that his speech tried to do more than just use race as a political tool.
He tried to make the argument that race still matters in our society, but it doesn't have to be something that divides us. What underlies America's racial tension are the greater values that each of us, individually, fundamentally hold.
Those values bind us together. While they may occasionally clash on the surface, we can't allow ourselves to be divided by them. We need to go beyond the petty clashes and look at the deeper issues. Solving the deeper issues does not mean favoring the arguments of one ethnic group over another. It's about solving issues in a fair way that will benefit us all.
Monday, February 25, 2008
Veepstakes
If Obama pulls off this Democratic nomination, he's gotta go with Bill Richardson as VP, right? He's a Latino and he's from the strategically important southwest, and as far as foreign policy cred goes, he's among the best out there.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tjOuL5qwNIc&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tjOuL5qwNIc&feature=related
Sunday, February 24, 2008
Interesting Hillary Interview
Just stumbled on this interview of Hillary Clinton. Starting at the two-minute mark, there's a fascinating conversation about what if she's not the democratic nominee. Her answer? "I will be."
(Referenced by a scathing attack on the Clinton campaign from Frank Rich.)
(Referenced by a scathing attack on the Clinton campaign from Frank Rich.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
