I wrote this myself.
Refugee Crisis Worsens
WINDSOR, ONTARIO In what was formerly a park, a make-shift Liberal refugee camp has sprung up in the wake of the reelection of George W. Bush. This tent city, and several more like it, is temporary home to thousands of self-righteous people who say they are fleeing the administration of George W. Bush.
The Canadian government was straining to feed and shelter the refugees on its own until European nations began to airlifting in tons of the refugee’s preferred foods – anything organic, sushi, and lattes. France has been particularly generous in donating cheese, crackers, and red wine for the refugees to consume as they discuss their disappointment with America amongst themselves.
Scholars debate the causes of the refugee crisis. Sociologist Martin Feld of the University of Chicago says that the Liberals do not feel at home in the United States, "in America, if rural people with pickup trucks are the ones who are seen as ‘real’ Americans, where does that leave urban people who drive hybrids?"
Although Canada is refusing to force the Liberal refugees back to America, Canada as said that it cannot give asylum to all of the Liberals, and that other enlightened nations are going to have to take in some. On Monday, Prime Minister Paul Martin justified his refusal to give permanent residency to all the refugees thusly:
"The Canadian economy cannot accommodate so many Women’s Studies professors, grad students in post-colonial literature, and avant-garde film makers. Europe, New Zealand, and others are going to have to take in their share."
United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, Ruud Lubbers, says he hopes that the refugees will return to their homes in the United States, but that the refugees consistently express fears that George W. Bush will cut taxes again.
In the mean time, the refugees are adjusting to life in Canada. They are practicing their hockey and Bryan Adams.
interesting true story about the trade deficit with China.
"And so far, the mounting Asian trade has been largely a one-way affair. After unloading 1,120 containers from the Glory, the longshoremen reloaded the ship for the return trip. Of 667 containers to be sent back, 419 were empty, being returned to Asia to carry more goods back to the United States. Of the rest, most were stuffed with two of New York's biggest exports: wastepaper and scrap metal. "
From times article about the revival of the NY/NJ ports.
I recently read that a the major trauma center for teh Watts neighborhood of LA was closing for lack of funds. Once the trauma center is gone, injured people will have to be taken to hospitals which are farther away, and presumably more people will die.
If only that trauma center were in Alaska - were it in the Last Frontier not only would the trauma center be kept open, but I'm sure Ted Stevens would find a way to expand it.
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/21/politics/21spend.html?pagewanted=print&position=
Highlights
-- Per capita federal spending in Alaska is $ 12,000 a year, double the national average.
-- In the recent spending bill there are 11,772 earmarked special projects for Alaska, for a total of $15,780,623,000. That is about 4 percent of the overall spending in the bill.
House Republicans are cutting Pell Grants. As many as 1.2 million families might have their grants cut.
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/21/education/21pell.html?pagewanted=print&position=
They're so rare that I can't enough of Senate-apportionment-scheme bashing.
"Though the Republicans won nineteen of the thirty-four Senate seats that were up for grabs last Tuesday, for a gain of four, the number of voters who cast their ballots for Republican Senate candidates was 37.9 million, while 41.3 million voted for Democrats—almost exactly Bush’s popular-vote margin over Kerry. When the new Congress convenes in January, its fifty-five Republicans will be there on account of the votes of 57.6 million people, while the forty-four Democrats and one independent will be there on account of the votes of 59.6 million people."
http://newyorker.com/printable/?talk/041115ta_talk_hertzberg
"If you compare seats in the Senate to the actual population of the states, and assume that each Senator represents half a state (a fair assumption), you will find that Democratic Senators actually represent 147,772,393 Americans, or 50.8 percent of the country—a narrow but still very real majority. Of course, due to the rather unrepresentative nature of the Senate, the Democrats are still left with a minority of seats."
http://www.motherjones.com/news/blog/2004/11/MB_2004_44.html#43
Ideas for Democratic revival
There’s a growing consensus that one weakness that the Democrats had in 2004, 2002, and 2000 is that they didn’t stand for anything. Instead of fighting a national election based on big, overarching themes, they fought a dozen or so state-wide elections based on local issues. Sometimes local issues can win an election (see Mary Landrieu in 2002), but you need themes to capture a Congress or retake the presidency.
Some of these ideas are 100 % mine, others are borrowed. Some things the Democrats are already trying to do, I merely call for a new emphasis.
The New Contract (name is not important, just need a slogan)
1. Government Reform.
Democrats commit themselves to reforming Washington. Democrats propose campaign finance reform and changing the institutions that make Washington a rathole. One idea is to propose a corporate flat tax. If we had a corporate flat tax the whole Washington game of lobbyists trying to get special breaks for their industries would be up.
2. Universal Health Care.
Democrats renew their call for universal health care, preferably single-payer. Single-payer sounds radical to many people, so Democrats should talk about expanding Medicare to everyone. Medicare is loved by all. Politicians sometimes hear "keep government out of my Medicare!"
A lot of people forget that there is an economic case to be made for universal health care. In our private system, paper work and profit eat up 15 - 30 percent of all health care expenses. America spends more per person on health care than any other nation, but there is so much waste that measures of healthyness here are below measures in other countries. Medicare is a government program, but it is the most efficient health-care provider in the nation. For every dollar that goes into Medicare, we get 98 cents of health care.
3. Social Security.
Democrats move beyond the status quo on Social Security. Privatization is a fraud, but the system indeed has its problems due to the government’s perennial deficits. Three ideas are means-testing of benefits, raising the retirement age, and possibly upping the ceiling of taxable income.
4. Federalism.
Democrats reembrace federalism. If Alabama wants to ban gay marriage, it should have that right. I favor gay marriage/civil unions, but I would not want gay marriage forced on my state by the courts – these decisions should be made by legislatures and electorates, not judges. Federalism only meets its limits when what one state does will affect another – Illinois shouldn’t have the right to dump untreated sewage into the Mississippi. Federalism also meets its limits when a state is doing something egregiously immoral – e.g. segregation – personally I don’t think forbidding gay marriage is that bad. (taken to its logical conclusion, abortion should be a state decision, since I know returning abortion to the states would never pass muster from Democratic interest groups, this might have to be refined somewhat)
And some strategic stuff . . . .
Values
Democrats talk more about how "values" – including ones derived from the Bible – influence their decisions. There isn’t a lot in the Bible to justify Bushism, but there is a lot to justify help for the poor and environmental conservation. Kerry tried to do this, but his message was lost to the noise of Iraq.
When Republicans say "values," they usually mean abortion, gays, G-d, and guns. The Democrats aren't going to abandon their principles there, but there a few things the Democrats can to for people who worry about moral decline.
How about mandating a la carte cable television buying? If you only watch the History Channel, Fox News, and the Food Network, why should you have to pay for MTV, especially if you don't want your children watching that.
The V chip is a nice idea, but not everyone knows how to use it, and you're still paying for a lot of smut.
Help for the Working Poor
Democrats have to maintain their traditional commitment to helping the poor, but need to emphasize that the poor who are most deserving are the working poor. Democratic solutions to poverty should be ones that reward work – the Earned Income Tax Credit, the minimum wage, etc.
I don’t think these issues would be enough to carry the Democrats to victory unless we get a good campaigner with a nice biography as our nominee. I’m hoping our person in 2008 will be a governor, and not someone from the Northeast. I hate to judge someone by whom their parents were, but let’s have "no patricians" "no Senators’ sons" rules too.
Democrats also need to be aggressive in attacking Republicans. How do you expect the media to cover Republican corruption and evil if the Democrats don’t? Don't let the nominee do this though, just employ surrogates.
Republicans make noise about cutting the EITC, are against raising the minimum wage, are against expanded health coverage, are against all kinds of low-income tax credits. Those positions are immoral, if not unAmerican.
Ever seen those maps which show a nation of red Republican country encircled by a small ring of blue Democratic country? These good folks have created political maps which take into account the size of counties.
http://www-personal.umich.edu/~mejn/election/
Valuable article on uncompetive nature of House races.
http://hnn.us/blogs/entries/8417.html
The article also has some rare discussion of how the Senate apportionment scheme gives undue influence to the Republican party.
"The lack of competition in House races is a crisis of American democracy. Excluding the Texas gerrymander, last Tuesday three incumbent congressmen (two Republicans, one Democrat) were defeated; three more open seats changed parties (two previously held by a Republican, one by a Democrat). In only 12 other contests (CA 20, CO 4, CT 2, CT 4, IN 2, IN 8, MN 6, MO 3, NY 29, OR 5, SD AL, PA 6) did the winner prevail by less than 10 percentage points. (Two seats in Louisiana remain to be decided.) This outcome occurred at a time when a majority of voters believed that the country was on the wrong track and the country is mired in a war that (regardless of one’s opinions on its merits) clearly has not gone as the administration promised.
To put these totals in perspective: more Senate seats changed party control than House contests."
This is an interested reference site showing the voter breakdowns from 2004. A lot of people make a big deal about rich Democrats and downmarket Republicans, myself included, but the Democrats are still the party of the have-nots, the Republicans the party of the haves.
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/US/P/00/epolls.0.html
INCOME Bush Kerry
Less Than $50,000 (45%) 44 % 55 %
$50,000 or More (55%) 56 % 43 %
$200,000 or MOre (4 %) 63% 35 %
I didn't bother with Nader, but Nader did better among upper income people.
With New Mexico joining the Red column, and New Hampshire the Blue, the returns from the 2004 election continue the tradition of Democratic states being net donors to the federal government, while Republican states continue are net donees. These ten states get the most back for every dollar they send to Washington as taxes. Republican states are in bold. DC is the only Democratic state, but isn’t it understandable that the seat of the federal government would see a large amount of federal spending? New Mexico is the only state in this list that even qualifies as purple.
1. D.C. ($6.17)
2. North Dakota ($2.03)
3. New Mexico ($1.89)
4. Mississippi ($1.84)
5. Alaska ($1.82)
6. West Virginia ($1.74)
7. Montana ($1.64)
8. Alabama ($1.61)
9. South Dakota ($1.59)
10. Arkansas ($1.53)
These are the ten states that get the least back from Washington.
1. New Jersey ($0.62)
2. Connecticut ($0.64)
3. New Hampshire ($0.68) (welcome to the club!)
4. Nevada ($0.73)
5. Illinois ($0.77)
6. Minnesota ($0.77)
7. Colorado ($0.79)
8. Massachusetts ($0.79)
9. California ($0.81)
10. New York ($0.81)
If you count the tax/spending differentials for all the states, Republican states are still, by and large, feeding at the federal trough.
All that heartland talk about self reliance is a bunch of baloney.
The Senate . . .
For the second cycle in a row, the Senate races did not go well for the Democrats. Unfortunately, I think poor performance in the world's most exclusive club is going to be a trend for the foreseeable future.
Brad Carson, Tom Dacschle, Inez Tenenbaum, Erskine Bowles, Tony Knowles, and, Betty Castor were all good candidates. They had experience, name recognition, and good funding. In the cases of Carson and Knowles they lost to weak candidates with less experience. Carson’s opponent, Tom Coburn, was farther right than Alan Keyes, and was dogged by performing sterilizations without the consent of patients; Knowles’ opponent, Lisa Murkowski, was appointed to the Senate by her father.
Why did these good candidates lose? Simple, they were Democrats running in Republican states. If Oklahomans are concerned about George W. Bush’s judicial picks getting through, they aren’t going to vote for a member of the party that is blocking things.
It’s time that more attention be paid to the fact that the Senate is gerrymandered for Republican control. The few million residents of the states from Oklahoma to North Dakota have ten Senators, the thirty-five million people of California have two. Decades ago, there were more Congressional districts that voted for a Congressman and president of opposite parties than there are today. We are now seeing that trend come to life in the Senate. Notice Colorado - the only "red" state to elect a Democratic Senator in a competitive race – is actually more of a "purple state."
There are thirty red states, only twenty blue states. Over time the Senate will trend to having sixty Republican Senators versus only forty Democrats. Short of California dividing into three medium sized states, there’s almost nothing the Democrats can do about this condition.
