How'd that get in there?

This is infuriating.

Over the weekend, it was reported that a small rider got into an omnibus spending bill in the Senate that would have given the House and Senate appropriations committee chairs or their agents the right to inspect anyone's income tax returns. Think about that. Some staffer for a committee chair could look up how much money you, or anyone, reported to the IRS. This, by itself is incredible - that the Senate would give away so much of our privacy for no reason.

But it gets worse. Apparently, no one in the Senate knew they voted for the rider. Well, almost no one.

Just so we are clear, Congress puts together what are called omnibus bills. These huge pieces of legislation - often well over a thousand pages - combine a whole bunch of committee recommendations on all kinds of related subjects so that the Congress can vote on lots of little things all at once. Omnibus spending bills allow our representatives to vote for pork without looking stupid. Instead of thousands of individual allocations coming up for a yes or no vote, they vote for all of them at once. They are the work of lots of compromise and infighting. Small allocations for one representative's constitutents are included in exchange for support for another representative's pet projects. "I''ll support the bill if you include a million dollars to fund a submarine for Colorado." Omnibus bills are nefarious, but probably necessary because of how huge our country is.

Riders are small amendments that are attached to bills without going through committees. Riders often have no relationship to the bill being voted on. An omnibus spending bill that includes all the funding for our entire governent, the failure of which would mean world-wide economic collapse, might include a rider making it illegal to skateboard on D.C. sidewalks. Riders escape scrutiny.

Well someone snuck this particular rider onto the omnibus spending bill, and now Senate Majority leader Bill Frist claims he doesn't know who did it. On "Face the Nation" on Sunday, Frist said, "I have no earthly idea how it got in there." The Republican Senate Majority leader doesn't know how a rider got into a bill in the Republican-controlled Senate that would have given incredible new power to two Republican committee chairs? Excuse me. And what is worse, this bill passed. A majority of senators supported this bill. Afterwards, of course, they all claimed not to have read the rider.

A majority of our senators passed a law that none of them read. Or even skimmed.

This is insane.

We need reform of the way our Congress does business. We need a Constitutional amendment prohibiting riders. We need to give serious consideration to prohibting omnibus bills. Let them vote for every single piece of spending. Let's see how much pork they approve if they are on record voting for it individually. These omnibus bills and riders allow stupid campaign charges like the ones levelled in this past campaign where Bush accused Kerry of voting against military spending "X" number of times. Kerry might have voted against an omnibus bill for literally a thousand different reasons, but because that bill also included military spending provisions, he is accused of voting against military spending.

This is insane.

Bar Exam

I passed the July 2004 California Bar Exam!

Published!

My November 9 posting, "Swing and a Miss" was based on a letter I wrote to Salon. Well, it got published. Check it out here:
http://www.salon.com/opinion/letters/2004/11/12/raze/index.html

America's Worst College, according to Slate.com

Timothy Noah writes the "Chatterbox" collumn for Slate.com. He has written a series of articles called, "America's Worst College," in which he argues against the Electoral College system of electing our president. His articles are great. Usually his analysis is very tight. Often, he answers other writers defending the system. They are worth a read. The title of this post is a link to the latest, number 5 in the series. There are links to the previous 4 articles at the bottom of the article.

I have one gripe with his latest argument. He finishes his piece with the following: "Grant's argument [in favor of the Electoral College] is a pretty good example of one key distortion in our thinking brought about by the Electoral College. It makes imaginary victories look real. Who cares who won in a given state if the popular-vote difference was statistically insignificant? In reality, nobody won. But under the Electoral College system, somebody always has to win at the state level, or else you can't award state electors. Under a popular-vote system, we wouldn't have to play that game. We'd just count up the ballots and see who got the most votes."

What Noah misses here is that to some, state victories are not imaginary. Much as I dislike the electoral system and favor a popular vote instant-run-off system, I think it is a mistake to discount the feelings of those who favor strong state's rights. There are people, I have no idea how many, for whom the concept of individual state sovereignty is important. As with the individual nations that make up the Eurpoean Union, many in this country beleive that individual states need to retain, or regain, some independence. I don't mean secede, they just want to make sure their states are not lost in a national government. Strong individual states help prevent the tyranny of a powerful federal government. That was the concern of the founders. It remains a concern today.

So while I favor doing away with the particular states' rights anachronism of the Electoral College, I think it is important to understand and give credit to the fears and concerns of those who want to keep it. They do care about who wins individual states, and to convince them to make the change, we have to address those concerns, not dismiss them.

Swing and a Miss

Salon.com runs a regular feature called "Right Hook," in which Mark Follman compiles conservative commentary. In today's article, Follman described various Republicans' reactions to the election as "nasty rhetoric and full-throated gloating." While much of the round-up did demonstrate the nastiness that seems to permeate the blogosphere, some comments of Grover Nordquist were thrown in there that didn't deserve to be.

Nordquist's comments were positive, optimistic statements of Republican values and policy objectives. Mr. Nordquist is quoted by Follman as writing: "The next four years are a wonderful opportunity for the GOP. They're a chance for the party to see what its governors and senators can achieve in lowering and simplifying taxes, offering parents school choice, ending abusive lawsuits, protecting gun rights and other liberties, and furthering decent, limited government. The next Republican candidates for President will have to make their case not through 'shoulda, coulda, woulda' speeches, but rather by enacting real legislation and pointing to concrete results. And all eyes will be on this virtuous competition within the Republican Party. Why would anyone pay attention to the Democratic Party nomination process? Hillary Clinton cannot be defeated for the nomination, and she can't win the Presidency. Boring."

Now, as a liberal Democrat, I don't agree with most of those policy goals. (Or more accurately, I DO agree with most of those goals as stated, but I don't agree with how I know they will be enacted to favor the rich at the expense of the poor, minorities and the environment. It is hard to be opposed to "decent, limited government." It is easy to be opposed to gutting the EPA.) But there is nothing mean-spirited about suggesting the party in power should pursue its agenda. We'd be clamoring for the same thing from the left had we won. We'd want to see real movement on issues important to us.

The Republican primary process in 2007 WILL be virtuous. They are smarter and better than us at campaigning - and they keep getting better. They WILL send up a raft of primary contenders who have experience and who have gotten results. There is no shortage of Republicans in positions to achieve a lot in the next four years. And they WILL rally behind one candidate early in the process to keep the in-fighting to a minimum. They are already setting the tone of the next election by suggesting Hillary Clinton is our inevitable candidate. And we are doing nothing to dissuade them.

So disagree with Mr. Nordquist all you want. But even if you disagree with his objectives, give the guy credit for speaking reasonably and sensibly about what the future holds for Republicans. If we on the left are going to make gains politically, we have to stop treating all Republicans as the enemy. Elections are about choices, and Mr. Nordquist was able to sum up in 22 words what his party stands for: “lowering and simplifying taxes, offering parents school choice, ending abusive lawsuits, protecting gun rights and other liberties, and furthering decent, limited government.” In clear, concise language, he laid out the most important issues in the Republican party’s platform. Can we do the same? Until we can, how can we hope to offer a viable alternative?

Liberal Semantics

We need to reclaim the word "liberal." It has been politicized to such an extent that it is beginning to lose its meaning. It has been used for too long as an epithet. To many people, the word "liberal" means "bad," or "naive," or "wrong," or "communist," or even "evil." In its most generous usage, it simply means "Democrat." What I'm trying to get at is that in our common vernacular, "liberal" means whatever we want it to mean.

The American Heritage Dictionary has the following definitions relevant to a political context: "(a) Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry. (b) Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded." Here's how Webster's defines it: "Not bound by orthodox tenets or established forms in political or religious philosophy; independent in opinion; not conservative; friendly to great freedom in the constitution or administration of government; having tendency toward democratic or republican, as distinguished from monarchical or aristocratic, forms."

Nice, huh? What's not to like about being a liberal once you know what it means? I think almost all Americans are liberal. I think most Americans would define themselves as liberal if the stigma were removed from the word. If we were to take out the word "liberal" and just ask people, "Are you open to new ideas for progress? Are you tolerant of ideas of others? Do you consider yourself to be limited to established traditional attitudes?" I think they'd line right up and identify themselves as having all the traits of a liberal. Who wants to say that they are bound by authoritarian attitudes? Or that they aren't open to new ideas for progress? Everyone want to be independent in thought. The one definition up there that isn't particularly helpful is "not conservative." Well, duh.

I know the debates were a lousy forum to really talk about things with any real substance, so I shouldn't be complaining that they weren't better used to argue semantics. But it bothered me a little that John Kerry just sat there and took it when Bush called him a liberal. Both Bush and Kerry acted like Bush just called him a dirty word. Bush said Kerry was the most liberal member of the Senate like he was saying Kerry was the ugliest member, or the stupidest member. And Kerry responded the same way. His statement that it isn't helpful to sling labels around was like saying "sticks and stones may break my bones."

So here are a few things I particularly like about being liberal. First, it means I also get to be conservative. I am open to new ideas. I believe in reform, and I am not closed minded about considering the best ideas to get there. Which means I am open to considering conservative ideas. Note the definition - I am not limited to conservative ideas. I consider them among other ideas. My job is to look at all the options and find the ones that I think will work the best. By definition, being a liberal means I am willing to sit down with conservatives person and listen to them, and that I might just accept their ideas as being right. Tradition and orthodoxy persist often because they work. So as a liberal, I have to give those ideas their fair weight.

Second, being liberal means I must stay optimistic. Being liberal literally means I favor proposals for reform and am open to new ideas for progress. In order to favor reform and be open to progress you have to believe that the world is capable of being made better. No matter whether you think things are currently great or lousy, being liberal means you know things can always be made better. That, to me, is the definition of optimism.

Being a liberal is a wonderful thing. We need to start treating that word like the compliment it truly is. "You're the most liberal member of the Senate," needs to be greeted with, "Thank you. I don't know if that's true or not, but I sure try to be."

The Day After

I read a few minutes ago that Kerry called Bush to concede the election. Bush leads by more than 100,000 votes in Ohio, with just under 200,000 provisional ballots uncounted. Statistically, this makes a Kerry victory highly unlikely. He did the right thing by accepting his likely fate in advance. Waiting until after he officially lost would have appeared desperate. So like Nixon before him, Kerry has chosen to place American unity before his own interests.

But I don't like that Kerry - or any candidate - should have to concede before the counting is over, or more accurately, before an outcome is certain. It is our Electoral College that places Kerry in this position. Bush clearly won the popular vote. With no electoral college, there would be no conundrum of waiting for the counting of what should be statistically insignificant provisional ballots. We would all know without a doubt that Kerry lost, and he could concede with honor. Instead, he is doing what is right, and at the same time breaking his promise that every vote would be counted. That's a shame.

(Actually, taking a step back here, we can't really predict what would have happened had there been no Electoral College for this election. Every strategy for winning would have been different. Different issues would have been discussed, advertising would have been different. It is very likely the candidates would have been different. So we can't really say what would have happened.)

It was nice to have our election come off relatively free from mishaps, and it is nice to have a clear victor emerge, even if it isn't my chosen candidate. But in addition to being a little trepidatious about what the next four years will hold, I'm also a little saddened that two issues I think are important will dry up and fade from the nation's attention. First, with the victor in the popular vote winning the Electoral College vote, there won't be any pressure to change the system. Second, with no third-party candidate having any appreciable effect on the outcome of the election, there will be no real interest in an instant run-off process.

Maybe that's not so bad. If we can make progress on these issues now, we might be able to do so in a more bi-partisan way. Now, it won't seem like sour grapes on the part of Democrats in seeking to make these changes.

So as we move into a new administration, I want to keep dreaming of a presidential campaign where strategies are not designed around winning key swing states like Ohio and Florida. I hope to see the day when strategies are designed around appealing to a majority of all Americans, including supporters of other candidates.

Vote

I voted for John Kerry this morning. My decision was based on a two-step process. First, I had to determine if he is fit to lead. He is smart, ambitious, and has a distinguished record of service both in the military and in the Senate. So he passes the threshold test. Second, and most importantly, I did what every voter should. I took an internal inventory of the issues that are important to me and examined my positions on those issues. I then compared my stances to his and President Bush's. Kerry is the candidate with whom I am more closely aligned. I don't agree with every position he holds. But I doubt I could find another human being on Earth with whom I agree on every issue. And of the two candidates, I am more closely aligned with Kerry. So he got my vote.

I don't think Bush could pass my threshold test. He is not smart. He is ambitious - but in a way I can't quite put my finger on. Almost like he has something to prove. His record of leadership is weak. He had no sense of civic duty as a younger man. He got a cushy assignment in the National Guard to avoid Vietnam, and he can't even say he fulfilled that responsibility. He seemed to develop all of his moral positions sometime in his forties. He can't answer simple questions like whether he has ever done cocaine or how many times has he been arrested. He ascended to governor of Texas where he had very little power or authority. His one skill is being likeable. His first real position of power was President, and he showed how weak he was after 9/11. (And no, I'm not just talking about the 7 minutes after he was informed of the attacks when he just sat there dumbfounded listening to school kids read about a goat.) When the whole world united behind the U.S., and he had a rare opportunity to truly lead the world in an historic way, he blew it. His ultra-nationalistic chest thumping and opportunism in seeking an unnecessary war in Iraq created the fastest 180 in world opinion I can imagine. The world went from believing that we are all Americans to hating Americans in a matter of months. Simply put, Bush isn't fit to lead.

Even if Bush were fit to lead, the next step in a good voter's process should be considering how the candidate lines up with your own positions. Like a majority of Democrats and Republicans, I disagree with Bush on most issues. (See my earlier post on How to Like Bush.) The difference between me and most Republicans is I am aware that I disagree with Bush. So Bush fails step two, too. He is not the candidate with whom I am most closely aligned on major issues, so he doesn't get my vote.

Kerry should win by a landslide if all voters were rational and followed this simple two-step process. There will be some disagreement about whether the candidates are fit to lead. Some think Kerry isn't because of his war protesting activities and his relative anonymity in the Senate. Those are legitimate concerns. Some think Bush is fit for a variety of reasons. So there is room of reasonable disagreement there. But moving past the first step - and assuming both men are capabale of doing the job, the next step has to be to compare the candidates' positions to your own. And for most Americans, Kerry wins. Not all, but most.

Let's hope the majority of Americans get what they want today.