Your unhappiness is not due
to your want of a fortune or high position or fame or sufficient vitamins.
It is due not
to a want of something outside of you,
but to a want of something inside you.
You were made for perfect happiness.
No wonder everything short of God disappoints you.
Fulton Sheen
The Earmark Kerfuffle
I'm still shaking this dispute out, because there is so much hype going around. But the Tea Party contingent as usual has taken a stand without understanding the issues. (I think the earmark process itself is seen as back room politics of legislators scratching each other's back to demonstrated, as Lucy Brown of Peanuts would say, they get their fair share.) I believe that Senators McConnell (ACU rating 90%) and Inhofe (98%) are correct in terms of what they are saying in opposing the Rand Paul-sponsored earmark legislation: first of all, the percentage of earmarks has steadily decreased, in the 2009 fiscal year, accounting for less than 1% of federal spending. So the issue is primarily symbolic. Second, earmarks are more a case of ensuring a certain amount of budget is reserved for specific items that otherwise would be available to federal agencies (under the President) to use for their purpose. Thus, a ban on earmarks is seen as ceding even limited control over federal spending to Administration discretion (which, under this Presidency, is not such a great thing).
There are some side arguments going on as well; for example, one idea (presented by conservatives or liberals for different reasons) is to give more to the states directly rather than the federal bureaucrats spending the money (e.g., instead of federal legislators deciding how to spend money, let state or local legislators decide how to spend the money). The fundamental problem I have with this argument is that I view it as a form of state welfare, which fosters dependence on the federal government and a less of control over their own decisionmaking authority (i.e., government money often comes with strings attached). I have been a consistent critic of state bailouts. For example, if the voters of California and New York elect Democratic legislatures and governors whom spend themselves into a ditch, making unsustainable concessions to government worker unions, why is it the federal government's problem?
On balance, I think Rand Paul and the others have the better argument, but I think that McConnell and Inhofe are making some valid points. First, I don't believe that 1-3% of the federal budget really constitutes a material balance of power between the Congress and the White House. Second, I think that whether we are talking about Congressional vs. agency earmarks, we are not sure any particular earmark is intrinsically worthy, whether by Congress or by agency. Certainly the Bridge to Nowhere funding was indefensible; the Alaska senators secured the money with the special provision even if it wasn't spent on a bridge, Alaska could spend the money however it wished. It became clear by the time Sarah Palin was elected governor, the funding would only cover a fraction of a bridge which costs had grown out of control. So it was like found money by the state legislature which spent the money--on its own earmarks.
But it's not simply enough to ban earmarks; we need to reduce the money of the budget by a comparable amount so that federal agencies won't use it for their own earmark process, as McConnell and Inhofe suggest. (Actually, we need to trim more than 1 to 3% of the budget.) My principal argument to Rand Paul et al. is that an earmark ban is insufficient in the way towards a balanced budget.
The Beginning of a Kerfuffle
Between Bush and the Tea Party/Sarah Palin?
George W. Bush is doing publicity for his new Decision Points book, but he criticizes John McCain (1) for not using him better (this seems similar to Clinton's complaint with respect to the 2000 Al Gore race), (2) for McCain's poor handling of the campaign during the TARP legislation process, and (3) for selecting Sarah Palin on the ticket, which Bush think was the difference in the election.
I think first of all, Bush has an issue with John McCain which stems from their bitter early struggles in the 2000 Presidential campaign. Second, Sarah Palin was a key factor which turned off many independents and moderates, but I think the real issue was more the economy which (as we could tell by midterm election results) was a decisive factor. Third, the Tea Party is especially critical of Bush's budget (as I am). As to using a President with 25% approval--I think he's mostly thinking in terms of firming up the base, which primarily was Sarah Palin's role in the campaign. I think to some degree that's true. However, someone who chose Dick Cheney, which is itself questionable, should not be criticizing the VP picks of others.
More Political Potpourri
- The Saga of Joe "Don't Count the Votes" Miller Continues. I haven't seen any new updates from last night's count. I found one reference saying nearly half the write-ins had been accumulated. What we know today is less than 1% were for miscellaneous candidates, 89% have been unchallenged for Lisa Murkowski, another 8 to 9% have been counted as voter intent for Murkowski but challenged by Miller, with the residual 1.4% being Miller challenges sustained by Ms. Fenumiai Among that 1.4%: "McCosky," "Misskowski" and "Morcowski." (Heaven forbid anyone in Alaska read my post discussing my favorite philosophy professor, Sister Mary Christine Morkovsky!) [I would be very surprised if the rest of the write-in votes are significantly different than this distribution, and if so, Lisa could win the election, even without the misspelled ballots.] I leave it to the reader to decide whether even the sustained challenges were reasonable objections--how many candidates had surnames with 3 syllables beginning with 'M' and ending with a variation of 'ski'? Give me a break! The pettiness of the Miller contingent is unbelievable; in one case, a Miller representative challenged a vote where the 'L' in 'Lisa' was in cursive, instead of printed. Below is an AP photo of a vote challenged by the Miller campaign--for reasons I'm not sure (is it the 'a' in 'Lisa'?) For shame, Mr. Miller!
 |
| Photo Courtesy of AP, a Miller-challenged Vote for Lisa Murkowski |
- House Count Confusion. As someone with a research interest in human factors/ergonomics, it's been frustrating to see usability issues arise in the election process, whether we are talking about the infamous "butterfly ballot" issue back in the 2000 Florida Presidential vote or the fact that we run into usability problems in terms of late election changes (e.g., the California Senate incumbent whom died several days before the election) or the way that the election process is not designed to prevent human error or subjective factors (e.g., disputed President ballots in the 2000 Florida general election or Joe Miller's complaints over "subjective" write-in counts. In the private sector, we have developed technology that will make it impossible to insert, say, a card the wrong way in a machine, allow for real-time stock transactions. But usability also shows up in various election results portals and/or news stories At least I didn't see a link to single webpage of undecided races cross-linked to latest state election boards (assuming those were available), including newly made projections/declared winners. [I think this is common sense, but I haven't found any webpages doing it. RCP comes close with a centralized page that one can scan for undecideds (you look for blanks in the results column). (However, the RCP only gives whole-number percentages, inadequate for close elections, and no timestamp of the latest update.) Some portals show the GOP with 239 seats, at least 1 with 240, others may be holding off if the losing campaign wants a recount; in other cases, you have obsolete vote totals. Politico published an update today summarizing 8 races. Two turnover seats (in Texas and North Carolina (the Etheridge loss)) may involve a recount by losing Democratic incumbents. We still have a split among the 6 seats mentioned in yesterday's post (I corrected some typos). The two Democratic incumbents from California have declared victory. I haven't founded any updated results that changes the distribution of the seats. If the wins hold, it will be an historical 64-seat turnover.
"President Obama was in India yesterday visiting our jobs. Tomorrow he goes to China to visit our money." –Jay Leno
[Well, Barack Obama wanted to visit one of those help centers; you see, after 30 speeches to the American people on health care, they just don't seem to get it... He figured maybe he could pick up some pointers on how Indians get their points across to their American customers...]
An original:
- Mayor Michael Bloomberg is spending $370,000 of taxpayer money (almost two-thirds funded by the US taxpayers), to spend on billboard ads warning about excess salt in canned soup and other prepared food. Jewish mothers will no longer send the mayor some chicken soup when he catches a cold, and the Soup Nazi has responded by telling city inspectors: "No soup for you." Conservatives believe on privatizing dieting advice to mothers, whom will also remind us to eat our vegetables and no eating between meals, all without a penny added to the national debt. Now, Mayor Bloomberg, about those New York City vendor hot dogs....
Musical Interlude: Instrumental/One-Hit Wonders
Soeur Sourire, "Dominique"
