Sunday, November 2, 2008

Voter Suspression vs. Voter Fraud

Voter Supression vs. Voter Fraud. They are both among the seven problems that Time Magazine outlines in the problems that may face the projected record setting number of voters that will show up to vote on Tuesday. Both the Democratic and Republican National Committees have teams of lawyers on retainer to fight to protect "democracy" as John McCain recently said.

A problem is how do we do that. While it is not voter registration procedures that have kept American voting at a lower rate than most industrial democracies over recent history, the case can be made that we do make it more difficult on our citizens than other countries. The top two problems, relating directly to Voter Supression (the GOP playbook) and Voter Fraud (a Democratic necessary evil) was highlighted in Time last week:

The Database Dilema

"Joe the plumber" is not registered to vote. Or at least he is not registered under his own name. The man known to his mother as Samuel Joseph Wurzelbacher, who has become a feature of John McCain's stump speech, is inscribed in Ohio's Lucas County registration records as "Worzelbacher," a problem of penmanship more than anything else. "You can't read his signature to tell if it is an o or a u," explains Linda Howe, the local elections director.

Such mistakes riddle the nation's voting rolls, but they did not matter much before computers digitized records. The misspelled Joes of America still got their ballots. But after the voting debacle in 2000, Congress required each state to create a single voter database, which could then be matched with other data, such as driver's licenses, to detect false registrations, dead people and those who have moved or become "inactive." In the marble halls of Congress, this sounded like a great idea — solve old problems with new technology. But in the hands of sometimes inept or partisan state officials, the database matches have become a practical nightmare that experts fear could disenfranchise thousands.

In Wisconsin, an August check of a new voter-registration database against other state records turned up a 22% match-failure rate. Around the time four of the six former judges who oversee state elections could not be matched with state driver's license data, the board decided to suspend any database purges of new registrants. But database-matching continues elsewhere. In Florida, nearly 9,000 new registrants have been flagged through the state's "No Match, No Vote" law. (Their votes will not be counted unless they prove their identity to a state worker in the coming weeks.) In Ohio, Republicans have repeatedly gone to court to make public a list of more than 200,000 unmatched registrations, presumably so that those voters can be challenged at the polls, even though most of them, like Joe, are probably legit. "It's disenfranchisement by typo," explains Michael Waldman, executive director of the Brennan Center for Justice, which tracks voting issues.

Elsewhere the purges are peremptory. A county official in Georgia this year removed 700 people from voter lists, even though some of those people had never received so much as a parking ticket. Another Georgia voter purge, which seeks to remove illegal immigrants from the rolls, has been challenged by voting-rights groups that say legal voters have been intimidated by repeated requests to prove their citizenship. Back in Mississippi last March, an election official wrongly purged 10,000 people from the voting rolls — including a Republican congressional candidate — while using her home computer. (The names were restored before the primary.)

With just days until the election, the scale of the database-purge problem is unknown. Millions have been stripped from voter rolls in key states, but the legitimacy of those eliminations remains unclear. The sheer volume of state voter checks against the federal Social Security Administration database, however, has raised concerns. Six states that are heavily using the federal database were recently warned by Social Security commissioner Michael Astrue about the danger of improperly blocking legitimate voters. "It is absolutely essential that people entitled to register to vote are allowed to do so," he said in October.

"Mickey Mouse" Registrations and Polling Place Challenges

Thanks to a few bad apples, ACORN is no longer just an oak-tree nut. McCain blames the group for "maybe perpetrating one of the greatest frauds in voter history." Members of Congress have demanded investigations. The fbi is asking questions. Republican protesters have started crashing political events in squirrel costumes.

Yet the problem of registration fraud is age-old. For decades, both parties and many other groups have paid people to go out and register new voters. In the case of acorn, a community group that represents low-income and minority communities, this led to a massive registration drive this year, which signed up 1.3 million new people, mostly in swing states. The problem is that a small fraction of those new voters don't exist. That's because the 13,000 part-time workers conducting the acorn registration drive were paid on a quota system, providing them a clear incentive to fabricate registrations. Across the country, registrars have flagged thousands of acorn forms as suspect. In Florida, "Mickey Mouse" tried to register with an application stamped with the acorn logo. The starting lineup of the Dallas Cowboys signed up to vote in Nevada. But there's a difference between registration fraud and voter fraud; the latter has not been documented on any significant scale in decades. Phony registrations are difficult to translate into fraudulent votes. Under federal law, new registrants still have to provide election officials with identification before casting their first ballot. Unless Mickey Mouse has an ID, the chance that he'll vote is slim.

Democrats complain that trumped-up charges of voting fraud could scare people from the polls. On the other hand, the acorn effect makes elections suspect — and that's bad for everyone. Republicans in several key swing states have argued that the false registrations make it necessary to monitor polls and challenge suspect voters. If that happens on a grand scale, the voting process could become more like running a gauntlet than exercising a right, with polling-place delays and confrontations that could scare people off or just lead them to conclude it's not worth the time.

_________________

So what is the bigger problem, Voter Supression or Voter Fraud? Blog here. And do you think it threatens Tuesday's vote?

Executive Branch & the Bureaucracy Study Guide

Executive Branch & the Bureaucracy -- Patterson, Chapters 13/14

Roles of the president -- Chief Diplomat, Chief Legislator, Commander-in-Chief, etc.
Presidential Leadership Style -- pyramid, circular, ad hoc
Presidential Veto Power -- Line Item Veto
Stewardship Theory, Whig (or Strict Constructionalist) Theory
President's role in foreign policy v. domestic policy
Two presidencies thesis
Bully Pulpit
Coattails
War Powers Act
Executive Agreements
President's power to influence legislation
Impeachment procedures
Executive power in a presidential system vs. a parlimentary system
Executive office of the President "umbrella-like"
Imperial Presidency
Constitutional (Formal) Requirements
Informal Requirements
Formal (Expressed) Powers of the Presidency
Informal powers of the Presidency
Power of Prez. in times of crisis
Presidential electoral systems -- primaries, electoral college
Cabinet -- selection process and roles
presidential approval ratings -- first term vs. second term
Lame Duck
prez. powers granted without consent of Congress
Executive Privilege
Signing Statements
Bureaucracy -- cabinet departments, regulatory agencies, independent agencies
Managing the bureaucracy --patronage, executive leadership, merit
Bureaucratic accountability
Public opinion on bureaucracy
ID -- president's current: Chief of Staff, Secretary of State, Secretary of Defense, Attorney General
FRQ -- Public Approval of President's over time

Tuesday, October 28, 2008

Broken Government? Your Assignment: Fix it


(This news from last year, reported on Political Warrior)


WASHINGTON - The Bush administration proposed new import safety rules that it said would give consumers new confidence and regulators new muscle in the face of a nearly $2 trillion annual flood of imports and a spate of troubling recalls involving tainted food and defective products.

The rules were announced even as the administration's top product safety regulator defended her agency's actions -- and her own controversial travel record -- before a congressional committee.

Devised by a presidential Cabinet-level working group on import safety, the rules will give agencies like the Food and Drug Administration new authority to order product recalls if manufacturers refuse.

The full Chicago Tribune story is linked here:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-safety_wednov07,1,5431870.story

The plan was applauded by critics of the bureaucracy under Bush. There have been calls by Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and Democratic Presidential Candidate John Edwards for the acting chairman of the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), Nancy Nord to resign. The Seattle Post-Intelligencer calls it a "national embarrassment."

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/338888_means09.html

Mike Adams,the creator of the above cartoon, thinks things are just as bad at the Food and Drug Administration (FDA):"Of all the cartoons we've ever done on the FDA, this is the one that people seem to like the best.

It addresses the issue of FDA conflicts of interest. The Food and Drug Administration, an agency that suffers under the hallucination that it protects the public from dangerous foods and drugs, has actually become the marketing department of Big Pharma. It actually takes money from drug companies in exchange for evaluating and approving their drugs, and the decisions concerning which drugs to approve almost always come down to a panel of "experts" who have strong financial ties to the very companies impacted by their decisions.''

Well, if it's "Broken Government" then your job to fix it.


In groups (1-through-4) , you will be assigned a governmental agency (either executive departments, independent agencies, or a executive board or committee). Your group will research the agency and a major policy initiative. For next Thursday the group will have:
1. A Fact Sheet -- Who you are and what you do.

2. A policy proposal -- What is your big plan to make this country work better. What do you need from the appropriations committee to make it work?
3. A 5-minute pursuasive presentation -- Plan a pitch to get a piece of the pie.
_________________
2nd Hour --

Ones -- Department of Labor (DOL)/ Federal Communications Commission (FCC)
Twos - Department of the Interior (DOI)/Department of Homeland Security (DHS)
Threes -- Housing & Urban Development (HUD)/Amtrak
Fours -- Department of Energy (DOE)/Social Security Administration (SSA)

3rd Hour --
Ones -- Department of Transportation (DOT)/Enviromental Protection Agency (EPA)
Twos - Health & Human Services (HHS)/Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA)
Threes -- Department of Justice (DOJ)/NASA
Fours -- Department of Treasury/National Endowment of the Humanities (NEH)









Tuesday, September 30, 2008

So now what?

After the House voted no on the bailout plan, and blame was passed around both sides of the aisle. New York Times Op-Ed columnist and economic professor Paul Krugman wrote on his blog:

Ok, we are a banana republic

House votes no. Rex Nutting has the best line: House to Wall Street: Drop Dead. He also correctly places the blame and/or credit with House Republicans. For reasons I’ve already explained, I don’t think the Dem leadership was in a position to craft a bill that would have achieved overwhelming Democratic support, so make or break was whether enough GOPers would sign on. They didn’t.

I assume Pelosi calls a new vote; but if it fails, then what? I guess write a bill that is actually, you know, a good plan, and try to pass it — though politically it might not make sense to try until after the election.

For now, I’m just going to quote myself:

So what we now have is non-functional government in the face of a major crisis, because Congress includes a quorum of crazies and nobody trusts the White House an inch.
As a friend said last night, we’ve become a banana republic with nukes.

_____________

With the Dow falling 777 points, this is not just about Wall St., but about Main St. It will effect retirement plans and student loans as well as credit lines that become available on "Main St." (Wolak)

Monday, September 29, 2008

Who won the first debate?

So who won the first presidential debate in your mind? Blog here. Three hours before the debate started look to the right or on the link this on-line page from the Washington Post:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/images/26Sep_Friday_WSJ.JPG

Both John McCain and Barack Obama claimed victory in Friday's debate and are running ads touting their respective triumphs. Polling data suggests otherwise. A CBS poll using random sampling showed 39% saw Obama as the winner and 24% see McCain as the winner. An Inside Advantage poll reported a virtual tie, with 42% saying Obama won and 41% saying McCain won. An Opinion Research poll done for CNN gave Obama the win, 51% to 38%, with men splitting evenly and women going for Obama 2 to 1. However, the sample had a slight Democratic bias.

A poll on CNN's Website with 80,500 respondents gave Obama the victory 67% to 28%. An NBC survey, which drew 291,000 responses gave the victory to Obama 51% to 35%. Democracy Corps ran a 45-person focus group in St. Louis. The group was heavily tilted towards the Republicans, with 33% identifying as Republicans, 27% identifying as Democrats, and the rest independents. The group as a whole voted for Bush over Kerry by a 2-to-1 margin in 2004. Nevertheless, by a 38% to 27% margin, they felt that Obama won the debate.

In addition to all the polls reported yesterday yet another poll shows that Obama won the debate Friday. A Gallup poll showed that 46% of the people who watched it thought Obama won and 34% thought McCain won. When asked which candidate can best solve the country's problems, it is Obama 52% to 35%. Since this debate was largely about foreign policy, McCain's strongest suit, these results do not bode well for him in the coming debate, which is about domestic policy. But as the tracking polls start covering the post debate period, we will have a better idea of whether it changed how people will vote. After all, someone can say: "Obama is the better debater but I think McCain would be a better President." The next debate is between the Vice-Presidential nominees on Oct. 2 at Washington University in St. Louis, MO.

www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Pres/Maps/Sep29.html

Blog here on your thoughts about Friday night.

Thursday, September 25, 2008

Big Government is Back, To the Rescue?

Just when you thought the presidential campaign and its upcoming debates were the biggest show in town, the meltdown of some of the largest U.S. investment banks has stolen the spotlight…big time.Economists are still evaluating how we got into this current mess.

The bursting of the real estate bubble combined with over investment in risky mortgages mixed with a shortage of capital added to an enormous loss of confidence in what we thought were our steadiest financial institutions.

While most economists agree that government must play a role in helping to alleviate this banking mess, take caution! History has shown that making the wrong move can exaggerate an already bad economic problem.In the early 1930s after the historic crash on Wall Street, the Federal Reserve Board actually increased interest rates to get cash out of the system.

In retrospect, economists note that it was the worst decision at the worst time and probably exaggerated our dire economic situation at the beginning stages of the Great Depression.In this current scenario, the Feds have already orchestrated the mergers of huge institutions like Bank of America and Merril Lynch. It has effectively taken over mega mortgage guarantors Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae and infused capital into the struggling AIG, one of the world’s largest insurers.

Now comes a plan from President Bush that would give the Treasury Department the power (and $700 billion) to buy bad-mortgage assets to essentially begin bailing financial institutions out of the mess they created.Ardent free-marketers gasp at the scope of this government intervention and the reality that such a bailout could inflate our national debt to $11.3 trillion. Liberal critics contend that these large government bailouts (like the 1980s bailouts of hundreds of mismanaged Savings and Loan at the cost of up to $500 billion) are just corporate welfare that do little to address the needs of common investors.Congress is filled with representatives of both these perspectives plus a whole lot of opinions in between. Capitol Hill will certainly be buzzing this week as the Democratic majorities of both chambers decide just how to deal with the bold plan put forth by a Republican President with abysmal approval ratings.

Whatever their answer, rest assured that history and the markets will judge just how well—or how poorly-- government was able to intervene in this massive financial mess.

The 2 Regular Guys at CBS 2 School have their take on Government and Free Markets.

Newsweek's Fareed Zakaria reports on how government needs to be interventionist in markets that cannot be totally (or almost) free of regulation. "If you want to be truly free of regulation, try Haiti or Somalia. The real trick is to craft good regulations that allow markets to work well. No regulatory structure will be perfect, none will eliminate risk, nor should they. At best they can tame the wildest gyrations of the market economy while maintaining its efficiency," Zakaria writes.
We put government regulation is business on the political spectrum, (liberal v. conservative), but liberal publication like The Nation and conservative magazines like US News & World Report are expressing concern. This is all the more reason that can be made for "The Real American Poltical Spectrum," where the question of this government intervention will be more on the Economic Eltist or Populist position.
So far the populists in polls don't like it, but will they need it if it has a medicine that helps heal all?

Politics is Easy, Governing is Hard

Two days after his administration announced a $700 billion bailout policy for Wall St. banks burrdened by the current mortgage crisis, President George W. Bush on Wednesday said the United States was in a serious financial crisis as he tried to convince Americans to support a $700 billion financial rescue plan.

"We are in the midst of a serious financial crisis and the federal government is responding with decisive action," Bush said in a televised national address.

Bush called for non-partisan support for a plan that have polls saying the public is leary of. (See Big Government Post above). Many questions face us in this many governing and politics face us as we examine what's going on.

First, the proposed policy plan, with AP gov't. terminology.

Question: What is the difference between fiscal and monetary policy?

Answer: Fiscal = budetary choices of taxing and spending

Monetary = federal reserve decisions on interest rates and monetary supply.

So...The bailout plan proposed, but likely to change as it met resistance in Congress, by Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, would be a fiscal policy. Aside from Paulson was Fed. Chairman Ben Bernacke. If the Federal Reserve lowers interest rates or increases money money in cirrculation, it would be a monetary move.



Meanwhile, the Politics? With the first presidential debate scheduled for Friday, John McCain wants a postponement. Is that because he wants to get back to Capitol Hill to govern (hasn't been there for many key votes like the GI-Bill this campaign season) or because he is playing politics?
Other questions, can a lame duck president, with an approval rating of 19 percent, get Congress to get behind his plan? And, how much can a president really do about the economy, anyway?