The Modern Independent

“You’re So Cool!”: Jared Polis on Repealing DADT

Posted by Ryan Dawkins

Congressman Jared Polis was on Hardball with Chris Matthews last week to discuss the imminent repeal of the military’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy concerning gays in the military.  It appears that their are enough Republicans in the Senate now to successfully bring the measure to a cloture vote.

Here is Polis on Hardball:

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

FOX News Misinforms? Say It Ain’t So!

Posted by Ryan Dawkins

For everyone who is blind to the obvious, The Huffington Post has an informative piece based on a recent study from the University of Maryland. It notes:

Fox News viewers are much more likely than others to believe false information about American politics, a new study concludes.

The study, conducted by the University of Maryland, judged how likely consumers of various news outlets and publications were to believe misinformation about a wide range of political issues. Overall, 90% of respondents said they felt they had heard false information being given to them during the 2010 election campaign.

Among the pearls of wisdom pedaled by FOX, the study notes that viewers were more likely to incorrectly believe that the stimulus package led to job loses, health care reform will worsen the deficit, there isn’t a scientific consensus on climate change, Republicans opposed the Wall Street bailouts, their own tax rates have gone up, and the stimulus didn’t include tax-cuts.  

The New York Times also covered the U of Maryland study here.

Senator Bernie Sanders’ 9 Hours of Fame

Posted by Ryan Dawkins

A rare Mr. Smith-goes-to-Washington moment occurred on Friday afternoon. Senator Bernie Sanders, the Democratic Socialist Senator from Vermont, stood on the Senate floor for 9 hours to filibuster the tax-cut compromise brokered between President Obama and the Congressional GOP. 

Watch the first twelve minutes of the filibuster below:

Reaction to the day-long spectacle has been mixed.  For example, Stan Collender at Capital Gains and Game was especially critical of the firebrand Senator:

What did Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) actually accomplish with his 9-hour speech against the tax deal this past Friday? Did he...

• Change any votes?
• Force the leadership to change the tax deal so that it was more to his liking?
• Demonstrate enough Democratic disagreement with the deal that the White House felt the need to revise it?
• Demonstrate a new coalition with Republicans that made it clear the deal in doubt?
• Stop the Senate from considering the deal?
• Stop the Senate from considering anything else?
• Make it clear that he was able and willing to stop the debate from occurring by using the tactic again?

The answer to all of the questions above is a resounding no.

What Sanders’ filibuster did achieve, however, was completely unrelated to the tax-cut debate.  He served as vivid reminder that perhaps the only real reform to the filibuster rule in the Senate that is needed is to require Senators to actually stand on the Senate floor and do it.  Almost without question, Senators would use the procedural delaying tactic more sparingly—and for shorter periods of time—if it required them to actually invest themselves, both physically and mentally, in the obstructionist act.

Debunking the Liberal Purists on Health Care Reform and The Bush Tax Cuts

Posted by Ryan Dawkins

The liberal backlash against President Obama’s tax deal, which includes a two-year extension of all the Bush tax-cuts, with Republican leadership is at fever-pitch.  At no point since the debate over the public option in health care reform have liberal in Congress and across America been more critical of the President’s performance.

The common attack against Obama is that he is, at best, a weak leader and poor negotiator.  If only he had been more stubborn, the argument goes, he could have gotten everything the Democrats wanted—a roll-back of the tax-cuts on top income earners, an extension of unemployment benefits, and, oh yeah, the public option that liberals wanted so during during the health care debate. 

However, in a press conference about the tax deal on Tuesday, Obama defended himself against attacks from, what he calls, ‘liberal purists’:

“This notion that somehow we are willing to compromise too much reminds me of the debate that we had during health care. This is the public-option debate all over again. So I pass a signature piece of legislation where we finally get health care for all Americans... But because there was a provision in there that they didn't get that would have affected maybe a couple of million people, even though we got health insurance for 30 million people and the potential for lower premiums for 100 million people, that somehow that was a sign of weakness and compromise.”

He continued, “Now, if that's the standard by which we are measuring success or core principles, then let's face it, we will never get anything done. People will have the satisfaction of having a purist position and no victories for the American people.”

Why Passing the Tax-Cut Deal is a Political Must-Do for Democrats

Posted by Ryan Dawkins

If Democrats don’t pass the tax-cut deal they will effective abdicate the debate over the economy for at least the next two years and effectively ruin any chance for making electoral gains in 2012.  Here is the reasoning from NBC News’ First Read:

Dems decide to fight and get nothing when the tax cuts expire at the end of the year. Then, on Jan. 6, the new GOP-led House “comes to the rescue” and passes legislation to extend the Bush-era tax cuts. So say the economy recovers a bit but not gangbusters. Well, the GOP will criticize Democrats for creating uncertainty at fragile time. Or say the economy recovers gangbusters in 2011-12, the GOP will have an argument to take much of the credit. Bottom line: If Democrats line up and try to kill the compromise, the political price they could pay might be much higher than they fathom as they'll be on the wrong side of the economic argument -- no matter the outcome. At least they can control the process for now.

This analysis is both prescient and absolutely correct.  In fact, I think this is going to be the GOP’s first and last line of attack two years from now if the deal does not go through.  However prudent the tax-cut deal may or may not be in terms of good policy (I am decidedly torn on whether it is good policy or not), the political calculus here could not be more clear:  The Democrats are going to have to vote for this compromise. 

The Tea Party’s Billion Dollar Fiscal Hypocrisy

Posted by Ryan Dawkins

Nobody hates earmarks more than Tea Partiers.  That is why this report from the National Journal is so hilarious:

Members of the Congressional Tea Party Caucus may tout their commitment to cutting government spending now, but they used the 111th Congress to request hundreds of earmarks that, taken cumulatively, added more than $1 billion to the federal budget.

According to a Hotline review of records compiled by Citizens Against Government Waste, the 52 members of the caucus, which pledges to cut spending and reduce the size of government, requested a total of 764 earmarks valued at $1,049,783,150 during Fiscal Year 2010, the last year for which records are available.

Many of the members of the Congressional Tea Party Caucus who requested millions in earmarks for their districts have taken the voluntary pledge to ban earmarks.

Okay, now everyone together: HYPO-CRITES!

Health Care Reform v. South Carolina: The Law’s State Opt-Out Clause

Posted by Ryan Dawkins

South Carolina’s governor-elect, Nikki Haley, met with President Obama today with other newly elected governors, most of which campaigned against the President’s legislative agenda. The President spent a large portion of the time defending his health care reform overhaul.  At one point in the conversation,  Haley implored to allow South Carolina to opt-out of the individual mandate.

The Huffington Post reports:

South Carolina's governor-elect Nikki Haley said in an interview later that she told Obama that South Carolina could not afford the health care mandate, and that it would cripple small businesses.

"I respectfully asked him to consider repealing the bill," she said, to which he clearly stated he would not. "I pushed him further and said if that's the case, because of states' rights would you at least consider South Carolina opting out of the program?"

Obama told her he would consider letting South Carolina opt out, Haley said, if South Carolina could find its own solution that included a state exchange, preventing companies from bumping people for preexisting conditions and allowing insurance pooling.

"I think it's something we go back to South Carolina and start crunching," she said. "This is about saying we're going to fight this every step of the way and use every option possible."

According to South Carolina’s home newspaper, The State, Obama gave three provisions that an opt-out plan must contain:

Obama’s conditions, Haley said, were that states would have to run exchange programs enabling uninsured residents to choose among different health plans; would have to ban coverage exclusions for treatment of pre-existing illness; and would have to create pools for large groups of individuals to get discounted coverage.

Haley said afterward that she would start working on Obama’s tentative proposals.

Splitting Votes in 2012: Democratic Primaries and Third Parties

Posted by Ryan Dawkins

Ed Kilgore makes a strong case for why President Obama will not face a serious primary challenger in 2012. Writing in The New Republic, he argues:

Obama's straight approval ratings among rank-and-file Democrats are very high. According to Gallup’s latest weekly tracking poll, 81 percent of self-identified Democrats give Obama a positive job approval rating. Among liberal Democrats, who are supposedly the most likely to rebel, the number rises to 85 percent. Let's compare that to the last three Democratic presidents, two of whom faced serious primary challenges: At equivalent points in their presidencies, Bill Clinton had a positive job rating among Democrats of 74 percent; Jimmy Carter's rating was 63 percent; and Lyndon Johnson had a rating of 66 percent. And Carter's and LBJ's numbers had to fall by ten or twenty more points before either attracted another contender.

The racial politics of the Democratic Party also make a serious primary challenge less likely. Sure, some progressives have been raging at Obama as of late. But anyone credibly threatening to topple Obama would have to pry away a significant chunk of Obama's support among African Americans—and in case you haven't noticed, Obama is the first black president. His job approval rating among African Americans is currently 89 percent, and it has not gone below 85 percent at any point of his presidency. Can you conceive of a left-wing revolt that runs directly counter to the manifest wishes of the largest and most loyal segment of the Democratic base? Imagine Hillary Clinton launching her 2008 candidacy without any of the goodwill that her husband's presidency had engendered among African Americans.

I think Kilgore is right. He also notes that their isn’t a single galvanizing issue to draw support away from Obama, which is necessary for a successful challenger. In my mind, the more likely scenario is that there will be a third party candidate in 2012 who will split the Republican vote on the Right, especially if the GOP Congress fails to satisfy the Tea Party’s rapacious hunger for fiscal austerity. 

The DREAM Act: A Sensible Attempt to Protect Society’s Most Vulnerable

Posted by Ryan Dawkins

One of the issues that will likely get lost in the lame duck session of the 111th is the DREAM Act, a bill that Democrats have been trying to pass for almost a decade.  In short, the bill would give legal residency to immigrants who arrived in the United States as children (under age 16) and who have resided here for at least five years, graduated from high school and completed two years of college or military service.

Harry Reid issued a release in November declaring his intention to bring it up for a vote before Congress convenes for the holidays.  In his statement, Reid stated, “If there is a bipartisan bill that makes sense for our country economically, from a national security perspective and one that reflects American values, it is the Dream Act. This bill will give children brought illegally to this country at no fault of their own the chance to earn legal status.”

Indeed, illegal immigrants who were brought to this country as young children—like Michelle Rodriguez, who was profiled in a recent Washington Post article—are the most sympathetic figures in the fight over immigration reform because, as Reid correctly notes, they are often brought to the United States through no fault of their own. Their entire lives are built in this country, they are as culturally American as native born children, and they often have little memory of their lives in Mexico. Nevertheless, they exist in this country without papers and become part of a growing class of marginalized and unprotected people.

Basic human decency dictates that at least this group of people should be given a path to live in this country legally and without fear of deportation from a place that is, in every sense, their home.  Nevertheless, conservatives have demagogue the DREAM act and propagandized the debate with misinformation and outright falsehoods. 

Balancing the Federal Budget in a Few Easy Steps

Posted by Ryan Dawkins

A couple weeks ago, shortly after the Bowles-Simpson Deficit Commission report was leaked to the press, The New York Times created an awesome interactive feature that would allow its readers to attempt to balance the federal budget deficit by 2030.  For budding policy wonks such as myself, the interactive feature is both fun and educational because it gives a slate of commonly brandied about proposals for spending cuts and tax increases that think tanks and policymakers have been discussing for years.

What follows is my plan, which can be characterized by a little entitlement reform,  modest cuts to our bloated defense budget, and tax increases on the rich and powerful.

In short, the goal is to close a 1.34 trillion shortfall by 2030.  Here is how I did it, making roughly equal proportions of spending cuts and tax increases:

1)  Defense: Reduce the our nuclear arsenal, bring troop levels in Iraq and Afghanistan to 30,000 by 2013, and reduce the size of the military to pre-Iraq levels, reduce Naval and Air Force fleets. American spending on defense has more than doubled since 2001, and we spend more on defense than the rest of the world combined.  Moreover, the United States has no peer military competitors.  We can afford to make these cuts, which nets $280 billion.

If you delay some new weapon systems, like the F-35 Lightning, you get an additional 18 billion in savings.

2) Health Care: I would increase the eligibility age for Medicare to 68 years old. Even though life-expectancy figures have inherent class biases that favor the affluent, people are living years longer on average than they did in the 1960s when Medicare was originally passed.  Nets $56 billion.

I would also reduce the tax break for employer-provided health insurance, which MIT professor, Jonathan Gruber, argues amounts to a regressive entitlement.  It favors the top-income earners—over three-quarters of the benefits goes to the top 50% of earners. Replace it with a flat tax credit. Nets $157 billion.

And just to satisfy conservatives, I would enact medical malpractice reform.  Nets only 13 billion.