Morning Fog

Perry, Gingrich, And The Commonwealth of Virginia

Big news recently was that both Rick Perry and Newt Gingrich had failed to meet the requirements for getting on the Republican primary ballot in Virginia, an important purple state (and twelfth most populous in the nation).   

Most people - rightly, I believe - interpeted this as indicative of poor planning by these candidates and their staffs.  The exception to the consensus, apparently, was these two politicians themselves, and their staffs.   Perry has sued to change the rules, and it's now reported that a teaparty fan of Gingrich will do likewise.  

Are Virginia's rules for earning a place on the ballot really too strict?  Frankly, I'm a bit surprised to realize that states set these rules.  It seems to me that anything involving the election of a President should be a federal responsibility, so that the rules are the same all across the country.  But given that states do have the responsibility, does it make sense for Republicans, states'-righters one and all, to challenge what the states do?  If either of these suits succeeds in changing Virginia's established rules, can we expect Perry or Gingrich (who by the way actually lives in Virginia), to argue later for a federal government role in determining these guidelines?

That's only one of several hypocrisies here.  In addition, we have the candidates' failure to accept responsibility for their own inaction; the attempt to change the rules after the game has been played, which seems rather unsportsmanlike; and the legitimate question of whether they'd be pushing Virginia to change its regulations if this had occurred in a Democratic primary.  On this last point, the Virginia Republican Party gives us a hint.)  

Well, realistically we all understand that in politics as in many other pursuits, you have to leave no stone unturned in the effort to maximize your advantage.  On the other hand, it's wise to remember that when you turn over stones you can find some unpleasant things underneath.  

Members Of Congress Wealthy... So What Else Is New?

A couple of days ago the Washington Post published one of those "expose"-type articles that really exposed nothing, and which always remind me greatly of the "scientific" studies commonly done by sociologists.  What both genres have in common is devoting a lot of energy to demonstrating something that we all know, either from common sense or from our intuitive understanding of human behavior.  

The Post's front-page effort in this case was "Growing Wealth Widens Distance Between Lawmakers and Constituents," focusing in on the disparity between the incomes of ordinary citizens and those they elect to Congress.  It seems, you see, that most members of Congress have assets and incomes considerably greater than the typical voters in their district.   Well, Q.E.D.  and OMG!  

I think most of us already know that that's always been the case.   Haven't the great majority of our nationally elected officials throughout history - at least through the twentieth century - been largely from either the professional or business classes?  It makes good sense, because these are the people who have tended to have the time, the ideas, the community contacts, and above all the money, to be able to run for office.  And if there is a growing disparity between Congressional and "average" incomes, that only stands to reason also, since the rapidly expanding income gap between richest and middling is by now well-documented.

The writer, Peter Whoriskey, like a good sociologist, sets up a false premise by beginning with the story of a guy who ran for office in the 1980s directly from his job at a steel mill, and won.  It may be true, as Whoriskey suggests, that this kind of rags-to-representative tale can't be enacted any longer in the first decade of the 21st century, because the costs of running for office have increased.   But that kind of success story has been rare in U.S. politics, and I don't really believe it's any less rare in 2011 than it was in 1911.

The article suggests also another self-evident proposition:  That a Congressperson's income and status partly determine his/her view of the country's problems and the best ways of solving them.  The steel-mill Congressman (now retired and living in Florida) "understands the need for a safety net," while his successor from the same district, whose father built a successful car dealership, is described thus:

[He] focuses on the hard work he and his family have done to build the dealership. He thinks that the government should be run more like a business, and that laws must be fair to people who strive and succeed. He opposes the estate tax, the inheritance tax levied on the wealthy, because, among other things, he feels he has been overtaxed already. He says unemployment checks make some less willing to go back to work. And asked about tax breaks for oil companies, he notes that when corporations profit, people with pensions and portfolios do, too.

Again, I don't believe there is anything too unusual about this.  

What has really changed, I think, isn't the incomes or the social classes or the fields of endeavor of members of Congress.  It's the willingness and capability of seeing the other side of things, empathizing with a different situation, and comprehending that government, including Congress, must address the needs of all.   The Congressman quoted above shows no sign of understanding that we can't all be car dealers; he views his success as deriving entirely from his own (or in this case, his father's) efforts.  He gives no hint of appreciating that his success depends heavily on many factors beyond his control:  from the mechanics who staff his service department to the multifarious benefits that government provides to his business - and to many, many businesses -  in the form of tax breaks, subsidies, puffball fuel pollution targets, and a stable business environment.   This man came to Congress to represent .... other car dealers, I guess.

That's what has changed.  That's what needs to change back.

 

The Democrats' Good Year

Having just opined that the Republicans were desperate to obtain a long-term extension of the payroll tax cut because they could see their position weakening by the day, I could hardly ask for a better corroboration than Ezra Klein's more thorough review of how the Democrats have won political battles this year.   Even Charles Krauthammer, the knee-jerk reactionary who can see no bad in any Republican move, concedes that the Republicans played their hand badly.  (He also tries to blame the Dems for the fact the government is having to operate two month increments, a line of argument that turns the facts upside-down.)

It's true, of course, that the political victories have been essentially defensive ones, preventing passage of some of the more counterproductive, nation-destroying elements of the tea party platform, but in the current political climate, that is not to be sneezed at.  With all signs that the economy is at long last beginning recovery from the excesses of the Bush years, Republican candidates have good reason to be concerned about reaping in 2012 what they sowed this year.

Politics As Usual

In politics as in business, key actors often seek to keep their real motivations fuzzy.  It's a reporter's job, but also a reader's, to try to determine them nevertheless.

In the news this week is the House Republicans' efforts to block approval of the Senate-approved bill that would continue payroll tax cuts for a short period.  GOP legislators in the House are demanding renegotiation to cover a longer period, and pundits claim to be mystified about their motives.   To me, it's clear. 

First let's admit this could be just idiotic recalcitrance by the party's tea-drinking wing, though we might hope they'd gotten over that by now.  But if there is any rational explanation, I think it's because the GOP realizes it has lost the upper hand on this one, and sees that with the economy finally showing clear signs of improvement, it will be in an even weaker position two months hence.  It's preferable, then, to try a last-ditch effort to cement a longer term deal.

Elsewhere in the news, mysterious robocalls are being made suggesting that Hilary Clinton would be a better Democratic Presidential candidate in 2012 than Obama.   There have been a few Democrats who have taken that point of view, but even they say they have no idea who could be propagating this shocking proposal now. 

Again, there is a possible irrational explanation:  Clinton's die-hard supporters are emulating the Republican tea-party faction in their refusal to face reality.   But if we look for a rational explanation, can't we be fairly certain that the mysterious calls - which if credible would suggest that Democratic leaders were willing to repudiate Obama - are originating with Republican-leaning PACs seeking to stir up trouble?  

I'm just sayin'...

The Cellphone Ban

In the space of just a few days, the NTSB's December 12 call for an enforced ban on the use of cell phones by drivers generated an immense amount of reaction.

It's certainly true that drivers using cell phones are almost invariably distracted from their driving, and thus become dangerous.   Personally, I don't need an NTSB study to tell me this; it's observable in countless ways even in my shortest trip to the supermarket.  Weaving, slowing to a crawl, suddenly turning without signal, stopping dead in moving traffic, failure to move when the light turns green - it's all on display, every day.

After the news story above was published in the Washington Post, the newspaper's traffic columnist ("Dr. Gridlock") offered a poll on the subject, asking whether people use their phones while driving.   It's worth a look for two reasons.  First, because rather incredibly the poll omits the one choice that I feel sure would be accurate for at least 50% of us: "Yes [I do use my phone while driving], even though I'm aware it affects my driving."  Personally, I try not to use my phone when I'm driving, especially not if I have to dial the number; I try to keep any such calls short, and to do them at a stoplight.  Mostly, I don't initiate calls, but will answer incoming ones if I'm expecting an answer.  I suspect that applies to a lot of us.

Second, the poll is worth a look for the insight provided by readers' comments.  Hardly anyone admits to using his/her phone while driving, and those who do say they only do so with a hands-free device, so it's not distracting.   The degree of self-delusion here is incredible.  One person suggests drivers should be able to do whatever they want behind the wheel, and shouldn't even be licensed because driving is no different from walking along the sidewalk.  (When was the last time an individual on foot killed someone else by walking into him?)   A second suggests talking on the phone is no different from talking to someone in the seat next to you (which sounds superficially right, except that your passenger can warn you when you're about to splatter yourself under a semi, and a cell phone can't).  Another argues he can drive all the way across the country with his phone at his ear, "without weaving once."  That gent is delusional.  The whole point the NTSB is making, of course, is that most people may think talking doesn't affect their concentration, but they're wrong.  

So is a ban the answer?  I'm not so sure.  The boastful ones may be wrong to say their driving isn't affected; but they're partly right -- if we focus just on the "talking" part and not on dialing or texting -- to say the problem is just an extension of all other forms of distraction - talking to your passenger, reading a map, listening to the radio, disciplining your kids, having breakfast at the wheel.   Will employers stop expecting to reach their mobile employees wherever and whenever?  Then there is the enforcement problem.  How are police to decide when someone is using the phone?  And the escape clause problem:  If referring to your smart phone's GPS directions is to be permissible, won't every driver just claim he was using GPS?   And really, what's the rationale for allowing GPS use (except for convenience and necessity when printed maps are no longer published a few years from now)?  It's just as distracting as texting. 

Finally, Americans or their legislators, I'm not sure which, have generally seemed averse to prevention.  We'd rather fix things once they're broken, than try to prevent them from getting broken in the first place.  There are voices that oppose preventive health care, those that oppose simple safety standards for various products, those that won't deal with looming problems like social security meltdown or Medicare costs until they crash under their own weight, and numerous others.  Here is where the industry groups that promote cell phone use throw their weight around:  Cell phones aren't at all dangerous when used responsibly (and of course, neither is liquor). 

For all these reasons, I suspect it will be a very long time before total cell phone bans will be widespread.   More likely is that technology will take over, as automobile manufacturers, I'm told, are working out details of systems that would simply disable the telephone function inside a moving car.  Meanwhile, probably our best bet is continuing education on how distracting phoning can be.  It couldn't hurt to put more deterrent into traffic regulations, either; drivers involved in accidents should face strong penalties for contributory negligence when it can be shown they were on the phone, texting, or even painting their nails. 

Shaping Up The Republican Field

Saturday evening there was another "debate" among several of the Republican candidates.  I think this was the 35th such debate (it seems so).  I actually watched it.  Most of it, anyway.

Debates like this are educational.  I learned, for example, that there were no problems in the Middle East until Barack Obama took office; that the economic downturn was a result of Democratic policies; and of course, that Mitt Romney is rich enough to bet $10,000 on a minor political point.  Anyone watching must have gasped when Romney said that -- a very clear political mistake for him.  To me, it wasn't just the amount, but the idea of "betting" on something that was easily proved right or wrong, which seemed just childish.   I also learned that the differences among the various Republicans are minor; the true difference - as President Obama said after this debate - will be between two competing views of how we deal with our social and economic problems.

The most interesting factor at the moment is the rise of Newt Gingrich.  I don't think I could ever vote for Gingrich; I remember him as the guy who in the mid-1990s took it upon himself actively to foster the ultra-partisanship of the GOP, a dysfunctional and fundamentally ill-intended political development with which we are still dealing.  Like most Republicans these days, he is utterly dismissive of the role of government (why, then, put so much effort into becoming the head of it?)  That said, though, I contemplate how interesting and unique a Gingrich-Obama race might turn out to be. 

Too often our Presidential choices have been between two least-common-denominator candidates, the two politicians who succeeded best in being bland, hedging their positions, avoiding specifics, and never uttering a word that hadn't been cleared in advance with their ultrasensitive poll-watching handlers.   Obama's election was an exception to that pattern and frankly, I've always thought he might not have won without George W. Bush - McCain couldn't escape the shadow of the mess Dubya left behind.   

In an Obama-Gingrich race, we would for the first time I can recall have a competition between two atypical politicians.  Both are men of learning and ideas who don't seek to hide it behind folksy aw-shucksism and a country accent; each has a political style that comes off as aloof from the "typical voter," so neither is the guy you'd rather have a beer with;  and neither of them seems exclusively guided by what the pundits are saying at the moment.   (Last point:  Both have "unusual" first names!)   I see no need to try to predict just now who would come out ahead in such a match, but it would be a new experience for America's voters.   

More Jobs

In the ongoing race among various industries to kill evil regulations by branding them as job-killers, and to define themselves as the holy grail of job creators, the oil and gas companies are now making the cell phone industry - which recently was claiming that if they just get everything they want from Uncle Sam, they could create up to 96,000 jobs -- look like pikers by claiming they (the fossil fuel guys) will (likewise if they get whatever they want from government) create "up to" 600,000 jobs just in oil shale alone.

Believe it if you want.  I'd just note that if only one job were created, that would, I suppose, justify the claim of "up to 600,000."   

Postal Service Woes

The reports of USPS insolvency grow louder and more insistent.  Now, the venerable old "post office" has announced plans to drastically cut back services, including making delivery slower and dropping Saturday delivery.

I don't doubt that the USPS needs to continue to make cuts, improve its efficiency, and think of ways to enhance its income from services.  Nor do I agree with those who say "snail mail" is completely dead and isn't needed any more.  A few random observations, though, about this latest "plan:"

It seems counterintuitive to slow down delivery.  One-day delivery has become the norm within major metropolitan areas; it's unique (unless you count the hugely expensive alternatives).   Many businesses have come to depend on it, as have many households for their everyday letter mail.  Does it really make sense to make cuts in a part of the operation that is really a competitive advantage?  I don't think so; but prices could be raised.

Speaking of raising prices, one analysis I heard (don't recall now where) suggested that increasing the rate for a first-class letter to just 62 cents would fully cover the USPS's current deficits.  If that is so, why not do it?  To some, 62 cents may sound like a lot; yet I have lived in much smaller, more compact countries where delivery times and distances were far less than in the U.S., and a typical letter was far more than $ 0.62.  In Germany, for example, the cost of a letter was nearly a dollar -  15 years ago!  Why is USPS fooling around with a 1-cent increase that we've been promised for next spring, when clearly it needs more?

The postal gurus also want to cut a delivery day out of the weekly schedule.  Clearly that could save some money, but again, it seems counterintuitive to propose that Saturday be dropped.   I've always suggested it should be a day in mid-week, like Wednesday.  Otherwise, we have a two-day hiatus in delivery that can really snarl things up.  If we add in the slowed-down delivery schedule (above), and all those Monday holidays, a first-class letter mailed on a Friday might not be delivered across town until Wednesday or even Thursday.   We should at least insist that if there won't be delivery on Saturdays, there would be delivery on those Monday holidays.  If we have a three-day gap, we may as well not have service at all.

Technically, the USPS can make its own decisions on these things; the Postal Regulatory Commission gets an advisory opinion, but it's non-binding.  This helps explain the seemingly counterintuitive suggestions for cutbacks.  Personally, I would guess we're seeing strategy, rather than purely objective business decisions, in play.  Cuts are proposed for the most sensitive areas, in hopes of raising objections that will skew the decision-making progress and perhaps drive things toward a different outcome.  It's a game the military has played for ages, and although the USPS doesn't get USG funding, it might nevertheless hope for some special Congressional dispensation to proceed differently, rather than cut popular services.

GOP Plan - Paralyze Government

Geezers Obstructing Progress (the G.O.P.) have found a new way to pursue their campaign to render government ineffective (thus proving their contention that government is ineffective).  They propose increased Congressional review of government rule-making.  The object is to assure domination of rule-making by the interested parties, so that no business should ever need to put up with "needless" and "bothersome" rules that could restrict their freedom of action.  The result is to inject politics into even the simplest and most straightforward of government procedures; and to weaken the ability of an elected government to effectuate the policies it was elected to implement.

Really, can you imagine allowing Congress - this is the same Congress, of course, that couldn't bring itself to compromise on anything when the nation's financial health was at stake - yes, that Congress -- to meddle in each and every basic process of government?  The terms deadlock, delay, dysfunction, and dumbness come readily to mind.  Such micromanagement is decried by businesspeople themselves as debilitatingly poor practice.  Yet it's somehow desirable for government.

Ultimately, it's a power raid by Congressional Republicans on the Executive Branch; not to mention a clear breach of the checks and balances built into the Constitution (hey, doesn't the Republican Party revere that document?).  Often such foolish efforts redound to the disadvantage of the party that conceived them, but we shouldn't have to suffer through waiting for that to happen.  This legislative initiative should be killed quickly.