Uncategorized – Page 45 – Sheila Kennedy

Turnout and Citizenship

We had an interesting exchange in my Media and Policy class this past Thursday night. I team-teach that class with John Mutz, who–among his numerous other distinctions–served as Indiana’s Lt. Governor. Former Indiana Supreme Court Justice Ted Boehm and Common Cause policy director Julia Vaughn were guest speakers. So the discussion (about the impact of money in politics) was informed–and informative.

Julia noted that Indiana ranked next to last among the states in voter turnout, according to the recent Civic Health Index, and John challenged her statement that we should be embarrassed by that low level of participation, saying it didn’t bother him.

Should it bother us? This is one of those questions where the correct response is “it depends.”

If the folks who are blowing off the political process are low-information, low-interest voters, then I agree with John that it isn’t a problem. Why should the votes of the uninformed dilute the votes of those of us who take the process seriously? If you don’t know who you support and why, then you should stay home and let more thoughtful people participate.

On the other hand, if low turnout is due to one or more of the following reasons, we have a different problem and we need to do something about it.

We should be embarrassed if

We’ve made voting too difficult. If we’ve restricted the number of polling places, and/or limited the hours those polls are open so that voting is inconvenient for people with jobs and family obligations and actual lives, shame on us. Ditto if we’re requiring all sorts of documentation that older, poorer folks are unlikely to have.

We’ve made politics too nasty. If all voters hear are 30-second attacks on the integrity, brains and general humanity of those running for office, research suggests those voters tend to turn it all off and stay home on election day. (Some candidates will actually engage in nasty campaigning in order to evoke the “pox on both your houses” response and thus suppress turnout, if they think a larger turnout would benefit their opponent.)

We’ve made the ballot too daunting and complicated. Remind me again why we are voting for coroner, treasurer, recorder and dog-catcher? Who beside the candidates really cares who serves on township advisory boards?

We’ve failed to “connect the dots” between government policies and the reality of our daily lives, allowing voters to believe that candidates are all fungible. (Hurricane Sandy is just one example of why policies matter: if disaster relief had been turned back to state and local governments, does anyone really believe the result would have been the same for those who desperately needed help? Instead of throwing mud at each other, candidates need to make the case that their preferred policies matter, and how.)

We’ve constructed a system in which many votes really don’t matter. This is the most depressing reason of all, because it’s true. Yes, my vote for state and local offices still matters, more or less, but increasingly–thanks to gerrymandering and winner-take-all allocation of Electoral College votes–my votes for President and many other offices really don’t. (In this year’s Presidential election, those Hoosiers who vote for Obama might just as well flush those votes down the nearest toilet; Romney will win the state and take all of Indiana’s electoral college votes–even if the win is only by a point or two. A couple of states allocate their electoral votes to reflect the breakdown of the state’s popular vote–the constitution permits that–but Indiana and most others don’t.)

So–should we be embarrassed by our low turnout? Yes. If we institute changes that make voting more convenient, the ballot less daunting, the process less negative and/or fruitless and turnout is still low, then we can shrug it off and accuse the nonvoters among us of of poor citizenship. But not before.

Comments

The Best Choice

Yesterday, I received an email plea from a friend’s daughter. She asked that it be widely distributed, and it is worth sharing.

I am writing to you because I am very interested in who is elected as the next Governor for the State of Indiana, and with the election just one week away, I hope I have not waited too long to speak up.

I have been disappointed on a few occasions over the last several months to hear other Democrats talk less than enthusiastically about John Gregg – not because they don’t like him, not because they don’t think he would be a great leader, not because they think he would move Indiana in the wrong direction – but because he’s not liberal enough.

We all know where we live, right? Of course he’s not liberal – we are in Indiana!!

Debating the qualities of our candidate is not helpful at this stage in the process! That ship has sailed. He IS the Democratic nominee for Governor and we need to do ALL WE CAN to make sure he gets elected.

Is he perfect? I think he IS for Indiana. We live in a very conservative state and he is a conservative DEMOCRAT. But more than that, he is an intelligent, articulate leader with experience working WITH Republicans and Democrats to get things accomplished – like balancing budgets, investing in public education, etc. He understands that governing is not about US versus THEM. It’s about all of us WORKING TOGETHER to make Indiana a better place.

The alternative, I believe, is frightening.

Please do not allow democrats to undermine John Gregg as the Democratic nominee for Governor by talking about how you wish he was different. The stakes are too high. He is what he is and he is ELECTABLE in Indiana.He’s gaining momentum and has a solid chance to win if we rally behind him and help to make sure Democrats get out and support him. His campaign will work on convincing the Independents, Undecideds and moderate Republicans that he is the right choice for Indiana – and it’s working!

Please go forth and elect John Gregg!

Amy’s plea touched a nerve with me. John Gregg is, indeed, more conservative than I am. But I have already voted for him, and I did so with enthusiasm. I have three reasons for that enthusiasm: John Gregg, Vi Simpson and Mike Pence.

John Gregg is not an ideologue. He understands the state, understands the legislative process, and is focused on the things that are really important, like jobs and economic development. Does he have some positions on social issues with which I disagree? Yes. Is he likely to take steps to advance those positions? No. Those policies are clearly not his priorities; furthermore, the Democratic base simply will not support measures to ban same-sex marriage or to outlaw abortion. Let’s be blunt: Gregg will not take positions that are at odds with those held by the majority of his own party. ( I always try to vote for people who owe allegiance to the least dangerous constituencies.)

If you have any doubts about where Gregg’s priorities will lie, just consider Vi Simpson. Gregg chose Vi to be the candidate for Lieutenant Governor. She is one of the smartest, most principled people serving in the Senate. A true culture warrior would not have chosen Vi as a running mate–and the fact that Gregg did select her was a clear message that we can trust him to avoid the divisive social issues that motivate and consume today’s Republican candidates.

And then there’s the best reason of all to vote for John Gregg.

Mike Pence.

Comments

It All Depends on What Your Definition of “Job” is….

I’m getting tired of politicians piously declaiming that “government can’t create jobs.” (That statement is generally followed by that candidate’s jobs plan. Irony, anyone?)

The truth is that even if you reject the notion that public policy can create an atmosphere that facilitates job creation, government is a huge employer. Almost one of every five American workers is employed in the public sector – working in our schools, colleges, universities, police and fire departments, and providing many other vital public services. One of the biggest drags on employment since the start of the Great Recession–one of the reasons that job creation has not been more robust–is that state and local governments have laid off so many of those public sector workers. Such job growth as has occurred has been almost entirely in the private sector .

Those public sector jobs (we used to call them “public service” jobs) have become a handy target for ideologues who rant about bloated government and overpaid public sector workers, but the inconvenient truth is that modern society requires educators and police officers and people who work at the BMV. When their ranks get too thin, we complain about government inefficiency, or insufficient public safety, or classrooms that are too large.

A modern, complex society requires an agency that monitors the environment, that oversees food and drug quality (more meningitis, anyone?) and performs numerous other tasks that individuals in urban environments cannot do individually. Unfortunately, we still need soldiers. All these people may be bloated bureaucrats in the public imagination, but when that schoolteacher or firefighter is furloughed, we are suddenly faced with reality.

Of course, even the politicians who are fond of declaiming that government can’t create jobs betray their hypocrisy by accusing “big government” of killing jobs with taxes and regulation. Their claim–implicit and explicit–is that lower taxes and less regulation will foster job growth. But when tax cuts imperil our ability to provide essential services, jobs go elsewhere. When we go too far with deregulation, we get more instances like the recent deaths from meningitis.

I know it isn’t as satisfying as making sweeping proclamations about the evils of government and the glories of the private sector, but we need to admit that modern life is complicated. We need the right levels of taxes, the proper regulation. Those things need to be carefully calibrated to achieve our goals, not subjected to simple-minded “either-or” formulations.

And we need to laugh out loud the next time a political figure says that government doesn’t create jobs.

Comments

My Litmus Test

I haven’t been very kind to single-issue voters who impose a “litmus test” in order to determine who they’ll support. So it pains me to admit that I seem to have developed one myself.

I simply will not ever vote for a candidate who rejects science and the scientific method.

In my defense, I think the acceptance of science–including recognition of the importance of the theory of evolution and the implications of global climate change, to cite just two examples–is a “marker” for an individual’s entire worldview. Someone who fails to understand the difference between a scientific theory–a construct based upon mountains of empirical data and subject to falsification–and “I have a theory, aka a wild-ass guess”–is simply not equipped to deal with the world as it is. He or she brings an intellectual bow and arrow to a nuclear conflict.

I believe that ideology should give way to evidence. When the evidence is mixed, it’s understandable that people will apply their own interpretations to it, seeing it through their preferred lens; when it is overwhelming, a failure to conform one’s theoretical preconceptions to that reality is a sign of dangerous rigidity–even, in extreme cases, mental illness.

People who reject science end up believing that women’s bodies can reject a “genuine” rapist’s sperm. They convince themselves that abortion causes breast cancer. They confuse climate with weather. They are convinced that homosexuality is a behavioral choice. In multiple ways, they fail to honor demonstrated facts. (They also tend to be the same folks who reject history in favor of a mythological “Christian Nation” past–after all, if you can ignore overwhelming scientific consensus in favor of an “inerrant” bible, you can certainly rewrite America’s past.)

There is a clear partisan divide at work: A 2007 Gallup poll found that 68% of Republicans do not believe in evolution. That compared with 37% of independents and 40% of Democrats. (Pretty pathetic numbers overall, but much worse among Republicans.) The best predictor of belief in creationism and rejection of science was weekly church attendance.

Let me be clear: I can respect a candidate who opposes abortion on deeply-felt moral grounds (although not the anti-woman, anti-contraception “personhood” theocrats). I can vote for a candidate whose preferred policy to combat climate change differs from mine. I can respect a candidate who is not yet ready to endorse same-sex marriage if that candidate is otherwise willing to extend civil rights to GLBT folks, although I will only vote for such a candidate when his opponent is worse. I cannot, however, respect a candidate who rejects science and reason. And I will never cast a vote for such a candidate.

If that is a litmus test–if that makes me a “single-issue” voter–so be it.

Comments

About Those Medicare Vouchers

Kaiser Family Foundation is a respected, non-partisan, nonpolitical think-tank focused on medical research. The Foundation has just released its analysis of Paul Ryan’s plan to “reform” Medicare; the high (or low) points of that analysis are instructive. According to Kaiser,

Nearly six in 10 Medicare beneficiaries nationally could face higher premiums for Medicare benefits, assuming current plan preferences, including more than half of beneficiaries enrolled in traditional Medicare and almost nine in 10 Medicare Advantage enrollees. Even if as many as one-quarter of all beneficiaries moved into a low-cost plan offered in their area, the new system would still result in more than a third of all beneficiaries facing higher premiums.
Premiums for traditional Medicare would vary widely based on geography under the proposed premium support system, with no increase for beneficiaries living in Alaska, Delaware, Hawaii, Wyoming and the District of Columbia, but an average increase of at least $100 per month in California, Florida, Michigan, New Jersey, Nevada and New York. Such variations would exist even within a state, with traditional Medicare premiums remaining unchanged in California’s San Francisco and Sacramento counties and rising by more than $200 per month in Los Angeles and Orange counties.
At least nine in 10 Medicare beneficiaries in Connecticut, Florida, Massachusetts and New Jersey would face higher premiums in their current plan. Many counties in those states have relatively high per-beneficiary Medicare spending, which would make it more costly to enroll in traditional Medicare rather than one of the low-bidding private plans in those counties. In contrast, in areas with relatively low Medicare per-capita spending, it could be more costly to enroll in a private plan.

Ryan insists his plan would save money. And it would. It would save the government money, by shifting the costs of medical care back to the people the program was supposed to help–the elderly, and especially the low-income elderly.

This is Ryan’s basic approach to fiscal responsibility. His central insight (big thinker that we keep being told he is): We can save the government lots of money by eliminating or greatly reducing programs like Medicare. We can privatize social security and send Medicaid back to the states where it would almost certainly die (approaches Ryan favored until the campaign ixnayed that talk), saving taxpayers–especially rich ones–billions. (Of course, we could also cut defense spending, but that’s sacred under the Romney/Ryan approach). Or we could take the approach favored by Grover Norquist, and just get rid of government altogether. Drown it in a bathtub.

What pisses me off isn’t that some people, including Ryan, reject the very notion of a government that provides a safety net. People are entitled to their political positions, just as I am entitled to mine. What pisses me off is that they lie about it.

Ryan knows his “remake” of Medicare would cost seniors more money. If it is such a great idea, he should be able to explain why we should embrace it. Instead of lying about it, Mr. Serious Thinker should have the balls to defend it.

Comments