MATT SHUHAM Matt Shuham
Matt Shuham '15 is a Staff Writer for the Harvard Political Review. A prospective history concentrator living in Greenough, Matt is the Legislative Director of the Harvard College Democrats, a member of the Institute of Politics, and a percussionist in the Harvard Radcliffe Orchestra.



Who Was The Fifth Republican Candidate?

United States April 16, 2012 7:02 pm

With Rick Santorum out of the picture and the general election between Mitt Romney and Barack Obama all but sealed, now is a good time to reflect back on the Republican primary, one which truly revealed the complex relationships that can exist between campaigns. The momentum of a strong victory in one state propelled a candidate forward in the weeks and months ahead, while weaker candidates were pushed aside by their heftier opponents time and time again. In John Donne’s words, “No man is an island, entire of itself.”

But for the past few months it has been difficult to follow the race without noticing the various unpredictable twists and turns that it took. There must have been more to it than four men and their political will, caught in a yearlong struggle to gain the Republican nomination.

In reality, the existence of a fifth candidate – whose influence changed the tides of victory and failure more than any individual – may explain this primary field’s volatility. The fifth candidate was outside money.

Millions in independent expenditure dollars flooded this primary battle in amounts never before seen in American history. This money, which cannot legally be tied to any one campaign, floated as a political goliath in the background of any caucus prediction and primary projection. The interactions between Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum, Ron Paul, and Money made this an interesting five-person race to follow. Each candidate carried as much importance as the next.

Undoubtedly, outside money helped Mitt Romney the most. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, the Super PAC backing the Romney campaign spent more than $35 million on the primary cycle. Newt Gingrich was next in line with $16.2 million. Santorum’s received $6 million in outside assistance while Paul came in last with $3 million, each from their top respective independent expenditure committees. (Many candidates had more than one group supporting them.)

It is important to note that while each independent expenditure committee was associated with a candidate, there is nothing binding any PAC to a specific campaign. That they are, in fact and name, independent is an often under-reported aspect of independent expenditure committees. In fact, many big-time donors often gave to multiple PACs. Harold Simmons, the largest individual donor in this primary, gave a million dollars in indirect support for Rick Perry, another million to Newt Gingrich, $100,000 to Mitt Romney-affiliated groups, and $12 million to American Crossroads, Karl Rove’s brainchild.

Aside from being legally prohibited from coordinating with campaigns, these entities displayed an effect much larger than the campaigning or fundraising abilities of any candidate by himself. Romney’s victory in Florida, seen as a major turning point in his campaign, was fueled by $10.7 million in spending by his Super PAC. This vastly overtook spending for Gingrich, Santorum, and Paul combined. Most of the outside spending in Florida was on advertisements, and Floridians experienced first hand the saturation of TV and radio markets by outside spending. Independent expenditures spent almost $19 million in Florida, and they spent it almost exclusively on media (Super PACs, by their nature, have little else to spend money on). To put that in context, the Romney campaign itself spent $20.5 million total on media over the course of the primary. Ron Paul’s campaign spent $9.9 million, Newt Gingrich’s campaign spent $5 million, and Rick Santorum’s campaign spent $3.5 million.

This means that the total Super PAC spending for one state (albeit a costly one) equaled around half of what the four official campaigns used on media for the entire primary. In other words, if TV advertisements are one of the main drivers of political influence, it could be easily argued that outside money influenced this primary as much as any one campaign did by itself. We may have strayed from a political environment in which a candidate with a clear message and a motivated base can win without the assistance of millions of outside dollars.

Money shaped this primary in unprecedented ways, and as we begin the general election season we will see a concentration of outside money that only intensifies these primary effects. In a field of five, money played an important role, and in lead up to November 6th, it will truly create one mammoth of a third candidate, able to influence our next president in unimaginable ways.

No Comments »

Selling “Democrat”

United States April 14, 2012 11:47 am

It’s easy to define a Democrat. At least, that’s the commonly held belief. We drink lattes and worship Paul Krugman as a god amongst men. We believe that the only fault of government is when it does not regulate enough, and that the best thing we can do is legislate the change that does not manifest itself naturally. We play “Robin Hood,” giving the gains of the rich to the poor, because it just feels right.

It’s easy to define a Democrat, which is why so many people do it. Democrats are tagged as “Bleeding Hearts” because of our support of strong social welfare legislation, and much of the time, we don’t have a good retort. In reality, it’s because most Democrats really do believe in the inherent good of programs meant to make society more just and equitable. In fact, a study by Jonathan Haidt and Jesse Graham in 2006 showed that self-proclaimed “Liberals” tend to value fairness and reciprocity more, while “Conservatives” value respect.

These stereotypes offer somewhat of a challenge for the Democratic Party’s messaging efforts. Economically, the American public is ultimately the same as any voting public: self-interested. New taxes to support more comprehensive social programs are anathema to this self-interest, and the old party lines – those of Republicans accusing Democrats of wanting to raise taxes – read themselves out with a predictable vigor.

Historically, Democrats pitched their efforts to the American people with a potpourri of promises and projections. Franklin proposed a “New Deal” to the American people hurting from a severe depression and lack of hope. Kennedy campaigned on a new vision for America, putting a young face to chants of “We can do better!” Johnson took great strides toward his Great Society, and Bill Clinton built a Bridge to the 21st Century.

In the modern era of progressivism, our campaign cries have taken quite a few different pitches, but one isn’t heard nearly enough these days: economic competitiveness. In all of their talk about fairness, equality, and reciprocity – as necessary as they are in a political dialogue – Democrats seem to have glossed over what could be our strongest argument in the political arena: the Democratic agenda is the most capable of putting America in an advantageous economic position on the world stage.

When Barack Obama sold his healthcare efforts to the American people, we heard messages of fairness, the injustices of 30 million people uninsured. Indeed, this is a compelling problem. But problems can be solved no matter how you word the solution, and the economic argument is one far underutilized by the left.

How could we not have mentioned the comparative disadvantage we face against countries with a public option? Employers in Britain never have to worry about the increased hiring costs due to healthcare expenses, and you would be hard pressed to find any CEO citing medical expenses as the cause of layoff. Germany never worries about the loss of productivity of sick, uninsured workers, as they are covered either by private insurance or non-profit “sickness funds.” Most importantly, in countries where healthcare coverage is a right and not a privilege, prospective small business owners aren’t scared away from chasing their dreams by the looming costs of being self-insured, or without insurance altogether. If we as a country aim to keep employer costs down, productivity up, and small business ownership strong, couldn’t the left have used these points during the healthcare debate?

Over the past year the sentiment echoing out of Wisconsin towards teachers has spread with alarming speed. But the anti-teacher (and more broadly, anti-union) phase that the right is going through would probably do more harm than good if it were carried to its logical extent. Teachers (and unions, for that matter) are responsible for education and preparing a generation for becoming productive members of society. Educated workforces are better for product quality and better for the bottom line, so it’s no surprise that the Wall Street Journal’s CEO Council marked education (“Improving Human Capital”) as one of the top 5 policy issues facing the US, along with taxes, immigration, infrastructure, and research and development.

One point on the CEO Council’s list, immigration, deserves significant attention. The DREAM Act would keep educated and military bound immigrants in America, where they have the options of serving in the armed forces or getting a college education. The H1-B “Genius Visa” allows doctorate students and researchers to stay in the US, creating a slew of technological and medical advancements. A few years ago, Thomas Friedman summed it up best when he listed the 2010 Intel Science Fair finalists – almost all of them were from first generation immigrant homes. This is just one more area in which the Democrats must assert the economic importance of their policy: we could have a new generation of soldiers, students, and scientists here in America, or we could send them unwillingly home.

In a nation worn down by a brutal recession, the argument that progressive legislation leads to economic advance is one that isn’t heard nearly enough from the left. Progressives, instead of touting the economic importance of their ideas, quietly accept that they are the party of naïve emotion against the so-called rational, clear-headed policies of most of the right. Democratic policies do create economic opportunity on the world stage. We just need to remind the American people.

3 Comments »

A New Kind of Bus Tour

United States March 29, 2012 8:00 pm

When I think of the words “bus tour,” a few things come to mind: politicians staging far-reaching romps around the country to spread the gospels of Freedom and American Exceptionalism, images of the Constitution and the American flag carefully placed on the broadside of a behemoth Motorcoach, and oodles of stops along the way to dutifully recite the soaring rhetoric to which our 24-hour news cycle has grown so accustomed.

That’s why it was so easy to notice when broadcaster Tavis Smiley and professor Dr. Cornel West organized a “Poverty Bus Tour,” highlighting the political plight of America’s poor. It stuck out like a sore thumb. In the United States, poor people have lost the flesh of acknowledgment, and their bare bones hang as skeletons in the vast American closet.

Sure, unemployment has received plenty of coverage in our post-housing bubble media environment. But let’s remember that we’re in a middle class recession, and it will be a middle class recovery. When the economy eventually rebounds and the working middle class can look in the mirror and see some semblance of its former self, the extremely poor will remain as beaten and battered as ever. The unemployment rate almost doubled between 2005 and 2010 – and it will likely go back to between 6 and 7% when the job market stabilizes. Meanwhile, the same “return to normalcy” might not be applicable to the very poor, whose numbers have historically stayed relatively stable except when there have been extremely concerted efforts to reduce them, as was the case with Johnson’s War on Poverty.

Poverty today is urgent in ways that it has never been before. Throughout the 20th century, America was a beacon of social mobility for all those who knew success would come, eventually, after persevering through a life’s hard work. Now, the US is less economically mobile than many European social welfare states, including Denmark, Norway, Finland, Sweden, Germany, and France. One in six Americans is living in poverty, the largest proportion in nearly two decades. Annual income is at a decade low.

Some of these statistics are the result of 2008′s recession, but our poverty policies are doubling down on the problem. Early childhood education, healthcare, and social programs are being cut left and right, while unproductive high-income tax cuts rot through our federal balance sheet. And when a poor family has to choose between preschool and medicine, it’s no surprise that those born into extremely poor are likely to stay poor – the sacrifices made in order to stay afloat chip away at future opportunities for economic advance.

Poverty is not a partisan issue. Bleeding-heart Democrats cringe at potentials gone unfulfilled just as quickly as Wall Street Republicans dismay over an uneducated, under-motivated workforce; a workforce that could potentially alleviate our dependency on foreign workforces if we invest in effective training programs. Too often, those in favor of poverty reduction measures are portrayed as social engineers – those who exploit pathos for political gain. In reality, poverty has a real effect. Children who grow up poor are more likely to have bad health, participate in criminal activity, and be less productive in the work force. These are all moral issues, but more than that, they all have an profound effect on the United States’ economy. In 2007 (pre-recession), the Center for American Progress estimated that “costs to the U.S. associated with childhood poverty total about $500B per year, or the equivalent of nearly 4 percent of GDP” through increased health care costs, crime and penal costs, and lost productivity.

The solutions are complex, and they reach across party lines. In addition to comprehensive pre-kindergarten education and a concentrated effort to improve schools (including addressing the sometimes-negative effects of teacher tenure and federal mismanagement), there is more we can do: protect benefits such as the earned income tax credit, educate students about sex in order to prevent single-parent households, and promote drug rehabilitation programs and vocational schools. These reforms will empower those at the bottom rungs of our economic ladder, and strengthening them will lead to a fortification of America’s economic foundations.

Don’t coddle the poor, but do live up to Emma Lazarus’ immortal sonnet, “The New Colossus”, engrained in permanence in the Statue of Liberty:

“Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!” cries she
With silent lips. “Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!“

America was founded as a nation of exiles – those cast away in search of opportunity and the freedom to succeed. We are drifting from the ideal that anyone can advance here, with the grit and hard work that it takes. If we intend to embrace our founding principles, America’s impoverished can no longer live in the shadows.

Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door.

No Comments »

The Everglades, Sweetened

The Food Issue March 20, 2012 2:26 am

The battle to save Florida’s natural treasure.

When I fly home to Ft. Lauderdale International Airport, I always look out the window. The view is spectacularly beautiful and mechanistically awe-inspiring. Vast fields of marshes, swamps, and saw grass stretch out past the horizon’s end, accompanied by a harsh grid of concrete canals that scar the Everglades, the 60-mile wide wetlands that flows through the southern portion of Florida. The canals were put in place in 1948 when Lake Okeechobee, Florida’s largest body of water, overflowed after a series of destructive hurricanes and killed thousands. The plan to contain the great lake, called The Central and Southern Florida Project, successfully diverted flood water to domestic real estate markets and mitigated the destructive effects of hurricanes on the region. Unfortunately, the environmental impact of the project was not the highest consideration at the time.

Human alterations of the area have left the Everglades almost unrecognizable. Water that would have naturally flooded the wilderness is diverted off to the Atlantic Ocean on the east and the Gulf of Mexico to the west. Remaining water is polluted by run-off from residential and agricultural fertilizer and other pollution that leads to algae blooms and extremely high levels of phosphorous and nitrogen.

Nevertheless, the canals provide for the soil that sweetens much of the United States. Besides oranges, grapefruit, and others, south Florida produces half of America’s annual sugarcane crop, grown right in the middle of the Everglades. As  global warming, water pollution, fertilizer runoff, and saltwater intrusion slowly degrade the national treasure that is the Everglades ecosystem, Florida is left to weigh the value of sugar production.

In 2000, Bill Clinton and Congress tried to answer it with the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan, which pledged federal dollars to invest in the health of the Everglades by diverting water back into the ecosystem and focusing on wildlife protection. Despite a series of setbacks and engineering difficulties, the initiative has funded local restoration and infrastructure projects and is gradually restoring water flow.

Charlie Crist proposed one of the most ambitious plans to date while governor in 2008. He proposed purchasing United States Sugar, one of the nation’s largest sugar corporations, and re-integrating its vast sugarcane fields back into the Everglades ecosystem. The governor drew plenty of criticism for the deal. The land was overpriced and even a spokesperson for USS acknowledged the “very active” relationship between the sugar industry and government negotiators. But the state and United States Sugar soon reached an agreement to purchase more than 180,000 acres of land for $1.37 billion. It was a win for environmentalists, who had long cherished the valuable land upon which the farms sat, and it was a win for the farmers themselves as drought and water restrictions had put USS in serious debt.
As the full force of the recession hit, Florida, with a massive real-estate market and a huge foreclosure crisis, was an economic ground zero. The ambitious land-grab was soon viewed as too aggressive, costly, and inappropriate in such an austere time. In May 2009, a new deal was arranged through which 73,000 acres of land would be bought for $536 million, with the option to purchase the rest later. As the recession continued, the project was downsized again in August 2010 with $197 million for 26,800 acres.

Environmentalists were hesitant to criticize the new deal, worried of either party withdrawing altogether. United States Sugar felt slighted after expecting a much larger sale than reality afforded. Charlie Crist finished his governorship and ran for the Senate seat that would eventually become Marco Rubio’s seat. The deal concluded, not with a continuous path for the Everglades to flow into the ocean, but with two isolated pieces of land, parts of which were wholly unfit for restoration or water treatment.

In hindsight, many preservationists are faulting the state’s negotiators for not steeling themselves, insisting on lower prices, and sticking to the full acreage amount. According to Judy Sanchez, Senior Director of Corporate Communications and Public Affairs for US Sugar, “current economic conditions make [it] highly unlikely” that any more of the original 187,000 acre offer will be purchased by the state.

The need for the restoration of the Everglades is as urgent as ever. The water is no less polluted and the animals no less endangered than they ever were before. White-tailed deer sightings are down 94 percent. More than anything, water quality is the most troubling issue. Storm water treatment centers, large above-ground reservoirs used to purify water from the Everglades, do not have the capacity to process all of the fertilizer-polluted water. Some, including Peg McPherson, Executive Director at the Legacy Institute for Nature and Culture, believe that water purification should be a priority for the future, “I’m very, very hopeful for the day when we can ask farmers to use their property for restoring and treating water,” McPherson said. “The original idea was that we were going to get that land and use it for storm water treatment areas, and for other uses that we couldn’t do while it was in US Sugar’s hands… The deal that finally came through with US Sugar isn’t necessarily the deal we thought we were going to get.”

In the past few months, Rick Scott, Florida’s penny-pinching governor, has shown some favor to the Everglades preservation movement, pledging $40 million to restoration work. It is a start, but more must be done in the areas of land reclamation, water quality improvement, and environmental standards.

Florida lost big in the recession. The state missed its chance to make a big impact when prices were low, but it should not give up the fight. The Everglades touch almost every aspect of the Florida economy including property values, water purification prices, and tourism. The environmental significance and natural beauty of the Everglades are unparalleled.
This goes beyond agriculture, however powerful those forces may be. The state of Florida must get behind the fight to save the Everglades.

No Comments »

The Appeal of a Technocrat

United States February 4, 2012 3:34 am

This past year has shown the true stretch of globalization.

When Mohammed Bouazizi set himself on fire in Tunisia on December 17th, 2011, it started a revolution that sent aftershocks around the world, from Egypt to Syria, with plenty others in between.

When the subprime mortgage bubble collapsed in the United States it too affected much of the world, as we saw during the eerily similar crises that followed around Europe.

Now, the world seeks to contain the European sovereign debt crisis.

Italian PM Mario Monti (credit: pbs.org)

All over Europe, people are dissatisfied with the mutli-party political systems that have been in place since World War II. The current frameworks are too divisive for times of such extreme economic distress, and political vitriol is destructive for the health of any nation, as the United States discovered when an argument over the debt ceiling forced its credit rating down to an “AA+”.

In place of party politicians, so-called “Technocrats” – officials not linked to a career in politics, but rather to expertise in their given academic field – have provided beacons of hope for the European (and thus, the world) economy.

In Italy, Mario Monti is pushing to reign in sovereign debt and make Italy a leaner competitor on the world stage. An economist by trade with experience in the European Union, Monti has been described as “competent,” and “gifted,” far cries from Italy’s previous PM, Silvio Berlusconi. Berlusconi, a media magnate with a wild personality and a history of scandals during his time in office, stepped down as economic conditions in Italy worsened.

Last November, Greece saw the appointment of Lucas Papademos as interim Prime Minister. Papademos, with a background in banking and academia, is arguing for cuts to Greece’s pension system, as well as tax and benefit reform.

Greece's interim, Papademos (credit: telegraph.co.uk)

More and more often, countries are looking for a scientific approach to solving fiscal dilemmas. Two European leaders throughout the current crisis, France and Germany, are working to keep the Eurozone afloat by insisting on tight budgets and lowered deficit spending. Angela Merkel, Germany’s Chancellor and an austere star in the economics world during these past few months, has come out particularly strongly against irresponsible government and tax policies.

Even in the United States, Republican presidential hopefuls have battled over their respective commands of business knowledge. In the end, it seems as if Mitt Romney – who holds business and law degrees from Harvard University – will be the party’s presumptive nominee to run against Barack Obama in the 2012 general election.

So, why a push towards Technocracy? In an economic age in which the complexity of problems is outweighed only by the difficulty of their solutions, leaders with strong academic foundations and little interest in lengthy careers in government offer answers outside of the day-to-day political battles that now seem so petty.

One is reminded of the story of Cincinnatus, the Roman farmer who, in a time of war, was called by his fellow citizens to take the role of dictator and save Rome from attack. They found him in his back yard, maintaining his fields. He exchanged his plow for a sword, and led Rome to victory. 16 days after assuming the dictatorship, he returned voluntarily to his farm.

Cincinnatus’ story rings true with many around the world struck with the current sovereign debt crises. Politicians interested in short-term victories and long-term legacies aren’t what Europe is looking for, and the technocratic option has risen to become the most viable one. For now, the deft guidance of expertise will try its best to lead Europe through the storm.

1 Comment »

Romney and Gingrich Fight over the Airwaves in Florida

Election 2012 - United States January 31, 2012 6:26 pm

The four Republican primary candidates are learning the hard way something that every orange-juice-drinking, airboat-riding, sun-bathing, Sunshine State resident has known for a long time: Florida is one big state.

All 50 of Florida’s delegates, now “at-large” due to RNC sanctions, are up for grabs to today’s number one vote getter, but Florida’s political landscape is truly unique. Pinellas County, home to Tampa, holds 26% of the primary electorate. Seminole County has 21% (Orlando), and Miami-Dade County has 14%.

That’s right; more than half of Florida’s Republican primary voters are split between just three counties. What this means for the four Republicans currently romping across my home state is simple: The battle of the airwaves will determine Florida.

Because of Florida’s size and diversity, it’s fairly impractical to try and win the state in a ground game, especially if the election is “winner-take-all,” as it is this year. Rick Santorum won Iowa by knocking on doors and stopping by pizza ranches, but in Florida, we have a name for the cross-state road trip: The 1,000 Mile Journey. Combine that with a reliable elderly voting population that would rather stay home than go to campaign events and the message is clear: stick to commercials.

So who’s the smartest guy in this regard? Mitt Romney. In terms of sheer numbers, Mitt Romney has vastly outspent any of his competitors by millions of dollars in Florida, and the results show it. Including the super PACs that support him, Mitt Romney has aired 12,768 television commercials in Florida as of Wednesday, according to a study by the Wesleyan University Media Project. Newt Gingrich and his super PAC allies have shown just 210. And indeed, according to the most recent poll by Quinnipiac University, Mitt is ahead 43% to 29%.

This influx of advertising is an increase for Romney compared to his 2008 campaign in the state. This is mainly due to the increased influence of super PACs since 2010′s Citizens United ruling.

So, what’s a poor old Speaker of the House to do? Frank Luntz said it best in a recent quote to the Washington Post: “Newt may not have the money, but he has always had the skill of grabbing attention.” Targeting Florida’s space industry, immigrant population, and huge amount of foreclosed homeowners, Speaker Gingrich is focusing his energy on trying to break Romney’s momentum. Besides his sermons preaching a moon colony, Gingrich launched fierce attacks on Mitt’s supposedly anti-immigration past. And increasingly, Newt is hitting Mitt where it hurts: the Governor’s history at Bain Capital and on Wall Street.

As usual, Newt Gingrich shines when he has an enemy. Mitt can count on the Speaker’s unrelenting wrath until at least tomorrow night, but it seems as if the sheer amount of money involved on Romney’s side will carry the day. For now, at least, the lesson is hammered home once more: For a precursor to Florida’s primary results, look to the TV guide, not the town bulletin.

Photo credit: www.adweek.com

No Comments »

The NDAA and Us

United States December 23, 2011 1:13 pm

The National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) is either the big deal that no one’s talking about or a standard budgetary bill that shouldn’t be getting much attention at all, depending on whom you believe. For those in the first category, certain sections of the bill (to be discussed here) are radically anti-civil liberties and shouldn’t be part of a culture that values personal freedom. To those in the second category, all that this year’s NDAA (yes, it’s annual) does is put into writing what the president has had the authority to do since the 9/11 attacks.

In my opinion, both of these views are causes for concern: Yes, the bill expands the government’s ability to detain suspected terrorists (citizens or not), and yes, we’ve already been doing that for 10 years. But after 10 years of fighting terror, killing Osama bin Laden, and significantly weakening al Qaeda, isn’t it time to be winding down intrusions upon the personal freedoms of the American people? NDAA 2012 codifies the extraordinary powers of the post-9/11 weeks and months, powers that have been used to justify a whole host of actions in the past, and will certainly justify many more in the future.

Source: legallyeasy.rocketlawyer.com

There’s something about a never-ending War on Terror that goes against the principles upon which America was built. Already, our counterterrorism efforts have been used in one way or another to justify unreasonable searches and seizures, suspensions of habeas corpus, and secret prisons. All of these would be violations of our constitutional rights during peacetime, but fears of violent extremism have made them the new bedrocks of America’s security apparatus. If the goal of terrorism is the destruction of America’s core principles, we cannot fight back with laws that do just that.

The Law Itself

First, it’s useful to define all of the terms we’re working with: the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) is passed every year. It is the budget for the Department of Defense, which includes military expenditures, foreign wars, military bases, and soldiers’ pay. This year, the NDAA faced sharp opposition from civil liberties groups nationwide mainly because of two specific provisions in the bill, sections 1031 and 1032. What’s all the fuss about*?

Section 1031: 

“Congress affirms that the authority of the President to use … the Armed Forces of the United States to detain covered persons. … A covered person under this section is any person … who was a part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners, including any person who has committed a belligerent act or has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces. … The disposition of a person under the law of war …  may include … [d]etention under the law of war without trial until the end of the hostilities.”

The real concern within civil liberties communities arises with this section of the bill, for a few reasons. For one, the definition of a possible detainee includes “any person who has committed a belligerent act.” This leaves the door open. Who is considered actively engaging in belligerency against the United States? This is one of the reasons I find the bill so concerning: is Occupy Wall Street a belligerent threat? What about the Tea Party or Code Pink? Would Malcolm X have been a belligerent or an activist? What about Bradley Manning or Julian Assange?

The vagueness in the bill is meant to leave the matter up to the courts, many of which have taken unclear stances themselves on civil liberties. George Bush’s legal team used this lack of clarity to its advantage by spinning complex legal webs to justify things like wiretapping, enhanced interrogation, and the Patriot Act. It looks as if this bill is following the same practices that other counterterrorism laws have followed for the past decade: take the widely held interpretation of a previously vague law, then use other vague laws to create a new, written version of what is “necessary” to combat terrorist threats. In essence, build upon common practices to create more and more aggressive laws.

This might seem like a slippery slope argument, but let’s remember what originally gave the president so much power to combat terrorism: a bill passed a week after 9/11 called the “Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists (AUMF).” It states, “The President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.”

Source: myggm.org

President Bush used this bill to justify almost every single counterterrorism action taken during his administration (legal or not). President Obama’s legal team used this to justify almost every counterterrorism action during the current administration, and they used it again tojustify NDAA. So while many say that section 1031 simply put into writing the common practices of the post-9/11 era, it seems much too likely that this law will become the legal basis for others in the future that are more radical. These laws will simply build upon AUMF, the Patriot Act, and NDAA 2012 to create more extreme interpretations of what the government is allowed to do.

Section 1032:

“The Armed Forces of … the United States shall hold a person … in military custody pending disposition under the law of war. … The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States.”

This states that the military has the power to hold any non-citizen indefinitely, as it has done at Guantanamo Bay. However, it also leaves room for the possibility of the indefinite arrest of American citizens, just not by the military. While I could make a larger point about the inevitability of such laws being used more liberally as time moves on, there is a larger theme to be made known here: the legal model of the United States was never meant for indefinite detention. The laws that allow this kind of behavior were meant for wartime (You know, for the wars that actually end). The fact is, the War on Terror is just like the War on Drugs – never ending, with a hunger for more and more aggressive techniques in an attempt to win an unwinnable battle.

There will always be terrorists, and the United States will always be under some kind of terrorist threat, as vague and minimal as it could someday become. And (according to the language in this bill) as long as there are terrorists, the President of the United States will have the ability to arrest any “belligerent” person. So whereas in a normal war we could use indefinite detention to detain enemy soldiers during the heat of battle, we’ve used language meant for finite conflicts, and we’ve expanded it to adapt to a never ending one. The implications of this are vast.

It’s easy to lose the significance of civil liberties in a post-9/11 era. With security at such a high premium, we can forget that by protecting our freedoms, we may be sacrificing the very things that make us free. The National Defense Authorization act puts in writing the extraordinary measures that we allowed our government to yield in the weeks and months post-9/11. They were not meant to last 10 years, and they were not meant to be institutionalized. If the War on Terror is a never-ending one, our personal freedoms cannot be indefinitely detained.

 

*I’ve created a full version of the text of sections 1031 and 1032 of the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012, with the parts that I used in this article highlighted. It can be found here.

2 Comments »

President Obama’s Congress Problem

Election 2012 - The Obama Administration - United States November 27, 2011 8:08 pm

 Recently, I saw a clip of Chris Matthews grumbling at the state of the Obama Presidency. Matthews was expressing frustration at a perceived lack of communication between the president and Congress, and I think he’s on to something.

Barack Obama came into office with everything going for him – a clear voter mandate, concrete plans, and a united Congress ready to promote Democratic ideals. So what happened?

First, it’s important to establish that Obama has done quite a lot right: he’s pulled back the economy from the brink of collapse, saved the American auto industry, created a healthcare plan that will help millions, and orchestrated a defense strategy that’s carefully taking us out of the Middle East without leaving a mess behind.

But at the same time, he hasn’t had the same relationship with Congress that defined the presidencies of Bill Clinton, or Ronald Reagan. These were true consensus builders who, despite the difficulties their policies faced, were effective in rallying support and building coalitions. Read More…

No Comments »

Caught Red Handed

United States November 11, 2011 8:10 pm

Over the past several decades, campaign expenditures have steadily increased, culminating with a shattering $5.3 billion price tag for the 2008 election. But perhaps more startling is the fact that independent expenditures, the money spent by non-party organizations often funded by wealthy donors and corporations, actually increased during the 2010 midterm election. Typically, without the star power of presidential politics, midterms draw less spending. Yet according to data from the Center for Responsive Politics, total outside spending for the 2010 elections exceeded that of 2008 by about $3 million. So what happened?

In the wake of the now-landmark Supreme Court case Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the face of campaign finance law has changed, opening the floodgates to the influence of corporate money in politics. The introduction of unregulated corporate money into the election cycle may well skewer the political process, enabling the purchase of outsized influence in government and affecting the outcomes of issues citizens care about most.

(Un)intended Consequences

The influx of post-Citizens United money has largely been channeled through independent organizations known as Super Political Action Committees, or “super PACs.” Individuals or corporations can anonymously donate unlimited amounts of money to super PACs, circumventing many previously cumbersome donation restrictions. Further, Super PACs enjoy new freedoms, such as the ability to directly mention the names of specific candidates in attack ads. These well-funded, well-connected political entities have injected tremendous amounts of money into the political process. American Crossroads, a super PAC created by Karl Rove, raised $27 million in the 2010 election cycle alone. As Mark McKinnon, former chief media advisor to President Bush, noted, “Outside organizations today have an inordinate voice relative to their numbers, because they get big checks that allow them to buy big amplifiers and drown other voices out.”

Legally, super PACs cannot confer directly with individual campaigns, but their contributors know the inherent value in giving. “A campaign contribution is an investment,” contends David King, professor at the Harvard Kennedy School of Government. “Of course there’s an impact of money on policy, otherwise [they] wouldn’t be investing in it.” While the President is under the continuous scrutiny of an entire nation, individual legislators generally fly under the radar and, “most members of congress are exquisitely aware of where their money is coming from.”

The Mega Megaphone

While politicians’ attachment to special interests is hardly new, super PACs are uniquely influential in their abilities to distort the public discourse. Because they are legally prohibited from having “common coordination and control” with campaigns, super PACs can actually usurp the candidate’s platform. Benjamin Ginsberg, an attorney specializing in election and campaign finance law, explained that, “The candidates can’t control the message of a super PAC, nor really have an impact on it.” Therefore, external messages can soon come to dominate the campaign. Steve Grand, a Republican media strategist, contends, “The voters will hear more from the independent groups than they may hear from the candidates themselves. Sometimes these candidates may have a tougher time getting their point out, because they’re not only competing with the other side, they’re competing with the independent expenditures that may or may not have their message right.”

Although super PACs remain unique political forces, they do not necessarily hold allegiance to individual candidates or even one party. By diversifying their investments, Super PACs can create incentives for politicians from both parties to support their agenda, as acting against the Super PAC would swing massive expenditures against the party or candidate. Super PACs can use this tactic to take issues such as reducing oil subsidies off the political table, even though a majority of Americans may support curtailment. Mark Halperin, senior political analyst for Time Magazine, told the HPR that by shifting donations from political parties and open political arenas into secretive super PACs, “Citizens United is changing the way business is done.” For Halperin, effective campaign finance reform would ensure that money is not just squeezed “from one bucket into another,” as he claims happens now.

Alternative Solutions?

With the flaws of existing campaign finance system, experts suggest several options for limiting the influence of special interests in the political process. For some, the path to equitable campaigns and greater democracy lies not with reversing Citizens United, but changing campaign regulations. Ginsberg believes that candidates are handicapped by the $2500 per person limit, McCain-Feingold regulations, and that individual candidates should not solicit funding from, “the groups that have legislation in front of Congress.” Instead, Ginsberg suggests, “Let the parties raise that money, so that they can fund the campaigns.” Yet, this process could inadvertently ensure entire slates of legislators susceptible to special interest groups.

For others, money itself is a problem. McKinnon observes that, “If it’s money that gets you re-elected, it’s money you’re going to pay attention to. And the more money you get, the less you’re going pay attention to the little guy.” McKinnon, founder of the No Labels Movement, a group committed to the creation of a post-partisan Congress through grassroots organization, argues for publicly financed campaigns, claiming, “If politicians aren’t tied to special interests to raise money then they will turn their attention where it belongs – to voters.” However, this change has to come from grassroots organizations, McKinnon believes, because, “Congress is incapable of reforming itself.” Establishing a truly national grassroots movement nonetheless requires strong organization and significant funding: the same thing No Labels attempts to counter. For the time being, however, No Labels and other similar organizations may provide the best hope for curtailing the influence of money in politics.
Lingering Questions
Analyses of campaign finance may involve complex legal opinions, but the significance of campaign finance law echoes at the core of American democracy. Is spending money really a First Amendment right? Should voices cloaked in anonymity have the power to drown out the “silent majority” of Americans not wealthy enough to afford a broad platform? Unfortunately, the aftermath of Citizens United suggests that already, Super PACs’ influence greatly exceeds their numbers. According to Thomas Mann, a fellow at the Brookings Institute, “we are quickly returning to a state of nature in campaign finance akin to the Gilded Age when corporate and individual wealth reinforced economic inequality.” While politics in the United States may not be harmonious, Americans from all walks of life place their faith in the sanctity of ‘one man, one vote.’ Unfortunately, the High Court’s ruling reigns supreme for now, allowing the unfettered access of special interests to the ballot box.

Matt Shuham ‘15 and Nathaniel Donahue ’15 are Contributing Writers

No Comments »

Breaking Down The Super Committee

HPRgument November 4, 2011 6:33 pm

We had our team of US writers take on the Select Committee on Deficit Reduction. They assess the divide between Democrats and Republicans, the causes for the Super Committee’s current impasse, and potential solutions to the problems that the committee faces.

Daniel Backman ’15 — Staff Writer

Deficit reduction proposals from both Democrats and Republicans have been disappointing, and predictably so. In terms of the ratio between spending cuts and revenue increases, Democrats came up with a plan farther to the right than either Bowles-Simpson or Gang of Six plans, both of which were bipartisan plans. The Democrats, in their attempts at compromise with Republicans, have again merely compromised their own beliefs to craft a proposal that Republicans will not go along with anyway. And lo and behold, Republicans summarily rejected the plan, claiming it was a “non-starter” for many reasons – not least of which being that all of the Republicans on the committee have signed Governor Norquist’s pledge for no new taxes. Their proposal relies heavily on spending cuts, with only minor revenue increases that skirt the edges of any real tax reform.

Indeed, the number one thing missing from both of these proposals is comprehensive tax reform. The Bowles-Simpson plan released in December 2010 outlined bold moves to broaden the tax base, eliminate many tax expenditures, and lower overall corporate and individual rates, all while increasing revenues by $785 billion by 2020. This is no small number in itself, and the benefits of tax reform go beyond just deficit reduction.

The current tax code is riddled with tax expenditures, exemptions, and loopholes, forcing individuals and companies to spend heavily just to file their taxes. With tax accountants and lawyers in abundance, some companies have found ways to evade taxes altogether. The example of GE, which pays no corporate taxes, is one of many. This has led to unevenness and uncertainty among individuals and businesses, and it reduces our competitiveness in the world market. One-shot solutions like the Republicans propose will do little to decrease this uncertainty and create a more clear tax code for Americans to follow. The Democrats’ plan, in its reliance on tax increases for the rich, will likely make America less competitive, not more. While broadening the tax base and eliminating many corporate and individual exemptions would increase the burden on the rich in a similar way as the tax rate increases Democrats propose, the elimination of administrative costs and uncertainty – and the overall decrease in statutory tax rates – provided by the Bowles-Simpson plan are far more favorable.

There has been some talk between Boehner and Obama, among others, about some of these tax reforms, but Republicans are limited if they insist on considering tax reform as “new taxes.” Economists across the political spectrum, from Larry Summers to Greg Mankiw to Jeff Miron, agree that broadening the tax base is a good idea – I asked them while conducting interviews for a forthcoming article about Obama’s jobs proposal. Republicans and Democrats must put pandering aside and get serious about real reform.

Humza Bokhari ’14 — Staff Writer

When the US spends so much money on everything and still doesn’t see results, the question should be: are we spending it right? Does government spend money as carefully as we would our own?

It doesn’t look like it. That being said, the super committee shouldn’t be hesitant to slash across the board, without worrying about the political implications for things like cuts in education and infrastructure. Don’t get me wrong – both are extraordinarily important. But when the country is spending so much on education and still doing worse than countries that spend much less, well, maybe we need to see where the money is going. Tighter budgets might equal more accountability.

It’s here where I’d call out the Democrats, because they keep appealing to people’s emotions when it comes to cuts. We need cuts, and a lot of them.

I’m not saying the Republicans are perfect either. Calling the rich “job creators” isn’t a good enough excuse to prevent increases in taxes. Revenue holes need to be filled in somehow. It makes more sense that American citizens fill them in than the Chinese, who have already been super nice to us.

So the super committee needs to be aware that cuts and tax hikes are necessary, without worrying about voter blocs. These are not politicians who should be concerned with 2012. (Which is why Patty Murray’s presence raises a giant red flag.) They’re supposed to be secret, bipartisan, and dedicated to doing something for America. Let’s hope they do.

Matt Shuham ’15 — Staff Writer

The one thing that the Super Committee has made painfully clear is how out of touch our Congress really is. Grover Norquist, K Street, and a handful of billionaire bank rollers now have as much power as the American public. Polls have shown again and again that Americans support tax increases to take care of budgetary problems. By the way, this sentiment is shared by Republicans, the rich, and the very rich.

So why isn’t Congress (specifically, GOP and Tea Party members) reacting to popular opinion? Many lawmakers realize that the people that donate to them and buy their political ads are part of the minority of Americans that see “tax” as a dirty word, except when Ronald Reagan does it. Most of the lawmakers that are refusing to mention tax cuts realize they can still get re-elected, even if they know they are being irresponsible. In 2012, when the economy is still recovering and income disparity is still at an all-time high, they will ask their constituencies for another chance, this time faulting the EPA, Wall Street regulation, and health care reform. They know that Americans supported all of those measures when they were introduced, but they also know that unless they tow the line of conservative interests, their campaign coffers will be empty the next time around.

Frank Mace ’14 — Staff Writer 

To argue that the GOP and Tea Party members are failing to react to “popular opinion” by opposing tax increases is to forget that the 2010 midterms happened. Matt contends that those who see tax as a “dirty word” are “part of a minority of Americans,” yet in 2010 this minority showed up in enormous numbers and propelled the GOP to the largest midterm electoral gains since World War II. The poll that matters most is the election, and the historic victory for candidates opposed to tax increases is driving the conservative opposition to tax hikes in democratic fashion.

Daniel

That would assume that voting trends represent public opinion on any one issue.  People vote for candidates based on a whole range of issues, and often based on non-policy criteria from charisma to experience to the proverbial “who I’d like to have a beer with.”  Elections are reflections of political trends, which brings in all these unquantifiable criteria as well, not merely policy beliefs.  Hence the point of this super committee, which is supposed to transcend politics and make the best policies. Deferring to the past election to make decisions would be wholly misguided.

James Alver ’15 — Staff Writer 

If elections in favor of a particular party don’t indicate support of that party’s platform (The anti-tax Tea Party was a huge motivator last year, and the GOP candidates almost unanimously opposed tax increases), then what’s the point of democracy? Sure, we’d like our politicians to have entirely neutral, rational reasons for everything they do, but politics just doesn’t work that way; politicians are elected because they have a bias.

The looming failure of the SC to accomplish anything is due to the fact that, like it or not, everyone on the panel is a politician, and both sides were given equal representation on the committee. Party-line type voters tend to see compromise as “caving” on the issues, so congressmen running for re-election, especially in the increasingly common “safe” seats where the primary is the election, are more afraid of being attacked for wavering on their values than for being an obstructionist. The very nature of politics has made this result almost inevitable.

Daniel

Perhaps my point was a little idealistic. But my fear is that saying simplistic things like “Americans voted for the party of no new taxes” prevents compromise on nuances that should really appeal to both parties. I go back to my original point: tax reform that raises revenue yet lowers overall tax rates, including 12 percentage points in corporate taxes, should appeal to Republicans. But because the simplistic view exists that all revenue is the same, we get oversimplified, partisan non-solutions instead of real reform. Once we boil the complexity of elections down to three words, “no new taxes,” we’re undercutting our own ability to innovate and reform, the very things that made America number 1, and the lack of which holds us back.

James

I agree that there are a lot of ideas being floated that both parties should be in favor of, but refuse to agree to in order to politick. The political climate (brought on by voters and activists, not necessarily party platforms) that punishes compromise definitely needs to change, but the current crop of Congressman is a result of that climate.  We should be disappointed, but not surprised in the least.

Paul Schied — US Online Editor

I also think, perhaps idealistically, that the cycle that James talks about can be broken by true courage and true leadership, instead of the pandering that we’ve seen.

And while I fully agree that the political climate is disconcerting, there are some glimmers of hope for a productive deal. Areas like farm subsidies should provide both sides with a chance to compromise, and I think that the larger disagreements over taxes are serious but not irreconcilable. The fact that 40 Republicans have urged the committee to consider revenue increases is telling. Republicans realize that they can’t continue to look like the stubborn ones, in part because 2012 is a presidential election, and independents will be coming to the polls.

A deal that includes broadening the tax base and reforming some entitlement programs could push Republicans to relent on closing tax loopholes and other revenue increasing measures. The Democrats are right to try to avoid showing up the Republicans so far. If they can work towards making a deal that doesn’t require the Republicans to completely abandon the tenets that were affirmed in the midterms, this committee might just pull it off after all.

photo credit: www.ncpssm.org

1 Comment »

The Vocal Minority

HPRgument Posts November 4, 2011 12:26 pm

The one thing that the Super Committee has made painfully clear is how out of touch our Congress really is. Grover Norquist, K Street, and a handful of billionaire bank rollers now have as much power as the American public. Polls have shown again and again that Americans support tax increases to take care of budgetary problems. By the way, this sentiment is shared by Republicans, the rich, and the very rich.

So why isn’t Congress (specifically, GOP and Tea Party members) reacting to popular opinion? Many lawmakers realize that the people that donate to them and buy their political ads are part of the minority of Americans that see “tax” as a dirty word, except when Ronald Reagan does it. Most of the lawmakers that are refusing to mention tax cuts realize they can still get re-elected, even if they know they are being irresponsible. In 2012, when the economy is still recovering and income disparity is still at an all-time high, they will ask their constituencies for another chance, this time faulting the EPA, Wall Street regulation, and health care reform. They know that Americans supported all of those measures when they were introduced, but they also know that unless they tow the line of conservative interests, their campaign coffers will be empty the next time around.

No Comments »

The EconDebate Live Blog

United States October 11, 2011 7:57 pm

7:53  Sarah Coughlon here! Matt Shuham, Alex Wirth, James Alver and I are liveblogging the GOP jobs debate in New Hampshire. We’ll update as we go, typing in different colors a la The Economist to signify who typed what. Stay tuned for more!

7:59 Matt Shuham: Hey everyone, this should be fun!

8:01 Jay Alver here, I’m hoping we hear some good ideas tonight.

8:03 The 9-9-9 plan will never stop sounding like a pizza deal.

8:05 Romney is framing himself as a leader – a strong, if predicable, start.

8:09 Alex Wirth here with the first impact youth have had on this debate. Herman Cain is sitting in the middle of the table partly due to this Harvard Institute of Politics Poll released yesterday.

8:13 Ron Paul is going after the Fed – again predictable, though it’s good to see him articulating the libertarian argument a little more fully. 

 8:14 Just realized that the debate is seated. This may be a big help to Rick Perry, who’s apparently had a lot of back pain towards the end of past debates. 

8:14 If there’s one great thing to be said for a topic debate in the primary, it’s that it lets us see people like Rick Santorum talk outside of their comfort zone. 

8:15: Santorum: “Repeal them all!” It’s never that simple.  

8:16 Huntsman: “Washington DC is the gas capital of the US” not Pennsylvania.

8:16 Thank God Huntsman isn’t wearing that heinous yellow tie. (Also, I get one free Bachmann clothing critique because I started by criticizing a man?) 

8:18 Newt Gingrich is the smartest guy in the room, but he’s not saying anything relevant to the debate.

 8:18 Gingrich says that gov’t suggestions, like that men shouldn’t get as many prostate exams, amount to a death panel.

8:19 When answering the question about innovation you cannot forget about education and young people. Both Steve Jobs and Bill Gates were under 25 when they started Apple and Microsoft. 

8:20 Michelle Bachman isn’t the smartest one in the room, but she’s definitely trying to scare a lot of people.

 8:20 Fun fact – I was at a Bachmann town hall yesterday where she repeated the Medicare speech here almost verbatim (including the “beautiful” eighty-five year old women). Also, is she trying to revive the death panels?

8:23 Props to Huntsman for the Bowles-Simpson reference – good substantive note. 

8:24 Herman Cain says his tax plan doesn’t come from a pizza box, but from his team of economists.

8:26 Enough of this: Mitt Romney’s job was firing people, and he was good at it. 

8:35 Huffington Post Politics makes a great point that Romney criticizes all of Obama’s Ivy League advisers but he just name dropped his own.  

8:38 Perry pushing the balanced-budget amendment idea. Interesting to hear the candidates picking up this issue – House Republicans love it, we know that much.

8:39 Romney says we need to cap the Government sector’s % of the economy, says we were better off at 27% under JFK

8:41 Romney coming out strong against new taxes – someone needs to press him on the difference between taxes “on the American people” and taxes on hedge-fund managers.

 8:42 Love him or hate him, I think Newt’s making a few good points about presidential leadership and the congressional lack of vision.

8:45 When confronted with the facts: “The problem with that analysis is that it is incorrect.” 

8:46 These are a couple of great infographs if you are interested in talking about taxes.

8:50 I hope all this talk about “the Chinese” leads into some decent analysis from Huntsman (former US ambassador to China… also speaks Mandarin, which is pretty cool). 

8:51 Romney says we WON’T have a trade war because China relies on exports to the US, I hope he’s right, the Senate is moving on this as we speak.

 8:55 Rick Santorum wants to go to war with China? I’m assuming that’s hyperbole…

8:56 Biggest problem with the 9-9-9 plan (other than its incoherence as policy…) is that Cain keeps repeating the name without repeating a message that people can get behind.  

 8:58 Kudos to Mitt for admitting that the status quo before healthcare reform wasn’t acceptable.

8:58 The Obamacare argument was interesting, though it was a little disappointing that the entire argument was just a fight over who could be more repealy. In related news, this debate is far too hectic for anyone to make any sense of it. 

9:01 As of right now, I think Perry has lost the debate. He has been too quiet too long and is not a present factor. This was the debate that he was suppose to be prepared for and it is not showing.

 9:00 The debate so far: Perry seems to have little idea what the heck he’s saying, everyone else is saying a lot of words without any substance, Mitt looks confident, and this format is very odd. If you’re an “average American New Hampshire voter,” is the TV even on anymore?

 9:06 Bachmann going to Perry’s long-dead past as a Democrat to link him to Obama policies – it’s been literally three decades since then, it seems like there are quite a few other rocks from Perry’s past (get it?) for her to throw…

9:07 Cain calling out Romney’s comprehensive plan as not being “simple,” but Romney says that just taxes or just energy are insufficient to solve the problem.

9:09 Cain’s question about Mitt’s plan is interesting… he, for one, does not seem to be selling any pizzas. 

9:10 Newt isn’t making any fans by combatting tax cuts for the middle class. At this point, he’s trying to be a king-maker.

9:10 Gingrich is going after capital gains taxes in Romney’s plan – this is rather an interesting idea, though I think Gingrich spent too much time blaming Obama and not enough explaining to average Americans what the heck a “capital gains tax” is.

9:12 The use of new media came up through the twitter feed. Mitt Romney’s campaign has bought the #econdebate twitter feed with the tweet “Thrilled to announce the support of @GovChristie today in NH – a national leader in the fight to reform government and cut spending.” appearing at the top of all #econdebate tweets.

9:13 Huntsman is attacking Mitt’s story. He’s looking to take down the top because he thinks he still has a chance. New Hampshire is his background.

9:15 Romney responds to Huntsman’s characterization of his business career as “job-destroying” by pointing out the businesses Bain helped found. Streamlining inefficient businesses while creating new ones. That’s the mindset America needs. 

 9:16 Romney name-drops Christie while supporting his decision to enact Romney-Care. I’m glad he’s standing by his decision, the 10th Amendment argument is perfect.

9:17 Great to see someone pressing Romney on how Romney originally presented MassCare, though it’s a little questionable if this particular argument is ever going to go anywhere. They’re already said all they’re going to say about this.

 9:20 Michelle Bachman has had some great prep for this debate, but Romney is still winning, with Cain not far behind.

 9:20 Yes, Bachmann, we know you’re a small business owner, but it offers “Pray-The-Gay-Away” services, how legitimate could it be? 

9:21 Bachmann may not be punching herself out a la Rick Perry, but the ever-present “I opposed Obama” narrative needs a little more meat on it at this point in the race.  

 9:24 With one segment to go, Romney has neither gained nor lost in any objective sense, but he’s doing very well relative to the rest of the field by just avoiding looking like a fool.

9:28 Perry’s emphasis on energy policy is interesting – that’s also a mainstay of Huntsman’s argument on the campaign trail, but I don’t know how many points it wins him in a jobs debate. 

 9:29 Perry emphasizing the “50 laboratories of democracy” idea of Federalism. I love Federalism…

9:29 If Perry’s poor performance tonight drags his poll numbers even further down, can we expect this and the Christie endorsement to start clinching a Romney victory, or could this be an opportunity for Huntsman to edge into the “not-Romney” spot in the race? 

 9:31 Herman Cain went through a whole response without mentioning 9-9-9! Now, to get attacked by Ron Paul. 

9:34 Looking at winners from this debate I think it is obviously Romney. He has kept his lead again and made no major mistakes. Ron Paul is also looking pretty strong and Herman Cain wins on simplicity but not depth. Bachmann has faded out and Perry just did not preform well enough to exceed expectations.

 9:32 Paul is sticking to his guns, both Bernanke AND Greenspan are failures in his opinion. He REALLY hates the fed, though he’s happy Greenspan is coming back to the gold standard.

9:34 Romney’s argument that deregulating banks will help small-business owners is intriguing in all the wrong ways. Predatory lending was a massively contributing factor to the economic crisis.

9:35 Michelle Bachmann was going to find a way to tie the ATM fee back to Dodd-Frank.

9:36 Cain only IMPLIED 9-9-9 was the plan that removed capital gains taxes. He’s getting better at not saying it constantly. Not MUCH better, but still. 

9:38 Perry talking up his jobs record – I find it a bit odd that he didn’t wield that one as strongly in the jobs debate as he did in his previous two appearances.

9:41 Again, Newt Gingrich is always one of the smartest guys in the room, but he just doesn’t have a chance.

9:43 Just got the first Occupy Wall Street mention from Herman Cain. As much traction as the issue’s gained lately, it’s not really surprising that the Republican contenders aren’t talking a lot about it: the #Occupy protestors just aren’t their target voting group.  

9:45 There has been a lot of talk about China in this debate. It is worth noting this poll commissioned by Generation Opportunity that found of young people 18-29 “76% view China as a danger: 48% as an economic threat and 28% as both an economic and military threat.”

9:45 Santorum just tried to tie gay marriage to economic collapse and poverty. Or am I reading too much into it?

 9:45 Santorum finally found a way to work in family values into an economic discussion. Family breakdown is unhelpful, but gay families are families too. 

 9:46 Annnnd Santorum finally sneaks in “the American family.” Did the gays cause the economic crisis…? 

 9:49 I do love the phrase “the cause of liberty.” Excuse me while I go frolic with the bald eagles…

 9:52 Final thoughts, team?

 9:53 It’s been fun guys. I feel much more secure about the future of our country now. 

1 Comment »

The Massachusetts Senate Democratic Debate Live Blog

United States October 4, 2011 7:13 pm

Matt Shuham is a Harvard student and a volunteer for the Elizabeth Warren campaign. He is live blogging from an objective point of view.

7:00pm Candidates are brought out, students are introduced

7:10pm Candidates introduce themselves. Elizabeth Warren has the biggest applause, but Alan Khazei isn’t far behind.

7:20pm Candidates address foreign policy. Consensus is that the money we’re spending in the Middle East is being ill-spent, and would be better spent at home.

7:20pm Warren: “We should never go to war unless we’re willing to pay for it.”

7:21pm Tom Conroy: “We need to focus on our investments, money and resources.”

7:22pm Question on marijuana legalization – Khazei, Bob Massie, Warren, Conroy, DeFranco are for medical legalization.  Herbert William Robinson is for full legalization and taxation.

7:25pm “What would you do to create jobs? Who supports the President’s bill?”

7:25pm Massie says the bill is a good start, we need more green investment.

7:27pm Warren does her usual regulation and small business pitch, the crowd takes it well. Khazei says he supports part of the plan, not the payroll tax cut.

7:34pm “What superhero would you be?” What is this, a CNN debate?

7:35pm Warren: I’ve stood toe-to-toe with the world’s largest financial institutions.

7:36pm Tom Conroy: We’ve got capitalism on one side, and democracy on the other.

7:38pm Alan Khazei: I would try to get Barack Obama to reconsider Elizabeth Warren to head the CFPB.

7:40pm Massie: Capitalism must be just… the US is behind.

7:42pm Robinson: “You mess up the economy, your taxes go up”

7:43pm Conroy: I’m a supporter of a woman’s right to chose and Planned Parenthood.

- sorry for the short blackout -

7:55pm Massie: I would reverse Citizens United

8:00pm Would you support in-state tuition for illegal immigrants?

8:05pm DeFranco: I would, they would bring in revenue, and they’re here under no fault of their own.  Very strong answer overall in my opinion.  She’s an immigration lawyer, after all.

8:07pm Khazei: We should have passed the DREAM Act.

8:08pm Massie: Remember the Statue of Liberty’s message.  Massie is putting on a good show, an impressive intellectual effort without seeming distant.

8:09pm Warren: When people come to the US and go to college here, we’re making a mistake by forcing them out.  She brings up a good point that has been glossed over thus far.

8:11pm Conroy reiterates the same points.  He’s putting forth the most “political” image.  Not looking too good, but he’s getting by.

8:12pm Khazei: We should push banks to let people refinance, and we should make sure we have an environment for start-ups and small business.  Khazei is doing very well.  He’s poised and prepared, like he’s been here before…

8:15pm Robinson: No small gains tax on Green companies.  I’m not sure why Robinson’s here, but he keeps us paying attention.

8:16pm Warren: We have to do principal write-down, refinancing, cash-for-keys.  These are explicit suggestions, I’m not sure if it’s such a good idea to reveal them so early.

8:18pm DeFranco: I hope we’re at the bottom of the market.  Don’t hope!  That means you don’t know!

8:20pm “Name one thing you have done in the past year to improve our state.”  Is Warren sweating this question?

8:21pm Warren: I spent a year building a Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.  I guess she isn’t…

8:22pm Khazei: Opportunity Nation and Americorps are building a base of volunteers around the country, including Massachusetts.

8:25pm Warren: Military service should be volunteer. Women are just as tough as men, and should be in combat positions.

8:26pm Khazei gives a great pitch for a national service network, incentivized by college scholarships and other rewards.  This is his bread and butter.

8:28pm closing remarks.  Warren reiterates her support for the middle class and financial reform to a big round of applause.  Khazei gives similar remarks to similar applause.  Maybe they’re closer than the polls indicate?  Robinson: I’m a regular guy (maybe a little too regular?).  DeFranco: I will fight for the people after the powerful.  I don’t think she’s made it to the big leagues yet. Conroy: I know I can represent the shared problems of Massachusetts’ citizens.  I’m the only one in this race with the experience beating incumbents.  Massie this is the United States of America – we should be leading the globe.  We need a new locomotive in the Senate, like Ted Kennedy was.

The candidates were mostly in harmony on the key issues.  The realistic competitors here are Warren, Khazei, and Massie.  The latter two put up  impressive fights against Warren, the crowd favorite.  Warren was on her A-game, even though it was her first debate (ever).  If she wasn’t in the race, Khazei and Massie would provide a good primary battle, and either would be a good candidate for Senate.  But she is, and the audience here knew it.

 

1 Comment »

Making the Super Committee Transparent

United States September 17, 2011 6:49 pm

Last Thursday, the congressional “super committee,” the group tasked with cutting 1.2 trillion dollars from the US budget over 10 years, met for the first time. That’s about all the useful information we know.

As far as specific legislation goes, the public doesn’t know what they talked about, what cuts were on the table, or how much money had been “contributed” to the committee members in the names of powerful interest groups, unions, corporations, and lobbying firms. This last part is what worries me most. 1.2 trillion dollars is a lot. 12 people decide what to do with it. Who is influencing that decision? Money talks, and until we know where the money is coming from, we don’t know who is talking to the super committee.

There’s no doubt that a cut in defense spending would be one of the easiest ways to minimize the burden of our debt. Will Lockheed Martin and Boeing let that happen? What about Big Oil or the farm lobbies? Both groups have substantial motivation to keep their subsidies intact. A few thousand dollars in re-election campaign donations to committee members is a great investment for millions in government handouts later.

This is how Congress works, every day of the year.  And the super committee will only be a concentrated version of it. Is there any question why the Congressional approval rating is at 12 percent? The American people are having a hard time trusting politicians that more and more don’t seem to have their constituents’ best interests in mind.

It was Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis that said, “Sunshine is the best disinfectant.” The only way the people can truly believe in the efforts of the super committee is if they see who is donating to their campaign coffers.

Representative David Loebsack (D, Iowa) and four bipartisan cosponsors have put forth a bill that requires members of the committee to report any financial contributions they receive over $500, within 48 hours. This is a concrete step towards ensuring that the super committee is dedicated to producing legislation that answers the concerns of the American public directly, not through the filter of special interest lobbies.

There is a case to be made for donor privacy. The Federalist papers were written under pseudonyms to protect their authors from political pressure and danger. They were essentially protecting their free speech, so shouldn’t lobbyists and corporations have the same right to privacy? I don’t think so. If the actions of so few people can impact 300 million of us for a decade, things have moved way past the point of “free speech in a Democracy.” This is an oligarchy, and this isn’t what we signed up for.

The real issue here– the need for transparency– is clear. Until that issue is addressed, our understanding of the super committee will continue to be murky.

Photo credit: TheEpochTimes.com

No Comments »

Weighing In: Why Weiner Should Stay

United States June 12, 2011 11:13 pm

Anthony Weiner is a champion of liberal politics.  During fiery tirades against what is sometimes viewed (by the public and by Weiner himself) as a government too corrupt or inefficient to care, Weiner seemed like someone we could relate to. Now, it’s quite obvious we can’t. After his recent Twitter escapades, there are plenty of calls for Anthony Weiner to resign, and not without reason.

Three months ago, at the Congressional Correspondents’ Dinner, Weiner bragged about his Twitter account, and about the internet reputation he had built up. No doubt this happened while he was carrying on multiple virtual relationships in the background. This is someone that will never again be respected as he once was.

But those calling for Weiner’s resignation are mistaken.

In a recent post on the issue, Sam Barr articulated one argument against the congressman:

“The relationship between representative and represented is sacred, and only certain types of exchanges are permitted. By trading political admiration for sexual gratification, Anthony Weiner corrupted that relationship.”

There has been significant talk, in Sam’s post and many others, that by mixing politics and his personal life, Anthony Weiner has tarnished the high standard of political office, and therefore must resign.

I ask: since when have high moral standards or impeccable personal lives been indicators of success in office? After all, in what other job are manipulation, peer pressure, and misrepresentation such accepted aspects of success? Weiner may not be a role model or an embodiment of family values, but he shouldn’t have ever been in the first place. When it comes to judging the merit of our elected officials, morals should play a small part.

Scandals such as these can make us forget what is really necessary in a member of the House: the ability to give a voice to one’s constituents on the national legislative stage. Anthony Weiner has done this, and he’s done this well for seven terms. As an outspoken proponent of social and economic reforms, Weiner has been a key figure in the Democratic Party, and a hero to many that viewed him as a crusader for legislative justice. His constituents know this as well as anyone. These are the things that really matter. Weiner’s constituents may not trust him to represent their moral values, but they can trust him to represent their political values on Capital Hill.

Barr’s article mentioned that there are only two valid currencies for gauging political worth: “public approval and votes.” In this case, Barr should support Congressman Weiner’s cause. Voters in New York’s 9th district are acutely aware of how valuable their congressman is as a legislator. Polls say that they approve of him staying in office, and despite preparing to take a brief leave of absence for the symbolic step of “counseling,” Weiner is giving the impression that he wants to continue to represent his base of supportive followers.

Sex scandals are emotional.  As a public, we’ve been betrayed, and as a Democrat, it’s hard for me to accept the fall from grace of one of our most engaging leaders.  The good news is, political success isn’t based solely on honesty or virtue.  It’s based on getting things done.  For all that he’s accomplished, Anthony Weiner deserves to keep his seat.  In the words of a New Yorker: “As long as he [works] for his constituency, that is the only thing that anyone should care about.”

photo credit: http://brotherpeacemaker.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/anthony-weiner.jpg

4 Comments »

custom writing