NY Times biased against Jim Webb

I read THIS article from the New York Times. The article reports that Bill Clinton has started campaigning in New Hampshire for his wife. The article made his campaign stops sound low key and very down to earth. It also mentions that he is planning to visit Iowa.

Bill Clinton campaigning isn’t a surprise. We have learned that incumbents have an advantage in elections, and while Bill Clinton isn’t running, he is still very influential. However, unlike other prominent politicians he has time to campaign because he doesn’t have to take time off of work.

It’s also not a surprise that Bill Clinton is visiting New Hampshire and Iowa first. They are the first states in the nomination game and have a disproportionate amount of influence in the election.

This article is good example of how influential the media is. Hillary Clinton is getting free advertising from this article, while Jim Webb is no where to be seen on the New York Times. This disadvantage is certainly the only reason Webb hasn’t officially declared his independent run for president.

Webb 2016: Leadership You Can Trust.

“Democracy is so overrated.”

I spent my summer watching various Netflix series. One of which was House of Cards which portrays politicians in Washington, D.C. as ruthless and scheming. This series influenced my perception of US government and politics. The documentary Immigration Battle didn’t change this perception much. Rather, it reinforced what I already thought.

The documentary showed the various political games played at the Capitol, which are played all the time in House of Cards. For example, when it looked like the Republicans in Congress were about to be ready to make immigration legislature, the Democrats worked to slow this legislature down for pure political gain. Democrats knew that if it looked like Republicans passed immigration reform, minorities that support it might be inclined to vote Republican next election. Democrats just couldn’t risk losing voters to the Republicans, so they sacrificed a good piece of legislation.

In House of Cards, the politicians are very good actors, and sometimes speak with props. At one point, Frank Underwood, one of the main characters, uses his wife as a prop in a debate (I couldn’t find a clip, but its in Chapter 6 if you want to watch it). Immigration Battle shows congressmen using an image of a life preserver and a countdown till Obama takes action on his own.

While there are some similarities from Immigration Battle and House of Cards, I hope that Congress really doesn’t mimic House of Cards. If so, who did Obama kill to become president?

Two different futures: Clinton v. Rubio

The two favorites to win their party’s nomination for president are Hillary Clinton and Marco Rubio. While who will be president is undetermined, it is almost certain the GOP will control Congress during the first part of the next presidency. In this blog, I will compare a Clinton presidency to a Rubio presidency.

The most important difference will be the amount of legislation passed. If Clinton presides over a Republican controlled Congress, it is likely little legislation will make be passed because of Clinton’s veto power. She probably won’t approve of Republican legislation. However, this doesn’t stop Republicans because they can still override a veto, but it will be tough to do without help from a few Democrats.

In a Rubio presidency, there is likely to be lots of legislation passed because Rubio is unlikely to veto any legislation from his own party.

Related to the amount of legislation passed, is what legislation is passed. In a Clinton presidency, not much legislation will be passed so it is likely not much will be different in the future. America will have the same policies that it has today, barring any expirations.

In a Rubio presidency since lots of legislation will be passed, there is likely to be a different future from today. On Rubio’s campaign website, it lists his policy suggestions. From this, I can predict legislation of a Rubio presidency will emphasize gun rights, cutting taxes, and repealing ObamaCare.

The next difference is the attitude of Congress toward the president. With a Clinton presidency, there is likely to lots of legislative oversight from the Republican controlled Congress. They will want to exploit any mistakes she makes, so they can have a better shot at winning the next election. In fact this is very likely because Republicans are already doing it. Just take a look at Clinton’s Benghazi hearing.

With a Rubio presidency, the Republicans in Congress will want to promote their own party. Because of this, I doubt they will want to discover any misdeeds by Rubio.

 

Top Political Songs

  1. Public Enemy – “Fight the Power”

“What we need is awareness, we can’t get careless
You said what is this?
My beloved, lets get down to business
Mental self-defensive fitness
Yo! bum rush the show
You gotta go for what you know
Make everybody see, in order to fight the powers that be”

“Fight the Power” conveys the racial tensions of the 1980s and 1990s.  People were growing frustrated with the lack of equality. The lyrics selected above show how it appealed to black militancy. The music video even shows a protest.

I like “Fight the Power” because it is upbeat and catchy. Who doesn’t like to shout “Fight the Power” every couple seconds? Also, I am a rebellious youth. This is worth listening to because it shows that Public Enemy songs are meaningful.

2. Edwin Starr – “War”

“War, huh yeah
What is it good for?
Absolutely nothing, oh hoh, oh”

This song is very clearly anti-war. It was preformed by Starr in 1970 as a protest to the Vietnam war.

I enjoy this song because of Starr’s funky style. Who doesn’t like to get funky? This song is worth listening to so you can reference it in any argument and it is an easy way to understand why some people don’t like war.

3. Elvis Costello – “Oliver’s Army’

“Oliver’s army is here to stay
Oliver’s army are on their way
And I would rather be anywhere else
But here today”

This song was a hit in the UK in 1979. It has a general anti-war statement. It also points to the issue that the only option for the unemployed in the UK was to join the army.

I like this song for the same reasons it was a hit in the UK; it has a catchy tune. I thought it was nice to include a political song from outside the US in this list. This song is worth listening to because it never became a hit in the US. So, you will be one of the few people to hear about UK problems.

Tax Complaints

This Pew research report looks at American perceptions on the federal tax system. It starts with saying that a majority of the American public (59%) believe that “there is so much wrong with the federal tax system that Congress should completely change it.” It then breaks down this sentiment in two ways: by what is wrong with the tax system and by what different demographics think about it. For what about the tax system is wrong, a majority (64%) say that they are bothered a lot that corporations don’t pay their fair share of taxes and 61% of people are bothered a lot by wealthy people not paying their fair share. What I found the most interesting was the demographic break down of the tax complaints. For instance of the people that said they are bothered a lot that corporations don’t pay their fair share of taxes, 75% of democrats answered this way compared to 52% of republicans. A majority of people support that complaint, but clearly the complaint is more rooted in liberal thinking.

There seems to ideological split on the opinion of taxes. While a majority of people say they are bothered by taxes, the different ideologies complain about different things. I believe that there are two different conclusions one could draw from this data. One could be that the people’s opinion on taxes doesn’t matter. Opinion should not be used as a tool to measure the success of our tax system. The other conclusion, if you believe that opinion does matter, is that comprehensive tax reform is needed. A majority of Americans want our taxes to be changed. It is just a matter of compromising on what needs to be changed.

This Blog Post Cost Me $9

In Eric Black’s series “Imperfect Union: The Constitutional Roots of the Mess We’re In”, I read the articles about America’s two party system (HERE and HERE). In these two articles, Black notes that most people end up voting against a candidate that they don’t like, rather than voting for a candidate they support. He also notes that America has, for the most part, historically been only a two party system. What causes both of these issues? Black’s answer: America’s voting system, the“first-past-the-post” voting system.

In “first-past-the-post”,  the candidate with the highest polling, not necessarily the the candidate with the majority, wins. There are two major drawbacks to a first past the post voting system:

1. It encourages tactical voting and a two party system. Not voting for a candidate in one of the two potentially winning parties is virtually a wasted vote. Because of this realization, people end up voting for a candidate they don’t fully agree with, but would rather have than the other choice. They vote for the lesser of two evils.

2. It can not guarantee a Condorcet winner. A candidate may win without a majority of votes. Which for math nerd is a huge problem.

Luckily for us, there are different voting methods. I have an affinity for the alternative vote system.

In an alternative vote system, voters are given more than one vote. Voters give a first choice candidate, a second choice candidate, and so on until they wish to show no preference. What this allows is for run off elections to happen instantaneously. The results would be counted with voters’ first choice votes, and the candidate with the least amount of votes would be eliminated. Luckily, the voters who picked the eliminated candidate as their first choice also picked a second choice. The results are tallied again with the first choice votes for the eliminated candidates turned into second choice votes. The process continues until there is one candidate left. HERE is a video that explains it well, as it is tricky to explain over text.

The alternative vote encourages a multiparty system, and is simple to do. It shares a negative with the first past the post voting system in that it doesn’t ensure a Condorcet winner (sorry math nerds). I personally prefer the Alternative Vote, but I doubt our elections will change anytime soon.

Campaign Finance: A Threat To Democracy

According to the New York Times, in 2012 the average amount of money spent to win a house seat was $1.6 million. But where does all this money come from? The answer: Political Action Committees (PACs). In the 2010 ruling “Citizens United v. FEC“, the Supreme Court ruled that the 1st Amendment prohibited the government from restricting PACs’ donations. In a sense, PACs can raise an unlimited amount of money for a politician, but this should not be the case. PACs’ money should be restricted because they have too much influence in the American political system.

PACs are often financed by corporations or billionaires. Corporations can not run for office, but since politicians need the cash that corporations and billionaires can provide, corporations and billionaires can influence politician’s views. There is no problem with demanding a politician to represent your views, but there is a problem in that these corporations and billionaires have access to much more money than the average individual. Because of this inequality, corporations and a few billionaires could have a huge influence in our political system. This was the main theme of the Supreme Court’s dissent in “Citizens United v. FEC”.

The ridiculousness of PACs’ unlimited fund raising can be seen when Stephen Colbert created his own PAC “Citizen’s for a better tomorrow, tomorrow”. Colbert, a satirical political show host, raised over $1 million dollars for his PAC in 2011. With this money he ran for “President of the United States of South Carolina”, but since it was too late to get his name on the ballot, he urged people to vote for Herman Cain. According to NPR, the “Cain/Colbert” combo received over 6,000 votes, finishing ahead of Rick Perry. Colbert’s satirical PAC shows how much influence one individual can have in an election from PAC money.

The issue of setting harsher regulations on PACs, commonly referred to as campaign finance reform, has already gained traction in mainstream political candidates. Bernie Sanders is running his campaign with out the aid of a PAC, but he also faces the challenges of staying competitive against Clinton, a cash magnet. This also isn’t just a liberal issue. Donald Trump mocks Jeb Bush about the money he raises from PACs and often claims that he can’t be bought like Bush. But unlike Sanders, Trump stands a better shot of combating rich PACs since he can finance his campaign from his own pocket.

Whether you agree with “Citizen’s United v. FEC” or not, it is hard to deny how interlinked money and politics have become. PACs are almost buying candidates and Colbert showed how ridiculous campaign finance laws are. Unrestricted donations lead to few people having more political influence than they should. It is clear campaign finance is becoming an issue that is gaining traction because Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump, two serious presidential contenders, have addressed the problem. Hopefully, we will see some change in the future of how PACs operate.