Dear General Assembly, here is your “Honey-Do” List for 2016

Dear General Assembly, here is your “Honey-Do” List for 2016

1. Pass either House 181 (Kowalko), which simply creates a new tax bracket at $125,000 with a rate of 7.10%, and an additional bracket at $250,000 with a rate of 7.85%; or House Bill 196, which also establishes the two new brackets, but then gives all brackets a 0.05% tax cut. The passage of one of these bills in non-negotiable. It must be the first order of business. No other bill or resolution or nomination can be considered by either House until one of these two bills is passed and sent to the Governor’s desk for his signature. No committee hearing on any other topic can be held until that time. If he vetos, the General Assembly must override. There is no other settlement money for you to raid, Democrats. It is time to stop being cowards, and time to make the wealthy pay just a fraction more. 2. Override the Governor's Veto of House Bill 50, the Opt Out Bill. 3. Petition SB 40 (Death Penalty Repeal) out of the House Judiciary Committee for a full vote of the House on the floor. It at least deserves an up or down vote. 4. Pass HB 105 (No Excuse Absentee Voting) and SB 111 (Same Day Voter Registration). I expect all Democrats to vote for these two bills, for the simple reason that Democrats believe in making it easier for everyone to vote, while Republicans believe in making it harder, if not outright oppressing the right to vote. If any Democrat does not vote for these bills, you should simultaneously announce your switch to the Republican Party. 5. Pass SB 39 (Minimum Wage Increase).
Tuesday Open Thread [12.22.2015]

Tuesday Open Thread [12.22.2015]

The New York Times wonders if Trump can turn out his vote: “Translating a personality-driven campaign to the voting booth is no easy feat, especially for a candidate who has never run before. But here in the state with the first nominating contest, about six weeks away, Mr. Trump has put off the nuts and bolts of organizing. A loss in Iowa for Mr. Trump, where he has devoted the most resources of his campaign, could imperil his leads in the next two nominating states, New Hampshire and South Carolina, where his get-out-the-vote organizations are even less robust.” “A successful ground game is crucial in Iowa because of the state’s complicated method of caucus voting, but the Trump campaign has fallen behind some of its own benchmarks.” Trump really doesn't have that much of a campaign organization, let alone a voter outreach or Get Out Vote operation. Indeed, I wonder if we are heading for the upsets of upsets, where a candidate assumes polls actually mean real votes (and Trump talks that way) and thus his campaign just assume the voters will show up for him, while at the same time his voters see him crushing it at the polls and assume they don't have to show up. It happens all the time. Hence, get out the vote operations within campaigns and canvassing. Is anyone canvassing for Donald in Iowa? I kinda doubt it.
Monday Open Thread [12.21.2015]

Monday Open Thread [12.21.2015]

The editors of The Progressive discuss the real rift between Clinton and Sanders in the Democratic Debate:
The best moment of the debate came when Sanders, channeling FDR, welcomed the hatred of big corporations and Wall Street. The moderator had asked Hillary if, as a Fortune Magazine headline put it, “business loves Hillary.” “Everybody should,” she shot back—a perfect political answer. The moderator put the same question to Sanders” “Will corporate America love a President Sanders?” “No, I think they won’t.” Sanders replied simply. “So Hillary and I have a difference,” he continued. “The CEOs of large multinationals may like Hillary. They ain’t going to like me and Wall Street is going to like me even less.” “The greed of Wall Street is destroying this economy,” Sanders added. [...] The preposterous Washington consensus that you can be loved by Wall Street and, at the same time, serve the interests of ordinary citizens, is crumbling. So is the American myth of a classless society where everyone can get rich and we all play by the same rules.
It was Sanders' second best moment during the debate (his first being his apology to Clinton that all his supporters and his campaign should take a cue on). I liked Hillary's answer and I liked Sander's answer. Hillary's answer was perfect for the general election. Sander's wasn't, but he and his supporters don't really care. The Democratic Primary, and the Republican Primary really, are a showcase of the two theories of electoral politics. The first is that you need to moderate your rhetoric and/or positions in order to appeal to as many voters as possible in order to win a general election. The second says screw that, appeal solely to your base of support so that you can turn out as many of those supporters as possible. After George W. Bush and Karl Rove, the Republicans have fully embraced the second theory. They are constantly seeking the more and more conservative candidate. Many progressive Democrats likewise want the Democrats to pursue the second theory, positing that there are more of us than them, them being non-progressives. I personally would choose a combination of the two: appealing to your base of support with policies and moderates with rhetoric describing your policies. And that is what I feel Hillary is doing.
Saturday Open Thread [12.19.2015]

Saturday Open Thread [12.19.2015]

Eugene Robinson at The Washington Post on the “great fracturing of the Republican Party”:
It is no longer possible to think of “the Republican Party” as a coherent political force. It is nothing of the sort — and the Donald Trump insurgency should be seen as a symptom, not the cause, of the party’s disintegration. It is no longer possible to think of “the Republican Party” as a coherent political force. It is nothing of the sort — and the Donald Trump insurgency should be seen as a symptom, not the cause, of the party’s disintegration. It makes no sense anymore to speak of “the GOP” without specifying which one. The party that celebrates immigration as central to the American experiment or the one that wants to round up 11 million people living here without papers and kick them out? The party that believes in U.S. military intervention and seeding the world with democratic values or the one that believes strife-torn nations should have to depose their own dictators and resolve their own civil wars? The party that represents the economic interests of business owners or the one that voices the anxieties of workers?
Friday Open Thread [12.18.2015]

Friday Open Thread [12.18.2015]

Andrew Prokop of Vox says the nomination of Donald Trump [or Ted Cruz] would likely be an utter disaster for the GOP.
It's a debacle for Republicans that would have been unimaginable at the beginning of this year. Yet it's happened so slowly, and so gradually, that the reaction from GOP elites still appears oddly muted. Even as summer stretched into fall, they kept comforting themselves by saying that it's still early — accurately pointing to the fact that early polls have frequently been wrong in the past, and that outsider candidates like Trump have lost in the past. Yet Tuesday night's debate was the final GOP debate of 2015 and could well be the year's last major campaign event. Before you know it, Christmas will be here, and New Year's will follow soon afterward. And then we're in January, and there's just one month before voting begins in Iowa on February 1. So it's definitely time for the Republican establishment to hit the panic button.
Thursday Open Thread [12.17.2015]

Thursday Open Thread [12.17.2015]

I sometimes check in to Red State for some Schadenfreude. After Tuesday's debate, Leon Wolf, a Cruz and then Rubio supporter, was very displeased.
…people who realize that Trump represents an existential threat to the credibility and future existence of the conservative movement as a political force have been forced to grind our teeth as Cruz - who really has been a champion for our causes - held fire on this charlatan for months. Now we are treated to the spectacle of Cruz treating Rubio in the same way many of us wish he had treated Trump from day one? It’s frankly galling.
A existential threat to the future EXISTENCE of the conservative movement. LOL. I agree. Go Trump!