Photo ID's and Voter Fraud

South Carolina's Photo ID law is just one more attempt to curtail the voting rights of likely Democratic voters. So far similar bills have passed or are proposed in 34 states. Most of them seem to have their origin in the efforts of the Kansas Secretary of State, Kris Kobach (don't worry about those initials). He has been leading what amounts to a crusade against illegal immigration, which has intersected with the long held Republican desire to suppress the vote as much as possible.

While both parties mount extensive get-out-the-vote efforts before each national election, it has been a watchword in Republican circles that they do better when the overall vote is smaller. This is because there are more registered Democrats than Republicans nationwide. That means that Vote Suppression must lurk at the core of the Party's principles. Photo ID laws are just the latest incarnation of the Suppression project.

Ends of Conservatism

I was reading Jane Austen's Sense and Sensibility last night and it occurred to me that I do not know what we mean by political conservatism today. I assume we seek to conserve material resources, but not just those. We also seek to conserve non-material things as well, things like spiritual and cultural values. But how do we rank these different sorts of ends? Which ones are most important? I think most people say they rank material and cultural things below spiritual things, even if we don't always behave accordingly.

Primary Candidates and the Press

I'm thinking about the cozy relationship between the press and the primary campaigns of the various candidates. This topic has been percolating in the back of my mind for several years, but for some reason I feel the urge to work it out just now. What I'm going to say is probably a little bit false--because I'm not an insider either to the press or any campaigns--but I think it's also true enough.

I think the press is too cozy with the campaigns, and I think they distort the nominating process by telling us too much about the inner workings of the primary campaigns. I also think this is a relatively recent development, perhaps even a legacy of the Reagan campaigns and presidency. No, it's not his fault, and both parties are equally complicit in this. But I think Reagan's first campaign staff and the press office in his White House understood better than previous campaigns how to invite the press in and how to make the best use of them. This was probably the inspiration of David Gergen, Reagan's eventual White House Press Secretary.

It certainly wasn't a one-sided relationship. The press saw an opportunity to use its insider knowledge as a way to get an edge on their competition. It also seemed to give them a considerable voice in the nominating process. You can probably see one danger already--why should the press have such a voice? That's not an appropriate role for a free press. But it played to the vanity of journalists that their inside knowledge of the campaigns, and of the effectiveness of candidates in organizing them, gave them a privileged perspective, maybe even made them politically wise. Once the press tasted this heady liquor it was very hard to give it up.

Death Panels

I love this phrase. I sounds like something out of Soylent Green. Pretty soon we'll have to eat our dead, like cockroaches. It is oddly appropriate that it was the brainchild of a Republican senator, given the fervor with which the current field of presidential wannabes is willing to revive that sort of rhetoric. The sad thing is that we've always had death panels of one sort or another. For the most part, these have been run by the insurance companies. Think about that for a moment: life and death decisions about rationing health care made by people who have only a profit motive. Chilling, isn't it?

But now the Republicans would like to have it both ways. They would like to have all the benefits of tough talk about health care, but somehow also blame the Democrats for being responsible for the heartlessness of their own idea. It sounds screwy, I know, but apparently they've found an audience for that twisted little bit of reasoning. Go figure.

CD

National Health Care

First of all, let me say this right up front: I'm in favor of a national health plan like Canada's, a so-called Single Payer plan. Now, before you click away, let me tell you why. My father was a doctor, and he was in favor of a Single Payer plan, and back in the '80s most doctors were. That's because they were feeling the pinch of the huge paperwork burden on their medical practices.

Death Tax? No, It's an Estate Tax

Remember all the talk about the "Death Tax" from a couple of years ago? Well, I expect we'll be hearing about it again in the next election cycle. Republicans dubbed it the Death Tax in an effort to make you think it was an unfair imposition on ordinary citizens in the time of their grieving. That's not entirely false. But it is a misrepresentation of the nature of this tax. The Estate Tax, as I prefer to call it, does not affect the vast majority of taxpayers. Very few people will leave estates large enough to be affected by it at all. Of the tiny segment of the population who are affected by it, the vast majority will only end up seeing a tiny fraction of their parents' estate subject to it.

This leaves me with two questions. First, why does the Republican party care about this tax? Second, why does anyone else care about it?

The Republicans care about it because it is largely controlled by people who will leave estates that will be significantly impacted by the Estate Tax. It's perfectly natural for these people to take an interest in it, even to make it a priority to get rid of it. The problem for them is to make everyone else think they also have an interest in it. Since nobody else has a personal interest in eliminating it, the question ought to arise whether there is a compelling national interest we all share here. I think there isn't. But you can bet that no argument will be made to show this. Instead, all we will hear is a lot of empty rhetoric designed to make the Estate Tax sound like it applies to all of us. So get ready for Death Tax Follies.

It is worth asking whether there is a compelling national interest in eliminating the Estate Tax. The only argument I can think of is something to the effect that it somehow inhibits economic activity. The problem is that there is no compelling evidence to suggest any such thing. There is some evidence to suggest that the opposite is true, namely that breaking up large estates tends to stimulate more economic activity than it inhibits.

But there is another reason for thinking that there is a compelling national interest in preserving the Estate Tax, one that was insisted on by Thomas Jefferson. He thought it important to tax great estates so as to inhibit the growth of an hereditary aristocracy. It's easy enough to see why this would be a vital national interest for citizens of a democracy. An Estate Tax is an effective way to accomplish this without inhibiting economic activity directly. The tax only comes into play after people have died, when their economic activity is over, instead of being assessed on any specific economic transactions.

I think Jefferson's reasoning is persuasive, but I doubt very much whether any Republicans will take the trouble to show why they think he's wrong. If you think he's wrong, I'd love to hear why you think so.

CD

Partisan Politics

We heard a lot of hot air from the Republican House leadership over the last couple of days about how they were standing on principle in refusing to pass the Senate Payroll tax extension. But the emptiness of all that talk was made abundantly clear yesterday when the House reconvened to pass the same extension one hour. Some highlights:

• The Speaker, Mr. Boehner, initially claimed that he opposed the Senate bill because it would place impossible burdens on small business owners. 
• The Majority Whip, Mr. Cantor, insinuated that the original impasse was the President's fault for not rushing over to the House to negotiate some sort of compromise.
• And, of course, one can hardly forget the many new "Tea Party" representatives who swore that they would stick to "principles" even if it meant that they would only have one term.

Looking back on the episode, it's hard not to conclude:

• that Mr. Boehner doesn't care about small business owners
• that Mr. Cantor is a pusillanimous fool
• that the "Tea Party" reps have no principles--which means that there is nothing to prevent them from seeking further terms in office.

Obviously, this is just politics as usual for the modern Republican party. But it is just a little disappointing that it's as tawdry and transparent as this.

CD