Bob McDonnell, the (probable) next governor

           Between now and November 3, unless Bob McDonnell walks into a hair salon and announces to all the women that they ought to be at home baking cookies and pumping out kids, there is an overwhelming chance that he will be elected the next governor of Virginia.  Conversely, unless Democrat Creigh Deeds surgically attaches Mark Warner to his hip and parades him across the commonwealth, he will probably fare badly.  To be frank, McDonnell probably would have squeaked by on Election Day even if Democrat Deeds had been a stellar candidate with a transportation plan and a clear message on taxes—just because of the natural inclination of Virginians to vote for the opposite party of whomever controls the White House.

            But as it is, McDonnell now has a double digit lead over Deeds.  The same Northern Virginians who gave Deeds his primary victory by wide margins have largely become disenchanted with his overly-negative campaigning, loss for words in the face of reporters, the distance he has tried to put between himself and President Obama, and the latest gaffe in which he said he would consider opting Virginia out of the public option if it were passed in healthcare reform.

            Now, it’s true that what he said—that he’s not convinced the public option is the only way to reduce costs—is essentially what the president has also stated regarding the public plan.  Considering, though, that Deeds has rebuked McDonnell for raising federal issues in debates, Deeds could have said something along the lines of, “I will wait until the bills are completed in the House and Senate before I make a judgment.”  Or, “I will do whatever possible to ensure that the maximum number of Virginians have health insurance.”  Or, “I will speak with members of the Virginia congressional delegation to ensure this legislation results in a net benefit for citizens of the commonwealth.”  Since Deeds’s strategy in the final weeks is to energize Democratic voters, I’m not sure that expressing skepticism over an item on the wish list of many liberals is the best way to impress the base. 

            As it is, many Democrats will probably get over their heartburn about Deeds and vote for him if only to vote against McDonnell.  This bears some resemblance to the 2004 presidential election, where people plainly knew what they disliked about President Bush, but Sen. John Kerry was such an uninspiring and amorphous candidate that the electorate did not have as much confidence in him as a potential commander in chief.  The danger of electing McDonnell is that he could also sweep into office a Republican Lieutenant Governor (who can break tied votes in a nearly evenly-split Senate), a Republican Attorney General (and an ultraconservative, environmentalist-hating, immigrant-bashing, state “sovereignty”-supporting one at that), and a Republican House of Delegates. 

            This means that after eight years of having moderate Democratic governors stand between the people and the legislature, it is probable that there will be laws enacted over the next two to four years that chip away at gun regulations, expand the use of capital punishment, crack down on non-felon illegal immigrant workers and families, fail to raise taxes to maintain our road systems, eliminate the chance of any new funding for public transit, slash welfare benefits, oppose the president’s healthcare proposal, and fail to lessen the burden on public colleges and universities and the financial burden on their students.

            If Glenn Beck is worried that the Democrats are hijacking his country, I am worried that a solidly Republican state government will enact seriously regressive policies that would caricature us as a “Deep South” state.  Of course, congressional Democrats have served as their own check over the past ten months, but an ideologically pure GOP can mobilize their ilk more efficiently.  That’s why I hope that there is at least one Democrat elected statewide to serve as a counterweight, if only in title, to a reinvigorated Republican government.

Congress’s woman crisis?

            When watching President Obama’s address to the joint session of Congress, it was hard not to notice all of the brightly-colored suits and dresses of the 90 women in the House and Senate—representing seventeen percent of Congress and highly visible for the cameras.  In the 2008 election, more women won congressional races and consequently more women are now serving in Congress than at any point in history.

OBAMA-Joint Session, originally uploaded by lauren victoria burke.

            But that could potentially change in 2010.  In midterm election years, the president’s party typically loses seats in Congress.  Right now there is a huge disparity in the numbers: 70 women are Democrats; only 20 are Republicans.  Even during the 1994 election in which a net gain of seats held by Republican women occurred, more Democratic women were candidates than were GOP women.  In fact, while the number of GOP women running for House seats each year has more or less held steady around 40-45, the number of Democratic women has increased from 72 in 1994 to 96 in 2008.

            In the Senate the math is stark and simplified: of the 17 women, Democrats outnumber Republicans by more than 3:1.

            Last year, eight new Democratic women were elected to the House and, as freshmen, at least four of them from more conservative-learning districts are being targeted for defeat; it’s more than likely that their challengers will be men.  Why is it that more Democratic women run for Congress than Republican women?  Perhaps it is simply because more women are Democrats.  Or, as U.S. News and World Report’s Bonnie Erbe writes, Republican women view their role as being more of a traditional homemaker than an officeholder.

            I have no definite answer.  But it has been well-publicized that the GOP is not only having problems with recruiting women: blacks, Latinos, Asians, and other ethnic groups are either underrepresented or not represented at all on the Republican side of the aisle.  Many non-white women, though, represent majority-minority districts, so their seats are pretty safe.  But still, there remains a problem: if the U.S. Congress is intended to represent the American people, comprise many points of view, and achieve gender equality, then many more women must fill the ranks.  That is something most people can agree upon.

            While Republicans tend to be more suspicious of affirmative action, even in the broad sense, I would hope that they are actively recruiting female candidates in order to combat their image as the party of old, white men.  It would be a missed opportunity if, one year after a historic presidential race for women, the appointment of Sonia Sotomayor, and the passage of the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, the number of women in the national legislature actually deceased because of the dynamics of the political cycle.

Obama expected to tell Congress to “stop being…pussies”

Washington, D.C.—President Obama will give a major speech to a joint session of Congress tomorrow night on healthcare in which he will likely tell the 535 assembled members to grow a pair and pass a bill.

            In prepared marks that are circulating on Capitol Hill, Obama will say that the Senate Finance Committee is “seriously harshing [his] mellow” by failing to finalize legislation.  “I know you bros have my back on this, but seriously: it’s time to crap or get off the crapper,” the draft says.

              Obama will attempt to bolster support in his party by calling on conservative Democrats to “stop being such mega-pussies.  I mean, my eight-year-old daughter could have passed a bill by now and she doesn’t even know what an HMO is.”

            The Republican response has been measured, but key lawmakers say they will listen skeptically to Obama’s address.  “I hope the president will recognize Republicans for their efforts to repeatedly cockblock his plans,” Sen. Charles Grassely (Iowa) said.  “It hasn’t just been a handful of Democrats that have been crushing his boner.  The GOP has been working the whole time on this, too.”

            Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) said on Fox News that she hopes that Obama realizes that Congress cannot be expected to act quickly on healthcare reform. “Normally, it takes us months, if not years to fail at passing legislation.  For him to come in all of a sudden and say, ‘Okay, it’s time to stop sucking ass now,’ is just naïve thinking.”  She added that Congress should be given at least until next year to suck at passing a healthcare bill, rather than suck at passing one this year.

            Still, Obama appears hopeful about his chief domestic priority.  “I expect you to get back to work tomorrow and stop holdin’ your D on this bill.  As Teddy Kennedy would have said, ‘Shit gets real—really real—right now, son.’”

Prepare for healthcare reform without the GOP

            President Obama has always been very clear on what he wants to see in healthcare reform: 1.) ensure that all Americans have insurance that will provide them with the care they need. 2.) Make reform deficit neutral.  And 3.) bring down the costs of healthcare expenditures for families, businesses, and the government in the long term.  Being a pragmatist, Obama has remained open to different methods of accomplishing these goals.  If the answer lay in a single payer system, he would probably support that; if the answer required as little government intervention as possible, that would be acceptable to him also.

            However, there came a point at which universal healthcare has turned into “incremental” healthcare—out of concern for fiscally conservative Democrats and Republicans.  But now, each passing week that the Senate Finance Committee cannot come up with an outline for a new system is time in which town hall protestors, Fox News commentators, and the general dynamics of next year’s midterm elections may prevent reform from occurring at all.

            Obama has given the Finance Committee negotiators until September 15 to come up with a bipartisan bill, at which point he presumably will press for action without the Republicans.  While I worry that imposing such a deadline may alienate any GOP senators who are thinking of supporting reform, there comes a point at which thoughtful deliberation turns into purposeful obstruction.  There is no point in watering down reform in order to meet Republicans at some imaginary middle point where they will say, “Okay, that’s good enough for us.”

            That point probably lies somewhere to the right of insurance cooperatives—a proposal that the small-state senators in charge of the negotiations have proposed in lieu of a public option.  Critics on the left say that co-ops will be too small to be effective competition and will have to negotiate rates with healthcare provides like private insurers.  Critics on the right, like Sen. Jon Kyl (Ariz.) are calling co-ops a “Trojan horse” that are just disguising a planned government takeover of healthcare.

            If GOP senators feel that even a concept as weak as a cooperative is too much government intervention, then I think that it is time to pull the plug on bipartisanship and return to the public option commitment.  The public plan is a compromise that liberals made after a single payer system was taken off the table.  What exactly have conservatives compromised?  The fact that they seem not to be willing to support anything other than the status quo is hardly a commitment to improving the healthcare system.

            To be fair, some Republicans are taking the reform effort seriously.  Sen. Olympia Snowe (Maine) was the only Republican on the Finance Committee not to draw a line in the sand in opposing a public option.  Like the president, she remains open-minded on the means to the overall end of accomplishing the three key goals.  Sens. Susan Collins of Maine and George Voinovich of Ohio may also be open to the Democrats’ plan.

            Realistically, the Democrats have 60 senators; they do not have 60 votes, however—meaning support from GOP moderates is key.  But in looking at the record of the current Congress, the most important votes were taken with almost solid Republican opposition: the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act in January, the stimulus package in February, and Sonia Sotomayor’s confirmation in August.  Although I don’t believe in the helpfulness of drawing strict lines, President Obama should seriously enforce the September 15 deadline.  Otherwise, he may not have another opportunity to build momentum to pass this crucial legislation.

Cash for Clunkers extension should be scrapped

         I am in favor of reducing our dependence on fossil fuels.  I believe that carbon emissions from human behavior are warming the planet and will cause drastic climate changes in years to come.  I want our car-centric society to move towards a reliance on public transit and smart growth communities.  I want people to reduce, reuse, and recycle in order to mitigate their footprint on the environment.

         But I am absolutely opposed to the extension of the Cash for Clunkers program.

         On Friday, the House added $2 billion to the program which has run out of money months before its November deadline—after many people doubted whether the original $1 billion would be spent entirely.  The original law was tolerable, in that it provided some economic stimulus, allowed people to purchase more environmentally-friendly cars, and gave hope that the ailing auto industry would somehow benefit from a bump in demand.

         It’s no longer cute anymore.  All this law does is subsidize manufacturers and dealers—one of the most egregious forms of protectionism, in that all states have laws to mandate transactions through dealerships.  In reality, we should be moving toward a “demand-pull” model in which consumers can order their cars directly from the plant, reducing excess inventory and eliminating the middlemen who can take advantage of non-savvy buyers.

         Furthermore, with such a limited definition of what a “clunker” is and the modest fuel efficiency standards that a new vehicle must meet, it is doubtful whether this bill will be a boon to the environment.  Given that it takes a good deal of carbon to manufacture a new car (about 6.7 tons, by one analysis) and that a new car need only receive at maximum 28 mpg—which is only slightly above the corporate average fuel economy—for the purchaser to receive the full $4,500 rebate, it will take about four years for the driver to “repay” the carbon cost of the new car.  That isn’t a bad thing, but in four years we will hopefully be looking at hybrid and electric cars with even greater fuel efficiency at a more reasonable price.  So in that sense, it might be more beneficial to hold onto one’s car a little longer.

         Another way in which this act caters to the auto industry is that there is no provision for used cars.  All traded-in clunkers must be scrapped.  The $4,500 credit cannot be administered to charities or recyclers if car owners were to donate their clunker.  And many people who are driving heavy-emissions vehicles may not be in the position to afford new ones, in which case a mere $4,500 would not help them to finance a new purchase.

         To add insult to injury, the $2 billion extension is being diverted from the stimulus bill’s loan guarantee program for renewable energy projects.  That is an awful misuse of resources given that many states estimate that blackouts will occur in the next few years if grid capacity is not increased.  Plus, urban development and transit expansion will need clean energy sources to maximize effectiveness.  And need I mention the national security imperative of having a network of transmission to our homes and businesses that does not require kowtowing to petro-dictators overseas?

         We need to help our struggling auto industry to reinvent itself; we also need more fuel efficient cars.  What we don’t need is a half-life support/half-token gesture to environmentalists when this money could be used more effectively for other purposes.