Archive for April 3, 2009

Putting the House Budget Votes in Perspective, PLUS: The Mega-Rich Need Our Help

Yesterday’s House votes on the Obama Administration’s budget and associated amendments (i.e., the House Republican Budget Alternative) split almost perfectly along party lines.

Almost.

Twenty Democrats voted against the White House budget. Fourteen of these are in the Blue Dog Coalition, so their “Nays” are not surprising. Slightly more surprising, I suppose, is the fact that only 27% of Blue Dogs voted against the President’s budget. (The coalition is made up of both moderate and conservative Democrats.) The remaining six Democrats voting against the budget included five non-Blue-Dogs who, if Bill Foster (D-IL) is representative of the group, voted against the budget resolution out of concern for increasing the national debt. The sixth Democrat was Dennis Kucinich (OH), who said he “will not vote for a budget that ties military spending to the operational funding of our government.” In sum, the budget resolution passed with 92% of Democrats voting for it.

Par for the course, no House Republican voted for Obama’s budget. At the same time, House Republicans lost 20% of their own when their budget alternative came up for vote. The message of a GOP united against careless, spendthrift liberals is diluted when 1-in-5 House Republicans can’t stand with their bretheren in support of their party’s own budget plan. Note, too, the prevalence of Floridian and Pennsylvanian Republicans who jumped ship.

Who are the 38 Republicans roaming aimlessly, without a budget?

Click to enlarge.

They are split evenly between districts that are either weakly or strongly Republican. Almost one-quarter represent democratic districts. I am using the Partisan Voting Index (PVI) to note the relative strength of the Republican party, inspired by Nate Silver’s analysis this week suggesting close congressional races are indicative of voting trends in weakly to moderately Republican districts. Since 2006, Democrats have been performing relatively well in moderately Republican locales. Moderate House Republicans are in a tough spot. They must both confirm their allegiance to their party by rejecting Democratic budget proposals, but they also must not risk alienating the moderate-Republican vote in their districts, lest they find themselves in a toss-up in 2010.

Such quandaries might explain why 19 House Republicans rejected their own party’s budget proposal. The other 19 Republican “Nays” came from solidly Republican districts. Ron Paul (TX) voted against the Ryan amendment. His vote can be explained by the war funding included in the resolution; it can also be explained by Paul’s strongly libertarian views. Connie Mack’s (FL) vote can be explained by his similarly strong libertarian bent. But, there are also moderates who represent strongly Republican districts, such as Todd Platts (PA) and JoAnn Emerson (MO).

Taking the liberty to speculate wildly, I see the majority of Republicans who voted against the Ryan amendment as moderates who, on the one hand, might actually disagree with the GOP’s economic strategy, but who also likely want to be reelected and who do not have the luxury of being ultra-partisan. The remaining Republican “Nays” are likely those fiscal conservatives who aren’t happy with any proposed plan. Of course, to them, the Obama budget was a non-starter, and, perhaps, the Republican alternative did not go far enough to reduce the size of government. Too, maybe these Republicans simply are not impressed with the impotent economic expertise their party’s leadership is parading of late.

Not all Republicans from weak-to-moderate Republican districts voted against Ryan’s amendment, but half did. At the very least this represents moderate-Republican apprehension over the GOP’s ability to take control of the economic crisis.

Now on to needy rich people … (after the jump)

Continue reading »

Iowa Strikes a Blow for Justice: Preliminary Analysis of Iowa Supreme Court’s Ruling on Gay Marriage

The consensus is growing, now in Iowa: there is no legitimate constitutional basis to deny gay couples the right to marry. Earlier this morning, the Iowa Supreme Court unanimously upheld a district court ruling, striking down a statute limiting marital rights to opposite-sex couples. The Court clearly reached the right result: once it’s proven that homosexuality is not a choice, and that it is not “harmful” in any way, legitimate reasons for regulating either the conduct or status of homosexuality completely disappear. Congratulations to the Iowa Supreme Court for penning a ringing defense of American liberty in this, the most recent frontier in the continuing struggle for egalitarianism.

Notes: the Iowa Supreme Court considered this case exclusively under the Iowa Constitution. If the plaintiffs asserted a right under the federal Constitution, the Iowa Supreme Court did not reach it. Because the Court relied exclusively on state authority, this case is not appealable to the United States Supreme Court, whose appellate jurisdiction is limited to cases implicating federal interests. Therefore this ruling constitutes the final law of Iowa, unless and until voters seek to amend the Constitution to the contrary. Also, the Court grounded its holding in the Iowa Constitution’s equal protection clause -

“All laws of a general nature shall have a uniform operation; the general assembly shall not grant to any citizen or class of citizens, privileges or immunities, which, upon the same terms shall not equally belong to all citizens.” Iowa Const., Art. I, §.

- thus accepting, as a predicate to its decision, that statutes discriminating against homosexuality restrict the rights of gay men & women as gay men & women, rather than as persons who act in a particular manner. The distinction is vague, I admit, but a big step forward. The U.S. Supreme Court, under Lawrence v. Texas, still treats gay men and women not as gay men and women, but as individuals with an interest in performing particular sexual acts, an insulting oversimplification that implicitly treats homosexuality as a “choice” and lets the Court dodge the clear implications of the Equal Protection Clause. In its reasoning and its conclusions, then, the Iowa Supreme Court is markedly ahead of federal law. Good for them!

Read the opinion. Its first few pages are clear and and enjoyable to read, because the justices rightfully expect interest beyond the legal community. This effusive language is all we could hope for and more. A few particularly noteworthy quotes are below the line: Continue reading »

Intelligent Design “Internships”: Yes, You Can Defraud a Charitable Organization!

Have you ever wanted to learn just what kind of “research” creationists trick themselves into thinking they’re doing, when they ponder the “mysteries” of Intelligent Design? Are you a good enough actor to fake your way through a discussion of how information theory & “irreducible complexity” prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that God some dude directly guided evolution? Alternately, can you turn off your higher cognitive functions for long periods of time – say, to enjoy the newer episodes of “the Simpsons”?

Do you have a free week this summer? Are you a college senior or first year grad student?

Do you have any compunction about swindling an organization that really, really deserves it?

If you answered “yes” to all these questions – except the last one – then I’ve got a treat for you. The Discovery Institute is hosting a summer internship program for rising “cdesign proponentsists,” all expenses paid, at their lair in Seattle, meaning you could win a chance to spend one week this summer studying with disgraced giants of science like William Dembski! All you have to do is write a paragraph about your love for intelligent design (but *NOT* as an intellectual whipping boy) and clear a phone interview without lying too egregiously, and you’re in. Now go write up those applications before April 17th!

Actually, don’t. Pretending to be a pretend scientist sounds fun, but you’d probably get in trouble, so would I, and the whole idea is kind of mean. Curse these morals!