Archive for September, 2009

State of the State

Sunday, September 27th, 2009

This week Obama is up.

After all the sturm and drang this summer over healthcare and townhall meetings, Obama’s poll numbers were suffering, liberals were slamming him for a lack of leadership and guts, and even some Democrats were talking about a 1 term presidency.

But my how have things changed. According to last Wednesday’s Gallup poll results , Obama’s approval rating has leveled out in the low-50 percents, about the same as Ronald Reagan’s and Bill Clinton’s at this point in their presidencies.

Thus, the Republican noise machine may have overplayed its hand: Via Charles Blow:

According to a poll released last week by the Pew Research Center, most Americans think that the health care debate has been “rude and disrespectful” and most of those who hold this view blame the opponents of the proposed legislation […]

According to a Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll published on Wednesday, a plurality of respondents said that if health care reform fails, the Republicans will be at fault. Those who disapproved of the way that Republicans are handling the health care debate outnumbered those who approved of their behavior by a margin of more than 3 to 1.

As Blow writes:

Maybe Obama was wise to hang back. While anger can simmer forever, overheated outrage is exhausting and ultimately counterproductive.

Anyone familiar with Aesop’s fable “The Tortoise and the Hare” surely remembers this lesson: slow and steady wins the race. I was beginning to think of Obama as the hare, but maybe he’s the tortoise.

2010 Congressional Elections: Crystal-Ball Gazing

Thursday, September 24th, 2009

It is obvious from the overtly racial subtext in much of right-wing discourse, that Republicans hope to motivate white voters to come to the polls in 2010 in order to regain the majority in Congress. As Joe Biden said recently, that would be a disaster for Obama’s agenda.

Given that minority voters and young people tend not to vote in mid-term elections, and given we are still likely to be enduring a rotten economy next year, many prognosticators have given the Republicans some chance of accomplishing their goal.

So this recent analysis by Political Scientist Alan Abramowitz is good news for Democrats:

Could Democrats be heading toward an electoral disaster comparable to the 1994 midterm election in which they lost 54 House seats and 8 Senate seats, turning control of both chambers over to Republicans for the remainder of Bill Clinton’s presidency? Nobody is predicting such a dramatic turnaround in party fortunes just yet. But while a Senate majority appears to be out of reach, some GOP strategists now see a chance for their party to regain control of the House of Representatives in next year’s midterm election. And they’re not alone.

…There are important differences between the makeup of the American electorate now and the makeup of the American electorate then, differences that make a repeat of the 1994 outcome highly unlikely… The most important difference is that nonwhites make up about twice as large a share of the electorate now…First, whites generally make up a larger share of the electorate in midterm elections than in presidential elections–the presence of a presidential race appears to be a more important motivation for voting among African-Americans, Hispanics, and other nonwhites than among whites. This means that the nonwhite share of the electorate in 2010 is likely to be lower than the all-time record of 26 percent that was set in 2008. Second, however, the data show a clear upward trend in the nonwhite share of the electorate in both types of elections. This means that the nonwhite share of the electorate is almost certain to be higher in 2010 than it was in 2006.

The weakness of the Republican Party among nonwhite voters is a much bigger problem for the GOP today than it was back in 1994. In that year, 86 percent of the voters were white while only 9 percent were African-American and only 5 percent were Hispanic or members of other racial minority groups…Based on the average rate of change in the racial composition of the electorate over the past two decades, by 2010 we can predict that no more than 76 percent of voters will be white while at least 11 percent will be African-American and at least 13 percent will be either Hispanic or members of other racial minority groups.

According to Abramowitz, Democrats are likely to lose some seats in both houses of Congress—that typically happens to the party in power when the economy is bad. But it will not be sufficient to cause Dems to lose their majority.

I hope he is right.

Protection Racket for Big Business

Wednesday, September 23rd, 2009

The U.S. government is nothing but a protection racket for big business. Big business writes the legislation that regulates them, they purchase the loyalty of politicians through campaign contributions, and control the press which largely determines what people believe.

So it is no surprise when a thoroughly outrageous business practice comes to light.

Via Kevin Drum:

If you use your debit card and overdraw your account, your bank will hit you with an overdraft fee.  If you make five purchases of ten dollars each on the same day, you’ll get five more overdraft fees.  And just to make sure you get hit with as many fees as possible, your bank will make sure to debit your biggest transaction of the day first — even if it was actually the last one you made that day.  That way your account goes to zero faster and every subsequent debit triggers another fee.  Ka-ching!

And the worst thing is that the credit card customer has no choice but to accept this overdraft “protection”. Instead of having the transaction rejected, under current law, credit card companies can charge astronomical interest on what amounts to a short term loan without the customer knowing about it or having a choice.

Relief may be on the way:

Sen. Christopher J. Dodd (D-Conn.) plans to introduce legislation requiring banks to get permission from customers, rather than allowing overdrafts automatically. If customers decline and then try to overspend, the transaction would be rejected. A similar bill is pending in the House.

Dodd dismissed concerns about the impact on ailing banks. “People out there are getting whacked,” he said. “They should have the right to say, ‘Deny me the transaction.’ “

As Drum writes:

But seriously, ask yourself this: what does it say about the power of the finance lobby in America that this was ever legal in the first place?  I mean, it’s not even a close call.  It’s just flatly outrageous.  It’s outrageous that banks should be allowed to charge fees that amount to 1000% interest rates on a short-term loan; it’s outrageous that they should be allowed to reorder your debits to make you pay more of these fees than you should; it’s outrageous that they should be allowed to charge multiple fees per day in the first place, since they’re essentially just making a single loan; and it’s outrageous that they should be able to do this whether you want them to or not.

But without campaign finance reform, any strategy to control such business practices is just whack-a-mole. And campaign finance reform has always been stymied by the U.S Supreme Court which will likely decide later this year that the feeble  controls we now have are unconstitutional.