Everyone in this season of "enthusiasm gaps" is asking the same question: Why are Americans so disgusted with politics and the democratic process?
I think the political media plays a big part in the answer. At least it does for me.
After the 2008 election, I swear not three weeks went by before I started hearing about "repercussions for the midterm elections." Not three weeks.
In the next two years, huge policy initiatives were introduced, haggled over, debated and eventually passed - or not. But more likely than not, the bulk of the media coverage revolved not around the substance of legislation, but around the political and reelection prospects for the legislators involved.
It's all about the horse race. I understand that certain reporters are paid to cover politics and it's a very legitimate beat. But isn't there anything more to politics than elections? How about the long-term policy implications of legislation - rather than the short-term political?
We're all pretty sick of the horse race. Or at least I am.
And now, right on cue, comes the first glimmer of the next leg. Coming around the far turn, heading for the home stretch, two weeks before the midterms: There's this.
Let the handicapping for 2012 begin. I, for one, am hoping that the starting gate gets stuck.
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Tuesday, October 19, 2010
Wednesday, June 9, 2010
Power to the People
Prop. 16, PG&E's cynical gambit to establish a long-lasting monopoly on California's energy markets, has gone down to defeat.
The Northern California electricity giant outspent consumer advocates $1,000-to-$1 and they still lost decisively. Woo-hoo!
I say it time and time again: Never underestimate the intelligence of the electorate. This one was an epic battle and one that I will take comfort in for some time to come.
Here's the dramatic tale of how the results trickled in during the wee hours this morning:
I only wish I could have been there to see happen live.
Post-script: The other big industry-funded proposition, Prop. 17, was also defeated, this time in a major rebuke to Big Insurance.
The Northern California electricity giant outspent consumer advocates $1,000-to-$1 and they still lost decisively. Woo-hoo!
I say it time and time again: Never underestimate the intelligence of the electorate. This one was an epic battle and one that I will take comfort in for some time to come.
Here's the dramatic tale of how the results trickled in during the wee hours this morning:
Pretty soon, our three-point loss became a one-point lead – and there was a palpable sense in the air that we could win it. I wasn’t convinced yet – scouring the L.A. County numbers to see if this positive trend in our favor was not going to start reversing itself.
When 58% of L.A. County had been counted, we were ahead there. I got up, and boldly shouted that we had won. It reminded me of the scene in Milk, when Jim Rivaldo tells Harvey Milk not to worry about the Briggs Initiative. L.A. County had just come in, and we were going to win. By now, I was sure that we had slain the Prop 16 dragon.
I only wish I could have been there to see happen live.
Post-script: The other big industry-funded proposition, Prop. 17, was also defeated, this time in a major rebuke to Big Insurance.
Monday, June 7, 2010
A Sad Ending
I'm sure that veteran White House correspondent Helen Thomas never dreamed she'd go out this way.
Over the years, Helen was a journalistic role model and a favorite person. She was characteristically feisty in her watchdog role, no matter which party was in power. She had a great sense of humor and was never afraid to skewer her own importance. An NPR special about how she broke down barriers in the early years of female reporters was an inspiration.
More than a decade ago, I saw her lecture at the Pasadena Civic Auditorium. About one-third of the way into her talk, she began rustling papers at the podium, then shuffling them around fiercely. A few moments later, as her speech turned disjointed and a little odd, I realized she had mixed up her pages and was reading them out of order.
Ever the pro, she soldiered on, never letting on that she was flustered. And the speech, full of funny anecdotes and interesting memories, worked even though it was a little jumbled up.
I always say that I'll keep on writing and working as long as I'm able to put fingers to keyboard. But Helen's situation makes me wonder if that's a good idea. I think many people get to a certain age and they feel they've earned the right to say whatever comes to mind, politically incorrect or not.
That bluntness got the better of Helen Thomas, finally, and I'm sorry for it. I hope some friends give her the retirement party she deserves.
Over the years, Helen was a journalistic role model and a favorite person. She was characteristically feisty in her watchdog role, no matter which party was in power. She had a great sense of humor and was never afraid to skewer her own importance. An NPR special about how she broke down barriers in the early years of female reporters was an inspiration.
More than a decade ago, I saw her lecture at the Pasadena Civic Auditorium. About one-third of the way into her talk, she began rustling papers at the podium, then shuffling them around fiercely. A few moments later, as her speech turned disjointed and a little odd, I realized she had mixed up her pages and was reading them out of order.
Ever the pro, she soldiered on, never letting on that she was flustered. And the speech, full of funny anecdotes and interesting memories, worked even though it was a little jumbled up.
I always say that I'll keep on writing and working as long as I'm able to put fingers to keyboard. But Helen's situation makes me wonder if that's a good idea. I think many people get to a certain age and they feel they've earned the right to say whatever comes to mind, politically incorrect or not.
That bluntness got the better of Helen Thomas, finally, and I'm sorry for it. I hope some friends give her the retirement party she deserves.
Tuesday, April 27, 2010
Power Grab
Election season is cranking up in California (oh, joy!) and the TV machine is once again flooded with confusing, innuendo-filled adverts for candidates* and propositions.
Whenever these commercials start running incessantly, I ask two questions:
Who's paying for these ads, and what do they stand to gain from them?
In the case of Proposition 16 (the "taxpayer's right to vote act"), I didn't have to look far.
Turns out that editorial boards all over the state, along with the League of Women Voters, have come out against this $35 million power grab by PG&E, the utility that supplies power to Northern California.
Big electric wants to protect its monopoly by making it virtually impossible (know how hard it is to get a two-thirds vote for anything?) for cities and communities to band together and supply their own power with "community choice" programs. "The organized opposition, lacking a wealthy backer, has raised about $20,000," notes the San Jose Mercury News.
How's that for cynical and Orwellian? The "taxpayer's right to vote" - sounds great. What taxpayer wants to give up her right to vote, especially in this year's extreme "throw the bums out" climate?
But what the proposition really does is take away the right for taxpayers to get locally provided, and potentially lower-cost, electricity. And, of course, it entrenches PG&E's monopoly and likely boosts its ability to raise rates.
This is yet another perfect example of why California's ballot proposition system is institutionalized insanity. Big tobacco, big power and other deep-pocket corporate interests are the ones that bankroll these initiatives and they use deeply deceptive ad campaigns to get uninformed voters to approve them, usually to their own long-term detriment.
How do we stop this? Tell everyone you know about the reality behind Prop. 16, and tell them to explain it to everyone they know. Help out with the No on 16 campaign, which is being outspent 100 to 1.
It may not help much, but it's the least we can do.
*Speaking of candidates, check out last weekend's This American Life episode for a humorous take-down of gubernatorial candidate Steve Poizner.
Whenever these commercials start running incessantly, I ask two questions:
Who's paying for these ads, and what do they stand to gain from them?
In the case of Proposition 16 (the "taxpayer's right to vote act"), I didn't have to look far.
Turns out that editorial boards all over the state, along with the League of Women Voters, have come out against this $35 million power grab by PG&E, the utility that supplies power to Northern California.
Big electric wants to protect its monopoly by making it virtually impossible (know how hard it is to get a two-thirds vote for anything?) for cities and communities to band together and supply their own power with "community choice" programs. "The organized opposition, lacking a wealthy backer, has raised about $20,000," notes the San Jose Mercury News.
How's that for cynical and Orwellian? The "taxpayer's right to vote" - sounds great. What taxpayer wants to give up her right to vote, especially in this year's extreme "throw the bums out" climate?
But what the proposition really does is take away the right for taxpayers to get locally provided, and potentially lower-cost, electricity. And, of course, it entrenches PG&E's monopoly and likely boosts its ability to raise rates.
This is yet another perfect example of why California's ballot proposition system is institutionalized insanity. Big tobacco, big power and other deep-pocket corporate interests are the ones that bankroll these initiatives and they use deeply deceptive ad campaigns to get uninformed voters to approve them, usually to their own long-term detriment.
How do we stop this? Tell everyone you know about the reality behind Prop. 16, and tell them to explain it to everyone they know. Help out with the No on 16 campaign, which is being outspent 100 to 1.
It may not help much, but it's the least we can do.
*Speaking of candidates, check out last weekend's This American Life episode for a humorous take-down of gubernatorial candidate Steve Poizner.
Friday, February 5, 2010
Estate Tax Woes
Today's Smart Answers column discusses a problem most of us will never have: The estate tax.
Turns out that a distracted and ineffectual Congress last year failed to pass a "fix" to a quirky, one-year suspension of the estate tax in 2010. Neither side wants to be the one to bring back the "death tax."
Big surprise, right?
The result of this neglect is a pretty outrageous inequality. If your rich uncle died on Dec. 31, 2009, any money he left in his estate over $3.5 million would have been taxed. The highest rate is 45%.
If, however, Uncle Moneybags hung on until Jan. 1, 2010, you and his other heirs get all that money - sans imposition of an estate tax.
To take the outrage even farther, if dear uncle languishes all this year and finally departs on Jan. 1, 2011, any money he leaves you over $1 million will again be taxed.
This crazy situation has spawned dozens of macabre "don't pull the plug on granny" and "watch your back this December" jokes, according to the financial planner I interviewed for the column. His withering criticism of Congress was unusual, but I think the gridlock frustration has frayed the last nerve of even the most magnanimous professionals.
For an interesting way to alleviate gridlock, check out Question Time, a movement to encourage regular give-and-take sessions between Congress and the White House.
Turns out that a distracted and ineffectual Congress last year failed to pass a "fix" to a quirky, one-year suspension of the estate tax in 2010. Neither side wants to be the one to bring back the "death tax."
Big surprise, right?
The result of this neglect is a pretty outrageous inequality. If your rich uncle died on Dec. 31, 2009, any money he left in his estate over $3.5 million would have been taxed. The highest rate is 45%.
If, however, Uncle Moneybags hung on until Jan. 1, 2010, you and his other heirs get all that money - sans imposition of an estate tax.
To take the outrage even farther, if dear uncle languishes all this year and finally departs on Jan. 1, 2011, any money he leaves you over $1 million will again be taxed.
This crazy situation has spawned dozens of macabre "don't pull the plug on granny" and "watch your back this December" jokes, according to the financial planner I interviewed for the column. His withering criticism of Congress was unusual, but I think the gridlock frustration has frayed the last nerve of even the most magnanimous professionals.
For an interesting way to alleviate gridlock, check out Question Time, a movement to encourage regular give-and-take sessions between Congress and the White House.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
