In 2002, when Sonny Perdue upset Roy Barnes, one of the ways he traversed the state to attend rallies, barbeques, Rotary Club meetings and the like was in his private plane. Kind of. You see, Sonny Perdue doesn't own the plane he flew around, a company he owns has the ownership. Every time Perdue took off it was like his company was giving his campaign an in-kind contribution, and because there are strict limits on how much individuals and corporations can give to a campaign, Perdue's many flights pushed his company over the limit and an ethics complaint is currently (slowly) working it's way through the ehtics commission.
A funny thing happened in the legislature. Someone added a provision to HB 48, the ethics bill currently on life support, that would make it legal for a corporation owned by a candidate to make unlimited contributions. Regardless of the politics of this sneaky addition, this provision is a bad idea.
Rep. Rob Teilhet (D - Smyrna) is one of the legislature's brightest rising stars. He got into the well today and said that if this law passed, nothing would stop him from starting Rob Teilhet, Inc. and then funneling money from that organization to his campaign. It's not hard to imagine the capacity for dishonesty and fraud. Rob Teilhet meets someone that desires to give his campaign large amounts of money, but he can only accept $5,000 under state law. So his consulting business -- Rob Teilhet, Inc. -- takes on a new client and gets paid gobs of money to be on retainer for that person, and then immediately transfers that money to his campaign account.
This provision alone makes a mockery of the so-called ethics bill. It could open up huge loopholes, and is a good example of how one sneaky politician's trickery can have many unintended consequences.
I will pretend to be a Democratic version of Jim Wooten and tell you what I know Perdue is planning to do. After this law passes, he will tell the ethics commission that even though what he did at the time was illegal, it was never the legislature's intent that the law be interpreted that way and now that they have clarified this matter the charges should either be thrown out or he should get a small slap on the wrist.
That is shameful, and the law should never be tinkered with to help out one individual in a jam, even or especially if he happens to be the Governor. Rob Teilhet, Inc. probably won't ever file it's papers of incorporation. But if this law passes can it be that long before Bill Stephens, Inc. or some other person with a history of questionable campaign accounting takes advantage of Sonny's loophole to enrich their own campaign and/or wallet?
Many people who have been following the debate about Social Security privatization know that the trustees use very pessimistic estimates about the economy when they predict impending doom for social security. At the same time, the privatizers use optimistic economic estimates when crowing about how great the returns will be in private accounts.
The flipside of this is that if the trustees used the optimistic estimates, social security's impending bankruptcy date would be non-existant, and if the privateers used the pessimistic estimate, private accounts would no longer look so attractive.
The reality is there can not be two separate worlds where if we stick with social security we have a pessimistic economic future but if we go with privatization we don't. Either we decide that things are pessimistic and we look for a real solution to save future benefits or we decide things are more optimistic and social security is no longer in crisis (ironically for the wingnuts, add-on private accounts would probably be a much easier sell if people were assured social security was otherwise not in trouble).
As you can see, this is kind of hard to understand, which Bush and his ilk are counting on. So I've been trying to think of a way to get this point across, and today it hit me. Imagine that the social security trustees are basically telling the country that they are a 5 foot tall overweight person. And the privatizers are promising that if that person buys their shoes they'll be able to jump high and dunk a basketball. Well, either the person is not really 5 feet tall and overweight (afterall shoes don't make that much of a difference) or the privatizers are making a claim about their product that is far-fetched and unrealistic.
Governor Perdue has championed a teacher sales tax break on Georgia income taxes, and the press has mostly lapped it up. He calls for a $250 deduction for teachers that use their own money to buy classroom supplies. Practically every teacher I've ever known falls into this category, and $250 is a lot of money, something like an extra car payment for most people.
Too bad that 6% (Georgia's income tax rate) of $250 is only $15. What many news organizations have not been reporting is that Perdue's proposal is not a tax credit, but a deduction. Instead of reducing by $250 the amount of taxes one pays, it reduces by $250 the amount of income one then calculates the amount they owe from. Perdue even has the audacity to suggest that teachers who have already filed can re-submit their taxes with the new credit intact.
I'm sorry, but in the real Georgia, if you've already gone through the hassle of doing your taxes once and mailed them in, the prospect of recalculating and refiling for a mere $15 extra is probably too big of a hassle for most teachers who have you know class to teach and (more) supplies to purchase in their free time. Not to mention grading papers and coaching athletics and all of the other things most teachers do.
Maybe in Sonny's "new" Georgia everyone is an amateur practicing accountant trying to save a buck, or fifteen. Not likely though. Besides, why refile your taxes for a measly $15? The real way to save money in the New Georgia is to host a fundraiser for Perdue's re-election. Just ask Bill Heard.
It's scandalous that the social security trustees modified their formula so that the year of insolvency could be brought up one year between 2004 and 2005. What the media SHOULD do is recalculate old trustee reports using the new assumptions to see if the year has really moved closer or further away.
For you social security privatization advocates out there who follow the stock market, this is kind of like using the stocks that made up the S&P 500 last year to calculate the index's weight currently. If you didn't know, the S&P 500, as well as funds that track the index, reweight every year so at the beginning of the year the index consists of the 500 largest publicly traded companies. At the end of 2001, interent darlings whose stock had plummeted were traded for other up and coming companies. You wouldn't use those old internet stocks to calculate the current index.
Similarly, if the trustees think senior citizens are working less and that is part of their formula, the 2004, 2003, 2002 numbers etc should be recalculated using those assumptions, unless they think that senior citizens as a whole magically decided they'd work less in the last year. The same goes for immigration. It is not decreasing, but this year the trustees decided to decrease the expected immigration rate, which brings "insolvency" closer. In light of Bush's proposals to increase immigration and job opportunities for immigrants, the trustees should actually increase the effect of immigration, if anything.
Regardless of the political trickery of the trustees (what do you expect from this administration?) there is one piece of information the press and the population as a whole should not ignore. Social Security goes "bankrupt" in 2041, but Medicare see its bankruptcy in 2020. And yet, for the President, Social Security is a priority as he adds spending pressure to Medicare. This is kind of like scrambling to pay off a credit card that has a $50 balance and a low interest rate while at the same time missing payments on one with a $10,000 balance and a 28% APR.
That's scandalous. Medicare's problems are only 15 years away, and the President and Republicans don't think anything needs to be done. By that measure, I'm perfectly content to start bipartisan talks on Social Security reform with the Republicans no sooner than 2026.
It was nice to meet a lot of bloggers and online activists at the JJ dinner and the state committee meeting that occured beforehand. Two years ago, when Governor Dean spoke at the dinner, his supporters could practically be counted on one hand. They had a nice little booth outside of the dining hall. This year there were probably at least 100 people who've been brought into the Democratic Party through the Dean campaign present at the dinner, and Tim Cairl, the former head of Georgia for Dean, even sat at a table in the front with the bigshots. Congratulations to everyone, you've arrived.
As far as the entertainment was concerned, I thought Virginia Governor Mark Warner gave a speech that's content can't be argued with, and is something that I've long argued -- the path to victory for the Democratic party is to go after moderate Republicans and convince them that the Republican Party they once knew is gone. As Warner said, they are upset that the party of Lincoln and Eisenhower has become the party of Ralph Reed and Tom DeLay. Couldn't have said it better myself!
Warner's words may have been Presidential, but his delivery and charisma are still in the governor range. 3 years stumping for candidates and touring the country giving speeches can do a lot to change that, of course.
On the Georgia front, former Senator Max Cleland presented Agricultural Commissioner Tommy Irvin with the Hope Award, and Irvin amazingly commented that this was his 49th JJ dinner in a row that he'd attended. If you think about where the party has come from in half a century (hint: segregation) to where it is now and keep in mind that Tommy Irvin, having been through all of that, is still at home as one of the most loyal party guys in Georgia, it really is quite amazing. It reminds you that in years past, Georgia voters joined up with the Democratic Party at a young age and it was a beneficial two way relationship -- vote Democrat and the Democratic Party will look after you, and there's always room for anyone that wants to be a Democrat in our party (another theme of Warner's speech). That's a good model. I know the modern Republican party doesn't offer anywhere near that sort of security and good of a deal to voters nowadays, we've got to get back to a time when we do.
As far as our statewide officers, Lt. Gov Mark Taylor was recognized for raising well over 50% of the money for this year's dinner and had a nice joke about getting used to the idea of "Governor Mark" (when introducing Mark Warner). Cathy Cox had a soar throat and presided over a spunky segment where other Democrats spoke "for her" since she could not. All in all a great JJ Dinner.
My data on provisional voting is spotty from the last election. Many counties didn't report any provisional votes, which leads me to believe they may have just grouped them in with their absentee ballots in general -- or they may have actually not had any provisional voting.
I do know, however, that Republicans in the legislature are trying to crack down on voting, including provisional voting. What are they so scared of? Well, Kerry got 54.51% of the provisional vote in Georgia, with Bush getting 44.79%. This is about 12 points better than Kerry's overall total. But, we're only talking about a total of 4,432 votes. That amounts to about .13%, or about 1 out of every 744 votes cast.
Now that might not be that much, unless you are that 1. According to the voter file, my youngest brother registered to vote on September 13th, 2004. That is well before the deadline of October 1st. When he showed up to vote on November 2nd, he was told he wasn't on the rolls but was given a provisional ballot to vote on. Now, for some reason his paperwork wasn't processed by the secretary of state or DeKalb County and entered electronically, even though his registration date (he later showed up on the voter rolls) was well before the deadline.
Republicans like Jim Wooten look at provisional voting results and conclude that these Democratic voters must be stopped. Wooten even goes so far as to compare my legitimately registered brother to a "graveyard voter undermining the credibility of elections."
Republicans see huge margins in African American neighborhoods, with Democrats winning more than 90% of the vote, and conclude that fraud must be at hand. At the root of that voting, however, is African Americans looking at Republican efforts to disenfranchise them, and near unanimous Democratic opposition to those "reforms" and deciding for another generation to stick with the Democratic Party. It's happened before and it's happening again now. What Republicans don't seem to understand is that they can't pass a law to prevent huge African American turnout for Democrats, because there is nothing fraudulent about those election results.
If you're a Democrat that's thinking seriously about running for office in the next few years, a good place to network with other like minded individuals and learn a thing or two about the campaign process is the Red Clay Institute Democratic Candidate Training Project. You'll even get to network with the likes of me!
This is the second installment of the candidate training project. Clem Doyle, the man behind the training, would have been sworn in this January as the state Senator from the 6th district in Cobb County. Unfortunately those activist judges stepped in and moved Clem's house to the 33rd district, already home to Democrat Steve Thompson.
For more information on a district you're thinking about running in, click on the Georgia District Explorer at the left. And for more information on the Democratic training, including an application form, follow this link.
One important vote to note so far in the House -- they voted against a Republican attempt to limit the effectiveness of the state's labor unions. I'm told that all of the Democrats present voted against this measure, and that 14 Republicans joined them. Interestingly, I didn't see Rep. Tommy Smith (D R - Nicholls) on the list of Republicans voting yes. Smith, who cowardly switched parties last year when Appling County was included in his new district, was the only Republican to attend the labor reception held earlier this year. He was always considered a big labor guy, and yet the fear of losing his office obviously means more to him than his friends in Georgia's working people. What a loser.
I'm watching right now the Senate vote on the faith based amendment, SR 49. As you know, this is the second time that the measure has come up. So far, the Republicans in the body have systematically voted down every one of the Democrats amendments, even though those amendments are the only way the bill will ultimately pass.
Update 7:43 PM: Nice speech by Sen. Doug Stoner (D - Smyrna). It won't be the Democrats fault when this amendment fails. Stoner and the Democrats offered a faith based amendment that would receive unanimous support in the Senate from all but the most hardened pro-voucher partisans -- and they offered it before Perdue's proposal was unveiled. When this amendment fails it is Sonny Perdue's fault, and no one else.
Update 7:53 PM: I think Sen. Steve Thompson (D - Mableton) just said he was voting against the amendment this time. The first time the Senate voted, he was the only Democrat to join the Republicans in supporting this amendment.
Update 8:02 PM: Now Sen. George Hooks (D - Americus) schools the Senate on the history of the so-called Blaine amendment - it isn't at all. They don't make them like they made George Hooks anymore. I recommend loading the Realvideo of the legislature and watching from 7:53 - 8:02 for a real entertaining history lesson and oratory from the Senator from the 14th.
Update 8:09 PM: Nice speech by Sen. Emanuel Jones (D - Stockbridge). According to Sen Jones, even Bishop Eddie Long is opposed to the "faith based" amendment.
Final Update 8:10 PM: 32 yeas, 21 nays. All Democrats voted against it, Sen. Charles Walker (D - Augusta) didn't vote. The good guys win another one today.
I hope when Rathergate finally gets unfolded, Superior Court judges will come to a party with me where we'll celebrate the downfall of conservative media icons!
Democrats looking for an issue in fast growing suburban counties should think long and hard about devising a platform centered on responsible growth, the cornerstone of which can be reigning in the abuses of eminent domain. The type of people that move to growing suburban and exurban areas generally start voting for Republicans out of the (I believe) misconception that they will see lower property taxes. The problem with this formulation is that many of these Republican local "leaders" pay for the low-tax environment by super-sizing county development, which then leads to overcrowding (and an unwillingness in many cases to address traffic issues by doing anything other than paving more of the county).
Once the county starts growing, residents start paying for the faith they put in the pro-growth at any cost commissioners and school board members. Opposition to eminent domain could be the cornerstone of a smart growth land policy for Democratic candidates running for local office in suburban and exurban areas, and their counterparts on school boards could combine that sensibility with an opposition to evolution warning sticker type politics that isn't popular in ANY suburban county yet enjoys huge popularity in the local Republican primaries that often de-facto decide who will win the general election.
The great thing about county level office is that in many cases the intense partisanship of state and federal legislative offices is not nearly the factor for the local elections. I had the opportunity to travel to Forsyth county this summer, during the Republican primary, and though no Democrats qualified for county office you could see that many of the Republican candidates were basically the "Democratic" alternative in the Republican primary. As tempting as it is to try and win a seat in the state legislature, ambitious Democrats in the exurbs should probably spend most of time trying to secure some local offices.
Only then, when county residents see the positive fruits of a different kind of approach will they give Democrats running for higher offices a second look.
News that Bob Casey is entering the Pennsylvania race to dethrone probably the most evil person in the Senate (Rick Santorum) should be cause for celebration. But it isn't universally... One commenter lays out the key opposition to Casey among the netroots Democrats (hate that term), mainly that CHOICE is a key core value among Democrats that is not to be bargained about.
My question, and I'm not trying to be smart or dumb here, is, when did that happen exactly? Certainly being pro-choice wasn't a key core non-compromising position as recently as 1976, when Gerald Ford was arguably the pro-choice candidate with Democrat Jimmy Carter being the pro-life candidate (neither were that solid in either direction).
I bring this back to Casey, who is pro-life, because someone familiar with Casey and his Democratic primary campaign in 2002 against Rendell (which labor unions largely funded) told me that people who used to vote Democratic, particularly rural working class whites, that describe to focus groups and pollsters why they no longer do, and what it would take for them to start voting Democratic again, pretty much describe a politician like Casey to a T. In other words, voters that we've lost on abortion we haven't lost on other "core" Democratic values, and more people like Casey might bring them back.
So I guess what I'm saying is that I wonder how abortion became a "core" Democratic value when those opposed to our position make it a primary reason to vote against us, while those in favor of our position do not likewise return the favor. Go to exurban and rural areas and the pro-life voters will tell you that they can't vote for Democrats because we are "baby killers." Go to the suburbs, though, and see that about half of the voters that vote for Republican candidates self identify as pro-choice and aren't in any hurry to leave their mostly pro-life party.
In summary, how can we expect the Democratic Party to carry the water for interest groups that aren't able to deliver votes in an election, but whose position drive potential voters away? Especially when you consider that someone like Bob Casey isn't going to Washington to outlaw abortion (though he may cast that vote if it comes up) but that his much higher priorities are improving the lives of working class Americans. Furthermore, you have a group like Emily's LIST that demands politicians be not only pro-choice but also a woman to recieve their support, further alienating a large percentage of the Democratic base, especially at a historic time, such as now, when women are voting less Democratic than before and men are starting to trend our way.
Many of these men are attracted to the Democratic party because of our moderate stances on social issues, but if one of them decided to make a run for office against a pro-choice woman, he'd instantly face a money disadvantage because of his sex. I thought one of our true core values was that we don't discriminate based on the way someone was born, and yet here (because of choice politics) a dubious core principal runs headfirst into a solid core principal that neither I nor any Democratic politician I know of is willing to compromise on.
How we deal with choice warrants some deep thoughts among party activists. Nearly every comment on DailyKos about Harry Reid starts off with the commenter admitting that he was skeptical of Reid but now thinks he's great. And that skepticism is almost universally attributed to Reid being pro-life. You'd think that some people would learn their lesson and get to know Casey beyond how he might answer one question out of many on a candidate survey, but apparently not everyone has. It's too bad.
Sorry I haven't been posting much of late. I've been very occupied by official business and haven't had the chance. I wanted to get a plug in for the upcoming JJ Dinner on March 15th. If you haven't yet heard, Virginia Governor Mark Warner will be the guest speaker. Zell Miller said on Fox News that Warner is the type of national Democrat he could get behind -- but don't hold that against him!
To any of my readers in the audience who may be politicians -- the JJ Dinner is a great opportunity to reward your grassroots volunteers for their hard work. If you have leftover campaign cash (or your personal budget is flexible) you can buy a table for $2,000. That gets you 10 seats/tickets. The money goes to a good cause, and you get your money's worth. Your volunteers (or donors, or anyone you choose) get to shmooze with legislative leaders, Congressmen, former governors and other activists from around the state. Think about it!