What Really is the Tea Party Movement? "America's most vibrant political force"? Or a force that spreads lies and propaganda?

What really is the Tea Party movement? This is a tough question to answer because it seems like one can never get an objective response. Either Tea Partiers are super-religious, anti-abortion, and too conservative for their own good, spreading blatant lies about the people in power, and plain evil, or they are seen as gods bringing back real conservatism and willing to fight for what's right against power-hungry Obama and his lackeys in Congress. I find both of those descriptions to be inaccurate. I see them as fiscally conservative people who are outraged about how we're spending taxpayer's money and want to make a change. But, if you don't agree let's look at the facts.

The Tea party movement is a movement that coordinates protests and these have seemed to stem out of legislation that Congress has passed, specifically the 2008 bailouts, 2009 stimulus package, 2009-2010 health care reform bills. The name is a throwback to the times of the first Tea Party where their war chant was "no taxation without representation"(an phrase current Tea Partiers are now using to describe our government) and dumping the Tea into the Boston harbor. And let me ask you the common denominator between the pieces of legislation mentioned above? That's right, a lot of money was spent in creating them and a lot of money will, or has been spent on executing them. To some (like the Tea Partiers) this display of spending would seem like a gross amount and that makes them angry. So, basically they got fed up with the huge amounts of government spending and decided to have protests to show the world their discontent (and it seems like the world has been listening. The Economist, a British publication, has called the Tea Party "America's most vibrant political force"). This doesn't seem to unreasonable to me and I wouldn't qualify it as evil either, but let's go over some more things.

The Contract from America (inspired from Gingrich's Contract with America) is the agenda of the Tea Party that they would like Congressional candidates to follow. The agenda is listed as:

1). Identify constitutionality of every new law, which basically means they want to make sure Congress has the power from the Constitution to pass said law. This is written to regulate Congresses interference into our private lives and would also help limit the power and scope of the Federal government a little.

2). Reject emission trading, which would stop cap and trade, which would make companies who go over their "cap" (set amount of how much they are allowed to pollute) be punished by paying extra money. But, what's bad for the company is also bad for the consumer like in an energy company. Energy creation production is an inelastic good (which means that people need it so when the price goes up they usually end up paying for it rather than stop using it). So, the Tea Party would like to offer economic incentives to stop pollution. This is basically reward instead of punishment and would alleviate the consumers undue economic burden.

3). Demand a balanced federal budget. They would like an amendment to demand a balanced budget with two thirds majority needed for any tax modification. So, if you want to increase/decrease taxes you must have a two thirds majority under this amendment. I'm not so sure if an actual constitutional amendment is needed for the end goal of a balanced budget. I think since Paygo was re-instated it could get the job done. Paygo says that the government can't spend more money than it has which would help stop the deficit, however some modifications would be necessary. For it to do real good, it shouldn't be so easy to opt-out of. It should also have a lasting life, and shouldn't have keep on being reinstated. Maybe, this unfortunate part of Paygo is why the Tea Party wants a Constitutional amendment.

4). Simplify the tax system. They want to replace the internal revenue code with a shorter version no longer than 4,543 words (don't ask where they got that number) and it would establish a single-rate tax system. I agree that the tax codes NEED to be simplified. We should understand why we are paying money to our government for Pete's sake.

5). Audit federal government institutions for their constitutionality. There would be a special task force that would asses the constitutionality of federal agencies and would look at waste, ineffectiveness, duplication, and agencies that would be suited for local and state governments instead of the federal government. This would cut down a lot of our money waste. It would also help get back some more states rights if they found that many federal programs could actually be devolved onto the states (like Welfare). This would just make things more easier to regulate and it would save a lot of money because our money would be put to more effective uses.

6). Limit annual growth of federal spending. This would limit our annual spending growth to the sum of the inflation rate plus the percentage of population growth. I suppose this would stop us spending beyond our means. I think to limit our spending growth maybe a modified version of Paygo could be used.

7). Repeal the healthcare legislation passed on March 23, 2010. This is pretty self-explanatory I think. Members of the tea party don't like the healthcare legislation that was passed. I don't know all the reasons but one is that it basically had NO bipartisan support and that it was passed in an unusual, some would say tricky, fashion that did not appeal to a lot of people. Also, they probably don't like the individual mandate where everyone is required to buy health insurance because it interferes with a person's right to choose if he wants health insurance or not (even though this mandate is better for the insurance companies and is cheaper for us). Actually, the whole idea of anything close to government-run healthcare is pretty repulsive to tea partiers.

8). Pass an 'All-of-the-Above' energy policy. This would allow us to search for new ways to get our energy and help us get away from our dependence on foreign oil. Nobody wants to be under the thumb of a depleting resource.

9). Reduce earmarks. No earmarks until there is a balanced budget and would require a 2/3rds majority to pass an earmark. During the healthcare bill debate there were many complaints about these earmarks that were making the bill more expensive. Basically, they can be added onto bills to make it more expensive because it's money for individual projects and Congress can also specifically mandate where all of the money goes.

10). Permanently repeal all recent tax increases that are scheduled to being in 2011. This would help our economy because instead of giving more money to the government we would be using it to put into banks, the stock market, consumer goods, etc. which directly helps the economy. It seems to me whenever the government gets money almost all of it disappears before it reaches "the economy" and us.

Basically, the Tea Party is a movement that encourages government to stay out of our "private lives" and therefore wants lower taxes, more responsibility with the taxpayers money, etc. It is not something evil and cannot be defined by just the people who represent them. In my opinion, many things stated by the Tea Party are valid points and it seems to be the liking of fiscally conservative Republicans and Libertarians.

So, I urge to to give it a chance. You don't have to agree or like what they find important but it's just as valid as any other political movement/party in America.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tea_Party_movement

http://teapartypatriots.ning.com/

When Animals, Federal Statutes, and the First Amendment Collide: An Analysis of United States v. Stevens

I have to start this post off with a confession. I am a Supreme Court junkie who spends far too much time on oyez.org reading SCOTUS decisions, listening to oral arguments, and generally happily wasting my time on the internet's biggest time sink. So I can say (pretty safely) that I am the first person Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. has ever gotten kicked out of a library, and I was not at all surprised that I was.

No, I'm not kidding. I was, as usual, reading Oyez after school, and suddenly I was reading that Justice Alito was the sole dissenter in a decision that overturned a ban on videos depicting animal cruelty. Now, as a rule, I don't like Alito that much. I disagree with his interpretations of laws and the constitution, and am not a fan of his conservative ideology. But for this one case, I find myself in total agreement with him. And when I found that out, I might have been a bit . . . loud in my surprise/agreement. And, uhhhh did I mention we have a really strict librarian at our school? So yes, Justice Alito, it is partially your fault that I got kicked out of the library.

Anyway, that aside, this case is a very important one in terms of both free speech and animal cruelty laws. According to NPR, "the law was meant to prohibit a particularly gruesome genre of video called "crush videos" in which small animals are crushed by women wearing high heels, a sexual fetish practice many people find offensive on a number of levels. The particular case that made its way to the Supreme Court was about videos that showed pit bulls fighting other dogs or attacking animals like pigs." The 8-justice majority ruled that the law was too broad, and therefore unconstitutional under the first amendment. Alito takes a different view, stating in his dissent that he would instruct the lower courts to "decide whether the videos that respondent sold are constitutionally protected" (NPR).

With that background, let's move on to the facts/specifics of the case. Robert Stevens was convicted under Title 18, Section 48 of the U.S. Criminal Code, which bans the knowing creation, sale, or possession of depictions of cruelty to animals "with the intention of placing that depiction in interstate or foreign commerce for commercial gain" (18 U.S.C. §48). There are exceptions to this: if the work has "serious religious, political, scientific, educational, journalistic, historical, or artistic value", it is permissible to create/sell/possess the work (18 U.S.C. §48). Stevens' conviction "stems from an investigation into the selling of videos related to illegal dog fighting" (Oyez). The district court convicted him, and he appealed to the Third Circuit, arguing that his conviction was not valid because the federal statute was itself unconstitutional. Third Circuit reversed the district court, the government appealed to the Supreme Court, and Stevens won a 5-4 victory with a decision that upheld the Circuit based on the fact that the statute was broad enough to be unconstitutional.

The law is rather broadly worded; there are slight grey ares. Nevertheless, I am disappointed that this law was struck down, for several reasons. First, I agree with Alito when he blasts the Court for applying the overbreadth doctrine to §48. Second, I do not see any undue restrictions on first amendment rights.

In general, for a federal statute to be considered "overbroad", it must prohibit a substantial amount of protected speech. Since those acts have already been deemed illegal, and there have been no constitutional challenges to those laws, I don't see how overbreadth can be applied. As Stevens challenged the law on its face, he would typically have to prove "that no set of circumstances exists under which [§48] would be valid" (United States v. Salerno) or that the law has no "plainly legitimate sweep" (Washington v. Glucksberg). Because Stevens is a First Amendment case (neither Salerno or Glucksberg were), the Court uses a different standard, codified in Washington State Grange v. Washington State Republican Party which states that a law is overbroad if "a substantial number of its applications are unconstitutional, judged in relation to the statute’s plainly legitimate sweep." (Opinion of the Court, page 10).

In reading the opinion of the court, I see that they are chiefly concerned with hunting videos, and with videos of animals being killed for food. First, I see no reason why hunting videos would be covered under §48. Almost every single state has exceptions to their animal cruelty laws for wildlife/hunting (a comprehensive and specific list can be found in the appendix to Alito's opinion). Thus, they are clearly exempt under part (c) part (1) of the law, which states that the law only applies to videos depicting illegal acts. Even though the Court rather tortuously applies overbreadth because hunting is illegal in the District of Columbia, hunting would still be exempt under §48(b) because hunting can be (and usually has been) viewed as having "“scientific” value in that it promotes conservation, “historical” value in that it provides a link to past times when hunting played a critical role in daily life, and “educational” value in that it furthers the understanding and appreciation of nature and our country’s past and instills valuable character traits" (Opinion of Justice Alito, page 7). In regards to the second worry of the Court, animals being humanely slaughtered for food: such acts are not illegal under the criminal codes of most states, and therefore §48 cannot be applied. So it cannot reasonably be argued that §48 "bans a substantial amount of protected speech in absolute terms" (Opinion of Justice Alito, page 19).

Moving on to the first amendment issue, we run into a more complex can of worms. Free speech is generally considered one of the most fundamental rights: by the preferred position doctrine, it occupies a higher consideration when deciding cases than do most other rights. However, that doesn't mean free speech is absolute. Both the Bad Tendency Doctrine and the Clear and Present Danger Doctrine restrict what speech is protected under the first amendment. Speech can be limited if it might lead to harm or to illegal action, or if there is an imminent threat to society. So if you want to yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater (a bad idea in any case) that is not protected under your right to free speech.

With that explanation of free speech and its exceptions, let's consider how those guidelines apply to animal cruelty videos, be they crush videos, dogfights, or something else. Does this "speech" lead to harm or illegal action? Obviously, yes. All states have laws (of varying strengths) against animal cruelty, and videos promoting it not only show that people can get away with breaking the law, but that it's fun, and, guess what, you can do it too! As for harm, well, the harm done to the animals is blatant, and in many cases, irreparable. Is there an imminent threat to society? That's more difficult to explain, but again, I would argue "yes". Numerous studies have shown that it is a short step from killing/torturing animals to killing/torturing humans. Representative Gallegley, the original sponsor of the 1999 bill, points out that "The FBI, U.S. Department of Education and the U.S. Department of Justice consider animal cruelty to be one of the early warning signs of potential violence by youths" (ConsumerAffairs.com). And, once again, encouraging people to break laws is in no way beneficial. In this case, I would disagree with the Third Circuit and the Supreme Court when they say that there is not enough compelling government interest for §48 to survive strict scrutiny.

I would even go so far as to question the free speech aspect of this case. The law specifically states that the animal torture videos are illegal "if such conduct is illegal under Federal law or the law of the State in which the creation, sale, or possession takes place" (18 U.S.C. §48 (c)(1)). I referenced that section above, but in essence, what this section is providing for is the arrest and (possible) conviction of people who possess videos of themselves or others committing an illegal act. Justice Alito addresses this in his opinion, while connecting the crush videos the law was intended to ban with the dogfighting videos at the core of this case: "as with crush videos, moreover, the statutory ban on commerce in dogfighting videos is also supported by compelling governmental interests in effectively enforcing the Nation’s criminal laws and preventing criminals from profiting from their illegal activities." (Opinion of Justice Alito, page 19).

Okay, taking off my Judge hat, I will move on to the effect of this decision. First off, this decision severely limits the prosecutorial discretion of the government. As the majority of the Court says (repeatedly), §48 was originally intended to allow for the possession/sale/creation of crush videos. However, the government has used it to prosecute people for the possession/sale/creation of other videos depicting people torturing animals in ways that are also illegal -- dogfighting being just one example. In relying overmuch on original intent, the Court is making it more difficult for the government to prosecute people who wish to sell videos of themselves committing illegal acts.

Secondly, it brings into question multiple other Court decisions, most specifically those dealing with obscenity and child pornography. As noted previously, the courts have decided that some speech is unprotected; the Government asked in this case that a new category be added, saying in their brief "Whether a given category of speech enjoys First Amendment protection depends upon a categorical balancing of the value of the speech against its societal costs." The Court reacted badly to this view, claiming that, even though they have in the past decided that in cases of unprotected speech "the evil to be restricted so overwhelmingly outweighs the expressive interests, if any, at stake, that no process of case-by-case adjudication is required" (New York v. Ferber, child pornography case). What I find interesting, and slightly hypocritical here, is this sentence: "We made clear that Ferber presented a special case: The market for child pornography was intrinsically related to the underlying abuse, and was therefore an integral part of the production of such materials, an activity illegal throughout the Nation." (Majority opinion, internal quotations omitted). Apart from the fact that the subjects are animals rather than human children, the market's relationship to the illegal act is the same in Stevens as it was in Ferber, if not more pronounced. The Humane Society found more than 3000 animal crush videos online before the 1999 law went into effect; once the law was passed, the market vanished virtually overnight -- only to reappear with a vengeance once the Third Circuit decision came out. With such a clear correlation, how can the court continue to justify Ferber, arguable one of the most important decisions in terms of protecting those who have no voice from harm and exploitation?

The Representatives behind the §48 are working to produce a more narrow version of the law, which will hopefully satisfy these critics while still doing an effective job of both preventing criminals from profiting from their illegal acts and protecting helpless animals.

Further Reading:

• 18 U.S.C. § 48, the statute ruled unconstitutional
• U.S. v. Stevens on Oyez.org
• U.S. v. Stevens on Wikipedia.org
• ConsumerAffairs.com Article
• NPR Article (Decision)
• NPR Article (Oral Arguments)
• SCOTUSBlog Analysis (Oral Arguments)
• SCOTUS Decision (Note: PDF)

Republicans Running Against Boxer: Brief Synopsis

I would like to briefly talk about the Republican candidates running against Barbra Boxer for the Senatorial election in California. I have decided to talk about their views on the economy as well as their history and will post the links to their campaign pages so you can learn more about these qualified candidates.

Tom Campbell: He was a Congressman, state budget director, law school professor, economist and the nominee in 2000. He believes in reducing our spending so we don’t cause inflation, which may hit after there are more jobs and people start spending more money. He was one of six Republicans to vote against the bill that reversed the Glass-Stengel act because he feared the merger of investment and commercial banks would create too-big-to-fail institutions that the government would have to bail out if there was failure (guess he was right).
Website: http://www.campbell.org/ideas.

Chuck DeVore: He is a state assemblyman and was an Irvine city commissioner and aerospace executive. He follows the basic platform of the Republican Party and believes the government should let businesses create jobs and not heavily tax them. He is a member of the Tea Party (who believes in small government and lower taxes) and seems the most “Republican” out of all the Republican candidates, which doesn’t seem to be helping him in the polls.
Website: http://chuckdevore.com/n/issues/.

Carly Fiorina: She was CEO of Hewlett Packard and the 2008 McCain Campaign adviser. She proposes focusing on small businesses and on cutting their taxes to help create jobs and fix the economy. She also wants to address the debt. She is endorsed by Sarah Palin which might be a plus to the more grassroots Republicans but a big minus to the more liberal Republicans (which seems to be a lot of the Republicans in California) and she seems to me, politically, the least qualified out of the three.
Website: http://www.carlyforcalifornia.com/

I think I would endorse DeVore because even though he is too conservative for my taste his economic ideals match up with mine, he’s experienced, and he seems like the best out of the three. I feel like he could be the next Reagan of California (or at least that’s what people are calling him. . .)

On a side note: I am encouraging all of the people of voting age to please register and get involved in picking the people who hold power and who change our lives. I know this sounds cheesy, but your votes really DO count. To make it really easy for you: http://www.rockthevote.com/rtv_register.html?source=rtv.com-homegraphic. Please Vote!

AND . . . the other candidates for this election and others: http://www.politics1.com/ca.htm

Kelo v. City of New London: Attack on Nostalgia and Our Fundamental Rights

I know this case isn’t considered recent news, however it is one of those court cases that are very controversial and it’s future ramifications are tremendous; I predict this case will come up again.

I have many feelings towards Kelo v. City of New London, a Supreme Court case decided in 2005 that states government can use eminent domain to take over private property for private use if there is “public use” that comes out of it. Eminent domain is when the government takes over private property for public use, however the government must offer the fair market value of the property. Also, a stipulation of this is that it must be for “public use”.

Now, after reading about this case the thing that struck me was how the Court defined “public use”. They defined it as something for the good of the public and that benefits the townspeople’s general needs. They were planning on building office buildings for Pfizer on the land parcel they wanted to take over. This isn’t exactly what “public use” means to me, because I see it as something we get to use (like an airport) and I think the decision that it is “public use” because it brings more taxes for the community, doesn’t correlate well with the original intent of the Founders. I believe eminent domain was mainly used during wartime for hospitals and such and now is more commonly used (and stretched a little) to include airports, roads, etc. And that’s what the Founders meant it to be. I don’t think they ever imagined it to be applied to taking over private property to give to another private agent (like a company). Where do we draw the line? If the government uses eminent domain to take over this land for this company because the company generates more tax revenue, then who’s to say they won’t do that to you. No homeowner is safe under this law and this is the pinnacle of government interference into your life. They are dictating whether the property YOU bought shall remain yours or not.

The majority opinion of this case could be considered a loose constructionist view of the Constitution. Meaning, that the interpretation of the text of the Constitution was done so to adapt with changes within America and doesn’t always adhere to what the Founders intended. Loose constructionists think of the Constitution as a living document to which interpretations of the text can be changed with what society is like today. This is just a general assertion, but most liberals tend to be loose constructionists and most conservatives tend to be strict constructionists. Many great landmark decisions on social and civil liberties issues have been decided in a loose constructionist manner and rights of the people (and many people who previously didn’t have very many rights) were expanded and protected. One prime example of this is Roe v. Wade. The “right to privacy” was used as the Constitutional basis for the argument which was, that it shouldn’t be illegal for women to get an abortion (and as we know, there has to be basis for their decisions in the text of the constitution). However, nowhere is privacy expressly and explicitly mentioned, but it is implied in some amendments (like the 3^rd amendment) and so the judges expressed that a privacy right was “written in the penumbras” of the Constitution. I hope this example accurately illustrates what loose construction is; it could be seen as almost political advocating. They are deciding what is right and then molding the Constitution around their beliefs when really they are supposed to analyze what the Constitution says and then form their opinions.

I think many wonderful things (like women’s right to an abortion, and desegregation) have come out of loose construction but there is a potential of unspeakably horrible things to come out of it as well which could undermine the Supreme Court as an institution. One example of this is Plessy v. Ferguson where nowhere in the Constitution is separate-but-equal attached to the Fourteenth Amendment. It is obvious that the intent of the people writing the Fourteenth Amendment was to end discrimination, which segregation helps uphold but the Supreme Court of the time was able to shape the Constitution around their agenda. That is one of the dangers of loose construction; you get nine guys (and girls) in a room deciding the fate of all Americans and because of this potential horrible threat we have the Constitution. Whereas, a strict constructionist sticks to what the Constitution expressly says and may not be able to reach the heights a loose constructionist can, but also won’t reach the depths that can potentially happen with loose constructionist theory.

Another thing that irked me about Kelo is that it violates principles we hold so dear, like the right to “life, liberty, and property”. A right to property is something that is essentially American and has been in our lives since the very beginning (it’s found in the Constitution). We hold our property rights so dear and we fiercely protect them. Our property is an extension of ourselves and we have evolved to believe that WE have control over our property because it is OURS. Our homes are so important to us. They are not just four walls and a roof but they represent so much more. They represent nostalgia and are what help us remember our past and gives us hope for our future. Our homes are those hot summer afternoons where you sit on the porch, and can smell the grass, and are eating an ice cream cone and blowing bubbles. Or it’s camping in your backyard and playing baseball until it’s too dark you can barely see the ball, but you still keep on playing. Or it’s the warm family dinners laced with laughing and joy and rolls. It’s all of those things and that’s what the government is taking away to replace it with offices. Really? That just doesn’t seem right to me. Property is a basic tenant of our government and this has been raped by this decision. This property right has been severely diminished by Kelo because the government control over our property has just significantly expanded and the reasons why they can take our property away from us have expanded as well. I feel this basic principle of American life was very much overlooked by the Court during this decision and very much hope that this case will be overturned if this issue comes before the Court again.

To learn more about the case: http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2004/2004_04_108 (I recommend listening to the oral argument; it's fascinating!)
Aftermath of Kelo: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704402404574527513453636326.html
Knowledge on strict vs. loose construction: Supreme Court/Government classes

Book Review: "The People v. Bush: One Lawyer's Campaign to Bring the President to Justice and the National Grassroots Movement She Encounters Along the Way"

It takes a certain amount of guts to advocate the criminal prosecution of a president, even one so seemingly universally despised as George W. Bush.  And as far as making it a major part of a campaign for state attorney general . . . well, the only thing behind that idea is insanity, right?  Wrong.

Charlotte Dennett, a lawyer, writer, and Progressive party member in Vermont, did exactly that during the 2008 elections, turning conventional wisdom on its head and flabbergasting the mainstream media.  Her book, "The People v. Bush: One Lawyer's Campaign to Bring the President to Justice and the National Grassroots Movement She Encounters Along the Way" is a chronicle of her campaign and the lessons she learned from it.  At the same time, she draws on the work of former federal prosecutor Vincent Bugliosi in order to provide the legal framework behind the idea of prosecuting George Bush for murder.

Yes, murder.  The murder of thousands of Americans and Iraqis killed in a war that was started under false pretenses and only "justified" by tortured legal reasoning.  But Dennett doesn't stop with the former president.  She also accuses top Bush administration officials: Dick Cheney, Condoleezza Rice, John Ashcroft, and most of all, John Yoo and Jay Bybee, authors of the now infamous torture memos and the justifiers extraordinaire of the Iraq war.  Most people, if they think Bush & co. committed any crimes except stupidity, they want to prosecute them for war crimes.  Unfortunately, since the U.S. refuses to recognize the ICC in The Hague, that is unlikely (there are, however, justices in Spain and Great Britain pursuing indictments against him).  But as Dennett points out, there are 50 attorneys general of states, one federal attorney general, and multiple district attorneys, all of whom could prosecute Bush for murder under universal jurisdiction and the effects doctrine.  For more information on the legal aspects of the case, I refer you to Dennett's website, http://chardennett.org/faq.html.

No one is too powerful to be touched in this book.  In addition to the Bush administration officials, Dennett takes to task her own Senator Patrick Leahy, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Attorney General Eric Holder, President Obama, and the media.  This is an expose of the political maneuvering that went on before the Iraq war, as well as after.  Dennett brings the fresh insight typical of third-party candidates, not afraid to take to task those who have been found (in her mind) in violation of morality, ethics, and the constitution.

It doesn't matter if you agree with the prosecution of Bush or not, this is a valuable book to read.  It is a call for the accountability that has been absent from Washington for too long.  Dennett combines a fun, relatable style with sober legal reasoning and pages of valuable information on how to get involved with grassroots political movements all across the country.  It's an inspiring story, and one that should be relevant to seasoned politicians and young activists alike.

Barbara Boxer: Profile of a Senator

Elections are coming up, and in California, we have one Senatorial election coming up in November. Barbara Boxer, the state's junior senator, is up for re-election for her fourth term. As a Democrat, a woman, and a Californian, I support Ms. Boxer's re-election efforts, and I hope I can convince you to as well.

First, her background. Barbara Boxer was elected to public office in 1976 when she ran for a position of the Marin County Board of Supervisors. She served there for six years and was the first woman to be the president of the board. She was elected to the House of Representatives in 1982 and served for five terms. She won the open seat (vacated by Democrat Alan Cranston) in the 1992 elections for US Senate. Before going into politics, she worked as a stockbroker (her degree is in Economics) and a journalist.

Currently, Senator Boxer is the chairwoman of the Select Committee on Ethics and the Committee on Environment and Public Works, as well as a member of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation and the Committee on Foreign Relations. She is also a member of numerous subcommittees as well as the Democratic Chief Deputy Whip.

I will not repeat every single one of Boxer's accomplishments in the Senate, because that would take forever and a day (and my AP Calculus homework is reminding me none too gently that that is time I just don't quite have!). Instead, I will focus on her broad legislative record and a few of her most important initiatives. For more detailed information, I refer you to her re-election website, http://www.barbaraboxer.com/issues.

Economy: Senator Boxer supports California's high-tech, entertainment, and biotech industries. She is also dedicated to preventing military base closures (thereby keeping jobs and increasing the stability of communities) and to convincing the Pentagon to allow disused bases to be refurbished into a community asset. She also recognizes that a good economy today means little if there is no future; to that end, she has fought for an increased use of technology in the classroom, wrote legislation that provided for tax deductions for companies who donated new or almost-new computers to schools, and supported an increased tax deduction to offset the cost of college. These initiatives are especially important to us young voters and almost-future-voters. Finally, and most importantly, she voted for President Obama's stimulus bill, which preserved or created hundreds of thousands of jobs.

Environment: Senator Boxer has fought for legislation that would keep all of the Arctic and many parts of California protected wilderness areas. She is also a leader in the fight against damaging offshore drilling on the California coast. She has worked on many bills to improve the quality of drinking water and set safe standards at levels that would make the water safe for children and the elderly, not just healthy adult men. She also supports California's laws on reducing tailpipe emissions, and has stopped the EPA from testing pesticides on women and children.

Healthcare: Senator Boxer is determined to expand healthcare coverage and reduce costs. She introduced legislation to create a tax deduction to help pay for the cost of insurance premiums and supports giving all Americans access to the same type of healthcare that members of Congress receive. She has consistently supported and authored legislation to promote research into many life-threatening diseases, as well as legislation to crack down on insurance company abuses. She also voted for the healthcare bill that passed Congress earlier this year.

Women's/Children's Rights: Senator Boxer has worked to expand children's access to healthcare and education. She has been involved in legislation to improve school safety and increase prosecution for people who commit crimes against children. She has also continuously fought to protect a woman's right to choose and right to reproductive healthcare. In her role as a member of the Foreign Relations Committee, she is in a position to fight for women's rights all over the world.

Senator Boxer has been a consistent voice for equality and progressive issues. Her policies are not just good for Democrats. They are good for Californians, and for Americans. While she faces no serious primary challenger, she has three potential Republican challengers (the Republican primary has yet to be held). When deciding who to vote for this November, I hope you will support Barbara Boxer.

Logo by me.  I am, unfortunately, in no way affiliated with the Barbara Boxer Senate campaign, I just think she's awesome & you should vote for her :)

The Filibuster Problem

The story with the filibuster is always the same: if you are in the minority party, you adore it and if you are in the majority party you despise it. And of course, senators tend to change their positions depending on which party is in power along the Beltway, throwing red meat to the packs of political commentators and lighting up CNN's news tickers. But one thing a surprising number of senators agree on is that, love it or hte it, the filibuster is broken. I happen to think that it's high time we start thinking about filibuster reform. One only has to look at the recent Jim Bunning debacle to wonder about the wisdom of giving one single person the power to cost thousands of people their unemploymet benefits and even thousands more their jobs.

First, some history. The filibuster is a power peculiar to the Senate, written into the Senate rules to protect minority rights. Simply put, it allows one person (or a group of people) to virtually kill a bill by refusing to stop talking about it. In more technical terms, it allows unlimited debate on a bill, which can only be ended by a cloture vote. With 60+ votes, the bill passes; any less, and it is officially dead. The filibuster is in essence a way to protect the rights of the minority and ensure that all sides are heard in a debate. But of course, if the party in power has a 60+ supermajority, a filibuster is ineffective even as a threat (unless senators in the majority party join in the filibuster).

Like many tool made with good intentions, the filibuster has changed -- for the worse. In the old days, a senator who wanted to filibuster a bill had to stand on the Senate floor, stare his or her colleagues and the American people in the face, and say exactly why he or she opposed the bill. Senators has to speak, nonstop, until a cloture vote was called. That happens no longer. The Senate has evolved a 2-track system for legislative business, so that one senator can simply declare that bill X -- say, on environmental regulation -- is being filibustered, while work on bill Y -- say, on equal pay laws -- continues. This removes a lot of the personal accountability from the senators launching a filibuster. And no matter how much Jim Bunning complains about missing basketball games in order to stop the COBRA extension bill, he has it much easier than the Strom Thurmonds and Henry Clays of days gone by.

With this change in how the filibuster is implemented has come a seeming change in its purpose. Not only is it being used as a way to protect the minority, extend debates, and kill potentially damaging bills, it is being used to bring the senate to a virtual halt. Now, Tom Coburn might love gridlock, but as a normal citizen, I despise it. The gridlock was so bad recently that the Senate was sitting on upwards of 200 bills that had passed the House but couldn't be acted on because of filibusters, real or threatened.

So I propose we reform the filibuster. Because it is impossible to get rid of it (at lease from a common-sense point of view, because the Republican "nuclear option" of a few years ago would have allowed a simple majority to override a Senate rule and stop a filibuster). The point is that the filibuster has a defined and useful purpose. It is the constant abuse of the filibuster that must stop. The following reforms would do much to move along the legislative process in the Senate while still allowing the filibuster to serve its original purpose.

1. A filibuster should only be brought by more than one person. This ensures that there is a real, reasoned-out opposition to a bill, rather than one person acting in their own interest, or that of special interest groups.
2. We must return to the one-track system. If some senators want to talk a bill to death, they darn well better be prepared to, well, talk . . . for as long as it takes. Not only will this make people think twice about filibustering, it will also re-instate the degree of responsibility and accountability that comes with bringing a legislative body to a complete halt for hours.
3. Filibusters should not be used on judicial or other presidential nominees. This not conflicts with the powers of the executive branch, it nearly brought the Senate down once, and could possibly do so again. That is one thing no one (except possibly Mr. Coburn) wants to see happen.
4. If senators choose to filibuster a bill, they should be required to speak on topics related to the bill. This one is common sense, guys. The purpose of a filibuster is unlimited debate over a bill. If you're reminiscing about Grandma's mint juleps, you're not debating a bill (at least, I hope you're not! That would be one strange piece of legislation). If a senator is that eager to delay a vote on a bill, he or she should put a hold on it. Not filibuster it.

The Healthcare Bill: What’s Going to Really Happen?

There has been so much confusion with this Healthcare Bill not only because the contents, like the abortion language, are not clear but also the way it was passed was “unconventional” to say the least. I will try to explain what I know and will give you my personal opinion about the bill and how it was passed.

Some Facts: The bill passed 219-212, the magic number being 216, without any Republicans voting for it. What also passed was the compromises that will be added onto the Healthcare bill after they go to the Senate and are voted on, however if these “compromises” have to do with the budget in some way it falls under reconciliation and therefore senators can’t filibuster them. I believe we talked about the filibuster on this blog before, but I’ll refresh your memory: It’s when a senator decides to disrupt the Senate by declaring his filibuster and then talking at the Senate for hours (sometimes) until a vote for cloture is called for. They can end the filibuster with 60 votes and if they don’t have them that “kills the bill”. As was also mentioned before, Democrats don’t have 60 votes in the Senate anymore with Scott Brown’s victory in Massachusetts, so they decided to go around this rule. How did they do that? The House passed the Senate’s healthcare bill instead of the two bills by the House and Senate being reconciled (which means almost “merged”; the House and Senate duke it out to see what goes into the final bill essentially). But, because the House doesn’t entirely like the Senate’s bill they want to make amendments to it which are the “compromises” I mentioned at the beginning of this paragraph. This is part of the complication; it’s hard to understand why they passed a bill they didn’t like? Why are they allowed to circumvent the rules of the Senate or House? Why can they be sneaky and go around Democratic processes our Founders wanted, like debate? Why? Because they wanted the bill passed NOW. Time was a major constraint and the Republicans winning an extra seat in the Senate didn’t help much. To pass anything they already had was their option or to scrap the bill altogether and start over (which I would have liked) which would politically look bad for Obama.

What does the bill do: Well, that’s hard to ascertain because many things are “projected” and we won’t know what’s certain until many years in the future. According to the CBO (Congressional Budget Office), this plan will cut deficits by 1 trillion dollars in the second decade. Personally, I don’t understand how that’s possible but I’ll address my qualms later. Remember this is projected not certain. It creates “health exchanges” which make it cheaper to buy insurance, Medicaid will be expanded, It creates new taxes for health insurers and higher income families, and you are required to buy health insurance. An important clarification is that of the abortion situation: NO GOVERNMENT MONEY WILL BE GIVEN FOR ABORTIONS. If people want abortion coverage they pay for it with their private funds and this was also clarified by an executive order issued by Obama.

My contentions with the Bill: First of all, I was unnerved with the way it was passed. No Republicans voted for the Senate Bill in the Senate and no Republicans voted for the Senate bill in the House. There is some talk of their proposed amendments making it into the bill, but as of now we don’t know that for sure. So, basically this bill had NO bipartisan support. In my opinion, on legislation this big and sweeping bipartisan support is needed to legitimize it and also just make it better and more likeable. I like using this example, in the Supreme Court for big cases they much rather have a 9-0 decision than a 5-4 decision because it shows the strength behind their argument. It’s the same with healthcare. I just feel throughout the process Republicans were being ignored because they (democrats) thought they could ignore them. When they had to deal with them, as in after Scott Brown was elected, they still went around them by passing law in an unconventional manner without the thought process that usually is present.

That brings me to my second point; they totally disregarded the rules and ideals of our country. Someone on C-SPAN made a really great point, he asked if they can pass bills like this why do we usually do it the longer way? I think the answer is the longer way makes the bill better in the long run. You are able to fit more ideas/opinions in and really compromise. The founders wanted bills to take a long time because they wanted us to think about what we’re doing. And I think knowingly going around this deliberate process is wrong and the end product turns out being mediocre at best. That’s what I think we have; a mediocre healthcare bill that doesn’t really address cost very well and that could have been worked on longer.

My third point is the contents of the bill don’t fully make sense to me. I think the cost issue is still a problem. I bet the government health insurance will cost more than private insurance because maybe they’ll have to pay doctors more or they have to pay for it because Medicare doesn't cover it, or something like that, so it has to cost more. This is just my opinion, but it seems plausible. Also, how exactly are we paying for this? They stipulate cutting Medicare will pay for a lot of it but they’re also using that money to expand Medicaid, subsidies, etc. so that doesn’t exactly makes sense. They’re obviously going to raise taxes which I think is unnecessary for a bill that doesn’t do much and in an economy that’s not too healthy right now. I believe TORT reform is in the amendments to the bill and should be (which would subjugate insurance companies to ant-trust law and therefore make competition). But, that would have helped in the first place and maybe we wouldn’t need this whole government run thing.

One thing I like about the bill is that it doesn’t let insurance companies drop you for pre-existing conditions. That’s just cruel and also that’s the reason people have health insurance in the first place. That should have been made a law much earlier. Another thing I find beneficial but have some dissonance with is that people must have health insurance. I like this idea because if everyone has to buy it the price goes down (supply and demand) however I also feel the government shouldn’t make you buy something you don’t want (for whatever reason). If it’s a “right”, then shouldn’t we be able to choose if we want it or not?

All in all, I was just disappointed and disheartened to see this bill get passed in this way and the quality of the content. I think there could have been more bipartisan support for the bill and they could have passed the bill in the intended way: with thoughtful debate. Also, I think the bill isn’t that great and doesn’t cover the main reasons why people wanted a healthcare bill in the first place. I suppose it’s fine for now, but once the taxes and costs and deficit’s rise I think we’ll be sorry we passed it. We’ll just have to see what happens.

Further reading:

http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/03/21/health.care.main/index.html?section=cnn_latest

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/21/opinion/21holtz-eakin.html?src=me&ref=general

http://documents.nytimes.com/health-care-reconciliation-bill#p=2

(text of the Healthcare Bill)

Healthcare Has Passed the House!

The House passed both the Senate bill and the Reconciliation bill (a package of changes to the Senate bill)

Anya is elated.

Ashley is disgruntled.

Both of us are disgusted that we've read more of the healthcare bill than the actual people who voted on it.

We were trying to call C-SPAN when they were taking callers on-air, but neither of us got through. Look for detailed responses from both of us tomorrow!

A Promise (Or Two)

The full text of the compromise healthcare bill is online at the New York Times's website (link: http://documents.nytimes.com/health-care-reconciliation-bill#p=1). So Ashley and Anya promise you, our loyal readers (if there are any . . .) that we will read the healthcare bill in its entirety. Yes, all 153 pages.

We also promise more posts to come soon.  Topics: the filibuster, healthcare, Bart Stupak, and Don't Ask, Don't Tell.