Maggie's Farm

Does President Obama “feel your pain” or is he feeling his own, getting kicked in the bottom by the Tea Parties?  Do establishment Republicans, late to the party, join the conga line or waltz around the Tea Party theme?

Remarkably, Internet-power Instapundit Glenn Reynolds and MSM Newsweek’s Eleanor Clift sorta agree about the impact of the Tea Parties.

Reynolds, early and consistently encouraged by the people power of the Tea Party movement, writes in today’s Washington Examiner that,

It's one thing when record stores or video rental places get dis-intermediated. It's a whole different ball game when people who rely on politics not only for their livelihood, but for maintaining their considerable sense of self-importance discover that they may not be quite as necessary as it once seemed.

But that hard lesson is becoming apparent. In fact, the Tea Party movement seems to be showing better political judgment than either of the two major political parties.

Reynolds believes the Tea Party movement will have even more power going in to the 2010 elections, as it develops a Contract From America.

It's a set of ideas developed via an interactive Web site, where voting determines which elements are most important. And it's not a top-down contract consisting of promises made by leaders to the voters -- it's more in the nature of a contract of employment from the voters, which politicians may choose to accept, or look for alternative employment.

This is basically a crowd-sourced party platform, with the smoke-filled rooms and convention logrolling taken out of the picture. More dis-intermediation. I'm guessing that the political class won't like it much, either.

But whether the political class likes it or not, this sort of thing is probably here to stay. While 2009 was the year of denigrating and ignoring the tea parties, I suspect that in 2010, they'll be listened to quite closely. Those who fail to do so, are likely to find themselves out of a job.

Dan Riehl comments re: "fragmentation" of Tea Party movement. It is already, and that's a strength, bottom up instead of top down.

Eleanor Clift, columnist at Newsweek, reluctantly recognizes the Tea Parties past successes, despite the Conventional Wisdom (i.e., from liberals like her).

Less than half a year later, the tea-party movement is the tip of the spear shaping the White House policy agenda, putting Obama on the defensive on spending and forcing Democrats to elevate deficit reduction as a priority.

Clift is correct in recognizing the grass-roots pragmatism of Tea Partiers, supporting moderate candidates as long as they represent a turn away from more government intrusion into our pockets and lives.  Clift concludes by asking limited government types to reply to President Obama’s newfound interest in hearing from those who oppose him.  And, we are to believe that Clift, Obama, and their ilk will now, after never listening before?

To offer your two-cents to the Contract From America, here’s your invite.

My July 4th Tea Party in LotusLand with photos.

Health care may contribute to the defeat of Senator Barbara Boxer next November, or it may work in her favor.  California’s legislative Democrat majority are going for broke (literally) with their party-line votes in prior years for single-payer health care and yesterday’s state Senate vote for the same.

There are some legitimate arguments to be made (low Democrat turnout and many of the Democrats voting for Brown being confused about health care or actually wanting a more radical plan than in Congress) that ObamaCare was less decisive in Massachusetts than conservatives think.  So, there may be some reason to believe the issue will play out a bit less positively for Republicans in California, Democrats hope.

My last post California Is Not Massachusetts spoke to why Senator Barbara Boxer will be a tougher political opponent than Coaxley in Massachusetts: demographics are more amenable to Boxer (e.g., almost 5 times larger percentage of Hispanics in California; Boxer hasn’t alienated the influential overwhelmingly liberal Jewish vote in California, whereas leading Republican Campbell is negative toward Israel’s security needs); and her likely Republican opponents are not the able campaigners that Brown was in Massachusetts. I, also, posited that tempers against Obama and his Washington Democrats are likely to cool some between now and November, as some  Democrats chill on their extremism.  To the last point, that really does remain to be seen, and hollow words are less likely to be given credence by Independent voters now than in 2008. Further, Boxer’s extreme liberal stances are not likely to either change much or be hidable by her.  (Note: a stat aficionado journalist corrects me on another point. There is a higher proportion of Democrat congressmen in Mass. than California, and California’s lower percentage of Independent voters is because California does not hold open-primaries as does Mass.)

On the other hand, although early polls are poor indicators, Boxer does currently lead prospective Republican candidates: 45% Boxer, 41% Campbell; 47% Boxer, 39% DeVore ; 48% Boxer, 40% Fiorina. Yet, Boxer’s lead has narrowed some, and her favorables  have dipped by about 5% to 40% with 45% disapprovals.

Senator Barbara Boxer is a firm supporter of ObamaCare.   Single-payer is a more extreme and direct takeover of health care.  Governor Schwarzenegger vetoed the same prior two attempts by the Democrat legislators, and would do so again, if passed before November.  The leading Democrat contender for governor, former governor Jerry Brown, spoke in favor in 1992 but is “stonewalling” about it now.  The leading Republican contenders are opposed.  This sets up an issue to be debated in the 2010 governor race.

Boxer will be affected or drawn in to the health care debate. Tom Campbell opposed  ObamaCare. So do the other Republican contenders.  Thus, it should be expected to be a factor in the Senate race.  A legislator and oral surgeon dismembers the California Democrats' bill. Another commenter calls it all “political kabuki”:

A serious bill would talk about where, exactly, the $200 billion a year [more than the entire California budget, already tens of billions in deficit; proponents say that all sources of health spending in California is about that or more, assuming they can redirect it all into the government’s hands, and power] is going to come from and just how California will be able to afford a single-payer system at a time when the budget is awash in red ink.

But that’s what a serious bill would do and this isn’t a serious bill. For Democrats, it’s a feel-good vote that lets them show their supporters that they feel their pain, without having to face the possibility of actually having to make a single-payer system work in California.

It’s no better on the GOP side of the aisle. Republicans will win political points with their conservative backers by attacking a single-payer plan and ignoring the millions of Californians who would like to see them come up with a health-care alternative.

When single-payer disappears from the political radar for another year, both Republicans and Democrats will be able to say that they fought the good fight.

The latest California Field poll displays the core liberal-lean among California’s registered voters, which Boxer will depend upon.  Sixty-five percent of registered voters disapprove of the “way Congress is doing its job,” 69% disapprove  of the “way Congress is handling health care,” but just shy of 50% say they’re inclined to vote for a Democrat for the House in 2010 versus 32% for a Republican (a similar proportion holds across age groups; only among those earning above $100k do Republican leaners top 40%).  A third less immigrants are inclined toward Republicans, immigrants comprising about 17% of California’s registered voters (Latinos – 27% of all Hispanic voters - lean Democrat by 50-24, and White Hispanics by 44-37).

Long story short, unseating Boxer will depend upon her, Sacramento and Washington Democrats continuing to piss off voters as much as they have up until now (ever flexible apologist for whatever latest version of ObamaCare Ezra Klein is depressed at its diminished emphasis by the Obama admin, meaning it will be deemphasized) and the California Republican candidates being as effective as Brown in Mass. in presenting themselves positively and be viewed as honestly in tune with popular discontent.  I remain skeptical of both, as we move into the stretch.

If my children take out student loans for college and decide to work in the private sector, President Obama makes them (as Mark Steyn says) “schlubs.”  A schlub is a blockhead, in the Yiddish vernacular.

President Obama wants to nationalize the $1-trillion college loan market, companion to his other nationalization pursuits as in healthcare.  Now, he plans to go further.  At taxpayer expense, he wants to cap the percentage of income that former students pay on their loans and increase forgiveness of student loans by lower-paid former students after 20-years instead of 25-years. But, if the former student works in the public sector for 10-years, the balance of the loan would be waived.

1. Very nice for former students who take virtually useless majors.

2. Even nicer for those who take government jobs, where average wages and benefits are now higher than in the private sector.

3. And, even nicer for Democrats’ union allies who are Democrats’ main financial supporters.

4. Also very nice for the heavily liberal college faculties and administrators who can continue to charge high tuitions and delay inevitable modernized instruction and conferencing without the posh, big fixed cost campuses.

5. Not so nice for taxpayers, as with this latest proposal, politicians find ways to pay off their constituencies whenever they get ahold of another money stream or power. The takeover of the student loan market, says the Congressional Budget Office, might save up to $47-billion over 10-years, especially the CBO says if defaults don't increase. The latest proposed, in effect, give-away "defaults" via lowered repayments and waivers of repayment, not yet scored by the CBO, will eat up much of or more than that to buy off Democrat backers and buy votes. Take a look at this map of which states have the highest average student debt.  Overlay which states are “blue” and you can see which states’ residents stand to get the most bailouts from their student loans.

As the New York Times reports, “Most U.S. Union Members Are Working for the Government, New Data Shows.”

According to the labor bureau, 7.2 percent of private-sector workers were union members last year, down from 7.6 percent the previous year. That, labor historians said, was the lowest percentage of private-sector workers in unions since 1900.

Among government workers, union membership grew to 37.4 percent last year, from 36.8 percent in 2008.

And, government employment is the only major sector with job growth. “Notwithstanding the recession, government employment grew last year, inching up 16,000, to 22,516,000, according to the bureau.”

Rather than reflect on the growth of their union allies in government jobs, where most states and localities are cutting back basic services in order to pay their salaries and benefits, Obama’s Labor Secretary instead sees the answer in expanding the ease for unions to expand in the private sector via “card checks” that obviate the secret ballot and further increase their members in the public sector.

Meanwhile, those former students who take private sector jobs, who actually generate the taxes to support government workers, are second-class citizens, schlubs or blockheads, for not feeding at the federal teat and supplying the milk for those who do.