In his New York Times column Tuesday, entitled The Mother of All No Brainers, David Brooks talks about the new breed of cat mentioned by Joe Biden, although he didn’t call them that. He spoke of the new Republican since the last election. Brooks contends that the Republicans have extracted trillions of dollars in concessions out of the Democrats:
In negotiations with Democrats on the debt ceiling, Brooks says that Republicans have already extracted large concessions: trillions of dollars in spending cuts, including cuts to Medicare and Medicaid, so long as Republicans agree to raise taxes for the wealthiest Americans and give fewer tax breaks to oil companies.
It’s the “the deal of the century,” Brooks writes, and “if the Republican Party were a normal party, it would take advantage of this amazing moment.”
There’s the catch. Is the Republican Party normal now? Brooks thinks not and continues to pontificate:
If the Republican Party were a normal party, it would take advantage of this amazing moment. It is being offered the deal of the century: trillions of dollars in spending cuts in exchange for a few hundred billion dollars of revenue increases.
A normal Republican Party would seize the opportunity to put a long-term limit on the growth of government. It would seize the opportunity to put the country on a sound fiscal footing. It would seize the opportunity to do these things without putting any real crimp in economic growth.
The party is not being asked to raise marginal tax rates in a way that might pervert incentives. On the contrary, Republicans are merely being asked to close loopholes and eliminate tax expenditures that are themselves distortionary.
This, as I say, is the mother of all no-brainers.
But we can have no confidence that the Republicans will seize this opportunity. That’s because the Republican Party may no longer be a normal party. Over the past few years, it has been infected by a faction that is more of a psychological protest than a practical, governing alternative.
The members of this movement do not accept the logic of compromise, no matter how sweet the terms. If you ask them to raise taxes by an inch in order to cut government by a foot, they will say no. If you ask them to raise taxes by an inch to cut government by a yard, they will still say no.
The members of this movement do not accept the legitimacy of scholars and intellectual authorities. A thousand impartial experts may tell them that a default on the debt would have calamitous effects, far worse than raising tax revenues a bit. But the members of this movement refuse to believe it.
The members of this movement have no sense of moral decency. A nation makes a sacred pledge to pay the money back when it borrows money. But the members of this movement talk blandly of default and are willing to stain their nation’s honor.
The members of this movement have no economic theory worthy of the name. Economists have identified many factors that contribute to economic growth, ranging from the productivity of the work force to the share of private savings that is available for private investment. Tax levels matter, but they are far from the only or even the most important factor.
But to members of this movement, tax levels are everything. Members of this tendency have taken a small piece of economic policy and turned it into a sacred fixation. They are willing to cut education and research to preserve tax expenditures. Manufacturing employment is cratering even as output rises, but members of this movement somehow believe such problems can be addressed so long as they continue to worship their idol.
Over the past week, Democrats have stopped making concessions. They are coming to the conclusion that if the Republicans are fanatics then they better be fanatics, too.
The struggles of the next few weeks are about what sort of party the G.O.P. is — a normal conservative party or an odd protest movement that has separated itself from normal governance, the normal rules of evidence and the ancient habits of our nation.
It appears that the Republicans will not only continue to be the Party of NO but also the party of No compromise. No mature person expects to always get one’s own way. Marriages don’t work that way, jobs don’t work that way, and politics don’t work that way. There seems to be a single-minded obtuseness here that just doesn’t make for good governance. I hope the old guard Republicans will pull a few of the whipper-snappers into the coat room, deliver a sound thrashing so that they come out and act like they know how to play on the play-ground.
Both liberal and conservative bloggers ate Brooks’ lunch over this column. I rather liked it.
Since its coming from Brooks, who is the the liberals’ favorite “Republican” and has lately carried water for the Obama agenda, I find his statements suspect.
Any “concessions” that the Democrats have made……I have not seen publicized. And the devil will be in the details. Trillions in concessions? Reeeeaaalllllllyy…..with only a 1.5 trillion deficit?
Or is this just another DC cut, where we slow the rate of growth by “cutting” increases to a smaller number?
Here you go:
In Debt Talks, Obama Offers Social Security cuts
By Lori Montgomery, Thursday, July 7, 3:38 AM
President Obama is pressing congressional leaders to consider a far-reaching debt-reduction plan that would force Democrats to accept major changes to Social Security and Medicare in exchange for Republican support for fresh tax revenue.
At a meeting with top House and Senate leaders set for Thursday morning, Obama plans to argue that a rare consensus has emerged about the size and scope of the nation’s budget problems and that policymakers should seize the moment to take dramatic action.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/in-debt-talks-obama-offers-social-security-cuts/2011/07/06/gIQA2sFO1H_story.html?hpid=z1
Looks like you got what you wanted, Cargo. Expect your veterans benefits to take a hit as well before all is said and done.
@Starry, it sounds like Obama and anyone else who agrees to cutting social security wants to get voted out of office. Gray panthers are on the prowl.
Is the Democratic party today the same as it was when my parents were young? Uhhh, no. Meanwhile, in other news, Obama has a heck of a time fighting off rumors that Biden’s going to be dumped off the ticket for re-election.
Well I, for one, won’t vote for Obama if he makes good on this announcement to cut social security and medicare benefits. I never thought I’d see the day when a so-called liberal President would move to gut social security, simply to please a minority of conservatives who seem to have him by his you-know-whats. Obama’s a DINO, a Democrat in Name Only.
@Starry, I sure am waiting to hear a plan, past the vague generalities. Maybe he is bluffing. I always thought of him as not a liberal. Maybe a left leaning centrist.
Then I ask myself who am I going to vote for. third party. Or, I could stay home. I have never done that before but then again, I have never had someone say they are going to cut social security.
Actually I can think of a place to cut that doesn’t affect senior citizens directly–aid to dependent children, a survivor’s benefit. Those payments have gotten rather large and they are paid until 18. A cap could be placed there. Also a kid gets a small social security benefit if they have a parent over 65 I think. That could go.
I remember when the Democratic Party stood for something, high ideals that I believed in. Maybe it was all a fraud to begin with, and I was too young and naive to see it as I pulled the lever for Jimmy Carter in my first-ever voting election. And believe me, I don’t give Republicans a pass, either. But the last decade has revealed the Dems to be as self-serving and hypocritical as they accuse the Republicans of being. And they thrive on the divisiveness–doing their level best to foment jealousy, hatred and outright class warfare. It’s not the party I grew up with.
So we get to decide which party we hate less? I have been operating on that for a long time. Politics are a dirty business I dislike both parties but tend to agree more with policies of the Democrats.
I fully expect my benefits to take a cut. In fact, But then, I said that cuts had to be made across the board. If we don’t have money…then we don’t have money. We are broke.
Now here’s the rub….this Congress cannot force a future one to make cuts.
“Rather than roughly $2 trillion in savings, the White House is now seeking a plan that would slash more than $4 trillion from annual budget deficits over the next decade,”
So, saying that they would cut this over the next decade is malarkey. Raise taxes now for future cuts…..yep. Heard that one before. Here’s the real reason this was proposed: “The administration argues that lawmakers would also get an important victory to sell to voters in 2012.”
And I’m still waiting for the Senate to do their duty and submit a budget. Then we’ll see real numbers that Congress can debate, not nebulous plans.
Cut NOW. And then they can talk about raising limits and taxes.
Yup, Cargo, you gotta protect your buddies the millionaires.
@Moon-howler
You keep saying that like it means something.
What do you want for taxes? It’s your buddies that have set it up that GE doesn’t pay taxes.
Its the current regime that plays crony capitalism. Goldman Sachs runs the Treasury and the Federal Reserve. Your taxation idea affects whom? Just those oh so evil millionaires? No. It affects small businesses. Income is income. You cannot separate taxation so that only salaries people get taxed more.
Have you not read that I want a more streamlined tax policy? Cut and simplify tax rates on all people. Reduce or eliminate deductions and loopholes. The purpose of taxation is to pay for government services not wealth redistribution. And your tax policy would not reduce our debt by a dime. The Congress is trying to spend even more.
Also, where in my above post do you see anything about “protecting millionaires?” Cutting spending helps millionaires?
Starry,
I would suspect that any plan to cut social security offered by, or agreed to by either party would have absolutely no impact on current or soon to be retirees. Nope. It will most likely impact those in their 30’s and 40’s the most, and to some degree those in their 50’s. The plan would look something like this:
-Raise the mandatory retirement age, exepmpting those currently receiving benefits under the current retirement age.
-Means testing for future recipients, meaning those more well off would receive a reduced benefit, those above a certain means-level receiving no benefit.
-Some sort of additional tax incentives for more personal savings, but stopping way short of privatization.
It’s a simple math equation really. We currently have fewer and fewer workers paying in, and the boomers are retiring, and living longer. As a Gen-X’er, and 20 years away from current retirement age, I have little faith that I will receive anything in Social Security, even though I have been paying into it since I was 15. I understand basic math, and can see that the current system is unsustainable. Raising Social Security taxes on an ever declining number of workers will stymie any additional savings they might put away for retirement. Therefore, the only rational solution is the “step-down” in benefits, means-testing, and raising the minimum retirement age…none of which would impact the current crop of grey panthers….
@Steve, my generation thought the same thing. That ‘nothing left scare’ has been around a long time.
The secret is to stop using SS for other things.
NOW HERE is the ONE TIME I think I have ever agreed with you. Neither party is for the people, they are for the funders of their campaigns, the special interests and corporate entities who tell THEM what to do and how to act.
Back in WWII and even before in the Great Depression, when the people were asked to make sacrifices, and deal with cuts and rationing the WHOLE NATION, regardless of income or social stature, bonded together to move past the trials and tribulations the world, and this once great nation, was passing through.
But today? No one in a leadership position, including the POTUS, SCOTUS or Congress could give a damn. They fear more getting re-elected than doing something for the majority of people in their districts….they have favors to repay for appointment to office….they have deals to be made so their “side” of power reigns supreme. Meanwhile they ask and tell the people they will have to DO WITHOUT, make “sacrifices” and deal with the de-regulation, apathy and ignorance that brought this nation (and the world) to this financial and social malestrom. But do they sacrifice? Do they ask their FUNDERS to sacrifice? No, for they are above taxation – they OWN the REPRESENTATION. From the POTUS to the DOGCATCHER, the song remains the same. The only uncertainty is IF the US public will continue to dance to this tune.
Bread and Circuses are nice, but try feeding your family on them and retiring in comfort…..
Totally agree, Bubba.
And to further add, what sacrifices did any of us non military families have to make during the warS we are still in? Zero. And the fat cat defense contractors made a boat load of money.
The amount of money it now takes to get elected or re-elected is obscene.
JUst to add to my previous post – when the leadership is more concerned with their OWN personal interests than what the PEOPLE want, all sorts of splinter groups DO arise and take things into their own hands. I can cite PWC as an example of that – those in charge let things get SO OUT OF HAND with zoning and the rapid influx of immigrants – and did NOTHING because big business profited from the cheap, easy, disposable labor – the people were ignored and certain “activists” were forced to DO SOMETHING…and we all know how that story ended. And it didn’t have to end like it did….
The rise and predoiminance of extremist groups in local AND national politics is a symptom of what is going on….and it ain’t pretty.
@Not Me, Bubba “Meanwhile they ask and tell the people they will have to DO WITHOUT, make “sacrifices” and deal with the de-regulation, apathy and ignorance that brought this nation (and the world) to this financial and social malestrom. But do they sacrifice? Do they ask their FUNDERS to sacrifice? No, for they are above taxation – they OWN the REPRESENTATION.”
Whoa, agreeing with you, too. Earth must be off its axis today or something. Witness the ever-growing list of exemptions to the Healthcare Affordability Act, all “friends-of” and donors. Witness the fact that today’s seniors aren’t being asked to make any sacrifice–it’s the folks now in their 40’s and 50’s who will suffer the cuts. Then the odd scapegoating of private-jet owners–which ironically threatens jobs and that industry as a whole, while Nancy Pelosi and others continue to jet around on private or chartered flights on our dime, utterly bypassing the airport miseries that they created — while the rest of us get felt up and our naked bodies gawked at by high-school-educated TSA toadies. Or having supercilious private-jet energy-suckers like Al Gore lecture the rest of us about “going green” and taking “light rail.” And watching our own local infrastructure get sold off to foreign-owned companies for “HOT lanes” that we will pay for forever, and for which the state will pay higher fees if too many people “go green” and carpool.
Where does the hypocrisy end?
Emma, you left out a few R sins. You covered the D ones pretty well. I guess the TSA toadies have the scarlet R on them, come to think of it.
Shared hate please.
Who owns the Dulles Greenway? Is that foreign owned? I don’t have to use it every day. It is expensive but it sure is nice.
@Moon-howler
That’s why I like to use progressive or liberal instead of Democrat because there are conservative Democrats. And I can’t think of anything in recent years more progressive than the creation of the Dept of Homeland Security and the TSA.
I have nothing against light rail at all. Frankly with the beginning of the age of peak oil production, mass-transit is NECESSARY unless this nation wishes to return to the pony express. But the BIG question looms, and many here have brought it up – who will pay? The government or private enterprise? The HOT LANES are being financed and will be owned by a Dutch firm. Parking meters in Chicago were sold to An Arabian firm fvor mere pennies – and now instead of the city making a profit, the Arab company is expected to garner about 70 billion in revenue from these meters over the next 20 years of which they will own them…
I can agree with you on your disgust with the Dems, I could even ADD to your list….but I am equally, if not moreso disgusted with the Repubs…. Exemptions from taxation ONLY for the top 1%, their assaults on voting rights for people “who would not likely vote for them” and their assault on Planned Parenthood and reproductive rights. The cuts to medicare, the cuts to SocSec…. Every day I read the news and I get more and more pissed off, and unlike a few years ago, it isn’t just ONE party who is irking my ire.
Gays are getting their (long overdue) rights for equality while all else is going down the crapper. Is it a sign that we’re all screwed? Meaning to convey that, are we are all really flushed down the sewer if politicians are agreeing to that – because the party is over anyways? Man….
“their assaults on voting rights for people “who would not likely vote for them”
What would those assaults be? Requiring ID to prove who you are when voting? Or something else that we haven’t heard of?
@Cargosquid
Why do you ned to provide ID? Isn’t the voter registration card enough? Some people don’t drive. Others don’t have the time or $$$ to pay for a state ID card – the poorest of the poor….and yet they should have to PAY for ID to vote? Polling taxes were a thing of the past, but those who benefit MOST from not havcing to PAY to vote are in danger of losing their right because SOME people want to make them PAY for their American RIGHT. And forget passports – those cost $70 and up. A voter registration card costs NOTHING, and a simple questions to establish ID (name, address in registrar’s book) could be asked. But no, some want MORE government involvement by insisting people PAY for ID to exercise their constitutional right.
These are the same yahoos who wish to cut back the bill of rights back to the 10th Ammendment – removing the right for women to vote, removing the right for the PEOPLE to elect their state senators (as opposed to having the governor appoint them), to even rmoving the 13th ammendment prohibiting involuntary servitude.
http://www.alternet.org/story/151535/the_10_scariest_gop_governors%3A_bringing_a_radical_right-wing_agenda_to_a_state_near_you/
Do you need more, or do I have to fill a page with more links?
@Not Me, Bubba
But no, some want MORE government involvement by insisting people PAY for ID to exercise their constitutional right.
I know off topic but I’m curious. What about permits or other statutory fees to own a handgun? Are you equally against those as well?
I think the CATO Institute has this right – Cargo posted a link already. If we’re going to talk about cuts and taxes lets use REAL math. Let’s not talk about slowing what would’ve been an artificially high government spending budget but taking a real chunk out of government. When and if we get to that point can we talk about government revenue increases.
I don’t mind having to show a govt. issued ID. It keeps every body honest.
@Not Me, Bubba
We need to prove ID because voter registration can be fraudulent. We need a backstop. And you’re decrying the cost? How will those people afford mandatory health insurance? They can’t afford $10-20 for a multi-year ID card? OK. Lets put a picture on the voter registration instead of a just a printed name. Why are you in support of voter fraud? And don’t tell me it doesn’t happen. I grew up in New Orleans. Local news would show vans full of people voting multiple times every election. Of course, nothing was prosecuted. Those doing the vote fraud were the winners. I notice that in every case of recounts in recent elections, the close counts always go towards a certain party, usually after ballots are “found” in trunks, offices, etc. And yes, I know that you are thinking about “Florida.” Yep. That’s ONE that didn’t. And it didn’t because the illegal recount in only Democrat counties was stopped. If Gore had really wanted a recount, he would have followed procedure and recounted the state. Which was done. Twice. And the result was the same. Bush won.
And where in that post do you see a wish to remove the right to vote for women? And the debate over the election of Senators is a valid one or was the first 100 years of Senator elections a problem? Oh, and its not the governor appointing them….its the state legislature electing them. And where did you see anything about removing the 13th amendment? Of course, Alternet couldn’t be a little bit biased in its reports, could it? Heck, some of those things reported in that link are being reported as if they are bugs, not features.
Those poor folks are on medicaid, Cargo. I don’t object to voter ID. The number of people who really have hardship can probably get assistance with the cost. I feel certain there is some organization out there willing to come to the rescue.
I hate the idea of not electing a senator. I want to do away with the electoral college even.
What possible justification is there for having the state legislature elect the US Senate? More room for graft and corruption if you ask me. It also gives the rodent political parties more power to abuse.
Why would anyone want to have someone else think for them?
Cargo, surely you didn’t just accuse someone else of bias? {coughsputterchoke}
Frankly, I do not think people need to PAY the government to own a gun. Sales tax pays the tax for firearms, booze, cigratettes, groceries, garden items – YOU NAME IT. Why PAY to have a permit as well?
I think it is beyond ridiculous VA has a “personal property tax” In NY – of all HIGHLY TAXED places, you pay sales tax and that is it. No recurring tax year after year for the state to make MORE money off of an object that nearly every person NEEDS to live in our modern-day society.
Do I have a problem with sales tax for booze and cigarettes? Nope. They are disposable items – not investments – that someone consumes at their own choice. I am 100% in favor of marijuana legalization for the tax revenue ALONE for that could generate millions for the state! Not to mention cutting down costs for incarceration and black-market dealings.
Do I have a problem with paying income tax – state and federal? No. Roads need paving. Schools need to be run, staffed and kept up. People need medical care – people who cannot afford it privately. I think tax $$$ for miltary support is a GOOD thing – they serve us all and need the best to be the best.
Where I diverge from all that is how certain entities can GET tax money (churches, political organizations, industry) who use these monies in nefarious ways to undermine our rights AND enrich themselves without giving BACK.
@Not Me, Bubba
I agree with you there. That’s a good post.
And I actually see your point about paying for an ID. But, until the state provides a free one, then it has to be paid for, a necessary evil. Of course, free ones are also paid for, in taxes. TANSTAAFL.
@Not Me, Bubba
I agree with the vast majority of #25.
I’m not in favor of a voter ID. I know this sets me apart from my conservative brothers and sisters on here but I think our current system of showing an ID or signing an affirmation of identification is sufficient. If – IF – we needed another check to make voting integrity a bit more solid I say we use purple indelible ink.
You’ll get resistance from Chicago. 😉
@Moon-howler There are so many able and willing folks here who point out R sins daily. They’re doing such a good job I didn’t want to steal their thunder.
“We need to prove ID because voter registration can be fraudulent. We need a backstop. And you’re decrying the cost? ”
A voter registration card has one’s printed name, address and voting precinct on it. Whenever I give my reg card they ask me to verify my info on it. No license needed. In fact to provide residency, you have to supply a utility bill, mortgage payment, rent receipt or other residential payment to eeven get a voter reg card. If you are very poor and barely able to scrape by (and trust me, there are more out there than you and I think there are), schlepping down to the DMV and paying $15 to $30 for an ID to guarantee you the right to vote is, yes, a poll tax and an undue burden.
“Why are you in support of voter fraud?”
I am not nor have I ever been. I am cedrtain it does happen, but an ID will not solve it either….I remember getting into bars back in my college days UNDERAGE and I used another’s ID…..nuff said.
“And where in that post do you see a wish to remove the right to vote for women? And the debate over the election of Senators is a valid one or was the first 100 years of Senator elections a problem? ”
There are those who wish to repeal ALL ammendments AFTER the 10th. The women’s suffrage ammendment I believe is the 19th….
I do not use alternet as my only news source, I have read those things elsewhere.
But I do not support any candidate or party who wishes to remove my right to vote for a federal senator from my state. Letting the legislator do that for me, especially for a state assembly with which I mostly oppose – the only interest that serves is to make sure the majority rules and a political monopoly is established. It may have worked for 100 years, but was changed for a reason.
Oh and Cargo – I meant to add this but forgot. As for teh national healthcare we are all supposed to buy – well, I wouldn’t mind so much *IF* that the insurance all were supposed to buy would cover anything the patient needs.
See Congress & Prez decided not to overturn/repeal the McCarran-Ferguson act of 1953 which states an insurance company can deny a claim WHENEVER it likes and is held free from legal repercussions for not paying out benefits. So yeah we may all have to get the insurance, but we are al being forced to buy a bogus product. Flu shot? No problem! Cancer & Chemotherapy? F-YOU – costs to much, so whatcha gonna do about THAT?
And as much as I wish I were joking, I am NOT. More fanaticism and fainting vapors over abortion in that bill than what should have REALLY been the sole focus. But as the politicos and media machine knows, nothing is more sensational than sensationalism to get teh people to look ELSEWHERE – even if it F’s them in the end. :>(
But why should anyone have to help with the cost if one can produce enough evidence that he/she lives at X place to get the voter registration card? And why then subsidize the free ID when that $$$ can go elsewhere – like schools or to medical costs?
As for keeping people honest, the government can hardly do that. Look at the oodles of $$$ given to a handful of contractors for overseas expenditures – when those contractors are charging $100 for the proverbial “toilet seat”? Does government keep Wall Street honest with all the deregulation – the deregulation that was supposed to HELP our economy? Even with laws and penalties, it doesn’t stop CAFOs from dumping pig/cow/chicken crap into our waterways. Government can only do so much, it is up to teh people to make sure THOSE things end or are severely curtailed. Government cannot instill honesty – especially with who is IN government from the local to national level…when they themselves are only looking out for themselves.
Moon,
If I am convinced I will get nothing, and end up getting something, I will consider it a blessing, rather than curse the system.
I agree. SS should BY LAW only be allowed to be used for SS….and the fed needs to payback all those IOU’s too. Like a parent raiding their kid’s piggy-bank
@Moon-howler
“I want to do away with the electoral college even. ”
OH HELL YES…..
“Government cannot instill honesty – especially with who is IN government from the local to national level…when they themselves are only looking out for themselves.”
Exactly. So lets make it harder for those IN government to commit voter fraud.
And yes, I accused Alternet of bias. I have my own. I don’t hide it.
And no. I don’t want to get rid of the electoral college. It evens things out between the more populace areas and the rural areas. If we didn’t have it, candidates could campaign in the 6 or 7 largest cities and win the election. The college forces candidates to appeal to the WHOLE country.
The justification for the original election process for Senator was that the Senator was primarily a representative of the STATE, not the citizen and that being elected that way would mean that he/she would not pander to the popular cause du jour or the populace.
Since the Feds seem to think that they rule the States, I’d say that the current process is NOT a complete success.
I was sort of thinking about popular vote.
Probably a good compromise would be like one or 2 states already do…split those votes up proportionally.
The winner taking all is what I object to.
Do you honestly think that a Senator wouldn’t pander to the state legislatures? That would be the worse abuse of power of all. Why do states need a representative? The people should elect their representatives that go for that state. When the legislatures elect someone as a representtives, then government is chosing for you. That surprises me that you would like that. I sure don’t.
And the states think they rule the localities, pretty much because they ultimately do. Why would I want to give a state even more power to make laws I don’t like.
On questions of patriotism…..an interesting article with good comments
http://www.patheos.com/community/philosophicalfragments/2011/07/05/yes-im-questioning-your-patriotism/comment-page-1/#comment-4944
Moon, I put the above #38 in the wrong thread. Please move to the Open thread. Thanks.
Cargo, repost and I will erase this one. I don’t know how to actually move a comment and have it show up correctly.
Let me know when its done.
@Steve Thomas
Totally agree. SS has been used like an ATM also. That is why I bellowed so loudly over VRS.
I hope there is some left for you, Steve. I was pleasantly surprised, after a lifetime of doom and gloom. I sort of thought the same thing. I will just be pleasantly surprised.
@Cargosquid
“Exactly. So lets make it harder for those IN government to commit voter fraud.”
By issuing each voter a state/government ID???? LOL….
It’s like where my husband works….he is a contractor to the government to do computer work fo a part of the government, but in order to make sure the company for whom he works (and ALL other contractors as well) is doing their job, the government hires another contractor to watch over contractor #1 to make sure they’re doing their job….and so on.
So if we mandate all voters to pay for a government-issued ID, instead of the local requirements of utility bills/rent receipts/mortgage bills to establish residency and ID – we’re going to hire the government to make and ISSUE ID’s so the government cannot tamper with the voting process.
Forgive me if I find that just a bit ironic and naieve.
Voter fraud will happen even if we all have to show ID’s and even if we have to prove we own a home to be eligible to vote (yes, landowners were once the only ones to be able to vote). So what requirement is next to make sure nobody else cheats? Only mortgage holders?
Don’t you think that most people have a govt. issue ID between state, local and federal govt?
What percent of people do not? Even one of those school ID cards is a govt issue ID.
ID isn’t the sword I am going to fall on but I sure don’t mind being asked to show it.
So as the sun sets on this post, ARE Republicans normal?
@Moon-howler
Yep.
Just as normal as any other American, God help us.
And…as a quick note…the senators would work for the state….they were the teeth to the 10th Amendment to restrict an overreaching fed’l gov’t. You elect the legislature that elects the Senators. The Senator was yet another check on Federal power.
The Founders were fans of indirect democracy. Direct democracy was and is a dangerous tool that can lead to tyrannical rule or mob rule.
Actually the question is….
Is David Brooks a normal Republican?
The only thing missing from Mr. Brook’s rant of calling us country rubes is the ‘bless his/her little heart’ part.
@Cargosquid
Remember that the Continental Congress sent out readers to all the colonies to read the Declaration of Independence because so many people couldn’t read or write.
Additionally, how many people couldn’t vote because they didn’t own land?
I think we are safe voting for our own senators. Most of us don’t need a proxy to vote for them. We are adults and most of us can now read and write.
Not sure it matters what Brooks is. I do know that Republicans now aren’t what they used to be.
@Moon-howler
“Not sure it matters what Brooks is. I do know that Republicans now aren’t what they used to be.”
If I had to peg him on the Republican Scale, I’d classify him as a “Rockefeller Republican”, but that really only puts him in a smaller subset of the overall party. Prehaps Republicans aren’t the same as they once were, but neither are Democrats. The Democrats have moved decidedly further and further left, ever since the 1972 Democrat Convention. Maybe not your average person who grew up in a Democrat household, and as an adult has voted Democrat. But the leadership of the party has moved left…very left. The GOP’s shift to the right can be attributed as a reaction (begining in 1984) to the Democrats earlier shift to the left.
I’m not advocating returning to state election of Senators right now. However, one has to admit that the change in electing Senators changed the balance of power first set up in the Constitution, giving much more power to the Federal Government.
If one wants more independent states, one advocates a return to the original process. I think that a debate on that would do wonders for the country. Someone should put in a repeal amendment.