Reed: Senate Integrity Demands Burris be Denied

Hi, folks, and welcome back. Our topic this week is, "Should the United States Senate seat Roland Burris?" Based on the flip of the coin, I will argue that Burris should be denied entry into this august law-making body.

It's important to note that, even as we argue the point, the wheels are turning and a decision may be finalized as the debate gets posted. This should not affect our arguments or your comments. In fact, any decision on Burris' fate may indeed make the debate more lively. Remember, too, that the ultimate decision could have affects reaching well outside the borders of Illinois.

It is important to begin by noting that, while some may question Burris' overall ability to be an effective voice for the people of Illinois in the U.S. Senate, no one has thus far questioned his moral character or intimated that he is privy to the scandal in Springfield. Burris, 71, was the first African-American to be elected to statewide office in Illinois and served as its comptroller in an admirable fashion. As Illinois' appointed Attorney General, he has avoided the odorous taint that often overwhelms high-ranking politicians in a state where a felony record is not required to hold high office, but often seems inevitable by the time the office holder leaves office and enters into custody.

The fact remains, however, that Burris has tried and failed on numerous occasions to earn the trust of Illinois voters in an attempt to gain higher political office. He was defeated in a run for the U.S. Senate in 1984. He failed in attempts to become Illinois' governor in 1994, 1998, and 2002. He was trounced by Richard Daley when he ran for Mayor of Chicago in 1995.

One must admit that Roland Burris is no quitter. His desire for high office, and some would say his incredible ego, has led him to make comments that have raised questions among Illinois voters as to his desirability. According to an article printed in the Chicago Tribune in November of 1993, Burris claimed that he was "not some fluke or perennial candidate." In 1998, the Tribune quoted Burris referring to his democratic primary opponents as "non-qualified white boys."

The fact that Burris would play "the race card" in a state where many African-Americans had already made great strides toward overcoming racism is telling, and a very good reason for the Senate leadership to deny Burris' entry. Illinois Congressman Danny Davis, Governor Rob Blagojevich's first choice for the seat, is also black. But according to the Chicago Sun-Times, Davis refused the offer of the seat from the scandal-tainted Governor, saying, "It would be difficult for me to generate the trust level people would have to have in me" (see: www.suntimes.com/news/commentary/1363433.)

Illinois Congressman Bobby Rush, a former Black Panther, apparently views the issue as soley about race. According to the Sun-Times article mentioned above, Rush referred to the United States Senate as "the last bastion of plantation America." He told the Tribune that senate democrats would "have to come and ask for forgiveness" from black voters if they failed to seat Burris.

This style of politics has become, almost exclusively, the mantra of aging civil-rights-era veterans who, in large part, shunned the Obama candidacy in favor of Hillary Clintons's more traditional campaign rhetoric. But the change that President-elect Obama championed is based not on eliminating the pain of an "oppressed minority", but rather unifying Americans to face the challenges of new and uncharted territory, to the benefit of all. In spite of Rush's statement that the United States Senate "needs an African-American", what the people of Illinois, and indeed the entire nation, need is a Senator who can take his or her seat free of scandal and ready to meet the challenges and sieze the opportunities brought about by our recent history-making election.

My learned opponent will no doubt argue that Blagojevich, while under federal indictment for trying to sell the Senate seat to the highest bidder, is still the Governor of Illinois, and as such has the authority to appoint the successor to Barack Obama until such time as the people of Illinois, or the courts, take away that privilege. Such is not likely to occur any time soon. But the Senate also has legal authority to refuse to seat Roland Burris. According to Article I, Section V of the U.S. Constitution, "Each House Shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members." Section V goes on to say that "Each House may determine the rules of its proceedings" (see: http://www.usconstituion.net/).

Thus it appears that Burris, should he arrive at the doors of the Capitol with certified election papers bearing the signature of the Illinois Secretary of State and the official seal of the State of Illinois, then he will be the legally-appointed Senator from that state. And should two-thirds of the Senate refuse entry to Burris, for whatever reason, he will have no recourse on the federal level unless the Supreme Court intervenes, which is highly unlikely.

So this is not a legal argument. Rather, it is an argument based on somber judgement, common sense and an eye toward the greater good. As the Sun-Times said in a January 6 editorial, "If Burris is truly taking this job for the benefit of the people of Illinois, as he insists, he'll do the honorable thing - not take it. This is not about race, this is not about Burris. This is about standing up for fair play."

Fair play - not a common term used in political discourse over the last century, especially in Illinois. But in light of an historic election in the midst of uncertain and tenuous times, strong leadership and fair play may well be the only things that save our great nation. Illinois, and the United States Senate and the people it represents, deserve no less.

Dano: If it's Legal, Let Burris Sit in the U.S. Senate

Welcome back, folks. This week, Reed and I are revisiting political matters, mostly because there's a lot to discuss, but also because we sense our readers prefer political topics to non-political ones. Feel free to correct our assumption if it's wrong.

The coin flip has me arguing this week that the United States Senate should not block the seating of former Illinois Attorney General, Roland Burris, as Barack Obama's replacement. My arguing this position requires that indicted Governor, Rod Blagojevich, was within his legal rights to make this appointment (which I believe he was), and, further, that the Illinois Supreme Court will either force the reluctant Illinois Secretary of State to certify the appointment, or will determine that certification is not legally necessary (these issues are yet to be determined). As of Tuesday, January 6th, the U.S. Senate has refused to seat Burris on the sole basis that his paperwork is not certified by the Illinois Secretary of State. I will proceed as if these issues will be taken care of, such that the U.S. Senate will be saddled with this seating decision without regard to technical impediments.

A little housekeeping for anyone who may not know it: the United States Senate does not have to allow anyone to hold a Senate seat, even if they were legally and unquestionably elected by the people of their state. All it takes is a 2/3 majority vote for the Senate to deny someone a Senate seat, so the issue at stake here is more a moral or ethical one than a legal one.

Those who would suggest that the Senate should deny Burris the seat are, most often, relying on the notion that the appointment itself was inappropriate because Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich has been indicted for corruption -- specifically, for trying to "sell" Obama's vacated Senate seat for his own personal gain. Current Illinois Attorney General, Lisa Madigan, asked the Illinois Supreme Court to strip Blagojevich of his Gubernatorial duties (including the Senate appointment) pending the outcome of legal investigations. They denied her request. Every Democrat in the U.S. Senate asked Blagojevich not to make any appointments, as did the Illinois legislature and most other officials in that state. By and large, the Illinois electorate also appears to have been against the Governor's action. But the rub is that he hasn't been convicted of any wrongdoing, yet. So, what's the deal?

Two Kinds of Justice

This topic is pretty easy for me, because, as a former paralegal and a current criminologist, I have studied law extensively. For those of you who very well understand U.S. jurisprudence, please forgive the "professorial tone" of the following paragraph; most people have not studied these issues, so a little background to support my point may be necessary.

There are, in the U.S., two distinct kinds of justice -- procedural justice (meaning that outcomes are just, based upon the use of proper legal procedures), and substantive justice (meaning outcomes are just, based upon the facts as determined by the finders of fact). Most of us believe, in our hearts, in the supremacy of substantive justice over procedural justice. Remember the national outcry when O.J. Simpson was acquitted of the murders of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman? His acquittal was actually based upon the findings of fact made by the jury (sounds like substantive justice), but the jury's findings were greatly affected by law enforcement's procedural mistakes. In the United States, procedural mistakes, especially deliberate procedural wrongdoing, is thought to be as egregious as Simpson's alleged criminal acts. In fact, all appeals of criminal convictions must be based on procedural mistakes or wrongdoing, not upon the findings of fact. Note to law enforcement: DON'T EVER TRY TO FRAME A GUILTY PERSON. The upshot of this is that, no matter how we may disagree with the outcome, Simpson was appropriately acquitted of those murders from a procedural justice point of view. So, what does this have to do with Blagojevich appointing Roland Burris? Read on.

The Law is the Law

Blagojevich has not been tried on the charges for which he was indicted, no less convicted. "Innocent until proven guilty" remains the standard upon which we base our legal procedures. There has not been even a single formal release of evidence against Blagojevich, because there has been no formal prosecution. Yeah...I believe, as many do, that he probably is guilty as charged -- the man is an unpleasant person who seems inclined to abuse power in the ways he has been accused of abusing it. But, again, this is not sufficient to call him a guilty man.

Blagojevich remains the duly elected Governor of Illinois, and the law says that, as such, he alone has the ability to appoint a replacement for Obama as U.S. Senator from Illinois. The law doesn't require that he do so, but he has the sole ability. Because the Illinois Supreme Court has elected not to act against him, the Illinois Legislature is the only remaining legal body with the ability to modify the Governor's procedural rights (presumably by impeaching and successfully prosecuting him for some crime or crimes). This has not occurred. Therefore, as distasteful as it seems, Governor Blagojevich was within his rights as Governor of Illinois to appoint Roland Burris to replace Obama.

The U.S. Senate "Calculus"

So the question for the U.S. Senate becomes an ethical one: Should we allow the man appointed by the tainted Illinois Governor to hold a Senate seat, or should we deny his entry and wait for the people of Illinois to replace Obama in a new election? It is clear that they are leaning toward denying Burris the seat, but this is a mistake.

The fact is that U.S. Senators are lawmakers. As such, they should be the standard-bearers of impeccable legal procedure. In this case, they should recognize that Burris's appointment was legal and procedurally allowable. More importantly, however, denying him the seat based upon "gut feelings" about Blagojevich's guilt, while within their rights, amounts to convicting Blagojevich in a kangaroo court. I, personally hold U.S. Senators to a higher standard than that. Because Blagojevich was not actually convicted of wrongdoing, there is simply no logical reason to suggest that Burris is not a valid appointee. Remember, Roland Burris has not been accused of wrongdoing, and was, in fact, the Attorney General in Illinois who ran unsuccessfully against Rod Blagojevich for Illinois Governor. While Burris has also previously run for the U.S. Senate and been denied by the voters, this appointment is legal. The Illinois voters will have their chance to correct any "mistake" they feel has been made in the next election cycle. Members of the U.S. Senate, I fear, are playing politics at the expense of procedural justice.

Really?

Should Roland Burris have accepted the nomination? There's another can of worms, but, in my humble opinion, it's irrational political suicide. Maybe being irrational and suicidal are reason enough for the Senate to deny him the seat.

Naw...

Dano: Public Campaign Financing? It Doesn't Matter

(Note: Reed's post gives a succinct history of campaign finance in the U.S., so I'll not repeat it. I will also avoid repeating his citations for brevity, though I relied on some of them also.) 

Well, for a change, I got a coin-flip this week that threw me for a loop. I am supposed to argue that we should maintain the public campaign finance system for federal elections (and, perhaps, mandate its use). But, by golly, after my research, I decided that it doesn't make a lick of difference where the candidates get their "individual contributions." I guess that sounds confusing.

The term, "public financing," is a bit of a misnomer. The fact is that money provided by the government comes from individual taxpayers (private citizens) who decided to contribute $3.00 of their personal tax obligation to the campaign finance fund for presidential elections. Yes, this is a small amount from each donor, but it adds up (though, as of 2006, fewer than 10% of taxpayers contributed annually--more on this issue, later). Moreover, there is an element of private donations within the public finance system, because it only provides "matching funds" of up to $250 per private donation. "Private financing" simply means that individuals donate directly to candidates instead of doing so through their tax returns. The difference is that individuals can (and do) contribute considerably more, though also limited by law, through this direct-donation mechanism. Also by law, corporations are prohibited from donating directly to candidates under both systems.

Fundamentally, proponents of public campaign financing say that this system reduces the possibility of corruption (because the source of candidate funding is known in advance, and is above-board), and helps to minimize the relative advantage of having deeper coffers than other candidates, such that "buying an election" becomes less likely. Under this system, candidates are not permitted to use more than $50,000 of their own money for their campaigns (unlike the substantial personal financial input provided by previous candidates, Steve Forbes, Ross Perot, Mitt Romney, and Hillary Clinton, to name a few). Of concern to candidates of parties other than Democratic or Republican, public financing is not available to them.

Those who support private campaign financing suggest that it, alone, protects the constitutional right of (unlimited) free speech, and that this system is regulated sufficiently to guard against corruption. The system is said to be superior because each donor has the right to direct their support to a specific candidate (where no such ability exists with public finance funds), further protecting the rights of donors to not support a candidate they don't like. Moreover, there are no limits on how much can be amassed in the aggregate, so if a candidate enjoys support from a much larger proportion of the public than his/her opponents, then his advantage in advertising funds is proportionate and fair. Finally, any party's candidates can get this form of funding -- not just Democrats and Republicans.

So, why doesn't it matter which system we use?

Of minor relevance, there are some equalizing factors between the two systems. First, the advantages of private financing are mitigated by available funds through public financing: 1) public financing subsidizes the nomination conventions of those candidates that accept it (not an insubstantial cost), and 2) public financing pays for the costs of attorneys and other administrative costs (also nothing to sneeze at). But that's not the main issue.

A less obvious issue is that, while we all know that public financing, at least in the 2008 campaign, garnered Senator McCain only about half the money that was collected by President-elect Obama, this is a consequence of both systems being utilized. Remember, above I noted that income tax contributions to public financing were made by fewer than 10% of taxpayers in recent years. (http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2007-04-17-preztax_N.htm?csp=34)

 If, however, candidates were required to use public financing (or, more accurately, prohibited from using private financing), the percentage of citizens choosing to donate with their tax returns would likely rise precipitously.  So, while the free choice to accept private financing exists along with the public financing system, a candidate can choose either method and take his chances, but private financing seems to hold the advantage so long as it remains available. This, by itself, is no reason to mandate one or the other.

The overarching reason the system chosen doesn't matter is that they each deal with "hard money" contributions only. Both systems allow expenditures of "soft money" contributions through the activities of political action committees (PACs), and by organizations known as "527s" and "501(c)s." Taken together, these organizations spend unlimited donation monies to support issues (directly), and candidates (indirectly ). The only "free speech" limitation on these groups is that they cannot suggest voting for or against a particular candidate. They can (and do), however, say things like, "candidate A is the only patriotic contender," and "candidate B is clearly unpatriotic." The power of these groups to affect elections was well illustrated by the soft-money-funded "swift boat" campaign against Senator John Kerry in the 2004 presidential race -- many believe this advertising strategy cost Kerry the election. The Supreme Court has upheld the right of these groups to advertise in this way, and no legislation short of a Constitutional amendment can change this fact (see Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 [1976]). So, essentially, as long as PACs, 527s, and 501(c)s can operate with impunity, their impact on election outcomes is far more relevant than the direct ads by the candidates, regardless of the sources of their funding.

Some might argue that direct candidate ads have a great deal of impact on voters' choices. That may be true, but I submit that the number of ads, and the geographic spread of them, is not as important to campaigns as it once was because of the advent of 24 hour news networks that endlessly replay the campaign ads of the candidates during the entire course of the election cycle. Even though John McCain spent far less than Barack Obama, for instance, I saw every important political ad that McCain produced as many times as I saw Obama's ads (okay...maybe not quite as many times, but effectively so). The news pundits see these ads as free content, and this essentially gives every candidate free air time. Unfortunately, the news outlets also give free replay time to the ads from the PACs, 527s and 501(c)s. So, again, the power of soft money organizations remains superior. Until this changes (through FCC regulations on media or a Constitutional amendment limiting soft money free speech), there is simply no important difference between the public and private campaign finance systems.

Campaign finance is a very complicated issue, to be sure. But concerning ourselves with an either/or argument over public or private donations is, quite simply, a misdirected effort. Both systems are regulated to prevent corruption, with debatable success, perhaps. But campaign finance reform needs to concern itself primarily with soft money controls if we expect to level the playing field for all candidates and prevent corruption and influence peddling in presidential campaigns.

Reed: Presidential Candidates Don't Need Our Tax Money to Run a Campaign

Hello, folks, and welcome back to Butt and Rebutt. As you've noted, we have been somewhat out of the loop, but this week we're back with a vengeance, and our topic is, "Should public financing continue to be available to candidates for president?". Based on our coin toss, I will argue that public financing for national campaigns has outlived its usefulness if, indeed, it ever had any.

Our recent election brought this issue to the forefront in a surprising way. The Republican candidate, Senator McCain, opted to accept public funds, while the historically cash-strapped Democrats prodded Senator Obama to forego public funding. The Democratic strategy, fueled by Democratic National Committee chairman Howard Dean, proved to be an overwhelming obstacle to Sen. McCain's ability to compete for expensive media time, and many pundits are convinced that, once again, this election was won and lost on the ledgers, not at the ballot box.

Sen. McCain, however, had little choice but to opt for public money. He was, after all, the co-author of the famous (or infamous, depending on your point of view) McCain-Feingold Act, more properly known as the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002. President Bush signed the act into law on March 27, 2002, making it the first meaningful revision to laws pertaining to public financing of elections since the first such measures began being administered by the Federal Elections Commission (FEC) in 1976 (see www.fec.gov/pages/bcra).

It is important to note that 1976 was not the year that this issue came to the forefront. In 1966, Congress passed legislation that would have provided public money to Presidential candidates by funneling funds through the political parties. According to the FEC, the law was suspended a year later, for obvious reasons (www.fec.gov/pages/brochures/pubfund). In fact, not even in 1966 were Americans first prodded to look at such a system. Fifty-nine years earlier, according to the FEC, Theodore Roosevelt proposed that public financing of national elections was the only means through which a fair result could be obtained.

Roosevelt's argument in 1907 was the same as that which resonates today - money, and I mean big money, perverts the political realm and insures that only the wealthy and well-heeled can attain high office. To the founding fathers, service was expected and personal gain was set aside. But by Roosevelt's time, special interests had already begun to pervert the process and political chicanery had become commonplace. Thus the argument was, and remains today, that public financing is the only way to assist a candidate with modest means to aspire to greatness in the political arena.

I don't buy it, no pun intended. I agree, as I assume the vast majority of our readers and Americans in general do, that money has indeed become a corrupting influence in the political realm. And the fact that Barack Obama raised more than half a billion dollars to compete for a job that pays $400,000.00 a year raises the simple question, "Why?"Our system has been co-opted by special interests, to be sure, and the money is the driving force. But it's relevant to note that, according to the New York Times and Fox News (organizations that don't often find themselves in agreement, editorially speaking), the average donation to the Obama campaign was less than $90.00.

The most money raised in any political campaign in history, and the average donor gave ninety bucks. Do the math. It's clear that, in spite of our cynicism and anger over how lobbyists, corporations, unions and radicals on the right and left have dominated the money grubbing and media hype, the common man and woman still care enough to fork over a few bucks to support a cause.That's democracy in action, the little person stepping up to help the candidate who best represents his or her values, beliefs and interests on the national level. But that citizen, passionate for a candidate or a cause, has no control over how the federal government doles out his or her tax dollars to presidential aspirants. In other words, your taxes may be going into the campaign coffers of a candidate you find totally repugnant.

I know I don't like that. I assume you don't either. But I also don't like the system the way it is, or was, where money drives politicians to say anything it takes to get elected, to crawl in bed with whatever special interest has the most umph, and then to claim high moral standards as a reason to earn my vote. So the idea of using tax-payer dollars to fund campaigns was based on noble ideals. But as so often happens in the political realm, the best intentions often produce the worst results.

This is a complicated issue on several fronts. Dating back to the 1970's, challenges to restrictions on fund raising and expenditures in political campaigns have hinged on the First Amendment's guarantee of free speech. In 1976, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a ruling in the case of Buckley v. Valeo which upheld the notion of restrictions on certain campaign fund raising as "primary weapons against the reality or appearance stemming from the dependence of candidates on large campaign contributions." However, in the very same ruling, the court recognized the validity of free-speech arguments, stating, "virtually every means of communicating ideas in today's mass society requires the expenditure of money." Restrictions on this form of free speech, the court said, could only be justified in the case of an overriding governmental interest (see http://www.campaignfinancesite.org/court/buckley.html.)

In this seemingly contradictory ruling, the court did not spell out what constitutes "overriding governmental interest," but the concern was balancing a group or individual's right to participate in the electoral process with the need to prevent graft and corruption within that process. I submit that this balance, and indeed all the concerns expressed in Buckley and cases brought subsequent to this ruling, can be addressed by common sense regulation of private sector contributions to candidates and parties.

I would accomplish this by instituting two major reforms to the current system which I believe would render public financing unnecessary. First, Congress should enact legislation that prevents a candidate for federal office from soliciting or accepting contributions for his or her campaign for a period of time equal to half the term of the office sought. In other words, a candidate for the office of president, which carries a four-year term, could not officially form a campaign committee or raise and spend outside contributions until two years prior to the general election. This is important because, while we prepare to inaugurate the man we elected this month to serve for the next four years, National Public Radio has reported that former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee is in Iowa, planning his strategy for a 2012 run for the presidency (All Things Considered, November 22.)

Nothing in the legislation would impede a potential future candidate such as Governor Huckabee from traveling around making speeches. It would, however, prevent political parties, corporations or wealthy individuals from contributing to a campaign fund in the candidate's name.

The second and equally important aspect of this reform would identify, once and for all, who may or may not contribute to national candidates and how much that candidate can lawfully raise. An individual's campaign would be allowed to raise no more than ten times the amount of the salary paid by the office aspired to during the course of one term. In other words, a candidate aspiring to attain the presidency, and its $400,000.00 annual salary, could raise and spend no more than $16 million. That money could be raised through donations from individuals not to exceed $2000.00, or corporations, unions, or parties not to exceed $50,000.00.

While these sums may seem paltry compared to the massive amounts of money currently spent on national campaigns, a shortened political season would mean less money would be necessary. Such a system as proposed would also serve to level the playing field for third-party candidates, or those with less name recognition.

There is one argument that public-finance proponents offer that would not be addressed under a system such as I propose. That is the notion that unheralded candidates with modest financial means and no name recognition could not compete. I would submit this argument is flawed for two reasons. One, it is false on its face. Raise your hand if you had ever heard of Ron Paul before the Republican debates first aired. Very few hands in the air. But the Texas Congressman set a single day financing record, raking in more that a million dollars over the Internet after his first debate performance.

Secondly, a young state senator from Illinois, from a very modest background and without a war chest, went from virtual unknown to President-elect in four years due to nothing more than his eloquence and perseverance. Proof positive that gifts of style and substance can overcome, at least in the short term, a lack of money or power.

In closing, I believe we can all agree that our political system, with its reliance on massive amounts of money and influence, is broken. The answer lies not in turning the system over to the government, or by completely deregulating the system. As is often the case when things are complicated beyond the capability of most citizens to understand, we should strive to simplify this system while relying on citizen participation, not taxpayer funding, to select our leaders.

Reed: Electoral College has Outlived its Usefulness

Hi, folks, and welcome back. Let me begin by asking you to please spread the word that Butt and ReButt is back, and we want to be a strong force for reasonable, intelligent discussion and debate. So if your friends are not reasonable and intelligent, well......

At any rate, our topic this week regards the Electoral College. I won't do a John McCain here and say, "I bet you've never heard of that" because I know you have. And Dano has given us a very good primer on the history of the college, so I will argue, based on our coin toss, why the Electoral College is not only no longer necessary, but actually detrimental to our democratic process, and should be replaced by a national popular vote.

My grandmother, God rest her soul, loved Richard Nixon because she believed he had "an honest face." I'm confident not many who remember that heavy brow and five-o'clock shadow would agree. But beauty, talent and ability are indeed in the eyes of the beholder - in the case of presidential candidates, the voter. But voters in America, since Article II, Section One of the Constitution was adopted, have been casting their ballots not for president, but for electors.

That system was developed based on a variety of problems faced by the Founding Fathers (note: there were no founding mothers.) According to William Kimberling, a Deputy Director of the Federal Election Commission Office of Election Administration, the founders were dealing with a nation that:

• was composed of thirteen large and small states jealous of their own rights and powers and suspicious of any central national government,
  


• contained only 4 million people spread up and down a thousand miles of Atlantic seaboard barely connected by transportation or communication (so that national campaigns were impractical even if they had been thought desirable),
  


• believed, based on the influence of such British political thinkers as Henry St. John Bolingbroke, that political parties were mischievous if not downright evil, and
  


• felt that "gentlemen" should not campaign for public office (The saying was, "The office should seek the man, the man should not seek the office.") (Please note the web site of Federal Election Commission).
  

In the late 18th century, these might have been valid arguments for creating such a system as the Electoral College. But those arguments carry no validity today and for that reason, the system as it stands should be abolished.

This is not to say that individual states no longer jealously guard their rights. Citizens of each state own the right to elect their local and state leaders, and choose who they send to represent them on the national level in Congress. But, were it not applicable prior to 1865, certainly the outcome of the Civil War demonstrated that the union of the American states, and the federal government elected to represent that union, was and is the engine that drives our standing in a world that grows smaller every day.

We are now connected, by transportation and communication, not only between village and city, but state to state and nation to nation. Our population is no longer waiting in anticipation for the elite, more educated leaders of the community to report back from the halls of government as to what is best for our nation. Citizens, on an individual basis, are now expected to not only know what is happening within those halls, but to control them through the exercise of selecting our representatives in all branches of government.

Not only that, but federal law now trumps state law in almost every conceivable situation in which the two might clash. Therefore, each American deserves an equal say in who represents him or her on a national level. And the design of the Electoral College prevents this equality.

Consider the following: Activists and campaign volunteers, both Republican and Democrat, have stressed to potential voters that, no matter what your status in life, your vote counts just as much as that of anyone else. Were it only true. But based on the 2000 Census, and the Electoral College's allocation based on population, an individual voter in Wyoming carries approximately four times as much weight as a voter in California. This makes one wonder what is really the value in the concept of "one person, one vote."

The answer is, where presidential elections are concerned, the concept is false. Our current election race offers a prime example. Michigan, considered a "swing state" due to its high population, has been "written off" by the McCain campaign because, based on the opinion of McCain's handlers and the media pundits, Michigan is "unwinnable." So Senator McCain has pulled all of his campaign staff from Michigan to concentrate on other "swing states" such as Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Florida.

In other words, the voters of Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Florida will decide the presidential election for the entire country, and the voters of Michigan have now been informed that, for all intents and purposes, their votes don't matter and they can stay home. More importantly, the pundits will be calling the election before the polls even close in our nation's most populous state, thus rendering California's citizens' votes meaningless, since the Republicans will have conceded that state based on its electors' Democratic tendencies.

There have been many anomalies in Presidential elections throughout our history, most of which would have been avoided through a true popular vote. In 1836, one party, the Whigs, ran three different candidates in three separate sections of the country. The purpose was to ensure a Whig majority in the Electoral College by appealing to the particular desires of each demographic. The plan was foiled when the electors chose Democratic-Republican candidate Martin Van Buren by absolute majority - but the electors themselves found Van Buren's Vice-Presidential candidate so objectionable that they failed to vote for him. Thus it was left to the Senate to make the determination, and it chose Richard Johnson, the running mate, as Vice President.

The means through which our electors vote today do not necessarily preclude such a bizarre scenario from reoccurring. It is possible that an Electoral College could select Barack Obama, but refuse to recognize Joe Biden, thus turning the election of a Vice-President to the Senate. Such a scenario would certainly render the President impotent, because in our party system (which the founders were trying to avoid), the candidate's first and most telling decision is that of a running mate.

There are a number of reasons to believe that this system should be scrapped, but the most important is its inability to accurately reflect the will of the American people. This argument was made by Republicans in 1992 when the party noted that Bill Clinton did not win a majority of the popular vote, but was a clear winner in the Electoral College. And it is true he did not win the majority of votes - but he won more popular votes than either George H.W. Bush or Ross Perot, thus claiming a clear victory under the most "democratic" of principles.

The 2000 election also produced a winner who did not garnish the majority of the popular vote. The contrast, and the most telling reason why the current system should be abolished, is that the declared winner, George W. Bush, did not even win the most votes. Democrat Al Gore, according to the FEC, won over 500,000 more popular votes than did our current President (see FEC/GOV/2000). It will be left for history to decide how this travesty has affected our nation and our world.

In conclusion, I would submit that, in spite of our Constitution's creation of a republican form of government, an amendment allowing a democratically-elected President is now imperative. The President of the United States is, at least for now, the most powerful person on earth. If we desire to maintain our status as a leader in world that has evolved in startling fashion since our founding, we must allow our peoples' voice to be heard over that of outdated, unworkable tradition. One voice must carry the same weight as any other, and one vote must count as much in Kentucky as it does in Florida. Our people must elect our President.

Dano: Keep the Electoral College System...It's What the Founders Wanted

Okay, folks. Following a lengthy time during which I didn't feel I could do justice to the debates because of my head injuries, I'm getting back into it. While things are still difficult, I think I can function well enough, now, to give this a shot.

This week, the coin-flip says I argue for maintaining the Electoral College system for presidential and vice-presidential elections.


The "Problem" with the Electoral College

So, what is the big stink? Why are we asking this week's question?

While Reed will likely bring up other issues, the most prevalent complaint is simple. Under the Electoral College system, it is entirely possible for the majority of voters to vote for one party's candidates, and the other party's candidates to win the election. How? Easy.

Let's say that the eleven states with the highest number of electoral votes all vote for the Democratic candidates. These states and their numbers of electoral votes are: California (55), Texas (34), New York (31), Florida (27) Illinois (21), Pennsylvania (21), Ohio (20), Michigan (17), Georgia (15), New Jersey (15), and North Carolina (15). Their combined electoral votes equal 271, a sufficient number to win the presidency/vice presidency. But, remember, even in these states, the votes might have been very close; each state may have chosen the winners based upon a bare majority of the popular vote. If every other state in the country, either by a simple majority or an overwhelming majority, voted for the Republican ticket, the total collective nationwide popular vote would be overwhelmingly for the Republican ticket, but the electoral votes of the largest eleven states would have put the Democrats into office. We recently had a mismatch between the popular vote and the electoral vote, and thus, a controversial outcome. This was only the third time in our country's history that such a mismatch occurred, but it was so distressing to a great many voters that it may have been the most important wonky election result ever.

Many will recall the 2000 election, wherein George W. Bush won 271 electoral votes to Gore's 266, but Al Gore won the popular vote by more than 543,000 votes nationwide. Bush did not win via an electoral majority based upon the aforementioned largest eleven states, but won via a simple majority of the electoral vote from all states. The noted official count of the popular votes is independent of the Florida recount question (where many believe that Gore won more of the Florida vote than was actually counted). In other words, even after the official recounts were completed, Gore still had the advantage in popular votes. Many Americans who believe that the popular vote should have mattered in the election outcome have since been vocal opponents of the Electoral College system, whether they opposed it before the election or not. The crux of the issue for these folks, I believe, is the relative importance of the will of the people in choosing our highest elected officials. To be fair, neither candidate in 2000 won a majority of the popular vote (Gore, 48.38%, Bush, 47.87%), but Gore did have more of the popular vote. How could it be okay for more voters to select one party's ticket, and the electoral system to select the other? While I appreciate fairness as much as the next voter, my answer may anger some readers.

The Electoral College is The Best Solution

My primary argument in favor of the Electoral College centers around two things: 1) my own belief that average people don't necessarily make good voters, and 2) the Founding Fathers set up the Electoral College, and they were really, really smart people.

My own beliefs, first. I don't know exactly how or when I developed my views on this issue, but I feel them pretty strongly. I have long been annoyed by campaigns to "get out the vote" because my sense is that people who are politically engaged - those who care about things political - are already registered voters. For instance, if you care enough about what happens in the halls of Congress to exercise your singular voting power to affect legislation, would you not already be an active voter? To be sure, everyone's concerns about political things are proportionate to the amount of political activity that affects their interests. If you are an investor in the stock market, you are more likely to be concerned about legislative actions that affect the value of your investments on Wall Street than would be a non-investor. If you are a property owner, you are more likely to vote on a local referendum on property taxes than would be a renter. From this standpoint, many non-registered citizens are either not aware of the impacts of lawmakers or leaders on their lives, or there are insufficient concerns for them to get involved and to actually vote.

In all candor, I don't care nearly as much about local elections as I do national ones. But I did when I owned a business, here. At that point, I had concerns relative to the health and welfare of my retail store, my employees' job stability, my own administrative load, and my financial exposure due to business costs, taxes, and other such things. When there would arise a local concern about sales tax increases, it mattered to me. When the local city and county governments talked about consolidation that would affect police services, fire services, EMT services, costs of licensure, tax rates, and other issues, it mattered to me. But I no longer own a business, and I don't currently pay property taxes. In short, there are not a lot of local issues that directly affect me greatly, though I try to stay apprised of those issues that might. Nonetheless, because of my lack of vested interests in local issues, I tend not to vote in local elections as consistently as I do national ones.

The same things can be said about some citizens who do not register to vote, and/or don't ever participate in national elections. Perhaps they are unconcerned about whether there is welfare reform, or whether we allow illegal migrant workers to become citizens in some way, or whether taxes for people above the poverty line go up or down. Maybe some of them get lots of help from the government, with community health clinics and with unemployment benefits for six months whenever they might need them. Maybe they even rationalize that, regardless of their concerns, their one little solitary vote won't count in the scheme of things. In each of these cases, there is a lack of sufficient concern about their ability to have an important impact on political happenings to make them educate themselves about candidates or issues. This lack of education, and the associated lack of concern, is (I believe) at the root of voter apathy in this country. But is it really smart, or even okay, for such uninvolved and uneducated people to register and subsequently vote for a candidate based solely upon some unimportant characteristics of the individual candidate, or upon the quasi-authority they personally assign to a preferred commentator or their chosen TV news channel? Voting without a thorough understanding of at least some of the relevant issues, and at least a cursory understanding of the political platform of the candidates, is neither okay nor desirable. Voting for Barack Obama because he's the first viable African American candidate, or for John McCain because he was a POW and he chose a really cute running mate that winks at you through your TV screen is not okay. Voting for the Democratic ticket because Keith Olbermann doesn't like Rush Limbaugh, or for the Republicans because you thought Bill Clinton was an adulterous scoundrel is not okay. Put simply, don't vote if you don't care or if you don't understand the substantive differences between the candidates and/or the issues.

Why be concerned about how many people vote? Primarily, candidates feel that the more people of their party they register to vote, the greater their total number of collective votes will be. Assuming there is no "close call" in a given state, having the majority of votes will gain you the electoral votes you want. Moreover, regardless of winning via electoral majority, if candidates get more than 50% of the popular vote, they feel they have a public "mandate" to push forward their platform promises. So, the way things are, popular vote numbers still matter under the Electoral College system. For pragmatic reasons if not others, politicians don't seem to care about whether their voters are well-involved political students. Nonetheless, this concern about voters being thoughtful and well-informed, if not having a vested interest in political outcomes, is not just unique to me. In fact, it was at the very heart of the development of the Electoral College system. Read on.

The Founding Fathers' Intentions


Whenever a question comes up about the meaning of a loosely constructed or vague Constitutional provision, legal and political scholars often seek the guidance of other historical documents to decipher the intent of our Founding Fathers. What were they thinking? Why did they write it this particular way? One of the most instructive sources of their intent is the body of essays known as the Federalist Papers, written by many of the most preeminent statesmen of the day prior to our Independence. Many would suggest that the Federalist Papers were, in fact, sort of a first draft of the U.S. Constitution. The unique characteristic of these essays is that they are more like a thought diary, or the closest thing we have to a transcript of their debates on important issues that would later become Constitutional provisions.

The genesis of the Electoral College system, and, more specifically, the Founders' intentions with regard to the system of voting for our highest Federal leaders, is clearly illustrated in the Federalist Papers. Specifically, Federalist No. 68, authored largely by Alexander Hamilton, explains why the Founders wanted a group of electors to vote on behalf of the population, rather than counting on the citizens through a tally of their personal votes. Within their language, I find an uncanny similarity to my own personal belief about voters needing to be educated and involved before voting. The following language is from Federalist No. 68, although I have added the italics to sections that are particularly salient:

It was desirable that the sense of the people should operate in the choice of the person to whom so an important trust was to be confided. This end will be answered by committing the right of making it, not to any preestablished body, but to men chosen by the people for the special purpose, and at the particular conjuncture.

 It was equally desirable, that the immediate election should be made by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice. A small number of persons, selected by their fellow citizens from the general mass, will be most likely to possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated investigations.

See http://federalistpapers.com/federalist68.html for more details.

Clearly, the Founders were concerned that only qualified people actually vote for our highest leaders. Suggesting that a "small number" of people, "most likely to possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated investigations," clearly reflects their desire that actual voters for president and vice president be uniquely qualified to make these important decisions - the clear implication being that average citizens (the "general mass") were not. While the "general mass" of today is a whole lot better educated generally than were the masses in our Founders' day, the apathetic voter of today is just as dangerous as the unqualified voters were then.

The Founders reckoned that the best way to insure that the actual votes being cast were done by thoughtful and qualified persons was to form what would later be known as the Electoral College, the body of proxies that would vote on behalf of the less-than-qualified average citizens. Nonetheless, they regarded the popular vote as important enough to be taken into account by the electors. And changes to the Constitution as well as state election laws have made the system, while not perfect, more fair today than ever before. It is simply a rarity, as in the 2000 election, that the popular vote majority does not end up choosing the winning presidential ticket.

Other Benefits of the Electoral College

Philosophical considerations aside, there are other important advantages inherent in the Electoral College system. I'll list a couple below, but there are many more. See http://www.uselectionatlas.org/INFORMATION/INFORMATION/electcollege_procon.php for more information.

One additional and important benefit is that the Electoral College eliminates the detrimental effects of disparities between voter turnout in various states. For instance, if November 4th finds the bulk of the country enjoying fair weather, but the New England states buried in eight feet of snow (which therefore prevents large numbers of Northern voters from getting to the polls), the states adversely affected still have their appointed numbers of electoral votes. In other words, even in a case where only 15% of voters can vote, so long as the proportional differences between the numbers of Democratic votes and Republican votes remains relatively constant within, say, Connecticut, that state will still have it's full number of allotted electoral votes. Imagine the detrimental affect, however, if we used a popular vote total, instead. Suddenly, the bad weather in traditionally Democratic Connecticut might unfairly compromise the Democrats nationally, because the solidly Republican central plains states see high voter turnout because their weather is pleasant. Under the Electoral College system, Connecticut still gets their seven electoral votes - even with only 15% voter turnout. Iowa, which may have had 60% voter turnout under good weather conditions, also only gets its seven allotted electoral votes. So the Electoral College manages to even out voter turnout differences while maintaining dependence on the popular vote within each state.

Another benefit of the Electoral College is that it isolates each state from all the others, and, therefore, isolates election problems as well. In other words, because the current system means that every state chooses its own rules and methods for generating the final state electoral tally, it is far easier to identify irregularities in voting infrastructure (think "hanging chad" from election 2000). Recounts necessitated by voting anomalies within a single state are more efficient than a nationwide recount in such a circumstance.

So, in the final analysis, there is nothing inherently wrong with the Electoral College system. Except in the rarest of cases, the power of individual votes still determines how the citizens of each state collectively vote for president and vice president. The advantages of the system are several-fold, but the fact that the College satisfies the Founding Fathers' desire that voters be educated, discerning, and interested persons is of the highest importance.

Todd Twilley: Offshore Drilling? Yes!

[Editorial note from Dano: Folks, this post is by regular commenter, Todd Twilley. As such, we cannot in good conscience hold steadfastly to our own rules regarding "keeping it neutral." Todd's post clearly reflects his ideology, but that's okay...he's just filling in for me this week. I will comment on his and Reed's posts as if Reed and I were debating, here. I encourage the rest of you to withhold judgment on the neutrality issue and comment as normal otherwise. Thanks for the assistance, Todd!]

Anyone who argues that offshore drilling is the magic bullet in energy independence is crazy. They are also crazy if they don't believe alternative energies should be explored. So I'm not going to argue offshore drilling is the be-all and end-all to energy independence. And I'm not going to say we shouldn't encourage businesses to improve alternative energy technology. What I am going to argue is that offshore drilling, actually using our own resources, is essential for our country's economic well-being until alternate technologies advance.

Offshore drilling will not allow for new American oil to be put on the market overnight. Its silly to suggest it can. But just the threat of America drilling and using its own oil resources sends a shiver down the spine of our enemies who control the oil markets. Here's the proof: On Monday July 14, President George W. Bush lifted the ban on offshore drilling and urged Congress to do the same. (see http://www.nola.com/business/index.ssf/2008/07/bush_lifts_ban_on_offshore_dri.html). That week, oil dropped $15 a barrel - a downward trend in oil prices that has continued to this day (see http://www.nola.com/business/index.ssf/2008/07/bush_lifts_ban_on_offshore_dri.html).

Everyone knows OPEC controls the price of oil by how much they allow on the market, much as DeBeers controls the price of diamonds. And just like DeBeers' diamond resources, there's plenty of oil in the ground. This drop in price proves that OPEC is scared to death that we are going to drill for our own oil. Now Iran (who are not our friends, guys) says that OPEC needs to lower production to raise the prices of oil. Iran wants us to suffer economically. Iran has the alibi that the stronger dollar is the reason for the price drop in oil, and while the depleted value of the dollar has certainly contributed to the rise in the price of oil and gas (thank you, financial industry bailouts), it's recent recovery nowhere compares to the spike in oil prices we experienced during that dollar decline.

From OPEC nations to Russia, the countries that are out there who have oil are not our friends. And it's not a Bush foreign policy issue, either. They've never been our friends during the Industrial Age. We must show them we are serious and have a backbone. OPEC has held the power for decades. And now Russia is buying up oil reserves throughout the world. (see http://www.neurope.eu/view_news.php?id=69918).

Even if we don't use it. At least we need to find the oil and drill it. If we must, we can put a cap on the wells offshore and, should we need to show Russia or OPEC a thing or two, just haul an oil platform out to them and start pumping.

An estimated 18 billion barrels of offshore oil is now banned. Under the joke of a plan for "opening" offshore drilling proposed by the Democrat-controlled Congress, 90 percent of that would still be off limits. Democrats are not using logic here. But they are selfishly trying to win votes from their paranoid supporters. That's because its hard to defend the evidence above and say that offshore drilling won't have an impact on oil prices. Just talking about it has had an effect. Its a lot easier to use scare tactics and propaganda to argue against offshore drilling. Here are the arguments, in short, against offshore drilling and why they are faulty:

1. Storms such as Hurricane Ike shut down offshore rigs, divert tankers, and shut down refineries. What happened in Tallahassee wasn't a result of Hurricane Ike directly. It was more directly a result of the Tallahassee Democrat, group think and mass hysteria. It's unlikely anything short of a concentrated terrorist attack that takes out all our refineries would cause any true gas shortage.Oil rigs can be restaffed and operational usually within a couple of days after a storm event. It takes about the same two days to reroute tankers. Oil refining is the first industry behind hospitals and government to get working in a devastated coastal city.
   
2. Another argument is alternative energies. The legitimate alternative energies are susceptible to natural disasters, too. What happens when a tornado wipes out a windmill farm in the Midwest or a solar farm has an uncharacteristically low streak of mostly cloudy days? What happens when those dependent on hydro power experience a drought? And what happens when a nuclear power plant is targeted by terrorists?

Speaking of alternative energies, the ones mentioned above are the only true alternative sources. Our leaders in Washington want to divert our attention with hopes of Ethanol or hydrogen powered cars or even plug-in vehicles. Energy is energy folks. Hydrogen and Ethanol take too much energy to make them a worthwhile option. Technology may improve on the hydrogen end. But use of Ethanol is simply a special interest ploy to get Midwest farmer votes. The end effect of Ethanol we've seen in an increase in almost all types of food products. It's about the corn, which is the basis for all meat and dairy (it's what the cows and chickens eat). But those farmers who have raised feed are turning to Ethanol, not because its more profitable in the free market, but because the government is subsidizing Ethanol.

The problem with alternative energies such as nuclear power plants are that the same people who oppose offshore drilling have so burdened those who might invest in nuclear power plants with heavy regulation that it makes investment in this clean energy nigh impossible. The problem with wind and solar is that our technology is just not there yet to harvest enough energy. It's getting better all the time, but it needs to get a lot better before wind and solar are viable options. We'll be using oil primarily for the next 30 years until these technologies can advance far enough, I predict. Even if it's sooner, we'll still need the oil for plastic.

Then there is the environmental aspect. As far as oil spills, human error in transport causes oil spills, not offshore drilling. We're going to import oil from somewhere. There's a less chance of a transport disaster by transporting it a few hundred miles off our shores than from thousands of miles away.

But what about the oil when it is actually burned? Global warming. That's a whole other debate. But man-made global warming is about as real as the Tallahassee gas shortage. Or I should say it was as real as the Tallahassee gas shortage before everyone in the city went nuts. I just hope we burn enough oil to ensure we avoid the coming ice age. See these two links for proof on that: http://www.usatoday.com/weather/news/2008-09-09-farmers-almanac_N.htm

and http://www.dailytech.com/Sun%20Makes%20History%20First%20Spotless%20Month%20in%20a%20Century/article12823.htm.

Dano: The Flat Tax is Fair, Necessary

This week, Reed and I are discussing the flat tax concept for tax reform. I am arguing in favor of a flat tax. In the interest of full disclosure, I have to tell you that I cannot locate an "objective" web site that argues either for or against a flat tax. This is because, in modern politics, flat tax proposals are almost always championed by Republicans, and criticized as either unfair, unworkable, or irresponsible by Democrats. Even sources that are typically fairly neutral on most policy issues seem to show their conservative/liberal biases on this topic. To locate the reasons that a flat tax is good, therefore, it was necessary to consult fairly conservative sources - I chose The Heritage Foundation (http://www.heritage.org/research/taxes/) and the National Center for Policy Analysis (http://www.ncpa.org/pi/taxes/tax71.html#1). There were many more, but they almost all agree on the features of a flat tax system, so I chose these two for their fairly well-laid-out approach. Most of what follows, therefore, comes from these sources. I suspect that Reed will have had to do the opposite to argue against the flat tax.

Many people don't know what a flat tax is, so I'll give just a brief description. The truest form of flat tax is one that taxes everyone and every business at the same, fixed rate; usually, there are no deductions or exemptions in such systems. A single mother of four making $18,000 a year would pay the same percentage of her income as would someone making $500,000 a year with no children to support. This is patently a bad idea, because it burdens the poor disproportionately. Why? Because each dollar of a poor person's income is worth more to them than each dollar of a wealthy person's income. This is why our current tax system is graduated such that as a person's income increases, the rate at which each additional dollar (within given brackets) is taxed increases.

Assume a flat tax rate of 17%. The $3060 tax burden on the single mother is a more critical insult to the single mother's (and her children's) welfare than the $85,000 tax bill is for the half-million dollar earner with no kids. Because of this inequity, no serious flat tax proposals are true flat taxes - instead, they incorporate an income threshold below which there is one flat tax rate, 0%, and above which there is another flat rate, usually something under 20%. They also provide personal exemptions and exemptions for number of dependents. In such a system, with a taxable income threshold of $30,000 and the dependent exemptions, the aforementioned single mother would pay no income tax, while the wealthier worker with no children would pay the 20% flat rate. In this way, such a flat tax is progressive, or graduated, though it could be argued that there is still only one tax rate, and that those below the income threshold (or who have enough exemptions) simply aren't subject to the tax system. In any case, no serious proposals eschew the minimum taxable income "loophole."

The benefits of a flat tax are many. The most obvious benefit is simplicity. Our current tax code is some nine million words in length, and there are between eight and nine hundred forms necessary to deal with all of the exemptions, deductions, credits, exclusions and other complexities. More than 80% of the tax code deals with these issues. Under a flat tax, there would be two forms - one for individuals, and one for businesses. Both these forms would be so simple they could be placed on a post card (see, e.g., http://www.cse.org/flattax/index.php).

A related benefit, one that represents an almost immediate increase in personal and business wealth, is the money that would be saved by this simplification of the code. It has been calculated that Americans spend around $600 billion per year on income tax compliance; they feel compelled to hire tax accountants and lawyers and financial analysts to help navigate through the IRS rules. This expenditure would be unnecessary under a flat tax.

But there are more goodies. Without going into exhaustive detail, the following are several of the other beneficial features of a flat tax system:

• No double taxation or asset taxation. The flat tax system taxes only income, and only when it is first earned. Unlike the current system, it does not tax savings, capital gains, interest income, or dividends. There is no death tax, either. Because of this feature, a flat tax would instantly increase the value of assets held by Americans.

• Less IRS intrusion. Under a flat tax, the IRS has no need to know what your assets and liabilities are - just income. Because of the lack of deductions, exclusions, loopholes, and related audits, the IRS can be simplified and downsized, further saving Americans' tax dollars.

• Increased global competitiveness. The current tax structure makes the U.S. one of the world's most expensive nations in which to do business. It is therefore attractive to migrate jobs and capital to countries with lower tax rates. A flat tax system, with a much lower tax rate, would eliminate this incentive to leave our shores, and would actually make the U.S. a more attractive operating arena for foreign owned companies as well. This is because the flat tax is based on "territorial taxation," meaning that only income earned within our borders is taxed. Eliminating "worldwide taxation" should make the U.S. much more competitive on the world economic playing field.
  

• No marriage penalty. The flat tax would apply to all earners, so both a husband and wife would get taxed at the same flat rate. It would no longer be possible for one spouse's income to push the couple into a higher tax bracket. Moreover, because a married couple's family-based allowance is twice as high as a single person's, there would be no penalty for being married and filing jointly.

• Reduction in political corruption. Much of what lobbyists and special interest groups do in the halls of Congress has to do with currying favor with regard to tax breaks and other loopholes. Under a flat tax, because of the lack of exemptions and exclusions, politicians would no longer be able to engage in the corrupt practice of trading favors with big business. This would greatly reduce corruption, but would also save corporations the immense cost of lobbyists and, thus, aid in business growth.

Fundamentally, the current Revenue Code is so complex and so flawed that some kind of tax reform is both desirable and necessary - particularly in light of the fact that world governments are jumping on the flat tax bandwagon in droves. The former communist nations in Eastern Europe have almost all adopted a flat tax system, and have achieved remarkable economic gains.

Representative Dick Armey (R-TX) has the most promising flat tax proposal here at home, and it has garnered the most support in Washington (http://www.ncpa.org/ba/ba136.html). While it is unlikely to pass under a Democratically-controlled Congress, Democrats would be wise to give more attention to the concept of the flat tax. Because it taxes all earners at one flat rate, but gives valuable and necessary income threshold exemptions to the poorest taxpayers, it is ultimately fair. Moreover, in the increasingly competitive global marketplace, America cannot continue to maintain a tax system that provides disincentives for businesses, jobs, and capital to remain within our borders.

Musings from the Co-Host

There's a lot going on in our busy, complicated world, so it's heartwarming that our offering has generated some interest and feedback. Thanks, on behalf of Dano and myself, for your comments, criticisms and suggestions. We do appreciate it.

Our goal was to create a format for intelligent conversation, and so far we've succeeded. So it's sad to consider that, while we here in this little corner conduct debate in a way that can only be described as honorable, there are people on the national and international scale whose only agenda is to denigrate and destroy, through whatever means possible, those who would seek to lead our nation.

Jerome Corsi, who started the "Swift Boat" movement in 2004 which doomed the candidacy of John Kerry, is at it again. His book, listed as a New York Times Bestseller (not hard, by the way - 10,000 copies will do it. Print a 90-page anything and publish it from your computer, have your mom buy 10,000 copies, and you're a best selling author) is called "Obama Nation". Put the words together and you get his drift. This book, of which I have read inserts, is a collection of rumor, exaggeration and bold-faced lies regarding the Illinois Senator who would be President. It incorporates the worst of the worst the media, the Internet and the radical right has to offer to demonstrate that Obama's success would be the downfall of America.

Two things make me really sad in regard to this publication. First, Corsi doesn't deny anything I just said. He really doesn't care that his book portrays Obama in a false light. He freely admits that the only reason he wrote it is to help assure that Obama is not elected. For that reason alone, I would implore you to simply ignore anything you hear about it, or fight to get the media and the Republicans to vocally and vociferously repudiate it. America should hear no more from this malcontent.

Secondly, Mary Matalin, a conservative voice that I once respected, has lent her name to this fallacious diatribe, thus costing her whatever credibility she once had. Her husband, liberal commentator and political advisor James Carville, must be grinning over his corn flakes at his wife's major screw up. I would love to be a fly on the wall at their house as the "I told you so's" are mingling with his signature chuckle.

My hope is that the media will treat Corsi in 2008 as they treated Ralph Nader in 2004 - a non-entity on the political scene not worthy of conversation. If that happens, perhaps we will see a return to civility and respect on the campaign trail. Does this suggest there won't be attack ads and personal digs against the opposition? I'm not that foolish.

But maybe, just maybe, this will be the year when we make our decisions based on how well our candidates articulate their positions on the issues that are really important. In other words, how well they do what we're trying to do right here. God, what a wonderful world it would be.

Obama: Advance Notice on VP Available

The Obama campaign is offering registered visitors the opportunity to get Obama's VP pick emailed and/or text-messaged to them in advance of their national press release or news conference. Of course, all the media will have signed up for this info as well. I doubt very much that there won't be a leak even before any of us gets the message. What do you think?

Dano: The Case for McCain

After the flip this week, I advocate for John McCain as president.

Let's face it, folks. There is no doubt whatsoever that McCain has a very long history of public service. He is a bona fide war hero (okay...those of you that claim he was a traitor---prove it). You don't spend five plus years as a tortured prisoner of war during Viet Nam, and even turn down an offer of release because fellow U.S. POWs were not also offered release, unless you are a true patriot (McCain was offfered the release after his father, Admiral John S. McCain Jr., was named commander of all U.S. forces in the Viet Nam theater--this was a propaganda move by the Viet Namese authorities, and McCain refused his release). While in the Navy, he even served as commander of a Naval air squadron of 1,000 men following his time in Viet Nam. McCain has been in the U.S. Senate for twenty-two years, and served two terms in the House of Representatives prior to that. He is the ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, and serves on the Readiness, Personnel, and Seapower Subcommittees. He has been a vocal opponent of pork barrel spending and of filibustering on judicial nominations. For more on his Congressional history, see http://mccain.senate.gov/public/. For his military service history, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_McCain. He clearly has tremendous experience to bring to the presidency.

The only argument of any weight against McCain, as near as I can tell, is that he represents "more of the same" conservative, pro-war, Bush-type governing. But that's not altogether fair. He believed the Administration's reports about what the issues were in Iraq--didn't we all at first? Afterwards, while John McCain supported the troop surge of 2007, he would not have had to do so if the war had been run properly. He said from the beginning that he thought the war would be won quickly, and it really was. I don't believe he ever said that we would know how to keep the peace quickly, or that we would come home shortly after a military victory (if anyone has evidence of the contrary, please feel free to correct me on this). He expected more of the Bush Administration than he (or any of us) got. Put simply, you can win a military victory against what is essentially a third-world power quite easily, but if you don't have the proper exit strategy, you get bogged down in a never-ending defensive battle against all those who seek anarchy and disruption in your nation-building efforts. Bush never properly developed a strategy for helping the Iraq Government take over their own security, or for keeping whatever peace he thought our involvement might have afforded.

McCain has certainly agreed with President Bush on most issues, and his record reflects this. However, he has been less than complimentary on Bush's prosecution of the war in Iraq. It is his very lengthy and honorable military experience, and, thus, his views on how the war should be conducted, that makes him look different from Bush. And nobody can argue that we need a different strategy than that of the great "decider." John McCain is uniquely qualified to bring about the strategic changes necessary to finally and honestly exclaim mission accomplished! To read Reed's point of view, click here.

Dano: The Case Against Obama

Hello all. The coin has been tossed for this week's topic: Obama as president? According to the flip, I advocate this week against Barack Obama.

In thinking about this assignment, I considered the tremendous volume of negative material, in the media and on the Internet, aimed at Barack Obama. And so, it would seem my task--highlighting the reasons he shouldn't occupy the oval office--is a relatively easy one. But first impressions are just that, and it is clear that much of the negative stuff on Obama is, unfortunately, based on misinformation, whether by mistake or deliberate propaganda. It would be inappropriate and unfair for me to rely on this rhetoric for my position (but who the heck would ever have thought they'd even be considering a presidential candidate often passionately described as an unpatriotic, elitist, radical, African-American Muslim, who, if elected, plans to "destroy America from the inside out?" Yeah...and he probably illegally tears those annoying tags off of mattresses and pillows, the fiend.). In fact, I thought I might have to first address and dispel many of the most egregious of these negative attacks in order to get at the real negatives, but then I thought, "maybe this is exactly what Reed is doing." I trust him to do a good job in this regard. My task is to tell you why Obama should not be president, and to offer support for my position.

So, then, Dano...why shouldn't he be president of the United States?

Let's take an objective look at Obama's experience. He has only been in the United States Senate since January, 2005 (37 months). He has no other Federal Government experience, though he served in the Illinois State Senate for the seven previous years. Obama has never been a mayor or a governor; he has no "chief executive" experience whatsoever. He has never served in the military, nor attended any military school. He has never been appointed to any ambassadorship, nor to any judgeship or Cabinet post. Some would argue that private-sector public service work represents qualifying experience, but I disagree. I consider it irrelevant (see discussion of previous presidents' qualifications, below).

For more information on his Government service, see http://www.barackobama.com and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obama (neither of these sites are biased against Obama, so they are assumed to be reasonably trustworthy for biographical info).

This means we are left to determine how qualified and effective Obama can be as a Government leader based only upon his legislative record. In the case of his Illinois legislative experience, a brief review of his stated accomplishments reflects a great deal of legislation to his credit; with one issue as an exception (more on this below), I would be happy to concede that he did well enough in the Illinois legislature to get elected to the U.S. Senate. But does being qualified to be a U.S. senator also qualify one to be POTUS? Not quite. Every single president in the last 100 years (that's as far back as I care to consider) was one or more of the following (and most of them filled numerous of these positions) prior to ascending to the presidency:

1. a governor or lt. governor
2. a vice president
3. a high-ranking military commander
4. a Cabinet or department secretary
5. a U.S. congressman (for at least a full term, usually longer)

(see http://www.whitehouse.gov/history/presidents/tr26.html).

Now back to the exception regarding his doing well in the Illinois legislature. Senator Obama frequently voted "present" on very important issues during his tenure in Springfield. We're not talking about minor issues, but really major ones, and ones that might even cost him votes by his party base. Below is a portion of an article written by Nathan Gonzales, the political editor for the Rothenberg Political Report:

We aren't talking about a "present" vote on whether to name a state office building after a deceased state official, but rather about votes that reflect an officeholder's core values.

For example, in 1997, Obama voted "present" on two bills (HB 382 and SB 230) that would have prohibited a procedure often referred to as partial birth abortion. He also voted "present" on SB 71, which lowered the first offense of carrying a concealed weapon from a felony to a misdemeanor and raised the penalty of subsequent offenses.

(see http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/02/the_everpresent_obama.html)

What's the upshot of this? Sure, he got a few good things done. But when it matters where Democrats are concerned, he frequently chose not to vote, rather than to have his views known to the voters. This represents a record that can be cherry-picked for good sound bites, but that truly reflects a lack of spine on partisan issues about which he should be proud to show his record. In the end, if he can't even support his own party platform in a convincing way, he can't expect to get bipartisan support for contentious issues while president. Obama is not nearly as conscientious or experienced as other presidents have been. He simply isn't qualified to lead the most powerful nation on earth.

There is one last thing that might deserve consideration. This country has roughly as many registered Republicans as Democrats. Then there are independents. It is highly unlikely that Obama will get a majority of the popular vote. Republicans know this. No matter whether Obama is qualified to be president, if he gets elected, can he gain the trust of congressional Republicans? Something more than a majority of voters might well support efforts to thwart his agenda. Without more experience in the U.S. Congress, does he have the length and strength of relationships to draw bipartisan congressional support for his agenda, despite pressure from unhappy Republican constituents to crush it? Potential post-election difficulties should not be included in the qualification calculus, but they are relevant to the ultimate question this week: Should Obama be president? Definitely not. To read Reed's point of view, click here.