Media promotes partisan wars: “Let’s you and him fight.”

In a 1930s comic strip, Popeye the Sailor argued heatedly with Bluto, his enormous nemesis. “Let’s you and him fight,” Wimpy urged Popeye. That’s the first known use of the phrase.

Like Wimpy, the national media goads opposing sides into a fight, because a good dispute attracts viewers or readers.

Of course, bitter divisiveness exists between some conservatives and liberals, Republicans and Democrats. Differences run deep, and opinions may cause some to believe their opponents are not only wrong, but bad. Why make it worse?

Here’s a recent story that makes the point. It’s about a U.S. Supreme Court decision that attracted editorial attention last week, because it suggested that a conservative justice had flipped sides.

The decision came on a 5-to-4 vote of the justices. There are supposedly four liberals and four conservatives and possibly one swing justice on the Court.

The big news was Neil Gorsuch, the conservative judge put on the Court by President Trump, had voted with the four liberals. His appointment is one of Trump’s proudest accomplishments, so the implication in some reports was that Gorsuch had surprisingly betrayed Trump.

All of this added up to major news in the conservative-liberal wars. “Gorsuch Sides With Liberal Justices,” trumpeted a Wall Street Journal headline.

The only problem is the case had little to do with ideology. The Supreme Court was struggling, as usual, to determine what the law is.

In 2015, the Court voted 8-1 that a catchall federal law defining a violent felony was so vague that it could not be used in criminal sentencing. In that case, merely carrying an illegal weapon did not necessarily threaten violence. Courts could not interpret the law to make it a violent act.

The decision was written by Justice Antonin Scalia, the conservative hero whose sudden death opened the way to Gorsuch’s appointment as his successor on the Court. All the liberal justices and all the conservatives but one agreed with Scalia.

A week ago, the Court had a similar case. But this time, the language of the law was slightly different, and it did not relate to criminal punishment. The defendant could be thrown out of the country if he had threatened violence.

The four liberals found the law in this case was just about as unclear as in the previous case and the definition of violence too vague to apply. The sole dissenter in the first case kept to his view that neither wording was vague.

The minority in last week’s case thought the catchall language differed enough that this version was not unduly vague. The government argued that expulsion is not the same as being convicted of a crime, so the new language was good enough. One justice thought vagueness only mattered in criminal cases.

Gorsuch agreed with Scalia’s reasoning and said it should apply to civil as well as criminal matters. In other words, the new justice took the same position on vagueness as the conservative idol he replaced. He ended up agreeing with the liberals who stuck to Scalia’s previous decision.

If you find all this either confusing or boring, you can understand why the Supreme Court should be composed of people able to think in depth about the law. But you may also see how, never mind the media coverage, this case had little to do with liberals versus conservatives.

Gorsuch was just doing his job, not fighting an ideological war. But it seemed newsworthy to imply that his decision was an unexpected switch to the left. That beats remarking that the liberals, along with Gorsuch, adopted a conservative position for individual rights against government power.

The media has taken to identifying all federal judges by whether they were appointed by a Republican or Democratic president. The false assumption is that they make decisions based on their political affiliation, though their job is to decide based on the law.

Recently, three judges on a federal appeals courts ruled that the Attorney-General could not cut off some funding for Chicago after he had determined it was a “sanctuary” city. The court found the Constitution’s separation of powers allowed only Congress, not an executive branch official, to make such a decision

The Republican Attorney-General was following directions from a Republican president. All three judges had been appointed by Republican presidents. But their loyalty was to the Constitution not to a political party.

In “Let’s You and Him Fight,” a cartoon film based on the comic strip, Popeye and Bluto fought to a draw.

The media should quit promoting more Popeye-Bluto bouts.

Federal debt out of control, crisis looms

Last week, the U.S. got news of an impending national disaster, a situation that could have “serious negative consequences for the budget and the nation.”

The warning came from the Congressional Budget Office, a rare, nonpartisan federal agency. Almost nobody paid attention.

The threat comes from ever-increasing deficits and an exploding national debt. It is not a bill that will be paid by our grandchildren, as is often said, but one that we will have to begin paying soon.

The national debt will soon be the same size as the value of the country’s entire annual economy.

While the U.S. usually runs deficits, two recent congressional actions have taken the unbalanced budget to a whole new level.

First came the tax cut bill. New breaks were added to the tax code, mainly to benefit the wealthy and corporations. In theory, they would use their added funds to invest. Everybody knew the argument was flimsy that such investment would spur new tax revenues.

The CBO says that effect will last about a year, then melt. The tax cut will never pay for itself.

Without cutting spending, the result is a growing deficit each year.

While revenues were cut, spending was not touched. Then came the spending bill. Congress decided to spend more on almost all government programs.

For the Republicans to gain votes they needed for their expanded defense spending, they agreed to let the Democrats have more funding for their favorite programs. Previously agreed spending caps, applying to both sides, became historic relics.

The Republicans traditionally charged the Democrats with seeking a “tax and spend” economy. The Dems would add more government programs and propose raising taxes to pay for them. Nobody likes higher taxes, so the GOP would be “deficit hawks” and oppose them.

When President Obama proposed more economic stimulus spending, the Republicans opposed it because of increased deficits. Now, the deficit hawks have flown away, though they could reappear just as soon as there’s a Democratic president.

What’s more, technology will reduce payrolls. The economy will take a break from its continuous growth. The effect will be even less tax revenues.

How does the U.S. pay for the growing annual deficit? It borrows the money. It can borrow because the U.S. dollar is the world’s standard, based on the belief that the country always pays its debts.

Spending on “mandatory” programs like Social Security and Medicare now accounts for 62 percent of all outlays. “Discretionary” programs take 30 percent with half of that going to defense. The fastest growing portion is interest on the national debt, now amounting to 8 percent.

Because the size of the debt will soon come to equal all national output, the CBO warns of a “fiscal crisis,” a situation in which the government can’t pay its bills. The effect of this crisis would quickly spread across the entire economy.

Annual shortfalls in the federal budget must be cut to keep the national debt from bringing on this crisis. How can the yearly deficit be reduced?

The government could cut spending. Departing House Speaker Paul Ryan targeted major programs like Social Security and Medicare. Social Security could be made financially healthier without affecting benefits for those who need them. But it’s not realistic to propose across-the-board cuts.

Could we keep borrowing? Debt service costs less than paying the full price. But the CBO says more borrowing will suck money out of the economy, raising interest rates for both the government and the people. That leaves less money for saving and an even bigger federal debt.

The government could simply print more money, almost magically giving itself the ability to pay off its debt. But that would devalue everybody’s dollar, making what people and the government buys more expensive. That amounts to a hidden tax. It would also reduce the world’s confidence in the dollar as the standard currency.

Finally, the government could raise taxes, using the philosophy “there’s no free lunch.” If the people need or want government programs, they should pay for them and not try to pass the cost on to later generations. And it’s not possible to pay only for programs you like.

The alarming CBO report warns that we can no longer pile on the debt and expect future taxpayers to cover the deficit. We must recognize that refusing to increase taxes as spending grows is beginning to fail.

As the report shows, the future is now and the next ten years will only be worse.

The real bottom line? A tax increase becomes inevitable.

RCV demands serious debate, not partisan wars

Maine seems to be enjoying what could turn out to be a long-running political saga.

It began with the 2010 election, when a split electorate made Paul LePage governor, even though he had failed to gain a majority of votes. Frustrated, some saw a solid majority that could have elected an opponent if there had been no split.

Unhappy with the election outcome, they realized that electing governors who had not won an outright majority dated back decades. It looked like it was growing easier for independent candidates, thanks to public financing and the requirement of a relatively low number of nomination signatures.

The solution for some unhappy voters was a system called ranked choice voting. Through a complicated system under which people could vote for more than one candidate at the same time, an artificial majority winner could be guaranteed.

RCV, as it has come to be known, responded to broad unhappiness with LePage and others winning with less than a majority. No other alternative was offered, and voters adopted the RCV proposal.

That might have been the end of the story, except that the Maine Supreme Court opined that RCV violated the state Constitution, notably when it came to electing the governor. Since the 1880s, it had explicitly prescribed a plurality – the person with the most votes wins.

Now, Maine has embarked on what inevitably will be a multi-year story to resolve just how it will vote. This June’s vote is only one chapter.

RCV supporters have taken to claiming the RCV opposition comes from the Republicans. They hope the GOP’s expected lack of popularity in forthcoming elections can be used to leverage support for RCV. You don’t like the GOP, so you must like RCV. That was the theme of a piece in this paper last week.

Well, I am not a Republican, and I have serious reservations about RCV. I agree that we should look for ways to end plurality voting, but think it is far from the best available solution.

There are three reasons for looking for alternatives to RCV.

First, according to data from the Maine Secretary of State, it is the most expensive possible alternative.

Second, it can allow one person’s vote to count more than another’s.

Third, it is not the system in any state, while other states have developed sound ways of ensuring majority winners.

On cost, RCV requires special equipment and transportation, which must be rented for each election. The costs will be borne by both the state and local governments, and should hit seven figures. No alternative requires special equipment or transport of ballots.

This year, the Democrats have seven candidates for governor. Under RCV, you could vote for all seven or fewer in rank order. If your favorite washes out in the system, your second choice vote is then cast. Meanwhile, the voter who picked the leader gets no second vote.

That’s the second problem. One voter can get two or more votes, while others get only one. RCV solves the plurality problem, but only by undermining the principle of “one person, one vote.”

Finally, there are a number of better alternatives. Here are just two.

Some states use run-off voting. If no candidate receives a majority, the top two candidates run again. Voters can experience a new campaign and a chance to compare the two. That’s preferable to having a computer stage the run-off without benefit of an additional campaign.

The cost of run-offs is less than RCV. But run-offs have been criticized because the turnout on the second vote may be low. Not necessarily.

In 2015, the writer of last week’s pro-RCV piece ran for mayor of Lewiston. Under plurality voting, he would have won. But Lewiston uses a run-off, and on the second vote, another candidate received the absolute majority. Turnout was about the same in the two elections.

The coming new system is not RCV, but the “open primary.” A closed primary, now used in Maine, is accessible to party members only, and there is one for each party. An open primary is open to anybody who gets the signatures. Each candidate may declare a party preference. There is one primary for all candidates.

California uses the “Top Two Candidate Open Primary.” Every candidate participates in a single primary and the top two vote getters are on the general election ballot. In practice, the system reduces the chance for spoilers, but encourages more candidates, just as is claimed for RCV.

In 2016, among candidates for the U.S. Senate, Californians picked two Democrats for the general election. In the primary, there were 14 candidates from four parties receiving more than one percent of the vote.

How we vote should not be a partisan matter. It should be a question of good government with the intent to build a consensus on the best way to replace the plurality vote. Everything should be on the table – and soon.