Sanders seeks major Democratic "revolution"

The Republicans are torn by the struggle among the establishment, tea partiers and the forces of Trump.  But the Democrats also have an identity war.

Don’t forget: the Democrats have a long history of including widely differing opinions.  Also, no matter what the GOP says, not all Democrats are liberals.

In fact, there’s a good deal of overlap between moderate Democrats and establishment Republicans.  That similarity is what led to the conservative takeover of the GOP and liberal complaints about candidate Hillary Clinton.  It is also what has produced congressional action.

A relatively clear liberal-conservative split exists on so-called social issues: abortion, same-sex marriage and guns.  Those issues divide Democrats and Republicans, as do differences over the Affordable Care Act.

Clinton and Bernie Sanders are usually seen on the liberal and Democratic side of these issues.  But not all Democrats agree, while a few Republicans may quietly side with them.

The real split among Democrats comes on economic issues and the role of government.  The current campaign has revealed a strong effort to turn the party away from its drift toward support for smaller government, more power for the private sector, and continued low income taxes.

Sanders has adopted a forthright liberal approach.  He sees an essential role for government and the need to raise taxes.  He blames most of the country’s problems on the superrich and major financial institutions.

His support for bigger government, a tax increase and breaking up the biggest financial institutions would likely lead to his being labeled a socialist, but he has diffused the charge by saying he is one.  Besides, the government role he advocates is considerably less than the quasi-socialist regimes of Scandinavia.

His candidacy has become an effort to gain increased power, maybe even control, over the Democratic Party.  The GOP bred the “tea party” movement.  With Sanders, the Democrats may have spawned the “new revolution” movement, to borrow his term.

Sanders needs a revolution, because, even if he were president, he would depend on Congress to approve his policies.  His allies would have to be elected to Congress, just as tea partiers have been.

The traditional GOP has gradually adopted the tea party’s positions.  Similarly, Clinton has given some ground to Sanders in the course of the campaign.  It is generally thought he has pushed her to the left.

Yet Clinton, like Democratic presidents Carter, Clinton and Obama, clings to her allegiance to what she might consider the moderate center of American politics.  That view has meant a major role for big business and big finance in recent Democratic administrations.

The symbol of Clinton’s sympathies for these parts of what may be a broad Democratic coalition is her refusal to release the texts of highly paid speeches she made to Wall Streeters.  The voter is left to wonder if she buttered up her audience in hopes of later support by them.

The conventional wisdom is that Sanders is foolish in believing that America is ready for revolutionary change that would increase the size of government, raise taxes and weaken major economic powers.

Sanders appears to believe that Republican-driven cuts in government programs have gone so deeply into what people regard as essential services, voters would be willing to support higher taxes or even more debt.

Like Donald Trump on the other side of the street, Sanders believes that conditions have grown bad enough that voters, both traditional and new, are ready to take drastic action.  Obviously, he thinks he offers a fair and workable alternative for the Democrats.

After all, by following their more moderate approach, the Democrats have not fared well.  President Obama gets little credit for the economic recovery, but voters rate him unfavorably because of his health care program and his position on guns.  The Democrats have lost control of both houses of Congress and could lose the presidency.

Even if his new revolution cannot prevail this year, Sanders might reason that a strong showing would exert force on the Democrats just as the tea party did on the Republicans.  It is reasonable to see his campaign, not as a quixotic attempt to win, but the launching of an attempt at historical political change.

 The country abandoned its conservative political tradition in electing Democrat Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1932, believing that his proposals, involving a greatly increased federal government, were needed to end the Depression.

The battle for the Democratic Party now turns on whether there is sufficient concern, especially among younger voters, that political and economic conditions are so bad that a new political revolution is warranted. 

Political Thoughts 7 -- After Wisconsin

Trump.  An analyst wisely pointed out that Trump listens to his own counsel and nobody else’s.  His only concern is winning.  So he freewheels and says whatever he thinks will induce voters to make him the winner.  He does not need advisors, because he does not develop policies in the usual sense.  He has ignored the need to show competent advisors to demonstrate that he would have a competent administration.  He so deeply believes in his own supreme skills that he thinks he can solve any problem once he gets to the White House.  When he says he can act “presidential” that means he can stop saying whatever pops into his mind and suddenly show off his competence.

Signs of gross incompetence are any proposals that would legitimately cause retaliation by other countries against the U.S.  Like interrupting monetary transfers (think how to pay for the Mexican wall), torture, world nuclearization.

That might work in a short campaign, but he is having trouble sustaining it.  He can get himself into difficult political dead ends, contradict himself or even be forced to retract.  All of that weakens his appeal to voters who like his brash and independent style.

Cruz.  He sees himself as the last man standing, the only alternative to Trump.  If he were to succeed, he would represent the triumph of the tea party.  Is the GOP ready to move its establishment that far to the right?  Don’t forget, he alienates a lot of voters and a lot of party leaders.  So, if it succeeds in stopping Trump, does the “stop” movement then move on to Cruz?  Obviously, he doesn’t think so, believing that only he and Trump have the divine right to the nomination based on their primary performances.  Actually, the presidential selection process simply doesn’t work that way.

Kasich.  He stays in the race to pick up the pieces when the GOP rejects both Trump and Cruz.  He wants to be the real last man standing.  But he’s a proven loser, and the GOP might prefer to find a fresh candidate, right off the shelf with no primary losses.  Paul Ryan is obvious, but he is probably serious about not wanting the job right now.  So, notwithstanding Kasich’s hopes, if Trump and Cruz fail, a real possibility, the likely GOP nominee is “somebody else.”

Sanders - Clinton.  His key to winning is simple.  Win enough states that the superdelegates abandon Clinton.  Highly unlikely.  But, if you see one big name Democratic leader publicly switch, others would feel free to follow and the race will come down to the wire.  Otherwise, Clinton is inevitable partly because her problems are not big enough to make voters prefer Trump (or Cruz).  Against a better GOP candidate, the Dems would remain unlikely to believe Sanders, a real liberal, could win.  The corrective?  If he wins big in New York and California.  The likelihood?  Slight. 

Trump, tea party gain as GOP establishment fades

The Republican establishment doesn’t like Donald Trump.

That’s the common refrain. It ignores the question of whether there is a Republican establishment or even if there is still a Republican Party.

Of course, there are at least remnants of a traditional Republican Party. Its main platform has been pro-business and against government policies that affect the private sector. Its theme has been that jobs result from a thriving private economy not massive government spending.

After passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, it also picked up the support of southern conservatives on racial issues and replaced a southern Democratic Party that had become more progressive on civil rights.

That GOP has come under increasing challenge and has struggled against an outright takeover by a new brand of conservatism. Less concerned about helping business and more concerned about social issues and gun rights, it is adamantly opposed to government regulation.

These tea party conservatives either have intimidated most traditional Republicans or defeated them and captured the party’s agenda.

That’s why Sen. Susan Collins could fairly say that she has not left the Republican mainstream, but it has left her. Though she remains loyal, she finds little interest among other Republicans in accommodating her views.

Sen. Ted Cruz is the model tea party Republican. His strict and uncompromising allegiance to extreme conservative policies has led him into conflict with other GOP senators.

Much the same is true for other tea party sympathizers who have gained office around the country. Maine’s Gov. Paul LePage is an excellent example.

Gov. John Kasich comes across as a traditional Republican and consequently a candidate who does not frighten Democrats. Still, he has fallen in line with many rightwing conservative policies like trying to cut down on the size of the electorate.

So where does that leave Trump? He has little regard for either traditional or tea party versions of the GOP. He listens to his own instincts, not to the echoes of party history or the demands of the hard right.

In effect, Trump is not a Republican. The so-called establishment opposes him because his policies depart from traditional Republicanism but also because he is using the Party’s presidential nomination process for his own personal politics.

To him, the Party is a tool, not an institution. He now admits he won’t necessarily support its nominee. Neither will Cruz or Kasich.

How has Trump been able to dominate a major political party for his own ends?

In part, he has gained thanks to the media’s fascination with the notion of a celebrity as candidate. And he has attracted a new group of voters more loyal to him than to the GOP. Neither development was likely to please old-style Republicans.

But a large part of the answer lies in the demise of the Republican Party itself. A political party exists to raise money for its candidates and to organize and deploy party faithful behind candidates and campaigns.

The impact on national political parties of the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision, which opened the door to massive financial political campaign contributions from a handful of super wealthy people, has mostly been ignored. The wealthy players’ spending reduces the influence of parties.

Most of their money goes to purchasing time on television, allowing candidates to communicate directly with voters without paying attention to party principles and platforms.

Of course, grassroots political organizations still matter, but instead of relying on party faithful as volunteers, candidates can now simply deploy their funds to hire everything they need for a complete campaign organization.

Both Trump’s unique candidacy and the changing nature of politics have made the Republican Party less relevant to its own nominating process. The attempt to stop a complete Trump hijack of the process, including fallen candidates Jeb Bush, Chris Christie and Scott Walker forlornly endorsing Cruz, may be futile.

There seems to be a belief that, if Trump can be stopped, the Republican Party can be saved. The non-Trump Republicans hope the Democratic nominee will be so vulnerable that a respectable GOP nominee, meaning anybody but Trump, would have a chance of winning or at least would not drag down the Republican ticket.

If Trump is thwarted, will the Republicans resume the identity crisis between the fading traditionalists and the unyielding tea partiers?

Perhaps, but the 2016 campaign could finally reveal if the Republicans can survive as a unified party or evolve into something new.

While the Democratic Party survives, it faces its own split between a resurgent liberalism and a moderate, Clinton-style machine. That, too, merits more consideration.

Political thoughts 6 -- Georgia on my mind

Georgia.  The Georgia governor, saying he would veto a bill that would allow religious-related organizations to maintain faith fidelity in activities and employment, placed the Constitution and commercial common sense above the political grandstanding of his legislature.  Poorly reported was (a) the bill would become law immediately upon signature and (b) it would have allowed church-related organizations not only to refuse service to some and not to hire those with differing beliefs, but it would have allowed the employers not to “retain” those whose beliefs differed or who were non-believers.  In other words, the Jewish, Muslim, atheist or possibly even Mormon or Catholic bookkeeper of a Protestant religious sponsored day-care center could have been fired immediately with no recourse under the law.  The legislative votes suggest the veto can be overridden.

Trump-Cruz wives.  Voters like their presidents to look presidential.  This spousal spat diminishes both and, as at least one reporter said, makes the campaign look more like a kids playground.

Cruz.  The anti-Trump sentiment is so high that politicians seem to be flocking to Cruz, whom they couldn’t stand until recently.  They simply ignore that Cruz is only a slightly more presentable version of Trump.  It looks like Trump’s willingness to allow hecklers to be roughed up has finally drawn a line over which some Republicans will not pass.

Clinton-Sanders.  Clinton sometimes can remind you of a school marm who makes her points by repeatedly shaking her head “yes” and has little tolerance for the unruly kids in the back of the room.  She compounded that image by suggesting she would not debate that bad boy Sanders until he behaved himself by speaking more politely.  Also a bit like the school playground, though far more restrained that the GOP gang.  And they will debate.

Clinton-Trump.  Clinton has begun focusing on the fall campaign for several reasons.  First, she wants to gain so she can undermine Sander’s claim that he would run more strongly against Trump than she would.  Plus she looks more presidential.  She also has more to run against, as Trump offers her more targets than does Sanders. And she can avoid the continual pressure from Sanders to move to the left, when she can show how much more progressive she is than any of the likely GOP nominees.  Finally, she can begin to unite her party in a defeat-GOP mode, while the Republicans are coming apart at the seams.

Debates.  Lincoln and Douglas would have been pooped by now with all the debates.  I had thought there were too many, but they seem to be boosting turnout and possibly help in picking up new voters as the campaign progresses.  Pretty sure that’s what Sanders hopes.

The mounting, secret taxes in electric bills

Most households are paying a tax that nobody talks about. Though far less exciting than today’s presidential campaign, this issue may affect most families.

If you get this tax bill, you pay it once a month. The best part about it, at least for the legislators who have created it, is that the “taxpayer” is never told about it. It is a secret tax, but the penalty for failure to pay it is so powerful that people comply. If not, their electricity may be cut off.

Every electric bill includes a number of charges that cover neither the power nor the wires. These charges have been levied by legislatures to pay for their policies, but without the usual need to raise taxes.

Some of these charges have been around for a long time, like the cost of paying for utility regulation. But new charges are being added from time to time when legislators decide to adopt a new public policy. Regulators themselves may be required by law to add on such charges.

Controversial as he may be, Gov. Paul LePage has been consistent in arguing for efforts to reduce Maine’s electric rates, among the highest in the country. In his abbreviated, written “State of the State” message to the Legislature and not the usual formal speech, he devoted a major part of it to this issue.

LePage focused on power supply that causes high electric rates. He wrote that companies considering investment in Maine back off when they learn about the cost of electricity. He might also have mentioned the adders to electric rates, many of which, unlike power supply, are under state control.

The broadest effect of this hidden tax is on customers struggling to make ends meet. The Legislature seems to pay little attention to the rate impacts on ordinary customers of its energy policies. Perhaps each time a charge is added, it is considered too small to have much of an effect. But the small charges, federal and state, add up.

The U.S. Supreme Court decided in January that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission can regulate “demand response” – the temporary shutdown of generators to reduce the need for higher cost power. The idle generators will usually be paid the same as the rate paid for the most expensive power used. This applies in most states.

In the end, that may save customers money by avoiding the use of higher cost power. But underlying the policy is the fact that all generators are paid, not the price they offer to the market, but the price charged by the most expensive power used. Using the actual cost of power supply, as was formerly the rule in New England, is gone.

To encourage renewable power, the Maine Public Utilities Commission requires that utilities buy from higher cost renewable power generators. Solar power, subsidized at above-market prices, could be added soon. The higher cost is passed on to customers.

Then, there’s the famous typographical error. In 2013, the Legislature passed a major energy policy bill that included a $3 per month boost to electric bills to pay for increased energy efficiency. But, thanks to a typo, the bill would produce $38 million less than expected.

The PUC was asked to correct the error in line with legislative intent. Not surprisingly, it said it must do what the law says and not what might have been meant. So, back it went to the Legislature who got into a fight with LePage over fixing the error.

Almost overlooked in meeting the need to do more to promote efficiency and potentially reduce costs was the fact that the $38 million would be collected from electricity customers. Fixing the error involved a rate increase, but almost no attention was paid to that aspect of the matter.

If no other reform were possible, the add-on charges should be shown on the electric bill as they are on most phone bills. In that way, the Legislature would have to take some responsibility for policies that raise costs.

This is not exclusively a Maine problem, though the state provides a good example. Thanks to FERC requirements and other states’ rules, it happens elsewhere.

States should fund desirable energy policies. But they should not hide their cost. Beyond requiring bills to show the added costs, legislatures should fund their energy programs, like other policies they adopt, through taxation not utility rates.

Instead of hidden charges, even for good reason, tax-financed measures could force legislators to make better, more public decisions.

Political thoughts – 5 "What do we do about Trump?"

Trump.  The political world is in fantasyland, trying to figure out what to do about Donald Trump, who keeps on picking up more delegates.

Let’s start with what ought to be the most obvious scenario, but which is hardly mentioned.  Trump gets enough delegates to secure the nomination.  Looking at his chances of winning in November and his popularity, an increasing number of key party leaders decide to support him simply because they think he can keep surprising people and beat Hillary Clinton.  Possible.

Then, there are all the stop-Trump scenarios.  Republicans fall in line behind Ted Cruz as the only viable GOP alternative.  Think Jeb Bush, Chris Christie.  At least Cruz is a tea party conservative not a wild card like Trump.  And the stop-Trump crowd believes that Trump is a sure loser to Clinton and will help the Democrats on the ticket to the point they can retake the Senate.

Or there’s the spoiler scenario.  The so-called GOP establishment runs its own “independent” candidate in at least a few key states (it’s too late to file as an independent everywhere), ensuring Trump’s defeat by splitting the vote.  The spoiler could even be Cruz who would be expected to carry Texas.

Another spoiler possibility would be former New Mexico Gov. Gary Johnson, the Libertarian candidate, who runs in all states.  He thinks that if he participated in the presidential debates, he could prove to be an attractive candidate.  Does he have any scandals?  Could prevent Trump from winning, but does not yet seem plausible.

Or the open convention.  Nobody has enough delegates to win on the first ballot and delegates can vote as they wish after the first vote.  Kasich hopes for this scenario, finally able to convince Republicans that he has their best chance of winning in November.   Reasonable, but it’s hard to believe that Trump and Cruz delegates could rally to him.  Otherwise, it would be more likely that, if nobody had enough delegates, a deal would be negotiated before the convention voting began.

Clinton.  Will win the Democratic nomination.  The NYT supposes that if (a) Sanders wins 60 percent of the remaining delegates and (b) superdelegates always support the delegate-count leader, he could get the nomination.  In the current case, (a) looks impossible and (b) is not a valid assumption.  So she will be the nominee.

Should be pleased by almost any of the GOP scenarios, given that the problems of Trump and Cruz with the electorate should dwarf hers if properly exploited.  But she still needs to be looking for ways to improve the public’s trust.

Polling.  Now we hear that either Trump or Cruz poll well against Clinton.  Two possibilities.  Either the polls about November are meaningless in March, because campaigns, candidates and commercials mean something and we have not yet begun the general election campaign or polls have become relatively less valuable as forecasters due to the lack of random samples (yes, I know it’s my hobby horse) or because people lie to pollsters.

If Trump can be nominated and win the election, this isn’t your parents’ USA.  The days of American democracy calmly accepting the outrageous Bush v. Gore Supreme Court decision would be gone.

Presidential campaign promises cannot be kept

Candidates simplify issues. Pandering to voters, they make bold promises,

Once elected, office holders must deal with complex solutions to complex problems and often fail to keep their promises, usually because the solutions require the agreement of others.

Presidents and governors depend on Congress and legislatures in dealing with most major issues. The nature of government itself keeps either branch from entirely have its way, creating the gap between promise and performance. The inability to produce the simple solutions leaves voters disappointed, frustrated and recently even angry about their leaders' failure to keep their promises.

Remember that candidate Barack Obama promised to close the Guantanamo prison in his first year as president. It’s still open. And now, the current candidates' promises show that simple solutions face some impossible political tests.

Take Bernie Sanders' promise that he will end fracking in the U.S. That's the process for extracting new volumes of oil and gas from deep in the earth and replacing the fuels with contaminated water. No wonder he opposes it.

But there is more to fracking than that. The massive new amounts of oil found in the U.S. have made the country virtually independent of oil from the Middle East. No longer does American policy have to be influenced by the recognition of the country's dependence on Middle East potentates.

And the availability of oil from fracking, making the U.S. the largest producer of oil and related liquids, has added so much new supply that the price of oil has tumbled. That has shown up in the drastically reduced price of gasoline and home heating oil, a benefit to consumers.

If Sanders' proposal to end fracking were adopted, the U.S. would again be dependent on the sheikhs. Oil company profits would soar. Would the man who rails against the super rich really want to enrich them further by ending fracking? And, at the same time, the proposal would result in higher prices for average customers.

The fracking companies might be able to defeat a ban. A possible compromise would be much tougher environmental rules aimed at completely protecting drinking water quality and preventing geologic change, like earthquakes. That would be difficult enough, but is likely easier to achieve than an outright ban. But it’s too complicated to be a campaign proposal.

Sanders, Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump oppose the Trans Pacific Partnership trade agreement, a deal among a dozen Pacific Rim countries. By lowering trade barriers with these countries, they warn the government will jeopardize American jobs.

Freer trade would cost some American workers their jobs. But it would also create job opportunities. The net impact would probably be small.

The candidates do not mention is that the TPP’s purpose is not mainly about trade. It is about creating a community of countries on the Pacific Rim to block China's expansionist plans. The phony islands that it has created in international waters are tangible examples of its Pacific area ambitions.

Rejecting the TPP would mean the U.S. would ignore the appeal by other countries for a close relationship with the U.S. to block the threat of Chinese expansion. Opposing the TPP because of its effect on some American workers means seeing only one part of a bigger picture.

This major debate will extend into the next president's term. Both the concerns of labor and the country's strategic interests must be considered. The deal might be approved with help for displaced workers going beyond the failed jobs programs of the past. Like all trade deals, it should bring some benefit to customers.

If a compromise is reached, some voters will feel cheated. Few will have voted based on their concerns about China. More voters will have wanted the deal killed. They will be disappointed by what they could see as an unfulfilled political promise.

How about Trump's support for torture because he believes it works? It also makes him appear tough on America's adversaries.

Could Congress change the law to allow it? That's unlikely, because the use of torture by the U.S. would invite the torture of American prisoners.

Trump says he can balance the budget by cutting waste and inefficiency. Presidents must rely on the Congress to cut spending, but “wasteful” spending often helps members' constituents or supporters.

Each year, the Senate receives a report on duplicate federal programs that could be consolidated, producing real savings without cutting any services or support. Nothing ever happens. It's doubtful that any president will make a serious dent in waste and inefficiency. But it's a nice promise.

Beware of the promises of presidential candidates. If elected, they will almost surely disappoint you.