Charlie Crist – Run Charlie, Run — as an Independent!

SUSDFWYTX9FU

The Florida Republican primary race for US Senate has recently provided a battleground for the ideological fight between the Tea Party hardliners (who have supported Marco Rubio) and the few remaining Republican moderates (who have supported Governor Charlie Crist).

Even though serious questions have been raised regarding Marco Rubio’s spending habits and use of political funds, nothing seems to have been able to dent his 20+ point lead over Governor Charlie Crist in the polls.   However, polls can be deceiving — especially when you are talking about a closed primary where only registered Republicans can vote.  When ALL Florida voters (regardless of political affiliation) were asked who they would vote for in a three way race among Marco Rubio (for the Republicans), US Representative Kendrick Meek (for the Democrats) and Charlie Crist (as an independent), Charlie Crist won.

Charlie Crist has been a popular Florida governor because of his ability to work across party lines and obtain concrete results.   For instance, former Republican Governor Jeb Bush (regarded by the Republican faithful as a reliable ideological purist) stuck his head in the sand during his term in Tallahassee and refused to negotiate a gambling compact with the Seminole Indians because he didn’t want gambling in Florida – even though it was already here at racetracks, the State lottery and Jai Alai frontons.  Meanwhile, the Seminoles went ahead with their super casinos in Hollywood and Tampa, made millions and the State of Florida didn’t get one cent of it.   Enter Governor Charlie Crist, who was prepared to put pragmatism over ideology and instead negotiated a compact with the Seminoles that should bring badly needed millions to  Florida’s coffers.

Charlie Crist doesn’t fit well into today’s polarized political landscape and it’s for that reason that he should run as an independent.   Those of us in the center are sick and tired of listening to ideological diatribes and finger pointing from the far left and far right.   Charlie Crist is a political breath of fresh air who seeks to accomplish goals that are beneficial to all citizens, not just those favored by a particular political party or ideology.

So, in conclusion, run Charlie, run —– as an Independent!

SEC Targets Goldman Sachs – Will It be with a Roar or a Meow?

By now you have probably heard that the SEC has charged Goldman Sachs and one of its Vice Presidents for fraud in the structuring and marketing of a collateralized debt obligation (CDO) that was tied to the performance of underlying subprime residential backed securities.   For a full description of the alleged fraud, you should read the SEC press release here.   However, for the sake of sanity and simplicity, I will take a stab at describing the alleged fraud in “simple” terms.

According to the SEC, Goldman Sachs structured and marketed a CDO to investors without revealing that the third party who played a significant part in the choice of the securities, was also betting against the same securities by taking out credit default swaps with Goldman Sachs.   In other words, if the SEC is to be believed, Goldman Sachs was making money off the structuring and marketing of securities while also making money off bets against the securities by the person who was selecting the securities in the first place.   Confused?   You probably are, but welcome to the world of the complex derivatives that caused the economic downturn in the first place.

Goldman Sachs has been in the news a lot since the beginning of the economic crisis.   Most of the news has not been very flattering, with allegations of Goldman Sachs effectively controlling the US government with its network of alumni.   So it came as quite a surprise to many for the SEC to take on the biggest bank on Wall Street.  The question remains, however, whether this current stand of the SEC will be taken with a lion’s roar or a cat’s meow.  It is too early to tell.  However, if the financial regulatory bodies are to recover any semblance of authority, it is important that the SEC aggressively pursue this case.  If the allegations are true, the alleged fraud was unconscionable and a strong message needs to be sent to Wall Street (and Goldman Sachs, in particular) that this type of behavior will not be permitted.

Much Ado About Nothing – The Passage of Healthcare Reform

Almost three days have passed since the passage of the health care reform bill and, contrary to Tea Party clamoring, the United States has not ceased to exist.

In fact, the passage of the bill has been a little anticlimactic.   Perhaps it has something to do with the fact that, despite all of the hyperbole from each side, the healthcare reform act doesn’t actually change the system that much.

Contrary to the protestations of the far right, it does not amount to a government takeover of the healthcare system.   In fact, it appears to perpetuate the existing private insurance system by making everyone get a private health insurance policy.

In the same way, it does not come close to providing the universal healthcare that was originally promised by the Democrats.

The healthcare reform law is instead a mish mash of tweaks to the current system, which will displease both the far right and far left.   However, aside from some of the beneficial changes, such as the lifting of lifetime caps and eventual protection for those with pre-existing conditions, the best thing about this law is that it is a concrete step towards reform.   There has been a lot of talk about healthcare reform over the last 100 years, but very little action.   Now that some concrete action has actually been taken, both sides of the debate will be forced to continue to work on further changes, instead of delaying the inevitable reform to a later date.

That said, any changes and modifications to the new healthcare reform law should be made in the legislature, not in the courts.   In this regard, Florida’s attorney general, Bill McCollum, is wasting time, resources and taxpayer’s money by challenging the law in the courts.   Any lawyer worth his salt knows that McCollum’s chances of prevailing are slim to none – so why bother?   Perhaps it’s because McCollum is running for Florida Governor and this lawsuit provides a high degree of public visibility for him.   Furthermore, McCollum was one of the guys who was front and center in the impeachment of President Bill Clinton, so he knows a thing or two about how to waste time and public resources.

When all is said and done, everybody needs to take a deep breath, realize that not a lot has changed as a result of the healthcare reform law and instead focus on working towards further incremental change to the failing healthcare system.

Some Reasons Why Republicans Should Support the Public Health Option

It’s not often that you hear reasons why Republicans should support the public health option.   However, Rick Bayan of the New Moderate has put forward some interesting reasons why Republicans should do just that and still be able to stick to their free market principles and support of business interests.  You can check out the article “Why Republicans Should Love the Public Healthcare Option” here .

Serious Questions about Marco Rubio – Is the honeymoon over?

As I have previously noted, a battle is ensuing this year in Florida between the far right and moderate center of the Republican Party.   A few months ago, Governor Charlie Crist was the firm favorite to win the Republican nomination for Florida’s US senate seat election in November.   At that time he had a 30 point lead over his nearest rival.   However, a lot can change politically in a few months.   During that time, the darling of the far right, Marco Rubio, has established a 30 point lead over Crist.   So, is it game over for Crist?   Maybe not – serious questions are being raised about Rubio’s use of political committee funds and Republican party credit cards over the last few years.  For a breakdown of these expenses, you should read the St. Petersburg Times investigative article “Marco Rubio’s Lavish Rise to the Top” that was published yesterday – it raises as many questions as it answers and may spell the end of the honeymoon for Rubio.

End the Filibuster – It’s Undemocratic

We have heard a lot about the filibuster in recent weeks.   So what is a filibuster?

The word itself is derived from foreign words for “pirate” – filibustero (Spanish), flibustier (French), and the unpronounceable vrijbuiter (Dutch).   In English, it has come to mean obstructionist tactics designed to delay the passage of legislation.

In the United States, the filibuster is used to describe politicians’ holding the floor of the Senate to deliver prolonged speeches in order to prevent a vote on pending legislation.   Originally, filibusters were also possible in the House of Representatives, but as the House grew in size limits were placed on the length of debate – thereby eliminating the filibuster.

Eventually, the Senate introduced Rule 22, which allowed for debate to be ended by a two-thirds vote of the Senate (a procedure known as “cloture”).   The two-thirds requirement was subsequently reduced to 60 votes in 1975.

The record for the longest filibuster speech goes to Senator Strom Thurmond, who managed to speak on the Senate floor for 24 hours and 18 minutes against the Civil Rights Act of 1957.  However, nowadays there is no requirement that the filibustering minority actually take the Senate floor to deliver marathon speeches.   Instead, the minority merely informs the majority that the filibuster is “on” – effectively halting the progress of the legislation in question (absent the existence of a 60 vote majority).

Defenders of the filibuster claim that it allows for extended debate by placing no limit on the amount of time that Senators can speak.   However, in light of the current lack of a requirement that the filibustering debate actually occur, this argument seems a little hollow.

Defenders also claim that the filibuster prevents the majority from imposing its will on the minority.   In this regard, many people are under the mistaken belief that the filibuster is constitutionally mandated – it is not.   The filibuster is nothing more than a Senate procedure while the Constitution, on the other hand, actually permits majority rule in the Senate.   In fact, from a constitutional standpoint, the filibuster is unnecessary since there are already many safeguards against majority oppression, not the least of which is the creation of the Senate itself (which protects smaller states from oppression by more populous states).

Both parties have used the filibuster and both parties have criticized the filibuster – depending on whether they were in the majority or the minority at the time.  Remember the Democrats during George W. Bush’s presidency?   They went out of their way to use the filibuster to prevent votes on many of Bush’s judicial nominees.   The Republicans, in turn, threatened the “nuclear option” (previously known as the “constitutional option”) to change the rules and allow a majority vote to close debate.   The Democrats cried foul.

Now we have the Republicans using the filibuster to prevent passage of health care reform.   This time, the Democrats are threatening the little used procedure of “reconciliation” to overcome the filibuster.   The Republicans are crying foul.

While the filibuster has obvious advantages for the minority party, it is undemocratic.    A filibuster essentially subverts the will of the majority of the electorate (as represented by their Senators).   Add to this the fact that the Senate already disproportionately (albeit constitutionally) represents the interests of smaller states, and you have a larger problem.

The filibuster also increases the gridlock that is already paralyzing Congress.   It’s hard enough to get legislation passed with a simple majority, let alone with a supermajority requirement in the Senate.

It’s time that the Senate adopts rules similar to the House, whereby debate is limited to a set amount of time.   Everybody will get the chance to be heard, but nobody will be able to block the will of the majority and paralyze the legislative process.

All Primaries Need to Be Open

A majority of states have closed primaries.   A closed primary means that only voters who have registered affiliation with a particular party can vote in that party’s primary.   For example, in a closed primary state, only registered Democrats can vote in the Democratic primaries.

Closed primaries are undemocratic and have the effect of adding to the political polarization that the United States is currently suffering.

When you have a closed primary, the candidates have to appeal exclusively to their party’s base, which tends to be the extreme right of the Republican Party and the extreme left of the Democratic Party.   In turn, this results in the candidates adopting the extreme policies of their party’s faithful in order to get elected.   Meanwhile, moderates in the middle are often turned off by these extreme positions and are left in a quandary as to who to vote for in the actual election.

Florida is currently providing an excellent example of the effects of a closed primary.   Currently, there are two Republican primary candidates for the U.S. Senate – Governor Charlie Crist and State Representative Marco Rubio.   Crist has shown that he is a moderate Republican in the way that he has acted as Governor of Florida.   However, the extreme right of the Florida Republican Party have labeled him a RINO (“Republican in Name Only”) and are supporting Rubio.   Rubio, in turn, is going out of his way to “out-credential” Crist as a “true” Republican (in other words, an extreme conservative).  While this internal in-fighting may be of interest to the Republican faithful, it does little to ease the political polarization of the nation and turns off moderate voters.

Now, let’s imagine that Florida had open primaries – i.e., anyone, including a registered independent, could vote in either party’s primary.   Without a closed primary, Crist and Rubio would not only have to worry about winning over the party faithful – they would also have to be concerned with attracting independent and moderate voters.  Net result – Crist and Rubio would have to play to the center, albeit to the right of center.

Aside from its contribution towards the polarization of US politics, there are other problems with the closed primary.   First, why should all taxpayers have to fund the cost of conducting a closed primary, when only registered voters of that particular party can participate?   If a party wants a closed primary, it should fund the cost itself since only its members derive any benefit.

Secondly, there is something fundamentally undemocratic with a closed primary system in which a large portion of the electorate (i.e., registered independents) is completely excluded from an important part of the democratic process.   Supporters of closed primaries claim that closed primaries prevent voters of the opposing party from “tactically” voting for their opponent’s weaker candidate, thereby disrupting the primary results.   However, in the absence of hard statistics showing that the results of open primaries are being affected in this way, I am not convinced by this argument.

In the end, closed primaries are undemocratic and need to be abandoned if we are to ever have a hope of ending the United States’ political polarization.

Must Read Article on Reform of the Political System by Professor Jonathan Turley

You have to read the following article by Professor Jonathan Turley of George Washington University on “must haves” for any reform of the US political system:  “You Say You Want a Revolution”: How to Reform Our Political System .  It’s about time that those of us in the political center followed his advice, gave up our political apathy and became determined to bring about meaningful change.

A Nuclear Iran – What are the Options?

Today, Iran celebrated the 31^st anniversary of the creation of the Islamic Republic.  As usual, Iranian President Ahmadinejad took the opportunity for a saber rattling speech in which he claimed that Iran is a nuclear nation and has already produced 20% enriched uranium.   He also claimed that Iran was able to produce weapon’s grade uranium.

The idea of a nuclear armed Iran under the current despotic regime is plain scary – but what options does the rest of the world have to prevent it from happening?

Currently, the diplomatic instrument of choice appears to be sanctions.  Already, a consensus appears to be building that Iran cannot be trusted and that severe sanctions must be put in place – even Russia appears to be on board for once.

History has shown that sanctions just don’t work.   Let’s look at some examples: Cuba, Zimbabwe, Libya, North Korea.   All of these countries have been the subject of sanctions and yet there has been no regime change and very little  in the way of positive change (possibly with the exception of Libya).   Moreover, sanctions have almost never harmed those in power (they usually continue living in their palaces), but instead impoverish the populace – thereby giving the regime the opportunity to point at the United States as the bogeyman responsible for all of the nation’s woes.

So with sanctions off the list of realistic possibilities, what about military action?  Here, two alternatives are often proposed: a military strike by the United States or a military strike by Israel.

Iran has learnt from the example of Israel’s destruction of Iraq’s nuclear reactor at Osirak in 1981.   As a result, the nuclear enrichment facilities are deep underground.   Consequently, any strike is not guaranteed of success.

Aside from the practical problems with a military strike, military action against Iran is likely to unite the Iranian government with the opposition in a unified front against an attack on its national sovereignty.   You only have to look at the events of 9/11 to see how, no matter politically polarized a nation may be, everybody comes together when their nation is attacked.

An attack by the United States or Israel would also give the current regime an excuse to crack down on dissent and opposition by claiming that they are agents of foreign governments.   In light of the recent growth of the Iranian opposition movement, this would be extremely counterproductive to the West’s interests.

Finally, a military attack on Iran would also have a destabilizing effect in the Middle East.   This would result in a spike in the price of oil, which would have a devastating effect on the world economy (remember the 1970s and, more recently, 2008).   In addition, it would likely result in Iran conducting a strike on Israel, whether or not Israel was involved in the military action on Iran (similar to Saddam Hussein’s attacks on Israel during the first Gulf War).

What options are left?  Clandestine support of the Iranian opposition is probably the best option.  Remember the Solidarity union in Poland during the Cold War?   The United States gave both covert and overt support to Solidarity.   It didn’t bring down the Polish communist government overnight, but certainly assisted in the ultimate demise of the Soviet block.   With continual support of the Iranian “Green” opposition and other covert efforts to make sure that Iran does not export its nuclear technology abroad, we might just be able to see regime change in Iran with a more reasonable and friendly government coming to power.

It’s Time for an End to Gerrymandering

The term “gerrymandering” was coined nearly 200 years ago when then Massachusetts governor, Elbridge Gerry, sought to change the boundaries of the voter districts so that his party would have disproportionate power in the state. Some people thought that the resulting map of contorted districts (see drawing) looked like a salamander. Merging that word with the last name of the governor saw the birth of the term “gerrymander”.

Unfortunately, gerrymandering is not a historical anachronism. Instead, for the last 200 years gerrymandering has continued and flourished.

Every ten years, the United States conducts a census. The results of such census are then used to change the voting district boundaries to reflect changes in population. You would think that this would be a relatively simple operation. However, in state legislatures everywhere, the process becomes one of political intrigue.

The United States Supreme Court has ruled that drawing lines with racial motives is unconstitutional. Unfortunately, the Court has not found political motives (aka gerrymandering) to be unconstitutional.

Take a look at your state’s voting district map and you will probably think that it was drawn up by a three year old. Districts will bear no relation to geographic realties – weaving in and out of each other, apparently at random. However, there is nothing random about the design. The party in control of your state legislature has deliberately drawn the boundaries to ensure that: (1) their party’s representatives are elected; and (2) their opponent’s representatives are not.

So why should we be concerned? Gerrymandering is nothing less than an organized manipulation of the electoral process by the political elite. A person’s vote can effectively be nullified by the redistricting carried out by the party in power. This results in more of the same: protection of incumbents, insurmountable hurdles for independent candidates and the perpetuation of the two party system along with the accompanying political polarization.

What can we do about it? With both parties unlikely to give up the opportunity to redistrict their party into perpetual power, there do not seem to be many options. However, a movement is afoot in Florida to amend the Florida Constitution and effectively prohibit gerrymandering. FairDistrictsFlorida.org is pushing for voters to approve Amendments 5 and 6 in November. You can expect a lot of opposition from the powers that be, but the successful adoption of Amendments 5 and 6 may just mark the beginning of the death of the Gerrymander.