The latest Carnival of Divided Government – Labor Day Edition has been posted at my home blog. The carnival is an irregularly scheduled compilation of links to new and traditional media commentary on the topic of divided government. I’ll highlight one link here.

This excerpt is from a 1959 letter written by President Dwight D. Eisenhower, and referenced in a recent New York Times Op-Ed by Max Blumenthal – “Ike’s Other Warning“.

Eisenhower wrote the letter in reply to one Robert J. Biggs, a WWII veteran. Biggs was dissatisfied with the level of discourse in Washington D.C. and thought the President was not projecting sufficient strength and certitude. He goes on to say that Americans need “more of the attitude of a commanding officer who knows the goal and the mission and states, without evasion, the way it is to be done.” Ike took the time to write a long, thoughtful and honest letter to Mr. Biggs:

“As you know, for four years our government has been a divided government, with the Administration confronted by a Congress controlled by the opposition–and the two working, if not in opposition, at least at cross purposes much of the time. An example is the sparring that seems to go on constantly over our defense situation–and specifically over our missile position. It is difficult indeed to maintain a reasoned and accurately informed understanding of our defense situation on the part of our citizenry when many prominent officials, possessing no standing or expertness except as they themselves claim it, attempt to further their own ideas or interests by resort to statements more distinguished by stridency than by accuracy.”

As an exercise to the reader, I suggest rereading the above paragraph substituting “health care reform” for “missile position” and “defense situation”.

Ike continues the letter, explaining in more detail the burden and responsibility that our messy, democratic government puts on the citizenry:

“Even if this division in the government did not exist, I doubt that citizens like yourself could ever, under our democratic system, be provided with the universal degree of certainty, the confidence in their understanding of our problems, and the clear guidance from higher authority that you believe needed. Such unity is not only logical but indeed indispensable in a successful military organization, but in a democracy debate is the breath of life. This is to me what Lincoln meant by government “of the people, by the people, and for the people. … But while this responsibility is a taxing one to a free people it is their great strength as well–from millions of individual free minds come new ideas, new adjustments to emerging problems, and tremendous vigor, vitality and progress.”

The legion of bloggers and pundits complaining about the tone of the health care debate, and the difficulty of passing a health care reform bill because the masses seems insufficiently appreciative, would benefit from reading Ike’s letter.

H/T – Septimus at The Whig Blog

More at Divided We Stand United We Fall

This is a joint post of Justin Gardner (Donk Quixote) and Mike Wallach (Phanto), wherein they endeavor to tilt at windmills (with many apologies to Miguel de Cervantes):

“And no sooner did Donk Quixote see them that he said to his squire, “Fortune is guiding our affairs better than we ourselves could have wished. Do you see over yonder, friend Phanto, the hulking healthcare insurance giants? I intend to do battle with them and slay them. With their spoils we shall begin to have healthcare for all, for this is a righteous war and the removal of so foul a brood from off the face of the earth is a service God will bless.”

“What giants?” asked Phanto.

“Those you see over there,” replied the blogmaster. “With their long corporate arms. Some of them have arms well nigh two leagues in length.”

“Take care, sir,” cried Phanto. “Those over there are not giants but bureaucrats and political windbags. Those things that seem to be their arms are purses which, when they are filled with contributions, weigh heavily on the laws that control our lives.”

Those familiar with Justin and Mike from reading this blog, know that we are generally at odds, disagreeing more than we agree. Justin is a registered Democrat, and considers himself a liberal with independent leanings. Mike most recently registered as a Republican, but considers himself primarily a fiscal conservative, deficit hawk, and a libertarian leaning independent.

But lo and behold: We found common ground in the Health Care Reform debate.

If we were starting with a blank slate, we would support vastly different and incompatible health care systems. But we are not starting there. We have different objections to the existing system, but agree that the current system is in need of reform. We also agree that the reform most Americans want includes three critical criteria:

1. Universal coverage for all Americans
2. Insurance against financial ruin if struck with an illness.
3. The reform program be fiscally responsible, manageable and have understandable costs.

What currently existing bill hits all three?

Wyden-Bennett.

Yes, we both support (S-391) The Healthy Americans Act and agree it represents a good foundation on which to build rational Health Care reform.

Donk Quixote (JG):

“Wyden-Bennett has my support because it does away with the pre-existing condition clause, reigns in costs and has the potential to cover more Americans than the current legislation being proposed.”

Phanto (mw):

“Wyden-Bennett has my support because it meets the critical criteria for reform, does it better than HR 3200 and does it without increasing the deficit or requiring net new taxes. Wyden-Bennett has my support because it directly and honestly attacks the central problem of employer based health care insurance as the primary delivery vehicle for non-public health care in America. Wyden-Bennett has my support because it is not (yet) saddled with questionable deals for big pharma, big insurance, and payoffs for big union contributors.”

Saying we support Wyden-Bennett does not mean we have no reservations about this bill. Au contraire mon frère…

Donk Quixote:

“Wyden-Bennett feels like it’s the co-op idea only it takes EVERYBODY’s health coverage away who currently has it through their employer and makes them buy it again. Basically, no more tax breaks for health care. I’m in favor of the principle of that, especially if it could cut costs, but I do think that the radical restructuring of the system would be opposed by many more Americans because it’ll be seen as taking something away from them and would require a lot more work on their part. How do you think a plan that starts off with “First, you lose your insurance…” would play with Americans? Because you know that’s how it would be positioned. This could be a non-starter for many. And to that point, do you really think members of the right wing who kept on saying “Obama is going to raise your taxes!” would stay quiet and accept Wyden-Bennett?

Also, getting back to the co-op idea…does anybody really think creating a system that would dump EVERYBODY off of their insurance is more politically palatable than one that simply opens up options and provides subsidies for those w/o health insurance or those working for small businesses? Bipartisan or not, this bill represents a VERY radical reshaping of how we buy and sell health insurance in this country and such a seismic shift doesn’t seem politically feasible to me.

Phanto:

“I describe myself as a “libertarian-leaning independent”. There are elements of Wyden-Bennett that cannot be reconciled or rationalized with anything that resembles libertarian principles. This is where I have my greatest heartburn with this bill. Chief among them, this bill has mandated coverage. The bill does not work financially without mandated coverage. It works very well with it. It could be rationalized that individuals will have a much wider range of choices under Wyden-Bennett. But I won’t call that a libertarian argument, because individuals will not have the option to not participate.

The trade-off for this mandated coverage is that we get a fiscally sound health care system that covers everyone, that puts no one at risk of financial ruin from getting sick, and does it without raising the deficit or requiring net new taxes. I am willing to take that trade-off. This is why I describe myself as libertarian-leaning as opposed to libertarian or Libertarian. Once in a while, I feel compelled to lean another way.”

Are the politics of Wyden-Bennett within the “art of the possible”?
No idea. It feels like it should be. Universal coverage for all, catastrophic illness protection for all, no increase in the deficit and no net new taxes. What’s not to like?

Clearly there is a constituency on the left who will find nothing less than a Single Payer system to be acceptable. They will never accept this bill and are excluded from the pool of potential supporters. Clearly there is a constituency on the right who will find nothing less than a market based system with little or no government participation to be acceptable. They will never accept this bill and are excluded from the pool of potential supporters. But for the rest, for the wide range of liberals, conservatives and independents who would like to find some common ground and believe there is a need to reform our healthcare system – this presentation is for you:

(There is a four slide “Keep It Simple Stupid” version linked here and embedded at “Divided We Stand United We Fall”.)

Does Wyden-Bennett actually have bipartisan support?
Commenter Mike (not mw) kicked off an interesting discussion among the Donklephant commentariat, questioning whether there is sincere bipartisan support for this bill, or whether Republicans were simply using it for political cover. There is one way to find out. Get behind it, and if there is enough popular support, we will see what happens. Our guess, the compelling fiscal calculus – true reform with no net new taxes and no increase in the deficit – permits the inner fiscal conservative of many Republicans (and Blue Dog Dems) to overcome their other concerns.

Outside the halls of Congress, bipartisan support in the new and traditional media is visible, broad and deep:

• “[Wyden-Bennett] is probably a better approach than the consensus Democratic plan, which doesn’t have hard cost controls at all, and so doesn’t really explain how it’ll save enough money to be sustainable over the long haul.”
  - Ezra Klein
• “Now you might think that in these circumstances someone might take a second look at the ideas incorporated in the Wyden-Bennett plan, which already has a good C.B.O. score, bipartisan support and a recipe for fundamental reform”
  - David Brooks
• “The Senate’s smartest health-care wonk, Ron Wyden of Oregon, believes we should move away from job-based insurance. He has introduced a bill that would do this by converting the tax deduction for employer-provided health insurance into a tax credit and requiring individuals to use it to buy insurance. This would achieve universal coverage, apply meaningful cost controls, and—according to the Congressional Budget Office—pay for itself within a few years.”
  - Jacob Weisberg
• “The Wyden-Bennett bill is less expensive, covers just as many people and has actual bipartisan support. So far nine Democrats and five Republicans are sponsors, while no Republicans have backed the president’s plan yet.
  - Salt Lake Tribune
• “Despite being the darling of health policy bloggers and the first bill to be certified by the Congressional Budget Office as covering nearly everyone and fully paying for itself, the measure is being roundly ignored by those actually trying to put together a health overhaul measure on Capitol Hill and in the White House.”
  - NPR
• “A divorce of health care benefits from employment would increase social mobility, provide more individual investment in our health, and the reforms present in the Wyden-Bennett proposal would also ensure that people, regardless of pre-existing conditions or age, could still attain health benefits.”
  - E.D. Kain
• “Under the Wyden-Bennett system, health dollars would be controlled by the individual (a long-time conservative goal) and used within a restructured, heavily regulated, totally universal, insurance marketplace (a longtime liberal goal). Each state would create Health Help Agencies, who would provide easy access to insurance products, along with information, guidance, and advice on how to choose. Insurers would have to meet a minimum standard for comprehensiveness (equivalent to the standard Blue Cross/Blue Shield plan currently offered to members of Congress), and they could not discriminate based on pre-existing conditions, occupation, genetic information, gender or age. Nor could they deny insurance to those who ask for it. In return, every American would have to buy health insurance, and there would be hefty subsidies for those further down the income ladder.”
  - American Prospect
• “The idea has a lot of appeal. It would give most people far greater choice than they have now, and they could take their benefits with them when they change jobs. It also provides generous subsidies for those who cannot afford to purchase health care on their own, and yet the Congressional Budget Office has said the proposal would be “revenue neutral,” which means it wouldn’t add to the deficit. It would include a minimum defined-benefits package, with no exclusions for pre-existing conditions.”
  - TIME

UPDATE: Simon complains in the comments that the right is underrepresented in this sampling. We strive to please and are adding two more quotes:

• “The plans favored by Massachusetts Sen. Ted Kennedy or President Barack Obama rely on a “public option” in which government insurance would supposedly “compete” with private insurers, a move many see as leading to a single-payer system. By contrast, the Wyden-Bennett Healthy Americans Act relies on the private insurance market while imposing a series of regulations to squeeze savings from the private sector… The idea, Mr. Wyden says, is to harness the Democratic desire to get everyone covered to the Republican interest in markets and consumer choice. “Everything I’ve been up to with this coalition is designed to make reconciliation irrelevant,” he explains, referring to a political maneuver whereby Democrats might try to force through health reform on a bare majority of 51 votes rather than the filibuster-proof 60 votes normally required. ‘People can’t be tricked into fixing health care.”
  - WSJ
• “Republicans should embrace universal healthcare by supporting the Wyden-Bennett Healthy Americans Act. There is no another viable way to get rid of the tax-free treatment of employer-provided healthcare benefits that is severely distorting the healthcare market. Once you throw in on top of that greater benefits than those currently offered for families and individuals, consumer choice among competing healthcare plans, portability of health insurance, and (adding in the inevitable under-estimate of total cost) a price tag that costs a trillion dollars less in the next decade than any Democratic plan, you end up with the best bill in either chamber.”
  - Tom Church

It should also be pointed out that, unsurprisingly, there is bi-partisan opposition to this bill. :END UPDATE

In the end, tilting at windmills can be an exercise in futility, but oddly, we still feel pretty good about it.

With that, Donk Quixote and Phanto ride into the sunset.

Cue “Man of La Mancha”

This is my quest, to follow that star …
No matter how hopeless, no matter how far …
To fight for the right, without question or pause …
To be willing to march into Hell, for a Heavenly cause …

And I know if I’ll only be true, to this glorious quest,
That my heart will lie peaceful and calm,
when I’m laid to my rest …
And the world will be better for this:
That one man, scorned and covered with scars,
Still strove, with his last ounce of courage,
To reach … the unreachable star …

It started in Flint, Michigan, but it could be extended to other blighted communities across the nation.

From Telegraph:

The radical experiment is the brainchild of Dan Kildee, treasurer of Genesee County, which includes Flint.

Having outlined his strategy to Barack Obama during the election campaign, Mr Kildee has now been approached by the US government and a group of charities who want him to apply what he has learnt to the rest of the country.

Mr Kildee said he will concentrate on 50 cities, identified in a recent study by the Brookings Institution, an influential Washington think-tank, as potentially needing to shrink substantially to cope with their declining fortunes.

Most are former industrial cities in the “rust belt” of America’s Mid-West and North East. They include Detroit, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Baltimore and Memphis.

In Detroit, shattered by the woes of the US car industry, there are already plans to split it into a collection of small urban centres separated from each other by countryside.

“The real question is not whether these cities shrink – we’re all shrinking – but whether we let it happen in a destructive or sustainable way,” said Mr Kildee. “Decline is a fact of life in Flint. Resisting it is like resisting gravity.”

I like the idea. It makes no sense to keep communities around that are abandoned. And if these cities eventually do come back they can build back up if need be.

What do you think?

I thought it was a joke when I first heard about it, but “Seasteading” is a serious idea, it’s being backed by Milton Friedman’s grandson and they’ve apparently already raised more than a half a million dollars to realize their dream of building communities…on the sea!

Here’s more from Reason:

Patri Friedman was doing all right himself, living with his wife and child in a mini-commune of sort—the kind people today call an “intentional community”—in Mountain View, California, a bit south of San Francisco. He had a great and challenging job with a great company, Google. But his preoccupation, his passion, lay elsewhere. He thought he had figured out the real underlying problem bedeviling society, and it went deeper than just governments themselves. The real solution, he came to think, would involve the lure of the bounding main, the unbounded horizon, our vast and empty oceans.

Remember those high exit costs? Friedman wondered: What if you could just move—not just you, but everything you own, including your home, and, if your neighbors agreed with you, your whole community? What if you could move all of it where no government would bother you at all, and you could make a new, better society?

Friedman called his theory “dynamic geography.” He remembered a line from his dad’s book The Machinery of Freedom about how differently terrestrial government would behave if everyone lived in trailers and could easily flee state oppression. If land itself could get up and go, the incentive structure of government would change even more, moving it in a libertarian direction.

No doubt it’s an interesting notion, but is this practical? Living on the sea? Just think of how much risk that could entail. Of course you’d do the research to make sure you’re settling in a place that isn’t prone to natural disaster, but it’s still THE SEA. Talk about a wildcard if there every was one.

Still, this may represent a better chance to live the libertarian life than via electoral change, as Patri points out…

Libertarians, he says, expend precious time and energy on truly and self-evidently impossible paths toward political change. “Like the Ron Paul movement,” he says. “Lots of libertarians’ effort and millions and millions directed in a way that’s hopeless! For real change [electoral politics is] totally hopeless. Think how much more likely to succeed [libertarians would be] if that amount of resources were put into something that could actually work.” By which he means seasteading. And you have to admit: When you compare it to the likelihood of creating a libertarian world through American politics, seasteading starts to look more and more sensible.

Is it really that hopeless? I certainly don’t think so, but I will say that the Ron Paul movement was unrealistic to the point of being damaging to the libertarian cause. So maybe taking to the seas does have some benefits after all. :-)

In any event, here are some more articles about the movement…

• Live Free or Drown: Floating Utopias on the Cheap
• Seastead, Ahoy!
• Welcome aboard a brand new country

More as it develops…

Divided government is not a cure-all, but the fact is – our divided government state since 2007 has begun to reverse the damage of the 2001-2006 One Party Rule. Six years of abusive single party control is not going to be undone by 20 months of divided government. Yet, as a direct consequence of electing a divided government in 2006, we have a new Secretary of Defense, a new Attorney General, a marginal improvement in both the Patriot Act and FISA vs. the Bush/Cheney versions, a great deal more oversight revealing many of the abuses of the six years of single party control, a revised strategy in Iraq resulting in an improved security situation, and a reduction in the rate of spending growth in 2007. These improvements, though marginal, are not insignificant. It is the nature of divided government that improvements will be incremental and that is exactly what we have seen thus far.

The absurdity of handing all the levers of power to the Democrats as a cure for the abuses we saw as a result of handing all the levers of power to the Republican should be obvious on its face. Particularly when you consider the Democrats will have bigger majorities than the Republicans combined with a “Cheney enhanced” executive office and a partisan 97% toe-the-party-line Democratic voting record president in Obama. Quite possibly this will be the greatest concentration of power in one man and one party in the US federal government in the lifetime of anyone reading this blog. You gotta really have the partisan blinders on to believe that Democrats can be trusted with the “ring of power” just because they are Democrats.

So we face a similar decision in 2008 as we did on 2006, but I am not as optimistic about the outcome. The divided government swing vote is real but small. It can determine the outcome of an election if the election is close, as it was in 2006. Although the Democrats have already conclusively demonstrated that they have the potential to be every bit as corrupt as the Republicans and fully embrace big money corporate politics as aggressively as the K-Street Republicans, they have not yet had enough time or power to fulfill that corruption potential. Without any effective partisan oversight, we will certainly see Democratic Party corruption begin to fully flower by 2010.

There are positive signs. In this election cycle we have seen more stories, articles and posts on divided government than ever before. Consideration of divided government vs. one party rule is now part of the conscious voting decision for many voters. This is a solid foundation to build on for the 2010 midterms. But this year, the financial market crisis has swamped all other considerations, and what should have been a close election, is likely a rout. When voters are gripped by fear, whether it is fear of terrorism (2002), fear of gay marriage (Ohio in 2004), or fear of economic collapse (2008), few other considerations will come to the fore. That said, DWSUWF will nevertheless soldier on, and reprise the rationale to Just Vote Divided one last time…

(Well – for this election season – Thursday I’ll get started on 2010)

Continued at Divided We Stand United We Fall.

Rebecca Sinderland at CNN quotes Rick Davis in “McCains Closing Argument: A push for Dived Government“:

The Dallas Morning News endorses John McCain:

The Economist analyzes “John McCain’s Last Chance“:

“But Americans have a strong preference for divided government. America has only had one-party rule (with the same party controlling the White House and both chambers) for six years out of the 28 since Ronald Reagan’s election in 1980—two years under Bill Clinton and four and a bit under George Bush. Mr McCain should argue forcefully that, as an experienced legislator who has worked with left-wing Democrats as well as right-wing Republicans, he will be the perfect man to check Congress where necessary and work with it where desirable”

The Wall Street Journal opines – “A Liberal Supermajority”:

The Journal story received a lot of attention across the blogosphere, including links from me and Alan at here at the Donk.

My view is that this is the only argument that can still move votes for the McCain campaign in the short time that is left. However, I doubt it can move the polls more than a point or two. If the gap between Obama and McCain remains large, it won’t make a difference. The fundamental question is whether American’s preference for divided government will be sufficient to overcome their anger and desire to punish Republicans for the disaster of the Bush administration.

Speaking for myself, I was happy to see the Republicans lose the majority in Congress in 2006. I will be happy to see Republicans punished again in 2008 with an even smaller minority in Congress. However, I do not want to see Obama and the Democrats granted virtual monarchical power, one party rule, and license to govern unfettered by any meaningful opposition.

“Palin is as bracing as an Arctic breeze and delightfully elicits the condescension of liberals whose enthusiasm for everyday middle-class Americans cannot survive an encounter with one. But the country’s romance with her will, as romances do, cool somewhat…”

Certainly, McCain is going to need an argument that will attract more moderates, centrists, independents, and libertarians to win. George Will has identified that argument:

“McCain should, therefore, enunciate a closing argument for his candidacy that goes to fundamentals of governance, concerning which the vice presidency is usually peripheral. His argument should assert the virtues of something that voters, judging by their behavior over time, prefer — divided government… Divided government compels compromises that curb each party’s excesses, especially both parties’ proclivities for excessive spending when unconstrained by an institution controlled by the other party. William Niskanen, chairman of the libertarian Cato Institute, notes that in the last 50 years, ”government spending has increased an average of only 1.73 percent annually during periods of divided government. This number more than triples, to 5.26 percent, for periods of unified government.”

An interesting argument. I am surprised we have not heard it before.

Reaction from the left and right blogosphere is… predictable.

From the left – BarbinMD at Daily Kos scoffs:

“George Will thinks that John McCain’s “closing argument” to elect him should be what a divided government would mean to the country. Seriously, that’s the only selling point for McCain that Will could come up with. You can almost feel the enthusiasm.”

From the right – Ed Morrissey considers Will’s divided government argument risky, fearing that it shows the white flag on congressional elections, but finally concurs:

“Will may be right in this case. It’s more likely that the Democrats will keep the House, and there’s almost no way they can lose the Senate, with 23 Republican seats up for grabs and only 13 seats for Democrats to defend. There is little doubt that one-party rule by Democrats will result in both the Fairness Doctrine and Card Check getting written into law. Both of them would severely undermine the American practice of freedom, one by silencing free speech on the airwaves, and the latter by eliminating the secret ballot in union organizing elections. Card Check is a blank check for a spigot of money that will float Democrats in elections for generations, the only reason for its existence. McCain needs to emphasize these two potential outcomes and cast himself as the last defense against these two destructive bills. It doesn’t have to be the only theme he uses, but it should be one of the arrows in the quiver.”

In related news, the most recent edition of “The Carnival of Divided Government“ – a periodic compilation of blog posts and punditry on the subject of Divided Government – has been posted at Divided We Stand – United We Fall .

^{CORRECTION: The quote “from the right” is actually from Ed Morrissey not Michelle Malkin as originally posted. I must have been under caffeinated this morning. I knew it sounded too reasonable for MM. Fixed now.}

“I think its important for bloggers to lay their biases out in the open. Particularly if one happens to be a moderate/centrist/independent. Moderates are supposed to be more objective than their more partisan counterparts.”

I agree. I think I have been pretty clear about my own bias here, but thought I’d take this opportunity to get more explicit as we sprint to the electoral finish.

To the surprise of no one who has been reading my recent posts and comments at the Donk, I have made a decision on how I will vote in November. I will be voting for divided government. As I expect that the Democrats will extend their majorities in both houses of Congress, the only way to accomplish that state is to support John McCain for President.

For me, this election choice is not really between “Experience” vs. “Change”, nor is it between “Experience” vs. “Experience”, nor is it between “Change” vs. “Change“. This election is not really even between McCain vs. Obama considered in a political vacuum. Since the Democrats will increase their majority in the House and Senate, this election is actually about choosing between one of these two federal government configurations in 2009:

• CHOICE A:
  McCain/Palin ( R ) + Pelosi leading an expanded D majority in the House + Clinton/Reid leading an expanded D majority in the Senate.

  Two Republican reformers with a reputation for bucking their own party and launching bi-partisan initiatives working with a Democratic Party potentially holding the largest single party congressional majorities in modern history.

– OR -

• CHOICE B:
  Obama/Biden (D) + Pelosi leading an expanded D majority in the House + Clinton/Reid leading an expanded D majority in the Senate.

  A toe-the-party-line Democratic President and a consummate Washington insider working with a Democratic Party potentially holding the largest single party congressional majorities in modern history.

That is an easy choice. I am voting for what I firmly believe to be in the best interest of the country. By voting for divided government I am voting to distribute power rather than concentrate power. I am voting to reinforce the checks, balances and separation of power enshrined in the Constitution and not voting to undermine those constitutional constructs. To that end I will also vote for my Democratic congressional representative, Nancy Pelosi, and I will contribute to the DCCC to help Democrats extend their majority in the House.

There is a lot of campaigning left. Is it possible that events over the next few months might change my vote? Certainly. I don’t expect it, but it could happen. The single biggest factor would be if the Republicans look like they might retake Congress. Doug discussed this possibility in a recent post.

I don’t believe for a second that will happen and in fact, I expect the opposite and that the Democrats will expand their majorities. Still, I’ll watch it closely. If I come to believe that the Republicans will retake Congress, I will switch and support Barack Obama for President, despite deep personal misgivings about his readiness to be Commander in Chief. I would far prefer that a leader with his limited level of experience spend 4-8 years as Vice President before taking on the top job. But I will give him the benefit of the doubt on qualifications, rather than vote for a president who will take office with a boot-licking Congress from the same party. That always turns out badly.

Despite the fact that Donklephant has recently become primarily a forum for debate about the merits of the Republican VP nominee (a forum in which I have been an overly active participant), Palin was not a factor in my decision. She certainly makes it easier for me to vote for McCain, as I find the ticket much more palatable with her on it than it would have been with one of the hacks (Romney, Giuliani, Lieberman, etc.) bandied about before the selection. I also think she significantly improves the chances for McCain to win (which I still consider a longshot), assuming she does not turn into Dan Quayle between now and the election. So far, so good.

I must admit I am still nursing deep psychological wounds inflicted by JG in a comment on one of my posts earlier in the year:

“…there are simply too many holes in the divided government philosophy for anybody but yourself to really buy into it.” – JG

That comment motivated me to get more aggressive about identifying and promoting like-minded bloggers and pundits writing in support of a divided government voting heuristic.

Between now and the election, I will be accelerating the “Carnival of Divided Government” compilations posted at my blog from a monthly to a weekly cycle. The carnival offers links, excerpts and commentary from writers and pundits thinking about the topic of divided government. Some sample links from the most recent edition here:

Ilya Somin of the Volokh Conspiracy noodles on the impact of the VP picks in “The Biden Pick” and “Sarah Palin and Libertarianism” (h/t to Justin for pointing me here)

John Babka at Positive Liberty lays out the libertarian case in “Why I don’t want united government” and “The Gridlock Strategy“

In addition, here are a couple of interesting MSM essays commenting on the topic last week, both published too late for inclusion in the last Carnival, but will be in the next and previewed here:

David Brooks, writing in the New York Times has advice for both campaigns, but particularly good advice for McCain in his Op-Ed column “Surprise Me Most“:

“If I were McCain, I’d make the divided government argument explicit. The Republicans are intellectually unfit to govern right now, but balancing with Democrats, they might be able to do some good. I’d have McCain tell the country that he looks forward to working with Congressional Democrats, that he is confident they can achieve great things together.”

Duncan Currie writing in The American analyzes what we might expect out of such a divided government led by a McCain administration in “2009: A White House Odyssey“:

“At the forum in Minneapolis, Senator Kyl observed that some of the biggest domestic reforms in recent decades have been produced by divided government. Prominent examples include the 1986 tax reform bill (passed by a Democratic House and signed by President Reagan) and the 1996 welfare reform bill (passed by a GOP Congress and signed by President Clinton). “It’s an interesting and somewhat paradoxical phenomenon,” Kyl said. With a President McCain and a Democratic Congress, “it might be possible to tackle a couple of big things.” As Kyl noted, McCain is “very unpredictable” and has repeatedly “worked on big things with Democrats.What “big things” might be feasible under a McCain administration? Two possibilities are immigration reform and a “cap-and-trade” system to regulate carbon emissions.”

As I’ve mentioned before, I harbor no illusions that strategic voting for divided government will ever be anything more than a small minority view. My guess is -at best- it can serve as an organizing principle for about half of what David Boaz and David Kirby identified as The libertarian swing vote – so maybe 6% of the electorate could be enticed by this voting heuristic at the most. However, if the election is close, balanced and polarized, that six percent – as a true swing vote – could determine the outcome of the election, as it arguably did in the 2006 mid-terms.

To help our small band of blogging Dividicans find each other, I’ve begun to maintain a Coalition of the Divided Blogroll (located in right side bar of my blog – link here) . Any bloggers or commenters I find writing in support of divided government will be automatically included.

I’ve been flogging this concept for a couple of years and think I’ve heard all the arguments against voting for divided government, both in general arguments and those specifically focused on the 2008 election. In my next post I will endeavor to address the arguments I found compelling. Any readers who would like to seem me respond to specific arguments or issues, let me know in the comments, and I’ll try to address them in that post.

Please note that arguments of the form “Republicans are the spawn of satan and Democrats are the agents of angels.” are actually not arguments but statements of your partisan belief system. I can’t help you with that.

^{Excerpted from the “Carnival of Divided Government 25” at DWSUWF}

The conventions have certainly got the partisan juices flowing. How about a change of pace?

I read David Mayhew’s “Divided we Govern” during a recent sea-faring holiday, a book I had intended to read for some time. It is one of the cornerstone works of scholarship on which I have built the divided government voting heuristic promoted in my blog.

The book can be a tough slog for a casual reader like myself. Working through the extensive footnotes and supporting material that some would consider dry, perhaps arid, maybe even Sahara desert-like, requires some perseverance. But Mayhew has a clean, approachable style, writes with clarity, and if you bring a curiosity of why things really get done (or don’t) in Washington – it is a fascinating read.

There is a pervasive belief – a nugget of “conventional wisdom” – that if you want to “get things done” in Congress, whether legislation, investigations to clean up governmental abuses, or just promote “change“, a single party must control the Presidency and both legislative branches to avoid gridlock. It certainly seems intuitively obvious that the federal government would be more productive if all branches are run by one party. In this book David Mayhew proved the conventional wisdom flat wrong, at least in the modern era. He put the proposition to the test by rigorously quantifying and analyzing all legislation and investigations (the two primary functions of Congress) from 1946-2002. First published in 1991, the book was updated with a second edition in 2005. It is the seminal reference work that debunked the notion that the federal government functions more effectively with unified single party control.

But if unified vs. divided government does not correlate to congressional productivity, what are the factors that prompts congress to “get things done”? Mahew analyzes some of the possibilities in the book. Watching the ubiquitous blue “Change” signs waving at the Democratic convention and listening to McCain’s born-again “Change” message at the Republican convention, I was reminded of one such Mayhew hypothesis. In his data, he documents periods spanning many years, where Congress becomes very productive in what Mayhew calls a legislative and/or investigatory “surge”. Having eliminated any consideration that single party government is correlated with these productive congressional eras, he speculates on other factors that might drive these legislative surges.

This portion of the book is considerably less rigorous statistically, but it is interesting and potentially directly relevant to what we are seeing in this 2008 election season. Specifically, Mayhew explores the notion that a primary pre-requisite for these periodic legislative “surges” is a pervasive “public mood” demanding “change”. He wrote this more than a decade before the Obama candidacy, but his analysis may be the key to unlocking one of the great puzzles of this election. What does “change” really mean to the public in this context?

[WARNING: Long post continues after the fold]

Mayhew:

“… causes of legislative surges can be found in extended expressions of “public purpose” or creedal passion.” To put it another way, they can be located in a certain kind of “public mood” that favors change via government action (Some “moods” have that aim; others, as in the private- oriented 1920s, discourage government action). A “mood” seems to be one of those phenomena that drive political scientists to despair by being at once important and elusive. But perhaps something useful can be said. In principle, a “public mood” probably has the following features. First, much of at least the politically aware public, inside and outside Washington, shares a certain outlook about what can and should be done right now on a wide range of political issues. Second, a large number of people who possess that outlook bring considerable intensity to it; they are not lukewarm. Third, to the extent that the outlook calls for it, an appreciable number of people go on to engage in, to use a term that is probably as serviceable as any, citizen action. They actually do things: They may form organizations, persuade others, go to meetings, give money, write letters, join protests, approach members of Congress, in general make themselves heard and felt. Fourth, the outlook in question is in some sense dominant: Non- sharers of it have a hard time wholly resisting its intellectual or political appeal or mustering intensity or action against it… Fifth, a “public mood” has a beginning and an end. The outlook, the intensity, and the citizen action emerge or balloon at some detectable juncture, and then several years later, at another juncture, they deflate or disappear… An anti-government mood may not call for much citizen action, but a mood favoring change through government action requires -or at least seems to be associated with- a great deal. Levers need to be moved.” – David Mahew – Divided we Govern

Examples offered by Mayhew of documented decade-long legislative surges that were driven by a palpable “public mood favoring change” include: reconstruction in the 1860’s; the “progressive”movement in the 1910’s; Roosevelt’s “New Deal” of the thirties; and the civil rights/ womens’ rights/environmental and social programs of the LBJ/Nixon era (yes, you read that right – Mayhew documents that the generally liberal legislative surge of that era equally bracket both the LBJ and Nixon presidencies.) The question on the table, is whether the much heralded public appetite for “change” that has been promoted by the Obama candidacy and adopted by the McCain candidacy, is in the category of a “public mood favoring change” as described by Mayhew.

If you look at Mayhew’s five criteria for a “palpable public mood”, it is easy to conclude all the conditions have been met. Certainly, if the Obama campaign is used as a proxy for that public mood, we can check off criteria 2 through 5:

• #2 - Observable supporter intensity? – Check.
• #3 - Large numbers engaging, joining and doing things? – Check.
• #4 - Difficult for opposing views to resist? – Well the Clintons will agree, and since McCain adopted rather than fight the mantra – Check.
• #5 - The mood has a beginning and an end? – Certainly the beginning is in evidence. – Check.

But then we have criteria #1: A common outlook about what can and should be done right now on a wide range of political issues.

So exactly WTF is it? What specifically is this public political appetite that Obama and McCain are trying to feed? What are the specific political issues that both Obama and McCain supporters broadly agree must be changed right now? The phenomena is real, but do we know what it is really about?

We can ask the candidates. In their acceptance speeches both candidates endeavored to define and promote the “change” they represent. Obama offered an unremarkable litany of liberal Democratic policy positions. McCain offered an unremarkable litany of conservative Republican policy positions. So each candidate, acutely aware of a “palpable public mood for change“, wrapped themselves in the rhetoric of change, then explicitly pitched the proposition that the same partisan bromides that Republicans and Democrats have been flogging for decades represent the change that the public seeks. Tough sell.

Here is the rub – Mayhew’s criteria specifies that the kind of pervasive public mood for change that results in a real legislative surge, that results in real change, must include broad agreement on what can and should be done across the partisan divide. Where do we have that now? Do we have broad agreement on environmental policy? global warming? education policy? taxing policy? deficits and spending policy? judicial appointments? abortion? religious participation in governmental policy? same sex marriage? right to work? Equal pay? Immigration policy? homeland security? social security? I don’t think so. So they are all off the list. Moreover, both presidential campaigns are useless at articulating what exactly this “change” means. So we are left to our own devices.

Here is my take on what this inchoate public impulse for “change” really means, and by extension, what this election is really about. Your mileage may vary.

THE CONSENSUAL “CHANGE” CHAMPIONS
(In reverse order)

“Change” 2nd Runner Up – Health Care / Energy Policy (tie)
These are both a close call for me, I profess no certitude about either, but I am saying that they both make the cut. Barely. In both cases, there seems to be a hue and cry in the electorate that “something must be done.” For both issues, strong sentiment is generated on both sides of the partisan divide. While there are obvious policy disagreements between Republicans and Democrats on these issues, it is possible to craft a general solution statement with which most Americans will agree. Not an overwhelming majority, but a majority. On health care – most Americans want a solution where people do not fall between the cracks, and are not risking financial ruin to get the care they need. On energy policy, most Americans will agree we need to drill and develop more in America, conserve more, build nukes, and work aggressively to invest in and develop alternative energy sources. Both candidates are missing the boat to some degree on these two issues. McCain and the Republicans are misreading the degree to which Americans are willing to socialize medical care. Obama and the Dems are misreading the degree to which Americans are willing to drill for fossil fuels here and develop nuclear energy as part of the solution.

“Change” First Runner-up – The War in Iraq.
12-24 months ago, this was the number one issue that was driving the “change” mantra and the fuel that propelled the Obama candidacy. The “change” that people wanted was quite explicit and easily articulated. A large majority of Americans wanted us out of the quagmire that Iraq had become. If the status of the war in Iraq was the same now as it was then, there would be no contest. Obama would be 20 points ahead in the polls. But events on the ground have overtaken the campaign rhetoric and morphed the meaning of “change” in the process.

Violence in Iraq is down, and the Iraqi government has effectively removed the issue from the campaign. Iraqi Prime Minister Maliki set a time “horizon” for us to be mostly out by 2011, so – that is going to happen regardless of who is elected president. It is not a presidential campaign issue anymore.

Yes, looking back, Obama was right and McCain was wrong about the war in 2002. But McCain was right and Obama was wrong about the surge in 2006. It is a political wash. The war was the “Change” issue, but now it has been rendered effectively moot. Getting out is still part of the “change” people want, but, looking forward, there is simply no practical difference in the rate at which we can and will redeploy out of Iraq regardless of whether McCain or Obama are elected president. It is even reasonable to postulate that we will be able to reduce our military footprint faster with a McCain presidency. The only difference between the candidates on Iraq, is the rhetoric they use to posture for their respective base.

“Change” Champion – Exorcise the Bush administration, and punish incumbent Republicans.
That is it. That is what is left of the “pervasive public mood for change” mandate once the issue of the War in Iraq was rendered moot by Maliki. There is broad agreement among Americans that the occupation of Iraq was a mistake, that the strategic execution of the war was flawed, and the Bush administration was largely incompetent (see – he was a uniter not a divider!) Blame for the war falls squarely on the Bush administration, enabled by a gutless, ethics challenged, majority Republican Congress. Even many (most?) conservatives (neocons excluded) will agree that GWB has been a disaster for the country, the Republican party, and has betrayed conservative principles. The punishment for the Republicans began in 2006 and will be meted out again in the 2008 congressional elections. It is very possible that the Democrats will finish with a 100 seat majority in the House of Representatives, and secure close to a filibuster-proof 60/40 majority in the Senate. The Republican party may well be rendered impotent as an opposition party in Congress. Punishment complete. So that leaves the presidency.

The issue that is now determinative in that contest, is whether the electorate believes that McCain/Palin is an extension of the Bush administration. If the Obama campaign succeeds in painting that picture (hence the oft-repeated “McCain is 90% Bush” canard), Obama wins. If McCain succeeds in separating himself from Bush and painting himself as a maverick, the “pervasive public mood for change” does not hurt him, and may even help his candidacy. Early indications are that his acceptance speech and the Palin pick went a long way to accomplishing exactly that.

Net net – We may still have a change election, but it may be John McCain that wins it.

^{x-posted from “Divided We Stand – United We Fall“}

In fact, Arnold Schwarzenegger is helping out a new website called EcoDrivingUSA that promises to give you tips and tricks to help your wallet and the planet.

Hmm, sounds familiar…

Personally, I’m not in favor of a one term pledge because, as even McCain himself has stated, you’re a lame duck the moment you entire office. The opposing party could easily ignore your agenda, and with so many long term energy programs on the table in 2009, whoever rules the roost in the House and Senate would must likely make sure to be extra picky about what they pass and what they don’t.

Also, the reality of this year’s election is if McCain does win, it’ll most likely be by the skin of his teeth. And he’d need a mandate to push his full energy policy through in a short amount of time. That won’t happen.

Another thought, wouldn’t he open himself up to criticism from the other side about not being serious about taking responsibility for implementing the long term goals?

And then there’s the big looming age issue. Dems would hit him hard on this.

Of course, just because you win a second term doesn’t mean you can implement your agenda. For an example of that we need look no further than today. Simply put, to characterize Bush’s second term as a disaster would be generous. And this is a guy who won an extremely tough election since he was so unpopular in the first place. Maybe it was the war. Maybe it was his intellectually dishonest claim of having a mandate after such a close election. Whatever it may be, having a second term doesn’t ensure anything except more time in “power.” And we’ve seen what being in power has done to the Republican brand.

So aside from the appeal to those voters who simply don’t like politicians being in office for very long, I don’t see how the one term pledge would be a good move.

What do you think?

I love this idea…and I would certainly take advantage of it if it becomes law.

The bill is called “The Energy Efficient and Environmentally Friendly Automobile Tax Credit Act of 2008″ and it provides tax credits of up to $2K for people who sell or trade in their car for a model that’s 20% more fuel efficient.

Fort Bend Now also notes some additional ways to save:

The bill also creates a federal tax deduction for any state or local taxes paid on the purchase of the more fuel-efficient automobile and makes interest on loans to purchase the more fuel-efficient automobile tax deductible.

On the flip side, you have McCain proposing tax incentives for car companies to make more fuel efficient vehicles, but if Americans can’t afford these traditionally more expensive autos in the first place, it’s going to hurt adoption rates. That’s why I called it a stunt when he proposed it.

Ultimately, Paul’s bill is meant to help people use less gas, which will drive down gas prices and lessen pollution. One of the fews ways the government can actually help accomplish this is to incent Americans to take action, and I can only imagine that if the car companies were smart, they’d be much more in favor of an idea like this instead of McCain’s.

In any event, well done Mr. Paul. I hope to see this legislation up for consideration in the House soon.

This definition may help:

pe·tard n.
1. A small bell-shaped bomb used to breach a gate or wall.

Word History: The French used pétard, “a loud discharge of intestinal gas,” for a kind of infernal engine for blasting through the gates of a city. “To be hoist by one’s own petard,” a now proverbial phrase apparently originating with Shakespeare’s Hamlet (around 1604) not long after the word entered English (around 1598), means “to blow oneself up with one’s own bomb, be undone by one’s own devices.” The French noun pet, “fart,” developed regularly from the Latin noun peditum, from the Indo-European root *pezd-, “fart.”
^{The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition.}

The question on the table Mr. Sullivan – is prompted by the well established and strongly held views about the virtues of divided government that you promoted during the 2006 midterms and prior to Barack Obama entering the presidential race – to whit:

^{[Continued after the fold and/or at Divided We Stand United We Fall]}

Andrew Sullivan on Divided Government:
06-Apr-2006

29-May-2006

31-Oct-2006

“Here’s one reason for conservatives not to be afraid sitting out this election or voting Democratic. Gridlock! The best government we’ve had in recent times was the Clinton-Gingrich face-off. They restrained the worst in each other, brought out the best, and gave us welfare reform, peace, and fiscal surpluses… The great strength of the American system is its capacity for divided government. If there was ever a time for it, it’s now. ” – Andrew Sullivan

04-Nov-2006

16-Nov-2006

“I can see, in other words, where I have given too short shrift in the book to the Jeffersonian idea of a nature’s God as the source of divided government and individual liberty….” – Andrew Sullivan

23-Nov-2006

“Things To Be Thankful For… Washington has divided government.” – Andrew Sullivan

And further, please consider that in 2008 we are looking at: A high probability of a Democratic President, a 100 seat Democratic majority in the House of Representatives under Nancy Pelosoi; A 60-40 filibuster proof super-majority in the Senate under Harry Reid or Hillary Clinton; And the largest concentration of single party federal power in the lifetime of most readers of this blog.

So, in consideration of all that, I was wondering if you thought it no longer important to your readers that the nation is careening at high speed down a highway to single party government hell in 2009?

Searching your site, the only post I can find in the post-Obama presidential candidate timeframe that addresses the issue you found so important in 2006, is this single post:

10-Aug-2007

There is a stark contrast between Sullivan the vocal advocate for divided government before Obama entered the race and the Sullivan who apparently doesn’t think one party unified government is so bad, or certainly not important enough to write about after Obama entered the race.

Regarding Bartlett’s solution to the “nightmare scenario” of single party Democratic government in 2009 (I cannot respond to Sullivan’s solution since he has not offered one) – specifically his suggestion of focusing on Republicans retaking the House of Representatives – The problem is that it is flying in the face of history and ignoring the state of the Republican Party and House elections.

It is impossible for the GOP to retake the House or Senate in 2008. In the 100+ years since we have been electing senators directly, the House of Representatives has never switched majority unless the Senate did also. “Never” as in “not even once”. This is a law of politics like gravity is a force of nature. So what about the Senate? There are 33 Senate seats contested in 2008. Of these, 21 are held by Republicans and 12 by Democrats. Simple numbers – the Republicans have a lot more at risk, and will be playing defense. The Democrats have many more opportunities to take seats than Republicans. Advantage Democrats. Big, big advantage. The question is not whether the Democrats will increase their majority in the Senate, the question is whether they will achieve a 60-40 filibuster proof super-majority. Right now, it looks like they have a super-majority in sight.

The fact is Mr. Sullivan, the best and only chance for the continuation of the divided government you so admirably supported in 2006, is if the Republicans can hold the White House. When you argue for the inevitability of an Obama victory, you argue for a massive concentration of single party Democratic power and even fewer restraints on a unitary executive than were on President George W. Bush. That is unlike the soul of any conservative I have ever known.

Regardless of how much you personally like and respect Obama, I have to wonder if this is really what you want? Do you really want to see that much power invested in one man without checks, balances, and a vigorous opposition party?

Or will you ask your readers (as you did in 2006) to help avert the “nightmare scenario” Bartlett invokes, hold their collective nose and vote for McCain to secure divided government? And to ask them to do so – as you so eloquently put it – “For the country’s sake – and for the soul of conservatism.”

Mr. Sullivan, I believe the fuse on your petard is lit, sir.

^{[x-posted from Divided We Stand United We Fall]}

About a week ago JG commented on one of my posts with this:

“…there are simply too many holes in the divided government philosophy for anybody but yourself to really buy into it.”

Well, that kind of stuck in my craw, so although I’ve generally not cross-posted or linked the Carnival at Donklephant, I’m making an exception this month.

One point – I harbor no illusions that strategic voting for divided government will ever be a majority view. My guess is -at best- it can serve as an organizing principle for about half of what David Boaz and David Kirby identified as “The libertarian swing vote” – so maybe 6% of the electorate could be enticed by this voting heuristic. However, if the electorate in general remains roughly balanced and polarized, that six percent – as a true swing vote – could and would determine the outcome of national elections, as they arguably did in the 2006 mid-terms.

That said, a few links from the this month’s compilation:

• Robert Samuelson in the Washington Post – “A Vote for McBama“
• Clive Crook at The Atlantic – “The Lures of Divided Government“
• John Fund at the Wall Street Journal – “No, McCain Isn’t Doomed“
• Daniel Larison at Eunomia – “Goodbye Filibuster“.
• Jason Zengerle at The New Republic – “Vote McClain, Vote Gridlock“.
• Dick Polman at the Philadelphia Inquirer – “What will it take?“.
• Laura Ebke at Red State Eclectic – “Voting for Divided Government – maybe“.

I’ll conclude with this from Donklephant commenter Jenny responding to Alan’s last post on disaffected Clinton supporters:

“I was a Hillary supporter. I have decided that I will vote, but not vote for either Obama or McCain. Please do not educate me that the country is at stake if GOP is elected. I know that. I also know that history has proven again and again one party’s control of three branches has always been a bad thing…“

So there you go Justin, proof positive that I’m not the only one voting for divided government.

There are at least two of us.

The July CODGOV edition of is linked here.

The complete series linked here.

To respond effectively to our long-term challenges, the federal government must command an increased share of gross domestic product and extend its reach in other ways as well. The public sector will be called upon to provide new forms of insurance against economic risks and volatility and to assume more responsibility for health insurance and retirement security. To the extent that markets cannot police themselves or provide reasonable returns for workers, government will have to step in. Through the public mobilization of capital and will, we must supply the public goods–investment in infrastructure, research, and post-secondary education, among others–that we have neglected at our peril. And many millions of Americans will be unable to save for the future without new forms of public encouragement and support.

That’s enough to make any conservative rip out his or her own hair. It’s not that liberals like Galston want to use government to help citizens (that part is fine), it’s that they see government intervention as the only conceivable solution, as if the American people are too helpless and too victimized by Big Business and Free Trade to ever improve their lives without massive new government programs.

To be clear, Galston’s specific remedies aren’t inherently bad. Some are even good (like investing more in our infrastructure). My beef is with the cocksure attitude that only government can solve our problems. And, while Galston doesn’t say so specifically, there’s this underlying implication to his argument that those who are against big government are somehow in favor of the inequities currently plaguing our system – as if an opposition to liberal theory is proof of ill will.

And yet, Galston’s side is poised to win in this era because conservatives are failing to voice a strong alternative. Too often conservative “solutions” sound like do-nothing policies (which is, in fact, the party line against John McCain’s health care plan). It’s not enough to just say “no” to big government. There has to be an alternative, a Reaganism not of 1980 but of 2008, revamped for the modern age.

What government should be doing is helping create opportunity. Government should not step in to solve every problem an American may face but should instead just make sure there is a system of opportunities available to any American with the will and work ethic to take advantage of this nation’s great gifts. Some of Galston’s ideas are indeed about expanding opportunity but many others are just New Deal style handouts disguised as fancy modern ideas.

But at least Galston and his political brethren are assembling a coherent (if flawed) vision.

It’s time for modern conservatives to do the same – to scramble out of the weeds of yesteryear and realize demanding “small government” is no longer enough, especially after the Republicans have squandered any credibility they had on the issue. I believe we can tackle pressing problems with far less governmental intrusiveness. The task is to figure out how that can be done and convince others of its advantages.

And this idea comes from no less than the Conservative government…

Canadians will be offered bicycles, public transit passes or cash if they agree to scrap their old gas-guzzling vehicles, the government said on Wednesday.

Ottawa says five million of the 18 million cars and trucks in Canada were made before 1996, when tougher emissions standards were introduced. The older vehicles produce about 19 times more pollutants than newer models, the government said. [...]

The National Vehicle Scrappage Program will be up and running by January 2009. Other incentives include C$300 ($297) in cash, membership in a car-sharing program or a rebate on the purchase of a new vehicle.

An interesting idea…that would never ever fly here.

Well, at least not yet.

The 14 smallest states and six U.S. territories “pod” would always vote first, but no earlier than the third week of February in presidential election years.

The other three pods — comprising nine, 16 and seven states — would rotate their voting positions every four years. The ordering of the pods for the 2012 election would be determined by lottery; the pod that voted before the other two rotating pods would move to the end of the line in 2016 and the other two pods would move up one position.

A rotating system would enable each grouping of states to have a chance to wield substantial clout in the presidential selection process.

Finally, somebody is talking some sense about the dysfunctional primary systems on both sides. Of course, this is a Republican plan, but it would make sense for the Dems too.

Here are how the states and territories are organized:

Small States and Territories: Alaska, Delaware, District of Columbia, Hawaii, Idaho, Maine, Montana, Nebraska, New Mexico, North Dakota, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Vermont, West Virginia, Wyoming, American Samoa, Guam, Virgin Islands, Puerto Rico, and Northern Mariana Islands

Rotating Pod X: Alabama, Arkansas, Colorado, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Oklahoma, Oregon, Texas, Wisconsin, Utah, and Washington

Rotating Pod Y: Arizona, California, Connecticut, Indiana, Massachusetts, New Jersey, North Carolina, Tennessee, and Virginia

Rotating Pod Z: Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Michigan, New York, Ohio, and Pennsylvania

Obviously this is going to have a TON of opposition, not the least of which will come from states like Iowa and New Hampshire. They covet their first-in-the-nation status and it’s doubtful they’ll agree to ANY of this. Still, if the rest of the states put pressure on them it would be hard to stay put.

In any event, here’s the PDF of the plan. Check it out.

From CNN:

ANTHONY, Texas (CNN) — Texas may be best known for “Big Oil.” But the oil that could some day make a dent in the country’s use of fossil fuels is small. Microscopic, in fact: algae. Literally and figuratively, this is green fuel.

“Algae is the ultimate in renewable energy,” Glen Kertz, president and CEO of Valcent Products, told CNN while conducting a tour of his algae greenhouse on the outskirts of El Paso. [...]

Algae are among the fastest growing plants in the world, and about 50 percent of their weight is oil. That lipid oil can be used to make biodiesel for cars, trucks, and airplanes. [...]

Kertz said he can produce about 100,000 gallons of algae oil a year per acre, compared to about 30 gallons per acre from corn; 50 gallons from soybeans.

100,000 versus 30 to 50 gallons. Even if this guy’s estimates are exaggerated by 100 times, the output is still 1,000 gallons.

More as it develops…

Here’s more from Wired…

The professor wants legislators to promise to do four things which he says will reduce the influence of money on policymaking: To promise not to accept money from lobbyists and political action committees; support public financing of elections; commit to passing legislation to permanently ban the funneling of money to their districts’ projects of questionable worth; and to commit to “compel transparency in the functioning of congress.”

Candidates can signal their intentions to take any one or all of the pledges by filling out a form at the organization’s web site, which then formulates code that provides a graphic that the candidates can then place on their election campaign web sites.

The Change Congress project hopes that citizens will track congressional candidates’ positions on these issues by reporting on them at the web site. The project will then map these results onto a Google map.

The video from the launch…

Interested? Then go to Change Congress and do your part.

And if you’re not motivated to act yet, then just make sure you know what’s going on and see if it’s something you’d be interested in. I think it’s highly important work led by a guy who is incredibly smart and just might be able to, well, change Congress.

In general, I think our government is most effective when creating opportunity rather than just handing out money. However, this could be a giveaway that results in opportunity. A lot of Americans lack a safety net, particularly in their early adult years and this would provide one while also invigorating national service. Unless you’re reflexively against all government-based plans, this one is worth consideration.

I do have several concerns. Will the $5,000 be held in private banks or some kind of government run account? If it the money is put into private banks, who chooses those banks? Do we have systems in place to absorb a large increase in youth joining national service organizations and do we have the funds to pay those youths a decent wage during their service?

Will we need safeguards to protect these investments from a market collapse? Will there be tight restrictions on how the money can be spent or will the recipients have access to the money regardless of how they want to spend it? Finally, this plan would balance government coercion with personal responsibility – is it wise to make those types of bargains or is it social engineering that would create undesirable consequences?

I’m always fascinated by new/different ideas. I hope this one receives some real discussion.