Who Will Win the Nomination: Democratic Edition

Not Martin O'Malley, that's for sure.

The race right now is between Senator Sanders, socialist-democratic Senator from Vermont, and Secretary Hillary Clinton, former Senator from New York, former Secretary of State, and former presidential candidate. Who do I think is going to win?

Let's just say I'm not #FeelingTheBern and I don't think this country is #OverTheHillz. Hillary Clinton is outpolling Bernie Sanders by 16 points, according to a recent NBC poll. Recently, Senator Sanders hit a new high, with 33% of Democratic voters saying they would support him. But compare that to the 49% of Democratic voters saying they would support Secretary Clinton, and it's a little less impressive. In Iowa specifically, Bernie is polling at 40%, impressive, but still distant behind Clinton's 51%

But won't Bernie Sanders get more support? He's energizing millennials! If they all come out to vote for him, he can win!

Personally, I think Senator Sanders (I-VT) has his ceiling of support. Yes, he is polling very well in certain states, but not in certain demographics. Namely, Senator Sanders is polling well white white voters, and poorly with black ones. As of October, Senator Sanders had a 13 point lead over Secretary Clinton with white voters in South Carolina. This speaks to his increasingly popular rhetoric, and his ability to motivate the often-ignored progressive white faction of the party.

However, Secretary Clinton was 55 points ahead of Senator Sanders when you looked at just black voters. Nationally, Secretary Clinton is outpolling Senator Sanders 57% to 10% among non-white Democrats. Why is he doing so well in Iowa and New Hampshire, even beating Clinton in NH? Because those states are almost (or over) 90% white.

Overall, in South Carolina, the third primary, Clinton is maintaining a 48 point lead over Senator Sanders. And just because a candidate is polling well in Iowa and New Hampshire doesn't mean they are a shoe-in for the election. Remember Howard Dean?

Barring an outrageous scandal, I predict the nomination will go to Hillary Clinton. And I think she will pick Julian Castro as her running mate, because Marco Rubio will be a tough opponent, especially since he does have legitimate opinions on immigration.

Before I go, a word to my Bernie supporting friends. I hear you. Bernie Sanders is an incredibly compelling candidate. I love his ideas, I appreciate that he's bringing Hillary further to the left on a lot of issues. I think the debate schedule is unfair for him, and there's a possibility the media isn't covering him the way they should. But I'm not supporting Bernie in the primary. I think that the economic issues Bernie stands for are important, but I think Hillary is more experienced on foreign affairs. 

And here's the best kept secret: by some measures, Hillary Clinton is as liberal as Elizabeth Warren, and only slightly more moderate than Bernie Sanders. Secretary Clinton's voting and public statement record make her a very liberal candidate, and she secured a lot of votes from very liberal people in the 2008 election.

No, she's not a socialist. But in my mind, she has the experience to be a great president, paired with progressive ideals that I support. And even if she doesn't win, I'll throw my support behind whichever Democrat does get the nomination, because to me, it's most important to keep the White House blue for at least four more years.

It's Democracy, No One is Happy

If you feel like the government has been on the brink of a shutdown since 2013, you're right! The government has not had a long-term spending and taxation bill since they averted the fiscal cliff, and tonight at midnight, the government is set to run out of money. Predictably, the House plans to pass a small funding bill (known as a stop-gap bill) that will keep the lights on until December 22nd.

But this time is different! Congress is nearing the end of negotiations on the biggest and broadest tax and spending bill since the fiscal cliff debacle of 2013.

So what does this 1.1 trillion dollar budget deal mean for you? Regardless of your political party, you're probably happy, but not completely satisfied. As both Speaker Ryan (R-WI) and Senate Minority Leader Reid (D-NV) have said, in a democracy, no one gets exactly what they want, but this deal is as good as any.

If you're a hardline conservative Republican, you're probably upset because this bill doesn't contain any language to stop Syrian and Iraqi refugees from coming into the country. If you're a liberal democrat, you're maybe upset because the bill will end a 40-year ban on exporting US oil. The bill suspends certain taxes in the Affordable Care Act, including the Cadillac tax, but it also reauthorizes the Zadroga Act, which helps provide healthcare to 9/11 First Responders

There's nothing in the bill that will defund Planned Parenthood, or repeal Obamacare, and the President has voiced his support for the bill. Despite opposition from the more conservative members of the House, who could refuse to support the bill because it doesn't staunch the flow of refugees, the bill is expected to pass the house. Even though Minority Leader Pelosi (D-CA) has spoken out in opposition to certain parts of the bill, House Democrats are expected to support it

Once the bill passes, the government will be funded through September of 2016, giving both parties time to focus on actually passing legislation that will actually help Americans. Or, more likely, focusing their energies on the upcoming presidential election, which is still a long 11 months away.

Who Will Win the Nomination: Republican Edition!

The Answer May Surprise You!

Fears over Trump-O-Mania are, in my opinion, unfounded. Is the Donald doing well in the polls? Sure, though he is slipping, as evidenced by a recent poll that put Ted Cruz ahead of him in Iowa. A poll that was interestingly followed by one of the most outlandish statements yet from Mr. Golden Hair, putting him back in the news, and likely, back at the top of the polls. But these polls, based on name recognition, are not everything.

As of November, the Donald was polling at 29%, indisputably the highest percentage in the Republican field. The closest candidate is Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX), who is polling at 15%. A lead that big does make it appear that the Donald is a shoe-in for the Republican nomination.

Not so fast! Political Nerd Icon Ned Silver points out that this number only takes into account Republicans, not Independent or Democratic voters. Trump doesn't have 29% of Americans on his side, he has 29% of self-identified Republicans on his side

With 29% of voters identifying as Independents, and only 25% of eligible voters identifying as Republicans, Mr. Celebrity Apprentice has a much smaller pool of support than the media would have you believe. 29% of 25% is only 6-8% of the general population, or as my favorite statistician Nate Silver points out, "the same share of people who think the Apollo moon landings were faked.

Donald "It's Gonna be Huge" Trump's lead falls apart even more when you consider his favorables versus his unfavorables. Basically, how many people like Trump, minus how many people think he's a hot head with no political experience and fake hair.

Let's say 29% of Republicans say they would vote for Trump. Subtract from that the documented 26% of Republicans who say they would never vote for Trump. Suddenly, the Donald is polling at 3%, and not at all a danger of taking the Republican nomination, especially when he is compared against other candidates.

Take Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL) for example. As of December 2nd, Senator Rubio had 66% favorability, and with only 8% of people viewing him unfavorably. This gives Senator Rubio a net favorability rating of 58%. Who is second behind Rubio? Not Donald "Only 3% Would Elect Me" Trump, but Senator Cruz, with 56% favorability.

If I was a betting woman, I'd put my hard-earned money on Senator Rubio taking the nomination. Why Rubio and not Cruz, who has a similar rating and may pull support from evangelicals? Apparently, Ted Cruz is an extremely unlikeable man, as evidenced by a recent quote from his college roommate.

"And, you know, I want to be clear, because Ted Cruz is a nightmare of a human being. I have plenty of problems with his politics, but truthfully his personality is so awful that 99% of why I hate him is just his personality. If he agreed with me on every issue, I would hate him only one percent less."

Yikes. I'm going to go out on a limb, and on the record to say, I predict Rubio will win the Republican Presidential nomination, and that he will pick Scott Walker as his running mate. Check back when the long primary nightmare is over, and see if I'm right!

Actions Speak Louder than Prayers

The actions following a mass shooting seem chillingly predictable now. Representatives and Senators take to Twitter to express their thoughts and prayers, President Obama holds a press conference saying that he can't keep holding press conferences after tragic events like this, the Democrats blame guns, the Republicans blame the mentally ill. A week later, the news media have moved on. Another mass shooting. Repeat.

If the root of these mass shootings is mentally ill people having access to guns, and using those guns to murder people, there are things that can be done. Republicans halting their endless campaign to repeal the Affordable Care Act would be a good place to start. Whether Republicans like it or not, Obamacare will help the mentally ill. One part of Obamacare allows mentally ill people to access treatment, without being denied health insurance for a pre-exisiting health condition. The Medicaid expansion, and ability to find affordable insurance, allows people living with mental illness who are too sick to work to have access to quality healthcare. If Republicans want to help the mentally ill, the easiest thing for them to do is not continue their efforts to roll back Obamacare.

But that's not what the Republicans are doing. If anything, they want to make it harder for people to access healthcare. And it's telling that the only time Republican's talk about helping the mentally ill is after a mass shooting.

On the other side of the aisle, the Democrats have been proposing legislation to curb access to guns. Congresswoman Velazquez (D-NY) and Congressman Jeffries (D-NY) introduced a bill on October 26, 2015. The bill aims to reduce gun violence by creating a tracking system for firearms, and putting a tax on guns. This tax will be used to do what the Republicans keep talking about, and create a mental health trust fund, to provide care for mentally ill people. 

Another bill, proposed in January of 2015 by Representative Robin Kelly, (D-IL) would amend the Brady Act, which mandates that licensed sellers of guns conduct background checks, to prevent violent criminals from having firearms. This particular bill would make anyone convicted of a stalking offense unable to own a gun, among other violent offenses. Finally, Congressman Michael Honda (D-CA) introduced a bill in early November of 2015 to allocate money for researching gun violence, something that isn't being funded right now

None of these bills have made it farther than a committee in the House of Representatives, and not one has been voted on. This is because Republican leadership in the House and Senate refuses to bring bills like these up for a vote. Even if these bills were voted on, they would likely fail, as most Republicans refuse to do anything to limit gun ownership in this country.

Gun control may not eliminate mass shootings all together, but it's as good a place as any to start. The Democrats are trying to do something, with the laws they have proposed. The Republicans are blocking them at every turn, and proposing none of their own solutions. The longer they continue their inaction, the more blood they will have on their hands.

No Room at the Inn

House and Senate Republicans want to send a message to Syrian refugees that there's "no room at the inn" this Christmas season, and they want to attach that message to a bill to keep the government running.

Congress needs to pass a funding bill by December 11th to avoid another government shutdown. With many representatives flying back to their districts over the weekend, it doesn't leave too many legislative days to negotiate, and pass a budget.

It would seem that in these dire times, racing against the clock, and with the season of giving upon us, Republicans and Democrats would put aside partisan differences and focus on passing a budget that would, if not fund the government through the year, at least keep it afloat for more than 2 months.

Of course, that's not what is happening.

In fact, just the opposite is occurring, with politicians attaching policy riders to the bill. That means that within a bill that provides necessary funds for government agencies are provisions about monitoring Syrian and Iraqi refugees, or preventing them from entering the country all together, loosen campaign finance regulations, or even defund Planned Parenthood

Any riders attached, especially regarding the screening process for Syrian refugees, all but ensures a veto from President Obama. President Obama has stated that the United States "can welcome refugees who are desperately seeking safety and ensure our own security. We can and must do both" and called the idea of a religious test and only admitting Christian refugees, "not American."

This puts Speaker Paul Ryan (R-WI) in a tough position, one that Former Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) was in not too long ago. Speaker Ryan can carry out the demands of the more extreme wing of his party, and send a bill to the President that includes a rider preventing Syrian refugees from coming into the country. President Obama would likely veto it, to say nothing of whether or not it would pass the Senate, which would plunge the country into another unpopular government shutdown.

Or, Speaker Ryan can pass a clean funding bill, keeping the government running for another couple months, but earning the ire of the right-wing of his party. This was the spot Speaker Boehner was in again and again, until he stepped down earlier this year, courting chaos when few Republicans were willing to put themselves in the same dilemma.

As December 11th draws nearer, one hopes that both parties will put good governance above partisanship, and make sure the government is funded, and thousands of government workers don't miss out on their paychecks right at the beginning of shopping season!

Telling People Politics

The TPP has been many years in the making, and I only recently learned what the acronym stood for. I'll be honest, I still think it stands for Toilet Paper Party, in the back of my mind. Unfortunately (fortunately?) the TPP is not a super fun party where everyone wears dresses made out of toilet paper, but an international trade agreement know as the Trans-Pacific Partnership, and after five years of negotiations, it's finally ready to be voted on.

The Trans-Pacific Partnership is just what it sounds like (sort of). It's a trade agreement between the United States and eleven nations of the Pacific Rim that's been called the most ambitious trade deal since NAFTA. It involves 40% of the world's economy over twelve countries, Australia, Brunei Darussalam, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, Vietnam and, of course, the United States.

The TPP (no, not the Tall People parade) eliminates tariffs on United States goods entering countries that are part of the agreement. Currently, countries that are part of TPP face high tariffs, which is an international trade word for taxes, on certain American goods, like auto parts. The administration's thinking is that the elimination of tariffs in certain industries, like manufacturing and food, will allow U.S. goods to be more competitive on the global market. The TPP also includes provisions that require countries to commit to worker's rights and protect the environment. On the whole, the agreement serves to eliminate or lower barriers to trade between the twelve nations involved in the deal. 

The TPP (not to be confused with Talented Platypus Puppets), notably, does not include China, though there is a hope that with enough countries involved in TPP, and the sizable benefits of free trade that participating countries receive, China will have significant encouragement to change their practices and sign onto the treaty.

Before this thrilling international tax law can go into place, it must be accepted in all countries, which is not guaranteed. Many lawmakers (lots of them Democrats) in the United States are not happy with the agreement, fearing that it is a threat to American jobs. While this is the first ever trade agreement the United States has signed with labor protections for workers overseas, American workers still fear that it will eliminate jobs here. Another criticism of the treaty is that large parts of it were negotiated in secret, and the benefits to big corporations outweigh the benefits to workers around the world. President Obama faces an uphill battle with Congress, as key members of his own party have spoken out against the deal.

If all this sounds familiar, it's likely because you were alive during the creation of NAFTA. President Clinton created the North American Free Trade Agreement in 1993, winning barely enough Democrats over to secure passage of the bill. The AFL-CIO claims that 700,000 jobs were lost due to NAFTA, a number that will potentially increase with the passage of TPP (a different entity entirely than the Totally Plastered Pandas). However, because President Obama passed a "fast-track" bill earlier this summer, the bill's passage is slightly more secure. Congress cannot offer amendments of any kind, which will allow the bill to be presented on a straight up-or-down vote, making this a difficult choice for Representatives who want to both safeguard American jobs, and increase trade around the world. While the future of the TPP (not the same as the Tangerine Port Provision) isn't yet secure, it's never too early for President Obama to start implementing my many other ideas that start with TPP, all sprinkled throughout this blog post. Your move, Barack.

Major Crimes and Major Inequality

Murder. Manslaughter. Rape. Assault with intent to commit murder. Arson. Burglary. Larceny.

The Major Crimes Act, passed in 1885, which removed Native American Tribes' ability to prosecute these seven crimes within the tribe. Since 1885, these crimes have been handled by Federal courts. This act curbed the sovereignty of Native American tribes, and today, results in longer sentences for Native Americans on reservations who commit these crimes.

For the most part, if you dear reader, committed a crime, you would end up in your state court. State court handles cases where someone has broken the state law, which covers most of the crimes you can think of committing. Robbery, assault, and yes, murder, are for the most part, prosecuted in state court. The crimes prosecuted in Federal court are mostly limited to crimes where someone violates the US Constitution, has a dispute or commits a crime across state lines (drug trafficking, for example), and cases where the United States is party (where the laws of the United States are being challenged).

Federal court is also used to prosecute these seven major crimes committed on Native American reservations. And unfortunately, these crimes, all prosecuted at the state level normally, often lead to longer sentences for Native Americans.

In South Dakota, assault prosecuted in state court receives an average sentence of 29 months. Native Americans prosecuted federally in South Dakota receive 47 months for assault. In New Mexico, my home state, the disparity is even greater. The average sentence for someone who commits assault on state land is 6 months. The average sentence for someone who commits assault on a reservation, and is prosecuted in Federal court is 54 months.

Not only are Native Americans being incarcerated at rates 38% higher than the national average, they are also serving longer sentences for the same crimes. Across the board, "state punishments for the same crimes tend to be lighter," says Ralph Erickson, a judge in North Dakota.

On top of all the injustices Native Americans face in this country, a law from 1885 is ensuring that they serve more time in prison than people who do not live on reservations. There has to be a way to ensure that people who commit crimes are sentenced at the same rates, no matter where they live, without compromising the sovereignty of reservations. Assault is terrible no matter where it is committed, but there is no logical reason that people on reservations should serve 54 months, when those not on reservations are only serving 6.

Balancing Act

There's a lot of moments from the Republican debate I could fact-check, dispute, and tear apart for my many blog readers (all 12 of you). But while there has be article after article about Marco Rubio's flip-flopping, Donald Trump's sexism, and the Christie/Paul debate, no one has written about the incredibly interesting and sexy issue of John Kasich and balancing the federal budget.

If you watched the debate, you may remember John Kasich, current governor of Ohio, touting numerous times that he balanced the federal budget. It's certainly correct that John Kasich was the Chairman of the Budget Committee in 1997, which was the last time we had a balanced Federal budget. It's true that this was the first time the United States had a balanced budget since 1970. It's true there was a Republican-controlled Congress at the time. And yes, it's true that Bill Clinton was the President the last time the Federal budget was balanced.

It's also true that the Federal government will probably never have a balanced budget again. President Obama won't be able to do it, Hillary Clinton won't be able to do it, and John Kasich won't be able to do it, no matter how much he likes to think he could.

This isn't because America isn't receiving enough taxes. It's not because we're spending too much on the military, or entitlement programs, or domestic programs. Yes, working to curb our spending may help, more taxes may help, but the budget wasn't balanced because of taxes and spending cuts. The budget was balanced because of a line-item veto.

A line-item veto is exactly what it sounds like. It allows executives to veto certain parts of the bill, while passing the bill as a whole. So if a Republican Congress included a provision to defund Planned Parenthood in the national budget, a president who had line-item veto power can veto that provision and pass the budget. Or, in more practical economic terms, a president can veto certain projects or programs in the budget, to cut out wasteful spending, but pass the budget as a whole.

You can imagine how this might help balance a budget. Instead of forcing all 535 members of Congress to renegotiate and pass a whole new budget, just to eliminate several pet projects, the president can just veto wasteful spending programs, or policy amendments that have nothing to do with the budget. It's an excellent tool for managing the budget, which is why many state governors have the ability to use a line-item veto.

The President, however, no longer has that power. For years, presidents had fought for the privilege of a line-item veto, and only in 1996 was legislation providing a line-item veto passed by Congress. President Clinton was able to implement it in 1997, which lead to his balanced budget in 1997.

But all good things must come to an end. In 1998, the Supreme Court, in a 6 to 3 decision held that the line-item veto violated the "constitutional requirement that legislation be passed by both houses of Congress and presented in its entirety to the president for signature or veto." Lawmakers said they would try to find a constitutional way to pass the law, but so far, the line-item veto has never returned.

Could the budget be balanced without a line-item veto? Possibly, but I don't know for sure, as it has never been done before. Any presidential candidate who brags about being able to balance the budget needs to be asked how they plan to do it without a line-item veto. And John Kasich, specifically, should be asked how he plans to balance the budget again, now that there is no more line-item veto, and much of his past experience with a balanced budget is rendered useless.

The Iran Meal

Thanks to an unnamed acquaintance who runs @TheIranMeal on Twitter, I've been slowly learning more and more about the Iran Nuclear Deal. Is it complicated? Yes. Does making the deal about food help me understand? Absolutely. Am I going to now pass what I've learned about nuclear deals (and Persian food) onto you? You bet I am!
 

For those who don't know, or who are too overwhelmed by the massive amount of partisan opinion on the topic, The Iran Deal is an agreement between Iran, and countries in the P5+1 (the United States, the UK, France, China, Russia, Germany and the European Union) that will prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon. 

The deal accomplishes this by forcing Iran to reduce the number of centrifuges (used to enrich uranium, an essential component for a nuclear bomb) and reduce its current stockpile of enriched uranium by 98%. The deal will also compel Iran to redesign a reactor that could create weapons grade plutonium, blocking another pathway to a nuclear bomb. No enriched uranium, or enriched plutonium, and no technology to create it will make it much harder to create a nuclear weapon. Finally, Iran will submit to regular and robust inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency to hopefully ensure that the country isn't pursuing a covert pathway to a nuclear weapon.

All good things for the United States. But some people feel like we lost more than we gained. Iran gets to keep some weapons grade uranium stockpiled, and the restrictions in this deal will only be in place for ten years. Iran will also gain relief from the sanctions imposed on their country that were causing an economic crisis. The deal does not include, "anytime, anywhere" inspections, and Iran will receive notice before any international inspections, which leaves some people very skeptical. Some argue that by agreeing to this deal, which doesn't permanently prevent Iran from creating a nuclear weapon, the United States is granting legitimacy to a repressive regime, and aggravating key allies in the region.

One key ally is Israel. Some are concerned for the safety of Israel because of the Iran deal. Other believe that Iran will soon have a lot of money from the deal, which they will use to fund terrorist activities. Only one Senate Democrat has supported the deal so far, Senator Durbin (D-IL), though several Democrats in the House, including Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) support it strongly. Senators like Chuck Schumer (D-NY) are feeling pressure to choose between loyalty to the party, and the president, and support for constituents who do not think the deal goes far enough to prevent Iran from creating a nuclear weapon.

However, that may not matter at all. There's no set rules for how Congress approves international relations. Yes, a treaty has to be approved by two thirds of the Senate, but this isn't necessarily a treaty. An "executive agreement," used by President Roosevelt (Franklin, not Teddy) in the 1930s did not have to be approved by Congress, and is different from a treaty in name only.

The Iran deal falls somewhere in the middle of the two thirds Senate vote for a treaty, and the no thirds vote for an executive agreement. What Congress could do is pass a "resolution of disapproval" which would, some say, block the bill. Of course, President Obama has promised to veto any such bill, meaning that if a party wants to make this vote count, they will need a two thirds majority in both houses to override the veto.

I've only scratched the surface of The Iran Deal, and I haven't even begun to discuss the particulars of The Iran Meal (seriously it's a hilarious Twitter, and yours truly has even contributed a couple of tweets, despite knowing very little about the deal, and about Persian cuisine). Complicated foreign policy issues like this aren't something one can form an opinion about in a day, which is why I'm deciding to learn more about the deal before I raise my all important constituent voice one way or the other. If you have questions about the deal, leave them in the comments section! I'll respond with links to articles written by bloggers far more knowledgeable than myself!

Battle of the Liberals

In most interactions, I am "The Liberal." I take a progressive stance on 97% of all issues, so it's very unsettling to me when I find that I am the most conservative person in a conversation. Since Senator Sanders (D-VT) has been rising in the polls though, I've been in that position often. I've experienced an interesting turn around from being not excited about Hillary Clinton just a year ago, to adamantly defending her against people who say that Senator Sanders might be a better choice.

I'm not going to delve into the debate about the value of a tough primary challenge, or talk about how Hillary Clinton and her many years of experience dealing with foreign affairs make her the wiser choice for the commander in chief. But I want to clear up the idea that Senator Sanders is the only choice for progressives, because Hillary Clinton is a moderate wolf in Democrat clothing.

According to the New York Times, Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders voted the same way 93% of the time when they were in the Senate together. According to my favorite statistics reporters at 538, Hillary Clinton is more liberal than 85% of members of the Senate, and more liberal than 70% of Democrats. One scale ranks her at the same level of progressiveness as Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA). She's consistently measured as more liberal than President Obama, and only slightly more moderate than Bernie Sanders.

Yes, Bernie Sanders didn't vote for the Iraq War. Yes, he has been an advocate for gay marriage for many years. [4] Yes, Hillary Clinton voted for the Iraq War and only recently "came out" in support of same-sex marriage. On many other issues, however, Sanders and Clinton are debating "how--not whether" certain things will be done. Financial reform, raising the minimum wage, protecting women's rights, expanding rights for LGBTQ people, reforming the criminal justice system, focusing more attention on substance abuse treatment, protecting the Affordable Care Act, and continuing to make America a more free and equal place, are all things the candidates can agree on.

It's not that Hillary Clinton is not for these issues. In my humble analysis, it is that Bernie Sanders is in the press, talking candidly about those issues, and introducing policy proposals. Hillary Clinton has been incredibly press-shy so far, controlling what parts of her message are heard through her official campaign channels, and not granting many interviews. People think she's a moderate because she hasn't made her views clear.

I hope that once she does, people realize that we are not picking between a progressive and moderate. This primary is coming down to a contest between two progressives (and Martin O'Malley, coming in at a distant third). The biggest difference I can find between the two candidates is that only one can win. I think it's great that Bernie Sanders supported gay rights for many years. But my vote is going to go to the candidate who can put another Anthony Kennedy on the bench of the Supreme Court. Bernie Sanders' lack of experience with international affairs and his more hard-line economic positions make him unlikely to win a general election.

Rather than continue to repeat myself, I'm going to give the last word to former Congressional Representative Barney Frank. In a recent piece for Politico, Frank says, "I wish we lived in a country where the most relevant political dispute was over how far to the liberal side the electorate was prepared to go. Until we do — and I will continue to work with Sanders and others to get us there — spending our resources on an intraparty struggle rather than on working to defeat our very well-funded conservative opponents is self-indulgence, not effective political action."

SCOTUS Does Care!

Today, the court upheld all provisions of the Affordable Care Act! In a contentious case before the Supreme Court, regarding the Federal subsidies for health insurance, Chief Justice John Roberts once again defended the Affordable Care Act.

King v. Burwell cuts at the heart of one of the key provisions of the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare, for those not in the know). Namely, the idea that people can receive subsidies from the Federal government to sign up for insurance through the health insurance exchange. Currently, people receive a subsidy whether they sign up for health insurance through a state exchange, or through the Federal exchange, set up because many states flat-out refused to set up health insurance exchanges.

Opponents argue that the actual text of the Affordable Care Act only requires subsidies in state exchanges, while the government maintains that if too many people are allowed to opt-out of health insurance, or are forced to because they cannot qualify for the subsidy, only very sick people will have insurance, and our health care system will be back to where it was before Obamacare.

You fearless blogger-with-friends-whose-lives-were-saved-by-Obamacare applauds this decision, as well as the Chief Justice, who at this point is one of the best defenders the Affordable Care Act has, even if he isn't happy about it.

We are fast approaching the final decision days for the Supreme Court, which means the Court will hand down the most high profile decisions of this year's cases. The court has a flair for the dramatic, and typically leaves the most controversial cases until the very end, leaving the rest of us hopelessly refreshing the SCOTUSblog Twitter, and counting down hours until the next decision day.

I'm eagerly awaiting decision on Obergefell v. Hodges, a case that will determine the fate of same-sex marriage. Straight from SCOTUSblog itself, the questions at issue in Obergefell v. Hodges are, does the 14th Amendment require a state to give a marriage license to a gay couple, and if not, does the 14th Amendment at least require a state to recognize gay marriages that were performed in states where they are legal? The 14th Amendment, if you remember from 12th grade government class, contains the famous "Equal Protection Clause" which states that the government cannot "deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

In this case, some justices (let's call them Justice Ginsberg, Kagen, Sotomayor and Breyer) argued that to not give gay couples marriage licenses is to have the state confer a second class status on gay couples. The lawyer for the state answered that the prohibition of same-sex marriage was not about punishing gay couples, but about protecting the institution of marriage, which was centered around producing children. Other justices (who I'll call Justice Roberts, Alito, Thomas and Scalia) argued that the definition of traditional marriage has been around for thousands of years, and it wasn't for the court to decide on this issue.

The justices have the option of declaring marriage a constitutional right in all states, by protecting it under the 14th Amendment, ruling that marriages in one state must be recognized in states across the country, or they could find against Obergefell, and rule that his marriage is not valid in states where gay marriage is still illegal (your fearless gay blogger hopes for the first outcome, because it sure would be nice to remove laws that, while they do not explicitly mark gay people as second class citizens, are discriminatory).

Most likely, it will be Justice Kennedy that proves to be the deciding vote in the case, so if anyone has his email, I'd love to try to sway him before Monday, which has been scheduled as the last decision day of the court. Until then, keep refreshing SCOTUSblog for updates. They're much quicker with the legalese than I am!

Death: Overridden

Today, legislators in Nebraska voted to repeal the death penalty, making them the first conservative state to do so in over 40 years. This marks the end of a long hiatus on the death penalty in Nebraska, with their most recent execution being in 1997.

There are still 30 states that allow the death penalty, even though many, like Nebraska, haven't executed a criminal in years. New Mexico, which outlawed the death penalty in 2009, hadn't executed anyone since 2001, and the only reason the execution went through is that the criminal said he did not want to appeal anymore, and chose to die. He had been on death row since 1986.

And therein lies the key problem with the death penalty today. (I for the time being, will lay aside moral arguments. There are those that believe truly heinous crimes deserve the ultimate punishment, while your trusty blogger here believes that the use of the death penalty is a huge overreach of state power, and the taking of a life should be left only to fate. But as I say often these days, no one is asking me to run the country.) Some argue that the death penalty is beneficial, as it saves the state money killing criminals that they would otherwise have to feed and clothe for the rest of their lives. But let's look at the real numbers.

The cost of keeping a person in prison for a year varies by state, and varies depending on the study. One study revealed that in 2010, the average cost to house an inmate for a year in prison was $31,000, with smaller states like Kentucky spending just over $14,000 a year on prisons, and bigger ones like New York spending over $60,000. However, according to the US Bureau of Prisons, in 2010 it cost just over $28,000 to house an inmate for a year, and one study in New York City in 2013 stated that the city paid over $167,000 for each inmate in one year.

Sounds like a lot. But how much does it cost to have a judge, a prosecutor, a defense attorney, a court reporter, and various other federal employees try and retry death penalty cases year after year?

One study found that death penalty cases in Maryland cost taxpayers an extra 1.9 million to 3 million dollars, on top of what they were already spending to house prisoners. California, the state with the largest death row population, found that death penalty cases caused them to spend 63.3 million dollars extra a year. And a study by Duke found that the death penalty costs North Carolina taxpayers 11 million a year.

These aren't one year costs taxpayers have to bear. California's average wait time between conviction and execution is 25 years. The rest of the United States has an average wait time of 12 years between conviction an execution.

11 million dollars over 12 years? Sounds like a very expensive 8th Amendment Violation to me.

Despite the cold hard facts, the truth remains that death is the cruelest punishment a state can levy on a citizen. And while it may provide comfort to some families of murder victims, there is a sizeable, and organized coalition of the families of murder victims who oppose it. This not even to mention the number of wrongful executions and the disputed idea that it is a deterrent to crime. The death penalty does nothing for public safety, as these murderers are already locked away without the possibility of parole, and only chips away at human rights in America. In this blogger's opinion, Nebraska made the right call, and I can only hope other states will soon follow.

Sources:

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/28/us/nebraska-abolishes-death-penalty.html
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/states-and-without-death-penalty
http://thelawdictionary.org/article/what-is-the-average-cost-to-house-inmates-in-prison/
http://www.thecrimereport.org/news/inside-criminal-justice/2012-02-the-high-cost-of-prisons-using-scarce-resources-wise
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/24/nyregion/citys-annual-cost-per-inmate-is-nearly-168000-study-says.html
http://www.uscourts.gov/file/fdpc2010pdf
http://www.forbes.com/sites/kellyphillipserb/2011/09/22/death-and-taxes-the-real-cost-of-the-death-penalty/
http://news.sanford.duke.edu/news-type/news/2010/death-penalty-costs-nc-taxpayers-11-million-year
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/jun/20/california-death-penalty-execution-costs
http://www.mvfhr.org/

Thoughts on Baltimore

Protests, riots, uprisings, they all spring from some sort of anger, and the situation in Baltimore is no different. Last Tuesday, after days of peaceful protest, and demonstrations by community leaders, protests turned violent, with buildings burning, looting, and police and protestors alike being injured. To dismiss this as a senseless riot is to forget not only the years of oppression that people of color in this country have faced, but the daily fear that many people of color experience when they walk in the street and interact with the police.

The FBI’s Justifiable Homicide Report released in November of 2014 stated that 461 people were killed by the police in 2013, which is thehighest rate of police killings in two decades. Across the nation, black people are three times more likely to be killed by the police. The nationwide rate of police shootings of civilians is .13 per 100,000 people, but that rate increases dramatically in Western states. In Albuquerque, my home, the rate of police shootings is over 30 times the national average, with4 people per 100,000 being shot by the police. While black men are the most likely to be shot by the cops in population dense areas, out West, in more sparsely populated areas, it is the mentally ill whoare more likely to be shot by the police.

There are 461 reasons to be angry. There are countless more stories of police brutality that go unreported due to the undesirability of the victim, or their mental state. Those are reasons to be angry. And with all that loss of life, and all those reasons to be angry, there is little to no accountability for police officers who kill Americans, as few face indictment by grand juries, let alone criminal consequences for their actions.

The protests in Baltimore are a result of that anger. The days of peaceful protest and organizing by community leaders are a result of that anger. The riots last night were a result of that anger. People are free to form their own opinions on the riots, but if you do not understand why people are angry, you need to take a closer look at the data and statistics available, and ask yourself why you’re not more horrified and enraged by police brutality itself, instead of being horrified by the community’s reaction.

Currently, the state, in the form of the police, appears to have unchecked power to kill American citizens. They may not be citizens that look like you, they may not be people you come in contact with, but the state has an ability to end a human life without any sort of fair trial, and little to no consequence to the person who committed a crime or murder, justified or not. This is an issue that affects all Americans. It is an extreme overreach of state power that should make all citizens of this country nervous.

I have relatives who work in law enforcement, and I fear for their safety. How can you not? If someone you loved was putting themselves in dangerous areas, trying to protect people, how could you not be worried about them? But I realize that the way I fear for my cousin, who chose to be a police officer in a dangerous area, is the same way countless mothers, fathers, siblings, and friends fear for those they love. A country with fewer police shootings will not only protect youth and adults of color, it will hopefully increase trust in the police, which creates a safer country for us all. This is an issue that affects us all, whether we fear for our relatives in law enforcement or our relatives walking peacefully in the street.

(Finally) Ready for Hillary

I’ll confess. I didn’t come out of the womb Ready for Hillary. I wasn’t even Ready for Hillary in 2008. Until recently, I still wasn’t Ready for Hillary. I was Holding Out Hope for Joe Biden, or Assuming Elizabeth Warren Would Run, or even Maybe Going to Give Bernie Sanders A Try. But I was, and on some level remain, Skeptical of Hillary.

After the November Midterm Elections, and with Hillary Clinton’s announcement that she would be running for President in 2016, I can finally say that I am totally Ready for Hillary.

Why did it take so long? And what made me eventually change my opinion?

I’m Skeptical of Hillary for the same reason I’m Angry About Jeb. I do not like that we are living in an American oligarchy. I don’t like the idea that our political history could read Bush, Clinton, Bush, first black president, Clinton. I really don’t like the possibility of Bush, Clinton, Bush, first black president, Bush. An oligarchy is defined as a small group of people who have control over a country or institution, and in looking at the political landscape in this country, it’s hard to argue that we are not living in an oligarchy.

According to one study by academics at Princeton, opinionsand causes supported by lower income people, and interest groups that represent them, have no effect on policy. Rather, it is the richest and most powerful that are able to make their ideas heard, and advocate for change, whether they exert their influence with large campaign contributions, or through high-powered lobbying firms.

The idea of a rich and powerful elite controlling my country, with little opportunity for others to try to run for office, is initially why I did not like the idea of another Clinton presidency. In a lot of ways, that skepticism is still there, and I think it does raise important issues that American as a country needs to discuss.

But we don’t need to discuss those issues right now. Right now, we need another Democratic president, and that is why I’m Ready for Hillary.

I think Hillary can win, not just the Democratic nomination, but the overall election. 59% of Democrats say that there is a “good chance” that they will support Hillary Clinton in the election, compared to 23% ofRepublicans who say the same thing about Jeb Bush. If Clinton already has an substantial edge with the Democrats, my entirely unscientific assessment of the situation is that Hillary could win a general election. At the very least, she has a better chance than anyone else the Democrats could nominate (sorry Vice President Biden, I would have run your campaign).

I’m not just Ready for Hillary because I think she can win. I’m Ready for Hillary because I think she has to win. I’m not going to outline all the reasons I vote Democrat, but I will outline the main reason, the reason I think that everyone needs to really think hard about who they are voting for.

Currently, the Supreme Court is only slightly in favor of preventing abortion. There are four liberal justices who would not dream of eliminating the protections laid down in Roe v. Wade, and there are four conservative justices who would welcome the opportunity. There is a swing justice, who usually airs on the side of protecting abortion, but if a fifth conservative justice is put on the court, Justice Kennedy will be unnecessary. Whoever America elects in 2016 will be the person who can appoint justices who will serve for years to come. This election is not just about immediate policy, it’s about the far reaching effects of ideology in our judicial system. In 2016, make sure to actually show up, and vote for a candidate that will protect women’s rights not just while they are in office, but for years to come. Not to mention the backsliding the court and the country will do with regard to economic equality, gay rights, and protections for minorities.

Not only do I think Secretary Clinton is the best person to protect those rights in the short and long term, I think that with the visible and invisible sexism that still plagues every woman in our society today, from street harassment to Federal laws that dictate what we can and can't do with our bodies, it would be incredibly powerful, and frankly, necessary to have a female president. 

And that’s why, despite my discomfort with our American Oligarchy, I am, without a doubt, Ready for Hillary.

Wait For It

167 days. That’s how long new Attorney General Loretta Lynch waited to be confirmed. After sailing through a confirmation hearing, the extremely qualified lawyer waited longer than the past seven attorney generals combined to have her nomination be voted on by the Senate. Unsurprisingly, she sailed through the vote, with 56 Senators voting for her, and 43 voting against. Ten Republicans joined all the Democrats in confirming Attorney General Lynch at the nation’s first African-American female Attorney General. Only Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) did not vote.

Interestingly, Senator Cruz also abstained from a vote held yesterday on S.B. 178, the Justice for Victims of Trafficking Act. This bill, in contrast to the somewhat close vote to confirm Attorney General Lynch, passed with the other 99 Senators voting in favor of the bill. How did a bill that was previously contentious enough to create an unprecedented delay for a presidential nominee pass with the support of almost every Senator?

The bill, as you may recall, was held up by a debate about whether or not funds could be used for abortions. The Hyde Amendment already is in place to prevent the use of Federal funds for abortion except in the case of rape, incest, or threat to the life of the mother (see this post for why that language bothers me). However, language in S.B. 178 would have expanded this rule to cover non-taxpayer funds, and make it even harder for victims of human trafficking to access abortions.

In the end, the Senate reached a compromise. The new bill will create two funds that support victims of human trafficking. One fund will be built by collecting fines from traffickers. It will be used to cover survivor services, and is not subject to the restrictions of the Hyde Amendment. The other fund will draw mostly from “community health center funds,” which are subject to Hyde restrictions.

A bona fide compromise! Except that the fund for survivor services doesn’t include healthcare, and therefore, even though it is not built with government funds, it cannot be used to help women access abortions, or other forms of reproductive healthcare. All types of healthcare will be supported through the second fund, which cannot be used to pay for abortions for victims of human trafficking, unless they happen to fit a small set of circumstances.

The confirmation of Loretta Lynch is indeed historic, and she will be an excellent attorney general. But her confirmation came on the heels of the continued disrespect for women's agency over their own bodies. Hopefully, Attorney General Lynch can use her position to begin to work against the seemingly never-ending flow of abortion restrictions put in place by governments around the country, but with 99 Senators supporting this bill, it will be an uphill battle.

Let Me See The Birth Certificate

Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) is rumored to be announcing his candidacy for the Republican nomination for president this Monday. When I first heard Senator Cruz was going to run for president, I turned into a member of the “birther” movement. You know the ones? The people who demand to see President Obama’s birth certificate, not believing he was born in America?

Well, as soon as I heard Senator Cruz was going to run, all I could say was, “But Senator Cruz can’t even run for president! He’s a Canadian! He was born in Canada! I want to see the birth certificate!”

I can report to you now that I have seen the birth certificate, I have looked at the facts, and I am here to tell you that Senator Cruz can indeed run for president.

Good news for the Tea Party. Not great news for me as a person, but I digress.

The confusion comes from the “natural born citizen” clause of the Constitution. According to the Constitution, “no person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President.”

At first glance, Senator Cruz, born in Calgary, Canada to a mother who was a United States citizen, and a father who was not, doesn’t seem like he would beeligible for the office. The clause of the Constitution says “natural born citizen” so wouldn’t that mean a person born in the United States?

Turns out, no, it would not. At the time of the scandal around President Obama’s place of birth (spoiler alert: it’s Hawaii, which is far away, but still part of the United States) the Congressional Research Service wrote a fifty page report detailing exactly who was a natural born citizen.

Oddly, it wasn’t President Obama but Senator John McCain (R-AZ) who was the subject of the inquiry, as he was born not in America, but in the Panama Canal Zone tocitizen parents.

I’ll spare you the fifty pages of the CRS report, and just tell you that according to Congress, a “natural born citizen” is someone who was born in the United States, even if they are born to non-citizen parents, or someone who was born abroad to citizen parents. It is this second loophole that Senator Cruz fits into. The vast majority of legal though and scholarship on the issue does say that Senator Cruz iseligible to run for president.

So there you go! Senator Cruz should have no legal issues when he runs for president. His father who fought with Fidel Castro…well that socialist connection might be harder to explain to his loyal Tea Party fan base.

Hyde Your Amendments

There has been gridlock around the anti-human trafficking bill in the Senate, and I promise that is the last traffic-based pun I will make at the expense of human trafficking.

The debate about the anti-human trafficking bill came to a standstill today when the Senate failed to achieve the necessary 60-vote cloture to end debate on the bill, and put the bill up for the real vote. Unlike the cloture votes of years passed, this one was tanked by Democrats, not Republicans.

Why do Democrats want to prevent an anti-human trafficking bill? Why does anyone want to prevent an anti-human trafficking bill? Human trafficking is widely regarded as a terrible thing, and I would guess every member of the Senate is opposed to it on moral grounds alone, to say nothing of the illegal activities it facilitates. Why would the Democrats prevent a bill that would create a fund for victims of human trafficking and tools for law enforcement officials to fight human trafficking?

The answer is, surprisingly, abortion. Democrats discovered last week that included in the human trafficking bill is an extension of an amendment called the Hyde Amendment, which prevents federal funds from being used for abortion except in cases of rape, incest and a threat to the life of the mother. This bill would expand that amendment, and prevent any funds, Federal or otherwise, from being used for abortion, except in cases of rape, incest and threat to the life of the mother.

(An editorial aside, I don’t love the phrase “threat to the life of the mother” because with an average of 650 women in the US dying in childbirth every year, a maternal mortality rate that puts us below Belgium, Bosina, and Kuwait, most pregnancies in this country could turn into a “threat to the life of the mother.” Pregnancy is dangerous, and a woman should be allowed to decide for herself if she wants to go through it or not.)

To prevent that amendment from being passed, Democrats filibustered the bill, or prevented it from obtaining 60 cloture votes. Senator McConnell (R-KY) held the cloture vote twice, and Democrats ensured that it failed both times.

What complicates this story is that Senator McConnell is refusing to hold a confirmation vote for Loretta Lynch, President Obama’s appointee for attorney general, until the human trafficking bill is passed. Democrats, who hope to see a confirmation for Lynch as soon as possible, say that they will pass the bill as soon as the ban on funding is removed. Republicans counter by saying that the Democrats should be embarrassed that they are filibustering the bill, and should just vote to end debate on the bill so it can move on to a final vote. We’ve seen how well these groups work together in the past, so it’s likely that we will not see the bill passed, let alone Loretta Lynch’s confirmation, for awhile.