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/