The term ‘Astroturf” usually refers to fake “grassroots” movements that are actually fronts to support the agenda of a few wealthy backers. There’s a new species of Astroturf, however, which is even more unprincipled: “organizations” that have no agenda of their own whatsoever, and send out fliers that support whatever cause or candidates will pay them. One of the worst is Cops voter guide, which as far as I can tell has no connections with any policeman or police organization. It supports Jerry Brown, even though the Policeman’s union has come out for Whitman (in exchange for a promise to not touch their salaries or pensions). It also urges no on all measures that allegedly increase taxes—except for Prop 21 which would increase Car License fees. It also supports prop. 19 (which legalizes recreational pot). It’s pretty hard to find a coherent ideology in this voting pattern. Should we call this organization DPLTEEC? (Democratic Potheads for lower taxes on everything except cars? ). I think the slogan that best expresses their values would be a paraphrase from the Sting song about streetwalkers: “If you’ve got the money, I’ve got the space.” A visit to the blog political blotter reveals even more inconsistencies, including the fact that a previous mailer sent around May 2010 supported Gavin Newsom for Lt. Governor, even though the one I just received supports Abel Maldonado for the same office.
A visit to the cops voters guide website reveals that it is run by a political consultant named Kelley Moran. Moran has also gotten into trouble by working for both gay rights organizations and accepting money for advocating yes on proposition 8. Moran is apparently gay himself, which makes this behavior considerably more odious, I think. A search on his name revealed this article, which has more details on his numerous flipflops for hire. Thanks also to blogger Greta for revealing the connections that Moran has to an Animal rights group call Petpac, as well as connections to another dubious political organizer named William Hemby.
I am also suspicious of an organization called Californians Vote Green. They take the appropriately green stances on most ballot measures (yes on 21, and no on 23). But they also say yes on 26, widely referred to as the polluter protection act because it would make it much harder to pass new pollution restrictions. It also supports all the Democrats except for one. The fine print reveals that this Republican is the only candidate who paid to be on this mailer. When you go to the Californians Vote Green Website, there is nothing but a page with two links to completely unrelated sites to help oil spill victims and Sea Otters. In short, a bit of Green Window dressing, and no information whatsoever about the organization itself. Blogger Dan Brekke reveals that they used to have a more detailed website, back when they took money from PG&E to support proposition 16 (Which would have obstructed attempts to form public utilities, had it passed.) Apparently the founder of Californians Vote Green is named Rick Taylor. Brekke gives you contact information on his page, if you feel like emailing him or calling him.
None of these activities are illegal. There are fortunately campaign laws which require these mailers to state they are not affiliated with any official organization, and identify which candidates and campaigns paid to be in the mailer. You don’t need to do much research to discover which of these organizations are bogus. All you need are a few critical thinking skills, and a willingness to read some fine print.
Sunday, October 24, 2010
Thursday, July 15, 2010
Hitler again?
There's a joke that says every internet conversation brings up Hitler within 15 posts. With that in mind, I recently read The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich in hopes of getting some understanding of the reality behind this frequently evoked historical bogeyman. I found out that these tired comparisons of Hitler and Chamberlain to everything that happens today need to be brought back to reality with some actual historical facts.
We already have more weapons than almost all the rest of the world put together. Hitler rebuilt his military over a period of several years, while Britain stood by, until Hitler's army was several times the size of England's There is no one like Hitler one the world scene at the moment, despite some people's willingness to see him everywhere. If another Hitler appeared, there would be plenty of time to build a larger military in response to his build up. That's all that Churchill was asking for, and if Britain had done so, Hitler would never have had a chance of conquering England. Even after the long irresponsible delay caused by Chamberlain's naivete, Britain still managed to hold off Hitler's army, and eventually beat him. It is ridiculous for the US to maintain an army of this size when there is no immediate danger, and compare this situation to Hitler and Chamberlain
We already have more weapons than almost all the rest of the world put together. Hitler rebuilt his military over a period of several years, while Britain stood by, until Hitler's army was several times the size of England's There is no one like Hitler one the world scene at the moment, despite some people's willingness to see him everywhere. If another Hitler appeared, there would be plenty of time to build a larger military in response to his build up. That's all that Churchill was asking for, and if Britain had done so, Hitler would never have had a chance of conquering England. Even after the long irresponsible delay caused by Chamberlain's naivete, Britain still managed to hold off Hitler's army, and eventually beat him. It is ridiculous for the US to maintain an army of this size when there is no immediate danger, and compare this situation to Hitler and Chamberlain
Saturday, January 9, 2010
The California Democracy Act and the Polls
John Burton would love to see Majority rule in California. He still says so on his website. But he read a set of polls that convinced him that we could never get that, so now he’s asking for less. What Burton is asking for now is a 55% majority rule for Budget only, and 2/3 for Revenue. Budget votes decide how to divide the pie. Revenue votes decide how big the pie is. The problem with California is that the pie isn’t big enough. The cuts that were put in the California Tax system during the last boom period have lowered revenue to a completely unsustainable level. Consequently, getting power over the budget won’t solve the problem. It will just create feeding frenzies in which the parks, the schools, the police force, and all the other vital services will have to fight over an inadequate revenue pool. But Burton would rather fight a battle that makes no difference and win it, then fight an important battle that he might lose.
The majority of Democrats in California disagree with Burton on this. Back in July, the state party passed a resolution calling for majority rule for budget and revenue. And it passed unanimously. Burton spoke against it, but the rank and file supported it utterly. Burton has been working against this measure since then. I’ve even heard that he talked a big contributor out of giving money to the CA Democracy act campaign. But there are a lot of people in the party who think he’s being too cautious, and it’s pretty clear to me that if he saw that there was strong support for this, he would climb on board. (Particularly since he himself agrees with the idea, no matter what he is sayig now.)
I’ve read the data that made Burton give up, and I think he’s misinterpreted it.
First of all, there’s the Field Poll taken in 2009. It supposedly showed 43% in favor and 52% opposed to majority rule on Budget. It also showed 27% in favor and 69% against revising the majority rule on Revenue. This looks scary at first, but consider the following factors.
It’s been shown many times that you can shift a vote as much 20% by redescribing the same position with differently slanted language. These are the exact words of their question and they are clearly very different from the 14 words of the California Democracy Act. "Proposition 13 generally requires a two-thirds vote of the state legislature to increase state taxes. Would you approve or disapprove of changing Proposition 13 to enable the legislature to increase state taxes by a simple 50 percent majority vote?"
First, what in the world is a "50 percent majority"? When the question is worded to indicate that the questioner does not understand the issue, it takes away confidence in the response. A majority, of course, is more than 50 percent. There is no such thing as a "50 percent majority," even though the Field Poll uses the phrase repeatedly in these questions. If we took the phrase literally it would mean a tie. I certainly wouldn't vote for an initiative that said we could increase taxes whenever there is a tie vote.
Second, the answer is pushed by framing it in terms of Proposition 13, which remains highly popular -- and which, to most people, means protecting against high property tax rates. So if you ask people whether they want to change Proposition 13, most people will say no. This distorts the results, because an actual ballot measure to change the 2/3 rule on taxes would not mention Proposition 13. It would simply state a new rule on how taxes are determined, and ask for a yes or no.
The Question about budget made no reference to Proposition 13, the Question about Taxes did. This could have accounted for much of the difference right there. (Particularly since most people don’t understand the difference between budget and revenue anyway.)
Third, the answer is pushed by using the term "increase state taxes." That is only one possible outcome of changing the 2/3 majority, Majority rule doesn't just permit the majority to raise taxes, it permits the majority to either raise them, or lower them, or keep them the same. Mentioning only tax increases provokes a kneejerk response.
Why didn't they ask, "Is it fair for a small minority to determine the budget and taxes of the state, or should this be determined by majority rule?" This would obviously have produced a very different result, which is why George Lakoff wants to have a new poll.
And finally, what people believe now is going to be very different from what they believe after the campaign gets underway. Prop 56 was winning easily when the campaign began. By the end of the campaign, the vote had shifted by over 20 points. That’s why people campaign.
There’s also the September 2009 report of an institution called the public policy institute of California or PPIC. Here are the facts which appear to support Burton’s position.
1)A slight majority (53%) say it would be a good idea to lower the threshold needed for budget passage to 55 percent of the legislature (38% bad idea). Note that there’s a 10% between this figure and the results of the Field poll for what is essentially the same question. These polls always say they are accurate to 2 to 3 percentage points, even when they disagree with each other by 10%.
Because this poll didn’t even mention the possibility of revenue issues, but only discussed budgets, Burton concludes that there’s no evidence that there will be support for having a majority rule on revenue.
I think, however, that there’s lots of other information in the poll which shows that we already have good reason to be hopeful.
2)When Californians are asked about their preferences regarding the role of government, a little more than half (51%) would prefer to pay higher taxes and more services, while 39% would prefer lower taxes and fewer services. Once again there’s a huge undecided contingent, which could be easily swayed.
3)Nearly all (96%) Californians view the budget situation as a problem, with 78 percent seeing it as a big problem and 18 percent calling it somewhat of a problem.
4) 87% of all Californians are very concerned (60%) or somewhat concerned (27%) about the effects of spending cuts in their local government services—those provided by city and county governments and public schools. Concern over these cuts is far greater today than when PPI asked a similar but less detailed question five years ago (35% August 2004, 60% today).
What this means to me is that when you ask a Californian an empty question about services in the abstract and taxes in the abstract, You still get a very slight edge for services. When you ask about removing some aspect of the 2/3 you get a slight edge in favor of removing the only part asked about. When you consider that 96% of the people in the state feel that the budget situation is a problem, and 87% of the people are concerned about the effects of spending cuts on local services, it seems likely that when people think carefully about the budget mess and the cuts and services, a lot more people are going to decide to vote for this, even though they don't like the idea of tax increases. There are parents who are furious because their children are being given a substandard education. There are students who are furious because their tuition has doubled and their access to classes and teachers has been greatly reduced. Once a substantial number of these people can see that the 2/3 rule is at the root of these problems, (and it seems likely that they will, because this is the truth) they will vote for this measure and it will win. If a campaign can shift a vote level by 20% one way, as it did with prop 56, we can shift it the other way as well.
This is reason for hope, and hope is all we need to move forward, because this is our only real alternative. It’s not certain that we will win, but there is no other way out of this budget mess, no other way to turn California away from this path of self destruction.
The majority of Democrats in California disagree with Burton on this. Back in July, the state party passed a resolution calling for majority rule for budget and revenue. And it passed unanimously. Burton spoke against it, but the rank and file supported it utterly. Burton has been working against this measure since then. I’ve even heard that he talked a big contributor out of giving money to the CA Democracy act campaign. But there are a lot of people in the party who think he’s being too cautious, and it’s pretty clear to me that if he saw that there was strong support for this, he would climb on board. (Particularly since he himself agrees with the idea, no matter what he is sayig now.)
I’ve read the data that made Burton give up, and I think he’s misinterpreted it.
First of all, there’s the Field Poll taken in 2009. It supposedly showed 43% in favor and 52% opposed to majority rule on Budget. It also showed 27% in favor and 69% against revising the majority rule on Revenue. This looks scary at first, but consider the following factors.
It’s been shown many times that you can shift a vote as much 20% by redescribing the same position with differently slanted language. These are the exact words of their question and they are clearly very different from the 14 words of the California Democracy Act. "Proposition 13 generally requires a two-thirds vote of the state legislature to increase state taxes. Would you approve or disapprove of changing Proposition 13 to enable the legislature to increase state taxes by a simple 50 percent majority vote?"
First, what in the world is a "50 percent majority"? When the question is worded to indicate that the questioner does not understand the issue, it takes away confidence in the response. A majority, of course, is more than 50 percent. There is no such thing as a "50 percent majority," even though the Field Poll uses the phrase repeatedly in these questions. If we took the phrase literally it would mean a tie. I certainly wouldn't vote for an initiative that said we could increase taxes whenever there is a tie vote.
Second, the answer is pushed by framing it in terms of Proposition 13, which remains highly popular -- and which, to most people, means protecting against high property tax rates. So if you ask people whether they want to change Proposition 13, most people will say no. This distorts the results, because an actual ballot measure to change the 2/3 rule on taxes would not mention Proposition 13. It would simply state a new rule on how taxes are determined, and ask for a yes or no.
The Question about budget made no reference to Proposition 13, the Question about Taxes did. This could have accounted for much of the difference right there. (Particularly since most people don’t understand the difference between budget and revenue anyway.)
Third, the answer is pushed by using the term "increase state taxes." That is only one possible outcome of changing the 2/3 majority, Majority rule doesn't just permit the majority to raise taxes, it permits the majority to either raise them, or lower them, or keep them the same. Mentioning only tax increases provokes a kneejerk response.
Why didn't they ask, "Is it fair for a small minority to determine the budget and taxes of the state, or should this be determined by majority rule?" This would obviously have produced a very different result, which is why George Lakoff wants to have a new poll.
And finally, what people believe now is going to be very different from what they believe after the campaign gets underway. Prop 56 was winning easily when the campaign began. By the end of the campaign, the vote had shifted by over 20 points. That’s why people campaign.
There’s also the September 2009 report of an institution called the public policy institute of California or PPIC. Here are the facts which appear to support Burton’s position.
1)A slight majority (53%) say it would be a good idea to lower the threshold needed for budget passage to 55 percent of the legislature (38% bad idea). Note that there’s a 10% between this figure and the results of the Field poll for what is essentially the same question. These polls always say they are accurate to 2 to 3 percentage points, even when they disagree with each other by 10%.
Because this poll didn’t even mention the possibility of revenue issues, but only discussed budgets, Burton concludes that there’s no evidence that there will be support for having a majority rule on revenue.
I think, however, that there’s lots of other information in the poll which shows that we already have good reason to be hopeful.
2)When Californians are asked about their preferences regarding the role of government, a little more than half (51%) would prefer to pay higher taxes and more services, while 39% would prefer lower taxes and fewer services. Once again there’s a huge undecided contingent, which could be easily swayed.
3)Nearly all (96%) Californians view the budget situation as a problem, with 78 percent seeing it as a big problem and 18 percent calling it somewhat of a problem.
4) 87% of all Californians are very concerned (60%) or somewhat concerned (27%) about the effects of spending cuts in their local government services—those provided by city and county governments and public schools. Concern over these cuts is far greater today than when PPI asked a similar but less detailed question five years ago (35% August 2004, 60% today).
What this means to me is that when you ask a Californian an empty question about services in the abstract and taxes in the abstract, You still get a very slight edge for services. When you ask about removing some aspect of the 2/3 you get a slight edge in favor of removing the only part asked about. When you consider that 96% of the people in the state feel that the budget situation is a problem, and 87% of the people are concerned about the effects of spending cuts on local services, it seems likely that when people think carefully about the budget mess and the cuts and services, a lot more people are going to decide to vote for this, even though they don't like the idea of tax increases. There are parents who are furious because their children are being given a substandard education. There are students who are furious because their tuition has doubled and their access to classes and teachers has been greatly reduced. Once a substantial number of these people can see that the 2/3 rule is at the root of these problems, (and it seems likely that they will, because this is the truth) they will vote for this measure and it will win. If a campaign can shift a vote level by 20% one way, as it did with prop 56, we can shift it the other way as well.
This is reason for hope, and hope is all we need to move forward, because this is our only real alternative. It’s not certain that we will win, but there is no other way out of this budget mess, no other way to turn California away from this path of self destruction.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)