Dems Demanding a Difference

Live Blog of the State of the Union

scjustin — Mon, 28 Jan 2008 21:10:26 -0700

8:57- Wow Bush is unpopular. Chris Matthews is talking about the primary and not President Bush’s coming speech.8:57- Keith Olberman is reading excerpts of the speech before it starts. What a buzzkill.8:59- Oh God, Chris Matthews is talking about Condoleeza Rice becoming the VP of the Republican candidate.9:02- Michael Chertoff is an ugly man.9:07- Alright, the speech is about to start. Hopefully they don’t show Nancy Pelosi furiously blinking.9:10- Harry Reid looks so creepy at this camera angle.9:11- Good, Bush is starting off right. Bipartisanship is good to talk about.9:13- Very sly transition into earmarks, Mr. President. You didn’t say it directly, but that’s what you mean by “loaded bills.”9:14- Tax relief will not eliminate uncertainty! Do you really think that will solve the problems of the economy?9:15- Veto any tax increase? I guess you don’t plan on funding anything.9:16- Tough man Bush talking about vetoing. I guess that’s what happens when you lose all other form of influence.9:18- He’s going to say “empower” a lot in this speech.9:19- Barack Obama has an excellent stone-face in response to Bush criticizing universal health care (and nationalized health care).9:20- Bush said “empower” again. Somebody needs to keep track of how many times he says that word.9:21- Oh no, Bush is praising No Child Left Behind.9:22- Bush says “empower” again. 9:23- Bush is talking about passing trade agreements. This is pretty good. He’s not coming off that bad right now.9:24- Bush is talking about trade adjustment assistance. This is good. He’s trying to sound like a Democrat.9:26- Always good to talk alternative energy. I wonder if he really knows why nuclear power is a flawed source though.9:27- Hillary Clinton looks really bored.9:29- Bush is talking adult stem cells and embryonic stem cells. I wonder if he knows what they are.9:30- Alright, another word to count is “trust.” He’s saying that a lot too.9:30- “Trust” and “empower” in the same sentence. Impressive!9:31- Did Bush really just say, “armies of compassion?”9:32- Nancy Pelosi looks really bored. Somebody needs to give her some botox.9:34- Bush getting emotional on illegal immigration. This is one of the few areas where I like his policies.9:35- Bush is using big words like “hemorrhage.” Somebody must have told him what it meant.9:38- It would be nice if Bush talked more about Afghanistan and less about Iraq. He sounds decent talking about Afghanistan.9:41- Bush gets everyone on their feet by talking about the troops.9:42- Joe Biden is in a state of intense concentration.9:43- Bush says Al Qaeda will be defeated. Is it possible to truly eliminate terrorists? I think not.9:45- Bush slides in a request to fully fund the troops.9:47- Troops coming home is good to talk about. People like hearing that.9:51- Bush talks peace between Israel and Palestine. Easier said than done, but it’s a nice thought.9:52- Stop beating the drums of war Bush! Iran is no threat to us!9:52- Is Bush listening when Iran says they are enriching uranium for energy purposes only?9:55- Bush wants wiretapping authorization extended. Congress, don’t reauthorize it!9:56- Genocide in Sudan is condemned. That’s good. Let’s see some action.9:58- Bush is talking about funding veterans programs. That’s something everyone can get behind.10:02- Bush finishes his speech after about 53 minutes. This speech was filled with old clichés and old sayings from him.

Thoughtful Dems

Fair Tax Flaws

scjustin — Sun, 27 Jan 2008 21:48:31 -0700

With the Republicans, especially Mike Huckabee, talking so much about the Fair Tax, it's about time Democrats learned what it is and why it is a terrible idea.

First, we have to discuss what it is. The Fair Tax is a 23% sales tax-inclusive rate that would replace all federal income and investment taxes. It would also theoretically give rebates back to everybody at or below the poverty line so they would end up paying no net sales tax. There would be numerous benefits, such as lower costs on consumer goods and less bureaucracy to handle tax collection.

At first glance, it sounds pretty good. It's simple. Poor people are getting their money back. But when you look at the numbers, it falls apart. To start, the 23% tax-inclusive rate is misleading. A 23% tax-inclusive rate is actually equivalent to a 30% sales tax rate if measured in the conventional sense. Then, the sales tax rate that the bipartisan Advisory Panel on Tax Reform determined would be needed to obtain the amount of revenue currently obtained through our tax system is 34%. This would end up significantly raising prices. A $10,000 car under the current system, for example, would cost $13,400 under a Fair Tax that is 34%. Now, there is the issue of the rebate to those under the poverty level. It is true that the rebate would balance out the system so that people who make $15000 or less are better off. However, those who make between $15,000 and $200,000 suffer a great deal. The rebate does not help them as much, and having one sales tax rate would be easier for the rich to pay than the poor. This second point is true due to the fact that the poorer you are, the larger percentage of your income you spend. Finally, the cost to the government would be enormous to pay out all of these rebates. The Treasury Department estimates that they would end up costing between $600 and $700 billion. That would make it the largest source of federal spending. Is that cost really worth it? If you ask me, the answer is absolutely not.

Thoughtful Dems

Perspective Pertaining to Pakistan

scjustin — Sun, 27 Jan 2008 18:23:40 -0700

Recently, The New York Times broke a story about the meeting between Mitch McConnell, director of national intelligence, General Michael Hayden, director of the CIA, and President Pervez Musharraf and other Pakistani officials. The two American intelligence officials flew out secretly to discuss ways to cooperate in the War on Terror. Apparently, both parties were satisfied in the results of the meeting.

Events like this should serve as a signal to people that even though the United States is uncomfortable with the political developments that have unfolded in Pakistan recently, it is still a country that the United States needs as an ally in fighting terrorism. Pakistan does have a very capable military, and it is also in a position that is very strategic in terms of keeping tabs on terrorist organizations. For one thing, there is a lot of evidence that Al Qaeda and the Taliban are hiding out within Pakistan's borders. Also, Pakistan is a strategic country from which to bring troops and military equipment into Afghanistan. Without Pakistan's cooperation, it would be very difficult to maintain a military presence in Afghanistan. Pakistan's intelligence services are also equipped to function as a solid partner in gathering intelligence on terrorist activity. Pakistan may not run itself the way the United States would like it to, but the benefits of having Pakistan as an ally are too great to give up the alliance that currently exists.

Now, briefly, about the political developments in Pakistan that have made so many officials shift uncomfortably in their seats. Pakistan is trying very hard to become a functioning democracy. The concepts of competitive elections and political opposition cannot be fully understood by a country unless it lives through them. When President Musharraf felt his country getting out of hand because of the amount of public opposition that existed, he declared a state of emergency to try and stabilize the country. This is not how developed democracies would generally operate, so it brought a lot of criticism. However, even with the assassination of Benazir Bhutto, the country appears pretty stable, so who's to say that President Musharraf didn't achieve his goals?

The real test of where Pakistan stands will come when it holds its next election. If it is rife with corruption, then the sceptics will be proven right. However, if it is free and fair, then the sceptics will have to quiet down. Either way, the United States won't take any definitive action against Pakistan because fighting terrorism is higher up on the list of priorities than punishing governments we believe are abusing their power.

Thoughtful Dems

Bush Buddy Brings Balls

scjustin — Tue, 22 Jan 2008 22:42:30 -0700

In an aggressive move to respond to economic concerns, the Fed lowered the interest rate by 0.75% and the discount rate by 0.75% on Tuesday. This move provides more currency liquidity and will make it easier for people to pay off credit card loans and other loans that are causing a great deal of hardship right now. It also will make more loans available to people that need them. Ben Bernanke deserves props for this aggressive move. Wall Street reacted favorably to it, as well as markets around the world. The housing and credit crisis in the United States has been seen to be a problem requiring definitive action, and Ben Bernanke and the Central Bank should be praised for having the guts to take significant action in quick response to the stock market troubles of the past few days. One might wonder why there wasn't more substantial action to help people until Wall Street started feeling the pain, but I'll stop now and leave a rare positive blog for a member of the Bush administration.

Thoughtful Dems

Experience Rankings

scjustin — Mon, 21 Jan 2008 22:19:35 -0700

One of the points getting beaten into our heads during this primary season is experience. Hillary says she has 35 years of experience serving the American people. Barack Obama talks about the life experience that he has. John Edwards talks about his experience taking on insurance companies and fighting for the little guy. Their points all sound decent, but all three have been criticized at some point for a lack of experience. Clearly, something gives. What is undeniable is that experience is an important factor, so let's analyze the experience of these three candidates. I will use my own system of ranking experience, so if you disagree, let's hear how you would change the rankings.

1- National Legislator, Governor

1.5- Major Cabinet Member (Secretary of State, Defense Secretary, etc.)

2- State Legislator, Mayor

3- City Council or some other local government position

3.5- Major businessman (CEO of Fortune 500 company, similar positions, note that if paired with any of the above positions this can make for a strong resume)

4- Advocate or Legal Work

5- Other

Now, none of these three held any kind of major business position, so we don't have to worry about that qualification for the purposes of our rankings. Also, being a board member will not be counted because that does not necessarily entail any real of responsibilty. We are now going to go through the resumes.

Hillary Clinton- Lawyer after graduating from Yale Law School (4), children's advocate (4), women's advocate (4), first lady (this gets equal credit as an advocate because that's really all a first lady does, yes I know she worked on health care, but she had no official duty in it, she was advocating a position), national senator since 2000 (1)

Barack Obama- advocate against poverty before law school (4), civil rights lawyer (4), state senator for 8 years (2), national senator since 2004 (1)

John Edwards- lawyer (4), advocate against poverty (4), national senator for one term (1)

Looking at the resumes, we can see that all three candidates have experience as advocates and lawyers, so we must look elsewhere to compare them. The argument could be made that one must look at how long each person spent in each position, but for this kind of experience I am chalking that up to a negligible factor for lawyer or advocate experience. Even if we were taking a closer look at this though, I consider this level of experience to have a negligible impact on my ranking of their experience.

That leaves Hillary as a national senator since 2000, or a little more than one term. It leaves Obama as a state legislator for 8 years, then a national legislator since 2004, or about half a term. It leaves Edwards as a national legislator for one term. Not too impressive.

For our rankings though, Hillary beats Edwards because she has spent longer as a national legislator. The question is where to put Obama. If Edwards has Obama beat in national experience by half a term, does Obama's state experience put him over the top? My answer is going to be no, due to the fact that I equate one year of national legislator experience to be worth more than 3 years of state legislator's experience. Upon doing the math, you'll realize that this formula leaves Edwards with higher marks.

So, final rankings are:

1) Hillary Clinton

2) John Edwards

3) Barack Obama

My final thought is that I am still not very enthusiastic about any of these candidates' experience. They better hope that people really do prefer change over experience.

Thoughtful Dems

When should the Publicity Committee meet?

ashleyw — Tue, 02 Oct 2007 22:32:19 -0700

When should the Publicity Committee meet?

ashleyw — Tue, 02 Oct 2007 22:31:54 -0700

Maize Out the State Capitol for lower tuition

Sam Harper — Tue, 25 Sep 2007 18:29:35 -0700

Start: Sep 26 2007 - 12:30pm

End: Sep 26 2007 - 6:00pm

In the past 5 years, the State of Michigan has been the worst state in
the country in terms of higher education funding.  This summer, instead
of making good on its promise to give $180 million to public
universities around the state, the Michigan Legislature deferred its
payment until its next budget vote on October 1, 2007.  That day is
quickly approaching and the University of Michigan has a $30 million
check coming--except that it might not ever make it.  If we don't
receive our money, then it is likely that there will be a mid-year
tuition increase that could be as much as $1000.  The reason that
students keep getting a raw deal is because we don't generate enough
noise-- politicians have said that it is easy to put higher education
on the backburner because there is hardly any political fallout.  This
Wednesday, let's prove them wrong.

Student from every public university in the state will be gathering on
the Capitol lawn in Lansing to give our government the political
fallout they've had the luxury of avoiding.  And the University of
Michigan is leading the way by sending 300 Wolverines.  We are going to
Maize Out on the Capitol lawn.  But we need your help to make this
happen.  We've already had a huge tuition hike once this year--we can't
let it happen again.  Take 6 hours out of your day, get on the bus with
us, and help put a stop to these exorbitant tuition increases.

REGISTER NOW AT http://www.msarally.com
EMAIL MSA.Rally@umich.edu WITH QUESTIONS

Dems Demanding a Difference

DDD's at RELAY for LIFE

Paula Klein — Tue, 18 Sep 2007 13:16:55 -0700

Dems Demanding a Difference

About DDD

cuellar — Sun, 05 Aug 2007 15:31:50 -0700

Last year we sponsored a Relay for Life team as well as Dance Marathon dancers. This year, we have even more events planned.

To get involved, contact Paula (uniquemane: riskyp) and watch this site for upcoming announcements.