AROUND NEW HAMPSHIRE
1. Political Tidbits
NH Political Report: Campaign headquarters, special sessions and the Hassan-Ayotte showdown
by Kevin Landrigan, nh1.com, October 9, 2015
Campaign headquarters can be like haunted houses. There’s only so many prime locations in New Hampshire and invariably a candidate sets up shop where someone else has been.
How about Democratic candidate for governor Colin Van Ostern? Announcing he would run for the corner office only three days after Gov. Maggie Hassan says she’ll leave for the seat, Van Ostern rented space in The Alpha Loft.
The brick-owned building on Elm Street in Manchester is home to incubator space for some of the state’s fastest growing entities including Dyn, Newforma and Southern New Hampshire University.
Well back in the day it was the McQuade Building and its past occupants including Republican Craig Benson’s 2004 campaign.
Now Van Ostern and Benson don’t share much politically but Benson’s karma isn’t bad in this case; he’s the last one to get elected governor when the incumbent (then Democratic Gov. Jeanne Shaheen) last left to run for a US Senate seat.
"I guess there are some ghosts in the building," Van Ostern quipped.
This is not uncommon. Take Republican presidential candidate Jeb Bush’s spot further south on Elm Street.
It’s full of both good and bad vibes.
Past campaigns to live in the same space include 2014 Republican Senate nominee Scott Brown, 2010 Democratic Senate nominee Paul Hodes and the 2008 Democratic coordinated campaign.
------------------------------
Okay it wasn’t a shock and the New Hampshire Political Report had been predicting it for weeks but we had an inside source in Gov. Maggie Hassan’s bid for the US Senate that became official Monday.
Our makeup consultant, Kriss Blevens, did the same for Hassan in highly professional Youtube video Hassan had produced to announce her run.
Don’t worry, gov, Kriss kept her secret and she hasn’t even told reporters since she was involved; we had to learn from other independent sources about her involvement.
No surprise here; Kriss is a New Hampshire treasure having made up numerous future presidents and traveling across the country for CNN during previous campaign cycles.
Meanwhile, Hassan has made some predictable but very solid moves for her Senate bid.
Longtime confidante and recent, first-time father Marc Goldberg has never left Hassan since leaving the Maryland lieutenant governor’s office to join Hassan prior to her first election in 2012.
Goldberg managed Hassan’s re-election campaign last fall.
Democratic Party Communications Director Aaron Jacobs is leaving that perch to take on the same job for Hassan’s Senate race.
------------------------------
It’s been kept on the down low but Gov. Hassan did approach Republican legislative leaders about having a special session this fall to deal with the opioid crisis.
The reason it’s not gone public in a big way? The state’s chief executive couldn’t get to first base.
House Speaker Shawn Jasper, R-Hudson, was vocal in tomahawking the idea, insisting there was no reason the Legislature if need be could not right out of the starting gate act on legislation to beef up New Hampshire’s response to illegal drugs and the epidemic of overdoses.
Of course, the Constitution gives Hassan another route; she could seek a petition to call lawmakers back into session even without leadership support if she got a majority on the Executive Council to support her.
No chance of that happening now with all three Republican councilors not at all inclined to give Hassan a high-profile special session on drugs since she’s become a candidate for the US Senate.
------------------------------
How does Sen. Kelly Ayotte, R-NH, try to turn the tables on Gov. Maggie Hassan by making the Democrat a creature of Washington?
She does it by insisting Hassan’s campaign is only taking place because "Washington politicians" have demanded she seek the Senate seat. That’s what Ayotte said Friday during a radio interview with WGIR-AM talk show host Jack Heat.
As for broadening the issue portfolio, Ayotte has been talking up tax reform though she has yet to embrace any design for altering the IRS code.
"I know overall tax reform has to accomplish three things. We have to simplify the code and make it fair. Then we have to make sure it’s competitive," Ayotte told the NH Political Report.
------------------------------
One thing about both these women - Hassan and Ayotte - they will remain on message.
And here’s the three talking points from Hassan against Ayotte right out of the gate; get used to them.
- Hassan claim: Ayotte opposed making it easier for students to refinance their college loans;
- Hassan claim: Ayotte voted to turn Medicare into a voucher program and,
- Hassan claim: Ayotte voted to defund Planned Parenthood.
There will be plenty of time to air out in detail whether Hassan has a leg to stand on with her charges - there is some basis for all of them - but the point of emphasis is the constituencies.
Hassan is appealing in order to young voters, senior citizens and women; clearly if she can open up an advantage at the polls among the last two groups against Ayotte, Hassan will be the next U.S. senator.
------------------------------
Why would Ayotte in relative terms go somewhat soft on Hassan’s rollout?
By now Ayotte could have jumped all over Hassan’s veto of the state budget and the fact she largely caved in to get a final deal so she could end the controversy and go for the Senate seat.
And Ayotte could have had a field day with Hassan’s criticism of business tax cuts she ultimately would sign which the governor said in the main were going to "out-of-state millionaire" business owners.
That’s easy. To begin with as we pointed out this week there’s a massive proxy war in this campaign that will go unmatched in New Hampshire history. This means an unlimited number of GOP partisans are perfectly happy and will go ugly on Hassan for Ayotte.
More importantly there is a time and a place. Ayotte politically right now is on solid footing, much stronger than she was say 18 months ago after $2 million in attack ads from Michael Bloomberg.
She doesn’t have to mount an offensive against Hassan right now.
In time, she certainly will.
------------------------------
With Chris Sununu campaigning feverishly, will any of the three leading senators pull the trigger and join him in a primary race for governor?
Sununu says to the trio: C’mon in, the water is fine.
"Look, Chuck Morse, Jeb Bradley, Jeanie Forrester did an amazing job writing one of the best budgets this state has ever had. They are an incredible team in the Senate. If they want to get into this race that’s fine. I’m a big believer that good primaries are good," Sununu said.
"They are all good friends of mine; it would stay positive, it would stay about the issues, there is nothing negative about that."
Okay, well these odds could change but here’s how each three privately assess the race according to those who know them.
- Sen. Jeanie Forrester, R-Meredith: 3-1. Until recently it was thought the chairwoman of the Senate Finance Committee would not seek the promotion in her third term. That all changed when she began making a renewed round of telephone calls to GOP activists gauging their interest last week.
- Senate Majority Leader Jeb Bradley, R-Wolfeboro: 5-1. Having lost his last race for Congress, Bradley knows the next race for major office for him could be his last if it ended badly. Bradley has reached out to money interests and gotten a good response that if he did jump in the campaign cash would be there.
- Senate President Chuck Morse, R-Salem: 10-1. He’s the least likely and for good reason. Morse already has a good gig not just running the Senate but holding onto a chamber that for the future looks solidly GOP thanks to redistricting that really slanted towards the Grand Olde Party.
In addition, Morse’s interest is split; at times he looks even more favorably at a run for Second District congressman rather than for governor. Taking on two-term Democrat Annie Kuster in a presidential year would be a tall order, however; Morse would be better off to stay put and look to move up in 2018.
------------------------------
What do we make of President Obama’s pick of the next U.S. attorney?
A quality choice but yet another sign this lame duck POTUS is fulfilling his own desires in the final 14 months in office not trying to win bipartisan friends.
Obama doesn’t have to answer to anyone and it’s becoming increasingly clear his public comments and public appointments reveal his true desires.
Emily Gray Rice is not a partisan but she’s been a fan of past Democratic governors. A former state prosecutor, Rice also was named to the state Ballot Law Commission.
She most recently has been with Bernstein Shur which has a stable of both Democratic and Republican actors from Democratic lawyers Terry Shumaker and Andru Volinsky to longtime GOP operative Jim Merrill.
------------------------------
The last thing Eversource Energy needed was a national critic of Northern Pass.
That’s what they earned this week with the National Trust for Historic Preservation insisting that places along the 200-mile power project route be considered a national treasure.
This is no attempted veto of the project.
And Eversource has already shown its willingness to make all kind of accommodations to try and win friends and mute opponents. The last alignment move, burying more than 50 miles of power line, was no minor move and attracted plenty of support.
But the national trust and its state partner, the New Hampshire Preservation Alliance, are not groups to trifle with and the trust doesn’t take this step at the drop of the hat.
In fact it’s interceded in this fashion and played the ``national treasure’’ card only twice [-] to preserve the Daniel Webster Farm and the Wentworth-By-The-Sea Hotel.
2. Report: Poverty in NH, and National Policy Threats
Despite Some Progress, Too Many Granite Staters Are Still Being Left Behind
by NH Labor News, nhlabornews.com, October 9, 2015
Concord, NH: Data released by the Census Bureau last month show that poverty remains stubbornly high. In New Hampshire, 9.2 percent of people (1 in 10) were poor in 2014 – roughly the same number as in 2013 when 8.7 percent were poor. The child poverty rate also rose, with 13 percent (1 in 8) of New Hampshire children living in poverty in 2014 – an increase from 2013 when 10.2 percent of our children were poor.
“In order to cut child poverty in New Hampshire we need to maintain and expand investments in programs with proven success in helping move people out of poverty,” said MaryLou Beaver, director of Every Child Matters in New Hampshire. “Human needs programs like the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) and the Child Tax Credit (CTC) lifted 16,000 Granite Staters, including 8,000 children, out of poverty each year, on average, during 2011 to 2013. But if Congress does not act, funding cuts scheduled to take effect this fall will threaten to leave more New Hampshire children and their families behind.”
Today Every Child Matters in New Hampshire and the Coalition on Human Needs are releasing a report (attached) based on the Census Bureau data. Every Child Matters in New Hampshire reached out to our four Members of Congress for their reaction to this report. Here are the comments from those who responded by our deadline:
Senator Jeanne Shaheen: “This report shows that many federal programs are working to lift New Hampshire families out of poverty. We need to end sequestration and reach a budget deal that will strengthen these programs, not cut them as the latest Republican budgets have.”
Congresswoman Ann McLane Kuster: “This study reminds us all that we must keep fighting to help the most vulnerable among us. I will continue my work in Congress to protect funding for vital programs that Granite State families desperately need, such as SNAP, Head Start, Housing Choice vouchers, and the Earned Income Tax Credit. We must ensure that every New Hampshire child has the support they need to grow and succeed.”
Congressman Frank Guinta: “I’ve served New Hampshire as a state rep and alderman, as Manchester’s mayor and now U.S. congressman. I’ve had the opportunity to meet families facing economic challenges and present solutions at both the local and federal levels. Every Child Matters in New Hampshire is shining a spotlight on this issue of vital importance. Their report shows the need for increased focus on the immediate challenges of poverty, as well as the need to address its underlying causes, in order to help current and future generations succeed.”
“New Hampshire continues to recover from the Great Recession, but progress is too slow” said Beaver. “It’s not too late for Congress to change course, however, and end sequestration. Increasing investments in safe and secure housing and to programs like Head Start will give these children a better foundation for success and will benefit New Hampshire and our country as a whole in the future. And Congress can do so without cutting safety net programs like SNAP, EITC, CTC and Medicaid. The choice is theirs’.”
[To read the full report, click on the following link:
3. A Local Veto Amendment
"NIMBYISM" AND COMMUNITY RIGHTS
by LFDA Highlights, lfda.org, October 10, 2015
Rep. Susan Emerson (R-Rindge) is sponsoring a 2016 constitutional amendment that would give towns and cities more power over the siting of energy projects.
The New Hampshire Community Rights Network (NHCRN) presented the amendment to Emerson. According to a press release on the organization's website, the amendment "would recognize the authority of communities to protect the health, safety and welfare of residents and their natural environments by prohibiting activities that would threaten those rights." The amendment would give towns and cities "the last word" on any energy projects within the municipality's borders.
Supporters of the amendment argue that the state and federal governments approving energy projects are too easily influenced by corporate interests, to the detriment of local residents.
In a recent letter to the editor, NHCRN Coordinator Michelle Sanborn notes that the Northern Pass Project, the Kinder Morgan Northeast Energy Direct pipeline, and several proposed wind farms all have significant local opposition. In each case, the state or federal government will make the final decision on siting.
On the other hand, a recent article in Forbes highlights how local opposition to energy projects may contribute to New England's high energy costs.
"From subways to bridges to power lines and pipelines, the nation’s land, water and key infrastructure is increasingly being held hostage by a growing thicket of regulation, sophisticated opposition and a me-first philosophy that regards development, no matter the public good, as a potential assault on the sacred," reads the article.
The constitutional amendment is also a significant departure from the legal doctrine of preemption, in which federal laws trump state laws, and state laws trump local laws.
The text of the amendment is not yet public.
AND NATIONALLY
4. For Ryan Out Loud
Memories of Con Jobs Past
by Paul Krugman, The Conscience of a LiberaL Blog, nytimes.com, October 9, 2015
As the Paul Ryan clamor gets louder, a public service reminder: he’s a con man.
I don’t mean that I disagree with his policy ideas, although I do. I mean that his reputation as a serious thinker is based on deception, both about what he has actually proposed and how it has or hasn’t been vetted.
Take, for example, the famous “fiscally responsible” budget plan. As I explained way back when, what Ryan did was to present a sort of vague fiscal outline to the Congressional Budget Office that envisioned implausibly large cuts in spending and mysterious increases in revenue, and stipulated for the purpose of the exercise that CBO take those numbers as given. The budget office hinted broadly in its report that it didn’t believe any of it, e.g.:
That combination of other mandatory and discretionary spending was specified to decline from 12 percent of GDP in 2010 to about 6 percent in 2021 and then move in line with the GDP price deflator beginning in 2022, which would generate a further decline relative to GDP.No proposals were specified that would generate that path. [My italics]
But CBO did the numbers as required — and then the Ryan plan was presented as something that the budget office had “vetted”, when it did no such thing.
And as I’ve said, Ryan is to budget analysis as Carly Fiorina is to corporate leadership: he’s brilliant at self-promotion, but there’s no hint that he’s actually able to do the job. There is, in particular, no example I know of where he’s actually been right about anything involving budgets or economics, and some remarkable examples — like his inflation screeds — of being completely wrong, and learning nothing from the experience.
So is this really the best the GOP can do? And the answer, sad to say, is that it probably is.
5. Reaping What They Sowed
Banana Republicans
by CAP Action War Room, thinkprogress.org, October 9, 2015
The Latest House GOP Meltdown Has Been A Long Time Coming, And It’s Not Just About Them
The same tumultuous group that led the Republican Party to control the House of Representatives is now at the center of the latest and most public display of Republican dysfunction, or as Rep. Peter King (R-NY) calls it, “a banana republic.” Amidst absurd infighting in the House over Planned Parenthood funding, Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) was more or less forced to announce his future resignation, leaving the GOP needing to find the next Speaker. Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) was the favorite to replace Boehner, until he unexpectedly and dramatically dropped out yesterday afternoon, leading members of Congress to openly weep and pronounce their caucus has hit “rock bottom.”
The media frenzy surrounding these events has focused on intrigue like it is an episode of “House of Cards.” Was there something behind why McCarthy took himself out of the running? Will Paul Ryan step up and run for speaker despite repeatedly pledging not to? But here’s what is much more important: this self-inflicted leadership breakdown is just one more chapter in a story of House Republican recklessness – and their own caucus hasn’t been the only victim. House GOP dysfunction has resulted in a string of harmful policies and American families have paid the price. Here are just a few examples:
- The GOP orchestrated the reckless government shutdown in 2013 which had a devastating impact on our economy. Republican leaders bowed to the will of their extreme right wing to shut down the government over the Affordable Care Act. The shutdown lost Americans at least 120,000 jobs, prevented sick Americans from enrolling in clinical trials, forced Head Start programs for children to shut down, stalled veterans’ disability claims, delayed $4 billion in tax returns for Americans, and severely hurt small businesses. Overall, S&P estimates that the Republicans cost the United States economy a whopping $24 billion with their shutdown.
- The GOP has repeatedly used the debt ceiling to manufacture crises. In order to maintain the full faith and credit of the United States and avoid global economic collapse, Congress needs to raise the debt ceiling from time to time. Yet, GOP leaders have repeatedly joined with their unyielding Tea Party caucus to manipulate these once run-of-the-mill debt ceiling increases for their own gain. In 2011, the GOP threatened to force the United States into a default – to “crash the global economy,” as Time put it – which was only averted after both sides agreed to $1.2 trillion in economically damaging sequestration cuts. This behavior led to a U.S. credit rating downgrade. In 2013, the GOP used this brinksmanship again to attempt to make cuts to programs like Social Security, Medicare, and the SNAP food program, again putting the credit-worthiness of the United States in jeopardy.
- The GOP also used a manufactured crisis to force sequestration cuts that are still hurting the economy today. The Republican-induced sequesterdisproportionately hurt low-income and middle class families. It led to significant cuts to funding for education, small business, and health research. Sequestration overall will cause approximately 1.8 million people to lose their jobs.
Clearly, the GOP’s inability to control their own party has already caused a lot of damage to our economy and the well-being of American taxpayers. And yet, as their conference devolves again into chaos, they have no inclination to change their backwards policies or irresponsible behavior. They have no plans to avert the upcoming shutdown or increase the debt ceiling, even though the United States could default on its obligations if Congress doesn’t act by November 5th. House Republicans are not only distracted by their internal pandemonium, going into the upcoming budget negotiations they remain committed to the backwards, policy ideas and reckless political strategy that have caused so many problems for themselves, but more importantly for the American people.
BOTTOM LINE: The GOP’s current state of disarray has been a long time coming. The party’s leadership gave in to a minority of its members who are devoted to pushing devastating cuts to working-and middle-class families in pursuit of rigid and impractical ideological principles. The result has been a government in a state of perpetual dysfunction. And while House Republicans may be paying the price with negative news coverage, it is American families who pay the real price of their extreme policies.
6. The Unfettered "Free Market"
Robert Reich’s Dire Warning: America’s Free-Market Obsession Is “Poisoning” Our World
by Conor Lynch, alternet.org, October 5, 2015
In former Secretary of Labor Robert Reich’s latest book, “Saving Capitalism: For the Many, Not the Few,” he tackles a polarizing subject that has long divided liberals and conservatives, and, in recent years, has become increasingly mythological. That subject is the free market, which, as Reich points out in his book, has and will never been free in the sense that so many on the right imagine in their theories.
“Few ideas have more profoundly poisoned the minds of more people than the notion of a ‘free market’ existing somewhere in the universe, into which government ‘intrudes,’” Reich writes, “But the prevailing view, as well as the debate it has spawned, is utterly false. There can be no ‘free market’ without government… Competition in the wild is a contest for survival in which the largest and strongest typically win. Civilization, by contrast, is defined by rules; rules create markets, and governments generate the rules.”
Laws and regulations, whether relating to patents and property or bankruptcy and contracts, help form a stable capitalist market, while a truly “free” market would be akin to the wild (i.e. Social Darwinism). Reich argues that the major problem with the market of today is not that the government has intruded too much, as Republicans generally contend, but that the laws and regulations necessary for a market are tilted in the favor of wealthy individuals and corporations who can buy influence in the political world, rather than average people, i.e “the many,” who cannot. In other words, the free market vs. government debate is largely a pointless distraction from what should be the real debate: Does the market and the rules that establish it work for everyone, or just the few at top who are wealthy enough to shape those rules?
In the United States, the latter seems to be the case. One of the many examples of our unfair economy that Reich points to is America’s bankruptcy laws, which favor wealthy individuals like, erm, Donald Trump, over poor debt-ridden students or homeowners raising a family. As Reich writes of the housing crisis, “The real burden of Wall Street’s near meltdown fell on homeowners… Yet 13 of the bankruptcy code (whose drafting was largely the work of the financial industry) prevents homeowners from declaring bankruptcy on mortgage loans for their primary residence.” As for student loans, filing bankruptcy is quite difficult in the United States, as they are treated differently from other forms of unsecured debt, e.g. medical bills, credit card debt, personal loans, etc. To file for bankruptcy for student loans, one must file a seperate lawsuit, which All Law describes as being “a steep obstacle to overcome.”
The list goes on. Intellectual property laws, for example, have become more generous to corporations over the years, providing lengthy monopolies on sometimes crucial products, like important drugs, and making them less affordable. The massive Trans-Pacific Partnership, like previous trade deals, exposes the length that the American government will go to to protects its corporations. Leaked documents show that the TPP would provide U.S. pharmaceutical companies with extraordinary patent protections and easy extensions around the world (the TPP includes 40 percent of global GDP), which would hit poorer nations like Vietnam the hardest.
One particular sector that has become increasingly monopolistic, Reich warns, is Silicon Valley, thanks largely to these intellectual property laws. Corporations like Google, Apple, and Facebook have armies of litigators that constantly battle over patents that provide them with monopolies on certain products. He writes: “The most valuable intellectual properties are platforms so widely used that everyone else has to use them, too. Think of standard operating systems like Microsoft’s Windows or Google’s Android; Google’s search engine; Amazon’s shopping system; and Facebook’s communication network.” These big tech companies have boosted their spending on lobbying over the years, which may explain why the government has yet to crack down on these massive institutions that largely control entire areas of the internet. In Europe, on the other hand, authorities have started to crack down on this power, and earlier this year, the European Union formerly brought anti-trust charges against Google.
Through political spending and the revolving door, many other sectors, most notably banking, have become increasingly embedded into our political system, which has left our “too big to fail” financial institutions bigger than ever today. The financial crisis fallout, which saw hardly any Wall Street executives face punitive action, reveals the interrelationship between big banks and Washington.
The reality that Reich skillfully paints in “Saving Capitalism” is depressing, but he is optimistic that a populist movement –a nascent version of which can be seen in burgeoning support for Bernie Sanders — could combat a market that has become entirely favorable towards the wealthiest individuals and established corporations. He argues that certain conservatives and progressives who are increasingly antagonistic to crony-capitalist practices could find ways to unite, as we have seen via their joint opposition to the TPP and corporate welfare.
However, in my view, the problem with this is exactly what Reich points out at the beginning, i.e. the free market vs government debate. Conservatives are the very people convinced that an unfettered free market, where the government simply gets out of the way, is the solution. While these two political factions may unite in opposing certain issues, like the TPP, their solutions are very different.
Reich contends that their is “nothing about capitalism that leads inexorably to mounting economic insecurity and widening inequality.” I’m not so convinced. Capitalism, by definition, is the private ownership of the means of production and distribution. When so few own capital, massive inequality is largely inevitable. True, the government can lessen these inequalities and create market rules that also favor the working class, but this was easier to do in the mid-20th century when capital was less mobile. In today’s globalized economy, a corporation can easily shift operations overseas when the rules of the market become less favorable. A kind of solution would be to create international market rules, which could partly be achieved through trade agreements. Reich advocates requiring trade partners to have minimum wages equal to half of their median wages, which would likely create more customers for American exports and economic stability at home.
In one of the most important chapters in the book, “Reinventing the Corporation,” Reich discusses how a return to “stakeholder capitalism,” along with the spread of capital ownership (i.e. worker cooperatives) is an important step towards developing an economy that works for everyone. Creating more democratic corporations, where all stakeholders own shares of the company, is not a new idea, and the one presidential candidate who has long advocated worker ownership is Bernie Sanders. Indeed, number three on his “Agenda for America” is to assist in establishing worker co-ops.
Reich puts forth many other solutions, such as establishing a basic minimum income for all Americans after they turn eighteen (a proposal that libertarian icon F.A. Hayek endorsed), cutting patent lengths, eliminating tax loopholes such as carried interest, cracking down on new monopolies, overturning Citizens United, and more. Clearly there are solutions, but will a government full of politicians who are constantly in need of campaign donations embrace them? Time will tell.
Needless to say, “Saving Capitalism” is one Reich’s finest works, and is required reading for anyone who has hope that a capitalist system can indeed work the many, and not just the few.
7. Inequality and Broken Politics
These political scientists may have just discovered why U.S. politics are a disaster
by Ana Swanson, Wonkblog, washingtonpost.com, October 7, 2015
There's a lot of disgust in America with politicians' inability to get things done. In the race to win the Republican presidential nomination, that disgust has so far benefited outsider candidates. Non-career politicians Donald Trump, Carly Fiorina and Ben Carson have all promised to ride in and fix Washington.
But new research by Nolan McCarty, a professor at Princeton University, and other political scientists suggests this disgust — and America's political dysfunction — won't be that easy to fix. Working with political scientist Boris Shor and economist John Voorheis, McCarty has released a new studythat shows that the growing ideological gap between the Republican and Democratic parties — a common obstacle to getting anything done in Washington — is not just due to politicians' incompetence or their unwillingness to work together. It's due, at least in part, to a deeper, structural problem: the widening gap between the rich and poor.
McCarty says he shares some of the disgust that Americans feel about polarized politics and gridlock in Washington. "But I think it’s important for readers and voters to understand . . . that these problems are not just simply because career politicians are acting in bad faith or, as Donald Trump would say, they’re stupid losers. They’re really deep structural problems," he says.
How the widening gap between the rich and poor has changed politics in America
By looking at extensive data on U.S. states over the past few decades, the researchers show that the widening gap between the rich and the poor in recent decades has moved state legislatures toward the right overall, while also increasing the ideological distance between those on the right and those on the left.
This map below shows the Gini coefficient, a measure of income inequality, for each state going back to 1997. A lower Gini figure indicates that people in the state are earning more equal incomes, while a higher one (marked here in darker green) shows that incomes are more unequal. (You can disregard the axes here — they just show latitude and longitude.)
From “Unequal Incomes, Ideology and Gridlock: How Rising Inequality Increases Political Polarization,” by John Voorheis, Nolan McCarty and Boris Shor.
The paper argues that this trend has gone hand in hand with the growing political divide. The states that have the highest levels of inequality, or the fastest growth in equality, have also tended to see the most political polarization, the paper says.
Using a scale of state legislator ideology that looks at annual surveys of the beliefs of candidates since the mid-1990s, the researchers map where Democrats have shifted to the left and Republicans have shifted to the right at the state level. The map below gives an ideological "score" in each state for each chamber — in most states, a House of Representatives and a Senate.
A more negative score and a deeper blue color on the map indicate that the state chamber is more liberal, while a positive score and deeper red color show the state is more conservative. You can see that blue states have become bluer and red states redder since 1997. A look at party composition in each state shows the same trend.
From “Unequal Incomes, Ideology and Gridlock: How Rising Inequality Increases Political Polarization,” by John Voorheis, Nolan McCarty and Boris Shor.
It's not just that these two trends of inequality and polarization are happening simultaneously. The researchers use statistical methods to eliminate other factors and show that a state's income inequality has a large, positive andcausal effect on its political polarization. Furthermore, these results have increased in magnitude in recent years and seem to be concentrated in the states that are "reddest" by the end of the sample.
In other words, growing inequality is a strong force pushing both parties farther from the center.
The paper doesn't specifically say why this happens, except that politics gets more polarized with each election. It appears that people on either end of the economic spectrum have been developing even more different political preferences and electing people to represent those preferences.
Interestingly, however, the study shows that inequality is affecting the two parties in different ways.
First, the researchers find that Democrats as a whole have shifted farther to the left than the Republicans have to the right, with very liberal Democrats becoming even more liberal. But at the level of the state legislature, they find that ideology as a whole has shifted slightly to the right. The reason is that there has been a change in the partisan balance, with Republicans winning more seats from moderate Democrats over time.
"As the Democrat party has shrunk nationally over the course of the last 15 years, the disproportionate effect has been the replacement of moderate Democrats with Republicans, and that has tended to happen most often in states with high levels of inequality, or where inequality is growing the fastest,” McCarty said.
The map below, which shows the percentage of seats held by Republicans, illustrates how that has happened. The percentage of seats held by Republicans has increased, especially through the South and middle America, since 1997:
From “Unequal Incomes, Ideology and Gridlock: How Rising Inequality Increases Political Polarization,” by John Voorheis, Nolan McCarty and Boris Shor.
What this means for America's future, and for voters
This study offers evidence that inequality leads to political polarization. Though they have yet to produce definitive findings, the researchers also believe, as many others in their field do, that political polarization also in turn produces more inequality, creating a vicious feedback loop of inequality and polarized politics.
How does that work? Not only are more conservative lawmakers less likely to favor redistribution, the political gridlock that results from having a more polarized system makes it harder to pass bills that might reduce income inequality, such as increasing the minimum wage, strengthening union bargaining power, or increasing redistribution through welfare, researchers say.
The research suggests that political polarization is not just a product of gerrymandering, the way districts are drawn, or caused by features of the state political system, such as having closed partisan primaries, McCarty says.
Instead, he argues that America's political polarization is a reflection of bigger, broader changes in the United States, in particular that the country has become much more diverse in terms of its economic, racial and ethnic makeup than it was in the 1950s. The diversity, unsurprisingly, has a direct impact on the political system, and we have yet to figure out how to repair the system to reflect a more diverse society, McCarty says.
So what does this mean for average voters in the near term? For one, they should be skeptical of candidates who promise an easy fix to political dysfunction in Washington.
"These are deep, complicated problems, and people need to think big picture about what underlies them. They weren’t solved by electing Barack Obama, they’re probably not going to be solved by electing Donald Trump," McCarty says.
FINALLY another pair
No comments:
Post a Comment