Remember the ‘nanny party’?

Remember ‘the Nanny Party’ ?

Has anyone noticed that since the most recent Ebola outbreak began, we’ve been hearing less about Democrats as ‘the Nanny Party’?

Maybe paying attention to public health and public safety is starting to look good.

What with one thing and another, there has been less from the GOP, lately, about

  • defunding the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)
  • slash-and-burn budget-cutting across the board in the U.S. government, including cuts to funding for the FAA and for U.S. airports where international passengers will be screened for Ebola, funding for the four specialized hospitals in the U.S. where Ebola patients are treated, and funding for vaccine research
  • abolishing the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
  • repealing the Affordable Care Act 

There has been less blatant use even of the broad-brush “tax and spend” mantra, and when it is used, the slogan is a sign of a fading campaign.

Not that the bad days are gone forever.

Mike Lee, Ted Cruz

For one thing, whack jobs are still out there, running for office in 2014. Regardless of the outcome in the race for U.S. senator from Iowa in 2014, it will remain incredible that a candidate like GOPer Joni Ernst could run. For the record, Ernst is another candidate who has called for eliminating the EPA–along with the IRS (i.e. funding our government) and the Department of Education.

 

Joni Ernst claims

For another, the Republican Party generally tones down most of the most rapacious proposals right before an election. The (perennial) game plan is to sound halfway decent, for the few weeks leading up to elections, and then to implement the Let’s-bring-back-the-Great-Depression policies in office afterward.

 

More later

The fundamentals are always in place, beyond the silly ‘nanny’ ridicule, beyond the opposition to all public health programs, beyond even the attacks on federal agencies that many people have noticed.

Of our two major parties, by and large it is always the Republican Party that supports the three strategems most dangerous to public health and public safety, along with jobs:

1. Privatizing. See Rick Allen in Georgia (“no position”? on Social Security?). Rick Scott in Florida; also here. Dan Benishek in Michigan, also here. Rick Snyder in Michigan. Fred Upton in Michigan. Tom Cotton in Arkansas.

2. Outsourcing. See House Republicans (CISPA). Terri Lynn Land in Michigan. David Perdue in Georgia; also here. Rick Scott in Florida. Scott Brown in Massachusetts New Hampshire. Tim Walberg in Michigan.

3. Offshoring. See Senate Republicans. David Perdue in Georgia. Carlos Curbelo in Florida.

What privatizing, outsourcing, and off-shoring have in common–aside from damage to employment at a decent wage–is that they are all inherently potential security breaches.

Contracting out to private companies shifts you from cave canem to the dog that didn’t bark in the night. No more public watchdog means lower standards, less accountability to the public.

Outsourcing to a raft of ‘contractors’ leads to a raft of ‘subcontractors’, and each additional level of contracting is another pore (figuratively speaking) to breed suppurating pustules of incompetence, theft, and neglect.

Off-shoring is not only a way to undermine the U.S. middle class. Off-shoring jobs opens more doors to fraud; off-shoring assets enables tax evasion on wealth, including the wealth of multi-national corporations.

All of this is fairly clear. The national political press should report it more clearly.

2012 self funding and the state of Florida

More on self funding in 2012

 

Rick Scott

Self financing, once again, has not lighted up on the big board as one of the top political stories in 2012, and not merely because it is overshadowed by Mitt Romney’s refusal to disclose his tax returns. While there are some expensively self-financed mayor’s races, including in California–where, incidentally, more cities may soon declare bankruptcy than in any other state–the self-financing bug has simply not bitten in most big races.

 

Meg Whitman

Of the eleven governor’s races in 2012, only one involves major self financing. The gubernatorial primary in Missouri takes place Aug. 7, and so far, it looks as though the self-funding effort by David (Dave) Spence (R) is paying off. Spence has contributed more than $2 million to his gubernatorial effort and is competing for the GOP nomination against two candidates whose combined financial support does not equal his. The nominee will challenge incumbent Gov. Jay Nixon (D). Nobody claims that the copious self financing will make Spence a shoo-in for governor if he becomes the nominee. Spence was not projected to be the strongest potential nominee to begin with, and has gotten into trouble by  seeming to over-enhance his academic credentials in his resume. Calling a degree in Home Ec an economics degree may not be a crime but does have potential for generating effective television ads, and humor, about his candidacy.

 

Dave Spence, Missouri

Self financing in governor’s races in 2012 is dwarfed, of course, by the gargantuan tries for governor in 2010. Spence’s effort in Missouri comes to (so far) about one sixty-fourth the total contributed by Meg Whitman to her unsuccessful run against Jerry Brown in California. It comes to about one thirty-second the self financing by Rick Scott (R) in Florida, who won, contravening the predictions.

For further perspective, Spence’s self funding comes to about one eighteenth the amount donated to herself by Linda McMahon (R) in her unsuccessful senate race against Richard Blumenthal (D) in Connecticut.

Linda McMahon is back in the self-funding news again, running again for senator from Connecticut in 2012. Again, she is one of the top self funders according to the Center for Responsive Politics. It remains to be seen whether the self financing contributes more to a win, or to fuel more misogyny in politics.

A more noteworthy item is that the state of Florida is back in the self funding picture again in 2012. It’s not like Rick Scott’s run in 2010, not being written up much nationally, but Florida’s lengthy redistricting process, now theoretically complete, held up normal fundraising efforts for months. That doesn’t mean the money hasn’t come in. It just means that candidate money has been at least as important as usual in Florida, especially in the Florida state senate. Candidate self-financing looks to have kept some state senate campaigns going.

Another melancholy reflection of the use of redistricting delaying tactics, for the state GOP. I’ve seen the same thing in my home state of Texas. First the state party apparatus pushes through a redistricting plan that any attorney can see will not pass constitutional muster. (In Florida, by the way, the GOP is not the majority party by voter registration. It has a lock on the state government acquired through tactics, not through the ballot.) Then the state government, acting as a tool of the party apparatus, stonewalls, foot-drags and otherwise obstructs correction. Generally it pours more citizen money down the drain arguing the losing proposition in court. Then, once the courts have had their say and the state is mandated by law to fix the redistricting at least somewhat, it does exactly the minimum necessary to enable it to hold an election in November. Typically it blames the delay on the opposition–especially if the Dems file suit–and on ‘activist judges’ if not on judicial ‘tyranny’. (Money pays for the ad campaigns, remember.) Meanwhile, issuing ballots–including ballots mailed to overseas voters and to voters in the military–has been held up. The process determining placement of candidates’ names on the ballot has also been held up. And, of course, as long as the district lines are in flux/jeopardy, candidates’ ability to campaign effectively, or to raise funds, has also been held up.

This process of obstruction has disproportionate effect on money-strapped candidates or on comparatively disadvantaged candidates. Campaign fundraising is necessary for almost all people running for office. It is already dicier for challengers, for the minority party in the state legislature, for lesser known candidates and for candidates from poorer neighborhoods. Factor in undefined district boundaries, and it becomes more difficult.

A predominant note sounded after the 2010 elections was that, where candidate self funding is concerned, money cannot buy elections. True as far as it goes–see above, and the previous post–but money can, and does, have disproportionate impact gumming up the works for everyone else. It is at least as effective in buying the influence, behind the scenes, that obtains squirrelly redistricting proposals as in its more public form of campaign finance–where ironically it can call attention to a candidate’s shortcomings, or negatives, by highlighting them in the white-hot glare of big-bucks publicity.

Update August 10:

Sure enough, self funder Dave Spence won the Aug. 7 GOP gubernatorial primary in Missouri. Neither purely establishment GOPer nor pure tea-party outsider, Spence’s victory is something of an exception to the over-all pattern for self-financed candidates.