Here you can watch Meet The Press video from this morning on the aftermath and what progress has been made. Louisiana’s U.S. Senator Mary Landrieu and her brother, New Orleans Mayor, discuss the issue.

I have only one thought to add to the coverage we have seen over the last five years. It may be that overt racism, prejudice, or negligence is not to blame for the aftermath. However, in addition to laying bare our poor preparation for disasters nationwide, it may have exposed the blatant disconnect among sections of our society. It perhaps was that disconnect and lack of awareness of what life was like for the folks on the ground with little means that directly resulted in the lack of humanitarian support before and after the storm. And I think that is the real underlying story of Hurricane Katrina.

Thank you again for reading The Political Panorama and please continue to join us in discussion!

More recently, a very intriguing idea has been toss around by Hillary supporters and the media. That rumor is that Obama may replace Biden on the ticket with Hillary, potentially making a direct swap that would result in Biden becoming Secretary of State and Hillary running for Vice President. Normally, I would be tempted to dismiss such a rumor as rubbish, but there are reasons not to dismiss such speculation out of hand:

• Biden would be too old to run for President in 2016 (He would be 74 when he took office). This is a similar situation as 2008 where Dick Cheney was not fit (in terms of politics, health, etc.) to run for the presidency. Certainly, the Democrats would like to have a next-in-line rather than having another open election. Or would they?
• The arrangement would seem to fit the interests of both. Joe Biden has deep knowledge and credibility on foreign policy and related issues while it would position Hillary for a potential 2016 run (She would be 69 when she took office. Still old, but not unreasonable).
• It would especially be wise to take it seriously if Obama and Democrats have not recovered politically by 2012. Hillary would balance the ticket, increase traditional Democratic turnout, boosting numbers among women, elderly, and rural voters. She would help solidify many of the swing states Obama won in 2008 even in a difficult political environment. The effect she would have in turnout would also ripple through the halls of Congress and potentially recover some losses from 2010.
• If the economy is still struggling to recover, a Clinton on the ticket would be an important symbolic move as President Clinton oversaw the strongest economic expansion in our history through pragmatic policies that balanced the interests of businesses and consumers.

I have never been a strong Hillary supporter as in the past I have felt her aspirations have had more control of her than the other way around. As Secretary of State, she has proven she can put politics and gamesmanship aside and act in a statesman-like manner. I am usually quick to write off rumors and insignificant speculation and I tend to be skeptical of this rumor materializing, but I am not ready to write it off just yet.

Then in steps Obama. When I first saw he was getting involved in a controversial local issue which he did not need to get involved in, I was frustrated and could not begin to fathom why he would insert himself and risk public fury. Then I continued reading and began thinking. Beyond the initial knee-jerk reactions, I began to see the significance and wisdom of getting involved. It was indeed an issue of national importance too, not merely a local issue to be written off for political expedience. Obama did, after all, promise a new kind of politics and decision making that would rely on our fundamental democratic values rather than political maneuvering.

It was actually Michael Bloomberg’s quote in the article linked above comparing Obama to George Washington that got me thinking: “Two hundred and twenty years ago this week, the Father of Our Country penned his famous letter to the Jewish Community of Newport Rhode Island or, as he called them, ‘the Children of the Stock of Abraham.’ President Obama’s words tonight evoked President Washington’s own August reminder that ‘all possess alike liberty,’” Bloomberg said.

After all, for those thumping the Constitution, what Constitutional basis does one have for barring particular religious facilities from certain places? As mentioned earlier, a location for prayer already exists. The expanded facility is merely to focus on peace.

My opinion evolved over the course of a couple hours of thought. While I still have some reservations and believe it would be best for the facility to be built elsewhere, I now am accepting of the proposed facility and have come to understand and respect that Obama’s involvement is a continuation of his policy of building a new attitude in this country and the world. President Obama was standing up not only for morale principles, but Constitutional principles. That is, after all, what he took an oath to do. If he merely wanted to act out of political expedience, he could hit the easy button on every difficult issue or avoid such issues altogether. But then one would merely be taking safe positions to remain in office to…take safe positions? What would be the point of holding public office and seeking reelection if you weren’t going to serve any cause other than your own job security? Obama stood on principle and stood for democracy.

It may make some uneasy now, but down the road it will be looked upon in the broader context of his presidency – a presidency that has made an honest effort to change the old ways of hate, manipulation, and power for the sake of power and instead reestablish the morale and democratic values on which we were established well over two centuries ago. I believe that’s what we refer to as leadership.

Craig:

I feel very conflicted by this bill. I understand and can see why Congress wants to pass aid to the sates. However, at what cost? As I’ve mentioned before, I’m a huge budget hawk. I think we need to cut more, find new revenue sources, and even change the structure of how we tax our citizens.

Missouri is projected to get about $400 million to help out the education budget and Medicaid enrollment increases. This will make it easier (not simple though) for states to balance their budgets temporarily. However, it buys extra time and doesn’t address the issues I said above that would actually help solve state and federal budget problems.

Obama has touted this as saving teaching jobs. I don’t believe that this single piece of legislation is saving teaching jobs. By law, class sizes must be a certain number, and maintain a certain level of funding.

Also noted to help pay for this proposal is ending an increase to the aid given to poor families to purchase groceries. This cut in food stamp assistance is a $11.9 billion cut. This is fascinating to me, probably more fascinating than the actual bill passage. I have major questions about this: Do Democrats think it didn’t help those families? Are those families okay now? Are those families going to suffer at the benefit of the state budgets?

We need to look at programs (new and old) and if they aren’t serving their purpose, we must cut the programs. However, this is an interesting cut at a seemingly unusual time.

I’m very skeptical. “The federal government to the rescue” mentality isn’t a smart one fiscally, economically, or rational in my opinion. This idea that “the states can’t run a deficit but let’s allow the federal government help us solve our problems” is one that I have difficulty grasping and agreeing with.

Douglas:

I think that this is a great idea, but only if states use the time that this spending measure buys them to plan ahead.  This is the sort of program that should be favored by people across party lines.  The fact that this stimulus to the states is paid for by closing various loopholes that businesses exploit to send jobs to markets where the labor is cheap and the protections for workers are few makes the proposal even better.  Who does not want to preserve jobs for American workers?

I think that House Minority Leader John Boehner’s comment on the matter was particularly telling.  “Where do the bailouts end?”, he says.  Why is this being looked at as a bailout?  If it is a bailout, it is a bailout for your local police, fire, and other emergency services.  What is wrong with that?  If we were to simply allow these people to be laid off, would Boehner be prepared to deal with the consequences with regards to a decrease in public safety?  Something tells me that the answer to that is no.

This was a bill worth interrupting summer recess for, and it shows that the Democrats in Congress are seeking to truly grapple with the wavering economic recovery.

Troy

The Congress and President passed another significant piece of legislation which will help stabilize state government budgets. The problem is simple: state budgets are hurting and this aid provides revenue which will at least reduce the losses and prevent cuts of thousands of state employees such as teachers. Without this aid, property taxes would increase yet again and states would slash thousands of jobs, deepening the descending spiral of economic destruction. This legislation does not cure the problem, but should at least prevent the bottom from falling out of the economy, our education system, and our health.

The legislation is paid for by closing loopholes for multinational corporations. When faced with a decision about what to do with that money, do we continue to allow wealthy corporations to take advantage of loopholes or do we do something for our people and our budget woes? It’s an easy decision. Close the loopholes.

Slashing spending and taxes is good when reasonable and feasible. But slashing both for the sake of upholding a slogan has resulted in worse education, health, environment, economic activity, etc. at the same time as property taxes and other fees increase to make up the difference. Taxes are not cut, they are merely transferred and since tax cuts have gone disproportionately to the wealthy, the transferred burden has disproportionately affected the working and middle classes. To those who bought into the “no new taxes” jargon, I have some ocean front property in Arizona for you.

Critics would prefer to go forward with the cuts, but they are living in the 1990’s when cash was flush and trillions of dollars of cuts had not yet taken place. When you cut long enough, you are no longer cutting fat or even meat…you’re cutting bone.

Some critics also criticize the measure as a means of growing unions. They miss the obvious here too and that is that this bill does not grow the ranks of state employees, but rather merely reduces the losses.

The problem in this debate is like many others. Reactionary folks on both extremes make superficial judgments that they pass off as analysis. In reality their claims hold no water when facts are examined. Unfortunately, in this day of cable news facts are both in low supply and low demand and knee-jerk analysis that reinforces people’s preconceived notions prevails.

I understand that he disagrees with Obama’s policies, but he acts like things were peachy under President Bush. They weren’t. Our government was and still is spending more money, burdening my generation further and further. I obviously know very little about  Ben Quayle, living in Missouri. I like the fact that he’s young, even that he disagrees (not surprisingly though, considering his father) with Obama’s policies.

What I don’t like is as a political science person, judging “the worst president” and throwing that term around. I don’t like it when liberals say George W. Bush was the worst president ever. I may even like it worse when people say Bill Clinton or even Ronald Reagan was the best president ever. I think it’s only fair to judge between 30-40 years after their presidency has ended. Tapes, memos, etc. are released during the presidency so we can make a fair and truer judgement than an emotionally charged judgement.

Academia has a few different ways that rank presidents, and I think it’s best that they don’t even include the past 20 years worth of presidents because it creates the potential for a bias especially before all is known about a specific presidency.Judging a president positively or negatively can effect that individuals’ living family, and it is unfair to judge a president among the 40+ past presidents while 1) they are still in office 2) they are still alive and 3) internal documents haven’t been released.

And now, I shall stand down from my soap box.

“Shall the Missouri Statutes be amended to….Deny the government authority to penalize citizens for refusing to purchase private health insurance or infringe upon the right to offer or accept direct payment for lawful healthcare services?”

With this, as well as the striking down of Arizona’s controversial SB 1070 by a federal judge, The Political Panorama decided to look at the concept of states’ rights this week.

Douglas

Being a Black man, I am not too keen on the whole states’ rights issue to begin with, but I will give it a go.

It seems that this whole flare-up about states’ rights is really a vehicle for anger at Obama administration policies.  I do not think that the people advocating for this truly seek a return to antebellum America, like the States’ Rights Democratic Party (or Dixiecrats) did in the run-up to the 1948 Presidential election.

That being said, this thought that the state of Missouri can overrule federal statute is quite comical.  The federal government has the right to regulate interstate commerce as per Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 of the United States Constitution.  This gives the federal government the right to do things such as regulate the purchase of goods such as health care.  In no way does the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010, also known as health care reform, violate that premise.

What this really boils down to is that people do not like President Obama’s politics.  That is fine; I did not like President Bush’s politics.  However, to think that passing a law that will directly lead to a federal lawsuit that Missouri will lose because their law has no standing is good idea when state government has already been stretched to the last dollar is truly absurd.  Even Gov. Janice Brewer (R-AZ) has admitted that SB 1070 has its flaws and that it may not do much to help secure the border, yet she is willing to waste state time and money appealing the permanent injunction against SB 1070 to the U.S. Supreme Court, where it will likely fail for the same reasons that Proposition C will fail.

Election have consequences, and the people of Missouri and Arizona are about to find them out.  States’ rights is a dated concept, and one that is not compatible in an economy that requires us to compete on an international level.

Troy

States’ rights is an interesting area of discussion, particularly in light of recent debate on whether the federal government can impose health care mandates on citizens without the consent of the states and whether states may impose their own immigration restrictions. Without weighing on either debate, it is worth noting that health care involves the public welfare and one cannot reject the federal government’s involvement there without also rejecting it in a vast array of other programs from Medicare to Social Security. I would expect they mark their government checks “return to sender.” The immigration issue can be examined through the lens of national security and defense and certainly there is a federal role. The question in that debate is whether there is a state role. But again, I will not dive into my personal views on either issue as that would require a much longer post and hours of additional research.

Generally, on states rights I tend to believe in deferring to state or local governments unless otherwise necessary. One of my favorite presidents, Thomas Jefferson, has been an influence on me. There are some areas where federal involvement is either necessary or reasonable.

Opponents of federal involvement often cite the 10^th amendment as protecting rights for states that are not explicitly covered in the preceding amendments. The 10^th amendment states: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

What they forget is…the rest of the Constitution…as well as the fact that the 10^th amendment does not state “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Bill of Rights” and instead focuses on the Constitution generally. Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution states: “The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States.” Article I, Section 8 then goes on to explicitly list some fundamental powers reserved for the federal government. Clearly, defense and general Welfare are areas for federal government, the question is where to draw the line and that is left for interpretation. In my view, the federal government should only involve itself in providing for the general welfare in instances where equality and basic security are essential.

Too often, portions of the Constitution are used for convenience and often by people who have never read the language and instead regurgitate interpretations they hear in sound-bites. This goes for folks from across the spectrum. In an ideal world, people would read the Constitution, take a step back from their biases, and render an honest judgment. It may be that honest and well-intentioned people on all sides of an issue judge differently. It may be that different interpretations are reasonable. It may even be the Founding Fathers left some portions intentionally general so as to not bind the arms of future generations. Having an honest and respectful debate about issues such as states rights – including health care and immigration – is fundamental to democracy. On the other hand, incivility is the expression of insecurity and it only results in the same.

Here are the highlights, as food for thought as we wind down the fiscal year (that ends September 30th).

1. It would purchase 40,816,326 40,816,326 cars in the $20,000-$25,000 price range.

2. 5,574,136  – Number of homes valued at the national average of $179,000 each that it would buy.

3. 140 Billion Hours of Labor  – That’s at the national minimum wage of $7.25. That’s enough money to have the entire state of Kansas (men/women/children) employed full time at minimum wage for 23 years.

4. The Annual Salaries of All 535 Members of Congress for the Next 10,742 Years  – Their salaries are $174,000 each.

5. Replace Annual Incomes for 19.2 Million American Families – The average household earns approximately $52,000 each year. In all, there are approximately 71 million households in the United States.

And remember: this is the amount what the federal government has spent in 9 months above and beyond what they have brought in. Wow. Is your head spinning on how much money that is? Mine is.

She is also a hot commodity in Republican primary circles.  Next to former Gov. Sarah Palin (R-Alaska), she is the next highly sought after endorsement in the land right now.  For anyone seeking to appear tough on immigration (even if you happen to live in a state like Georgia, which is only a border state if you consider South Carolina to be a foreign republic), Gov. Brewer is the endorsement du jour.

The funny thing is, though, the Republican Party is losing touch with the same voters that they will need to, you know, win elections:

“A CNN/Opinion Research Corporation survey released Friday indicates that on the question of which party cares more about people like you, Hispanic respondents pick the Democrats over the Republicans by 27 points. And when asked which party agrees with you on the issues that matter most to you, Democrats hold a 25 point advantage among Hispanics.”

SB 1070 did that.  Former President George W. Bush was popular (enough) with Hispanic voters.  He did a lot of ads in Spanish, had a muscular Latino outreach organization, and had a mildly humane immigration policy.  Contrast this with the likes of Brewer, and it is no question why Republicans are losing the votes of America’s fastest growing minority group in droves.

Not that, as a Democrat, I am upset by this or anything.