Tag Archives: social

Voucherizing Medicare Is a Death Ride for Republicans

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

Are Republicans really going to start off the 115th Congress by mucking around with Medicare?

For nearly six years, Speaker Paul D. Ryan has championed the new approach, denounced by Democrats as “voucherizing” Medicare. Representative Tom Price of Georgia, the House Budget Committee chairman and a leading candidate to be Mr. Trump’s secretary of health and human services, has also embraced the idea, known as premium support.

….Democrats say that premium support would privatize Medicare, replacing the current government guarantee with skimpy vouchers — “coupon care for seniors.” The fear is that the healthiest seniors would choose private insurance, lured by offers of free health club memberships and other wellness programs, leaving traditional Medicare with sicker, more expensive patients and higher premiums.

….Republicans say their proposal would apply to future beneficiaries, not to those in or near retirement. But the mere possibility of big changes is causing trepidation among some older Americans.

….“I’m scared to death,” said Charles Drapeau, who has multiple myeloma, a type of blood cancer, and takes a drug that costs more than $10,000 a month. “We don’t know exactly how it will work, but just the fact that they are talking about messing with Medicare, it’s frightening to me.”

Just for the record, that drug is actually $10,500 every four weeks. So Mr. Drapeau should be 14 percent more scared to death than he already is.

But back to Medicare vouchers premium support. It’s pretty plain that it would be worse for seniors than the current Medicare system. After all, if it were better, Ryan wouldn’t feel like he has to exempt current Medicare recipients. But everyone currently on Medicare is keenly aware of how their benefits would be affected by Ryan’s vouchers, and if they aren’t, AARP will tell them in no uncertain terms. So they’ll fight Ryan’s cuts tooth and nail.

So why is Ryan doing this, anyway? I suppose because it’s one of the few ways to open up a significant amount of budget room for his gigantic tax cuts. If you want big tax cuts, after all, you need big spending cuts too, and that means cutting big programs. Unfortunately for Ryan, there really aren’t all that many big spending programs, especially once you take defense off the table. So he has little choice but to chop away at Medicare if those top marginal rates are going to come down.

And yet, why now? In one sense, I suppose doing it right at the start, when political capital is highest, makes sense. You do the hard stuff when you have the biggest majorities and everyone is eager for change. That’s why Obama went after health care first. At the same time, this would be a huge, messy battle that would almost certainly be wildly unpopular. Medicare is probably even more beloved than Social Security, after all. A battle like this could easily up in an epic defeat, and wipe out whatever goodwill the new Congress has.

So it’s a bit of a mystery. I don’t think Ryan can win this battle unless he offers up a plan that doesn’t really save much money. That’s possible, of course: just take a look at the difference between Ryan 2011 and Ryan 2014. But if you don’t save much money, what’s the point?

I dunno. If it were me, I’d do the popular stuff first. Cut taxes, build the wall, repair some bridges, bomb the shit out of ISIS, etc. More to the point, if I were Donald Trump, that’s what I’d do. Trump wants to be adored by the masses, not hated by them. Voucherizing Medicare is very definitely not the way to get there.

View this article:

Voucherizing Medicare Is a Death Ride for Republicans

Posted in Everyone, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Voucherizing Medicare Is a Death Ride for Republicans

Watch Donald Trump Lecture Americans For Not Paying Taxes

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

This weekend the New York Times detonated a bombshell by reporting that Donald Trump, using a loophole that benefits wealthy dynastic families, declared nearly a billion dollar loss on his 1995 tax returns—a loss that possibly allowed him to avoid paying any federal taxes for 18 years. (The full impact of this loss is not publicly known because Trump has stubbornly refused to follow the traditional practice for presidential candidates releasing his tax returns.) The Times account included a damning quote from Trump’s former accountant: “Here the guy was building incredible net worth and not paying tax on it.” After the story broke, the Trump campaign released a statement blasting the newspaper, calling Hillary Clinton more crooked than Richard Nixon, and claiming Trump “has paid hundreds of millions of dollars in property taxes, sales and excise taxes, real estate taxes, city taxes, state taxes, employee taxes and federal taxes, along with very substantial charitable contributions.”

Without his tax returns, there is no way to determine if the campaign’s assertion about Trump’s taxes and charitable contributions is true. But in the past, Trump has frequently decried other Americans for not paying taxes.

On July 18, 2011, Trump appeared on Fox News and was asked about President Barack Obama’s comments that well-to-do Americans should make a sacrifice for the country by paying more in taxes. He replied:

Well, I don’t mind sacrificing for the country to be honest with you. But you know, you do have a problem because half of the people don’t pay any tax. And when he’s talking about that he’s talking about people that aren’t also working, that are not contributing to this society. And it’s a problem. But we have 50 percent. It just hit the 50 percent mark. Fifty percent of the people are paying no tax.

Watch the latest video at video.foxnews.com

This was a Republican talking point—and a misleading one. It was true that close to 50 percent of Americans did not pay federal income tax, but that was because they did not earn enough money to be hit by this tax. Many of these people were working for low wages, or were seniors or young people not earning wages, and they paid other taxes, including Social Security and property taxes. Yet here was Trump brandishing a favorite club of the GOP—makers vs. takers—to denigrate half of the nation.

In February 2012, Trump turned to Twitter to grouse about this.

Later that year, Mother Jones reported that Mitt Romney had privately derided 47 percent of Americans as shiftless individuals who could not be bothered to take responsibility for their own lives. Trump hit Fox News to advise Romney not to apologize for the remark. And he again complained that half of Americans do not pay taxes and expect hand-outs from the government:

He should never apologize. Actually bring on this discussion….It’s a discussion that maybe should be had. You do have a large percentage of people not paying taxes. You do have a large percentage of people that feel they’re entitled.

In these comments, Trump was slamming people who didn’t pay income taxes for feeling entitled and for essentially screwing those Americans who do.

More recently, Trump reiterated his criticism that 50 percent of Americans are free-riders, not contributing to society (presumably by not working and not paying taxes) and expecting to be taken care of by others. In a June 2015 interview with Fox News host Sean Hannity, Trump exclaimed,

The problem we have right now—we have a society that sits back and says we don’t have to do anything. Eventually, the 50 percent cannot carry—and it’s unfair to them—but cannot carry the other 50 percent.

Watch the latest video at video.foxnews.com

Trump is now on the griddle for possibly exploiting a tax loophole that allowed him to amass wealth without paying federal taxes. His accountant told the New York Times that he harbored misgivings about this. Yet Trump boasted at the first presidential debate that if he did pay no taxes that was a “smart” move.

Perhaps it was a brilliant financial move. But how odious would it be if Trump was castigating low-income, working Americans for not paying federal income taxes while enjoying a billionaire’s lifestyle and stiffing Uncle Sam. There is, of course, only one way for Trump to clear up this matter: release his tax returns. They might indeed show how he was a genius at avoiding taxation—but also a hypocrite.

Original article: 

Watch Donald Trump Lecture Americans For Not Paying Taxes

Posted in alo, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Watch Donald Trump Lecture Americans For Not Paying Taxes

Minimalism 101: 5 Ways to Simplify Your Life

Do you try to keep extraneous items and clutter to a minimum? Do you avoid purchasing new items unless you absolutely need them? Do you focus on quality over quantity and believe that every item you own should be used regularly and have a proper place and purpose in your life? If so, you may be a minimalist.

Minimalism is a big trend among health and wellness gurus, and its catching on throughout the world. In a nutshell, minimalists livewell, minimally. They believe in owning only completely necessary possessions, decorating lightly and purchasing consciously. However, theres more to minimalism than simply clearing out your closet.

You can apply the tenets of minimalism to many different aspects of your life. Here are a few areas where you may want to consider downsizing:

Finances

Its trueyou can be a minimalist with your finances. In fact, embodying minimalism in the financial sense closely resembles spending the way everyone did about 60 years ago: with cash. To simplify your finances, make sure to avoid using credit cards. Pay for everything with cash or your direct debit account, thereby ensuring that you can afford everything you buy. Bonus: This will also have the effect of ensuring that you buy LESS, which will help you keep extraneous clutter at bay.

Applying this in a broader sensemeans saving to buy things like cars or home appliances, rather than taking out lines of credit. It means consolidating the debt you already have so you can make one or two monthly payments, rather than many. And finally, it means balancing your checkbook the old-fashioned way (or usingan app or digital budget tool) so you track your spending and curb it appropriately.

Transportation

Why deal with oil changes, gas purchases, detailing, car cleaning and tire replacement when you could simplify by going car-free? Obviously, depending on where you live, this may or may not be an option. But youd be surprised to see how much going car-free, or even just driving less, can change your life when you opt to walk, participate in a car-share, take public transit or carpool to work.

Not only will this save you from the bills and time spent on car payments and maintenance, it will also help you get into better shape thanks tothe extra physical effort it takes to live a car-free lifestyle. Hello savings on gym memberships!

If you dont live in a walkable city, you can still simplify your transportation options. Do you and your spouse really need two separate cars? Could you potentially leave a little earlier and carpool to work? Perhaps you have a coworker who lives nearby whod let you chip in for gas in exchange for a ride. Think about slashing your car-associated fees in half and it may look like an increasingly attractive option.

Food

Yes, you can practice minimalism with your food purchases! And no, it doesnt mean eating out every day rather than buying kitchen supplies. Get in the habit of eating meals that can easily be combinedi.e. one protein, one vegetable side and one grain. This means you can pick up a few filets of salmon or blocks of tofu, a few fresh veggies and bulk brown rice or quinoa and thats literally all youll need for at least one weeks worth of dinners.

Do you have frozen foods crowding up your freezer space? Get rid of them! Purchase (or grow!) simple, fresh foods that will keep you healthy and full all week at a low price.

Finally, meal prepping on Sundays can be a huge minimalist-friendly time saver. All you need to do is cook your weekly meals in one two- or three-hour sitting on Sunday, and then distribute them onto five plates, covering with plasticwrap or tinfoil. Now, your meals will be perfectly proportioned and ready to heat up throughout the week, cutting down on weeknight prep time as well as food waste.

Memberships and Subscriptions

Do you have subscriptions to magazines, gyms, clubs and programs? Give some thought to what you REALLY need. Sure, maybe your gym membership is actually minimalist-friendly if you use it regularly and it keeps you from purchasing workout equipment to clutter your home. But if you dont really use it, its just weighing you down.

Magazines and newspapers are now almost always published digitally as well as in print. Checking out your favorite publication from your laptop, Kindle or iPad will mean that you dont have extra papers and clutter lying around your home. Plus, itll save a bunch of trees from certain peril in the process.

Social Engagements

Theres nothing wrong with maintaining an active social life, but if you find yourself getting stressed out by the hustle and bustle of your schedule, you may need to employ some minimalism to your social engagements. Learn to say no to events that wont bring you joy and only cause you stress.

For example, if you truly look forward to your girlfriends weekly Thursday night card game, by all means, dont give it up! But if those after-work happy hours with your coworkers feel more like an obligation than an indulgence, skip themgo home and take care of the things youd rather be doing instead. Learning to say no to work and social pressures is increasingly difficult in our society, butlearning to do so is dire.

Disclaimer: The views expressed above are solely those of the author and may not reflect those of Care2, Inc., its employees or advertisers.

View original article: 

Minimalism 101: 5 Ways to Simplify Your Life

Posted in ATTRA, Everyone, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, PUR, Radius, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Minimalism 101: 5 Ways to Simplify Your Life

For this black church, supporting climate action is a no-brainer

preach

For this black church, supporting climate action is a no-brainer

By on Jul 29, 2016 7:06 amShare

Earlier this month, the African Methodist Episcopal Church, or AME — one of the oldest black churches, with 2.5 million members around the world — made history. At their general conference in Philadelphia, they voted to hold local, state, and national policymakers accountable for climate action to make the Paris climate agreement viable. The resolution from the the 200-plus-year-old black church is the first to address climate change wholly, committing to “support climate policies that will protect families, create healthy and safe communities, and build a clean energy future.”

The resolution was met with strong affirmation from congregants around the world, says Jackie Dupont-Walker, who directs the social action commission for the AME. Some individual churches had already taken a stance on climate change: An AME church in Zimbabwe, for example, already incorporates it into its Sunday school curriculum.

While some might be surprised that AME made such a bold move, it’s perfectly keeping in the church’s tradition. AME emerged in response to racial segregation in Philadelphia’s Methodist church. Addressing climate change, which church leaders says disproportionately impacts African Americans, makes perfect sense.

Election Guide ★ 2016Making America Green AgainOur experts weigh in on the real issues at stake in this electionGet Grist in your inbox

Follow this link – 

For this black church, supporting climate action is a no-brainer

Posted in alo, Anchor, FF, GE, ONA, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on For this black church, supporting climate action is a no-brainer

Expand Social Security? Sure, For Low Earners.

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

Here is Steven Hill in the Los Angeles Times today:

The real problem with Social Security is not a shortfall but that its payout is so meager. Social Security is designed to replace only about 35% of wages at retirement, yet most Americans need twice that amount to live decently. With the other components of the retirement system looking wobbly, and with incomes low, Social Security is too skimpy to be the nation’s single pillar retirement system.

The obvious solution is to expand it. There are numerous revenue streams that would allow the nation to greatly increase the monthly payout for the 43 million Americans who receive retirement benefits….First, we should eliminate the Social Security payroll cap….stop exempting investment income….scrap income tax shelters for wealthy households and businesses….end or reduce tax breaks for private retirement accounts, including 401(k)s and IRAs….Just these four revenue streams would come close to raising the $662 billion necessary to double Social Security’s monthly benefit.

This kind of thing pisses me off. It may be true that Social Security is “designed” to replace only 35 percent of wages at retirement, but that statement is wildly misleading. Here are the latest replacement rates for future retirees according to the Congressional Budget office:

Low earners: 82 percent
Median earners: 44 percent
High earners: 22 percent

There are two things to note here. First, replacement rates have steadily gone up for low earners and will keep going up in the future. Scheduled replacement rates for low earners are about 63 percent for those born in the 1960s; 79 percent for those born in the 1980s; and 82 percent for those born in the 2000s.

Second, and more important, replacement rates are far higher for low earners than for higher earners. This is exactly how it should be. Low earners typically have very few sources of other retirement income and rely almost entirely on Social Security. If I had my druthers, Social Security would replace 100 percent of working-age income for low earners.

But higher earners don’t need those high replacement rates because they have other sources of retirement income: savings, 401(k) accounts, IRAs, pensions, etc. Obviously this differs from person to person, but SSA estimates that on average, the total replacement rate for median earners and above is 80 percent or higher (Table 11 here).

Expanding Social Security to double its monthly benefit is dumb. It would be a massively expensive solution to a problem that doesn’t exist. We should instead focus on increasing benefits for the low earners who need it. That would cost far less and solve a problem that really needs solving.

Link to original: 

Expand Social Security? Sure, For Low Earners.

Posted in FF, GE, LG, ONA, Oster, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Expand Social Security? Sure, For Low Earners.

Here Is the Democratic Party’s Draft Platform

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

The Democratic Party released a draft version of its proposed party platform late Friday afternoon. The platform won’t be finalized until the Platform Committee meets in a week, followed by a vote at the party’s convention in Philadelphia, but it’s a good guidepost for what will make it into the final version. The proposal includes a host of liberal policy ideas, including raising the minimum wage to $15 nationwide; opposing an increase in the retirement age and cuts to Social Security; taxing top earners more to pay into the Social Security trust fund; securing equal pay for women and 12 weeks of paid family and medical leave for all workers; and abolishing the death penalty.

Whether the inclusion of a host of progressive policy throughout the document will be enough to appease Sen. Bernie Sanders remains to be seen.

Read the full draft (plastered, unfortunately, with sight-obscuring background text) below:

DV.load(“https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2938652-2016-DEMOCRATIC-PARTY-PLATFORM-DRAFT-7-1-16.js”,
width: 630,
height: 500,
sidebar: false,
text: false,
pdf: false,
container: “#DV-viewer-2938652-2016-DEMOCRATIC-PARTY-PLATFORM-DRAFT-7-1-16”
);

Taken from:  

Here Is the Democratic Party’s Draft Platform

Posted in FF, GE, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Here Is the Democratic Party’s Draft Platform

Paul Ryan Wants to Increase the Medicare Eligibility Age to 67

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

Republicans announce a lot of health care plans. All of them are essentially the same, “a familiar hodgepodge of tax credits, health savings accounts, high-risk pools, block granting of Medicaid, tort reform, and interstate purchase of health plans.” Today, after months of cogitating, House Republicans have finally agreed on yet another a health care plan. It’s not a hodgepodge, however, it’s a “backpack.” Beyond that, however, it should sound pretty familiar:

In place of President Barack Obama’s health law, House Republicans propose providing Americans with refundable tax credits….catastrophic insurance….health-savings accounts….plans offered in other states….fee-for-service insurance through a newly created Medicare insurance exchange not a voucher! not a voucher! absolutely positively not a voucher! -ed.….pay taxes on the value of whatever health insurance employers provide.

Hmmm. There’s no mention of high-risk pools or tort reform or Medicaid block grants. What the hell is going on here? Who was responsible for—oh, wait. Maybe the Wall Street Journal just did a crappy job of describing it. Let’s check in with the Washington Post:

The GOP plan floats a variety of proposals….refundable tax credit….health savings accounts….“high-risk pools”….Medicaid funds would be handed to the states either as block grants or as per-capita allotments.

Now we’re talking. Every single buzzword is there except for tort reform. But maybe I should check in with Reuters:

The Republican proposal would gradually increase the Medicare eligibility age, which currently is 65, to match that of the Social Security pension plan, which is 67 for people born in 1960 or later….The Republican plan includes medical liability reform that would put a cap on non-economic damages awarded in lawsuits, a measure aimed at cutting overall healthcare costs.

Tort reform is there after all! And as an extra added bonus, the Medicare eligibility age goes up to 67! Hallelujah!

How could this possibly have taken more than five minutes to write? It’s identical to every health care plan ever proposed by Republicans. There is, of course, no funding mechanism, possibly because Republicans know perfectly well that it will do nothing and therefore require no funding. But here’s my favorite bit of well-hidden snark from the Washington Post account:

The most significant omission from the Republican health-care plan, though, is to what degree it will maintain — or, more likely, reduce — insurance coverage for Americans….Asked about the plan’s effect on coverage, a Republican leadership aide said Monday, “You’re getting to the dynamic effect of the plan and we can’t answer that until the committees start to legislate.”

But there is a significant clue in the GOP plan that it anticipates a surge in the ranks of the uninsured. Before the Affordable Care Act, the federal government’s primary mechanism for compensating health providers for delivering care to the uninsured was through “disproportionate share hospital” payments, or DSH, which are allocated to facilities that treated large numbers of the uninsured.

Under Obamacare, DSH payments were set to be phased out because coverage rates were expected to increase dramatically….The Republican plan would repeal those cuts entirely.

Bottom line: this is just the usual conservative mush. It would accomplish nothing. It would insure no one. It would wipe out all the gains of Obamacare. Millions of people would have their current health care ripped away from them, all so that Republicans can repeal the 3.8 percent tax on high-earner investment income that funds Obamacare.

And just for good measure, it will also raise the Medicare eligibility age to 67. Because apparently, the old hodgepodge just wasn’t quite Scrooge-like enough.

Follow this link: 

Paul Ryan Wants to Increase the Medicare Eligibility Age to 67

Posted in FF, GE, LG, ONA, PUR, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Paul Ryan Wants to Increase the Medicare Eligibility Age to 67

This lobbyist denied climate change for ExxonMobil. Now he’ll do it for Trump.

This lobbyist denied climate change for ExxonMobil. Now he’ll do it for Trump.

By on Jun 7, 2016Share

Let’s take a quick stroll through the resume of Jim Murphy, hired Monday by Donald Trump’s campaign as national political director, according to the New York Times:

Former adviser to Bob Dole and Mitt Romney’s presidential bids.
Frequent donor to GOP political campaigns and PACs.
Managing partner and then president of the DCI Group from 2002 to 2012, at a time when the Washington, D.C., lobbyists represented ExxonMobil and assisted in attempts to sow doubt about the scientific consensus on climate change … Oh boy, here we go.

The Daily Beast points out that in addition to representing repressive military regimes and using fake “volunteers” to push for privatization of social security, DCI has gone to bat for both Big Tobacco and Big Oil. The firm has represented Exxon since 2005 according to the most recent data available from the Center for Responsive Politics. That collaboration, according to documents, involved working with the Exxon-funded Heartland Institute and conservative think tanks to counter greenhouse gas regulations, promoting a climate denial website called called Tech Central Station, and using Exxon money to produce a parody of Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth.

A bipartisan group of U.S. Senators sent Exxon a letter in 2006 demanding it “end any further financial assistance” to groups “whose public advocacy has contributed to the small but unfortunately effective climate change denial myth.”

DCI has also had dealings with the coal industry; from 2013 to 2014, the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity paid some $5 million to the firm for its lobbying services. And earlier this year, both DCI and the Competitive Enterprise Institute were served subpoenas from the U.S. Virgin Islands U.S. attorneys’ offices as part of an investigation into companies — particularly Exxon — and organizations accused of funding of climate change denial.

That’s quite a resume.

Share

Get Grist in your inbox

Taken from: 

This lobbyist denied climate change for ExxonMobil. Now he’ll do it for Trump.

Posted in alo, Anchor, FF, GE, ONA, organic, solar, solar panels, solar power, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on This lobbyist denied climate change for ExxonMobil. Now he’ll do it for Trump.

How to Deal with Cretinous Twitter Mobs: A Bleg

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

I’m going to venture into dangerous territory and just hope that everyone will give this a sympathetic reading. I’m not trying to shift blame or dismiss a real problem.

The problem in question is the treatment of women by men on Twitter and other social platforms. In a word (or two), there’s a subset of really loathsome assholes out there who harass women mercilessly: comments about looks, about rape, about death threats, etc. etc. The best solution, of course, is to get these men to knock it off, but there’s no way that will happen quickly. At best, it will take many years to leach this kind of misogyny out of the internet.

In the meantime, the problem is that this treatment causes women genuine pain and stress. I don’t get anywhere near this kind of abuse, but I sometimes get a bit of it, and it’s no fun. So I have at least a glimmer of what it’s like.

So here’s my question: is there any kind of relatively simple therapy that can train people not to succumb to panic attacks over Twitter mobs attacking them? I’m not talking about ignoring genuine threats, like folks posting addresses and suggesting someone should be raped. Those should go straight to the police. It’s all the rest that I’d like to learn to take in stride as nothing more than the meaningless ravings of cretinous sad sacks.

So: Is there anything like this? Does anyone know a reliable method for building up a thicker skin? Sort of like the hypnosis of Peter Gibbons in Office Space, except something that actually works. I know we shouldn’t have to, but sometimes it’s worth it even if it’s galling that we need to do it at all.

View original: 

How to Deal with Cretinous Twitter Mobs: A Bleg

Posted in Everyone, FF, GE, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on How to Deal with Cretinous Twitter Mobs: A Bleg

How About a Constitutional Right to Vote?

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

I have a longstanding belief that a liberal democracy is basically in good shape if it guarantees three rights:

Freedom of speech/press.
The right to a fair and speedy trial.
The right to vote.

I don’t mean to denigrate other important rights. Freedom of religion is important, but plenty of free countries operate just fine with state religions. Freedom of assembly can probably be mandated by law. Warrants for searches are necessary, but again, could probably be mandated by law. A ban on slavery is important, but we already have it, and it’s not really a pressing issue in the 21st century anyway. And lots of democracies take wildly different views on the right to bear arms. The bottom line is that all these things can be in the Constitution, but if they’re not they probably don’t preclude a pretty free society.

The first two rights on my list are already enshrined in the Constitution (speech and press freedom in the First Amendment; fair trials in the Fifth through Eighth Amendments). The third, for generally disgraceful reasons, isn’t. But for some reason, among the dozens of pet amendments that various interest groups propose even though they’re mostly pie in the sky, this one gets almost no attention. Why not?

Don’t worry too much about the precise wording of a voting rights amendment. Here’s a proposal from Reclaim Democracy! that originated with Jesse Jackson:

All citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, shall have the right to vote in any public election held in the jurisdiction in which the citizen resides. The right to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States, any State, or any other public or private person or entity, except that the United States or any State may establish regulations narrowly tailored to produce efficient and honest elections.

Reps. Pocan and Ellison have recently proposed a shorter version:

Every citizen of the United States, who is of legal voting age, shall have the fundamental right to vote in any public election held in the jurisdiction in which the citizen resides.

Maybe you’d want to add some further protections: change voting day to voting week; mandate early voting; make changes to redistricting rules to better guarantee that all votes count equally. I’m agnostic about this.

Needless to say, this would open a can of worms. Basically, anyone who shows up to vote is assumed to have the right to vote unless the government has actively put them on a list of non-voters. Possibly some kind of ID would be required: maybe a Social Security card or a national ID card. Perhaps everyone would be required to enroll for voting on their 18th birthday, and would be given a card that identifies them as a voter. They could do it at the same time they enroll with Selective Service (just as soon as women are added to Selective Service requirements).

There would be exceptions. Can prisoners vote? The Supreme Court has already ruled that prisoners have limited access to free speech rights. They obviously have no right to freedom of assembly, and the right to bear arms has been curtailed with extreme prejudice. This would almost certainly be the case with voting rights as well, though it could easily be written into the text of an amendment if it was considered important enough to spell out specifically.

So why not do it? It seems like a pretty populist idea for a Democratic presidential candidate. How about it, Hillary? She already supports automatic voter registration at age 18, and that’s a short jump to a constitutional amendment.

Link to original: 

How About a Constitutional Right to Vote?

Posted in Citizen, Everyone, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on How About a Constitutional Right to Vote?