Was The Democratic Campaign Against The Koch Influence Effective?

The Democratic Party spent a lot of campaign money on ads attacking the billionaires in the Koch family who spent millions supporting Republican candidates.  This article evaluates the effectiveness of that strategy.  Some say that it did not work, and others say that it was not used enough.  In some states it worked where the Koch money was portrayed as "out of state influence" instead of largess from billionaires.  That worked in New Hampshire where the Republican candidate for the Senate, who migrated from Massachusetts to New Hampshire to run for the Senate,  was described as an out of state candidate.  It was not universally effective because the Democratic candidates were also supported by very wealthy individuals.  The public believes that both parties are influenced by the super rich.  If you raise this issue with conservatives they will quickly refer to George Soros and his billions as the Democratic counter example.  Neither party can raise the funds that are required in political campaigns, which increase every year, without support from wealthy individuals.  The constantly rising cost of running political campaigns prices ordinary people out of the market.  The pricing system, after all, is a rationing system.  Most people can't afford a Mercedes and they can't afford to fund political campaigns that become more costly every year.  The only real solution is for government to limit campaign spending.  The GOP would not support the required legislation, and the conservatives in the Supreme Court declared that the intent of our founding fathers, who had the difficult task of inventing a democracy, believed that political advertising is a form of free speech that is granted in the Bill Of Rights.

Why Does The Supreme Court Believe That The ACA Might Have Restricted Subsidies To State Run Exchanges?

The Affordable Care Act requires every citizen to purchase health insurance.  They can purchase the insurance through state run exchanges or from federal exchanges.  Since some Americans cannot afford insurance, the government provides subsidies based upon their income.  It is fairly obvious that the ACA was not designed to restrict subsidies to state run exchanges and to deny them to citizens that use the federal exchange.  The US Supreme Court believes otherwise.  It has agreed to hear a case in which the claimants argue that citizens who use the federal exchange are not entitled to subsidies.  If the Supreme Court decides for the claimants, the Republican Party would have achieved what it was unable to achieve through legislation.  They will have effectively repealed the ACA.  Subsidies would only be available through state exchanges and GOP controlled states have not developed exchanges for their citizens.  Citizens from GOP controlled states who are entitled to subsidies would no longer be able to purchase affordable healthcare insurance.

The Republican majority in the Supreme Court has decided to hear the case because Republican justices in state courts have ruled that the intent of the law was to restrict subsidies to state run exchanges.  That interpretation would require the court to argue that the law, which only works with subsidies for those with low incomes,  was not intended for all Americans.  Such an interpretation is only possible in court system that has been politically corrupted.

How Can The Democratic Party Reverse The GOP Takeover Of Government

The NYT described the extent of the GOP landslide in the mid-term elections, and gave several democrats an opportunity to articulate a solution.  This article focuses on the economic message that the Democratic Party has failed to deliver.  Simply put, the real issue is not the size of government, that the GOP has used successfully,  it is who government works for.  The majority of Americans do not believe that the government works for them.  The Democratic Party has not convinced them that it works better for them than the Republican Party.  Each of the political parties claims that it represents the American ideal, and the American dream, but the public does not believe either of them.  If the government does not work for them, why they should they support a big government?  This article suggests some of the populist messages that the Democratic Party might back up with real policy proposals.  The public also questions the competence of government.  The public believes that the Republican Party is the party of big business but it is also more competent when it comes to getting things done.  George Bush and Ronald Reagan certainly delivered on their policy proposals which were terrible for the majority of Americans but they got it done.  The Obama Administration delivered on healthcare reform but the let the GOP turn it into a problem instead of solution.

The Marketplace And Democracy In America

This article describes how the mid-term elections were funded.  Some of the funds were "dark money".  The names of the contributors are not made public.  The other major source of funds is from political action committees.  Both of the political parties received funds from these types of organizations but much more of the funding went to Republican candidates. All of the funds came from very rich individuals and business interests.  In other words, the marketing campaigns for the human products up for sale were designed and paid for by those who can afford to buy political favors.  The US Supreme Court has defended this marketplace by declaring that laws that had prevented the market from operating violated the US Constitution.  Political advertising is a form of free speech according to the Supreme Court.  The consequence is that the wealthy contributors to these organizations have the exorbitant privilege of deciding which politicians are able to run for election. No candidate can run a campaign without their financial support.  They are a barrier to market entry and the size of the barrier increases in relation to the level of spending on political campaigns which has been growing at a rapid pace. Consequently, the candidates who enter the market are free to support the interests of those who enabled them to run for election. There are differences between the candidates who enter the market which reflect the special interests of their major contributors.  There are also many similarities which reflect the common interests of the special interest groups.  Much of the marketing that follows in the election campaigns then takes the form of attack ads on the opposing candidate.  The research that is required to shape the attack ads is also funded by those whose "free speech" has been enhanced by their ability to pay.  The public often gets to select the candidate who they dislike the least.  The differences between the political parties have changed over time but they reflect the changes in campaign funding.  The Democratic Party used to be strong supporters of organized labor.  That support has weakened along with the decline in labor union membership in the US.  The Republican Party has also responded to changes in its political base.  Much of its funding still comes from business interests but they can't win elections without the support of right wing populist groups like the Tea Party.  It has not been easy for the GOP to align those interest groups. 

This is a rather cynical description of politics in America.  Winston Churchill told us that it is not a perfect system but it is better than the alternatives.  My point is that it has become less perfect in America as it has taken on more of the characteristics of an oligopolistic market system. 

Elizabeth Warren's Agenda Has Not Been On The Agenda Of Either Political Party

Senator Warren has been a lonely voice in the Democratic Party.  She describes the issues which she believes to be the real issues that the public would like Washington to address.  They used to be part of the Democratic Party's platform.  Its not clear that the Democratic Party could be successful with an old fashioned populist agenda today but it may be worth a try.  The GOP has a tried and true agenda of cutting taxes and reducing budget deficits by cuts in government spending on programs that benefit less fortunate Americans, especially if they are the wrong kind of people.  The Democratic candidates in the mid-term elections had little to say about the issues that bother Senator Warren and many Americans.  Its hard to raise campaign contributions with that message and the media don't want to touch it either.  Their business is dependent upon advertising revenues which come from the same folks who fund the election campaigns.  That may explain why the public, which bitterly opposed the Wall Street bailout, voted for the political party that opposes the laws that were passed to reduce the systemic risk that still prevails on Wall Street.  The GOP has successfully made its opposition to Wall Street reform part of its anti-government agenda. Frankly, its not easy to be pro-government when public respect for government has fallen to new lows.  If there were more Elizabeth Warrens in the Democratic Party there might be some hope for a party without an economic message.

Which Republican Party Won The Election

The GOP increased its control of the House and gained control of the Senate.  The real battle in Washington may be between establishment republicans, who are motivated to show the nation that they can govern, and an even more radical House that is focused on wiping out what remains of the Obama legacy.  They were sent to Washington by a Tea Party which has a better understanding of what it dislikes than a desire to make Washington work.  This article provides a glimpse into the battles that we can anticipate in Washington within the GOP and between the GOP and the Obama Administration.

Latest Employment Report By BLS Is Positive

Calculated risk provides the details on the latest report from the BLS.  It shows a steady growth in jobs and slight decline in the unemployment rate.  The labor market participation rate is up to 59.7% which is its highest level since July, 2009.  The only negative in the report is that wage growth has been slow.  Employers have not been forced to raise wages in order to attract new workers.  More detail on low wage growth is provided in one of my posts below.  Job growth has been more rapid in low wage service sector jobs than in higher wage sectors.