public policy

As anyone who reads this blog somewhat regularly knows, I feel there is a big risk of a President Bachmann in 2013. I have given plenty of reasons previously, but the biggest one that scares me is the enthusiasm gap on the left. A new Public Policy Polling poll verifies that fear:

There's been plenty of bad news for Barack Obama this month in the form of his approval numbers, but our polling finds that his problems go deeper than that. Democratic enthusiasm about voting in next year's election has hit a record low this month. 

Only 48% of Democrats on our most recent national survey said they were 'very excited' about voting in 2012. On the survey before that the figure was 49%. Those last two polls are the only times all year the 'very excited' number has dipped below 50%. 

In 13 polls before August the average level of Democrats 'very excited' about voting next year had averaged 57%. It had been as high as 65% and only twice had the number even dipped below 55%. 

Face it - the left is getting fed up. The President has constantly caved to the demands of the right, yet the right and the media makes it sound like everything sound like a victory for the left. Team Obama is also doing nothing to soothe over the disconnect between him and the base. That can easily lead to disaster next month.

With Bachmann in the top three in the Republican field and barring any last minute entries by some golden child, the fear of President Bachmann continues to grow. Just consider the two leading Bachmann - Romney and Perry. Both have parts of the base that absolutely doesn't like them. Bachmann is somewhat back burner now, so most people don't have much of an opinion of her, except that she has an R by her name. 

Yesterday the Ohio Senate passed SB5, a bill to strip public employees of their basic right to collectively bargain. This was after some very dirty tricks by the Senate GOP, including booting two GOP members off the committee because they opposed the bill.

What isn’t getting much attention is one little provision hidden in the bill:

Sec. 3101.01 of S.B. 5: ... A marriage may only be entered into by one man and one woman. Any marriage between persons of the same sex is against the strong public policy of this state. Any marriage between persons of the same sex shall have no legal force or effect in this state and, if attempted to be entered into in this state, is void ab initio and shall not be recognized by this state. The recognition or extension by the state of the specific statutory benefits of a legal marriage to non-marital relationships between persons of the same sex or different sexes is against the strong public policy of this state. Any public act, record or judicial proceeding of this state, as defined in section 9.82 of the Revised Code, that extends the specific statutory benefits of legal marriage to non-marital relationships between persons of the same sex or different sexes is void.

So declaring marriage as only being between a man and a woman, as well as stripping any same-sex benefits is part of balancing the budget?

In a single bill, the public gets a stark reminder of how much the GOP despises democracy. They get rid of people who don’t vote the way they like and then include controversial laws inside of another, totally unrelated bill. Actions speak louder than words and hopefully the people will remember these actions the next time we vote.

Another blue dog bites the dust:

Sen. Evan Bayh will not run for re-election, a decision that will shock Democrats and Republicans alike in Indiana.

In prepared remarks, Bayh, 54, cited excessive partisanship that makes progress on public policy difficult to achieve as the motivation for his decision.

“After all these years, my passion for service to my fellow citizens is undiminished, but my desire to do so in Congress has waned,” he said.

“My decision was not motivated by political concern,” he added. “Even in the current challenging environment, I am confident in my prospects for re-election.”

Ted Koppel has sounded off about the current state of our military and he brings up some excellent points:

Little known to the American public, there are some 50,000 private contractors in Iraq, providing support for the U.S. military, among other activities. So why not go all the way, argues Ted Koppel in a New York Times op-ed on Monday, and form a real "mercenary army"?

Such a move involving what he calls "latter-day Hessians" would represent, he writes, "the inevitable response of a market economy to a host of seemingly intractable public policy and security problems."

It is make necessary by our "over-extended military" and inability of the United Nations to form adequate peace forces. Meanwhile, Americans business interests grow ever more active abroad in dangerous spots.

"Just as the all-volunteer military relieved the government of much of the political pressure that had accompanied the draft, so a rent-a-force, harnessing the privilege of every putative warrior to hire himself out for more than he could ever make in the direct service of Uncle Sam, might relieve us of an array of current political pressures," Kopple explains.

They have damn near done this already so they might as well go all out. We have all heard stories about people in the Army who are suppose to be cooks. They end up going to Iraq to find themselves not cooking but rather on the front line (same goes for motor pool, clerks, etc.). Why is this? Because we have sub-contracted out the functions that these people have been trained to do. Yes - Rumsfeld really knows how to run a military - NOT!