Bucks
Sonja Sotomayor, State Budgets By Jury
Dear Friends,
Good morning. There are two topics today. The first involves the further erosion of the Republican Party’s influence…thanks to its attitude during the U.S. Supreme Court confirmation hearings for President Obama’s nominee, Sonja Sotomayor. And the second is an op-ed column in the New York Times about how to solve state budget impasses…by jury, no less!
In 1967, I ran for reelection as a Bucks County Commissioner on this slogan: “This year’s a Republican year.” The war in Vietnam was going badly; President Johnson had become an object of scorn. I remember that election with fondness because it was a piece of cake.
Compare that to next year, 42 years later. Can you imagine any Republican predicting that 2010 will be a Republican year?
Nationally, the GOP’s base has become anti-abortion, pro-gun, and homophobic. And who are the Republican cheerleaders? Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and Bill O’Reilly. To me, that’s hardly encouraging
Take the case of Sonja Sotomayor for example. All but one of the seven Republicans on the Judiciary Committee voted against her. In addition, the vast majority of the Republican Senators are expected to oppose her confirmation when the full Senate convenes.
But, Sotomayor is expected to win confirmation handedly. When she does, she’ll be the first Hispanic judge on the highest court in the land.
So, why are Republicans behaving this way? The fastest growth in America’s diverse demography is Hispanic. Why does the Republican Party risk alienating Hispanics (and women too)? Frankly, I think it’s a death wish. In 2010, Americans will commemorate the death of the Whig Party, which the GOP replaced in 1856.
The Whigs went out of business because they had lost touch with America. They’d become irrelevant.
Democrats in the 50 state legislators and the congress must be rubbing their hands in glee. Look what has become of my Grand Old Party? Alas!
And now for something more useful.
Chris
Elmendorf and Ethan Leib wrote a fascinating suggestion about solving state
budget stalemates in the
“We suggest a more modest role for an assembly of ordinary citizens to break budget stalemates,” the writers began. “If the legislature and the governor fail to adopt a budget four weeks before the deadline for the new fiscal year, a group of randomly selected citizens- one from each legislative district (in Pennsylvania’s case, 203 districts)- would be convened to resolve the stalemate.
“Three competing budgets would be drawn up: one by the governor, one by the Democratic caucuses in the legislative branch and one by the Republican caucuses. (These proposed budgets would have to be finalized before the citizens were selected.)
“For two weeks, the citizens’ assembly would hear from and question government leaders, policy experts, interest groups and other supporters and critics of the proposed budgets,” Elmendorf and Leib continued. “The citizens would then deliberate among themselves and vote by secret ballot on which of the budgets to adopt. The vote would take place on the budgets as originally submitted; neither the citizens nor lawmakers would be able to make amendments. The winning budget would become law.”
Here are the advantages.
First, it would ensure that states adopt budgets in a timely fashion. Second, it would give the three institutional actors (the governor and the Democratic and Republican caucuses) strong incentives to devise budgets that appeal to middle-of-the-road voters, not political ideologues or special-interest favor seekers. Third, citizens who participate in the two-week assembly would learn much about their state’s fiscal situation and competing legislative priorities.
“Our scheme would also do wonders for accountability,” Elmendorf and Leib wrote. “When budgets are adopted under divided governments, it is hard for voters to figure out exactly who is responsible for the shape of the compromises. If the upside of divided government is centrist compromise, the downside is weakened retrospective accountability at the polls.
“Our approach to budgeting promotes accountability because the enacted budget would unequivocally belong to the governor, the Republicans or the Democrats,” they concluded. “Dissatisfied voters would know exactly whom to reward or fault when they go to the polls at the next election.”
So what is standing in the way of implementing this solution? All that it would take is for the Pennsylvania Constitution to be amended. (Ho Ho!) And what odds would you give for that to happen? Alas and alack!
Wouldn’t it be illuminating to hear your state representative’s and state senator’s response?
Sincerely,
Charles Meredith