New Democrat Update - April 2008
WHEN POLITICIANS CHOOSE VOTERS
In recent years, many Democrats have become increasingly concerned about the integrity of the voting process. The bitterness from the 2000 Florida vote recount debacle still lingers. Potential disenfranchisement of Florida and Michigan voters in this year’s presidential primary election is a cause of considerable concern. Quite a few progressive activists question if the equipment used in elections can really be trusted.
Democrats should also channel some of that anger toward what has become almost meaningless U.S. House of Representative elections. Most incumbents are more likely to die while serving than be defeated. They are far more likely to leave Congress to become lobbyists than get thrown out of office.
At a time when the national electorate is almost evenly split, a mere one in eight congressional races ends up closer than 10 points. Even in a Democratic watershed “change” year like 2006, the incumbent re-election rate was still over 95 percent - 373 House seats remained uncompetitive (in recent years prior to 2006, the rate has been 98 percent).
Only two of Colorado’s seven congressional districts can be considered even remotely competitive. Nationally, according to the Cook Political Report, the outcomes of only 41 of the total 435 seats are up in the air this electoral cycle. Almost 90 percent of the electorate has no real choice when it comes to voting for his or her congressperson.
Redistricting - the process in which each state redraws House seats based on the most recent U.S. Census data - has become a more influential factor in determining the outcome of these races than advertising, fund-raising or grass-roots activism. Increasingly sophisticated mapping software, easily capable of generating endless congressional district line-drawing scenarios, has made it much easier to engage in “partisan gerrymandering,” often the result of “bipartisan” deals that protect the incumbents of both parties.
America’s Founding Fathers have to be rolling over in their graves. By requiring re-election every two years, they purposefully designed the House to be the “people’s chamber,” as the most accountable branch of Congress likely to reflect the popular will. Instead, it has acquired the trappings of an entrenched, self-perpetuating bureaucracy, resistant to change and increasingly removed from public opinion.
“Safe districts” promote the ideological extremes in both parties because incumbents realize that the main threat to their survival is likely to come in a primary rather than general election. Thus, members have no real incentives to listen to all the sides of a particular issue because satisfying their base voters virtually makes re-election a sure thing. Because the general election means very little, the views of unaffiliated voters are simply disregarded.
This increasing polarization in the House also contributes to intensified division among the electorate. As the number of uncompetitive seats increases, voters have fewer opportunities to split their ticket, are forced to pick one side or the other, and wind up being more partisan themselves.
It is no wonder that the public holds Congress in such low esteem. Seven separate polls, conducted in February and March, reported job approval rates between 19 and 28 percent.
State Senate Majority Leader Ken Gordon (D-Denver) is pushing a proposal that will help maximize the number of competitive congressional seats. Senate Bill 198 requires the state legislature to draw new district boundaries that are as fair as possible to both parties. Rather than trying to ignore partisan makeup considerations, his measure requires that they be acknowledged and used as additional criteria to design districts.
Having lost faith in government, voters increasingly believe that politicians are much more interested in taking care of themselves rather than responsibly attending to the public’s business. As the party that believes the public sector has an important role to play, Gordon’s fellow Democrats have a strong vested interest in restoring confidence in the political process.
Getting behind Gordon, especially at a time when their own party controls the U.S. House of Representatives, allows state Democratic legislators to take the high moral ground and send a strong signal that they are serious and principled about political reform. That provides quite a contrast to when, five years ago, the Republican majority in the legislature tried to sneak in a heavily partisan GOP redistricting plan at the end of the session.
The message would be simple and clear. Democrats, even when they control Congress and the state legislature, are more than willing to fix an increasingly broken political system.
Colorado and the rest of the country need to get back to the simple principle of voters choosing their elected officials, rather than the other way around.
LEAVING NO ONE BEHIND
No Coloradan, no matter how little she makes, should live in poverty if she works full-time and has kids in the house. The legislature can take a big step toward that worthy and just goal by restoring the state Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC), building on the success of its federal counterpart - tax relief that has already lifted millions of working-poor Americans out of poverty for less than one percent of the national budget.
The economic stress faced by families struggling to make ends meet is all too real. A new Colorado Fiscal Policy Institute study estimates that a one-parent family with two children, in Denver for example, needs to earn almost $20 per hour just to meet basic needs.
The EITC is a strong on-the-job incentive that motivates those, who least deserve to be poor, to strive harder and move up to higher-paying positions that do not require the supplement. That, combined with the estimated 3 to 5 or more times this money will be spent in the state, will spur the economy to grow faster. In addition, better-fed poor children tend to be healthier kids and better students - also all to the taxpayers' eventual benefit.
With the rising costs of health care and gasoline, a little more help cannot happen too soon. In fact, State Rep. John Kefalas (D-Fort Collins), who is sponsoring the bill with State Sen. Betty Boyd (D-Lakewood), says that a significant number of state military families would benefit.
Giving families greater incentives to work, save and invest in their futures is only part of the reason for restoring the state EITC. It is also the right thing to do.
A MUST READ
As reviewed in last month’s New Democrat Update, the debate around international trade is generating quite a few sparks among Democrats. That is all the more reason to significantly raise the level of debate. Toward that end, every progressive should read “Freedom From Want: American Liberalism and the Global Economy” by Edward Gresser of the Progressive Policy Institute.
As indicated on the back cover of the book, “Gresser shows how his fellow liberals who look to put the brakes on globalization have unwittingly turned their backs on the poor, and have abandoned a tradition heralded by Roosevelt, Kennedy and Clinton . . . American liberals have forgotten where they come from, and they have little idea how to move forward in finding solutions for global economic problems.”
This book helps them find their way.