The Primary Problem - Get the Book

Visit: Independent Voter Project

IVP Donate

OLAS Media

More Choice for San Diego

IVP Donate Home Page

Footer

About

Etiquette

Contact

Publish

Donate

In 3 States, Partisans Pick the Secretary of State Without Voter or Executive Input

Charlottesville's First Use of Ranked Choice Voting is Unique -- Here's Why

Congressmen Co-Lead Effort to Prohibit Ranked Choice Voting in Federal Elections

New Report: We Already Know Who Will Win 81% of US House Races in 2026

Do Moderates Matter -- Or Is the Political 'Middle' a Myth?

Insurance Markets Need More Choice and Competition

Progressive-Backed Primary Threats Rattle Democratic Incumbents in Congress

Lawmakers' Budget Strategy: Tax Cuts Today, Fiscal Tricks Tomorrow?

Pennsylvania Voters Express Strong Support for Open Primaries

Americans Support Checks on Presidential Power Despite Low Trust in Government, Survey Finds

According to various reports, Sarah Palin may be getting paid at least $75,000 to speak at the nation's first, official Tea Party Convention in Nashville, Tennessee. &nbsp;If confirmed, such a development would fuel skeptics who have long criticized the motivation and make-up of the movement.While Palin's aides and conference organizers will not provide a response, Politico has uncovered documents which reveal that the former Alaska governor charges $100,000 per speech, with a $25,000 discount for West Coast appearances. While she waives these fees at some charitable events, it appears as if the first meeting of an emerging grassroots movement is not one of those. &nbsp;Tickets run $549 for the Nashville convention, and $349 if fans wish only to see Palin. &nbsp;In addition, Palin's speech will be closed to the press.If Palin is indeed being handsomely paid to serve as the keynote speaker for a grassroots gathering, is the Tea Party already up for sale?Sure, retired politicians often make a killing in the speech arena. &nbsp;Former President Bill Clinton made more than $10 million in 2007. &nbsp;Former Arkansas governor and presidential candidate, Mike Huckabee, charged $25,000 a speech last year. However, when it comes to speaking in front of political audiences, most retired politicians don't charge.Former Governor Palin certainly retains the right to charge any amount she deems appropriate, but possibly charging up to $100,000 to address the Tea Party crowd raises a number of troubling questions for the budding movement. &nbsp;For example, who would be responsible for paying such an exorbitant price? &nbsp;It is highly unlikely that the common folk would possess the means or the will to dish out such a significant sum of cash for a single speech. &nbsp;Who's paying up to $549 a ticket to attend the convention? Again, most "commoners" would find it difficult, especially during these harsh economic times, to pay that much to attend a political conference. &nbsp;Also, why is a grassroots speech closed to the press? &nbsp;Isn't the movement clamoring for greater transparency in political affairs?Again, if these allegations are authentic, and so far, they have not been falsified, then the Tea Party crowd could already find itself in a battle for its soul. &nbsp;On the surface, it would appear that affluent, shrewd, and elitist kingmakers are effectively hijacking the grassroots movement, a claim that critics and skeptics have long levied against the Tea Party protestors. It would appear that a movement claiming to represent We the People, in reality, is catering to the wealthy, the influential, and the celebrity personalities. &nbsp;It would appear that a movement claiming to espouse certain basic principles, ideas, and policies is becoming a movement of big name politicians and Fox News contributors. &nbsp;It would appear that a movement desperate for greater government transparency is now limiting public scrutiny for the sake of political expediency.Unfortunately, this is a trend that has been long in the making, as the former Co-Founder of the original Tea Party laid out in a revealing article. I also outlined three, potential paths for the Tea Party movement, and at this time, it appears as if it is going down the path of "style over substance". &nbsp;Besides the Sarah Palin controversy, another aspect of the upcoming Tea Party convention is especially troubling. &nbsp;It would appear that no Democrats or Independents will be featured as prominent contributors. &nbsp;The three main speakers, Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachmann, and Marsha Blackburn, are all prominent Republicans. &nbsp;We heard hardly a peep out of these individuals when President Bush (and a mainly Republican Congress) added $5 trillion to the national debt, devalued the Dollar by approximately 20%, bailed out Wall St, and grew the size &amp; power of the federal government. The impression of hypocritical partisanship remains one of the main stumbling blocks to libertarian leaning Republicans, Independents, and Democrats observing the current Tea Party movement.If the Tea Party movement wishes to expand its following, broaden its appeal, and develop greater credibility, then it should take a long, hard look at the goings on in Nashville, Tennessee. For all its grassroots potential, it is rapidly morphing into a well-oiled business machine, funded and directed by corporate interests and political bigwigs. &nbsp;Before it's too late, perhaps the Tea Party faithful should make it abundantly clear:The Tea Party is not for sale.&nbsp;&nbsp;

Tea Party for sale?

I’ve previously written that Schwarzenegger’s state failures on state parks, recycling, funding public education, opposing teachers, nurses and firefighters (not to mention his failures on abortion rights and early pandering to Big Pharma) indicated that he was a hard line Republican despite his periodic zags to the middle. Now, his defense of climate change against neo-crazy-con darling Sarah Palin has me scratching my head again.In the recent conflagration, Schwarzenegger made comments about Palin’s anti-climate oped. Palin responded (in what is now becoming her trademark) on Facebook blaming California’s fiscal state on its environmental policies (Alaska claims to be avoiding the recession through petrol-philia). While there may be some truth to that- the NYT published an article on how California’s own environmental review obstructs energy (renewable and otherwise) development- California’s climate policy has been in ‘wait and see’ mode, especially compared to states like Massachusetts and New York, who charged ahead with state programs despite federal guidance.&nbsp; It’s true that Schwarzenegger has been ‘strong’ on climate. This is one of the aspects of his Governorship that I find confusing. The man –owner of a fleet of Hummers- converted some of them to biofuels and is sometimes seen driving a Prius or, cathartically, riding a bike. His transportation transition seems to have flowed into policy too. Schwarzenegger capped Greenhouse gas ahead of the federal government, and (in conjunction with Jerry Brown as AG), fought the EPA’s opposition to regulating carbon as a toxic gas. Despite California’s resistance to participating in a cap and trade policy ahead of federal direction, there has been substantial progress through CARB, the California Air Resources Board (who instituted a carbon tax), Renewable Portfolio Standards (requiring utilities to sell a specified proportion renewable energy) and strong support of solar technology.While his support of climate policy is encouraging, it doesn’t make him an independent, only the strongest Republican on climate protection, which does deserve credit. Indeed, it is irrational for Palin and other Republicans to a) deny human-caused climate change in the face of so much research and b) to favor oil over another form of energy. All Schwarzenegger is doing is being rational, not heroic and not liberal. It does not make sense to continue lending government support – fiscal and political- to fossil fuels by obstructing pubic health protections that favor renewable energy. If anything, continuing to favor oil over any other type of energy is only an indicator of the lobbying strength of the oil industry.I am glad that Schwarzenegger supports climate protection policy and renewable energy. This is something I like about him, and something I feel so strongly about that his position on climate helps to obscure everything that irks me about him, named in the first paragraph. He also gets some snaps for going against the Republican grain by advocating climate protection. However, more than anything, that Schwarzenegger is such a renegade from his party by advocating climate policy just shows what an irrational, emotional, ideological stance the Republican party has taken in response to climate change. Climate change is a physical phenomena caused by, and reversible by, humans that would be better met with reasoned political and economic change like that from Schwarzenegger than senseless opposition like that from Palin.&nbsp;

Schwarzenegger: Republican Climate Protector?

The Tea Party movement is at a crossroads. &nbsp;It will either morph into a viable, third party by 2012, or it will fade away as most populist movements do. &nbsp;It will either develop into a platform of credible fiscal conservatism and constitutional fidelity, or it will be co-opted by GOP bigwigs whose sole agenda lies in bashing President Obama, Speaker Pelosi, and Senator Reid.CNN ran a thought provoking article exploring the direction of the Tea Party movement. &nbsp;There are growing concerns that the populist movement is internally fractured, caught between GOP elites and legitimate grassroots protestors. &nbsp;What originated as a strictly grassroots outcry against big government, big spending, and constitutional infidelity, was in part co-opted by the likes of GOP figureheads and Fox News. &nbsp;Soon, protests became a forum to bash Obama and the Democrats, while ignoring the huge deficits, massive debt, Dollar devaluation, and Wall St. bailouts of the Bush administration and a largely Republican Congress.To be completely accurate, the present Tea Party movement owes its existence to Ron Paul, a divisive figure among current Tea Party activists. &nbsp;In late 2007, his historic, grassroots presidential campaign raised $4.3 million on November 5 and a record setting $6 million on December 16, the date of the original Boston Tea Party. &nbsp;Tens of thousands of individuals, all across the political spectrum, donated to the "Champion of the Constitution" and the most fiscally conservative member of Congress, without any help from Fox News or the GOP establishment. Dick Armey, Newt Gingrich, Sean Hannity, Sarah Palin, or Michelle Bachmann didn't promote or participate in these purely, grassroots driven events.&nbsp;Fast forward to 2009, and with President Obama and a Democratic Congress in charge, suddenly the GOP leadership and Fox News come out of the woodworks. &nbsp;Millions of tea party protestors take to the streets to criticize the big government, big deficits, and huge debt of Barack Obama. &nbsp;Suddenly, deficits, debt, a weak Dollar, and ever expanding government mattered, even though deficits, debt, a weak Dollar, and ever expanding government were signatures of the Bush administration.Liberal pundits and independent voters were rightly skeptical. &nbsp;Where were these protestors during the Bush era? &nbsp;The protestors were now mocking Congress for not reading novel length bills before voting on them, but why were they not protesting when Congress passed a 300+ page Patriot Act that no one even read? &nbsp;The protests, though impressive in number, presented a stridently partisan image to skeptics and astute observers.Now, one major tea party group is set to hold a major convention in February 2010. &nbsp;Sarah Palin will be the keynote speaker. &nbsp;Will Palin emerge as the face of the Tea Party? &nbsp;She's certainly a celebrity among many GOP circles, but her performance as a vice presidential candidate and her extremely brief tenure as Alaska Governor raise many questions. &nbsp;And for Tea Party activists, what about her fellowship with John McCain, the candidate who fully supported the $700 billion Wall St. bailout and whose policies were projected to continue the big deficits and massive debt of George W. Bush?Or, will Newt Gingrich emerge as the Tea Party leader? &nbsp;Newt is extremely popular in conservative circles and is currently heading up American Solutions, a nonpartisan think tank. &nbsp;He was instrumental in crafting balanced budgets during the latter years of the Clinton administration, although his ethics violations and marital indiscretions undermine his moral credibility. &nbsp;In addition, Tea Party activists should know that Gingrich would have "reluctantly" voted "yes" on the $700 billion Wall St. bailout. &nbsp;He, like Palin, also advocates virtually unlimited military spending, even though unchecked military spending was largely responsible for the big deficits and massive debt of the Reagan and George W. Bush administrations.Will Ron Paul or someone of his ilk lead the charge and turn the tea party movement into a viable, third party? &nbsp;Dr. Paul has inspired a whole new slate of state and federal candidates to run in 2010, and his status has grown since he was the only presidential candidate to predict the economic crisis. &nbsp;His brand carries the potential to appeal to a broad base of Republicans, Independents, Democrats, and Third Party groups, but thus far, his advocacy of a more limited, cost-effective foreign policy remains repugnant to a significant portion of the GOP base. &nbsp;The GOP establishment also detests Paul, because he was quite open in his criticism of several of the party's policies during the 2007-2008 presidential election, though it is this honesty and eminent credibility that could expand his movement's following across party lines.At this time, the Tea Party is up for grabs. &nbsp;Three, distinct possibilities exist. &nbsp;First, it could fade away into the sunset as most grassroots movements sadly do. &nbsp;Second, it could splinter into a "Bush-lite" faction with a celebrity type leader and a platform that talks a big game about limited government, the Constitution, and fiscal conservatism, but in reality, is not all that different in practice. Third, it could splinter into a more independent-libertarian faction with a leader who takes on the party establishment on both sides of the aisle and offers a whole new, fiscally conservative vision for domestic and foreign policy.Over the next couple of years, we should get our answer.&nbsp;

Tea Party Destiny

California has once again become a Favored Nation in the eyes of Washington.  After eight years in the political doghouse, we have been returned to our national leadership position - at least as far as auto emissions standards are concerned.   "For the first time in history, we have set in motion a national policy aimed at both increasing gas mileage and decreasing greenhouse gas pollution for all new trucks and cars sold in the United States of America," said President Obama, flanked by two governors with the most to gain from his presidency - Jennifer Granholm of Michigan and Arnold Schwartzenegger of California.   Both Governors are Californians in one way or another - Schwartzenegger for obvious reasons and Granholm because she graduated from UC-Berkley.  Both are also politically in synch with the president.  One is a Democrat, and one is married to a Democrat (and intensely distrusted by the true believers of the Republican party).  Both delivered their states for Obama.But there is even more to the unholy alliance that has put the nation's brokest state back in the upbeat spotlight:  the automakers are in on the deal.   From the New York Times:  For seven long years, there has been a debate over whether states or the federal government should regulate autos," said Dave McCurdy, president of the Alliance of Auto Manufacturers, the industry's largest trade association. "President Obama's announcement ends that old debate by starting a federal rulemaking to set a national program.And we like those national programs - especially when our state leads the way.  So it looks like we're all environmentalists (and socialists) now.   And that puts California on top.  It's Kumbaya time again!When a Golden Bear and a Terminator stand shoulder-to-shoulder with the first black president, you can expect a tectonic shift (hopefully not on one of California's faults), and that's what seems to be happening under Obama.  We're no longer focused on states with the highest percentage of NRA members, nor are we backing away from the societal advances typically led by Californians (e.g., stem cell research).  While a few months ago it seemed we were close to re-entering the Dark Ages, today we're back in the modern world and the shadows have lifted to reveal the sunshine that our state is famous for (albeit with a little bit of smog thrown in for cultural effect).Despite our multiple problems of deficits, droughts and depressions, California may no longer be on the verge of becoming a silicon rust belt because we are back in the good graces of the nation's leaders.  Our governor should be congratulated for walking the fine line between advocacy for his party and advocacy for his state - a line that seems too narrow for the governors of South Carolina, Alaska and other red states.   But California, like Sally Fields herself, knows how to make a comeback and remain an endearing presence to even the middle of America. 

 They Like Us; They Really, Really Like Us 

Heads of the Pacific Coast side of the Fishery Management Council decided on Wednesday, April 8 to basically call off this year's salmon fishing season, after fears that the King/Chinook salmon population may be undersized and may be threatened by the additional fishing season, after a smaller number of the Sacramento River and Klamath River Chinooks migrated to California and Oregon this year. (One way that Pacific Coast fishery authorities have tried to alleviate the situation in the past has involved actually transplanting fish from fisheries, to the ocean, in hopes of upping the "natural" salmon population.)The National Marine Fisheries Service must approve this lower-level cancellation by or before May 1, only months before the start to the official salmon fishing season on the Pacific Coast. This marks the second year in a row that California and Oregon fisherman will  newest recommendation would affect fishermen in California, Washingbe restricted from fully participating in their pastime of choice, not to mention careers. Theton, Oregon and Alaska (with its own new salmon and Pollock fishing regulations, limiting accidental salmon catches to 60,000 or less, though it is unclear exactly how accidental catches can be fully regulated, all the time). In related news, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service also came to the conclusion that the Longfin smelt fish population around the Sacramento River does not need to be listed as an endangered species (and as an extension, the extra protection that label affords)... despite the fact that its numbers are also noticeably lower this year.At the meeting of the Pacific Fishing Management Council, it was determined that South of Cape Falcon, there should be a "complete closure of commercial fisheries in ocean waters off California and a ten day ocean recreational Chinook only season Off Eureka and Crescent City." According to the council, NOAA member Jane Lubchenko is hoped to be a part of the future action to help "coordinate a comprehensive optimizing strategy for salmon produced in California rivers, including the Sacramento-San Joaquin and the Klamath-Trinity basins." Some of the recommended future mitigating actions include hatchery reviews, "habitat protection measures... including water management practices, biological opinions for Endangered Species Act listed species, recommendations for monitoring and research studies, and alternatives for future fishery management."Oregonian fishing companies were hit with a ban as well, albeit a slightly more relaxed one, with the ban mainly affecting Southern Oregon, for now. South of Cape Falcon Oregon ocean fisheries will face a quote of 117,000 cohos, while Oregon commercial fisheries would see a quota of about 11,000 cohos. North of Cape Falcon, "recreational fisheries" would be restricted to 176,400 cohos while "non-Indian commercial fisheries" would be limited to a "quota of 33,600 mark-selective coho, about five times the 2008 coho quotas," and Chinook quotes would be "slightly better than in 2008 at 20,500 each," with Indian fisheries in Oregon being allowed 39,000 Chinook and 60,000 coho, if the council's recommendations are approved.Will this environmentally-friendly maneuver in fact turn out to do more harm than good? Some have estimated that the commercial fishing season reels in perhaps around $100 million for local economies; in a recession, is it really wise to put such drastic action to affect? Couldn't the heads of the Pacific fisheries have come to a more lenient conclusion, which would not be set up to drastically alter the expected income for certain fishing cities? There is still the question of whether the decreased salmon presence is entirely a function of commercial fishing, or if the smaller number can also be attributed to the ever-present population fluctuations in any dynamic population. There is still hope that the National Marine Fisheries Service will come to a solution, less harmful to communities relying heavily on fishing for industry. 

Salmon Fishermen Face More Setbacks

California felt about a 20 percent drop in exports through the month of February, which means that only a little over three-quarters of the amount of goods typically exported from California, were actually exported during the month of February.This isn't great news for the Golden State, which has also recently found itself in a more than $40 billion mess of a budget situation, using what can only be affectionately referred to as half-baked schemes, to get out of it.If California wants to get those export figures back up, and attract business back, officials need to get a few things straight: first, businesses do not respond well to high taxes. Why are businesses rapidly relocating from high-tax states such as California, to lower tax states, such as Louisiana? The question answers itself.According to the United States Commerce Department and the Bureau of Economic Analysis, the state earned approximately $9.1 billion in February through exporting goods. This figures illustrated nearly a 20 percent drop in all exports, from that same period one year earlier, and more than 20 percent drops in some industries, including vital California ports such as the one at Long Beach. Overall, in February the United States exported $126.8 billion worth of goods, and imported $152.7 billion worth of goods. Some of the major areas which saw decreases were "services" (down $0.4 billion, and including travel, freight services, port services, business, insurance services and financial services), and "goods" (with automotive-related exports down $4.8 billion, food and beverages down $1.7 billion, "capital goods" down $6.1 billion and all things classified as "industrial supplies and materials" seeing an export decrease of $9.7 billion).The somewhat silver lining of this news is that California was not alone in its recent poor showing.In an April 9 statement by Commerce Secretary Gary Locke, it was noted by the Commerce Department that though U.S. exports saw a rise of 1.6 percent since the month of January, imports shrank by 5.1 percent. Secretary Locke said the lowered numbers "amplify the importance of continuing to do the hard work necessary to get the economy back on track," and that the government is working to create new jobs in a number of ways, including by "speeding relief through the Economic Development Administration to communities hardest hit by the recession. We must continue to increase exports by fostering innovation-a goal in which the Recovery Act makes important investments-and breaking down barriers to U.S. goods and services."According to the Bureau of Economic Analysis, throughout the United States, "personal income declined nationally and in 41 states in the fourth quarter of 2008." The states in the highest quartile of percent change included Texas, South Dakota, New Mexico and West Virginia. As a state, California ranked in the second quartile.The BEA also found that throughout the country, February saw a decrease of $29.1 billion (0.2 percent) in personal income and a decrease of $10.5 billion (0.1 percent) in "disposable personal income."U.S. personal income growth slowed to 3.9 percent in 2008 from 6 percent in 2007 with all states except Alaska sharing in the slowdown, according to preliminary estimates released today by the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis. The U.S. growth was the slowest since 2003. Inflation, as measured by the national price index for personal consumption expenditures, rose to 3.3 percent in 2008 up from 2.6 percent in 2007.The short of it is: to get California back on track to glory days ahead, business needs to be welcomed, not taxed into the ground. Let's say, for example, you are business owner in California and you have regular employees. According to the California Tax Service Center, you're even taxed once you pay a threshold amount ($7,000) to your employees. Say you're part of a general partnership: even your losses can be taxed, come tax day. Just being considered a limited liability, incurs an annual $800 tax. If your limited liability corporation earns $5 million or more annually, you are subject to another annual fee of $11,790... and that's not even the income tax! Retailers and resalers also understand that come tax day, it's the best time to have sales, as businesses can be taxed on property, even if it is not generating cash.Thankfully, there have been some pro-business overtures in the state, though with the possible passing of Proposition 1A, businesses would need an awfully good reason to stay or relocate to the Golden State (in terms of taxation). Already, pro-business movement has been taken in surprising corners. San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom laid out measures for 2009 in which businesses would be urged back to the city  with the lure of tax breaks. San Francisco's film gurus also have been working to get innovative incentives out to filmmakers, by offering lower fees and additional perks. Filmmaking is a two-way street, however, and savvy leaders in San Francisco must recognize as such.One interesting option to consider is the flat fee: tax for a certain percentage of profits, and be done with it; eliminate confusing tax rules and loopholes, and make paying taxes relatively pain-free (so long as the taxation rates are reasonable and not fluctuating).Individuals are less prone (and less able) to start up and run small businesses when credit is tight, money is tighter and taxes are unbelievable. Government can't help solve the economic problems of California... but business can.                     

Bring Business Back to California

Search query: alaska