From Media Mouse: Ehlers Introduces Voting "Reform" Legislation

Media Mouse has the scoop:

Last month, Grand Rapids area Congressional Representative Vern Ehlers Republican) introduced the Voting Enhancement and Security Act of 2007 (HR 2360) in the House of Representatives. The bill would amend the Help America Vote Act of 2002 to establish state guidelines for an independent and verifiable voting record on electronic machines, require state auditors to certify audit plans, and require states to develop contingency plans and emergency ballot protocols.

Republicans on the House Administration committee--on which Ehlers is a ranking member--are urging their colleagues in the House to vote for Ehlers' bill instead of another popular voting reform bill known as HR 811. That bill would require that electronic voting machines generate voter-verified paper trails and require them to be in place by 2008 and would require mandatory audits of a portion of precincts in federal races. A key difference is that Ehlers' bill does not require changes by the 2008 election, nor does it require the paper trails that many voting reform organizations have sought. Lawrence Norden of the Brennan Center for Justice Under Law of New York University said that Ehlers' bill "does nothing to address the serious voting system security vulnerabilities experts have identified" and cites it as an example of Republicans using the tough deadline imposed under HR 811 to ensure that Congress does not address the security and accuracy of voting machines.

However, some critics of HR 811's deadlines have introduced legislation calling for paper trails. On May 25, Democratic Senator Dianne Feinstein introduced the Ballot Integrity Act of 2007 that would implement safeguards to prevent errors and tampering at the polls, require states to use voting systems with voter-verified paper records subject to public manual audits in the 2010 federal elections, and ensure that voters are not denied the right to vote by faulty purges of voting rolls.

Verlander scores a NO-HITTER!

We interrupt our regularly-scheduled politicking to bring you this very special bulletin:

Justin Verlander pitched the first no-hitter in Comerica Park history,
mixing 100 mph heat with crazy curveballs to lead the Detroit Tigers over the
Milwaukee Brewers 4-0 Tuesday night.

Verlander struck out a career-high 12 and got a huge assist from shortstop Neifi Perez, who turned a possible single up the middle in the eighth into an inning-ending double play.

The 2006 AL Rookie of the Year benefited from several other stellar defensive plays and worked around four walks in the Tigers' first no-hitter since Jack Morris in 1984.

Verlander trotted to the mound for the ninth to a standing ovation. He struck out Craig Counsell and Tony Graffanino before getting J.J. Hardy to fly out to the warning track in right field.

Bits of Tid: June 11, 2007

• Republicans are losing their grip on the rural vote. As a Michigander, I say, 'darn right.'
  
• Media Mouse takes a look at troop casualties in Iraq, which include four from Michigan. RIP.
  
• Very disturbing.
  
• Here's a piece from MichLib about one legislator flip-flopping on presidential endorsements. Hope you find my comment to your liking.
  
• HHS Secretary Mike Leavitt is making news after trying to schedule a meeting with Sen. Craig Thomas of Wyoming. Wouldn't be a big deal, except for one thing: Thomas passed away last week.
  
• Check out the House Democrats' renewable-energy plan.
  
• Two suspects have been arrested following a breaking-and-entering incident at CMU.

While the media adores Paris, 40,000 children will die today

...because of malnutrition and hunger. That's according to the Rehydration Project, which also states that one billion people live in inadequate housing.

Another 4,000 children will die for a lack of drinking water.

80 infants will die in Darfur due to poor health.

Roughly 60 die because of violence in Iraq each day.

1,500 people will die of cancer today... in the US alone.

There are so many other grim statistics out there, which you may wish to allude to in responses to this thread. I just wanted to remind people that most of the media seems to care a lot more about what happens to one gorgeous-looking person than what happens to thousands of innocent, although some would say not as attractive, people around the world - and here at home - on a daily basis.

Bits of Tid: June 7, 2007

• Here's an interesting article about how the caucuses in Iowa work. Michigan's caucuses aren't quite that confusing; more on that later.
• Sen. Lynne Cheney?
• Discourse on Iraq does NOT undermine our troops' morale, says Bush's War Czar.
• Former State Rep. Jack Minore hits the nail on the head regarding taxes in Michigan.
• Excellent framing of the stem-cell debate by the folks at Vote No on Joe. Ehlers also voted no.
• Who says the Big Three are inferior to foreign cars when it comes to car quality? Ford sure isn't! On a related note, can somebody say "American-made hybrid?"
• Call Senator Stabenow and urge her to support the restoration of Habeas Corpus!
• "Liberal Lucy" (Julielyn Gibbons) is in New York as part of Get Your Guts in Gear.
• My recent post regarding Michigan's taxes, as well as yesterday's video compilation, made it into Michigan Liberal's Coffee Talk threads.
• Yours truly has been elected an officer for Knights of Columbus Council 4362 in Wyoming.

YouTube videos for your viewing pleasure

We'll start with a hilarious one from the Edwards campaign:


Mark Brewer discusses the 2008 Michigan caucus:


And finally, here's my second posting to YouTube, starring Lucy:

2008 Electoral College tie would likely yield Democratic President

The US Constitution requires that the President and Vice President be elected by a majority vote of the Electoral College. Because the Electoral College has 538 members, a majority would equal 270. However, it is possible to have a 269-269 tie. Here are some ways in which a tie in the Electoral College could happen - and how it would be broken.

How a tie could happen
The states Kerry won in 2004 account for 252 electoral votes. We need 18 more votes to win outright, 17 more to tie. Here are just a few ways in which a tie mighty happen.

1. We win all of the states Kerry win, plus Iowa (7 electoral votes) - which Bush won by just a few thousand votes - and either Arizona (10) or both Nevada (5) and New Mexico (5).
2. We lose Wisconsin (10) but win in either Florida (27) or both Ohio (20) and Iowa.
3. We win Colorado (9), New Mexico, and Iowa, but lose New Hampshire.
4. We lose Pennsylvania (21) but win Florida and Missouri (11).
5. We lose Michigan (17) but win Florida and Iowa.
6. We lose Michigan but win Ohio, New Mexico, and Colorado.
7. We lose Michigan, New Hampshire, and Pennsylvania but win Florida, Iowa, Ohio, and either New Mexico or Nevada.

Casting and counting the electoral votes
So as you can see, there are a number of ways in which the two tickets can deadlock at 269 EVs apiece, many of which I haven't even mentioned. So what happens then? Some of you know exactly how the process works, but for those who don't, here's a synopsis.

1. November 4, 2008: When voters vote in presidential elections, they are actually voting for a slate of electors (usually nominated by state parties) who are pledged to vote for a specific Pres/VP ticket.

2. December 15, 2008: Those electors will gather in their state capitals to officially vote for the new President and VP on the Monday following the second Wednesday in December. In some states (but not all), it is entirely possible that one elector will vote for the candidates opposite the ones for whom they were pledged to vote, and thus break the tie.

3. January 6, 2009, or thereabouts: Shortly after the 111th Congress convenes, Congress will meet in joint session to officially count the electoral votes. If a candidate receives at least 270 electoral votes, they are elected.

4. If no candidate receives 270, however, Congress settles the matter. Amendment XII tells us how that would work.

...the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice. ...

The person having the greatest number of votes as Vice-President, shall be the Vice-President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed, and if no person have a majority, then from the two highest numbers on the list, the Senate shall choose the Vice-President; ... and a majority of the whole number shall be necessary to a choice.

In other words, each state's House delegation gets one vote to determine who will become the next President of the United States, while each Senator votes for the next Vice President. This means that one can assume that a state's vote for President will go to the candidate whose party has the majority of Congress(wo)men from that state, while each Senator will vote alonmg party lines.

What this means for 2008/2009
So had the Electoral College deadlocked at 269 apiece in the 2004 election, Bush would still have been declared the winner, receiving the votes of 28 states to Kerry's 19 (assuming Vermont's lone rep, then Independent Bernie Sanders, would've voted for Kerry). However, thanks to the gains Democrats made in 2006, we now hold a 26-21 lead in delegations, with Arizona, Kansas, and Mississippi tied. (Don't ask me how those three states would vote.)

What this tells us is that providing the Democrats do not lose any seats in the House - or that any seats they do lose are in states where it wouldn't cost them the majority in any state's delegation - then we can likely expect a Democratic President in 85 weeks.

Many expect the Democrats to expand their lead in the Senate, winning at least the seat in Colorado, if not New Hampshire, Virginia, or elsewhere. Let's hope this happens, but if there's anything 2005 and 2006 taught us, it's that things can change quite a lot in a short time. (A one-seat majority is not much of a majority!)

Now imagine split control of Congress. Say the Democrats control a majority of delegations in the 111th House, while the GOP wins back the Senate. If they vote on party lines, this would result in a bipartisan split - a Democratic President and a Repub VP - the first time since 1801 that the two have been of opposite parties.

Then there are so many other intriguing possibilities. Ordinarily, a majority in the Senate equals 51 votes, but right now there are only 99 Senators because of the passing of Senator Thomas, so 50 is a majority. In Maine and Nebraska, the winner in each Congressional district gets one vote and the winner of the state as a whole gets two. Then there's the issue of faithless electors - which I barely touched on here.

Confused? I don't blame you. If I had my way, the Electoral College wouldn't exist. But since it doesn't appear to be going away anytime soon, I hope this gives you a better sense of what would happen in the event of a tied Electoral Vote.

Of course, I also hope that a landslide Democratic win will allow us not to have to worry about that.

A Day in the Life of Joe Republican

Here's something I found in an email. It's a reminder of what we Democrats stand for.

Joe gets up at 6:00am to prepare his morning coffee. He fills his pot full of drinking water, which is good and clean because some liberal fought for minimum water quality standards. He takes his daily medication with his first swallow of coffee. His medications are safe to take because some liberal fought to insure their safety and work as advertised.

All but $10.00 of his medications are paid for by his employers medical plan because some liberal union workers fought their employers for paid medical insurance, now Joe gets it too. He prepares his morning breakfast, bacon and eggs this day. Joe’s bacon is safe to eat because some liberal fought for laws to regulate the meat packing industry.

Joe takes his morning shower reaching for his shampoo; His bottle is properly labeled with every ingredient and the amount of its contents because some liberal fought for his right to know what he was putting on his body and how much it contained.

Joe dresses, walks outside and takes a deep breath. The air he breathes is clean because some tree hugging liberal fought for laws to stop industries from polluting our air.

He walks to the subway station for his government subsidized ride to work; it saves him considerable money in parking and transportation fees. You see, some liberal fought for affordable public transportation, which gives everyone the opportunity to be a contributor.

Joe begins his work day; he has a good job with excellent pay, medicals benefits, retirement, paid holidays and vacation because some liberal union members fought and died for these working standards. Joe’s employer pays these standards because Joe’s employer doesn’t want his employees to call the union. If Joe is hurt on the job or becomes unemployed he’ll get a worker compensation or unemployment check because some liberal didn’t think he should lose his home because of his temporary misfortune.

It's noontime and Joe needs to make a bank deposit so he can pay some bills. Joe’s deposit is federally insured by the FDIC because some liberal wanted to protect Joe’s money from unscrupulous bankers who ruined the banking system before the Depression.

Joe has to pay his Fannie Mae underwritten Mortgage and his below market federal student loan because some stupid liberal decided that Joe and the government would be better off if he was educated and earned more money over his life-time.

Joe is home from work. he plans to visit his father this evening at his farm home in the country. He gets in his car for the drive to dads; his car is among the safest in the world because some liberal fought for car safety standards. He arrives at his boyhood home. He was the third generation to live in the house financed by Farmers Home Administration because bankers didn’t want to make rural loans. The house didn’t have electric until some big government liberal stuck his nose where it didn’t belong and demanded rural electrification.

He is happy to see his dad, who is now retired. His dad lives on Social Security and his union pension because some liberal made sure he could take care of himself so Joe wouldn’t have to.

After his visit with Dad he gets back in his car for the ride home. He turns on a radio talk show. The host keeps saying that liberals are bad and conservatives are good. (He doesn’t mention that his beloved Republicans have fought against every protection and benefit Joe enjoys throughout his day.)

Joe agrees, “We don’t need those big government liberals ruining our lives; after all, I’m a self made man who believes everyone should take care of themselves, just like I have”.

So the next time you hear conservatives bashing the left, Remember Joe Republican, and how we Americans owe our high standard of living to Democrats.

Twelve facts about taxes in Michigan

Lawmakers in Lansing have been debating a fix to Michigan's budget crisis for several months. While the Fiscal Year 2007 budget is balanced, that for Fiscal Year 2008 (which begins October 1) is not.

A key sticking point in budget talks has been whether to raise taxes. Tax hikes aren't an easy pill to swallow, but neither are poor schools, lousy healthcare, or more potholes.

So to make the tax-hike pill easier to swallow, here are some facts about tax policy in the Great Lakes State for you to ponder.

1. In February, a bipartisan panel said that Michigan "must develop a fiscal plan that includes a combination of revenue increases, spending cuts, and reform of how public services are delivered." (emphasis added)



2. For someone earning $50,000 per year, Michigan's income tax is the eleventh lowest in the country (including sttaes which have chosen to fund their revenues through means other than income taxes).



3. State spending is lower now than anytime since 1974, following several years of budget cuts.



4. Governor Granholm has cut business taxes nearly one hundred times since becoming governor.



5. It's not like the state wastes your taxpayer dollars. Michigan has been ranked the third-best-managed state in the nation by Governing Magazine.



6. Wall Street is watching. Citing uncertainty surrounding the state's budget, particularly with regards to the elimination of the Single Business Tax, Standard & Poor’s recently dropped Michigan’s credit rating. This rating affects Michigan’s ability to attract businesses and create jobs.



7. Raising taxes isn't all that unpopular either. The people of Michigan believe a tax increase is needed as part of a solution to the budget crisis.



8. The Chamber of Commerce also supports a tax increase. The Chamber, people, the Chamber!



9. Republican Kalamazoo County Administrator Don Gilmer recently told the Detroit News that "Taxes are the price you pay for a civilized society."



10. Well, we need a tax hike right now. Without tax increases, funds for cities and counties are often cut, often resulting in jobs for firefighters and police officers being cut. This not only hurts the economy, it can also cost lives.



11. Still unconvinced? Without tax increases, funding for education is often cut. This results in higher tuition for college students, cuts to programs in K-12 schools, and layoffs in both.



12. Finally, it's not like Republicans are completely opposed to raising taxes. When John Engler was governor, the sales tax was raised from 4% to 6%, the gas tax was increased by two cents, and the cigarette tax jumped fifty cents - not to mention numerous fee increases.

The people want a tax increase. Engler wasn't afraid to raise taxes when he was governor. So why are so many legislative Republicans so afraid to do so now?

Ford CEO, Chamber spokeswoman support Democrats' business tax plan

Here's an item from the Detroit Regional Chamber's Mackinac Policy Conference on Mackinac Island:

Blue and white stickers proclaiming "Pass the MBT" began appearing on lapels Thursday afternoon, about the same time that Senate Majority Leader Mike Bishop, R-Rochester, told reporters that the House's Michigan Business Tax plan needed work.

Democrats like the House plan because it's a better deal for manufacturers, especially carmakers. Republicans prefer a plan that offers more incentive for small businesses.

Ford said the Democratic plan would create a more competitive tax structure for Michigan manufacturers, shift more of the tax burden to out-of-state companies that do business in Michigan and encourage research and development in the state.

...

The Detroit Regional Chamber, which helped write the House plan, weighed in to support it. "We really feel the House approach is better," said Sarah Hubbard, spokeswoman for the chamber.

If the GOP was truly the 'pro-business party,' then why are business leaders flocking to the Democratic plan instead?