New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, coyly toying with the notion of mounting an independent bid for the White House in 2012, seemed to be making national policy statements in a speech today, offering a “middle way” out of our economic problems while repeating the pox-on-both-houses (can we stop using this cliché now anytime soon, please?) criticism that is meant to stir broad populist urges.
The economic policies that we have pursued to drive this growth have been neither left nor right, liberal nor conservative. Despite what ideologues on the left believe, government cannot tax and spend its way back to prosperity, especially when that spending is driven by pork barrel politics. Federal spending to stimulate the economy had a temporary, positive impact – but we are two years past the economic meltdown of 2008, and unemployment is still too high, the underlying economy is still too weak and the federal deficit is still rising too fast.
At the same time, despite what ideologues on the right believe, government should not stand aside and wait for the business cycle to run its natural course. That would be intolerable, given the enormous unemployment we face, and the worsening job prospects for the 15 million people who are trying to find work.
Government is not an innocent bystander in the marketplace, and it should not pretend to be. In the face of the current economic weakness, government must act: decisively, responsibly and immediately.
All that stuff sounds nice, and I get that Bloomberg is trying really hard to position himself as a reasonable and responsible centrist, but then I remember – this is the same guy that is regulating salt and trans-fat intake for New Yorkers, with strong anti-2nd amendment leanings and a strident in-your-face support for the Ground Zero mosque. This is the same guy whose first impulse was to believe that the Times Square bomber might be just some guy upset about Obamacare.
There’s only one recent mayor of NYC that I would have considered voting for, and it sure isn’t Bloomberg (hint: he rhymes with Buliani). Despite his appeal toward centrism and a pro-business outlook, Bloomberg strikes me more as an administrative busybody than a strong national figure with gravitas. Maybe he’ll be the Ross Perot-like spoiler for 2012 and allow Obama an easy reelection despite having less than 50% of the vote.
In any case, if he does run, he’ll spend a ton of his own money to essentially buy a victory the way he did in New York. Allahpundit has the rundown on why he basically is screwed on both the left and right fronts and has to hope for a House of Representatives election following an Electoral College foul-up. It seems like such a long shot that I wonder if he’ll even bother. Of course, he does have the ego of a politician, and if he believes that only he can chart this mystical middle path to glory, he may just yet go for it.
kohler
December 9, 2010
3.
The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC). Elections would not end up in the House of Representatives,
Every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in presidential elections. Every vote, everywhere would be counted for and directly assist the candidate for whom it was cast. Candidates would need to care about voters across the nation, not just undecided voters in a handful of swing states.
Now 2/3rds of the states and voters are ignored — 19 of the 22 smallest and medium-small states, and big states like CA, GA, NY, and TX. The current winner-take-all laws (i.e., awarding all of a state’s electoral votes to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in each state) used by 48 of the 50 states, and not mentioned, much less endorsed, in the Constitution, ensure that the candidates do not reach out to all of the states and their voters. Candidates have no reason to visit, organize, campaign, or care about the voter concerns in the dozens of states where they are safely ahead or hopelessly behind. Policies important to the citizens of ‘flyover’ states are not as highly prioritized as policies important to ‘battleground’ states when it comes to governing.
The bill would take effect only when enacted, in identical form, by states possessing a majority of the electoral votes—enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538). When the bill comes into effect, all the electoral votes from those states would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).
The bill uses the power given to each state by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution to change how they award their electoral votes for president. Historically, virtually all of the major changes in the method of electing the President, including ending the requirement that only men who owned substantial property could vote and 48 current state-by-state winner-take-all laws, have come about by state legislative action.
The bill has been endorsed or voted for by 1,922 state legislators (in 50 states) who have sponsored and/or cast recorded votes in favor of the bill.
In Gallup polls since 1944, only about 20% of the public has supported the current system of awarding all of a state’s electoral votes to the presidential candidate who receives the most votes in each separate state (with about 70% opposed and about 10% undecided). Support for a national popular vote is strong in virtually every state, partisan, and demographic group surveyed in recent polls in closely divided battleground states: CO– 68%, IA –75%, MI– 73%, MO– 70%, NH– 69%, NV– 72%, NM– 76%, NC– 74%, OH– 70%, PA — 78%, VA — 74%, and WI — 71%; in smaller states (3 to 5 electoral votes): AK – 70%, DC – 76%, DE –75%, ME — 77%, NE — 74%, NH –69%, NV — 72%, NM — 76%, RI — 74%, and VT — 75%; in Southern and border states: AR –80%, KY — 80%, MS –77%, MO — 70%, NC — 74%, and VA — 74%; and in other states polled: CA — 70%, CT — 74% , MA — 73%, MN – 75%, NY — 79%, WA — 77%, and WV- 81%.
The National Popular Vote bill has passed 31 state legislative chambers, in 21 small, medium-small, medium, and large states, including one house in AR (6), CT (7), DE (3), DC (3), ME (4), MI (17), NV (5), NM (5), NY (31), NC (15), and OR (7), and both houses in CA (55), CO (9), HI (4), IL (21), NJ (15), MD (10), MA(12), RI (4), VT (3), and WA (11). The bill has been enacted by DC, Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, Maryland, Massachusetts, and Washington. These seven states possess 76 electoral votes — 28% of the 270 necessary to bring the law into effect.
See http://www.NationalPopularVote.com