Looks like I spoke too soon. Last Thursday, I posted an article about the expected good news on the federal budget deficit for 2013. Today, the actual numbers were released. They are even better than expected.

After churning the data for the first two quarters of fiscal year 2013, the Congressional Budget Office is now predicting a deficit of $642 billion this year. This is down over $200 billion from their first-quarter estimate, mind you. They are also projecting a deficit of only $378 billion for next year.

As is my wont, I decided to put this into chart form, so here you go:

[Click on graph to see larger-scale version.]

Continue Reading »

The scandal currently unfolding at the Internal Revenue Service is actually being downplayed by some who feel that tax investigations into groups advocating an anti-tax attitude is more than justified on the face of it. Admittedly, all the facts are not yet in, but the scandal started when the IRS itself actually publicly admitted wrongdoing. So while there's a question of who knew about it (and who should be fired), the fact that scandalous behavior was happening isn't really even in question. Because it was, indeed, scandalous behavior. Any time a federal agency decides to intimidate those in the political arena in any way, large or small, it should be seen as a scandal by everyone -- no matter your political leanings. Because we've seen what happens when this sort of thing is allowed and encouraged, and it isn't a pretty sight.

The power to use the legal and police services of the federal government as leverage against your political opponents is a tempting one indeed, which is why both parties have done so in the past when they thought they could get away with such blatant violations of the Constitution. We've even lived through a very long period when this power got so out of control that one man held blackmailable material on United States presidents, Supreme Court justices, and too many members of Congress to count. This information was gathered systematically, by illegally wiretapping phone lines and bugging hotel rooms, as well as plenty of other underhanded (and, again, unconstitutional) methods. The man behind this effort was none other than J. Edgar Hoover.

Continue Reading »

Being a student of the political lexicon, I would like to propose a new definition for an old term -- a term we've all used since roughly the second grade. I refer, of course, to the "wedgie." For those who are astoundingly unaware of what this term literally means, I would refer you to your local second-grader (pick any boy age 7 or 8 and ask him... and after he rolls around the floor screaming with laughter for awhile, he'll explain and even demonstrate the "wedgie" for you, I'm sure). Ahem.

But I propose a new definition for the wedgie, one in the adult political realm which has nothing to do with underwear (to clarify: the definition has nothing to do with underwear -- the adult political realm often has all too much to do with underwear). My new proposed definition:

Wedgie: When a political party's "wedge" issue turns on them and instead of dividing the other party, begins to divide their own.

Usage: "Boy, the Republicans are really getting a giant wedgie on immigration, aren't they?"

Continue Reading »

The arguments over the federal budget deficit may be about to turn a corner, of sorts. Republicans have been expecting a gigantic budget fight to happen anywhere from now to the middle of the summer, forced by the deadline of the debt ceiling. This fight may not actually happen, though, and it's for a fairly stunning reason: earlier projections of when we would hit the debt ceiling are proving pessimistically wrong, and we may not actually hit it until October -- which is into next year, in budgeting terms (the federal fiscal year starts on the first of October). This could shift the entire paradigm of the political battle over the deficit and debt from one of pointing fingers of blame to one of scrambling to claim credit for policies that "are now working." Which will -- if it happens as now predicted -- make for an interesting change in the debate's dynamic, to say the least.

Continue Reading »

No matter the definitions used, the United States of America has not been directly attacked by an enemy's military very often throughout its history. The biggest attack wasn't even on a state, since Hawai'i was only a territory at the time of Pearl Harbor. There's an even shorter list of times and places where American soil has been occupied by a foreign army. Roughly 200 years ago, the British held parts of the New England coastline in the War of 1812 and they burned down Washington, DC. Closer in time -- exactly 70 years ago this month -- American forces fought a mostly-forgotten battle to retake two of the Aleutian Islands from the Japanese. Starting on May 11, 1943 and lasting more than two weeks, the Battle of Attu Island was successfully fought on what is now the westernmost point of the United States. Though not often mentioned in the list of famous World War II battles in the Pacific, it was indeed an important strategic victory for America and deserves to be remembered.

Continue Reading »

I tried to wait to write this until the election returns for South Carolina's special House election were in, but it looks like it's going to take awhile. Currently, only four percent of precincts are in, and the numbers have been bouncing wildly around, so it's too soon to tell what's going to happen in the race between Mark Sanford (R -- Appalachian Trail) and Democrat Elizabeth Colbert Busch, sister to Stephen Colbert.

But I have to say, my expectations for this House seat are pretty low. Even should Busch pull out the victory, the chances of her retaining her seat in 2014 are not all that great. This is a district which voted for Mitt Romney to the tune of 6-in-10 in the 2012 election, after all.

Continue Reading »

Leveling Out

Welcome back once again to our monthly examination of President Barack Obama's job approval polling numbers. In April, Obama's numbers returned to a normal level, after experiencing a very short post-election "honeymoon period" with the public which bounced his numbers up to a peak, and then bounced them right back down again. You can plainly see this effect in this month's chart:

[Click on graph to see larger-scale version.]

April, 2013

Continue Reading »

Before I get into our main subject, allow me a moment of frivolity. I'd like to be the first (because I'm a day early) to wish everyone a Happy Star Wars Day! Yes, tomorrow is unofficially known as Star Wars Day, because (get ready to groan if you haven't heard this one before) it is the fourth of May. Put another way, "May the 4th," as in (I'm warning you, this is pretty cringeworthy) "May the fourth be with you."

But this year's Star Wars Day is a big one, because the original film ("Episode IV" to be fully accurate) is going to be dubbed into Navajo. They're having casting calls today and tomorrow to fill the parts, and they've already translated the script. That's pretty cool, I have to say. The people behind the effort did this to raise awareness of their language especially among their youth. Which, as I said, is a pretty great idea. I might just get a copy of the Navajo Star Wars when it comes out, just to hear what it sounds like. I have driven through the Southwest and tuned my radio into Navajo stations just for the novelty of hearing a Native American language spoken on the airwaves, so I could see sitting through a movie (where I pretty much know all the dialog anyway) just to hear it in such a unique and interesting format. So, more power to the people who put this together, or (more properly) "May the Force be with them!

Continue Reading »

This whole article is going to be just sheer speculation on my part, I'm going to admit that up front. But I can't help but wonder if we're truly seeing a few tried-and-true "wedge" issues -- that Republicans have long relied upon -- losing their edge. Public opinion seems to be blunting their effectiveness at doing what wedge issues are usually used for: driving voters apart, and (hopefully) into your party's camp. The two issues are gay marriage and gun control (specifically, background checks).

Wedge issues come and go in American politics. Sometimes they make a reappearance, but usually on the fringes (for example, the gold standard -- something that decided elections a century ago but is now the lone province of libertarian types). The public tends to get caught up in the emotionalism of the moment, but then usually doesn't notice when these issues fade away. There's not a whole lot of people calling for a constitutional amendment banning burning American flags these days, but 20 or 30 years ago it was indeed (if you'll forgive the pun) a hot topic. It did exactly what Republicans designed it to do -- split Democrats and raise a big ruckus where there had been none.

Continue Reading »

The news that "Plan B" -- a pill to be taken as soon as possible after unprotected sex to prevent pregnancy -- will now be sold to all young women age 15 and older (instead of 17 and older, as it was previously) is nothing short of laughable, in multiple ways. The Obama administration is trying to have it both ways on the "morning after" pill, and by doing so are taking a firm anti-scientific stand for irrationality. The only real question now is whether they will be found in contempt of court for disobeying a federal judge's ruling to let science triumph over politics, or whether they will appeal the ruling, firmly standing up for politics over science.

The first way this recently-announced decision is laughable is that the Obama administration insists that it has nothing to do with the court case or the judge's ruling. They're just (they say) approving an earlier application to sell the drug to women age 15 and 16 without a prescription. A little review of the court case is necessary to see how laughable this position truly is. Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius was presented with a recommendation from the Food and Drug Administration which urged that Plan B be sold over-the-counter (without a prescription, in other words), with no age restrictions. Sebelius overruled the scientific evidence, and dictated that all women 16 and under had to get a prescription -- for no medical reason, merely for political reasons. This policy just lost, in federal court. The judge ruled that politics had trumped science, and that there was no reason not to sell the drug without restrictions.

Continue Reading »