Donald Carr, a senior policy and communications advisor for the Environmental Working Group, has a post up at HuffPo that should cause considerable squirming among Republican critics of big government, a substantial number of whom have been funneling millions of taxpayer dollars into subsidies to agribusiness. Carr explains in “Will Farm Subsidies Be the Tea Partiers’ Achilles’ Heel?“:

A wide swath of leading conservative and libertarian organizations, pundits and thinkers are no fans of the farm subsidy system: The Wall Street Journal editorial page, National Review, the Cato Institute, the Heritage Foundation, the American Enterprise Institute, just for starters. Even Glenn Beck called for severely limiting farm subsidies just weeks ago on his Fox News program.
When conservative thought leaders decry the billions of federal dollars that ensure profits for the largest growers of corn, cotton, rice, wheat and soybeans as a glaring example of wasteful government spending — you might think politicians who call themselves conservative would hear the music.

If you think this means government-bashing Republican office-holders would be railing against the Big Ag give-aways, you would be wrong, very wrong. As Carr notes,

But right now, there seem to be plenty of Tea Party-favored candidates who willingly collect government assistance in the form of farm subsidies. In early April, the Washington Post reported that Stephen Fincher, a Tea Party Senate candidate from Tennessee, was facing criticism over his acceptance of farm subsidy payments, as is Indiana Senate candidate Marlin Stutzman. Michele Bachmann’s farm subsidies have opened her up to charges of hypocrisy for her limited government stands.
The situation is similar with members who flaunt their success at steering government money to their home states and districts. In March, at the height of the heath care debate, nine Republican senators sent President Obama a letter decrying his proposed cuts to lavish farm subsidy programs. The senators who signed the letter were Saxby Chambliss (Ga.), senior Republican on the Senate Agriculture Committee, Pat Roberts (Kan.), Thad Cochran (Miss.), John Thune (S.D.), James Risch (Idaho), Lindsey Graham (S.C.), Mike Crapo (Idaho), Kay Bailey Hutchison (Texas) and David Vitter (La).

Of course the GOP politicians will be quick to describe the multi-billion dollar give-aways as much-needed help for family farmers, which is a shameless lie.

You call this a “safety net?” The data show that the vast majority of the subsidies defended by the nine senators go to the largest and wealthiest plantation-scale farm operations in the country. In 2009, the top 10 percent of the largest farm recipients in America collected 74 percent of all farm subsidies. At the same time, according to the USDA, 62 percent of farmers — nearly two thirds — received no payments whatsoever.
Keep in mind that the farm economy has been white hot compared to other economic sectors. USDA projects that farm income will rise by 12 percent in the next year, following a decade that produced the five highest years ever for farm income. But agriculture’s bipartisan appetite for taxpayer money is insatiable. …

Carr points out that some Democrats have joined in supporting the subsidies. But it’s not Democrats who are doing all of the self-righteous bellowing about the evils of unmerited government spending while doling out billions in corporate welfare to Big Agriculture, which returns the favor in campaign contributions. Carr has opened up a big can of GOP hypocrisy here, and Democratic candidates should not hesitate to make the most of it in their midterm campaigns.

Open Left‘s Chris Bowers comments on the limp Democratic turnout in yesterday’s primaries and urges the DNC to commission some polling to find out what’s behind it. Bowers notes, via Hotline on Call a disturbing decline in Democratic voters, compared to figures for the ’06 mid-term elections:

Just 663K OH voters cast ballots in the competitive primary between LG Lee Fisher (D) and Sec/State Jennifer Brunner (D). That number is lower than the 872K voters who turned out in ’06, when neither Gov. Ted Strickland (D) nor Sen. Sherrod Brown (D) faced primary opponents.
…in IN, just 204K Hoosiers voted for Dem House candidates, far fewer than the 357K who turned out in ’02 and the 304K who turned out in ’06.

Worse, the GOP turnout numbers were up dramatically, according to Hotline:

By contrast, GOP turnout was up almost across the board. 373K people voted in Burr’s uncompetitive primary, nearly 9% higher than the 343K who voted in the equally non-competitive primary in ’04. Turnout in House races in IN rose 14.6% from ’06, fueled by the competitive Senate primary, which attracted 550K voters. And 728K voters cast ballots for a GOP Sec/State nominee in Ohio, the highest-ranking statewide election with a primary; in ’06, just 444K voters cast ballots in that race.

Bowers notes that “This is more than just a demographic problem based on age–there really is a meaningful enthusiasm gap,” and urges the DNC to make a smart investment with some of the $30 mill it has pledged for mid-term GOTV this year:

…There are still no public, national polls looking for answers on why Democratic turnout is so low. All it would take would be to ask a single, open-ended question to 500 people who voted in 2008, but self-identify as unlikely to vote in 2010, “why don’t you intend on voting?” Everyone has theories, but those theories lack empirical supporting evidence…
…Surely, they could spend a little of that money on a transparent, representative, scientifically random, poll of unlikely voters of the sort I listed above. A lot of people are going to be working to try and improve turnout this year, and our jobs would be a lot easier if we actually knew what was motivating unlikely voters.

It’s a good idea. The DNC should take nothing for granted in budgeting midterm GOTV expenditures, and certainly not rely on unverified speculation about the specific reasons for the Dems’ mid-term voter enthusiasm decline.

WaPo columnist Chris Cillizza’s “Democrats’ young voter problem” in today’s edition of The Fix addresses a challenge facing Democrats regarding an important constituency. Drawing from a Gallup tracking poll, conducted 4/1-25, Cillizza explains:

Less than one in four voters aged 18-29 described themselves as “very enthusiastic” about the 2010 midterm election. Those numbers compare unfavorably to voters between 50 and 64 (44 percent “very enthusiastic”), 65 and older (41 percent “very enthusiastic”) and 30 to 49 (32 percent “very enthusiastic”).

Cillizza argues plausibly enough that this youth “enthusiasm” gap, especially in context of current events, makes it very difficult to recreate the pro-Democratic coalition that elected Obama for the mid-term elections. The concern is that low enthusiasm will translate into low turnout, which is especially worrisome because young voters are tilting Democratic, as the Gallup data indicates:

The Gallup data affirms the clear Democratic tilt of young voters. On a generic congressional ballot test, 51 percent of 18-29 year old vote opted for the Democratic candidate while 39 percent chose the Republican. In every other age group, the generic was either statistically tied or the GOP candidate led. (Republicans’ best age group was voters 65 and older who chose a GOP candidate by a 50 percent to 41 percent margin over a generic Democrat.)

Of course, Democrats would like a strong youth turnout in November. But how important is the youth turnout, compared to other age groups? Here’s an age breakdown of the last (2006) mid-term turnout, according to CNN exit polling:

18-29 12%
30-44 24%
45-59 34%
60+ 29%

Assuming age demographics in 2010 are not terribly different from ’06, it appears that the youth vote will be a relatively small segment, compared to older age groups. Perhaps youth turnout can be increased slightly with a targeted GOTV campaign. But it seems prudent to ask if putting more resources into targeting the 45-59 cohort — almost triple the percentage of young voters in ’06 — might be more cost-effective.
Of course it’s not so easy to craft appeals to arbitrary age groups. But one experience being shared by many in the 45-59 cohort is financing their kids’ college education, as tuition costs continue to rise dramatically. A brand new, well-publicized Democratic plan to provide tuition assistance through beefed up scholarships and tuition tax breaks might do very well with this high mid-term turnout group. And, as a collateral benefit, it could also help with young people who would like to go to college but can’t afford it.
There is nothing parents want more than for their kids to do well, and they know that a good education is the surest ticket to fulfilling that goal. The party that strives to help fulfill this dream will not go unrewarded by middle-aged voters.

Liz Sidoti’s AP article, “Analysis: GOP, Dems compete for populist title” provides a revealing take on the framing battle between the parties with respect to financial industry reform. As Sidoti notes, both parties are “furiously casting each other as the handmaidens of Wall Street” because of “…polls showing voters favoring tighter controls on Wall Street.”
Fair enough. But Sidoti strays into false equivalency territory when she overstates her point that both parties have overindulged the financial industry. “Both share the blame for deregulating the industry in the 1990s and bailing out Wall Street when the financial sector was on the brink of collapse.” She provides some data on financial contributions which indicates Dems accepted more in contributions from the “the financial services, real estate and insurance sectors,” a curiously broad grouping, without noting that very few Republicans have supported major financial reforms in recent years, while leading Democrats have been in the forefront of advocates for reform.
Yes, some Democrats did go wobbly on their obligation to check Wall St. power. But suggesting that Democrats bear equal blame for the Bush meltdown with a party which views most forms of financial regulation as socialism is a big stretch. This part of Sidoti’s article provides an instructive example of how the MSM impulse to go overboard in being ‘even-handed’ can do a disservice to the truth. I sometimes wonder if this more subtle kind of distortion — particularly in the nation’s leading wire service — misleads more voters than Fox ‘News.’ (Media Matters for America documents examples of Sidoti’s alleged distortions in other articles here.)
Sidoti does better in illuminating the struggle for hearts and minds with respect to financial reform in the rest of her article, as in this glimpse of the respective ad campaigns to win the support of “the little guy”:

For years, Republicans stood by while Wall Street ran wild,” says a Democratic National Committee television spot. “Risky bets. Lax regulation. When the economy collapsed, Republicans looked the other way. … Now Republicans are working with Wall Street lobbyists to block reform” that would “protect consumers and prevent a future bailout.”
Countering, the Republican National Committee rolled out a video claiming the legislation rewards Wall Street with a “permanent bailout fund. … Propping up Wall Street is what Obama does, and Obama does it well.”

Sidoti also shows how ‘conflicted’ the public can be regarding Wall St. reform:

More than half — 58 percent — say that “the government has gone too far in regulating business and interfering with the free enterprise system,” and roughly half oppose government exerting more control over the economy. But, perhaps because their own pocketbooks are at stake, people make an exception for regulating the financial industry: Sixty-one percent say it’s a good idea for the government to more strictly limit the way major financial companies do business.
All that — combined with the fact that two-thirds of Americans own stock — underscores why the White House as well as Republicans and Democrats are competing to be the most populist. It also explains why Democrats and Republicans are trying to agree on a bipartisan bill even as they publicly castigate each other.

All of which suggests that pollsters could be doing a better job of pinpointing exactly what kind of financial industry reform the public believes is needed, and which reforms they consider intrusive. I suspect there is a small business/big business distinction lurking undetected outside the polling data
When the deal is finally done, don’t be surprised if the “blame game” is pretty much a draw, owing to the Republican MSM advantage. In terms of getting credit for presenting financial reform solutions, however, it shouldn’t be much of a contest. Democrats will have to screw up very badly to let the GOP get any credit at all.

On this 40th Earth Day, as President Obama prepares to nominate a new Supreme Court justice, environmentalists are perusing the records of prospective nominees.
Retiring Justice Stevens replaced the most ardent champion of the environment in the High Court’s history, Justice William O. Douglas, so environmentalists can’t be blamed for thinking of this seat as one that ought to be filled by someone who won’t allow corporate profits to trump environmental concerns. The records of all of the prospective nominees don’t reveal a lot about their environmental concerns per se — no one on the latest ‘short lists’ jumps out as a great champion of the environment. But perhaps the next best indicator is their decision-making with respect to the exercise of corporate power over the public interest.
Justice Douglas’s commitment to the environment would be impossible to match for any nominee. As the longest-serving justice in the history of the High Court, Justice Douglas ruled in favor of the environment at every opportunity. Nominated by FDR, he was also the youngest justice ever to be sworn in — at the age of forty. He reportedly hiked the entire Appalachian Trail, from Georgia to Maine. In his dissenting opinion in the landmark environmental law case, Sierra Club v. Morton, 405 U.S. 727 (1972), he argued that “inanimate objects,” including trees have legal standing in lawsuits. An excerpt:

Inanimate objects are sometimes parties in litigation. A ship has a legal personality, a fiction found useful for maritime purposes. The corporation sole — a creature of ecclesiastical law — is an acceptable adversary and large fortunes ride on its cases…. So it should be as respects valleys, alpine meadows, rivers, lakes, estuaries, beaches, ridges, groves of trees, swampland, or even air that feels the destructive pressures of modern technology and modern life. The river, for example, is the living symbol of all the life it sustains or nourishes — fish, aquatic insects, water ouzels, otter, fisher, deer, elk, bear, and all other animals, including man, who are dependent on it or who enjoy it for its sight, its sound, or its life. The river as plaintiff speaks for the ecological unit of life that is part of it.

It was the leadership of Justice Douglas that saved the Buffalo River in Arkansas and the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal. He also swayed the High Court to preserve the Red River Gorge in eastern Kentucky, which is Holy Ground to folks from that part of the country. A trail in the Gorge is named in his honor, as is The William O. Douglas Wilderness, adjoining Mount Rainier National Park in Washington state, along with Douglas Falls in the Appalachian Mountains of North Carolina. There is a lot more that can be said about the visionary leadership of Douglas on behalf of the environment, but environmentalists would be happy with a justice with half his phenomenal commitment to mother earth.
Here’s hoping the President will keep William O. Douglas in mind when he nominates his choice to fill the seat once occupied by the justice who did more than any other to protect America’s natural heritage.

The last week has claimed the lives of two giants of the Civil Rights struggle, Rev. Benjamin Hooks and Dorothy Height, who died early this morning. Both made outstanding contributions to the African American freedom struggle. But Dorothy Height, who had the longer life, leaves a tremendous void in the hearts of civil rights activists.
For progressives, Height, who headed the National Council of Negro Women for four decades, was the consummate activist-leader and certainly the preeminent role model for leaders who want to comport themselves with dignity, humility and energetic dedication to a great cause. MLK, along with FDR, and every subsequent Democratic President sought and valued her counsel and wisdom.
As a lower-level functionary in a civil rights organization, I once sat in as a note taker more than anything else, in a conference call joined by a half-dozen nationally-known civil rights leaders. The topic will remain confidential, out of respect for the participants’ privacy. What I remember many years later is the sudden, hushed silence that came when it was Height’s turn to speak. The unspoken subtext in that silence was, ‘OK everyone has had their say, now let’s all pipe down and hear what wisdom has to say.’ Height did not disappoint. In clear, measured terms she summarized the various arguments’ pros and cons and recommended the course of action that was adopted without argument. I got the impression that all of the participants regarded her as their best thinker.
The Washington Post report on Height’s death featured a couple of wonderful quotes by Height worth sharing and remembering, both of which have some applications for Democratic strategy :

“If the times aren’t ripe, you have to ripen the times.”

and,

Stop worrying about whose name gets in the paper and start doing something about rats, and day care and low wages. . . . We must try to take our task more seriously and ourselves more lightly.

Height never married or raised a family. Her life was given to serve the disadvantaged and forgotten. I know of no modern-day leaders who command the same kind of universal respect and admiration as did Height, who leaves behind a powerful example of selfless, dignified leadership for a more decent society.

Conservative pundit Michael Barone writes in the Washington Examiner about Tuesday’s Democratic victory in FL-19, attributing Ted Deutch’s win over Republican Ed Lynch to the fact that “few districts have larger Jewish percentages than Florida 19,” as well as to Lynch’s weak, underfunded campaign. Barone sees Deutch’s victory as further confirmation that the Obama Administration’s policy toward Israel has not hurt the Democrats’ credibility with American Jews. Barone reached the same conclusion after analyzing voting patterns in the Jan. 19 MA Senate election. (See also the TDS March 24 post on the topic).
It’s good to know that Jewish voters remain a strongly pro-Democratic constituency. Dems would be in big trouble if they began to tilt Republican in this cycle. But what is more interesting about Barone’s op-ed is his description of the geographic distribution of Jewish voters in the context of the November elections. According to Barone, co-author with Richard E. Cohen of The Almanac of American Politics 2010:

What are the implications for the November elections? Jewish voters are very unevenly distributed throughout the United States, as this estimate of Jewish populations by state indicates. About 2.2% of Americans are Jewish—a decline in percentage over the years; in the 1940s about 4% of the nation’s voters were Jewish. The Jewish percentage is higher than the national average in only nine states and the District of Columbia; it’s identical to the national average in Illinois. Some 54% of American Jews live in just three states (New York, California, Florida); 78% live in eight states (those three plus New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Massachusetts and Maryland). Four of these states have potentially seriously contested Senate races (California, Florida, Pennsylvania and Illinois). The Jewish percentages of the population in these states are 3.3%, 3.7%, 2.3% and 2.2%. The Jewish percentages of the electorate would likely be somewhat higher in each case; the 2008 exit poll shows them at 4%, 4%, 4% and 3%.
…In what districts do Jewish voters comprise a large critical mass—say, about 20% of the electorate? My list, based on long observation, would include the following: CA 27, CA 28, CA 30, CA 36, CT 4, FL 18, FL 19, FL 20, FL 22, IL 9, IL 10, MD 3, MD 8, MA 4, MA 8, MI 9, NV 1, NJ 5, NJ 8, NJ 9, NJ 11, NY 3, NY 4, NY 5, NY 7, NY 8, NY 9, NY 14, NY 15, NY 17, NY 18, NY 19, OH 11, PA 2, PA 6, PA 7, PA 13. Only a few of these districts are represented by Republicans (FL 18, IL 10, NJ 5, NJ 11, NY 3, PA 6), of which the only one in play is IL 10, where incumbent Mark Kirk is running for the Senate. Of the Democratic seats, I see only a few which look like they might be seriously contested (CT 4, FL 22, MI 9, NY 4, NY 19, PA 7).

Barone concludes that, overall, the Jewish vote “will not be a major factor in the large majority of seriously contested Senate and House races.” However, what is important for Dems in this critical election year is that Jewish voter turnout continues at relatively high levels, particularly in the more hotly-contested districts, where a little extra targeted campaigning might make a big difference.

Democratic state senator Ted Deutch on Tuesday won the first U.S. House race since the enactment of the Democratic HCR bill, beating a Republican candidate who tried to exploit backlash against the act in FL-19. Deutch bested Republican Ed Lynch, by a margin of 62-35 percent of the vote.
Republicans quickly point out that FL-19 is a heavily Democratic district. Dems enjoy a 2-1 edge in voter registration, and the district voted nearly 2-1 for Obama in 2008. Still, Republicans were hoping for an upset to add to Brown’s win of Ted Kennedy’s senate seat in MA. Lynch wrongly perceived that massive opposition of the district’s seniors (About 40 percent of district voters) to the health care bill would help him upset front-runner Deutch. it didn’t happen.
As Congressman-elect Deutch said,

We’ve heard for months that tonight … is a referendum on health care, it’s a referendum on the (President Barack Obama) administration, it’s a referendum on what direction this country is going…’Let me tell you something, what we learned today is that in Broward County and Palm Beach County, Florida, the Democratic Party is alive and well.

The 19th district has a Cook Partisan Voting Index score of D +15. interestingly, the District has only 6.1 percent African American residents, with 12.7 Hispanics. It appears that Democrat Deutch did very well with white seniors, who some pundits see as a big problem for Dems in November. Deutch will finish the remaining eight months of his predecessor’s (who resigned) term, then will run again in November for a full term.

In this week’s ‘Public Opinion Snapshot’ at the Center for American Progress web pages, TDS Co-Editor Ruy Teixeira has some bad news for JP Morgan CEO Jamie Dimon, who has been whining about the Obama administration’s proposal to help prevent future financial crises by strengthening regulation of the financial sector. As Teixeira explains:

The public by an overwhelming 77-15 margin said in an early March ABC poll that banks have not yet done enough to make amends for their role in the financial crisis. The same poll asked the public whether banks and other financial institutions owe it to the country to help Americans struggling with the economy. Once again, an overwhelming majority (69-26) said it is banks’ responsibility to help out.

Clearly, stronger financial sector regulation is a great issue for the Administration, and one which could give Dems another important legislative victory, while making dissenting Republicans look like apologists for the worst practices of the banking/financial industry.

After reading a dozen or so bios of potential nominees to replace Justice Stevens, I’m much impressed by the talent pool of prospective justices said to be under consideration by President Obama. I know the available internet bios probably leave out more than they include, but they do provide a sense of what these individuals are about.
There are no names on the ‘short lists” I’ve read that I would oppose, unlike the Bush appointees, all of whom should have been Borked, IMHO. Glen Greenwald and others have made a case for concern about putative front-runner Elena Kagan. On the one hand, Kagan reportedly did an outstanding job of representing the Obama Administration in the Citizens United v. FEC case, even though the high court’s reactionary majority ruled the wrong way. That’s important in a nation where corporate power is not only unchecked, but growing.
Greenwald argues, however, that it’s very hard to figure out what Kagan stands for, other than mastery of the law. There is no question that she has a brilliant legal mind, and her academic credentials, like all of the short-listers are very impressive. But published evidence in her bios of the “empathy” President Obama has said is an important quality to look for in judicial nominees is a little thin. No doubt, she has more empathy than she has shown thus far, since she clerked with Justice Marshall and the President knows her character.
Most of my progressive friends, especially the lawyers, are hoping that Judge Diane Wood will get the nod instead of Kagan. More than Kagan, Wood has a record that indicates her beliefs in the context of the law. Like several other judges on the short list, Wood’s record indicates fairly strong empathy for the disadvantaged, if not a great passion for the underdog. The same can be said for other judges said to be under consideration. True, neither Justice Douglas or Brennan displayed all that much empathy before their years of service on the high court, but they nonetheless set the progressive standard I would like to see more of among the Supremes.
Other names of the growing list of possible Obama appointees include: Rueben Castillo; Merrick B. Garland; Pamela Karlan; Harold Koh; Martha Minnow; Janet Napolitano; Deval Patrick; Leah Ward Sears; Cass Sunstein; Sidney Thomas; and Elizabeth Warren.
I have confidence that whoever the President nominates will have impeccable legal credentials and solid progressive values. In terms of measuring up to a high “empathy standard,” however, one name on the short list stands out, after reading the bios: Governor Jennifer Granholm of Michigan.
After considering the impressive but very dry legal achievements chronicled in the bios of the others, Granholm’s bio provides a strong impression of a public servant who cares deeply about working people and their struggles for a decent life, and that this concern would be at the center of her decision-making. As Michigan Governor, for example, Granholm not only signed into law, but also proposed the “No Worker Left Behind” act which provides two years of free training/community college for unemployed and displaced workers, which has benefited more than 100 thousands in her state. She fought tenaciously against budget cuts for homeless shelters and mental health agencies, challenging her foes to not turn their backs on ‘the least of these.”
While her legal gravitas and experience may not match the lofty achievements of Kagan, Wood or some of the others, Granholm has some impressive legal creds of her own, including a Harvard J.D., an appeals court clerkship and four years as Michigan A.G. In addition, she has lead an energetic, well-rounded life, with varied working experience. Of course it’s much easier to convey such an impression, when your operative base is a political career, instead of a purely legal one, as is the case for all of the sitting justices. But it would be good to have at least one Supreme Court Justice who has been actively engaged in creating changes to improve the lives of people. Any of the Obama short-listers would merit support from progressives. But this is one I would cheer.