« Rebranding Arizona | Main | We need to talk about Bernie »

August 24, 2015


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Fundamentally, what do we need from a 2016 President?

It's a pretty good bet that the House will remain Republican and neither party will produce a filibuster proof Senate.


What do we need?

We need someone who can solve problems and bring the parties together to come up with the legislation that this country needs.

Trump and Cruz would be the bottom of that list.

And Hillary would be next.

Third from the bottom, ahead of two nuts.

Carry On.

Maybe she's ahead of Rand Paul.

If only Obama could run again--there is no beating his coalition. VRA matters because it depresses turnout and the Democrats don't really have anyone who can turn out voters like he can. Which is why they NEED this election to take a populist turn. I think Hillary could if she took a serious populist turn. It hasn't totally come yet.

I'd like to see this election as a referendum on neoliberalism and have Clinton refute many of the policies her husband implemented. Until that happens, the Democratic base will look a lot more like '14 than '12. And if that happens an establishment Republican (who hasn't been too bloodied in the primaries) has a shot-even against Clinton. People have not forgotten about the fact the Clinton's sold main street to Wall street.

So I'm going to go back to my original point-Sanders can't drive turnout like Obama (or Clinton) but he says the right things and will get people engaged. The populist tendencies of the democratic base shouldn't be underestimated. The same way conservative turnout cratered in '12 could happen to dems in '16 if they don't make a serious appeal to this group.

I used to be scared of Scott Walker until he sold his soul to Koch. He could have been a populist. I don't know how he does that now. No other republican scares me. It feels like 2008 again to me. But... you're probably right about the echo chamber.

At a party this weekend, I had multiple supporters of Christie and Jindal talk to me. Walker would be the guy to pick up their voters but he doesn't have the persona (Christie) or "smarts" (Jindal) to pick up those voters and he is the avowed enemy of the Obama coalition. He'll drive left turnout if he was the nom.

Fundamentally, it won't be the candidate but the party which will win the election. If the dems actually take into consideration what their base wants they can win w/almost anyone. The repubs can't balance what their base wants with what their donors want with what undecided voters want. That's why they'll keep losing national elections until some political realignments occur (like a repub who starts focusing on populist small gov issues like privacy, higher ed costs, etc. and establishes high ground over more liberal candidates on those issues). The dems are on much better ground when it comes to that. They just need to get a candidate who can make people want to show up.

Evan Bayh

You underestimate Bernie, especially considering whomever the Republicans will run. If H. Clinton is our only option we really are doomed.

Rogue, in all the years I've been here, I don't think I've asked for a favor.

I promise this will be the only favor I ask.

Would you please take down her photo?

Ruben grab a six pack. Things will look better.

If Sanders somehow wins the primary, then he could somehow win the general: if he loses the primary, the question of whether he can win the general becomes moot. He won't run as an independent-he won't split the vote. Whoever the Democrat candidate is, he or she will face Trump, unless the Republicans can somehow regain control of their party. So, how would a Trump versus Hillary contest look? She might pull some U.S. Chamber of Commerce type Republicans away from Trump, but Trump might pull some Reagan Democrats away from Hillary. Unfortunately, the Trumpkins are really loud and enthusiastic about the opportunity to have the Richie Rich parody of wealth distilling the complex issue of immigration down to its simplest, most cruel form for them, whereas Clinton would be a "hold your nose and get it over with" choice. Mitt Romney sure seems sane and decent suddenly, though...

Uraguay is looking better every day. American has gone insane in many ways. It's not even safe in the Wilderness from the Posse Comitatus

INPHX, no one can bring the parties together when one of them is dead set against anything the other wants to do -- even when it's the first party's own idea.

You organizing an exploratory tour group Cal? Because if you are I am in.

Colleen, I wish I was able to explore Uruguay but at 75 and crippled and working and taking care of family illnesses and working for defense lawyers, I have to stick around until October 2018. Plus I kinda would like to have my ashes sprinkled on top of Ed Abbey's resting place. But given different circumstances i would be off to shake hands with the ever humble revolutionary, Jose Mujica.
If you go let me know what U think?

I think you underestimate Bernie Sanders' ability to win, and I definitely don't live in an echo chamber. I sense a sea change in America, but if the next president is not Bernie Sanders, America is doomed to be a plutocracy for a long, long time.

I am on the same track, Cal, for different reasons. If we have President Trump in 2018 I'll meet you there at a mission in a white dress a la True Detective. Unless, of course, the rounding up of public intellectuals and university professors starts earlier, in which case I will wait for you there.


It takes two to tango, or to not tango.

It's a tough job.

My point is what criteria are important in deciding what Presidential candidate to support. It's not so much about that person's views on things; it's more about their ability to lead and to solve problems.

I understand your point, INPHX, but I teach graduate level leadership in general and decision making specifically, and I can tell you that one's world view directly impacts decision making and problem solving. That said, I am not sure that we have any idea at all from either the public persona or the rhetoric of candidates what their world view actually is. Sometimes they slip and we say "ah ha! I suspected you were a bigot (or whatever) all along", but I imagine those slips are as carefully choreographed as everything else is. People resonate with Trump becasue he wears his bigotry and any number of other politically incorrect stances right out front, but I suspect that is as manufactured as any "reality" tv show is. At this point, I just look at what they say they believe in, pick the one that most aligns with my personal values, and hope that they legislate forward based on our national distaste for obvious two faced behavior. In the case of Hilary, I suspect that she is as in the pocket of big money as anyone is, but her convenient fiction leads me to hope that she will move, albeit incrementally, in a direction I support. I love the longer term gains proposal, for example. It is doable and while it won't make a dent in the avarice that is Wall Street it will gently nudge things in the direction I would like to see them move. It also indicates a measured and pragmatic approach to problem solving that I embrace. We do the best we can with what we have, but stated ideals and bedrock values have to be part of the equation, because they are indicative of future behavior.

It takes two to tango, it only takes one not to tango.

Ok, so if the repubs are the ones who don't want to tango, then the dems are the ones with two left feet.

Let's get back to important issues. Cal is taking all our women to South America.

Hate to mention it -- a candidate's ethnicity shouldn't be an issue -- but it is in this Renaissance of Intolerance. It was THE issue with President Obama, and it also would be a real issue for Bernie Sanders. It would be strike two on my favorite socialist. BTW, could anyone beat Mitt Romney if he were to be drafted?

the first primaries are still a ways away. HRC can afford to be biden' her time. even if she doesn't say or do much for awhile, she's clearly still a presence, maybe a reassuring one given what's happening on the repub side. Her Sanders problem is only how to keep a critical %age of his enthusiasts on board once she has things sewn up. Much as I would like to see a real choice I know that I will be casting a negative vote 11/16, merely thinking about the other vote that I'll be neutralizing. It would be nice to vote affirmatively. There will be a lot of likeminded people staying home.
I did vote affirmatively in '72. GMc- good man, war hero, nice looking, well spoken, on the correct side of the most important issue of the day, good political experience, (contrast here with RMN) and utterly squashed.
One result of this mess could be, if not influential 3rd or 4th parties, some organized factions that exert greater leverage on the 2 majors, if not from within, then by sheer numbers. In this regard,
What's interesting about Sanders' run is the possible re- introduction of state socialism into "acceptable" political discourse.

Having read my last paragraph, about factions, and remembering Move On and Occupy ...... Nah

"Then there's Bernie Sanders, whose popularity is supposedly rattling the Clinton camp. As much as Bernie gives 'em hell and tells is like it is, he would win one state in the general election. One. If you don't believe me, you need to get out of the progressive echo chamber."

Jon, that's not an argument. It's an unsupported claim.

I'd love it if you would expand on your thought to make an argument that could be convincing.


Ruben, you are more than welcome to join us. I hope you like cats and are good with pitt bulls, because I am not leaving them behind.

"Rogue, in all the years I've been here, I don't think I've asked for a favor.

I promise this will be the only favor I ask.

Would you please take down her photo?"

Ruben grab a six pack. Things will look better.

Thanks for the reminder that liberal men can be sexist jerks too.

The best reason for Mr. Biden jumping into the election is to have a Dem backup. Don't put all your eggs in one basket is an eternal truism.

What about Bernie you say?
Mr. Talton's implied snort is on target.

To wit...

In May, Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders released his own plan that would eliminate tuition and fees for public universities. The $70 billion annual proposal would be funded by imposing a tax on transactions by hedge funds, investment houses and other Wall Street firms. Former Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley has proposed giving all students access to debt-free college at in-state universities within five years.

Although she didn't mention her rivals by name, Clinton said simply asking the federal government to pay for tuition is not an appropriate way to lower the burden on students.

"We can't expect the federal government just to pay the bill for free, that's not how America works," she said.

Good grief....
Bernie can I have a "free" banana split too?

Mrs. Clinton expresses rock solid middle class values.

The last thing the Democrat Party needs is to have their actual nominee floating "everything free for everyone" balloons. That's a return to the dark ages of loses: Humphrey and Mondale and McGovern.

I suspect that Bernie Sanders is about the only candidate the Dems could run that Mr. Trump could actually beat in a general election. As such, If Mr. Brown of CA won't be our Plan B backup, than Mr. Biden should jump in to keep things winnable.


Thank you Donna I knew someone would jump on that. But Ruben and I are conservative JERKS. And my retort was to remind him of such.

Donna, not sexist. I hate her, the person, with a passion.

I would make the same request with Cruz. But, alas no more requests .

Thank you Rogue.

P.S. What cal said.

Anyone want to guess what % the voter turnout will be for today's election? I say under 25%.

Of course if the Latino vote shows up I'll have to change my guess to 90%. Ha ha, that's funny stuff.

In my lifetime I've attented some unevenly matched sporting events. However, I've never seen an ass kicking like Trump over his spineless "professional politician" adversaries.

It's embarrassing for us that we have tolerated these leeches for so long.

"We can't expect the federal government just to pay the bill for free, that's not how America works," she said.

Well, koreyel, that’s what all the fuss is about in this election. I understand that you are attributing this to “rock solid middle class values,” but that middle class is no longer rock solid and has already been solidly rocked out of its comfort zone.

Which leads me to address “Mr. Talton's implied snort” (thank you again, koreyel.)

OK, I’ll allow that - on social media at least - I am in a progressive echo chamber. But I’d like to hear more on this “one state” business.

Is your thought experiment “Sanders vs. Trump?” Eh, I’ll get to der fuhrer in a minute.

If Sanders actually got the nomination (and I’m not predicting that - but it’d be nice by my lights,) he would have the same machine behind him that any party nominee enjoys. So one would think that he could accrue more than “one state.”

This is ignoring the fact that the GOP is currently conjuring a particularly lackluster field. Well, except for, well, him.

Donald Trump scares the living shit out of me. You think Morton Downey, Jr. got a little weird with power? Picture him with the nuclear codes.

But it’s not really foreign affairs that I worry over with the idea of a Trump administration.

I worry about the triumphalism of those who elected him. This would be a different America, fast.

Kinda like with Sanders, but darker. Stakes, baby.

So you think that Sanders would fail if he faced “the hair?” Or do you have another shining Republican candidate in mind that would red-bait Bernie out of existence with the deft of Nixon?


Unofficial results have Mayor Gordon (D) winning reelection by over 66% (no runoff necessary in November). The $31.5 billion investment in transit passed by over 55%. Great news for the city on both counts. https://www.phoenix.gov/cityclerk/services/election-information/2015-mayor-and-council-election

My opinion...
Sanders is out... Joe will be the ticket...maybe, MAYBE with Warren.
Hillary is lucky if she doesn't wind up in Jail...but, Obama would do a last minute Pardon...like Bill did years ago.
Jeb is out... Trump is a "flash in the pan".. It's a long way to go yet..people will get tired of his mean yelling. They like what he says, tho.
I like Marco...will Romney "re enter"? I like Carly(sp)..
I think we need to STOP this year plus electioneering...

WBIYB wins again.

Hillary is lucky if she doesn't wind up in Jail...

And the US govt blew up the Trade towers...
And faked the moon landing...
And MA flight 370 is stashed in Pakistan somewhere...
And global warming is a big liberal hoax...

Here's some soothing sanity:

Kevin Drum is a deep, well-informed Democrat blogger who is level-headed and sane. He's been in the "informing" business since the Internet was young. If he is not a voice in your stable of trusted voices, then it is time to get out a shovel and do some mucking. Because if anything, Mr. Drum is maddeningly fair-minded...

Ergo, if Mr. Drum call's the Clinton email kerfuffle a nothing-burger, it would do you well to perk up your ears and have a read. One thing is certain, Mr. Drum will be the first to let us know if there is any there there:


Sanders is not suggesting there is free stuff. He is enough of a wonk to know there are plenty of sweet tax deals our duopoly have dealt out to their (rich) supporters. Closing the loopholes and raising taxes on them will go a long way. Where will the rich run to avoid this? When the going gets rough (whether it is politics or markets), the rich come to the USA.

Bernie 2016!

College is too expensive.

More federal subsidies is the answer.

More economic lunacy.

I am surrounded by Grand Canyon university grads. They are mortified that their wonderful "Christian" school over charged them and is now being forced by the Feds to return said funds.

College got expensive because they got access to the casino cage.

How much does it cost to go to a university in Germany?
And why are elements in the US trying to destroy public schooling from Kindergarten up?
Profit and religion?
Your future schools may be owned by Donald Trump and the headmaster may be Warren Jeffs.
Can't wait to see the reality shows coming in 2017.

As I travel into my 76 year I tend to agree with Robinson Jeffers that "humankind is a sort of evolutionary mistake."

A point about the Electoral College and the 2016 election. Even if the Republican nominee holds all of Romney's states and pulls in the states he lost by 3 percentage points or less, that still leaves the Democrats with 272 electoral votes and a win. Those states are Florida (1%, 29 EC votes), Ohio (2%, 18) and Virginia (3%, 13). The GOP would have to win Colorado, too, but it went for Obama by 4+ points. Pennsylvania? Fughetaboudit. It stayed blue by more than 5 points even after the legislature jerry-rigged the voting. And it now has a Democratic governor. If this were a change election, I could see it, but we're not leaving any disaster or scandal coming out of the Obama years, not like when W's term thankfully was over.

New Kevin Drum post on Hillary's phony email scandal:


When we talk about someone being qualified to be president, exactly what do we mean? Usually, it means anyone who has spent considerable time in government and/or public life. The definition is elastic but it's can't be stretched into lunacy as Donald Trump seems to be doing. Merely be a rich blowhard is not a qualification for anything other than the career "rich blowhard".

Hillary Clinton is qualified to be president. We can argue whether a lifelong drunk and corporate welfare queen like George W Bush was qualified, but on the surface, at least, he appeared to be. The resulting disaster of his presidency hasn't chastened the Daddy Party into any kind of reassessment of their vetting process. Hence, their now structural lunacy of pandering to bigots and airheads.

Unlike Bush, Hillary is brilliant, curious, a policy wonk, and fully conversant with government. No one on the Republican side comes close to her level of expertise. If you're the kind of idiot who votes only for people you find sexy, you deserve the kind of government you vote for but the rest of us do not. It might be a good idea to stop voting until you finally grow up.

Bernie Sanders is a wonderful person but he's not a serious candidate. Living on the margins of our political discourse qualifies him to be a gadfly. Yes, he's makes a wonderful Facebook candidate, pure and virtuous without any of the baggage serious politicians incur. Like St Ralph Nader, he appeals to people who think politics is about themselves and their refusal to compromise. This narcissistic trait makes for wonderful theater and horrible politics. Politics is precisely about compromise. When zealots on the left and right refuse to do this basic chore of self-government, it seizes up.

We all know (well, almost all of us) that the Republican Party is no longer a serious political party so much as a church. It not only refuses to compromise, it has become progressively insane as its media has replaced its traditional - and moderating - power structure. It's now a party of people enthralled by an idea of their own tribal identity. Old white people are, to be sure, wonderful (hey, we better think that!) but it's a lousy reason to destroy this nation.

The worst thing about Hillary is that she's a smart lawyer in a nation of dumb children. People pick up on her edge and dislike her for the very thing they should admire her for. The Clintons have spent their lives always seeking the fulcrum point of political power in any situation and environment. They have made many mistakes but they're capable of learning and regrouping. That's what good pols do. A mature nation would admire that ability instead of demonizing it.

INPHX being ironic:

College is too expensive. More federal subsidies is the answer.

First let me say that I've been arguing for a transaction tax on Wall Street for a long time.

But as INPHX hints at....

I would much rather have the resulting 70 billion spent on shoring up Social Security than feeding the morally corrupt beast that is education.


1) Social security keeps millions of our seniors out of poverty.

2) Practically every dollar in those monthly checks gets churned into the economy from the bottom up. You can't have mass consumption without mass spending. Take away the spending of our seniors and the entire economy would evaporate into thin air. Ultimately we'd all be hurting a lot more.

Now about the education beast:

There is something seriously wrong with our colleges. And throwing more money at it probably won't help. For the most part college is a deeply flawed and morally corrupt system. You've got a tiny aristocracy of faculty and administrators -- I call them the 2-3 percenters, who literally float on the backs of an army of serfs known as adjuncts.

These serfs are grotesquely underpaid, have no benefits, have hardly any voice, and serve at the whim of the aristocrats. It's evil. It is morally corrupt. And I don't see either faculty or administrators doing much to change it. And no wonder. They are totally dependent on these indentured servants for their 2% lifestyle. (And to hear the 2% bemoan the 1% their wealth? That's a pretty rich bitch to hear isn't it?)

You want to throw 70 billion at that? Not me. How much of that pie do you think the adjuncts will see? Perhaps someone should ask Mr. Sanders.

But beyond all that, INPHX is probably right in his snark. Our colleges and junior colleges do cost too much. How is it that tuition continues to rise despite the advent of the internet?

I mean really, shouldn't the internet do for education what the assembly line did for the automobile?

Koreyel good post. I mostly failed miserably in school, except the one room school house i attended in Iowa at a very young age. That school was mostly about redin and ritmatic and playing Anne Anne Over and Doctor in the horse barn at recess. Most everything I have learned and still do is from reading and more reading on my own.
So thanks for folks like you and the ever singing political poet, Soleri.
And thank you Jon for being here and letting me post my insanity.

The clintons have spent their lives always seeking...........money.

She is a smart, dishonest lawyer.

They are always learning new ways to skirt and circumvent the the rules and laws that apply to all the rest of us.

She would sell her grandchild for more money and power.

Admire her? You are delusional beyond all reason.

But Ruben that sounds like the perfect profile for a leader of the world's most corrupt country.

Phoenixsunfan and Ruben. I left u an Opatas message on the Rebranding piece.

The last time a Republican hijacked the Party's nomination process was in 1964. Lots of establishment Republicans warned that Barry Goldwater would get get crushed, and he did. He only got the very deepest, segregationist south, and Arizona, which he barely won. Trump is scary not because he's so much crazier than Goldwater (he is) but because the deep south seems to have expanded since 1964, and he has a much larger base of morons and suckers to work with than Goldwater did.
It turned out Goldwater's fan club was more loud than large, but who knows anymore? The internet and cable media may distort our perceptions, but it seems to be shaping them as well.

I'm out of any Hillary conversations. She brings out the worst in me. I'd spend the next year insulting soleri then apologizing afterwords. Will check in on the non Hillary conversations.

From Paul Krugman's blog:

Frank Bruni marvels at polls indicating that Donald Trump, with his multiple marriages and casinos, is the preferred candidate among Republican evangelicals. Others are shocked to see a crude mercantilist make so much headway in the alleged party of free markets. What happened to conservative principles?

Actually, nothing — because those alleged principles were never real. Conservative religiosity, conservative faith in markets, were never about living a godly life or letting the invisible hand promote entrepreneurship. Instead, it was all as Corey Robin describes it: Conservatism is

a reactionary movement, a defense of power and privilege against democratic challenges from below, particularly in the private spheres of the family and the workplace.

It’s really about who’s boss, and making sure that the man in charge stays boss. Trump is admired for putting women and workers in their place, and it doesn’t matter if he covets his neighbor’s wife or demands trade wars.

The point is that Trump isn’t a diversion, he’s a revelation, bringing the real motivations of the movement out into the open.

Krugman fillets the conservative soul better than anyone, so it's a useful antidote to the kind of hysteria the left unconsciously adopts with its own quasi-religious impulses. Purism is its expression, which disdains the real world of money, power, and incrementalism.

The real world, of course, is frustratingly complex. The right hopes to boil away this unwelcome fact with the tribalism of its hidebound privileges (skin color, gender, culture, and social capital). The left, by the same token, wants to simply wave it all away in a sweet dream of consciousness raising.

Hillary hatred is based on these two dovetailing impulses.

We who are adults have to keep faith with a process that is under attack from all sides. I know this is not popular. I know it seems uncool. But there is no other way forward except this way. All else is nihilism in pursuit of an illusion.


Soleri's critique of Hillary as a Presidential candidate plays right into her strengths and thus we all must wonder if it's really kind of a self fulfilling prophecy.

There's thousands of brilliant, curious, policy wonks. Those are criteria for advisors and folks about 3 or 4 tiers removed from real leadership positions.

But for President? Well, no.

I would favor characteristics like "successful examples of leadership" "the ability to unite" and "successful endeavors" and "independence".

As an example, I'd vote for Michael Bloomberg for anything. Tomorrow. Or Mitch Daniels.

The other issue with post Bill Presidential Hillary, is that, much like failed Presidential candidate Al Gore, money has trumped power.

If you want another reason that Hillary is a nitwit, just examine her proposal to require longer term holding periods for preferential capital gain treatment. This shows an approach so typical of liberals without real business experience. To wit:

1. There is no long term. Things move way too fast today. Technology, international competition, commodity prices, international instability, market volatility, domestic competition, screwy regulations, speed, speed, speed. Look what commodity prices have done over the 12 months.

2. In the mid 80's or so, we were all deluged with how the Japanese thought long term. And that turned out just swell for them.


Public university pricing in this country is a perfect model of how not to price a good or service. Property tax exemptions, tax free grants and scholarships, federal, state and county funding, academic scholarships, loans, athletic scholarships, need based aid, textbook lunacy, these all work as covers to hide the fundamental problem and that is that the costs inside the universities are outrageous.

Imagine walking into a Verizon store and trying to buy a cell phone with all that nonsense.

And yes, the insiders will use all of the above and more to avoid any reality based pricing in order to expand their power and influence.

A few words on Trump:

He would be a terrible President.

Why has he struck a chord with so many?

Because they're sick of it. Because Congressional and Presidential approval rating are dismal. Because people are sick and tired of problems that don't get solved, and everyone blames everyone else.

Because he's the ultimate Dirty Harry. He's the ultimate non PC Rambo. Because he's the ultimate outsider- a stark contrast with Hillary or Jeb.


Mitch who?

Nothing quite says leadership like a colorless drone who was once somebody's budget director.

Michael Bloomberg, on the other hand, is well known, and probably a favorite of the Very Serious Person class inside the beltway. He's a plutocrat, of course, and something of a wonk, as well. But if you're going to play the game at the national level, you probably should have more to say to ordinary people and less to hedge-fund managers and developers of 100-story condo towers in New York City. The presidency is not just about keeping a world financial capital spitshined. It's about doing lots of little things in the margins that reward supporters and punish enemies. It's about keeping a functional coalition happy with a sense that they matter and are being listened to. Exactly how many people would fit inside Bloomberg's coalition? Christian evangelicals? No. Gun owners? No. Racist assholes? No.

The irony is that I would probably come closer to voting for Bloomberg that the average base Republican. Which is exactly why he has zero chance of even running for the GOP nomination. As an independent, he would probably peel off enough high rollers who are socially liberal to ensure a Democratic victory.

Bloomberg, in other words, is a thinking person's Donald Trump. Unfortunately, he needs a majority.

The Clintons, btw, are fairly chummy with him. Davos, Aspen, Hilton Head, you name it: the rich like each other's company. But he's not a national politician. Hillary is. And barring a global economic recession next year, she's the likely winner.


In stark contrast to Hillarycare's failure, Mitch Daniels (as Governor of Indiana) got pretty slick health care for the citizens of Indiana:

From wikipedia:

Healthy Indiana Plan[edit]
In 2007, Daniels signed the Healthy Indiana Plan, which provided 132,000 uninsured Indiana workers with coverage. The program works by helping its beneficiaries purchase a private health insurance policy with a subsidy from the state. The plan promotes health screenings, early prevention services, and smoking cessation. It also provides tax credits for small businesses that create qualified wellness and Section 125 plans. The plan was paid for by an increase in the state’s tax on cigarettes and the reallocation of federal medicaid funds through a special wavier granted by the federal government. In a September 15, 2007 Wall Street Journal column, Daniels was quoted as saying about the Healthy Indiana Plan and cigarette tax increase saying, “A consumption tax on a product you'd just as soon have less of doesn't violate the rules I learned under Ronald Reagan."[47]

The plan allows low to moderate income households where the members have no access to employer provided healthcare to apply for coverage. The fee for coverage is calculated using a formula that results in a charge between 2%–5% of a person's income. A $1,100 annual deductible is standard on all policies and allows applicants to qualify for a health savings account. The plan pays a maximum of $300,000 in annual benefits.[48]

So. On successfully procuring healthcare for the poor, it's Daniels 1, Hillary zip.

See? Results. Success.

Daniels and Bloomberg have also had success in the private sector, but I recognize that that's kryptonite to progressives, so I understand your problem with that.

Neither's spouse has anything to do with their success, so there's another criteria I guess we disagree about.

Look. Back in 2008, money and not being a Republican gave us Obama, a guy with no meaningful track record of doing anything that would indicate that he could succeed in the toughest job in the world. And well, we've had, well, 7 years of him proving that.

And it seems you're ready to just repeat that criteria in 2016.

What's the saying about insanity? Doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result?

Inphx given the absolute hatred of Obama and legislators willing to destroy America from letting that Black/White man, muslim/ commie and a lawyer destroying the constitution, I think he accomplished a heroic amount. A dangerous thought: What would he have got done had he had some intelligent and logical support instead of being braced up everyday by a lynching crowd of extremely bigoted and jihadidts Christian religious nuts.

I do agree that he was Ill prepared to take the job but he
still stands high above Bush Jr in accomplishments. Will be interesting to see how history treats Obama. I suspect
he will be the moralistic, doer of good deeds, black version of the honorable Jimmy Carter. But then maybe he will move to Kenya and take up Mohammedism?

Ah, Mitch. Glad to see that there is an alternative health coverage in play. Note federal subsidization. Just sayin.'
Wonder whether his record has been quite as groovy when he was governor on mandatory minimum sentences, etc for simple drug possession.
Soleri, here's a tip for the expert in 'grown-up politics in the real world'- try not to call potential allies narcissists. Try very hard to think why someone might support Sanders beyond thinking that politics is all about themselves. Please try. It might involve holding two seeming contradictory thoughts at once, I know. But you prove over and over again that you have the big brain for it. Another tip- such lightning attributions suggest something called "projection." You could look it up.
End of snark. You are such a strong observer and writer- the tendency to ragefully name-call doesn't just turn some readers off, or distract them from your point, it creates fissures in your narrative.


From the darkness, a speck of light:


From my conversation with az community college students, it's gotten to the point that the students have organized themselves to provide services to one another (study assistance, de-stress events, new student orientation) because of the inability of the college admins to meet demands of students.

In my new department (community college humanities), more than half the adjuncts aren't qualified to meet the new education requirements to teach in MCCCD.

I've been encouraged not to acknowledge student disabilities unless they're school approved but students tell me they get the run around from Student Disability Services because it costs additional resources to accommodate those students.

I was told adjuncts aren't encouraged to hold office hours lest the district would have to pay us for that time. They can't pay to make professors available for office hours!

AZ has an education crisis. I'd go as far as saying it's the most important issue of the decade here.

The education students get probably isn't worth what they pay for it. The blame for that lies with university employees, but the economic policies of our elected officials are more at fault. The decline of public support for higher ed affects education much more than the actual way education is administered at these schools.

And unless that is acknowledged... that budget cuts were impliemented without a strategy to keep services in place, why would I ever listen to a conservative on higher ed? I mean, MCCCD doesn't even get state funding--how is tuition too high? Unless county taxes replace state, where will the money come from?

Please don't give me some corporate bullshit too about how we need badges or short term training programs etc. Those don't teach critical thinking or writing and anyone in a management position (or in a creative industry) needs both-which is why college education is important in so many of those fields.

And education is a craft, an art, not an industrial process. The internet accentuates the skills teachers bring to the classroom, but education requires a community that is difficult to replicate digitally. Try to inspire some kid to think about the role the state in American History over a keyboard. Come on, now...

tl;dr- higher ed is not cost effective because of all the market distortions in the market but has noticeably deteriorated since the recession as support systems previously in place can no longer be provided. It's disingenuous to discuss the former and not the latter.

Good god, reality based pricing. What is the price of an educated population? I'd bet that some of the benefits may not be monetizable but will be noticeable once no longer available.

Speaking of specks of light and Mitch Daniels:

Tuition freezes and cost reductions[edit]

The total cost of attending Purdue has fallen since Daniels assumed Purdue’s presidency, despite a trend at Big Ten institutions of rising costs. Total loan debt among the student body has also fallen 18% or $40 million.[116] Tuition at Purdue, prior to Daniels’ arrival had increased every year since 1976.[117] Two months after Daniels assumed his role as president, Purdue announced it would freeze tuition for two years, later extending the freeze for a third year. Because of the consecutive freezes, four-year graduates from the class of 2016 will become the first in at least 40 years to leave Purdue having never experienced a tuition increase.[118]

Daniels committed to freezing tuition before the state had determined Purdue's funding for the next biennium. Amidst questions about the timing, Daniels argued that he didn't need to wait because "it doesn't matter what the General Assembly does. This is the right thing to do and we are going to do it...the same way families do; the same way some governments do and all businesses do. We are going to adjust our spending to what we believe is the available and in this case the fair amount of revenue. I know often with good reason there has been an opportunity in higher education to adjust tuition to match what the place wanted to spend, and I just think we've reached the point where we ought to break that pattern."[119] The first tuition freeze required the university to find $40 million in savings or new revenue. In order to make up for the lost revenue from the tuition freeze, the Purdue Board of Trustees reduced the budgets of the Calumet and Fort Wayne satellite campuses, among other cuts.[120] Thanks in part to increased state funding, the university was able to still allocate an estimated $25 million to expand the school's engineering department.[121]

Daniels also reduced meal plan rates by 10 percent and cut the university's cooperative education fees which had increased every year prior on record. The meal cost reduction and fee cut affected 10,000 students and saved them and their families $3.5 million.[122] In fall 2014, Daniels announced a deal with Amazon to save students on textbooks and provide students, faculty and staff with free one day shipping to locations on campus.[123]

In recognition of his work to bring affordability to Purdue students and thereby influence some measure of transformation in the higher education landscape, Daniels was named among the Top 50 World Leaders by Fortune Magazine in March 2015.[124]

When Daniels was hired by Purdue he requested that is salary be less than his predecessors maximum salary and that 30 percent of his take home be based on the results of biannual performance reviews. Daniel’s base salary of $420,000 is $135,000 less than the prior president’s salary. Under the contract, his salary can grow to a maximum of $546,000 based on the results of a performance-bonus system—still less than his predecessor and the 3rd lowest in the 12-member Big Ten.[127] In November 2014, Daniels earned 88 percent of his at risk pay, receiving the grade of a B+ from the Trustees.[128]

What a guy......

PS-Soleri Hillary is... cool. But seriously, neoliberalism sucks. And she and bill helped usher it all in. Remember who ended welfare as we know it? And helped unleash the mortgage industry? And encouraged the growth of the carceral state? I don't know if it's a legit political compromise to support politicians who support policies which are detrimental for your well-being just because... the alternative? I have a feeling Clinton will have to work harder for the votes of the Obama coalition than that-especially since so many of them are acutely aware of the history behind the policies which have hurt the middle-class and disproportionately hurt racial minorities. Why would you expect people to participate in their own oppression as a form of compromise?

Cal/Ruben, left a reply in "Rebranding Arizona".

A few thoughts on higher education from one of Koreyel's 2%.
1. I had my own small business for 15 years and for over 25 years what I did for a living was help small business owners bring technology into their businesses, specifically automating their accounting systems. I think I understand business, thank you very much.
2. We hate having to hire adjuncts instead of full time faculty. Many of my personal friends are adjuncts for my department (business) and I would love to hire the ones that would like a full time gig (the retired professionals don't) full time. We BEG for full time faculty lines, and don't get them. Aside from the unfairness of the benefits (it isn't so much the perclass pay amount, at least at NAU, as it is the lack of benefits that sucks), my problem is that faculty oversees adjunct faculty, not administrators. So, along with my teaching load and my other sizable administrative duties, I need to watch over a heard of adjuncts. 90 % of them are awesome, but the 10% who mess up do so in spectacular, technicolor ways, and yours truly gets to ride in and try to put the pieces back together while trying to make sure that other classes don't fall apart. I love teaching, it is the reason I walked the "Trail of Tears" that is the Ph.D. educational experience in conjunction with working full time. I know just how blessed I am to have landed a full time job with benefits in my vocation, but if you think I am skating I suggest you come shadow me for a few days. I made twice as much and worked half as hard when I was in business.

Colleen, I must have Mapstone use your "trail of tears" quip in the next novel.

People need to bear in mind that savage cuts made to Arizona universities starting in the late 1980s, were never restored.

On top of that, the Legislature has massively cut back the funding for higher ed from the general fund.

So it's no surprise that tuition has gone up. The same dynamic has been in place in supposedly "blue" Washington state.

Jon and Colleen for me this is a no brainer. Look at who this hurts and who it dosent and then ask Who is in Charge of the legislature. Gotta make sure we keep the riff raff out and make sure them boys on bikes wearing helmets, white shirts and black pants get the RIGHT WHITE stuff. And why are all those little LDS buildings thete for after regular classes next to the public schools. Maybe we will get back to when teachers were school "Marms". Dedication with little pay and no benefits

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.


Post a comment

Your Information

(Name is required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)

My Photo

Your email address:

Powered by FeedBlitz