Reconsidering the "Lazy progressive voter" crutch

Noah Horwitz over at Texpatriate has been beating the drum recently about how Democratic voters need to turn out in midterm elections.

That's a perfectly legitimate stance -- fall off in Democratic turnout helps dooms progressives in mid-term elections.

But where we part ways (at least partially) is their description of "lazy" voters.

Turnout is a two way phenomenon -- people have to get up and vote. They have to be interested and be invested. This is true.

However, we need to remember the other side of turnout are the costs of voting. Registration takes time. You can't take off work. You can't get child care. There's a line out the door at your polling place. You have to get the proper IDs -- which entail more standing in line and more missing work you can't afford to miss.

And the major thing that limits the cost of voting in mobilization -- and how good were progressive mobilization efforts in a place like Texas in 2010 (in a few places, quite good, in most others, not so much)?

So when we talk about "lazy voters" we need to remember the institutional hurdles we throw up to participation in this country and in this state -- both in the formal election process and in the underlying economic environment.

Breaking those chains needs to be huge part of  progressive politics over the next decade (and every decade)

Voter guides and voting info, Texas-style

So who's on Row A?

We've got a lot of low-intensity, yet rather important local elections and state-wide amendments on the ballot.  To help disentangle the issues, here's a list of voting guides.

The folks at Burnt Orange Report check in with their votes on proposed constitutional amendments here.

Progress Texas has their own (slightly different) recommendations here

(Note, all these places giving endorsements come from a general left stance, which mirrors many of this blog's views)

For interviews with literally every (and not in the Joe Biden sense) candidate for local Houston or Harris County office, check out Charles Kuffner's site. Kuff has been doing great work on local politics for years and he also has coverage of important local bond issues like the prison bond and the Astrodome project, as well as local issues like Pasadena's proposed redistricting.

Also, here's a handy guide for what you'll need to vote in this state.

Please vote, and vote in an educated way on Tuesday.

Coming FRA rule changes will boost passenger rail, cut costs, maintain safety

Little bureaucratic rule changes can sometimes make a big difference. And a pending rule change at the Federal Railroad Administration, which oversees safety on America's railways, will drastically cut costs, improve reliability, and maintain or increase safety standards.

The FRA has traditionally focused on safety in terms of "collision survival" while its European and Japanese counterparts have evolved to think of it as "collision avoidance." As a result, other countries have invested heavily in Positive Train Control systems, which track train location and speed and automatically stop trains to avoid collisions. In contrast, the U.S. has stayed with a traditional safety style of armoring its trains to protect occupants in a collision.

Despite several high-profile crashes, European passenger rail systems have a sterling safety record  Many U.S. rail corridors are investing in PTC technology to meet an FRA deadline of 2015 to install it on all Class I railroad mainlines. The mandate may be delayed, but the Northeast corridor and major Amtrak routes are making progress on the mandate (notably in Michigan and Illinois)

But for now, this difference in regulations also means that it's illegal for standard European and Japanese train designs to run on U.S. tracks, which are considerably ahead of their U.S counterparts technologically. (They invested in passenger rail between 1950 and 2000, while we abandoned it in favor of highways and air travel.)

As a result, we need to special-order train sets that cost more. The transit expert Alon Levy has estimated  that the incoming Amtrak City Sprinter locomotive costs 35 percent more than the established European design that it's based on -- which works out to around $70-150 million for the order. (That's enough money to make significant improvements on a moderately traveled medium-distance Amtrak train route)

Worse yet, the heavier trains consume more fuel and often cost more to maintain due to the increased wear and tear the extra weight places on things like braking systems (which also degrades safety).

The pending FRA rule change will greatly ease many of the obsolete standards to allow modern European designs onto U.S railways, which will ease the issues of cost and poor performance that plague intercity AMTRAK equipment and American commuter rail systems.

The rule improvement is important, but it isn't isolated -- It's part of a slow and steady change that's been coming over the American passenger rail system for the last decade or so.

For example, despite its problems caused in part existing weight rules, the AMTRAK Sprinter order (which will serve on standard-speed NE corridor and the eastern Pennsylvania Keystone service) actually is an improvement over past practices. First, the order is large enough that it will spread the costs over a reasonably number of units (70) instead of past orders, which relied on as few as 16 units. Second, it standardizes the locomotives in use for the NE Regional Service, currently operates three different locomotives. which should ease training costs, and lower maintenance form the current investments necessary to maintain the three locomotives currently used in the service. And finally, the Sprinter does represent a number of improvements in performance and efficiency from its predecessors.

So two cheers for the bureaucrats who finally look like they are getting this one rule right. I'll take any piece of good news on public policy these days. And here's hoping that the changing culture at the FRA can keep looking forward to ease the expansion of rail travel in the United States (which is up 50 percent on Amtrak since 2001.)

Now, if only we could get some follow-on investment from the feds in rail capital improvements, and fewer governors like Scott Walker, John Kasich and Rick Scott.

H/T to  Atrios and Robert Cruickshank

Texas needs an income tax

So Republican candidate for Governor Greg Abbott recently accused Democratic candidate Wendy Davis of wanting to raise Texans' taxes by $35 billion.

Ho hum.

Politifact then suggested that Abbott was full of it.

What else is new?

What Davis suggested that she wanted to do was put together a board of state officials to examine exemptions from current state taxes to see if they were still warranted, most notably the gas tax and the sales tax.  She said she she didn't want to raise current tax rates, but wanted to especially examine the $36 billion in sales tax exemptions.

This is good policy, and I'm supportive of the review (particularly of a several odd-looking exemptions, like those surrounding aircraft....)

But when it comes to taxes, I (as a naive carpetbagging Yankee) would like to see Texas adopt a personal income tax; it's currently one of nine states without one. That might be political suicide for Davis right now, so I don't blame her for not bringing it up. Over the long-term, however implementing an income tax will diversify and stabilize state revenues while redistributing the tax burden to the upper class and away from more vulnerable state residents.

Take the jump for more details.....

Millett and Watt confirmations imminent?

I just checked up on the Senate Executive Nominations Calendar, and the following two names appear on the first page:

UNANIMOUS CONSENT AGREEMENTS 

Melvin L. Watt (Cal. No. 209)

Ordered, That with respect to the vote on the motion to invoke cloture on the nomination of Melvin L. Watt, of North Carolina, to be Director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency for a term of five years, the mandatory quorum required under Rule XXII be waived.

(October 28, 2013.)

Patricia Ann Millett (Cal. No. 327)

Ordered, That with respect to the vote on the motion to invoke cloture on the nomination of Patricia Ann Millett, of Virginia, to be United States Circuit Judge for the District of Columbia Circuit, the mandatory quorum required under Rule XXII be waived.

(October 28, 2013)

(Rule XXII is what gives the minority its filibuster power) 

Both Watt and Millett have been the subject of attacks from Republicans who want to block a more active Federal Housing Agency (which has been without a permanent head for years) and keep the President from placing any more nominees on the D.C Circuit Court. 

The DC Circuit is considered the second-most important court in the country, because it has jurisdiction over all federal agencies and its Conservative appointees have slowed or blocked the ability of federal agencies to protect worker rights, increase oversight on banks and other financial institutions, and protect the environment.

Millett is probably the least controversial of the three appointees for the D.C. Circuit Court, while Nina Pollard is the most controversial (she is known for her strong feminist views and record on Civil Rights; apparently believing in gender equality and civil rights is controversial nowadays)

I wonder if a deal has gone down trading Millett, Watt, Obama's other D.C. Circuit nominee Robert Wilkens, and Tom Wheeler as FCC chair in exchange for Pollard withdrawing her candidacy. I'd hate to lose Pollard's candidacy, but if Obama gets to name another appointee of his choice, it's win-win-win for the Democrats. 

I'm also wondering if Harry Reid has 51 votes to end the filibuster, at least for certain types of judicial nominees. That would explain the GOP's sudden move to surrender on two nominees that they hate a lot.

Either way, if this is true, it is good news for sane public policy.

(Note: please feel free to tell me if I'm misreading the Sen. Executive calendar -- it's entirely possible, though I tried to do my homework here.)  

(UPDATE:  10/31: And Watt just got filibustered. Looks like I was wrong. Nuts.)

Thoughts on Planned Parenthood vs. Abbott

Scott Lemieux has good take on Planned Parenthood vs. Abbott, the case that overturned several of the most controversial provisions of Texas' recent law design to limit access to abortion last summer.

Currently the controlling standard governing states' ability to enact statutes regulating access to abortion is Planned Parenthood vs Casey, which holds that states  can regulate abortion so long as it doesn't provide an "unreasonable burden."

Since Sam Alito and John Roberts joined the court, however, rulings haven't overturned Casey or Roe vs. Wade, but generally have reduced it to a shell by finding that many individual regulations -- notably a ban on so-called "partial birth" abortion don't produce a meaningful burden.

With the wave of state legislation in Kansas, Mississippi, Texas, South Dakota and other states seeking to regulate abortion clinics out of business, we're going to find out if Casey actually means anything. 

What's notable in the Texas case, as Lemieux points out, is that district judge Lee Yeakal's ruling would actually "put some teeth" back in Casey by suggesting that there is no rational basis to require certain "safety" regulations on abortion providers, most notably the requirement that doctors have admitting privileges at a local hospital.

This case is mostly a win  for reproductive rights advocates, but it did uphold a part of the law requiring doctors to adhere to (arguably outdated) FDA protocols for administering abortion-inducing drugs (though it narrowed the requirement considerably).

The ruling doesn't end things, as Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott has already appealed. The next venue, the Fifth Circuit Court of appeals is notoriously conservative and has overturned several district rulings protecting abortion access in the past. (Here's hoping that this winner isn't on the panel that hears the case)

This case, along with others, is probably going to end up at the Supreme Court, where the fate of Roe vs. Wade may hang on what Anthony Kennedy ate for breakfast on the morning of oral arguments.

Ben Hall comes out against LGBT rights

This is not cool. Via Kuffner

I was already leaning one way in this mayoral election. Mr Hall's actions just confirmed that choice.