tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post7583312290230976823..comments2023-10-16T07:13:12.123-05:00Comments on A plain blog about politics: Why Republicans Go After Unions and ACORN FirstJonathan Bernsteinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15931039630306253241noreply@blogger.comBlogger11125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-63311526795127612992011-03-23T09:48:57.043-05:002011-03-23T09:48:57.043-05:00...and I found and rescued the earlier comment. So......and I found and rescued the earlier comment. Sorry, the blogger spam filter is pretty cranky these days, and needs a lot of positive-action tending that, alas, I often forget to do.Jonathan Bernsteinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15931039630306253241noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-79293647387316734842011-03-23T09:44:12.942-05:002011-03-23T09:44:12.942-05:00Jonathan, my other comment got eaten, but it basic...Jonathan, my other comment got eaten, but it basically said that you got me to research and agree that the Democrats don't seek to increase the number of public employees. (Contractors, who knows?) So their only chance at a power grab would be to increase the number of beneficiaries of programs and hope those people actually remember which party voted for what.Noumenonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01597461989960782762noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-49914688121758182532011-03-20T06:49:40.379-05:002011-03-20T06:49:40.379-05:00If that was the case, Democrats would focus on exp...<i>If that was the case, Democrats would focus on expanding the number of public employees...but they don't really do that, either.</i><br /><br />I took this to my dad for argument and he brought up the Department of Energy, which is too small to count, and the mythical 16,500 IRS agents. But, while I did more research to try to understand why <a href="http://www.opm.gov/feddata/HistoricalTables/TotalGovernmentSince1962.asp" rel="nofollow">total government employment</a> wasn't growing, I happened upon some additional categories:<br /><br /><i>By 2005, the federal government employed 14.6 million people: 1.9 million civil servants, 770,000 postal workers, 1.44 million uniformed service personnel, 7.6 million contractors, and 2.9 million grantees. This amounted to a ratio of five and a half "shadow" government employees for every civil servant on the federal payroll. <a href="http://danieljmitchell.wordpress.com/2011/02/05/the-federal-bureaucracy-even-more-bloated-when-you-count-the-shadow-workforce/" rel="nofollow">link</a></i><br /><br />Is it possible the Democrats are growing the postal workers, contractors, and grantees instead of official government workers? (Not sure if grantees should count as employees anyway.) <br /><br />I can't think of why that would be, so I'm going to say you've won at least half this argument: Democrats may want to increase the number of government beneficiaries, but they don't want to increase the size of government. I did not know that.Noumenonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01597461989960782762noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-46672921233682009552011-03-17T09:42:12.132-05:002011-03-17T09:42:12.132-05:00I'm with Noumenon, though I don't think it...I'm with Noumenon, though I don't think it is mainly about public employees, but rather policy beneficiaries. <br /><br />Democrats tend to believe that policy substance will improve people's lives, which in turn will tend to get their votes. Republicans take a zero sum (or even negative sum) view of government initiatives, so in their view the Dems are simply bribing favored groups. <br /><br />(Which is also why tea party types foam at the mouth over 'earmarks,' while GOP pols are as happy to grab pork for their districts as anyone. Better me than thee.)<br /><br />Didn't a prominent New Dealer say "tax, tax, spend, spend, elect, elect?" And didn't Bill Kristol warn Republicans, in 1994, that HillaryCare, if enacted, would prove enormously popular and be impossible to get rid of?<br /><br />Perhaps in the current era of 'keep the government's hands off my Medicare' this relationship has broken down in real life. But I think it still affects how pols and activists of both parties look at things.Rickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16932015378213238346noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-37345979929339979992011-03-17T08:15:29.292-05:002011-03-17T08:15:29.292-05:00Noumenon,
If that was the case, Democrats would f...Noumenon,<br /><br />If that was the case, Democrats would focus on expanding the number of public employees...but they don't really do that, either.Jonathan Bernsteinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15931039630306253241noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-29129095785333844742011-03-17T04:32:10.506-05:002011-03-17T04:32:10.506-05:00I think it's just a case of the Democrats seek...I think it's just a case of the Democrats seeking superiority by other means. When my conservative father talks about a liberal "power grab," he doesn't mean they're attacking conservative interest groups. What he's talking about is the government expanding in size. A new entitlement program creates supporters for Democrats. A new branch of government creates public employees who are supporters of Democrats. Drum sees expanding government as "substance," but it also structurally makes it harder for conservatives to win things. <br /><br />This all kind of depends on assuming that Democrats are the party of government instead of both parties using more government when they can, but I think that's kind of close to reality.Noumenonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01597461989960782762noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-46192841466701920562011-03-17T00:00:47.747-05:002011-03-17T00:00:47.747-05:00One could interpret it as another (indirect) step ...One could interpret it as another (indirect) step towards the entrenchment of the corporatization of modern politics. <br /><br />Because, these action if successful, while unlikely to guaranty any sort of permanent majority for the republicans, will force the democrats to rely more on corporate funding and less on union funding. This, in turn, will move the democrats more towards many of the pro-business views the republicans support, therefore indirectly pushing pro-corporate policy. <br /><br />I'm not saying its a conscious policy, but it does follow the trend of the last thirty years.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-33219179638949342992011-03-16T20:00:25.899-05:002011-03-16T20:00:25.899-05:00Stephen,
I don't think so. They agree with Dr...Stephen,<br /><br />I don't think so. They agree with Drum about what Republicans get out of it, but that doesn't explain why Republicans begin with that stuff while Dems begin with substance.Jonathan Bernsteinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15931039630306253241noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-16536105212978100082011-03-16T16:16:34.259-05:002011-03-16T16:16:34.259-05:00doesn't his answer the question?
http://www.w...doesn't his answer the question?<br /><br />http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/03/04/AR2011030402416.html<br /><br />op-ed in WaPo<br />By Jacob S. Hacker and Paul Pierson<br />Sunday, March 6, 201121lawhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05482500763202453812noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-86906404561686094352011-03-16T16:11:18.362-05:002011-03-16T16:11:18.362-05:00A long time ago Illinois Republicans sought to eli...A long time ago Illinois Republicans sought to eliminate financial support from property tax lawyers to the most powerful ILL politicians by this legal change. It really didn't work. <br />........House Bill 1465 abolishes the Board of Tax Appeals in Cook County and replaces it with a Board of Review, effective January 1, 1996, and provides that taxes, assessments and levies shall be presumed to be correct but that the presumption is rebuttable. House Bill 1465 can be referenced as Public Act 89-126.21lawhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05482500763202453812noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-91187377969092564392011-03-16T15:08:35.151-05:002011-03-16T15:08:35.151-05:00I think one of your own "Iron Laws of Politic...I think one of your own "Iron Laws of Politics," one with which I strongly agree, also helps explain it... As you put it, that everyone on one ideological side always believes the other side is better at the mechanics of politics. If you're a conservative, then you consider unions and ACORN as tools of the vast liberal apparatus, and "identity politics" as a whole as the exclusive province of liberalism. So it's only understandable that you see going after those vessels as a way of "leveling the playing field," especially since it's so easy to mobilize support when you do it.Thomasnoreply@blogger.com