This is readily apparent when you look at this graphic of the United States that shows the state legislatures that are controlled by Republicans or Democrats such that they have veto-proof majorities. Note that in 2009 that only 13 states had veto-proof majorities (note: the chart heading below states that 13 states had supermajorities but 14 states are shown in the chart. I do not think that Illinois had a Democrat supermajority in 2009.) 9 were controlled by Democrats and only 4 by Republicans. As we look to 2013, 9 are now controlled by Democrats but Republicans now have veto-proof majorities in 16 states (the chart below shows only 15 but I believe North Carolina also now has a supermajority in both legislative branches).
This could lead to some very divergent policy trends between the red and blue states according to this AP story by David A Lieb which is the source for the graphic above.
If the parties make full use of their enlarged majorities, residents of similar-sized cities in different parts of the country could soon experience a virtual continental divide in their way of life.It will be particularly interesting to see what happens in the states of California and Illinois since the Democrats now completely "own it" when it comes to the horrendous fiscal condition they are both in. Where do they go from here? How much will they tax? Will they cut any spending at all? It should prove interesting.
In one state, businesses could pay little to no taxes, the result of policies intended to spur hiring. Public schools might function at a basics-only level, with parents free to use public money to send their children to private schools. Only the poorest of the poor adults could expect medical care from the government.
In another state, residents would pay higher taxes, and the government would inject billions of dollars into public education with the goal of creating a highly skilled workforce to attract businesses. A social safety net would exist for the poor, including working adults not even considered to be in poverty.
States already have different approaches to taxes, the economy and care for the poor, but they have been tempered by compromise. Now the middle ground may begin to disappear in favor of stark extremes.
Supermajorities can allow lawmakers to override governors' vetoes, change tax rates, put constitutional amendments on the ballot, rewrite legislative rules and establish a quorum for business — all without any participation by the opposing party
In one state, businesses could pay little to no taxes, the result of policies intended to spur hiring. Public schools might function at a basics-only level, with parents free to use public money to send their children to private schools. Only the poorest of the poor adults could expect medical care from the government.
In another state, residents would pay higher taxes, and the government would inject billions of dollars into public education with the goal of creating a highly skilled workforce to attract businesses. A social safety net would exist for the poor, including working adults not even considered to be in poverty.
States already have different approaches to taxes, the economy and care for the poor, but they have been tempered by compromise. Now the middle ground may begin to disappear in favor of stark extremes.
Supermajorities can allow lawmakers to override governors' vetoes, change tax rates, put constitutional amendments on the ballot, rewrite legislative rules and establish a quorum for business — all without any participation by the opposing party.
Michael Barone adds it all up and finds that the Democrats had 53% of state senators and 56% of state representatives nationally in 2009. They now have only 46% of state senators and 48% of state lower house seats. Barack Obama has been disastorous for the Democrat party at the grass roots state levels.
Although the Republicans lost a net two U.S Senate seats and a few U.S. House seats between 2010 and 2012, the change from 2009 to 2013 is also pretty dramatic. Republicans have picked up 54 seats in the House and 3 seats in the Senate since Obama took office. Barone provides some interesting details on the changes in the composition of the House between the 2008 and 2012 elections.
Democrats have won or are currently leading in 201 seats in the House. (All these numbers could change slightly in final counts).
Between 2008 and 2012, they gained seats in only three states: Delaware, where a popular Republican ran for the Senate in 2010; Maryland, thanks to Democratic redistricting; and California, where a supposedly nonpartisan redistricting commission was dominated by Democrats.
The reapportionment process following the 2010 census cost Democrats some seats because their strong states had relatively little population growth. They have five fewer seats in New York, for example.
The reapportionment effect was strengthened because the 2010 backlash against Democrats gave Republicans control of redistricting in Michigan, Ohio and Pennsylvania, all of which lost seats, and North Carolina, which stayed the same.
As a result, in the 113th Congress, as compared with the 111th, there will be three fewer Democrats from Michigan, six fewer from Ohio, seven fewer from Pennsylvania and four fewer from North Carolina.
Democratic losses were greatest in the South, which gained seven seats from reapportionment. There will be 22 fewer Southern Democrats and 29 more Southern Republicans in the House next year than there were in 2009.
Another way to look at it: 123 of 201 House Democrats will be from the Northeast, the West Coast, Hawaii and Illinois. Only 23 are from the Midwest outside Illinois, and only 42 are from the South.
In light of all this, how can it be that Barack Obama could be re-elected? As I wrote previously, Barack Obama is more symbolism than substance. Take his policies and his record over the last four years and put them on another candidate and the Democrats would not have won the Presidency in 2012.
The politics don't mean much now. It is time to find out how Barack Obama will really lead. We are 6 weeks away from the fiscal cliff. We still don't know anything about what happened in Benghazi. Israel and Hamas are almost in a full fledged war. Where is Barack Obama? He's in Burma. Does that sound like what he was elected to be doing right now?
Count me as "not impressed" to this start on the next four years.
 |
| McKayla Maroney & President Obama are "not impressed" Olympic gymnast Maroney made this "not impressed" look famous at the London Games |
No comments:
Post a Comment