That's not a bad idea. ITTL's 111th Congress, we have so far big stimulus, healthcare reform and electoral reform. I reckon banking reform will be done too. What else is possible?
Hope, Change, and Nutmeg - A US political timeline
- Thread starter Seleucus
- Start date
That's not a bad idea. ITTL's 111th Congress, we have so far big stimulus, healthcare reform and electoral reform. I reckon banking reform will be done too. What else is possible?
Constantinople
Banned
Fascinating idea, especially with the support of much of the GOP and the democrats on board. Redistricting reform alone will be a complete game changer: even if they lose the house in a mega-sweep, they're not as utterly fucked due to the census.
Another thought: if there is a mega-Tea Party equivalent sweep in 2010 as in OTL, it seems very likely that that in TTL it won't be seen as as much of a disaster as OTL considering just how much was done in the 2009-11. It may very well be seen by everyone as just one of those things, a natural reaction against the permanent change implemented by the democratic landslide of 2008.
However I do think it's somewhat unlikely that they'll be able to get the 85+ seats needed to pull it off, and even if they do, it'll be a pretty small majority indeed...
Another thought: if there is a mega-Tea Party equivalent sweep in 2010 as in OTL, it seems very likely that that in TTL it won't be seen as as much of a disaster as OTL considering just how much was done in the 2009-11. It may very well be seen by everyone as just one of those things, a natural reaction against the permanent change implemented by the democratic landslide of 2008.
However I do think it's somewhat unlikely that they'll be able to get the 85+ seats needed to pull it off, and even if they do, it'll be a pretty small majority indeed...
4.11 - The Tanner legacy
Since people have expressed interest in redistricting reform:
Congressman John Tanner retiring from Congress!
Like many Democratic Congressmen this cycle, Blue Dog John Tanner (D-TN) has announced his retirement at the end of his term, rather than face what could be a difficult re-election in a tough climate next year. The persistently rising unemployment level and public discontent with the perceived aloofness of Congress has led to an increasingly difficult political atmosphere for House Democrats, and Tanner's seat is considered to be a top defensive target. Still, Republicans should be wary of counting their chickens before they hatch. The Grand Old Party had hoped to sweep the gubernatorial elections earlier last month, but despite high hopes and initially promising poll numbers, they fell short by wide margins in both races. [1]
Tanner's retirement will come after his eleventh term in Congress. In a public statement, he explained that “Betty Ann and I had considered retiring in 2007 at the end of the 110th Congress, were it not for the fact that our nation had the chance to elect an American as President of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly at this critical moment in the war in Afghanistan. However, we believed we owed it to our country to stay and fulfill this term of office as NATO PA President. This mandate expires in November 2010, and therefore, we have made the decision not to seek re-election to Congress.”[2]
Tanner's last term in Congress has also seen a personal triumph, as the experienced legislator managed to leave a legacy behind, with the inclusion of his Fairness and Independence in Redistricting Act in the recent electoral reform omnibus legislation. The legislation intends to end political gerrymandering by nationalizing redistricting standards.[3] Specific restrictions include the limitation of state redistricting to once per decade (a move some say is targeted at Republicans, after the infamous 2003 redistricting overseen by Tom DeLay in Texas), and the establishment of independent bipartisan redistricting commissions, with an equal number of members appointed by the two largest parties in each house of the state legislature.
The bipartisan redistricting committee provision, however, will not take effect until the 2020 census and redistricting. Although the official motive is to provide states with enough time to fully understand and implement the new legislation, many state that partisan politics prevented its immediate implementation.
According to Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-MD), the chair of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, "I could certainly live with the Tanner amendment. I think it’s got a sound argument. But an immediate implementation would have depended on everyone’s perception on how it'd impact their state, which is why it was hard to pass. Only the states where they think that their numbers will benefit would be for it." [4]
Meanwhile, Rep. Devin Nunes (R-CA), a supporter of the Tanner amendment, stated that delaying its implementation until 2020 “helped take the politics out of it and is better for the country in the long run. In the short term, it’s very hard to get a bill like this done.”[4]
[1] Both the NJ and VA governors races saw different Democratic nominees from OTL, something I've been hinting at with local political changes in both states. You can probably guess who the specific candidates are from the hinting I've been doing.
[2] OTL statement from Tanner. See e.g. The Nashville Post
[3] The article neglects to explain that the Tanner redistricting reform targets only *congressional redistricting.* State legislature redistricting is left untouched.
[4] Modified versions of OTL quotes regarding the proposal (IOTL, of course, nothing like this ended up happening.)
Congressman John Tanner retiring from Congress!
Like many Democratic Congressmen this cycle, Blue Dog John Tanner (D-TN) has announced his retirement at the end of his term, rather than face what could be a difficult re-election in a tough climate next year. The persistently rising unemployment level and public discontent with the perceived aloofness of Congress has led to an increasingly difficult political atmosphere for House Democrats, and Tanner's seat is considered to be a top defensive target. Still, Republicans should be wary of counting their chickens before they hatch. The Grand Old Party had hoped to sweep the gubernatorial elections earlier last month, but despite high hopes and initially promising poll numbers, they fell short by wide margins in both races. [1]
Tanner's retirement will come after his eleventh term in Congress. In a public statement, he explained that “Betty Ann and I had considered retiring in 2007 at the end of the 110th Congress, were it not for the fact that our nation had the chance to elect an American as President of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly at this critical moment in the war in Afghanistan. However, we believed we owed it to our country to stay and fulfill this term of office as NATO PA President. This mandate expires in November 2010, and therefore, we have made the decision not to seek re-election to Congress.”[2]
Tanner's last term in Congress has also seen a personal triumph, as the experienced legislator managed to leave a legacy behind, with the inclusion of his Fairness and Independence in Redistricting Act in the recent electoral reform omnibus legislation. The legislation intends to end political gerrymandering by nationalizing redistricting standards.[3] Specific restrictions include the limitation of state redistricting to once per decade (a move some say is targeted at Republicans, after the infamous 2003 redistricting overseen by Tom DeLay in Texas), and the establishment of independent bipartisan redistricting commissions, with an equal number of members appointed by the two largest parties in each house of the state legislature.
The bipartisan redistricting committee provision, however, will not take effect until the 2020 census and redistricting. Although the official motive is to provide states with enough time to fully understand and implement the new legislation, many state that partisan politics prevented its immediate implementation.
According to Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-MD), the chair of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, "I could certainly live with the Tanner amendment. I think it’s got a sound argument. But an immediate implementation would have depended on everyone’s perception on how it'd impact their state, which is why it was hard to pass. Only the states where they think that their numbers will benefit would be for it." [4]
Meanwhile, Rep. Devin Nunes (R-CA), a supporter of the Tanner amendment, stated that delaying its implementation until 2020 “helped take the politics out of it and is better for the country in the long run. In the short term, it’s very hard to get a bill like this done.”[4]
[1] Both the NJ and VA governors races saw different Democratic nominees from OTL, something I've been hinting at with local political changes in both states. You can probably guess who the specific candidates are from the hinting I've been doing.
[2] OTL statement from Tanner. See e.g. The Nashville Post
[3] The article neglects to explain that the Tanner redistricting reform targets only *congressional redistricting.* State legislature redistricting is left untouched.
[4] Modified versions of OTL quotes regarding the proposal (IOTL, of course, nothing like this ended up happening.)
Last edited:
Okay then! Redistricting reform! I guess if we're talking about a political environment where moderate issues appear a little bigger in the national word cloud, it makes sense!
Van Hollen's state seems to be incorrect. I thought maybe you were slipping in a butterfly there, so I went back and looked at your election table; but no, he won his OTL Maryland seat in 2008. Incidentally, Maryland is, by my understanding, one of the few states gerrymandered in favor of the Democrats.
Not that Nebraska has many districts, but how does the law affect their non-partisan, unicameral state house?
I'm bad at guessing on TTL, but it's fun anyway.
I'm guessing whichever NJ machine-favored politicians was jilted for Holt's senate seat gets the nod, but I'm not entirely sure who that is- Booker? Andrews? More importantly, it means Christie is a two-time loser now. That's gotta kill the Chrismentum. And let's hope this means the Access to the Region's Core is happening!
I *think* Warner is eligible in Virginia again; seems like a good place for him. Crazy Virginia term limits.
Van Hollen's state seems to be incorrect. I thought maybe you were slipping in a butterfly there, so I went back and looked at your election table; but no, he won his OTL Maryland seat in 2008. Incidentally, Maryland is, by my understanding, one of the few states gerrymandered in favor of the Democrats.
Not that Nebraska has many districts, but how does the law affect their non-partisan, unicameral state house?
I'm bad at guessing on TTL, but it's fun anyway.
I'm guessing whichever NJ machine-favored politicians was jilted for Holt's senate seat gets the nod, but I'm not entirely sure who that is- Booker? Andrews? More importantly, it means Christie is a two-time loser now. That's gotta kill the Chrismentum. And let's hope this means the Access to the Region's Core is happening!I *think* Warner is eligible in Virginia again; seems like a good place for him. Crazy Virginia term limits.
The voting rights reform bill has received significant bipartisan support, and numerous portions (e.g. voting ID, the 'electoral gag' law, and electoral fusion) were specifically designed to appeal to Republicans. Opposition is also bipartisan, consisting of an eclectic mix of libertarian Republicans and a few anti-establishment Democrats. The return of voting rights to felons in the legislation is pretty cautious - there's a maximum probation period of ten years. It's less partisan than you'd think given that the provision received significant support from the 'born-again' religious right (such as Charles Colson, himself a former convicted felon.)
The media coverage ban will be challenged, but my understanding is that there won't be standing to do so until someone is actually prosecuted under the law. Which means it'll have to wait until the 2010 election at the earliest. The fall-back plan in Congress is to give up on restricting exit polls, and just legislate that votes won't be counted until most of the country is done voting. Exit polls in the U.S. aren't as trusted by voters as in other countries given the well-publicized miscalls in the 2000 and 2004 presidential races.
That isn't something that I've considered, but my assumption was actually that since the national ID card would be freely provided on massive scales, there wouldn't be sufficient resources to conduct the background checks and etc. that actual passport applications generally entail.
The specific article took place after the Senate passed it; it's been signed into law by December of 2009.
That was indeed the intent on the part of congressional Democrats - to cut the legs out from beneath the problematic state-wide implementation. It's not immediately clear to me what grounds it would be challenged on, so I'd appreciate elaboration.
Mandatory no-excuse early voting of some sort is also included within the legislation. Vote-by-mail is something that's indeed been considered, but absentee voting has the pitfall of high rejection rates (~1-2% of ballots) due to people not updating signatures on file, IIRC.
There are a lot of Republican co-sponsors. No freeze-out; the 'corrupt bargain' (as Jim DeMint calls it) between Democrats and Republicans removed that.
Now if only the right-wing of the party doesn't throw a fit against him.
As the latest update shows, that's not actually the case.
Such a 'natural reaction' would however draw questions about the legitimacy of the 'permanent' change and lead to future potential repeal efforts.
It depends on if you're thinking in terms of seat pickup numbers rather than popular vote numbers. Saying that "Republicans need to pick up 90 seats" makes it sound impossible. Saying that "Republicans need to win the House popular vote by 1%" makes it sound extremely plausible. How much advantage does 1-term incumbency really grant?
Van Hollen's state was a typo in my part; apologies. Not quite sure what butterflies would get him to carpetbag all the way to California
(then again, Kucinich tried Washington.)I'll just quote from OTL's legislation:
I'm bad at guessing on TTL, but it's fun anyway.
Big hint: There is a certain very popular Democratic non-machine politician in NJ with a statewide profile who was highly speculated to run in many statewide races during this period. IOTL, he never ended up running in any statewide elections, due to high opposition from the machine/local political organizations/etc.
The 2008 senate race has to some extent discredited Norcross et al with many local party organizations (and shown that it is possible to successfully defy them), potentially causing butterflies in political decisions.
No comment
As you say, we're talking about a massive effort to provide IDs without rigorous background checks. I can imagine lots of scenarios where this might lead to a court case. There are citizenship angles, allegations of double voting among students in college towns, or if the implementation is particularly sloppy, maybe even some criminal liability cases.
Hrm. This is quite honestly one of the parts where I haven't spent enough time researching (always a pitfall when your TL ventures into the realm of the unknown.) What I had in mind specifically was some sort of revamping so that people would automatically be registered to vote at age 18 (rather than having to apply) and receive voting ID cards in the mail (a la what happens in many European countries.) Obviously this would be a very gradual phased-in process (I had something like a 6-year adjustment period in mind.)
With regard to background checks, my understanding is that there are several levels of checks required for passport files (including looking up previous court orders, arrest warrants, financial reports, etc.) that aren't necessary for most other forms of identification (hence why it's much more time-consuming and costly to apply for a passport), which is what I meant by 'less rigorous'.
An alternative could be that instead of an automatic sending out would be that when an individual sends in their selective service (i.e. registration for the draft when you turn 18) card the government will then send you a card in return. On it would show that you have registered, and it would serve as the ID you were looking for. Only drawback would be would how would you deal with the female half of the population who do not have to register. Unless...
Great story btw. Really well done and researched.
4.12 - Amtrak Joe
Some more teasers. I think I'll have one last one up over the weekend, and that'll be it. Thanks to my readers for the support you've given; do please vote if you haven't already
Court strikes down name of newly registered "Democrat Party"
Months prior, a group of conservative activists attempted to register the "Democrat Party" in a swath of traditionally competitive Midwestern states. Their stated motive: to return to the traditional small-government little-guy roots that the Democratic party originated from. Still, that explanation wasn't enough for what they call the "activist judiciary branch"; a court ruling concluded that the move was a "transparent attempt to deceive voters", and the party was ordered to change their name.
Critics of the "Democrat Party" state that it was intended to confuse Democratic voters into splitting their vote. They point to an episode across the pond from the United Kingdom: in 1994, Richard Huggett won more than 10,000 votes for the European Parliament as a "Literal Democrat" candidate (pictured above), enabling the Conservative candidate to win with a 700-vote majority over the actual Liberal Democrat.
Mostly overlooked by news reports at the time, the electoral fusion statute enacted late last year has enabled a flurry of these new party registrations. Most significant have been the nationwide establishment of the Working Families Party, Blue Dog Party, Main Street Party, and Freedom and Prosperity Party. [1] However, there have also been numerous 'frivolous' attempts to register entities such as the "Elephant Party" or "Donkey Party." Thanks to the foresight of legislators, most of these were struck down under the provision prohibiting misleading party names. In the same vein, the national "Independent Party" was ordered to change to change its name. Reports indicated that numerous voters intending to register as political independents were misled into registering instead as members of the Independent Party. [2]
Electoral fusion was enacted as a provision of the national omnibus electoral reform bill. Other provisions of the bill include:
- Making Election Day a national holiday [3]
- No-excuse absentee voting
- Absentee voting reform [4]
- Standardized early voting requirements [5]
- Regular audit requirement for voting machines, and standardized optical-scan voting (the "Holt Amendment") [6]
- Federal redistricting reform (the "Tanner Proposal")
- Tax incentives for voting [7]
- Requirement that felons should have the opportunity to restore their voting rights with good behavior after release from imprisonment.
[1] The Main Street Party (MSP) represents the more moderate/establishment wing of the Republican party; the Freedom and Prosperity Party (FaPP; members occasionally known as "Fappers") represent the conservative/insurgent right wing.
[2] Similar confusion has enabled the survival of the New York Independence Party IOTL.
[3] Only for states that have statewide/federal elections that year. (I.e., Election Day 2009 isn't a holiday except for New Jersey or Virginia.)
[4] Intended to minimize the relatively high rejection rates IOTL.
[5] Functions as a minimum requirement for states, combined with federal support to compensate for the costs of early voting
[6] Enacted despite heavy lobbying by e.g. ES&S, and the protests of certain voting rights activists who wished to insist on hand-counted ballots. Touchscreen voting was discredited after two failed elections in a row. This also resolves the question of voter-verified paper trails
[7] A very controversial provision that received accusations of "bribing voters." In the end, Congress settled on a minor $10 tax credit, intended as compensation to voters for their time spent waiting in line.
"Amtrak Joe"[8]: A retrospectiveOf all of the appointments made by President Obama decades prior, Joseph Biden's selection was perhaps the most surprising. Although widely expected to obtain an executive-branch position, Biden was considered a serious contender for the prestigious position of Secretary of State, to run foreign policy for the President. Instead, the political world was shocked when the experienced Senator from Delaware instead accepted the then-lowly and unheralded position of Secretary of Transportation.
"Before Biden, Secretary of Transportation was a largely overlooked and low-level position", explained AEI resident scholar Norm Ornstein at the time. "The only prior Secretary of Transportation with a real nationwide political base and profile was John Volpe, one of Nixon's appointees. But Volpe had spent only four years as Governor of Massachusetts prior, whereas Biden had decades of experience in the Senate to draw upon." [9]
Indeed, period reports state that President Obama was so worried about the offer being perceived as a snub, that he personally talked to Biden first to ease him into the idea, and explain that his appointment would presage an expanded role for public transit in U.S. politics. Another contributing factor, it seems, was the $400 billion proposed by Joseph Stiglitz for Amtrak and other public transit in the stimulus. (As it turned out, even with Biden's political talents, and Senate connections, less than half of the funding made it through Congress in the end.) Biden was well-known for his fondness of public transit and Amtrak.
"The President-elect told me that he needed someone he trusted fully in the office, someone he could count on. This would be our single chance at a paradigm shift in public transit", Biden recalled in his memoirs. "With the massive changes of the 'Obama Deal'[10] and other vast changes in the structure of the government, it would be so easy for Amtrak to be lost or forgotten by the wayside. If the vast expansion - $175 billion for Amtrak and $182 billion for other transportation infrastructure - was mismanaged or squandered, opponents would have a field day attacking us, and any future impetus for reform would be lost forever." [9]
Instead, Biden directed the office with flying colors. Indeed, thanks to stringent cost-cutting and striving for efficiency through a focus on small-scale intervention rather than expensive deep-cavern tunneling projects, Biden's office was able to cut travel time from Washington to Boston to a mere three hours, while coming considerably under-budget, enabling the future expansions and reforms of mass transit. [11]
[8] A common nickname for Biden in news articles, even IOTL.
[9] This quote is entirely fictional and of my own writing.
[10] Portmanteau of President Obama and "New Deal", a term later developed by historians to succinctly encompass the massive wave of legislation passed by the 111th Congress
[11] This is based upon OTL criticisms of Amtrak plans and observations on easier/cheaper ways to improve service (e.g. this analysis by Alon Levy.) For instance, turf battles between state-wide/federal transportation agencies cause a lot of inefficiency, but I figured that Biden would have the political capital/skill necessary to resolve that.
Acknowledgement: Whanztastic, for advice on Biden characterization.
Court strikes down name of newly registered "Democrat Party"
Months prior, a group of conservative activists attempted to register the "Democrat Party" in a swath of traditionally competitive Midwestern states. Their stated motive: to return to the traditional small-government little-guy roots that the Democratic party originated from. Still, that explanation wasn't enough for what they call the "activist judiciary branch"; a court ruling concluded that the move was a "transparent attempt to deceive voters", and the party was ordered to change their name.
Critics of the "Democrat Party" state that it was intended to confuse Democratic voters into splitting their vote. They point to an episode across the pond from the United Kingdom: in 1994, Richard Huggett won more than 10,000 votes for the European Parliament as a "Literal Democrat" candidate (pictured above), enabling the Conservative candidate to win with a 700-vote majority over the actual Liberal Democrat.
Mostly overlooked by news reports at the time, the electoral fusion statute enacted late last year has enabled a flurry of these new party registrations. Most significant have been the nationwide establishment of the Working Families Party, Blue Dog Party, Main Street Party, and Freedom and Prosperity Party. [1] However, there have also been numerous 'frivolous' attempts to register entities such as the "Elephant Party" or "Donkey Party." Thanks to the foresight of legislators, most of these were struck down under the provision prohibiting misleading party names. In the same vein, the national "Independent Party" was ordered to change to change its name. Reports indicated that numerous voters intending to register as political independents were misled into registering instead as members of the Independent Party. [2]
Electoral fusion was enacted as a provision of the national omnibus electoral reform bill. Other provisions of the bill include:
- Making Election Day a national holiday [3]
- No-excuse absentee voting
- Absentee voting reform [4]
- Standardized early voting requirements [5]
- Regular audit requirement for voting machines, and standardized optical-scan voting (the "Holt Amendment") [6]
- Federal redistricting reform (the "Tanner Proposal")
- Tax incentives for voting [7]
- Requirement that felons should have the opportunity to restore their voting rights with good behavior after release from imprisonment.
[1] The Main Street Party (MSP) represents the more moderate/establishment wing of the Republican party; the Freedom and Prosperity Party (FaPP; members occasionally known as "Fappers") represent the conservative/insurgent right wing.
[2] Similar confusion has enabled the survival of the New York Independence Party IOTL.
[3] Only for states that have statewide/federal elections that year. (I.e., Election Day 2009 isn't a holiday except for New Jersey or Virginia.)
[4] Intended to minimize the relatively high rejection rates IOTL.
[5] Functions as a minimum requirement for states, combined with federal support to compensate for the costs of early voting
[6] Enacted despite heavy lobbying by e.g. ES&S, and the protests of certain voting rights activists who wished to insist on hand-counted ballots. Touchscreen voting was discredited after two failed elections in a row. This also resolves the question of voter-verified paper trails
[7] A very controversial provision that received accusations of "bribing voters." In the end, Congress settled on a minor $10 tax credit, intended as compensation to voters for their time spent waiting in line.
"Amtrak Joe"[8]: A retrospective
"Before Biden, Secretary of Transportation was a largely overlooked and low-level position", explained AEI resident scholar Norm Ornstein at the time. "The only prior Secretary of Transportation with a real nationwide political base and profile was John Volpe, one of Nixon's appointees. But Volpe had spent only four years as Governor of Massachusetts prior, whereas Biden had decades of experience in the Senate to draw upon." [9]
Indeed, period reports state that President Obama was so worried about the offer being perceived as a snub, that he personally talked to Biden first to ease him into the idea, and explain that his appointment would presage an expanded role for public transit in U.S. politics. Another contributing factor, it seems, was the $400 billion proposed by Joseph Stiglitz for Amtrak and other public transit in the stimulus. (As it turned out, even with Biden's political talents, and Senate connections, less than half of the funding made it through Congress in the end.) Biden was well-known for his fondness of public transit and Amtrak.
"The President-elect told me that he needed someone he trusted fully in the office, someone he could count on. This would be our single chance at a paradigm shift in public transit", Biden recalled in his memoirs. "With the massive changes of the 'Obama Deal'[10] and other vast changes in the structure of the government, it would be so easy for Amtrak to be lost or forgotten by the wayside. If the vast expansion - $175 billion for Amtrak and $182 billion for other transportation infrastructure - was mismanaged or squandered, opponents would have a field day attacking us, and any future impetus for reform would be lost forever." [9]
Instead, Biden directed the office with flying colors. Indeed, thanks to stringent cost-cutting and striving for efficiency through a focus on small-scale intervention rather than expensive deep-cavern tunneling projects, Biden's office was able to cut travel time from Washington to Boston to a mere three hours, while coming considerably under-budget, enabling the future expansions and reforms of mass transit. [11]
[8] A common nickname for Biden in news articles, even IOTL.
[9] This quote is entirely fictional and of my own writing.
[10] Portmanteau of President Obama and "New Deal", a term later developed by historians to succinctly encompass the massive wave of legislation passed by the 111th Congress
[11] This is based upon OTL criticisms of Amtrak plans and observations on easier/cheaper ways to improve service (e.g. this analysis by Alon Levy.) For instance, turf battles between state-wide/federal transportation agencies cause a lot of inefficiency, but I figured that Biden would have the political capital/skill necessary to resolve that.
Acknowledgement: Whanztastic, for advice on Biden characterization.
Last edited:
Nice mention of Alon Levy's ideas and incorporating them into your TL. He has an account on here BTW.
Sabot Cat
Banned
First of all: continued good news for Pakistan! I guess Democrats didn't mess up too badly when they made the food crisis much worse than OTL considering these positive consequences.
Also, it feels like a long time ago when I saw your advanced plans for these updates; in retrospect, I think my concerns about plausibility of these voting reforms were ill-founded and in the end, they turned out really well! ^^
Finally, Biden as Secretary of Transportation makes a lot of sense. I'm looking forward to a United States with a public transit system worth the name in your timeline.
Also, it feels like a long time ago when I saw your advanced plans for these updates; in retrospect, I think my concerns about plausibility of these voting reforms were ill-founded and in the end, they turned out really well! ^^
Finally, Biden as Secretary of Transportation makes a lot of sense. I'm looking forward to a United States with a public transit system worth the name in your timeline.
Last edited:
Orville_third
Banned
I assume one of the things Biden would do would be to prevent the shrinking of Amtrak? One of the first things would likely be repairing the Orlando-New Orleans segment of the Sunset Limited, correct?
I think there must be solutions to this, but having worked with a segment of the population...let us say, half a step up from "vulnerable," I've seen entire communities unable to verify their addresses (this was an admin job at one of those big, online universities.) Month-to-month or at best six-month leases are surprisingly common, the change-of-address system spotty at best. I've seen upwards of thirty adults using a single, stable address when their own living situation was less than certain. Obviously, this is the kind of thing where a voter ID is going to matter, because these citizens are likely living in different districts, in reality. And while the thirty is definitely an extreme case (in my experience,) individuals certainly do this all the time. I'm guessing here, but I would say 100-200 cases a month at that office alone isn't too far from the mark, this being at the height of the financial crisis.
If you could find a way to make government agencies talk to each other, share their databases, that would go a long way, but I don't even want to think about how to make that work. It would be choirs of angels singing, if you could.
I wish I could be more scientific in my recommendation, but that's not a club in my bag. I would say if you tweak up voter participation among under-voting populations *only marginally,* that would be reasonable. Maybe a little less among Latinos, a little more among other under-voting populations.
About your latest post, what are the Greens up to? Are they debating a fusion strategy?
Can the federal government really force states to take a holiday for their own elections? I wonder if being off-kilter will pressure odd-year states to change their election year. Both Virginia and New Jersey have large populations that commute to different jurisdictions.
And always good to see Joe Biden doing stuff. If you ever want to add detail to this section and are looking for decidedly un-sexy ways to improve rail systems, I recommend asking TheMann for advice, he's absolutely chock-full of that kind of information.
4.13 - Carbon tax and dividend
I think I might have a second part to this last update after all. Perhaps tomorrow.
Also, please vote if you haven't yet.
First 'carbon dividend' checks mailed today, as business protests 'government overreach'!
Although the recently passed carbon tax legislation may be highly controversial, one aspect of the law will likely be popular: The 'climate dividend' checks mailed to every U.S. resident, distributing this year's estimated carbon tax proceeds. This year's rebate comes in at $150 for every person - including children and noncitizen residents alike. It's a welcome relief to struggling families hurting in the pocketbook, as mass layoffs continue in this continuing winter of our hardship [1]. With many families on the brink, some politicians have called for a further extension of the $420 billion tax holiday to compensate. [1.5]
The carbon tax legislation imposes a tax of $10 per equivalent ton of CO2 for this year of 2010, gradually increasing by $4/ton yearly, up to $30/ton in 2015. Believed to be modeled after the successful British Columbia example [2], the legislation is revenue-neutral, as all yearly tax receipts are returned to taxpayers via 'climate dividend' checks and other tax credits.
Unusually, the tax contains very few exemptions compared to variants in other industrial nations; as such, the tax is not only applied to fossil fuels, but also affects everything from industrial production to agriculture to even landfills. Instead, many manufacturers and farmers engaged in carbon-intensive production are instead granted tax credits in addition to the yearly carbon dividend to allay the disproportionate impact and use the free market mechanics to incentivize cuts in carbon usage. These tax credits come to $6.1 billion of this year's projected $52.2 billion in revenue.
The legislation also applies fees to imports of carbon-intensive goods from other countries depending on the specifics of that nation's carbon pricing (if any) to ensure that domestic producers are on the same playing field as international businesses.
Critics derided the move as "counterproductive protectionism", "governmental regulation gone wild", and "Congress creating new pork programs to wallow in the hay when families are tightening their belts."
This year's Carbon Tax: By the numbers!
Benefits:
Costs: Where prices will go up
Gas, electricity, heating:
Groceries
Protesters continue demonstrating against "job-killing carbon tax"!
Although we'd anticipated some backlash against the carbon tax, the scale was much larger than we'd anticipated. In retrospect, it was a mistake on our part not to expect it beforehand and mitigate accordingly. If nothing else, we should have predicted just how upset red meat conservatives would be at the discovery that even their red meat would be taxed.
- Robert Reich, From the White House to the Wilderness: My Time in Washington. 2011 [4]
The conventional wisdom is that the dubiously[5] massive landslide Democrats won gave them a filibuster-proof Senate majority that's allowing Obama to just skate through his agenda, with little Republicans can do about it. And on most subjects, it appears to be true. However, if Republicans are unified, we still have the ability to filibuster judicial nominees at the Judiciary Committee level so that the nominees never get out of committee. Now, that's a big 'if', but it's possible.
Now, folks, admittedly this is a bit of a long shot because this is going to require that the Republicans have the fortitude to even do this, to even try it; 'cause if they did -- if they essentially filibustered the vote in the Judiciary Committee -- the media is going to be all over these things. I mean, it's going to be like Dunkirk. It's going to be like Hiroshima. It's going to be like Nagasaki. I mean, nuclear ammo is gonna rain down on these guys if they try it. But it's possible.
- Rush Limbaugh, on-air comments, 2010 [6]
The carbon tax was the last straw for us. Democrats gave their solemn word that they would not raise taxes, and then they went ahead and did it. They couldn't even keep one lousy promise! In retrospect, the previous boundary-pushing were tests on their part. "If we can get away with this", they must have thought, "what can we put one over Republicans next?" Sure, they claimed that the legislation was tax-neutral, and their promise was to refrain from raising *net* taxes, but by this point, we knew the score. Trusting Obama was a fool's errand, and we'd paid the price.
- Eric Cantor, 2012 [4]
Arlen Specter denounces 'selfish partisans' in GOP!In a press conference today, Senator Arlen Specter (R) described a recent conservation he had with an unnamed 'high-ranking' member of his party. The conversation, Specter said, was intended to sound out Republicans on the Judiciary Committee regarding a potential obstruction strategy, to form a united front and block all further Obama judicial nominees as retaliation against the recently passed carbon tax.
In his statement, Specter denounced "those who would play partisan politics while our nation teeters on the economic precipice"[5], and called for Republicans to come together to work with Democrats for the betterment of the nation.
Since Specter's announcement in 2009 that he would not seek another term in Congress, the Pennsylvania senator has shifted increasingly leftward, seeking compromise in working with Democrats. Pundits believe that Specter is concerned about his legacy and seeks to burnish his record now as an elder statesman.
[1] Butterflies mean that in historiography and rhetoric, the "Winter of our Hardship" comes to refer to the winters of 2008-2009 and 2009-2010 in the United States, which featured mass layoffs, foreclosures, homelessness, and unemployment in addition to colder-than-normal weather and several snowstorms. The phrase comes from President Obama's inauguration speech IOTL, and the adoption is a conscious allusion on the part of many pundits to the historical British Winter of Discontent in 1978-79.
[1.5] The tax holiday consists of an assortment of temporary low-bracket tax breaks and payroll tax cuts, starting in 2009 and gradually being phased out by the end of 2012. The total cost is $420 billion; the legislation was partly motivated by persistently low real governmental interest rates.
[2] Butterflies mean that this was implemented earlier than IOTL.
[3] The specifics of these estimates depend both on the type of coal (anthracite, bituminous, etc.) and the efficiency of the power plant; the article is simplifying for the benefit of readers.
[4] This quote is entirely original and of my own writing.
[5] The possibility of electoral fraud in 2008 is a speculating point among some sectors of the right.
[6] What Limbaugh is referring to is a OTL Senate Judiciary Committee rule that at least one member of the opposition party must agree for a matter to be brought to a vote. It's not actually a filibuster, but has a similar effect. Limbaugh's comments ITTL reflect a growing backlash among conservatives in the wake of the carbon tax and an increasing belief among the Republican right that Obama's agenda must be stymied by any means possible. This specific quote is edited from similar words from Limbaugh IOTL.
Also, please vote if you haven't yet.
First 'carbon dividend' checks mailed today, as business protests 'government overreach'!
Although the recently passed carbon tax legislation may be highly controversial, one aspect of the law will likely be popular: The 'climate dividend' checks mailed to every U.S. resident, distributing this year's estimated carbon tax proceeds. This year's rebate comes in at $150 for every person - including children and noncitizen residents alike. It's a welcome relief to struggling families hurting in the pocketbook, as mass layoffs continue in this continuing winter of our hardship [1]. With many families on the brink, some politicians have called for a further extension of the $420 billion tax holiday to compensate. [1.5]
The carbon tax legislation imposes a tax of $10 per equivalent ton of CO2 for this year of 2010, gradually increasing by $4/ton yearly, up to $30/ton in 2015. Believed to be modeled after the successful British Columbia example [2], the legislation is revenue-neutral, as all yearly tax receipts are returned to taxpayers via 'climate dividend' checks and other tax credits.
Unusually, the tax contains very few exemptions compared to variants in other industrial nations; as such, the tax is not only applied to fossil fuels, but also affects everything from industrial production to agriculture to even landfills. Instead, many manufacturers and farmers engaged in carbon-intensive production are instead granted tax credits in addition to the yearly carbon dividend to allay the disproportionate impact and use the free market mechanics to incentivize cuts in carbon usage. These tax credits come to $6.1 billion of this year's projected $52.2 billion in revenue.
The legislation also applies fees to imports of carbon-intensive goods from other countries depending on the specifics of that nation's carbon pricing (if any) to ensure that domestic producers are on the same playing field as international businesses.
Critics derided the move as "counterproductive protectionism", "governmental regulation gone wild", and "Congress creating new pork programs to wallow in the hay when families are tightening their belts."
This year's Carbon Tax: By the numbers!
Benefits:
- You'll receive $150 per household member for the year
Costs: Where prices will go up
Gas, electricity, heating:
- Gasoline: 9.8 ¢/gallon
- Diesel: 11.1 ¢/gallon
- Jet fuel: 11 ¢/gallon
- Natural gas (heating): 0.0603 ¢/cubic meter
- Electricity (coal): ~ 1 ¢/kWh [3]
- Electricity (natural gas): 0.55 ¢/kWh
Groceries
- Beef: 6.66 ¢/lb
- Sausage: 4.01 ¢/lb
- Ham: 2.41 ¢/lb
- Poultry: 1.75 ¢/lb
- Pork: 1.63 ¢/lb
- Butter: 11.93 ¢/lb
- Cheese (hard): 4.26 ¢/lb
- Cream: 3.81 ¢/lb
- Eggs: 0.98 ¢/lb
- Farmer cheese: 0.98 ¢/lb
- Margarine: 0.68 ¢/lb
- Yogurt: 0.63 ¢/lb
- Milk: 0.48 ¢/lb
Protesters continue demonstrating against "job-killing carbon tax"!
Although we'd anticipated some backlash against the carbon tax, the scale was much larger than we'd anticipated. In retrospect, it was a mistake on our part not to expect it beforehand and mitigate accordingly. If nothing else, we should have predicted just how upset red meat conservatives would be at the discovery that even their red meat would be taxed.
- Robert Reich, From the White House to the Wilderness: My Time in Washington. 2011 [4]
The conventional wisdom is that the dubiously[5] massive landslide Democrats won gave them a filibuster-proof Senate majority that's allowing Obama to just skate through his agenda, with little Republicans can do about it. And on most subjects, it appears to be true. However, if Republicans are unified, we still have the ability to filibuster judicial nominees at the Judiciary Committee level so that the nominees never get out of committee. Now, that's a big 'if', but it's possible.
Now, folks, admittedly this is a bit of a long shot because this is going to require that the Republicans have the fortitude to even do this, to even try it; 'cause if they did -- if they essentially filibustered the vote in the Judiciary Committee -- the media is going to be all over these things. I mean, it's going to be like Dunkirk. It's going to be like Hiroshima. It's going to be like Nagasaki. I mean, nuclear ammo is gonna rain down on these guys if they try it. But it's possible.
- Rush Limbaugh, on-air comments, 2010 [6]
The carbon tax was the last straw for us. Democrats gave their solemn word that they would not raise taxes, and then they went ahead and did it. They couldn't even keep one lousy promise! In retrospect, the previous boundary-pushing were tests on their part. "If we can get away with this", they must have thought, "what can we put one over Republicans next?" Sure, they claimed that the legislation was tax-neutral, and their promise was to refrain from raising *net* taxes, but by this point, we knew the score. Trusting Obama was a fool's errand, and we'd paid the price.
- Eric Cantor, 2012 [4]
Arlen Specter denounces 'selfish partisans' in GOP!
In his statement, Specter denounced "those who would play partisan politics while our nation teeters on the economic precipice"[5], and called for Republicans to come together to work with Democrats for the betterment of the nation.
Since Specter's announcement in 2009 that he would not seek another term in Congress, the Pennsylvania senator has shifted increasingly leftward, seeking compromise in working with Democrats. Pundits believe that Specter is concerned about his legacy and seeks to burnish his record now as an elder statesman.
[1] Butterflies mean that in historiography and rhetoric, the "Winter of our Hardship" comes to refer to the winters of 2008-2009 and 2009-2010 in the United States, which featured mass layoffs, foreclosures, homelessness, and unemployment in addition to colder-than-normal weather and several snowstorms. The phrase comes from President Obama's inauguration speech IOTL, and the adoption is a conscious allusion on the part of many pundits to the historical British Winter of Discontent in 1978-79.
[1.5] The tax holiday consists of an assortment of temporary low-bracket tax breaks and payroll tax cuts, starting in 2009 and gradually being phased out by the end of 2012. The total cost is $420 billion; the legislation was partly motivated by persistently low real governmental interest rates.
[2] Butterflies mean that this was implemented earlier than IOTL.
[3] The specifics of these estimates depend both on the type of coal (anthracite, bituminous, etc.) and the efficiency of the power plant; the article is simplifying for the benefit of readers.
[4] This quote is entirely original and of my own writing.
[5] The possibility of electoral fraud in 2008 is a speculating point among some sectors of the right.
[6] What Limbaugh is referring to is a OTL Senate Judiciary Committee rule that at least one member of the opposition party must agree for a matter to be brought to a vote. It's not actually a filibuster, but has a similar effect. Limbaugh's comments ITTL reflect a growing backlash among conservatives in the wake of the carbon tax and an increasing belief among the Republican right that Obama's agenda must be stymied by any means possible. This specific quote is edited from similar words from Limbaugh IOTL.
Last edited:
I take it you're making this TL a deconstruction of the whole notion that things would have been better and Obama would have accomplished a lot more if the Democrats had a bigger majority in the House and Senate, among other things. If that's the case, good job.
Last edited:
Constantinople
Banned
I mean that HAS been the case... The GOP is really angry and there looks like there gonna be a big backlash but the democrats HAVE gotten more done. A more comprehensive healthcare bill, a much bigger stimulus, very comprehensive electoral reform, a pretty hardcore carbon tax.....
Woah; small world. Think this is the second time someone on AH.com has shown up in this TL.
Just a contextual note: The direct impact of changed legislation (removal of oil tax breaks and larger 2008 Bush stimulus) upon oil and food supply/demand was actually not very large. The reason the food crisis was significantly worse was two-fold: For one, we know today that the massive spike in oil/food prices in 2008 was probably a panic-induced self-perpetuating bubble, which is exactly the sort of situation where small effects can be over-dramatized and blown out of proportion in the popular conception to have large impacts. For another, the butterflied much worse severe weather of TTL's 2008 (Cyclone Sidr, anyone?)
Biden as Secretary of Transportation was actually something that I was quite uncertain about; it's a very lowly position, and although the knee-jerk reaction is to associate Biden with public transit, he hasn't really done that much with it in his Senate time (his committee memberships were Judiciary and Foreign Relations), to the point where the idea of Biden as Transportation Secretary might be overblown on AH.com. But I think it makes sense in the context of my TL.Also, it feels like a long time ago when I saw your advanced plans for these updates; in retrospect, I think my concerns about plausibility of these voting reforms were ill-founded and in the end, they turned out really well! ^^
Finally, Biden as Secretary of Transportation makes a lot of sense. I'm looking forward to a United States with a public transit system worth the name in your timeline.
That's probably included in the unspecified $37.5 billion in other Amtrak stimulus funding. I don't want to delve too deeply into the details, or else this TL might bog down a bit.
An alternative could be that instead of an automatic sending out would be that when an individual sends in their selective service (i.e. registration for the draft when you turn 18) card the government will then send you a card in return. On it would show that you have registered, and it would serve as the ID you were looking for. Only drawback would be would how would you deal with the female half of the population who do not have to register. Unless...
Great story btw. Really well done and researched.
I think there must be solutions to this, but having worked with a segment of the population...let us say, half a step up from "vulnerable," I've seen entire communities unable to verify their addresses (this was an admin job at one of those big, online universities.) Month-to-month or at best six-month leases are surprisingly common, the change-of-address system spotty at best. I've seen upwards of thirty adults using a single, stable address when their own living situation was less than certain. Obviously, this is the kind of thing where a voter ID is going to matter, because these citizens are likely living in different districts, in reality. And while the thirty is definitely an extreme case (in my experience,) individuals certainly do this all the time. I'm guessing here, but I would say 100-200 cases a month at that office alone isn't too far from the mark, this being at the height of the financial crisis.
If you could find a way to make government agencies talk to each other, share their databases, that would go a long way, but I don't even want to think about how to make that work. It would be choirs of angels singing, if you could.
I wish I could be more scientific in my recommendation, but that's not a club in my bag. I would say if you tweak up voter participation among under-voting populations *only marginally,* that would be reasonable. Maybe a little less among Latinos, a little more among other under-voting populations.
Hrm. I'm still rather uncertain, but I do think that the idea of voter ID done right is going to occur in this Congress, given the influx of new fresh faces, the desire to do a bipartisan revamp of a lot of open issues (e.g. the redistricting commissions, etc.) It may very well turn out to be rushed and done poorly (despite the usual positive intentions) with significant negative consequences, but if that's so, it should at least occur in a plausible manner, and I'll need to do more research before concluding how that turns out.
They briefly debated a fusion strategy and decided to continue going it alone. The Libertarian and Constitution Party decided similarly.
This is based on their experience in NY, which also has electoral fusion, and the state parties pretty much never cross-endorse.
My assumption is that it won't be strictly enforced, but instead things like the election funding will be contingent upon making election day a holiday (similar to the way e.g. highway funding is used to pressure the states sometimes.)
And always good to see Joe Biden doing stuff. If you ever want to add detail to this section and are looking for decidedly un-sexy ways to improve rail systems, I recommend asking TheMann for advice, he's absolutely chock-full of that kind of information.
I'll keep that in mind, but I don't quite want to get too overboard on the detail; I figure that there are TLs for that already. This is more of a 'broader-picture' style story.
I mean that HAS been the case... The GOP is really angry and there looks like there gonna be a big backlash but the democrats HAVE gotten more done. A more comprehensive healthcare bill, a much bigger stimulus, very comprehensive electoral reform, a pretty hardcore carbon tax.....
To the extent that this TL is a deconstruction, it's more a deconstruction of the general idealistic partisan idea that "if only X had happened, the country would be a utopia!" As seen by the proliferation of "JFK lives, magically decides to withdraw from Vietnam, magically solves all world problems" fiction. In reality, any action has consequences, the 'best' possible action (to the extent that there is one) is often unapparent at the time, and it's impossible to accurately predict what the consequences of and reactions towards any one move will be (let alone what the consequences of those consequences would be.)
In addition, it's often hard to accurately adjudicate just what counts as 'better' because actions may have significant diverging consequences in the rest of the world. For instance, this TL saw the death of perhaps 150,000-200,000 Rohingya in Burma thanks to deliberate governmental negligence and maltreatment. It also saw brutal crackdowns in the Arab world, mass hunger throughout the Third World, a more prosperous, more stable, and more democratic Pakistan, a United States that's heading significantly leftward from OTL, and a significant backlash to that leftward motion. To define whether this world is 'better' than OTL, one must first define how exactly the scores are kept, and that's a very nebulous and difficult-to-define concept (for instance, the use utilitarianism runs into the potential problem of utility monsters.)
Historical fiction is often subject to idealistic revisionism, in which one considers the direct actions of potential moves, without the secondary effects and ramifications. The other variation is of course dystopias, where one runs the risk of portraying political enemies as caricatures of evil and the potential negative consequences are perhaps over-emphasized. It's rather hard to thread the needle and try to realistically portray a plausible actual world. It might be interesting for the sake of shock value and drama to read about a world in which every world leader is a psychotic mass murderer or otherwise insane person from OTL, but somewhere along the line, it becomes horror for horror's sake, not a world in which you could plausibly see yourself living.
As I said earlier, my intent with this TL was always to try and realistically consider the question of what would happen if Democrats had essentially a free hand to implement their agenda post-2008, a new New Deal of sorts. And of course, such a large change would have unexpected consequences, not all of which would be beneficial.
Legitimately the GOP does have rather a lot to feel outraged about... the incredibly large stimulus bill, healthcare reform, the carbon tax, and probably a whole host of different measures like financial reform or the dream act which have outraged their conservative base. The biggest question is if the outrage is gaining traction with the general electorate. The Republicans probably have more blame for the economy this time around, and there's so much to be outraged about they risk muddling their message, but ultimately if it looks like the democrats have focused more on passing their liberal agenda than helping the average joe, they'll face serious losses.
In that regard the carbon tax is at least less hurtful than it otherwise might of been. I personally would have preferred the money be annually invested in green energy or mass transit, but an annual tax rebate is much more politically useful.
In that regard the carbon tax is at least less hurtful than it otherwise might of been. I personally would have preferred the money be annually invested in green energy or mass transit, but an annual tax rebate is much more politically useful.