How Far Will Republicans Go to Actively Deny Voting Rights to 600,000 Americans?

On Wednesday, the House Administration Committee approved a bill that would put statues of two Washington, DC heroes in the U.S. Capitol. The seemingly benign bill was actually approved on strictly party lines, having been met with fierce opposition by the committee's top Republican, Dan Lungren (CA-3), and his colleagues.

Why, you ask? Because giving DC two statues in the capitol would mean that it has as many statues as each of the 50 U.S. states, which implies that it is equal to the states. Which, of course, it's not. Because DC residents have no voice in the federal government. And Republicans certainly want things to stay that way.

Earlier this year, the district came seemingly closer than ever before to getting at least a vote for their current "delegate," Eleanor Holmes-Norton. But that bill, which was already turned into a compromise granting an extra Representative to Utah (read: a Republican to balance the DC Democrat), was then smacked with a Republican amendment easing gun restrictions in the District, one of the most crime-heavy cities in the country. Indeed, Senator John Ensign, adulterer of Las Vegas, NV, knows what's best for DC gun laws.

Oklahoma City Remembered

Fifteen years ago today, domestic terrorists bombed the Alfred P. Murrah Building in Oklahoma City, killing 168 people, including 19 children under the age of six. Timothy McVeigh, who personally carried out the bombing, was a sympathizer of the Militia movement who wanted to exact revenge on the federal government for the Waco Siege, an attempt by the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms to search the Branch Davidian ranch for illegal firearms.

The Oklahoma City Bombing was the most murderous and destructive act of terrorism in the U.S. prior to the September 11th attacks. Now, fifteen years later, we find our country in a frighteningly similar situation, with regard to right-wing fury over both gun rights and the size of government.

Transit Cuts Are Bad Public Policy

Recently, Washington, DC increased its Metro and bus fares by 10 cents per ride, and more drastic fare hikes (or cuts in service) are expected in July. The New York MTA board just voted on a package of severe cuts, eliminating entire subway lines and substantially slashing bus service. I understand that these cities are dealing with budget shortfalls to the tune of $189 million and $400 million, respectively, but these issues should be dealt with on the city level, not on the Metropolitan Authority level, since all the authorities can do are increase fares and decrease service.

Instead, these cities, and all other cities facing similar budget woes, should look at transportation not as a luxury but as a priority. Here are the problems with attacking public transportation when fiscal times are tough:

1. Poor people will be disproportionately affected. Public transportation is usually an inelastic good for the poor, and increasing fares will only create greater economic burdens for them. Many cities have good subsidization programs for the poorest riders, but many people who cannot easily afford increased fares will have no choice but to absorb the increased costs.
2. Ridership will decrease. People who are on the fence between using public transport because it's cheap and good for the planet but aren't enthralled with its crowdedness, slowness, and sometimes inconvenience will likely err on the side of personal vehicles to avoid increased prices and worse service. This will only further decrease revenue for the transit authorities, exacerbating budgetary problems. Similarly, those who may have been on the fence about switching to public transportation will now have less incentive to do so.
   
3. Traffic congestion will increase. As more people eschew public transportation, more cars will be used, increasing traffic problems in cities.
4. Pollution will increase. As personal vehicle ridership increases, so will greenhouse gases, criteria pollutants, and other emissions. In an era where cities and states have begun to understand the desperate need to address environmental problems, this would be a huge setback to good environmental policy. And this is to say nothing of the increased dependence on foreign oil.
   

So what should cities do?

I've already made the case for a gas tax. Assuming these transit cuts in service and hikes in price are temporary, why not instead increase the gasoline tax, also ostensibly temporarily? This would put more of the burden on wealthy people who can afford to drive to work, increase public transportation usage, increase transit authority revenue, decrease congestion, and decrease pollution. This seems like a win-win-win-win to me. The only disadvantage is pissing people off who drive cars. But when they are contributing to so many social, economic, and environmental problems by doing so, isn't it a sacrifice worth making? Raise gas prices the same amount you would raise transit rides.

Alternatively, increase tolls. This will have many of the same benefits as a gas tax, though in cities other than DC it will more specifically affect those entering the cities in question, as opposed to everyone in the state (gas taxes are implemented on a state level; however, DC has the authority to instate its own gas taxes).

I realize none of these measures is politically popular, and no one wants to make anyone pay more for something so vital as transportation. But when push comes to shove, it shouldn't be public transit users who suffer increased burdens. People should be incentivized to use more public transportation so that transit systems can grow stronger, gain people's trust, and become the widespread, efficient, fast, clean, dominant means of human movement that they should be.

Images: DC Metro (American Architecture)

Will Espada and Monseratte Be Re-Elected? Ask Marion Barry

With the New York state senate in complete shambles, Espada and Monseratte may be breathing a bit easier due to the actions of a former D.C. mayor over the weekend. It seems that Marion Barry was arrested for allegedly stalking his ex-girlfriend Donna Watts-Brighthaupt. Reports from Barry, Watts-Brighthaupt, and the police all seem to contradict each other, with Barry saying their meeting was mutual, Watts-Brigthaupt saying she had nothing to do with the arrest, and the police saying that Watts-Brightaupt flagged them down to arrest Barry. Nonetheless, two stark facts remain: Marion Barry is a mess, and Marion Barry continues to be re-elected.

Barry's criminal history is ridiculous, even for a public official. His most infamous arrest came after he was caught on videotape with former girlfriend Hazel Diane "Rasheeda" Moore smoking crack. Despite having videotape evidence of the former mayor smoking crack in a hotel room, Barry was convicted of only one count of cocaine possession (all other charges being thrown out after a mistrial declaration by the judge). Some members of the jury took it upon themselves to dispute facts that not even Barry's lawyer disputed. They believed that the very same government that employed most of them was conspiring against Barry because he was black. Not because he was smoking crack on videotape in a hotel with an ex-con; no. Because he was black.

I'll be the first to decry racism by prosecutors and the government, but one thing people seemed to forget is that he was caught smoking crack on videotape with a sketchy individual (this cannot be repeated too much). It doesn't matter what race you are when you're on tape smoking crack; you're guilty. One would think that a conviction for possession of crack (not to mention a highly embarassing videotape with you muttering "The bitch set me up!" as you're led away in handcuffs) would derail one's political career. Not Marion Barry. Barry continued his mayoral duties through his arrest and trial and ran for a ward seat in DC, but lost. In 1992, after being released from prison, Barry ran successfully for a Ward 8 seat, defeating four-term incumbent Wilhelmina Rolark. He won back the mayorship in 1994, served one term, stepped down, and re-entered politics in Ward 8 again in 2004. Despite several tax issues (which has led to his having probation extended because he does not file his tax returns), he was easily re-elected in 2008.

So why is Marion Barry's political career a good omen for state embarassments Pedro Espada and Hiram Monserrate? Because it shows that you can be a drug addict who does not pay his taxes and still get elected to public office. Espada should expect to get a few indictments by year's end for various misgivings (not living in his district, campaign finance issues) and Monserrate is already under indictment for slashing his girlfriend's face. With all the talk of voting out the incumbents from this year's do-nothing senate, the sad reality is that it will not happen.

So why does Marion Barry continue to get elected? He has two major advantages that alone could boost his poll numbers, but when combined are almost unstoppable (akin to Captain Planet). One, his incumbency. He held the Ward 8 seat before he became mayor the first time; he has significant name recognition. Second, Barry is black. In an area of D.C. that is 93% black, to be an incumbent of the same race of your constituents is huge. Hence, despite his long list of shortcomings, Barry continues to be wildly popular to his constituency while being a punchline of jokes for the rest of the country.

Espada has similar advantages that Barry enjoys. Espada's background (born in Puerto Rico, came to the United States as a five year-old) plays well with his voters, who are predominantly Latino (with Puerto Ricans and Dominicans making up a very large chunk of his electorate). Espada does not shy away from his roots in any way, shape, or form. For example, when he gave a tour of his Bronx "home" he was sure to sport the colors of his homeland. Espada's incumbency and his roots outside of the American mainland will help him tremendously when his reelection campaign is called upon (if he is not a convicted felon at that point and thus precluded from running).

Monserrate enjoys the same kind of demographic advantage. He represents a largely Latino constituency and while Monserrate was born in America, he is of Puerto Rican heritage and has been very active in the Latino community (notably helping to found the Latino Officers Association and winning a very large lawsuit against the NYPD). Combine this with Monserrate's keen attention to the plight of illegal immigrants and his coming incumbency and there is little to indicate that he would be voted out (again, assuming that he is not a convicted felon at that point).

Have Barry, Espada, and Monserrate done good things for their constituents? Probably. Does that give them free reign to do whatever they want (such as smoking crack, not paying taxes, holding an entire state's legislative process hostage)? Absolutely not. But one thing that separates these three from reality is shame. They have none (Monserrate recently compared himself to Jesus post-table tossing in the temple and Espada said that all the ire against him amounted to a "jihad" against him). As long as they hold a position of power, they could care less what the rest of the world thinks about them because at the end of the day they enjoy the perks of being an elected official. While their actions affect a very large group of people, the only folks they have to answer to are their constituents, and they do just enough to stay in their good graces. We're just collateral damage. Peace.

Photos - Barry smoking rock (Washington Post), Espada showing off a photo and some PR pride (NY Daily News), Monserrate (NY Post)