Partisan, election-year jockeying will reach heightened levels in the 46 legislatures scheduled to meet in regular session this year as the political stakes are high, money is scarce and recession-weary voters blame their elected officials for many of their economic woes. All major legislative decisions in 2012 will be made by lawmakers with one eye focused on the issues before them and the other on the elections scheduled for November 6th.

Legislators will tackle familiar issues in 2012; taxes and spending will again be divisive and produce the most contentious debate. While the overall revenue picture for states has brightened for some and others actually projecting a surplus, at least 17 states project budget gaps for the next fiscal year, while a handful need to balance budgets in the remaining six months of the current budget year. The revenue of all 50 states combined remains $21 billion below 2008 levels, according to a report jointly issued by the National Governors Association (NGA) and the National Association of State Budget Officers (NASBO) late last year.

A Tea Party-led insurrection in the 2010 elections gave the GOP control of both chambers in 25 states. Democrats control just 16 and eight states are divided. Nebraska has a non-partisan unicameral legislature that is viewed as Republican. With conservative, GOP leadership in both houses in half the states, it is not surprising that legislators’ election-year approach to balancing budgets will involve more fiscal belt-tightening and just a very few tax increases.

In late December, our analysts surveyed the 50 states to determine which might consider raising taxes after four years of declining revenues and in many states deep budget cuts. California, Maryland and Washington are the only states so far where the governor or the leadership have indicated they actively plan to discuss tax increases. Others may consider tax hikes as a necessity as their sessions unfold and revenue projections change, but few lawmakers are willing to discuss them now.

Our research showed­­­­­­­­­­­­­ Alabama, Alaska, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Mexico, Oklahoma and Utah plan to discuss tax decreases, credits or incentives. Lawmakers in Alabama, Florida, Idaho, Illinois, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, New Mexico, South Carolina and Utah have said they will debate tax changes that would specifically affect businesses.

Click here for a simple, 50-state chart with this report that gives the reader a snapshot of what is projected to be discussed on taxes and spending in each state in 2012.

Several other familiar issues will resurface in statehouses this year. After a brief discussion below of taxes and spending we outline the other contentious issues including: health care reform, immigration reform, pension reform and voter ID. We have also prepared a short section on the 2012 elections.

Taxes and Spending

The nation’s economy and state revenue projections have improved slightly but the overall economic picture for two-thirds of the states remains tough. Budget gaps in states projecting shortfalls in fiscal year 2013 are estimated to total $40 billion. This is a tough pill for lawmakers to swallow but a dramatic improvement over recent years. By comparison, California alone closed a deficit of $42 billion in 2009, during the height of recession.

Tax revenue is not expected to grow enough to make up for the impact of four years of dismal economic times. Additionally, the federal stimulus program that propped up state budgets has ended. Rainy-day funds, internal transfers and other one-time sources have largely been tapped, so governors and lawmakers must look for new places to cut spending.

States will again be required to consider cutting once sacrosanct programs like education and Medicaid to balance their budgets. The two programs account for about 43.7 percent of all state general-fund spending in FY 2011, according to the NGA/NASBO report. Additional Medicaid cuts could provide states very short term relief. The pressure to actually increase Medicaid spending could climb dramatically in 2014 when major portions of the federal Affordable Care Act take effect.

Lawmakers find election year tax increases very unattractive. More than 30 states have raised taxes since the recession began in 2007, but some of those increases were temporary and will expire soon.

The states that are considering increases are doing so cautiously.

California Democratic Gov. Jerry Brown faces a projected $13 billion shortfall and wants to increase taxes to raise an additional $7 billion annually through 2016. Governor Brown has proposed a 2012 ballot initiative that would boost income taxes on individuals making $250,000 or more a year and would increase the state sales tax by a half-cent.

A panel of Maryland state lawmakers has recommended that Democratic Gov. Martin O’Malley slash the state’s structural budget deficit in half, in part by raising taxes and consumer fees to fill a $1.1 billion gap for next fiscal year. Governor O’Malley is weighing tax increases on millionaires and corporations, as well as a steeper gas tax that has not been raised in several decades. Taxes on Internet sales and cigars, among other consumer products, are also being considered.

Washington’s Democratic Gov. Chris Gregoire has proposed hiking the sales tax by a half a cent to raise nearly $500 million a year in an effort to eliminate a projected $1.4 billion shortfall. Lawmakers took a serious step towards a balanced budget in a special session last month. Governor Gregoire had called for $2 billion in changes and a fully revamped budget by Christmas, but lawmakers settled on a plan that provides a $480 million fix through a combination of cuts, transfers and delayed payments.

Now Gregoire has asked for the sales tax increase to finish the job. She has proposed that the tax expire after three years.

Democratic leaders have struggled to find business support for recent tax proposals. The income tax was defeated last year, with opposition from Boeing and Microsoft. Voters also repealed taxes on soda, candy and other items. The lame-duck Democratic governor has some business support for her plan this year, according to reports in the News Tribune, because businesses are concerned that deeper cuts in state education programs will lead to a less-qualified work force.

Not every state is still in trouble; several are well on the way to financial recovery. A year-long review of fiscal and economic data in all 50 states conducted by The Associated Press found 15 states had budget surpluses as they headed into the current fiscal year. They ranged from Mississippi, where the $6.6 million surplus represented less than one percent of general fund spending, to Wyoming, where the $437 million surplus was equivalent to 28 percent of the state’s general fund.

Resource-rich Alaska took in nearly $1.9 billion more than expected last fiscal year and ended the fiscal year with an estimated $260 million surplus, an amount equal to nearly four percent of its general fund. Other energy rich states including West Virginia and North Dakota are also flush with cash. They have responded by reducing their corporate income tax rates. Unemployment in many of the states running surpluses has been well below the national jobless rate of 9.1 percent. North Dakota’s rate, for example, was 3.5 percent in September.

Health Care Reform

The federal requirement that states either establish health benefit exchanges or participate in a federal exchange by 2014 almost certainly will not be met. Several states will wrestle with health exchange and related legislation in 2012. Only 14 states agreed to create their own exchange in 2011 and Alaska, Florida and Louisiana publically refused to participate in the program. Other states have been unable to pass legislation or have simply decided to await the development of a federal exchange.

It is not certain that the Obama administration will get the federal exchange ready by the deadline either. The state and federal exchanges are required to begin enrolling members by the fall of 2013; coverage would begin in 2014. Federal officials have signed private contracts worth more than $150 million to develop the federal exchange. Oregon’s top insurance regulator, Teresa Miller, joined the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to oversee development of health insurance exchanges.

The federal and state exchanges would be a one-stop website where individuals and small businesses could compare insurance policy offerings on price, coverage and quality. The exchanges would also help applicants determine whether they are eligible for Medicaid or for federal subsidies or tax credits to help offset premium costs.

While the technical challenges to compliance appear daunting, the U.S. Supreme Court and the 2012 election could derail the process completely. The Court has agreed to review a challenge to the federal law; the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act passed by Congress in 2010. The justices most notably will consider whether Congress was acting within its constitutional powers when it required all Americans to have at least a basic form of health insurance by 2014. Those who do not would be required to pay a penalty on their 2015 income tax returns. The court has been asked to decide whether other parts of the law can go forward if the “individual mandate” is found unconstitutional. The case is scheduled to be heard in March with a decision expected this summer.

If the President loses the election next fall, an effort to scrap the exchanges and the entire law will certainly be forthcoming. The Republican presidential candidates have all taken an oath to dismantle what they derisively call Obamacare and the exchanges. Even GOP frontrunner Mitt Romney, who created an exchange as governor of Massachusetts, has promised to scrap the program. He wrote in the conservative National Review last year that: “His (Obama’s) health-care bill is unhealthy for America. It raises taxes, slashes the more private side of Medicare, installs price controls, and puts a new federal bureaucracy in charge of health care. It will create a new entitlement even as the ones we already have are bankrupt. For these reasons and more, the act should be repealed.”

The Obama administration has sent $640.7 million in three rounds of grants to more than half the states since 2010 to help them comply with the mandates of the Affordable Care Act. Alaska, Florida, Kansas, Louisiana, New Hampshire, Oklahoma, South Carolina and Wisconsin have rejected federal funding.

The health benefit exchange is only one step toward compliance with the federal law.

States are also responsible for developing Health Information Exchanges, which are essentially information systems that contain electronic records to allow health care professionals easy access to patients’ health histories so they can avoid costly and dangerous errors and duplication of services. The federal government’s promotion of electronic health records has created financial incentives for medical professionals and hospitals that make meaningful use of certified electronic health record (EHR) technology. According to the Journal of Accountancy, a total of $19 billion in incentive payments is available for hospitals and physicians under Medicare and Medicaid programs. The incentives will be paid out over four years on a transitional schedule to hospitals and physicians that meet “meaningful use” criteria for the technology.

In 2011, nearly every state took steps to contain Medicaid costs. Escalating Medicaid costs will continue to be a drag on state budgets in 2012. Lawmakers are especially concerned about the expansion of Medicaid in 2014 dictated by the Affordable Care Act. Several states are experimenting with new approaches to paying providers, delivering health care and streamlining services for those eligible for both Medicaid and Medicare.

The federal law also requires states to establish an essential benefits package of services that will be made available on the exchange. The federal government is scheduled to announce early this year the minimum or “essential” benefits all states must require insurers to offer. HHS is accepting comments on essential benefits until January 31, 2012. Federal law requires individual and small group health plans to provide, at a minimum, 10 categories of benefits. According to American Medical News, HHS would allow states to set essential health benefits benchmark coverage based on one of four possible types of plan offerings: one of the three largest small-group plans in the state; one of the three largest state employee health plans; one of the three largest federal employee health plan options; or the largest HMO plan offered in the state’s commercial market. Currently, states mandate that insurers offer a wide variety of health services but there is little consistency from state to state. The degree to which the federal baseline requirements differ from a state’s laws will dictate how much effort lawmakers will spend on this issue in 2012.

Immigration

Immigration will return as a hotly contested issue in 2012. Several of the more punitive measures passed in the last two years are now being contested in federal court and some states are expected to take a fresh look at issues relating to illegal or undocumented workers.

More than 1,600 bills dealing with immigrants and refugees were considered in the 50 states last year, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL.) Nearly half considered strict enforcement measures based on a controversial 2010 Arizona law. The most punitive parts of that law failed to pass in all but five states: Alabama, Georgia, Indiana, South Carolina and Utah.

The more restrictive measures passed in the last two years have been challenged in federal court and opponents have found some traction there.

A federal judge has issued an injunction halting the following four provisions of the Arizona law and the U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear the case:

• A section that requires Arizona state law enforcement officials to determine the immigration status of anyone who is stopped, detained or arrested.
• A section that makes it a state crime to violate federal statutes on alien registration.
• A section that makes it a state crime for any “unauthorized alien” to apply for or perform work.
• A section that gives Arizona state law enforcement officers the ability to make a warrantless arrest if they have probable cause to believe the person has committed an offense that could subject them to deportation.

In Alabama, a federal judge and the U.S. appeals court in Atlanta put on hold several provisions of that state’s immigration law, the strictest in the nation, including one that required schools to check the immigration status of new students.

In Georgia, U.S. District Judge Thomas Thrash, Jr. blocked parts of that state’s law, including a provision authorizing police to verify the immigration status of someone who cannot provide proper identification. “The apparent legislative intent is to create such a climate of hostility, fear, mistrust and insecurity that all illegal aliens will leave Georgia,” Thrash wrote in his June ruling.

A district court judge last month blocked a piece of South Carolina’s immigration law which requires law enforcement officials to check the immigration status of any suspect they believe may be in the country illegally.

The court challenges notwithstanding, several states including Florida, Kansas, Kentucky and Mississippi have all indicated they will push for more restrictive immigration laws in 2012.

Several 2011 bills related to the federal E-verify program. Georgia, Louisiana, South Carolina and Tennessee passed laws requiring businesses to enroll in the program to determine whether their employees are legal residents and eligible to work in the United States. They followed in the footsteps of 17 other states that require public and private employers to use the Internet-based system.

The immigration reform bandwagon was sidetracked in part by reform advocates supported by business owners in states like California and Florida that need the immigrant workforce.

California flatly rejected the E-Verify program and passed a law that bars city and county governments from requiring private employers to use it, unless it is required to receive federal funds or is mandated by the federal government. The California Dream Act also expanded eligibility for in-state tuition and non-state scholarships to students who may not have legal status but have attended high school in the state for at least three years, have graduated from high school, or are attending a college or university.

A group in Iowa believes the best way to eliminate unauthorized immigration is to authorize it by creating a legal and comprehensive guest worker program. A program called the “Iowa Compact” took its inspiration from a similar proposal that was adopted in part in Utah. Proponents argue the comprehensive guest worker program would diminish undocumented immigration greatly. The group added that many undocumented immigrants do not come to the U.S. legally because there is no legal avenue to do so. Utah, Iowa and others may try to eliminate the black market by allowing a legal one to exist.

Finally, Michigan’s Republican Gov. Rick Snyder wants to make his state more attractive to immigrants. He plans to ask the federal government for changes that will remove barriers to attracting immigrants to the state as part of his economic revitalization plan.

Pension Reform

State and municipal pension reform continues to be a priority for lawmakers still reeling from four years of recession, shrinking revenues and underperforming retirement fund investments. The PEW Center on the States last year reported that states’ unfunded pension and retiree health care liabilities amount to about $1.26 trillion.

In an effort to tackle the problem, the NCSL reported that in the last two years 40 states made changes to at least one of their retirement plans. But lawmakers worked within the framework of the existing system. States increased employee contribution requirements, revised cost-of-living adjustments and extended age and length of service requirements. New Jersey Republican Gov. Chris Christie won a major battle with public employee unions last summer when he drove a pension package through the Democrat-controlled legislature that was projected to save the state $130 billion in the next 30 years.

A more difficult battle will be fought in statehouses this year when some conservative lawmakers take on public employee unions and try to make public pensions look more like the retirement plans offered by private employers.

Most public pensions are defined benefit plans, meaning that an employee makes a contribution and the employer guarantees a specific payout, usually based on years of service and an income averaging mechanism, upon retirement regardless of the performance of the investment fund.

Most private retirement plans are defined contribution plans, meaning an employer’s annual contribution is specified but the payout is not. Retirement accounts are set up for participants and benefits are based on the amounts credited to these accounts through employer contributions and, if applicable, employee contributions plus any investment earnings on the money in the account. At retirement, the account balance is the employee’s retirement package.

Virginia Republican Gov. Bob McDonnell believes the Virginia Retirement System (VRS) is unsustainable and will support legislation this year that creates a 401(k)-style defined contribution program for state employees. Virginia’s $52 billion pension system is $19.9 billion short of meeting its obligations to retirees, according to official estimates. Market turmoil has left the commonwealth with less than 72 percent funding – down from nearly 107 percent funding in 2001.

Some states may consider a hybrid system; a less generous defined benefit plan for existing workers and defined contribution plan for new hires. A commission in Mississippi is recommending a three-year freeze on the three percent cost-of-living adjustments paid to Mississippi government retirees. It has also asked lawmakers to consider a long-term change in the rules for new hires of state and local government by adding a defined contribution component to the Mississippi Public Employee Retirement System.

At least one prominent Democrat is willing to consider the hybrid system. California Gov. Jerry Brown wants to increase the retirement age, require local and state government workers to pay more toward their pensions and retiree health care and place new workers into a hybrid plan that includes 401(k)-style accounts. California Republicans say the governor’s plan does not go far enough, while Governor Brown’s fellow Democrats were cool to the idea.

Predictably, California has a massive problem. The Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research has reported the state’s pension shortfall has now reached $498 billion, a number $73 billion – or 17 percent higher – than it was only about 18 months ago.

Other states will consider legislation to further modify their existing program. Louisiana Republican Gov. Bobby Jindal plans changes based on the New Jersey model. Governor Jindal has proposed an increase in the state employee contribution from eight to 11 percent – a move that would save the state $24 million in an already cash-strapped budget.

Voter ID

U.S. Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. last month told a Texas audience that the Justice Department will aggressively review new voting laws that civil rights advocates say will dampen minority participation in the 2012 elections. Holder’s speech put the spotlight on what is a smoldering partisan dispute over race and ballot access. The Justice Department’s civil rights division is scrutinizing a series of new state voting laws that were enacted, largely by Republican officials, in the name of fighting fraud.

Thirty-one states require all voters to show ID before casting a ballot at the polls. In 15 of these, the ID must include a photo of the voter; in the remaining 16, non-photo forms of ID are acceptable.

Voter ID was a hot topic in 2011 with some 20 states considering bills. Kansas, Rhode Island and Wisconsin enacted new voter ID requirements. Bills were vetoed in Minnesota, New Hampshire and North Carolina. In Minnesota, supporters have vowed to pass a new bill that would bypass the governor and go to the voters for approval instead. This strategy is similar to what the Oklahoma legislature did in 2009 and 2010. Mississippi voters approved a citizen initiative proposing voter ID in November 2011; that constitutional amendment will require the passage of implementing legislation before it can take effect.

Both political parties have a lot at stake in this debate. It was the huge turnout of newly registered, young and minority voters in the 2008 election that helped propel President Obama to victory. In the 2010 election, when voting by such groups dropped off and enthusiasm among more conservative groups surged, Republicans won sweeping victories, winning or expanding control of many state legislatures and governorships.

The photo ID is the heart of the issue. Previously, voters were able to use other forms of identification, like bank statements, utility bills and Social Security cards. Proponents of the photo ID requirements, mostly Republicans, say they are necessary to prevent voter fraud that could cancel out the choices of legitimate participants. Opponents, mostly Democrats, say there is no evidence of meaningful levels of fraud and contend that the measures are a veiled effort to suppress participation by hundreds of thousands of eligible voters who lack a driver’s license.

Holder says President Obama wants a federal solution that would automatically register all eligible voters, bar state legislators from gerrymandering their own districts and create a federal statute prohibiting the dissemination of fraudulent information to deceive people into not voting.

Elections

The Presidency, 33 U.S. Senate seats, 435 U.S. House seats, 11 state governors’ races, two territorial governors’ seats and 5,979 state Senate and House seats are scheduled to be contested November 6^th. Voters in all 50 states will trek to the polls. A full slate of elections will be held in 44 states but only federal races will be contested in Alabama, Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi, New Jersey and Virginia.

Two years ago there were 37 races for governor; this year only eight Democratic and three Republican gubernatorial seats are scheduled to be contested. Democrats Brian Schweitzer of Montana, John Lynch of New Hampshire and Chris Gregoire of Washington will leave office due to retirement or term limits. Indiana Republican Gov. Mitch Daniels must step down due to term limits.

Democratic incumbents seeking reelection include: Jay Nixon of Missouri, Bev Perdue of North Carolina and Earl Ray Tomblin of West Virginia. Democrats Jack Markell of Delaware and Peter Shumlin of Vermont, one of only two governors serving a two-year term, have not formally announced but both have made it clear they will be a candidate.

Republican Govs. Jack Dalrymple of North Dakota and Gary Herbert of Utah are also running for reelection.

Indiana, North Dakota and Utah are expected to stay in Republican control. Delaware, Vermont and West Virginia races are expected to stay Democratic. Missouri, Montana, New Hampshire, North Carolina and Washington, all now held by Democrats, are currently considered to be toss-ups.

Washington’s Governor Gregoire is perhaps the most notable Democrat leaving office. She was an activist attorney general who was elected governor in 2004. She served two terms, much of it embroiled in bare-knuckled budget battles with the legislature. She surprised supporters last June by announcing she would not seek a third term. With more than five months to go before the official candidate filing deadline, both major parties have anointed favorites to succeed Gregoire: Attorney General Rob McKenna for the Republicans and U.S. Rep. Jay Inslee for the Democrats. McKenna has been the frontrunner in recent polls and if elected he would be the state’s first Republican governor since 1980.

Indiana’s Governor Daniels, a former George W. Bush administration official and Eli Lilly executive, served two terms. He was a fiscal and social conservative and briefly last year was considered an attractive candidate for the GOP Presidential nomination. U.S. Republican Rep. John Pence is the heavy favorite in a race that is also expected to include Democratic House Speaker John Gregg and Rupert Boneham, a Libertarian who was once a star on the TV show “Survivor.”

Historically, about 30 percent of all legislative seats turn over in a general election. The numbers have climbed slightly since term limits have forced politicians from office. Some 83 senators –including 35 Democrats, 40 Republicans and eight Independents – will be termed-out in 2012. About 172 state representatives – including 87 Democrats and 85 Republicans – will be forced to retire due to term limit restrictions in 2012.

Indictment of Jerry Sandusky

It is must reading for everyone. It is horrific – yes. Paterno should have been fired. So should his bosses. The University made the right move in firing the president. I think they should cancel the football season. Why?

Because word of Jerry Sandusky’s abuse of at least eight children was known by adults as far back as 1998. There are at least five times since 1998 when adults could have done something.

The hero in all this is Sara Ganim, the local crime reporter for the Patriot-News in Harrisburg. She broke the story. She has stayed on the story day after day. She has not been cowed by the Penn State Good ole Boys and the football apologists for Joe Paterno. She has a timeline, a special report, the indictment – everything you need. Here:

http://www.pennlive.com/jerry-sandusky/

Subscribe to her paper. She won’t be there long. Any smart editor will hire her away as fast as possible. If journalism is to survive, it is because of reporters like Sara Ganim.

She is so great not only because she got the facts and put them in the paper – but she is going a step beyond. She is connecting the dots and asking questions even if she can’t get answers. She is putting her finger on the key issue here. Scandals like this happen when institutions believe their press clippings. They become insular and slow moving. The Catholic Church, Penn State and dozens of other places failed in their missions because their desire to protect the institution overrode their need to do the right thing.

The assistant football coach who saw the rape in the shower should have gone to the cops. Instead he went to his father.

Then he waited to tell Paterno until the next day – he should have done it that night.

Paterno told his athletic director – he should have gone to the cops.

The athletic director told his boss – he should have gone to the cops.

The president of Penn State knew of the behavior – he should have gone to the cops.

We are going to find soon that each of these people failed to do the right thing because they had lost sight of the right thing. The Penn State football program, like the Catholic Church, had grown so large, so financially successful and so protected by the community – that it could not do the right thing.

One more thing about Paterno. His firing and behavior highlight another aspect of the scandal and this is a lesson for anyone in public life. I suspect Paterno did not go to the cops not because he a malicious guy – but because he is clueles. The world had grown past Paterno. He lives in a bubble, cut off from the changes in our culture. Gay marriage, Occupy Wall Street, the Tea Party, Obama, Twitter, the Iphone…all of these are examples of a culture that is changing for better or worse. I guarantee you that Paterno is the kind of guy who does not use email. He got old. And he couldn’t understand, probably still can’t – what he did wrong.

There is a gap between our understanding of child sexual abuse and what adults are supposed to do about it. The Penn State folks were living in a 1950s, Mad Men world on this issue. Its 2011. You have to go to the cops right away.

The boot camp is an antidote to the dozens of times I have sat in very dull panel discussions about this subject as experts pontificate with war stories from 20 years ago. This is a chance for anyone to get their questions answered, try out an idea for a campaign or a PR message and bounce it off some really smart, experienced people.

We have something for everyone – a review of the Marriage Equality campaign in Vermont and how that victory was accomplished; a blue print session on the “perfect campaign, case studies on controversial issues where attendees can consider both sides and “technical assistance” where experts answer questions about the trade.

This is for everyone, activists and experienced hands alike No question is dumb and no experience is necessary. Just bring your mind and sense of humor.

Here is a link to the event.

We are all aware of the theory of unintended consequences. Most, if not all of us, have had a direct experience with this concept. Generally speaking, unintended consequences can be grouped into three categories:

1. Unexpected benefit.
2. Unexpected detriment occurring in addition to the desired effect of the policy.
3. A perverse effect contrary to what was originally intended.

Depending on your perspective, each of the three may be happening due to the 2010 Supreme Court decision known as Citizens United. In short, this decision allows unlimited spending during campaigns as long as that spending is done completely outside of an individual candidate’s campaign or in coordination with the Party that he/she is affiliated with.

These types of efforts are known as Independent Expenditure Campaigns (IEC). The IEC is a tool that has been used by groups for years. Right to Life and the League of Conservation Voters are two examples. So while the tactic is not new, the Citizens United decision removed the last few restrictions on spending, especially from corporations, and spawned a new entity know as the Super PAC.

The Super PAC has become famous thanks to Stephen Colbert, who created the Colbert Super PAC, which has run ad campaigns in support of Rick Parry (with an “A”). What else would we expect from our favorite satirical egomaniac?

The Citizens United decision and the new electoral tool it created were lauded by Republicans and their conservative base and generally criticized by President Obama and liberals. But as we head into the 2012 election, the real question is whether or not the Republicans and Democrats wish Super PACs were never allowed in the first place.

In a recent New York Times article “Outside Groups Eclipsing G.O.P. as Hub of Campaigns,” former North Dakota Republican Party chair Gary Emineth said, “Every time we empower independent third-party groups to do what the party is supposed to be doing, it diminishes the value of the brand and what the party represents.”

This fear is not unfounded. Over the past 12 months it appears that the majority of dollars raised have gone to third party groups independent of either major political party. This has only compounded the challenge for the Republican National Committee as it attempts to deal with the debt that is currently weighing it down.

As these third party groups continue to grow and gain more power along with more wealth, the questions will become more frequent and louder in regard to whether we need political parties at all. Why contribute to a group with contribution limits when an independent group can perform most, if not all, of the electoral work needed for a candidate to be victorious, with none of the challenges of dealing with the diverse set of opinions and power groups that are found within each of the two major parties? Extremely wealthy people tend to like to control how their money is spent which is precisely what they gain with a Super PAC, and to a certain degree relinquish when they contribute to a Party or a candidate directly.

If one or both of the major parties go extinct, the debate will rage on like the debate over what the “33” stands for on a Rolling Rock bottle or how the dinosaurs went extinct. One answer to those questions is correct but we will never have 100% agreement on which one. I still think Gary Larson has the answer to latter.

Don’t discount this possibility too quickly. There is a great deal of precedent for political parties to fail in this country. The Republican and Democratic parties could go the way of the Whigs, the Federalists, the Anti-Federalists, and the Anti-Nebraska Party. What did those cornhuskers do?

And if they do disappear, we will all be left to wonder if the unintended consequence of this controversial Supreme Court decision, seen by many as the elimination of a barrier to free speech, wasn’t actually the beginning of the end of two institutions most of us have known our entire lives.

Boston Globe sportswriter Bob Hohler brings us a great 2,500 word piece about the inner workings of the Red Sox and gives great insight into why they swooned in September and missed the playoffs. NOW YOU TELL US.

My biggest beef with modern sports journalism – and journalism in general – is that readers don’t really know what’s going on because reporters don’t tell you. It’s the same with reporters covering the White House or a senator. If you write the truth about Senator Jones, he won’t speak to you any more and then you have nothing to put in the paper. Heard it a million times.

Here is a how sports journalism works.

A reporter or two spend an entire season with the Red Sox, or the Patriots or the Bruins – from training camp through the end of the season. They get to know the players, coaches and staff REALLY well. They see lots of stuff that players would rather they not see – girlfriends, dirty or racist jokes, bad habits – in short – very human beings.

My issue with sportswriters is that they don’t write what they know. Same with the White House press corps. They know a lot. The job is to put it in the paper or up on the web. Instead, too many times, they keep what they know to themselves, content to know it and talk about it at parties, but not share it with readers.

If you are Boston sports fan, you have no idea what’s going on in the New England Patriot locker room. I think it’s because they are scared of Bill Belichick. (I’m a huge Belichick fan) They are scared that the famed coach will shut them out and never speak to them. Well – he doesn’t speak to them anyway! What do you have to lose? When you watch a Belichick press conference, you can hear a pin drop there is so much fear in the room.

Readers need to know what’s going on in the locker room because it bears on why the team is winning or losing. If Terry Francona gets angry and throws a chair at a player, readers need to know that. If Josh Beckett is overweight and drinking beer in the clubhouse during game, readers need to know that when the reporter knows it, not when the reporter chooses to write it.

Instead, we get treated like readers back in the Babe Ruth days, when sportswriters traveled and partied with the players and kept their secrets. Yes – things have changed with multi-million dollar contracts. Players are now off limits to the press for the most part. But reporters still see and know lots of interesting stuff that they could report – but don’t.

Bob Hohler’s excellent Red Sox piece should have been written Sept. 1, not after the season.

If journalism is going to survive and prosper in the digital era, reporters need to write and broadcast what they know and stop self-censoring.

“If you know it, write it.” If you do that, readers will flock.

KSE Staff on Randall Street in Waterbury

One of my business partners, Scott Mackey, lives on Randall Street in Waterbury with his wife Kathy and their three kids.  Their beautiful, recently renovated Victorian house sits up on an embankment overlooking a large cornfield.  The corn is tall, reflecting the fact that the field is next to Winooski River and has productive, well drained soils.  Looking at Google Maps I’d say the river is about a quarter of a mile from Scott and Kathy’s house.

The rains of Irene badly flooded Scott and Kathy, their neighbors, and much of downtown Waterbury.  The water was three plus feet deep in the Mackey house which, given the distance to the river and the fact that their house is up on a five foot or so embankment, is amazing to me.

Needless to say, the Mackeys, who left their house Sunday night to head to higher ground, and their neighbors, have been hard hit.  All of the floor and wall surfaces in the downstairs of the Mackey house will probably need to be replaced.  I don’t know about their heating system.  Their garage is damaged.  Their backyard is stained with fuel oil, which fills the air with an unpleasant smell.

On Wednesday a bunch of people from the office, but not me, went over to the Mackeys to help.  They ripped out sheetrock and insulation.  Late in the day there were interoffice emails describing the damage, and the need for further help.

A bunch from the office went back to the Mackeys the next day.  Many had been there the day before; I went for the first time.

Randall Street was surreal.  It was coated with mud.  The town had caused large roll off dumpsters to line the street.  They were piled high with debris.  The street was filled with vehicles and the air was dusty and dank.  It was hot and humid.  There was a beehive of activity.

The order of the day was to remove the hardwood flooring that runs throughout the first floor of the Mackey’s house.  A lot of it had been recently installed when the Mackeys re-did their kitchen.  The lower half of all of the wall surfaces, and the insulation behind it, had been removed the previous day.  Now the hardwood flooring needed to go, as the moisture between it and the subfloor would cause problems for years to come if it remained in place.

There were many wrecking bars on hand.  One of my other business partners, Jackie Hughes, brought a big one that I called “the Terminator.”  It was a beast.  Even with the Terminator I found that hardwood floors are tough to rip up.

Not counting Scott, twelve of us from the firm were there, although Scott dispatched a number of people to help a friend at that person’s house.  That was a good idea, as those of us who stayed at the Mackey house, which included Kathy’s mom and sister, had a hard time not tripping over each other and whacking each other in the face with ripped up floor boards with nails in them.  OSHA would not have approved of the work practices, but luckily nobody got hurt.

It was hard work, and by late morning I was hungry.  As I was beginning to think about how I’d get lunch a lady came by carrying a box loaded with a bunch of hot dogs in buns and the appropriate condiments.  She was making the rounds up and down the street, feeding the people.

Early in the afternoon a man and four women showed up to help.  At least three of them had what I thought were English accents.  I figured they were friends of Scott and Cathy’s but, after a while, I realized they were strangers.  They were full of energy, and went at the flooring with a vengeance.  The people lugging the ripped up boards to the dumpster couldn’t keep up—the boards were coming up fast and furious.  I grabbed an electric saw and cut the boards around the woodstove hearth so the ripping could progress unabated.

Finally, I asked one of the strangers “who are you?”  “We’re from Ben & Jerry’s—we were told to go out and help.”  “I detect an English accent.”  “No, I’m from Australia.  I joined the company when it came to Australia three years ago, and was recently transferred to Vermont.”  Huh.  An Australian Ben & Jerry’s employee helping flood victims in Waterbury Vermont.  Pretty cool.  In fact, I later learned that the man in the group of four from B&J’s was the company CEO, Jostein Solheim, a Norwegian.  He went at the floorboards with gusto.  I’ve always liked Ben & Jerry’s, but since the Unilever purchase had figured, like I think many have, that its enthusiasm for social do gooding had cooled now that it was part of a multinational corporation.  That is not the case.  As far as I am concerned B&J’s is committed as ever to being a force for the better good.

In the middle of the afternoon a woman from Montpelier came by with her very young daughter and son.  They were pulling a children’s wagon stocked with drinks and snacks. The young boy looked hot, tired, and not wanting to be where he was.  But, he was hanging in there.  His mom set a good example of kindliness and charity to strangers.

Ben & Jerry’s stock rose some more in my book when one of their trucks came by, dispensing free ice cream and water.

Then another woman came offering pre-cooked meals that had been put together by volunteers working at the Thatcher Brook school.  At our urging Kathy took some.

Louis Porter and Andrew Savage, professional colleagues and friends, stopped by, covered in grime.  They had been helping elsewhere in town.

We had the first floor flooring completely removed by late afternoon.  Scott said he wanted to consult with a professional before we did anything more at his house.  That sounded good to me.  The Terminator had gotten heavy, and my arms and back were a little sore.  Beers were cracked open and we sat in lawn chairs in the Mackeys’ front yard.

This was just one day at one flood ravaged house.  You could see similar scenes playing out up and down Randall Street, and throughout the village.  I know that the many other hard hit communities in Vermont are also going through the same thing.  People helping people.  As a jaded cynic the “Vermont community spirit” thing has always been a little much for me.  But it is real, and it is a beautiful thing.

Chuck Storrow

So everyone says newspapers are dead and that great journalism isn’t far behind.

Papers in Seattle, Denver and elsewhere closed their doors. Everyone from the Burlington Free Press to the New York Times has laid off reporters and editors.

Newspaper junkies (me) love nothing more than opening up a broadsheet newspaper and digging in. Reading a newspaper gives you the pulse of a community. Junkies remember bylines, learn the backgrounds of reporters, and begin to understand the DNA of a paper – their attitude toward the Red Sox, Obama, the Tea Party, fashion, travel etc.

I used to decry the loss of newspapers. No longer. Why? The New York Times.

The New York Times is a GREAT newspaper.

The Sunday Times is a GREAT experience. It is so packed with great stuff that it ruins your Sunday. It used to be that I would race through The Times Sunday morning to get it out of the way and get on with the day. I was…informed!… and ready for the week ahead.

Now – you have to take the Sunday Times in shifts throughout the day.

Maureen Dowd, the best, toughest columnist on Obama (and Bush).

David Brooks – a thinking Republican.

Paul Krugman – angry, uncompromising.

The Sunday Magazine – newly designed, ground breaking, experimenting, complete with a column by editor Bill Keller that is blunt about Sarah Pailin and poetry.

The White House correspondents – the best.

John Burns in Iraq or London.

National Security – they always break the secrets the White House and CIA try to hide. (That’s their job).

Business Section – great stuff on the inside story about the Google purchase of Motorola Mobile.

The best reporters and columnists in the business – David Carr on the Media, Joe Nocera on business, Jackie Calmes on politics.

Sports – Used to be really boring…now it’s younger, and just better.

The icing on the cake? The Times is now transparent. Arthur Brisbane is the ombudsman who actually does reporting on the paper’s actions. It’s one thing for the Tea Party and Sean Hannity to dump on The Times. But it’s the real deal when their own employee does it. Editor Bill Keller submits to interviews and really talks about what went into a story.

“Page One – Inside the New York Times,” is the best documentary film of the year (after “Buck”).
That Keller and The Times would submit to being featured in the film reveals that the paper is doing what all journalism must do – willing to submit to public scrutiny while works on getting good.

Their handling of the the WikiLeaks information served the national interest.

They have realized that it is the quality of their product that will ensure their survival. They have decided that in everything they do, they will be the best – their paper, their website, their journalism.

Too many newspapers lost sight of their job – doing good journalism. They worried about huge profits and what they thought the public wanted – local sports and stupid stories about stuff that doesn’t matter.

Yes, we may lose physical newspapers because the generation under 40 only reads online. But if journalists produce compelling journalism – in whatever form – people will read it. That may be in a newspaper, on a website, via a non-profit model funded by foundations or blogs. If it’s good, it will have readers. If it’s bad, it will fail.

That’s as it should be.

I’ve just returned from attending the two largest annual gatherings of state legislators in the country. The American Legislative Exchange Council – the organization for conservative, free- market legislators – met in New Orleans in early August. The National Conference of State Legislatures – the larger, bipartisan group – met in San Antonio the following week. (Don’t ask why both organizations chose to meet in August in cities where the daytime temperatures were between 98 and 106 degrees!)

These meetings are a fascinating opportunity for those of us interested in politics to talk to a diverse group of elected officials from around the country, without the filter of the media or the spin of the bloggers. It’s an opportunity to talk to legislators from all regions of the country, and all walks of life, about the issues that are their minds and on the minds of the voters back home.

The mood at the ALEC meeting was optimistic and feisty. Conservatives won huge gains in last November’s elections and were successful in enacting major policy changes in several states, such as Maine, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Ohio, and Wisconsin. Across the country, states reduced spending, trimmed the size of the state workforce, reduced state employee benefits, and even cut taxes despite revenue shortfalls. Even in traditionally liberal states like California, New York, and Vermont, newly-elected Democratic governors took a hard line on spending and refused to raise taxes. Most ALEC legislators I spoke with believed that the federal budget situation was going to require Congress to cut spending and reduce the role of the federal government in the states and in the lives of individuals. They saw this as a good thing, and they believe that ultimately that their states will be stronger for it.

The tone of the NCSL meeting was more cautious, especially since the stock market was whipsawing back and forth that week and pundits were openly discussing the possibility of a “double dip” recession. As a bipartisan organization, NCSL is more focused on sharing best practices and generally trying to making state government work better. ALEC asks the question, “How can we reduce taxes, regulations, and the size of government?” NCSL asks, “How can we help state governments do things better, more effectively, and more efficiently by sharing best practices?” NCSL seeks to improve the state-federal partnership in providing services to citizens; ALEC wants to reduce the power and scope of the federal government and reduce the federal role in the states.

The meltdown in Washington has led many NCSL members who have historically supported the state-federal partnership to question whether the status quo is sustainable. Under this status quo, Washington provides funding to the states to implement federal programs and priorities while giving states some latitude, within proscribed limits, to tinker with and customize programs to meet individual state needs and priorities. Examples include the Medicaid and welfare programs for the poor, unemployment insurance programs, and numerous other programs in areas such as human services, the environment, job training, public safety, education and transportation.

Some legislators I spoke to at the NCSL meeting were nervous that the inevitable federal pullback was going to increase pressure on their states to “backfill” these federal spending cuts. They expressed concern that their states were not going to be able to afford to do so without increases in taxes that could make them less competitive in attracting businesses and jobs.

These viewpoints highlight what I think is going to be a very interesting political, social, and economic experiment that is going to play out very publicly in the states over the next decade. States appear to be sorting themselves into three groups:

Downsize. Generally, these include the 21 states where Republicans made large gains last November and currently control both the executive and legislative branches of government. In these states, conservative gains allowed Republicans to put their limited government philosophy into place. These states have chosen to address budget shortfalls through what may become permanent reductions in the size and scope of state government. They have made sizeable cuts in state spending and in some cases cut taxes as well, despite revenue shortfalls. States in this category include Florida, Georgia, New Hampshire, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, and Wisconsin.

Policymakers in these states are betting that lower government spending, and in some cases lower taxes, will rejuvenate the economy and generate private sector job growth. They argue that private sector economic growth and job creation will offset government job cuts and reduce the need for public services as unemployment falls.

Preserve the Status Quo. Generally, these include the 11 states where Democrats control both the legislative and executive branches of government. Policymakers in these states are hoping to preserve state government programs and services, betting that the economy will turn around and that the federal government will not dramatically scale back the state-federal partnership with draconian cuts in state aid. Perhaps the most prominent example is Illinois, where the Governor and the Legislature increased taxes by over $7 billion to avoid big cuts in state services. Connecticut enacted a $1.2 billion tax increase for the same reason. Others states in this group include Hawaii and Maryland.

Policymakers in these states believe that their states’ economies will benefit from the education, job training, infrastructure, and other government spending paid for by tax increases. They worry that government spending cuts will be a drag on economic growth and slow recovery.

Wait and See. Generally, this group includes the 17 states with divided government, where there is not a clear-cut mandate from voters to either downsize state government or to preserve the status quo. Most of these states have been forced to make significant budget cuts to keep their budgets balanced, but they have done so out of necessity and not because there is a political consensus to shrink the size and scope of state government. In some respects, they are waiting to see what happens with the national economy and the federal budget. They are also waiting to see what the political and economic fallout will be in states that have either downsized or raised taxes to try to preserve the status quo.

Most neutral observers would agree that, even if the economy starts growing again and federal revenues rebound with economic growth, the state-federal relationship is not going to return to the “good old days.” Any federal revenue growth will be dedicated to paying down federal debt and shoring up Medicare and Social Security. Even if the federal government increases taxes, that new money will go for deficit reduction, not aid to the states.

Therefore, the states in the “wait and see” category are soon going to have to choose whether to downsize or try to preserve the status quo. This sorting out process will be politically messy.

If those states that cut spending significantly enjoy strong employment growth, and if the legislators that voted for these cuts are not punished by the voters, expect more of the “wait and see” states to move in the direction of downsizing. However, if state spending cuts do not generate strong private sector job growth and Republicans are punished by voters for cutting programs, expect more of the “wait and see” states to try to preserve the status quo.

Of course, the converse is true for the status quo states. If policymakers are punished by the voters for raising taxes, and if the economies of these state underperform, expect these states to consider downsizing. If these states perform well economically and policymakers are not punished for raising taxes, expect more states to consider the status quo option.

Democrats’ biggest nightmare is that states cut spending significantly, their economies improve, and Republicans are rewarded – not punished – for reducing the size and scope of state government. Republicans’ biggest nightmare is that states raise taxes to preserve the status quo, their economies improve, and Democrats are rewarded – not   punished – for raising taxes and preserving state government programs and services.

Some interesting pairs of states to watch in this regard: Illinois and Indiana, Maryland and Virginia, and New Hampshire and Vermont. These sets of bordering states have chosen dramatically different fiscal paths.

I guess this is why Justice Brandeis called the states “laboratories of democracy.”

Tim Meehan: what are you thinking?

A viewing party this Friday to watch the wedding between a royal and his consort!
A Brit, no less!

Surely, you remember; we fought a war. People died. We won! They lost!

We poured tea into Boston harbor. The real tea party, back before Boston was simply the home of the Patriots,  Bruins, Celtics and the Red Sox.

Aging is a terrible thing. So in case your memory is fading: our forefathers kicked their redcoat butts back to that squalid island in the North Sea they call home. They did it so we could live in the home of the brave and the land of the free.

Our ancestors fought a war so we wouldn’t have to pay any attention to this royal nonsense. No more your majesty this; no more God Save the Queen.

And now here you are; down on one knee; genuflecting before bonnie Prince Bill.

MAC-Lean can be excused. Rice, there is still time to educate him.

But Meehan – you have been an honorable opponent and an excellent ally in the past. So this is a sad, sad sight.

Don’t be surprised if the guys in the three corner hats crash your jamboree.
In the interim, I have to make a call to Dublin.