Roy Ho’s Blog

Although McCain may not be as much of a moderate as you think he is, McCain is out of line from his Republican party than Obama can be from his Democrat party.  Although McCain’s platform may not be as environmentally friendly as Obama’s platform, McCain is trying harder to sell his environmental policies than Obama, see CNN.  It all means McCain is trying to define the stage the environment better: to choose his battle field to his advantage.  

Environmental crisis is more than oil.  Climate change is also driving the food cost.  The ethanol market is now driving food prices world wide.  It is also driving the agricultural land prices up as well.  Consequently, we are now having a farm bill that is trying to cut down on the farm subsidy.

This is the first time that a Republican President is saying the cut in farm subsidy is not enough.  And this insufficient in farm subsidy cut is the cited reason for veto.  

On the contrary, a Democrat constituency group would want to support a farm bill and may even want to decrease the cuts in order to lower food prices. 

McCain may not have been explicit about his position in farm subsidy.  However, a thorough environmental policy will eventually lead to that point: cut farm subsidy.  

Environmental crisis is eventually down to this point: efficiency on resources, i.e. economics.  Traditional tree huggers, the ones from 60’s, cannot tolerate the word “economics”.  However, this is what it will go down to.  And McCain will feel very comfortable if he will be able to define this issue.  

If McCain is able to define environmental crisis well, McCain will be able not only to fight Obama better than any Republican can, but also expand Republican base to a new territory and grab the traditionally Democrat constituency group over: intellectuals, and some religious left (both Christians and otherwise).  More importantly, McCain can do something other countries have not been successful: take the green voters to the right wing rather than letting left wing to hog them.  Better yet, eliminate the possibility of growth for the Green Party.  

Green parties are getting strong footholds everywhere around the world.  Germany had Green Party to be part of the ruling coalition.  Green parties in Canada are getting 10% of the world both federally and provincially.  The way to starve off your competitor is to offer products the buyers have been looking for.   

1)       the other two parties seldom address;

2)       draws an equal amount of voters from both sides.

Environmental crisis is such an issue.  The biggest loser from McCain’s aggressive environmentalism is to starve off the Greens and continue a 2 party system.  If McCain is successful, then he can make the game even by 2012.

The most difficult asset, in politics, to obtain is not policies or platforms.  In politics, policies and platforms are commodities.  Message is produced.  Brand is a product of time and money.  This difficult-to-obtain asset is the salesmen: politicians.  Obama is a great weapon for Democrats’ long term growth.  Can Obama contribute to this environmental debate? 

Nancy Pelosi (House Majority Leader) says the race should go on because of high turn out rate it is drawing in all the states.  Pressure has been on Clinton to quit as it would be divisive.  Pelosi is the first politician who acknowledges the positive benefit of a long race.  This is consistent with this blog’s philosophy (2008.04.07, 200804.23).  Why is Pelosi saying that? 

She is looking at the seats in the House of Representatives.  She wants to shake more Republican seats.  And she probably sees that the Democrats are now enlarging their base so great that they can eat into Republican base.  

Interestingly, what did Clinton say?  In the same CNN article, Clinton says it is a “civil rights” issue.  Therefore, if FL and MI will not get seated (however they will be seated), DNC, using Clinton’s idea, the civil rights of FL and MI have been violated.  Will Clinton defend their rights?  Does it mean Clinton will sue to get their rights re-installed?

This primary gets more twists and turns than Gore vs. Bush.  Want some more popcorn?

Obama needs approximately 80 super delegates.  How much will these 80 super delegates cost him? 

There are 280 uncommitted super delegates left. 217 pledged delegates are left for contest.  Obama needs 189 to win (Clinton needs 356). 

At this stage, the answer of electability is fairly clear.  Each candidate’s core constituency is known; their turn out rate is know.  Nothing can really get “negotiated” there.  You see what you buy.  Similarly for platform.  Other than a noble cause to vote for the winnable candidate, is there something a candidate can do for a super delegate just to get one additional vote?

It goes down to the question: what will convince a super delegate to vote for a candidate?  Electability?  Policy platform?  Popular vote count? Or something else?

All these above are very legitimate criteria.  However, some super delegates may have something more urgent on their hands: their own incumbency.  If a super delegate is in a tight race, his personal interest may be more at stake.  And Obama is not naïve about this: he has been fundraising for other candidates to gather favours.  The earliest senator endorsements are of this type. 

Other trades are typical political brokering: a promise of a specific legislation or pork barrel project.  What about fundraising support for a super delegate’s 2010 governor race?  Now, we are talking about money, real money for a politician.

Political Action Committees are the only ones that can accept political donations.  And they are owned by politicians.  The owner can forward the money to another PAC.  In fact, the surplus after campaigns belongs to the candidate.  They are structured very much like a personal account.  The point of this status is for the monitoring of Federal Election Committee.  

What did McCain do after he won over Huckabee?  Help pay off Giuliani’s campaign debt.  How?  Forward the money from his PAC!  Now, why did McCain do that?  Once Giuliani is out of the picture and since Giuliani and McCain share similar constituency, McCain wants to use Giuliani to help do fundraising.  And Giuliani was too busy with his own debt.  So, a favour was made, and a favour was returned.  

If the race gets another dramatic turn, the cost of super delegate will definitely rise since the Obama’s need of super delegate will increase.  However, if Obama can win the race all by him (through pledged delegate), then there is no need for Obama to get any more super delegate.  If not, no matter how much old politics he distains, he is still not immune to realities.  

There are reasons for both house and senate not to do anything with Bush in regard to recession (or anything else, like treaty ratification) for their personal and political gains.  However, such a delay may not be a bad thing for the country.  

A new president will be mandated by November, almost down to 6 months now.  A new administration will start operation by next January, 9 months away.  So, the good reason for not doing anything with Bush is: if legislations are passed now, then it will be the new administration that has to execute them, what if these legislations will completely contradict to the new administration’s mandate?  Is this legislative prescribing “solutions” that are going to be doomed? Or even worse sour the relationship with the new president?  

And if these legislations turned out to be successful, guess what, the outgoing president will definitely claim to be his credit years from now in his memoir just as the same time the new president will claim to be his credit.  Will any new president like such a trap?  How can any well intended legislator purposefully set such a political trap up for the new president to step on?  

We know there is no solution that would be “the only” solution.  Creating grand standing solutions right now requires an unquestionable monolithic ideological conviction that says this is the only solution to the problem.  The worse is this conviction can be misinterpreted as: arrogance. 

How can the legislators trust the new administration to execute these solutions faithfully when they just push them down the new administration’s throat?  Therefore, the delay tactic is not only for the gain of the legislature as a whole as well as individuals, but also prudent for the nation.  

Bush is complaining the Congress is delaying his every effort to get us out of recession, CNN reports.

What does he expect?  He is about to go.  Who would want to send him legacy legislations?  

Everyone should be in a transition mode and see what solutions will better fit the direction the next President will want to take.  After all, there is never one solution.  So, any legislator would think “why not wait and see?”

Any real meaningful legislation will require work from both House and Senate.  Every Joe, Dick and Harry will want to add his stamp, his pet project, pet cause, pet donor’s wishes to the legislation.  And it is much better to trade favours with a new president than an out-going president.  

All possible outcomes from this congress are items that are fiscally inexpensive and good for TV items.  This mortgage crisis cheque is a good example.  Everyone gets a few hundred bucks.  It is good for re-election.  And if the problem persists to 2009 January, then there is something the legislators can trade with the new president.  

This is just a blamemanship game. 

The political solutions usually cannot do a dent in a short run.  The effects of government fiscal policies and programs usually do not affect the economy in a matter of months.  These interventions affect the market set up and their effects are measured in years and decades.

Short term interventions require government’s active participation in the market (be it real estate or stock market or whatever else).  This kind of short term interventions are effective only when the action 1) is rare and 2) is taken shiftly.

Interest rate fluctuation is the first type, however the Fed can affect only the interest rate aspect of the economy. And that is not the solution for everything.

Shiftly is a time element.  The reaction has to be quick.  Such a quick action can only be carried out by an undemocratic institution, like the Fed.  And China’s interventions are effective because they are undemocratic.  They can shut down all stock transactions to serve whatever the political purpose is.  But we live in a democracy with freedom, right?

Some environmentalists are embracing the more expensive gas as the way to push for a greener America.  And we are now getting close to USD$120/barrel, after CNN reports a strike in UK’s North Sea. 

We all know that there is very little difference between Obama and Clinton in terms of green policies.  We also know that McCain has risked a lot more of his political capital against his Republican Party than Obama and Clinton have risked against their Democratic Party.  Ever since Bush announced his own plan, the differences among green policies in the country is getting narrower.  However, has anyone actually explained anything other than recycling and driving less?

Climate change is becoming an inevitable issue in the United States as it takes more and more media space as well as more and more votes from opinion polls.  Some government intervention will eventually occur.  How will these actions affect our life styles?  And it is more than gas prices or recycling.  How will it affect our consumption? Land prices? Zoning? And one may ask: “how are they related in the first place?”

Cost of transportation from your house to your job may not be that much.  However, the cost of transportation factors into everything in your household.  All this cost essentially is dependent on the distance between your residence to a national major transportation node.  Now, we are looking at a fraction of all your after tax income as transportation cost.  At the aggregate level, companies move ever closer to national transportation nodes.  This in turn encourages higher density, nationally. 

People are demanding more and more “walkable communities”. People are demanding more green space to produce more oxygen production, more farm land and everything else natural.  Governments and voters will eventually find out that the most effective way to conduct business is to revitalize downtowns everywhere.  That is equivalent to increase density. 

Instead of creating layers and layers of enforcement agency, chaotic laws that benefit no one but compliance lawyers auditing firms, governments may eventually consider turning to some economic or organic ways to increase density in order to minimize the eradication of green space and farm land.  If fiscal policy is to achieve this goal, then it will turn to some modification of property tax. 

Most of the property tax in North America is calculated based on two parts: the value of the property and the value of the land.  Very often, more than 2/3 of your property tax is derived from the value of property rather than the land.  This taxing philosophy prevents the most innovative use of the most expensive resources (land) in a city.  As a result, no land developer sees the value in having more retail space, having more office space, more residential space on the same piece of land. 

Values of properties in downtowns have little to do with the properties themselves but more to do with the land, i.e. location.  A tax philosophy that encourages efficiency of resources would place tax more on the value of land.  In such a scheme, the most profit would be extracted based on the value of the land rather than the property.  This encourages having the best property on a given piece of land rather than having the least cost to have a property on a valuable land.  Two storeys buildings in a downtown of a metropolitan of a 1 million would then become uneconomical.  It would only encourage a speculator or a developer to develop a high rise to make use of this most valuable land. 

Therefore, if your house happens to be in a big metropolitan, green politics will eventually make your wallet to realize the value of your house’s location.  Saving on your property tax bill may encourage you to sell your house.  Comparing house value based versus a land value based property tax scheme, one may argue that suburban residents and country residents have been subsidizing downtown residents through property tax.

How so?

Land prices in country vary not as much as cities.  Lands in cities vary the most in downtown area.  A 100 by 100 feet parcel of land in a downtown can easily fetch the same value of an acre in the country although the properties on top of the land are the same. 

The high expense of gasoline is effective in making people aware of their consumption choices.  However, letting the location of a residence to be swayed by gasoline price is difficult to be justified for a lot of families.  And since downtown land owners will prefer their continual land squatting for the next perfect sale opportunity, such a property tax modification may speed up the progress.

Therefore, having a property tax based on land value actually would serve country voters much more favourably than the suburbs’ and more for the suburbs’ than the urban areas’.  At the end, having such a green fiscal policy actually brings more benefit to the Republican voter base then Democrat voter base.  You would think voters make rational choices.

However, the conventional wisdom

In fact, a property tax scheme that is completely focused on the value of land or just the sale price of the property and land will eventually make land speculation more expensive, land development more expensive, building them require more engineering sophistication. 

Therefore, no one would want to squat on a piece of downtown land for decades without either developing it himself or selling it to a developer since the tax would serve as a good indicator to the owner how much value the land could possibly worth. 

Such a scenario will moderate urban sprawling depending on the proportion of land value in the property tax.  Downtown land owners will be the most immediate beneficiaries.  The land owners in the fringes of the city also see benefit.  The grumpiest of all the land owners will be the ones who have been expecting urban development in the future 10 years on their land but now an unforeseeable eternity. 

Land development is a hair splitting business.  A few basis points in the business loan will make or break the deal.  In this green scenario, since land becomes even more expensive and a higher density is very much needed to become profitable,

Downtowns in the states have been in decades of decline.  This is only partly due to the white flight.  A big portion of incentive has been due to the government unintentionally induced incentives for land squatting.  In other words:  a big portion of disincentive for innovative and cost effective use of land has been unintentionally created by governments all over the country. 

Being green is about having the least “economical footprint”.  In the words of economics, it is about being “cost effective”, “consuming” the least resources.  Currently, not all the costs are being factored into the environmentally wasteful products and therefore we are consuming at a cost that is far below the recovery cost of our consumption causing to the environment.  Fixing the environment requires money, just like anything else. 

Suppose the government finances the fix from levying a tax on gasoline.  Gas consumption goes down while demand for public transportation goes up.  Automobile manufacturers will have to create more energy efficient cars for the market.  But that is not the end of it.  This change of transportation habit is only a facet of the high expense of natural resources. 

There are many social injustices that require rectification.  Climate change is only one of them.  The difference is urgency, or priority.  If there is money to be made, there is a way for many willing change agent who will work on the cause.  For instance, Walmart is taking a serious effort into greening itself. 

If that is not possible, there are charities.  However, no one can fund a non-profitable cause with as much resources as a government can since government takes taxes off everyone to finance the actions. 

In any given year, I would see the following news story by CNN as a human rights issue.  Not this year.  In a year where we have a long and arduous primary on the left side, the Thai shrimp story is a good way for a non-profit to get the attention to the topic it cares the most: free trade.  Here is the link to the story: 

http://edition.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/asiapcf/04/23/shrimp.workers.report/index.html

Who sponsored the study? According to CNN, it is an “international nonprofit allied organization of the AFL-CIO”.  Even if AFL-CIO did not intend to project this issue on the stage of primary race, the media is doing the job.   

What is the interests of this story?  This story is to drive the readers to import products are morally tainted.  To prevent that is to establish a higher labour rights overseas among our free-trade trading partners.  That will increase the costs of production overseas and thus make the domestic products more competitive, at least domestically.  And even though US may not import shrimps from Thailand, the image that “imports are morally tainted” is implanted in the minds of the voters.

This is the same tactic (or effect) that the Tibet protests / Olympic torch protests achieve.  If the timing of these stories are timed and are in a sequence, then they can build up a very effective momentum to force the issue from an individual story into a campaign issue where all candidates cannot afford to ignore. 

Of course, the organization has to have some sort of ground level organization to make it work effectively, such as “concerned citizens” asking the right question in town hall meetings when the candidates attend.  And such schedule is easy to obtain.  Better yet, find out which media outlet and the name of the reporter were attending.  (planting)

And when third party campaign work (i.e. soft money) in conjunction with these releases, they become powerful.  While the media attention is on the issue, fundraising can get a much better lift of response rate.  The metric of one time donor amount will see a spike.  This is also a wonderful time for donor acquisition.  Elections are exciting, even for shrimping!

This 2008 election proves to be a textbook material for advocacy, fundraising and electioneering, even better than 2000 election.  Clinton’s victory will certainly encourage her to continue her race.  What Clinton shows this time in Pennsylvania is similar to what Obama showed when he was the underdog: money does not buy election victory all the time.  Clinton won by 10%, CNN reports.

http://edition.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/04/23/us.primary.intl/index.html?iref=hpmostpop

An indecisive Obama Super Tuesday victory brought this “lengthening, torturous” race because, as always, an indecisive result invites the loser for a re-match.  And Clinton gladly took on the challenge of a re-match.

Obama out spent Clinton by 2 to 1.  Obama enjoyed the positive media attention.  And he had the momentum, the most important thing of all.  And he yet he was behind by 10%.  A lot of people may expect him to win and would not be surprised by a loss.  But 10% probably is the threshold for “failure”. 

The real loss of this race so far is Ralph Nader.  He and/or his party have not improved their platform, i.e. the product, much since 2000.  Neither did they improve their election techniques.  Ralph Nader does not have the charm Obama has.  However, the electioneering could have been improved when in fact Obama took the great leap.

Clinton won by canvassing, the most important virtue of a politician.  Politics is a service industry.  Responsiveness to voters, not leadership, is the virtue promoted by democracy.  She canvassed hard in every county, in every city hall.  And she mobilized her daughter and husband in the state.  The air war of TV and Radio ads rained down by Obama did not bring him a victory just like money did not the Iowa victory for Clinton.  Obama won Iowa by the activists.  Clinton won by her hard work and her organization’s (or Governor Ed Rendall’s organization) hard work.  

This race broadened the voter base of Democrats in Pennsylvania.  And this is what advocacy / non-profit groups want.  The organization itself need not lend its name in the campaign in order to reap the benefit of it.  It’s the board members responsibility to participate in individual campaigns in order to gain the political access to the politicians, even though they may be the city council politicians.  It is this type of occasion that the cause focused groups can cultivate the next group of volunteers, big ticket donors, board members, fundraisers.  A broadening base means a longer list of “concerned citizens”.

When an election gets voters excited, voters are more willing to increase their level of civic participation, be it scrutineer, dropping flyer for an advocacy group, phone bank caller for a fundraising campaign of MADD, or even better attendance for the local recycling organization.  Although this race is dragging on, this serves as an opportunity for all non-profit groups to enlarge their voice and base.  

Leadership is wanted when voters are unable to specify their needs.  When change is wanted without a laundry list is change for the sake of change.  A victory by promoting leadership shows people want to be led, people expect someone who knows better than they do.  

Bush announced his goals on climate change.  Sierra Club already says Bush’s plan will require a miracle to save our planet.  Even McCain’s ideas are more agressive than Bush’s.  Very little is said about climate change in yesterday’s Pennsylvania presidential debate between Clinton and Obama.  Why is Bush anouncing something so useless and so late?   Is it part of his last minute legacy plan?  How does it relate to my non-profit organization when it is not an advocate of climate change?

This is his stall tactics. 

Getting a bill passed requires a process in the congress and senate.  It goes through committee, agenda arrangement, scope definition, text proof reading among members and aides, negotiation among members, parties and administration.  By providing something (anything), it takes off some of this momentum to his goals. 

Bush realizes that something will get passed in the next administration.  But providing something so vague, he can drag the bargain wide open for the next round of lobbying and thus provide a possibility of pushing a resolution less aggressive than it otherwise would be. 

In other words, he is not aiming for any kind of success.  He is aiming for a pay back to his constituence.  He is not even aiming for a legacy.

However, one point is worth noting: if Bush recognizes the need to address this issue, it will be difficult for anyone in the future to deny climate change.  The remaining question will be what and how: what should be done and how to get it done.

A lot of attention will be focused on what the emission will be.  However, the how question will affect more people in a wider range than media will be able to focus on.  Advocacy groups/nonprofit organizations representing interests not directly affected by the emission will have to pay attention on the how question.  Unfortunately, since media do not focus on the how part, advocacy groups and nonprofit usually lose their sight of it. Here are two examples to achieve the same goal with different implementations and their corresponding effects outside of pollution.

Example: emission legislation requires enforcement.  This will increase the government budget, i.e taxes.  Who gets the worst of it? Small business since cost of compliance always takes up a higher proportion of cost than a big business.  Emission can also be achieved by placing a higher gas tax and increasing personal income tax exemption at the same time without affecting the federal government’s revenue as well as its budgeting.  And the effect will be significantly different in aspects outside of the pollution. 

The former will increase government participation in the overall economy.  The latter will not.  The latter will at the same time help elevate the tax burden on the lowest income bracket tax payers, same the $10k/year income group.  Now, the poverty group suddenly have an interest in how the goals are achieved. 

When attention is so focused on emission, attention on other pressing issues are forgotten.  That is why climate change can be percevied, as an elitest cause, as a competing interest against other interest groups, say proverty groups.  It needs not be.  In fact, groups of different causes can exploit opportunities of any issue to further its own goal without sacrificing the issue of the moment. 

And exactly because advocacy groups and nonprofit organizations may not be able to follow these legislation details as well as being not able to provide these suggestions to complement the legislation to achieve its goals (piggy bag), politicians now can service the interests of the lobbyists’ paying customers without much scrutiny.   Therefore, if the issue of the moment is to discourage a certain behaviour (pollution), then your organization can always advocate to tax that behaviour and cut taxes (or spend that same tax revenue) for your constituence (seniors, students, low income, domestic abuse victim).

Fiscal policy is boring.  However, that is the most effectively way to modify the aggregate behaviour to achieve a goal.  Aggregately, people adjust their behaviour to the most use of their budget.  Even people who do not subscribe to that specific ideology now gets taxed and contributed to the cause.  An issue completely unrelated to your organization’s goal can help you when the implementation can be compromised to your favour.  In fact, you can suddenly become an ally of any issue of the moment, if you can demonstrate you can mobilize votes to support a legislation.

The DNC establishment fears (or so we have been reading) an Obama vs Clinton will become a bloodbath, tear the party apart and send the White House to McCain as a complimentary retirement package.  Obama and Clinton are doing exactly what the Democrats have failed to do for 4 decades.  This is a rare opportunity a lot of small charities never managed to have such an impact in a presidential nomination race.

Even if Victor DiMaio will not file another lawsuit against DNC, this nomination race exposed the problem with staging the primaries at different times.  

Nomination and fundraising rules are the two key elements in politics.  Nomination process is a product vetting process, no different from any other decision process in a company board room, charity board room or even high school student government.  This process has to assure all relevant inputs are included into the process, vetted by participants and competitively assessed.  If a process is made to be “not competitively”, it only damages the success of the output in the market place.  In the long run, it will damage the brand.  All products bearing the brand will get discounted, given the time is long enough for the damage to wear into the minds of the consumers.  

Voter turn out increases when there is much at stake.  Read this:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-04-06-voterregistrations_N.htm

This is not only true in this Democratic primary, but also true across all democracies.  Voters will go watch a game when a game is competitive.  TV stations get a higher viewership for the same reason.  

A prolonged primary will force both candidates to build their political infrastructure in the battling states.  The beneficiary is actually the local party.  The state democrats will have a chance to get a higher voter turn out, a higher voter registration, a higher volunteer participation, a higher donation head count as well as dollar amount, more party membership.  A next generation of staffers actually gets more opportunities for training, be they aspiring city councilors, school board district candidates or even nonprofits/charities which have a strong commitment to a cause.  

Charities and advocacy groups now have a much more publicized opportunity to reach the general audience, recruit volunteers, generate donations, outreach and build a bigger infrastructure.  An election is not only for the candidates, but also for every organized civic cause.

There is more.  These late primary states now have much better political access to the candidates than before.  Their concerns now get a chance to get exemplified to the level they never experienced before.  Even a state legislator can have a chance to talk to the presidential hopefuls via a telephone rather than a staffer (or a receptionist) of the candidate.  Every organization that can mobilize voters for voter registration or voter turn out now has a much better chance to influence a presidential candidate than before.

Whom does a newly elected official owe more favours?  The king makers.  And now these late states get more bragging rights and become a heavier weight in the next presidency.  Everyone is now checking their balance sheets of favours owed and favours made to get the biggest block of super delegates.  Even organizations which maintain their own balance sheet should check too.  And if your organization can manage a small amount of soft money for a House Representative race, you now have a chance to influence this super delegate’s vote in Denver.  The super delegates, in particular the super delegates of these final states, should embrace this rare opportunity.  So do the voters of these super delegates too. 

Is it unfair to a voter among the states of Super Tuesday?  Certainly, undoubtedly so.  This system was born in 1968.  And it took 40 years for Victor DiMaio to file a lawsuit (and got dismissed).  

*A lot of progress has been made in political science regarding improving voting systems.  The current Democrat system can be found by keywords McGovern-Fraser Commission.