As <a href="http://www.bbspot.com/">BBSpot</a> points out in <a href="http://www.bbspot.com/News/2002/11/election.html">Americans Surprised to Learn of Upcoming Election</a>, <iq>74 percent of Americans were surprised that elections were being held this Tuesday</iq>. This is actually surprising, since you would think that the administration would have their hands full with diverting attention from the economy; but it seems that the ever-compliant media has helped to downplay today's elections as well. <a href="http://www.plastic.com/">Plastic</a> explains why there may be so little emphasis on today's elections in <a href="http://www.plastic.com/article.html?sid=02/11/04/12315810;cmt=81" title="Here We Go...Election Day In The USA Is Tuesday, November 5th">Election Day In The USA Is Tuesday, November 5th</a> (which seems somewhat desperately titled, but perhaps appropriately so) saying <iq>Democrats appear to have a better chance to make gains in the Senate than Republicans do. 10 seats are still in play, a surprisingly high number for any Senate cycle</iq>. That at least explains why lower voter turnout (and decreased emphasis on the elections) would benefit the Republicans there. However, as is pointed out in <a href="http://www.plastic.com/comments.html?sid=02/11/04/12315810;cid=2">Re: The most frustrating part...</a>, a comment to the article on Plastic, a more likely explanation for low voter turnout is: <bq>...you have the latest round of congressional redistricting, which in most cases has gerrymandered even safer enclaves of GOP or Democratic support for the incumbent party: out of nearly 600 House seats, about 30 are considered competitive. That's <i>five percent of the seats</i>. The other 95% are either unopposed contests, ones without a major opponent, or suicide runs. Whatever you think about the virtues of the US system, having the essential 50-50 balance between the main parties sustained by the equivalent of 'rotten boroughs' can't be good for democracy, because it brings with it the impression, particularly for those supporting the opposition party in their particular district, but also for those voting for the incumbent, that <i>your vote can't change anything</i>. And while that's good for the political operatives and the lobby groups, it's a very big step down the road to a major political crisis. (<span class="notes">More information on this available from <a href="http://www.alternet.org/">Alternet</a> in <a href="http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=14441">Personal Voices: The Missing Candidates</a></span>)</bq> This is, for the most part, true. The predeliction for predictability is such that a governing body with only a few perceived swing votes (votes that may go either way on an issue) is seen as a good thing. However, this entails that the majority of lawmakers have fossilized ideas that never change on quite major topics, seemingly regardless of new information. Most people, urged on by the media, don't seem to like the idea of a government that could drastically change direction overnight. Perhaps because they've never tried it. Personally, if the US government drastically changed direction overnight, that would be just fine. However, according to <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A53394-2002Oct19?language=printer">Republicans Planning for Full Control Of Congress</a> at the <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/">Washington Post</a>, <iq>White House officials and Republicans on Capitol Hill are so optimistic about winning control of both chambers of Congress in next month's elections that they have begun mapping how they would use their new power, including the possibility of speeding up tax cuts that were to take effect gradually.</iq> Oh, good, more tax cuts. Does anyone have any idea where the last one went? I mean, I got my US$300, but seriously, wasn't there about </i>US$1.35 Trillion</i> lying around that they gave away (the rest of the almost 2 Trillion surplus we all heard about is also gone, as we are now running a deficit, but that, too, didn't <i>trickle down</i> anywhere, did it)? However, <iq>one of the first measures to be passed by a Republican-controlled Congress would be a permanent version of last year's phased-in, $1.35 trillion tax cut, scheduled to expire in 2010</iq>. In addition, <iq>Republicans would be expected to push to cut other taxes, including the capital gains tax</iq>, that horrible scourge of not a very large percentage of the country. And there's also <iq>100 [senators and congressman] who want to eliminate the inheritance tax</iq>, another tax that the majority of the country doesn't feel much at all. The only reason I would see to modify that one is for farmers and ranchers who are faced with the prospect of selling most of their land to development companies because of the high tax levied when it comes time to pass the land down to the next generation. Some of the tax cuts make sense. Of course, no one likes to pay taxes; but when this administration starts talking about tax cuts, don't expect to see too much money flowing in unless you makes more than $200,000 per year. As Paul Krugman of the <a href="http://www.newyorktimes.com/">New York Times</a> points out in a recent column, <a href="http://www.pkarchive.org/column/101802.html">Springtime for Hitler</a>: <bq>...more than 25 percent of the income tax cut will go to people making more than $200,000 per year. This number doesn't include the effects of estate tax repeal; in 1999 only 2 percent of estates paid any tax, and half of that tax was paid by only 0.16 percent of estates. The number also probably doesn't take account of the alternative minimum tax, which will snatch away most of the income tax cut for upper-middle-class families, but won't affect the rich.</bq> When all is accounted for, <iq>...40 percent of the tax cut — it could be a bit less, but probably it's considerably more — will go to 1 percent of the population</iq>. And guess who got the rest of the tax cut? That's right, corporations. I mean if most of the middle class got at most US$300, and there are 300 Million people in the US who each got that much, then that only makes US$90 Billion. That's about 1.5% of the total tax cut. The rest of the money went somewhere, didn't it? Perhaps there should be more people asking where the last tax cut went rather than eagerly anticipating the next one. <a href="http://www.alternet.org/">Alternet</a> has an article asking <a href="http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=14443">Are Young People Too Smart to Vote?</a> This points out that only <iq>12 percent of 18- to 24- year-olds and 8.5 percent of 18-19 year olds voted ... [perhaps because] ... they have a better sense than adults that our political system truly is broken</iq>. What were the issues in the 2000 campaign? <iq>...Medicare, prescription drugs and Social Security lockboxes</iq>. The <iq>precision demographics</iq> of both parties determined that <iq>seniors ...[who]... are fiscal conservatives ... are more likely to be swing voters than young people</iq>. Therefore, most of the people's votes don't count, as described above and the entire campaign settled comfortably into courting a small minority of the population. The rest of us could be assumed to vote properly --- or within defined statistical limits.