On December 6, 2010 a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit Federal Court heard arguments on a possible appeal of a lower court ruling that the Proposition 8 ban of same-sex marriage in California  was unconstitutional.  The hearing was televised on CSPAN.  It was fascinating to watch.  Although it is very captivating to listen to highly-reasoned highly-articulated courtroom discourse, I realized that the arguments being made were re-hashed from the first days that the issue arose.   We’re keeping lawyers and pundits busy for many many years.  

My husband and I can now travel to any part of Canada and Mexico and be recognized as a married couple because those countries’ federal governments acted quickly and proactively to instruct their respective provincial and state governments to recognize same sex marriages.  The rulings were on constitutional grounds that are very similar to what is being argued here.

The best jobs policy for a commonwealth to adopt is to provide a quality public infrastructure that fosters private enterprise.  It is a proven engine for upward mobility.  Let’s reject the two familiar non-working policy frameworks in a stagnant debate that argue either:

1) that taxes and government impede enterprise (and thus should always be cut); or

2) that credits and incentives should be extended to favored companies and industries (whose officers and lobbyists make investments to exert influence on public policy-making).

I’m not arguing against all tax cuts or against all credits, but I do argue that our public infrastructure does not support enterprise, job creation, and upward economic mobility.

It has been fashionable for a while for media pundits of both progressive and conservative stripes to lament big money influence in the politics and policy-making of the two ruling parties.  This is often accompanied with a call for a new party (or two or three).  It is seldom accompanied with any real reporting on those pioneers who are already doing the unfashionable hard work of party-building, especially those that do it without that very disdained establishment money.

In yesterday’s New York Times, Frank Rich lamented on the big bad money.  His fellow Times columnists Thomas Friedman and Bob Herbert have also done so  frequently.  I’m sure that Rachel Maddow has, too.

Pollsters tell us that lots of people are unhappy with corporate two-party politics:  over 60% of both self-identified conservatives and self-identified progressives believe the country should have a new party.  News producers, therefore, know they’re on safe ground when they report on voter dissatisfaction with the political process in the abstract.  That abstract safe ground is where they remain for now.