On Bill White's wish list below is the power to declare sexually oriented businesses "public nuisances." This allows him a degree of discretion in how he can attempt to regulate them. Their presence presumably creates a nuisance where ever they are located.
He tried to do the same thing with chemical plants in the last legislative session. The pollution they spewed created a nuisance in areas downwind from the plant, and if that area happened to be within Houston's city limits, then he argues he should have the power to regulate them
So here's a question, is the concept of a public nuisance simply an open ended opportunity for a mayor to expand his power? If so, does it invite an arbitrary application of that power? Or is it a necessary way for a mayor to maintain and enhance the quality of life in his or her city?
- Legal Definition.
Sunday, November 30, 2008
Sunset Review 2008 - 2009
The government of the state of Texas, as opposed to the national government, requires all its state agencies to periodically justify their existence in a process coordinated by the Sunset Advisory Commission.
From the agency's website:
In 1977, the Texas Legislature created the Sunset Advisory Commission to identify and eliminate waste, duplication, and inefficiency in government agencies. The 12-member Commission is a legislative body that reviews the policies and programs of more than 150 government agencies every 12 years. The Commission questions the need for each agency, looks for potential duplication of other public services or programs, and considers new and innovative changes to improve each agency's operations and activities. The Commission seeks public input through hearings on every agency under Sunset review and recommends actions on each agency to the full Legislature. In most cases, agencies under Sunset review are automatically abolished unless legislation is enacted to continue them.
Click here for a list of the agencies under review in 2008 - 2009.
From the agency's website:
In 1977, the Texas Legislature created the Sunset Advisory Commission to identify and eliminate waste, duplication, and inefficiency in government agencies. The 12-member Commission is a legislative body that reviews the policies and programs of more than 150 government agencies every 12 years. The Commission questions the need for each agency, looks for potential duplication of other public services or programs, and considers new and innovative changes to improve each agency's operations and activities. The Commission seeks public input through hearings on every agency under Sunset review and recommends actions on each agency to the full Legislature. In most cases, agencies under Sunset review are automatically abolished unless legislation is enacted to continue them.
Click here for a list of the agencies under review in 2008 - 2009.
Houston's Agenda for the 81st Legislative Session
The Chron outlines the legislative agenda Houston Mayor Bill White plans to push in the upcoming session of the Texas Legislature.
The To-Do List
Mayor Bill White and city lobbyists will push for several initiatives in the legislative session that starts in a few weeks:
• Environment: Adopt statewide limits on air toxics such as benzene; adopt a tougher emissions standard for cars.
• Crime and public safety: Change state law so that pawnshops must file paperwork electronically to help combat theft and fencing of stolen goods. Allow cities to designate sexually oriented businesses as public "nuisances," making it easier to close them down. Change legal timeline for city to collect fees on mixed beverage permits. Assist ex-convicts who want jobs and apartments by issuing them a Texas identification card when they leave prison.
• Transportation: Press TxDOT to change how funds are allocated statewide. Locally, push for priority reconstruction of "bottleneck" where Highway 290 joins the 610 Loop.
• Neighborhoods: Make it easier for residential neighborhoods to form associations that can implement and enforce deed restrictions.
• Ike fallout: Require utilities to strengthen infrastructure to deal with future hurricanes and emergencies. White has appointed a task force to come up with specific proposals. Ideas that have been mentioned involve changing state regulations to force utilities to bury more power lines or maintain a minimum level of power capacity in reserve to prevent blackouts.
The To-Do List
Mayor Bill White and city lobbyists will push for several initiatives in the legislative session that starts in a few weeks:
• Environment: Adopt statewide limits on air toxics such as benzene; adopt a tougher emissions standard for cars.
• Crime and public safety: Change state law so that pawnshops must file paperwork electronically to help combat theft and fencing of stolen goods. Allow cities to designate sexually oriented businesses as public "nuisances," making it easier to close them down. Change legal timeline for city to collect fees on mixed beverage permits. Assist ex-convicts who want jobs and apartments by issuing them a Texas identification card when they leave prison.
• Transportation: Press TxDOT to change how funds are allocated statewide. Locally, push for priority reconstruction of "bottleneck" where Highway 290 joins the 610 Loop.
• Neighborhoods: Make it easier for residential neighborhoods to form associations that can implement and enforce deed restrictions.
• Ike fallout: Require utilities to strengthen infrastructure to deal with future hurricanes and emergencies. White has appointed a task force to come up with specific proposals. Ideas that have been mentioned involve changing state regulations to force utilities to bury more power lines or maintain a minimum level of power capacity in reserve to prevent blackouts.
Saturday, November 29, 2008
Is Loyalty to the President Overated?
Folks like me -- government instructor types -- are supposed to tell folks like you -- government student types -- that loyalty is the most important trait of a presidential advisor.
Jacob Weisberg wonders if it is an overrated virtue:
The demand for absolute loyalty is a relic from the age of patronage, when political appointments were tied to the delivery of votes for a sponsor. A modern media politician does not depend on this kind of machine for his existence and has political control over only a thin sliver of top-level government jobs. The vast majority of public employees is protected by the Civil Service and can't be vetted for loyalty. As the complexity of the government has increased, so, too, has the importance of expertise and experience.
This is part of what has made George W. Bush's loyalty obsession such a throwback. Bush's first job in politics was as an "enforcer" for a father he thought was too nice to discipline traitors and freelancers. His own fixation on loyalty was born from the experience of watching top aides to his dad such as James Baker and Richard Darman put their own careers and images first. When his turn came, the younger Bush made personal loyalty a threshold test—and even seemed to regard private, internal challenge to his ill-considered preferences as an indication of untrustworthiness.
...
Surrounding oneself with die-hard loyalists breeds insularity. Over time, the fixation with loyalty devolves toward a mafia view of politics that lends itself to abuse of power. The circle tightens, enemies are listed, paranoia blossoms. This happened in one way in LBJ's White House, where the president's mistrust of people tied to the Kennedys prevented him from hearing sound advice about Vietnam. It happened another way in the Nixon White House, where an obsession with national security leaks led to the reign of Haldeman and Erlichman. It happened in another way still in George W. Bush's White House, where so little internal dissent was allowed that truth became disposable. While the elder George Bush could live with a continual ooze of self-serving leaks from his friend Baker, who (like the unfaithful Henry Kissinger) was a highly effective diplomat, his son gave full "you are dead to me" treatment to any official—John DiIulio, Paul O'Neill, Scott McClellan—who allowed a hint of daylight between himself and the official White House line.
Conversely, the most successful presidents generate loyalty without sweating it. Roosevelt brought nonsupporters including Herbert Hoover's secretary of state, Henry Stimson, into his Cabinet. Even after his aide Raymond Moley broke publicly with him and became a Republican, FDR had Moley back to help with his 1936 convention speech. It's hard to think of a bigger turncoat than David Stockman, who gave a series of interviews about why Ronald Reagan's economic policies made no sense. But Reagan didn't fire his budget director. He merely asked him to pretend he'd been given a tongue-lashing (the concocted "visit to the woodshed"). After Reagan decided on airstrikes against Hezbollah in retaliation for the Marine barracks bombing in Lebanon in 1983, his secretary of defense, Casper Weinberger, countermanded the order because he thought it was a bad idea. Reagan let that one go, too.
Jacob Weisberg wonders if it is an overrated virtue:
The demand for absolute loyalty is a relic from the age of patronage, when political appointments were tied to the delivery of votes for a sponsor. A modern media politician does not depend on this kind of machine for his existence and has political control over only a thin sliver of top-level government jobs. The vast majority of public employees is protected by the Civil Service and can't be vetted for loyalty. As the complexity of the government has increased, so, too, has the importance of expertise and experience.
This is part of what has made George W. Bush's loyalty obsession such a throwback. Bush's first job in politics was as an "enforcer" for a father he thought was too nice to discipline traitors and freelancers. His own fixation on loyalty was born from the experience of watching top aides to his dad such as James Baker and Richard Darman put their own careers and images first. When his turn came, the younger Bush made personal loyalty a threshold test—and even seemed to regard private, internal challenge to his ill-considered preferences as an indication of untrustworthiness.
...
Surrounding oneself with die-hard loyalists breeds insularity. Over time, the fixation with loyalty devolves toward a mafia view of politics that lends itself to abuse of power. The circle tightens, enemies are listed, paranoia blossoms. This happened in one way in LBJ's White House, where the president's mistrust of people tied to the Kennedys prevented him from hearing sound advice about Vietnam. It happened another way in the Nixon White House, where an obsession with national security leaks led to the reign of Haldeman and Erlichman. It happened in another way still in George W. Bush's White House, where so little internal dissent was allowed that truth became disposable. While the elder George Bush could live with a continual ooze of self-serving leaks from his friend Baker, who (like the unfaithful Henry Kissinger) was a highly effective diplomat, his son gave full "you are dead to me" treatment to any official—John DiIulio, Paul O'Neill, Scott McClellan—who allowed a hint of daylight between himself and the official White House line.
Conversely, the most successful presidents generate loyalty without sweating it. Roosevelt brought nonsupporters including Herbert Hoover's secretary of state, Henry Stimson, into his Cabinet. Even after his aide Raymond Moley broke publicly with him and became a Republican, FDR had Moley back to help with his 1936 convention speech. It's hard to think of a bigger turncoat than David Stockman, who gave a series of interviews about why Ronald Reagan's economic policies made no sense. But Reagan didn't fire his budget director. He merely asked him to pretend he'd been given a tongue-lashing (the concocted "visit to the woodshed"). After Reagan decided on airstrikes against Hezbollah in retaliation for the Marine barracks bombing in Lebanon in 1983, his secretary of defense, Casper Weinberger, countermanded the order because he thought it was a bad idea. Reagan let that one go, too.
Friday, November 28, 2008
Understanding Craddick's Strength
Clay Robinson's piece in today's Chron helps sort this out:
Speaker Tom Craddick gained power and has held onto it (so far) with strong financial support from the business community, including Houston home builder Bob Perry.
Perry alone has been a major pro-Craddick force, giving hundreds of thousands of dollars to the Republican speaker and the election campaigns of legislative candidates backing him.
The home builder and his business colleagues have been rewarded with additional protections against consumer lawsuits and a less-than-onerous regulatory climate.
But what happens to Perry's money if Craddick is unseated? Well — if the poor economy doesn't dry it up — Gov. Rick Perry, Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst, Attorney General Greg Abbott, many other Republican officials and selected Democrats will continue to get bushels of it.
And so, perhaps, would the next speaker.
At one time or another, the home builder or one of the political action committees to which he contributes heavily has given money to each of the nine House members — four Republicans and five Democrats — now challenging Craddick.
But two — Democrats Sylvester Turner of Houston and Allan Ritter of Nederland — have received much more of his money than the other would-be speakers.
In direct contributions alone, the home builder has given Turner, Craddick's speaker pro tem, $115,000 since 2002. That is almost double what Perry contributed directly to Craddick during that period. Turner received $31,000 of the total during the most recent election cycle.
Perry has given Ritter $67,000 since 2002. He gave most of that — $49,000 — during the 2003-04 election cycle, when Ritter beat a challenger in the Democratic primary, following the lawmaker's sponsorship in 2003 of the bill creating the home builder-backed Texas Residential Construction Commission.
That agency, designed to protect home builders from buyers' lawsuits in exchange for new state oversight over building standards, has been attacked as weak and ineffective by consumer advocates. And the staff of the Sunset Advisory Commission has recommended that the Legislature abolish it next year.
Ritter, who is in the building supply business, was honored by the National Homebuilders Association as the "State Legislator of the Year" in 2003, the year the agency was created.
There are reasons why some get involved heavily in politics. It pays.
Notice that Bob Perry has given money to each of the current candidates for Texas Speaker.
Speaker Tom Craddick gained power and has held onto it (so far) with strong financial support from the business community, including Houston home builder Bob Perry.
Perry alone has been a major pro-Craddick force, giving hundreds of thousands of dollars to the Republican speaker and the election campaigns of legislative candidates backing him.
The home builder and his business colleagues have been rewarded with additional protections against consumer lawsuits and a less-than-onerous regulatory climate.
But what happens to Perry's money if Craddick is unseated? Well — if the poor economy doesn't dry it up — Gov. Rick Perry, Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst, Attorney General Greg Abbott, many other Republican officials and selected Democrats will continue to get bushels of it.
And so, perhaps, would the next speaker.
At one time or another, the home builder or one of the political action committees to which he contributes heavily has given money to each of the nine House members — four Republicans and five Democrats — now challenging Craddick.
But two — Democrats Sylvester Turner of Houston and Allan Ritter of Nederland — have received much more of his money than the other would-be speakers.
In direct contributions alone, the home builder has given Turner, Craddick's speaker pro tem, $115,000 since 2002. That is almost double what Perry contributed directly to Craddick during that period. Turner received $31,000 of the total during the most recent election cycle.
Perry has given Ritter $67,000 since 2002. He gave most of that — $49,000 — during the 2003-04 election cycle, when Ritter beat a challenger in the Democratic primary, following the lawmaker's sponsorship in 2003 of the bill creating the home builder-backed Texas Residential Construction Commission.
That agency, designed to protect home builders from buyers' lawsuits in exchange for new state oversight over building standards, has been attacked as weak and ineffective by consumer advocates. And the staff of the Sunset Advisory Commission has recommended that the Legislature abolish it next year.
Ritter, who is in the building supply business, was honored by the National Homebuilders Association as the "State Legislator of the Year" in 2003, the year the agency was created.
There are reasons why some get involved heavily in politics. It pays.
Notice that Bob Perry has given money to each of the current candidates for Texas Speaker.
The Fairness Doctrine
TNR has a story about a conservative uproar over the possible reinstatement of the fairness doctrine.
The fairness doctrine was established over 60 years ago when limited airwaves caused the FCC to establish a policy mandating that opposing views be given to controversial topics. Since the airwaves were owned publicly and access was granted by a license issued by the FCC, broadcasters risked losing their licenses if they did not comply. In the 1980s, the expansion of access -- plus the opposition of ideologically oriented broadcasters -- led to the retraction of the policy.
Though conservatives, who believe they will suffer from the policy since conservative talk radio stations would be required to counter Rush Limbaugh with, say, Michael Moore.
Here's some pro and con about the policy.
Con: From the Heritage Foundation.
Pro: From Common Dreams.
The fairness doctrine was established over 60 years ago when limited airwaves caused the FCC to establish a policy mandating that opposing views be given to controversial topics. Since the airwaves were owned publicly and access was granted by a license issued by the FCC, broadcasters risked losing their licenses if they did not comply. In the 1980s, the expansion of access -- plus the opposition of ideologically oriented broadcasters -- led to the retraction of the policy.
Though conservatives, who believe they will suffer from the policy since conservative talk radio stations would be required to counter Rush Limbaugh with, say, Michael Moore.
Here's some pro and con about the policy.
Con: From the Heritage Foundation.
Pro: From Common Dreams.
Thursday, November 27, 2008
Incitement?
I'm not sure what word is more appropriate. Enticement? Persuasion?
Here's a horrid story that touches on our discussion in 2301 about the limits of free speech. Again from Today's Paper in Slate:
The NYT and LAT front news that a federal jury in Los Angeles convicted a woman in Missouri of three misdemeanor computer crimes after she set up a fictitious MySpace account in the name of a 16-year-old boy and used it to communicate with a 13-year-old girl. The girl committed suicide two years ago after the "boy" sent her a message saying, "The world would be a better place without you." The jury couldn't reach a verdict on the main charge of conspiracy so she now faces a possible three-year sentence. The NYT says that regardless of how much time she spends behind bars, the conviction is important because it's the first time that a "federal statute designed to combat computer crimes was used to prosecute what were essentially abuses of a user agreement on a social networking site." The LAT cites experts saying that the verdict makes social-networking sites responsible for monitoring users more closely. Some are worried the verdict could have far-reaching effects. "[I]t is now a crime to 'obtain information' from a Web site in violation of its terms of service," a former federal prosecutor tells the NYT. "This cannot be what Congress meant when it enacted the law, but now you have it."
Notice that she was convicted of abusing a user agreement on a social networking site. Could she have been convicted of man slaughter or some other charge? What did she do that was illegal (as opposed to simply morally repugnant)? All she did was communicate. We all have the right to speak freely right?
Right?
How can you effectively, constitutionally, punish this type of behavior?
Here's a horrid story that touches on our discussion in 2301 about the limits of free speech. Again from Today's Paper in Slate:
The NYT and LAT front news that a federal jury in Los Angeles convicted a woman in Missouri of three misdemeanor computer crimes after she set up a fictitious MySpace account in the name of a 16-year-old boy and used it to communicate with a 13-year-old girl. The girl committed suicide two years ago after the "boy" sent her a message saying, "The world would be a better place without you." The jury couldn't reach a verdict on the main charge of conspiracy so she now faces a possible three-year sentence. The NYT says that regardless of how much time she spends behind bars, the conviction is important because it's the first time that a "federal statute designed to combat computer crimes was used to prosecute what were essentially abuses of a user agreement on a social networking site." The LAT cites experts saying that the verdict makes social-networking sites responsible for monitoring users more closely. Some are worried the verdict could have far-reaching effects. "[I]t is now a crime to 'obtain information' from a Web site in violation of its terms of service," a former federal prosecutor tells the NYT. "This cannot be what Congress meant when it enacted the law, but now you have it."
Notice that she was convicted of abusing a user agreement on a social networking site. Could she have been convicted of man slaughter or some other charge? What did she do that was illegal (as opposed to simply morally repugnant)? All she did was communicate. We all have the right to speak freely right?
Right?
How can you effectively, constitutionally, punish this type of behavior?
Spokes in the Wheel?
Commentators have been making preliminary comparisons between Obama and FDR. We have no idea how appropriate these comparisons will be, but in one area it seems to have merit. Roosevelt was known for surrounding himself the smartest people he could find -- the brain trust -- placing himself at the center of their deliberations, decide whose argument was most persuasive, and use that to establish policy. Obama seems to be doing the same.
From Slate's Today's Papers:
As part of Obama's effort to put together "the best minds in America" to deal with the current economic crisis, the president-elect appointed former Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker as chairman of his new Economic Recovery Advisory Board. This means there will be five different Washington entities trying to come up with solutions to the crisis. It's already well-known that Obama likes to be surrounded by expert advisers, but in a front-page piece, the WP says that putting so many head-strong people together will test the president-elect's crisis-management skills. Obama has to make sure that "his surplus of smarts does not become too much of a good thing," as the Post puts it, because having too many people battling for a chance to get their views across to the president could create a management nightmare.
From Slate's Today's Papers:
As part of Obama's effort to put together "the best minds in America" to deal with the current economic crisis, the president-elect appointed former Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker as chairman of his new Economic Recovery Advisory Board. This means there will be five different Washington entities trying to come up with solutions to the crisis. It's already well-known that Obama likes to be surrounded by expert advisers, but in a front-page piece, the WP says that putting so many head-strong people together will test the president-elect's crisis-management skills. Obama has to make sure that "his surplus of smarts does not become too much of a good thing," as the Post puts it, because having too many people battling for a chance to get their views across to the president could create a management nightmare.
Obama Potential Relationship With Congress
Presidents are often only successful to the degree that they can establish good working relations with Congress. Unified government matters little if the party in Congress does not coordinate -- or is even hostile to -- the party in the White House. Historically Democrats, who tend to be more diverse as a coalition than Republicans, have had internal difficulties that have made governing difficult even when they have had unified control of national governing institutions.
The four years of Carter's Presidency and the first two years of Clinton's are prime examples. Their failures were not the fault of Republicans -- though they did not go out of their way to be helpful -- but rather a consequence of their inability to act as a cohesive unit. Teddy Kennedy went after Carter because Carter was too centrist for his tastes, and Democrats had the numbers to pass health care reform in Clinton's first term.
From Today's Papers in Slate comes a few stories detailing how Obama's transition is taking relations with Congress very seriously:
In a front-page piece, the LAT points out that President-elect Barack Obama is making a concerted effort to reach out to lawmakers. In marked contrast to recent Democratic administrations, Obama's team includes several Capitol Hill insiders, including Rahm Emanuel and Tom Daschle, who are using their connections and reputations "to help build sturdy bridges between the White House and Congress." That effort could go a long way to help Obama's oft-stated goal to "hit the ground running," and Democrats may try to pass an economic stimulus bill in early January and have it ready for the president's signature when he takes office later that month. The NYT also takes a look at the Capitol Hill connections in Obama's team and warns that "such close relationships do not mean that tension between Congress and the White House will not break out." There already appear to be some disagreements among Democrats on how big the stimulus package should be.
The four years of Carter's Presidency and the first two years of Clinton's are prime examples. Their failures were not the fault of Republicans -- though they did not go out of their way to be helpful -- but rather a consequence of their inability to act as a cohesive unit. Teddy Kennedy went after Carter because Carter was too centrist for his tastes, and Democrats had the numbers to pass health care reform in Clinton's first term.
From Today's Papers in Slate comes a few stories detailing how Obama's transition is taking relations with Congress very seriously:
In a front-page piece, the LAT points out that President-elect Barack Obama is making a concerted effort to reach out to lawmakers. In marked contrast to recent Democratic administrations, Obama's team includes several Capitol Hill insiders, including Rahm Emanuel and Tom Daschle, who are using their connections and reputations "to help build sturdy bridges between the White House and Congress." That effort could go a long way to help Obama's oft-stated goal to "hit the ground running," and Democrats may try to pass an economic stimulus bill in early January and have it ready for the president's signature when he takes office later that month. The NYT also takes a look at the Capitol Hill connections in Obama's team and warns that "such close relationships do not mean that tension between Congress and the White House will not break out." There already appear to be some disagreements among Democrats on how big the stimulus package should be.
Wednesday, November 26, 2008
San Jacinto River Waste Pit
I had never heard of this little jewel of an outcropping, but it's one of the items under the jurisdiction of the subcommittee on the Environment and Hazardous Materials that Gene Green hopes to continue to chair.
From Wikimapia:
Site Location: The site is located on the western bank of the San Jacinto River, immediately north of the Interstate Highway 10 bridge. The site occupies a 20 acre tract of land currently owned by Virgil C. McGinnes Trustee. The site is bounded on the south by Interstate Highway 10, on the east by the San Jacinto River main channel, and on the north and west by shallow water off the river's main channel. In addition, there are contaminated sediments of at least 0.5 miles in length within the San Jacinto River.
Health Considerations: The primary hazardous substances that have been documented at the San Jacinto River Waste Pits site are polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins and polychlorinated dibenzofurans. Samples collected in the disposal pits and in the San Jacinto River have dioxin concentrations as high as 70,000 parts per trillion. Fish tissue samples have been collected by the Texas Department of Fish and Wildlife, and dioxin has been found in both fish and crab tissue samples above a health based benchmark. Sediment, water, and tissue samples collected in the vicinity of the impoundments show elevated levelsof dioxins. A consumption advisory based on dioxin is in place on this segment of the watershed. The current advisory recommends that adults eat no more than one meal per month caught from the advisory area, and suggests that women of childbearing age and children not consume any blue crabs or fish from the advisory area. Despite the advisory, residents are continuing to consume fish and crabs within this segment of the river.
mmmmmmm good.
From Wikimapia:
Site Location: The site is located on the western bank of the San Jacinto River, immediately north of the Interstate Highway 10 bridge. The site occupies a 20 acre tract of land currently owned by Virgil C. McGinnes Trustee. The site is bounded on the south by Interstate Highway 10, on the east by the San Jacinto River main channel, and on the north and west by shallow water off the river's main channel. In addition, there are contaminated sediments of at least 0.5 miles in length within the San Jacinto River.
Health Considerations: The primary hazardous substances that have been documented at the San Jacinto River Waste Pits site are polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins and polychlorinated dibenzofurans. Samples collected in the disposal pits and in the San Jacinto River have dioxin concentrations as high as 70,000 parts per trillion. Fish tissue samples have been collected by the Texas Department of Fish and Wildlife, and dioxin has been found in both fish and crab tissue samples above a health based benchmark. Sediment, water, and tissue samples collected in the vicinity of the impoundments show elevated levelsof dioxins. A consumption advisory based on dioxin is in place on this segment of the watershed. The current advisory recommends that adults eat no more than one meal per month caught from the advisory area, and suggests that women of childbearing age and children not consume any blue crabs or fish from the advisory area. Despite the advisory, residents are continuing to consume fish and crabs within this segment of the river.
mmmmmmm good.
More on the Waxman - Dingell Battle over the house Energy and Commrce Committee
First, it gives us a window into the process by which Democrats decide their committee chairs, and second in tells us something about the priorities of the incoming Congress.
Politico tells us:
In a secret ballot vote in the Cannon Caucus Room, House Democrats ratified an earlier decision by the Steering and Policy Committee to replace the 82-year-old Dingell with his 69-year-old rival. The vote was 137-122 in favor of Waxman.
The ascension of Waxman, a wily environmentalist, recasts a committee that Dingell has chaired since 1981 with an eye toward protecting the domestic auto industry in his native Michigan. The Energy and Commerce Committee has principal jurisdiction over many of President-elect Barack Obama's top legislative priorities, including energy, the environment and health care.
"Seniority is important, but it should not be a grant of property rights to be chairman for three decades or more,” Waxman said after emerging from the caucus meeting. Waxman’s win is a big victory for environmentalists who want a more aggressive stance on global warming from the committee, and the vote showed the powerful hand of Speaker Nancy Pelosi, a Waxman ally, even though she officially remained neutral in the race.
The ousting of the ultimate Old Bull — just three months before Dingell was set to become the longest-serving chairman in the House — is also a shot across the bow for other senior lawmakers who have enjoyed a comfortable and unchallenged ride in their chairmen’s seats.
In other words, the current Democratic majority feels confident enough to shake up things in its own caucus to make changes in policy that it otherwise could not. The key, according to Politico, was the newly elected freshmen who supported Waxman's environmentalism over Dingell's support for the auto industry.
More comments:
- Slate calls it a gift for Obama.
- Kate Shepard anticipates increased support for climate policy.
- Huffington Post argues that energy policy will now be more "California" than "Michigan."
Politico tells us:
In a secret ballot vote in the Cannon Caucus Room, House Democrats ratified an earlier decision by the Steering and Policy Committee to replace the 82-year-old Dingell with his 69-year-old rival. The vote was 137-122 in favor of Waxman.
The ascension of Waxman, a wily environmentalist, recasts a committee that Dingell has chaired since 1981 with an eye toward protecting the domestic auto industry in his native Michigan. The Energy and Commerce Committee has principal jurisdiction over many of President-elect Barack Obama's top legislative priorities, including energy, the environment and health care.
"Seniority is important, but it should not be a grant of property rights to be chairman for three decades or more,” Waxman said after emerging from the caucus meeting. Waxman’s win is a big victory for environmentalists who want a more aggressive stance on global warming from the committee, and the vote showed the powerful hand of Speaker Nancy Pelosi, a Waxman ally, even though she officially remained neutral in the race.
The ousting of the ultimate Old Bull — just three months before Dingell was set to become the longest-serving chairman in the House — is also a shot across the bow for other senior lawmakers who have enjoyed a comfortable and unchallenged ride in their chairmen’s seats.
In other words, the current Democratic majority feels confident enough to shake up things in its own caucus to make changes in policy that it otherwise could not. The key, according to Politico, was the newly elected freshmen who supported Waxman's environmentalism over Dingell's support for the auto industry.
More comments:
- Slate calls it a gift for Obama.
- Kate Shepard anticipates increased support for climate policy.
- Huffington Post argues that energy policy will now be more "California" than "Michigan."
Gene Green Hopes to Retain Sub-Committee Chair
The Chron reports that Gene Green, who represents the 29th Congressional District, is fighting to remain chair of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce's Subcommittee on Environment and Hazardous Materials.
He backed the wrong person in the recent competition over chairmanship of the committee, he backed John Dingell, Henry Waxman won. The decision will be made by the other Democrats in the full committee.
Green told his 30 Democratic colleagues that he planned to "work aggressively" in coming months to enable his committee to reverse "the poor enforcement record" of the Environmental Protection Agency, improve the safety of drinking water and strengthen security for chemical plants.
Green also vowed to take action to ban asbestos, speed cleanup of toxic waste sites and increase recycling and strengthen provisions for safe handling of toxic wastes including toxic electronic waste from computers and other electronic devices
"I have the energy, the temperament and pragmatism to reinvigorate and improve strong environmental protections with your help," Green wrote. "Together we can build consensus among our members for strong, pragmatic and progressive protections from the health and environmental impacts of toxic chemicals."
Green's Houston-area congressional district includes dozens of refineries and petrochemical plants along the Houston ship channel. His district also includes the San Jacinto River Waste Pits in Harris County.
Waxman is a critic of the oil industry, which is not surprisingly supported by Green. Waxman;s opposition to Michigan based Dingell hinged on Dingell's support for the auto industry so we shodul not be surprised if Waxman does nto support Green. It would be a pity because Texas needs all it can get in the upcoming session of Congress.
He backed the wrong person in the recent competition over chairmanship of the committee, he backed John Dingell, Henry Waxman won. The decision will be made by the other Democrats in the full committee.
Green told his 30 Democratic colleagues that he planned to "work aggressively" in coming months to enable his committee to reverse "the poor enforcement record" of the Environmental Protection Agency, improve the safety of drinking water and strengthen security for chemical plants.
Green also vowed to take action to ban asbestos, speed cleanup of toxic waste sites and increase recycling and strengthen provisions for safe handling of toxic wastes including toxic electronic waste from computers and other electronic devices
"I have the energy, the temperament and pragmatism to reinvigorate and improve strong environmental protections with your help," Green wrote. "Together we can build consensus among our members for strong, pragmatic and progressive protections from the health and environmental impacts of toxic chemicals."
Green's Houston-area congressional district includes dozens of refineries and petrochemical plants along the Houston ship channel. His district also includes the San Jacinto River Waste Pits in Harris County.
Waxman is a critic of the oil industry, which is not surprisingly supported by Green. Waxman;s opposition to Michigan based Dingell hinged on Dingell's support for the auto industry so we shodul not be surprised if Waxman does nto support Green. It would be a pity because Texas needs all it can get in the upcoming session of Congress.
Keeping Robert Gates Secretary of Defense
Fred Kaplan thinks its a good idea, and much has to do with how Gates works within the decision making process in the defense/security apparatus, and not around it as his predecessors had done:
It would be a mistake to regard Gates as merely a holdover from the Bush administration. Literally, of course, he is. But since coming to the Pentagon in December 2006, he has altered the dynamics of decision-making and, as a result, of policy.
Before Gates, the National Security Council was dysfunctional. Rumsfeld would skip meetings and refuse to let his deputies speak on his behalf. His tag-team partner, Vice President Dick Cheney, would block the NSC from forming a consensus on issues that concerned him; instead he would meet alone with President Bush afterward, a practice that compelled the secretary of state—Colin Powell in the first term, Condoleezza Rice in the second—to go around the process as well.
As with other Obama appointees so far, they have enough of an understanding of the process that they don't have to spend a year figuring out what needs doing.
It would be a mistake to regard Gates as merely a holdover from the Bush administration. Literally, of course, he is. But since coming to the Pentagon in December 2006, he has altered the dynamics of decision-making and, as a result, of policy.
Before Gates, the National Security Council was dysfunctional. Rumsfeld would skip meetings and refuse to let his deputies speak on his behalf. His tag-team partner, Vice President Dick Cheney, would block the NSC from forming a consensus on issues that concerned him; instead he would meet alone with President Bush afterward, a practice that compelled the secretary of state—Colin Powell in the first term, Condoleezza Rice in the second—to go around the process as well.
As with other Obama appointees so far, they have enough of an understanding of the process that they don't have to spend a year figuring out what needs doing.
Tuesday, November 25, 2008
Early Pardons
The Chron highlights some of the pardons issued by the Bush Administration. So far.
Looking over some of the people pardoned, and the crimes they are being pardoned for, I wonder whether political points are being made:
Daniel Pue is one of 14 people — including two other Texans — who received a pardon from the outgoing president on Monday.
Daniel Pue by no means will go down in the annals of high-profile pardons. It's not surprising why. His original crime? Transporting sludge.
He was convicted in 1996 on federal charges of illegal storage, disposal and transportation of a hazardous waste without a permit, according to court records. The waste was pentachlorophenol and creosote sludge. He was sentenced to three years' probation with six months' home detention on each charge. The sentences were to run concurrently. He was also fined $1,000.
He said he transported waste as an employee for Conroe Creosoting Co. and believes he was unjustly prosecuted because he was just doing his job. The company, where he worked 17 years, paid his legal bills and closed shortly after he was sentenced, he said.
The White House didn't disclose why Daniel Pue received the pardon.Daniel Pue is one of 14 people — including two other Texans — who received a pardon from the outgoing president on Monday.
A slap at environmentalists? These two nuggets stand out as well:
• Leslie Owen Collier of Charleston, Mo., pleaded guilty in 1995 to unlawfully killing three bald eagles in southeast Missouri.
• Milton Kirk Cordes of Rapid City, S.D., convicted of conspiracy to import wildlife taken in violation of conservation laws.
Looking over some of the people pardoned, and the crimes they are being pardoned for, I wonder whether political points are being made:
Daniel Pue is one of 14 people — including two other Texans — who received a pardon from the outgoing president on Monday.
Daniel Pue by no means will go down in the annals of high-profile pardons. It's not surprising why. His original crime? Transporting sludge.
He was convicted in 1996 on federal charges of illegal storage, disposal and transportation of a hazardous waste without a permit, according to court records. The waste was pentachlorophenol and creosote sludge. He was sentenced to three years' probation with six months' home detention on each charge. The sentences were to run concurrently. He was also fined $1,000.
He said he transported waste as an employee for Conroe Creosoting Co. and believes he was unjustly prosecuted because he was just doing his job. The company, where he worked 17 years, paid his legal bills and closed shortly after he was sentenced, he said.
The White House didn't disclose why Daniel Pue received the pardon.Daniel Pue is one of 14 people — including two other Texans — who received a pardon from the outgoing president on Monday.
A slap at environmentalists? These two nuggets stand out as well:
• Leslie Owen Collier of Charleston, Mo., pleaded guilty in 1995 to unlawfully killing three bald eagles in southeast Missouri.
• Milton Kirk Cordes of Rapid City, S.D., convicted of conspiracy to import wildlife taken in violation of conservation laws.
Monday, November 24, 2008
$7.4 Billion
From the Chron:
The U.S. government is prepared to lend more than $7.4 trillion on behalf of American taxpayers, or half the value of everything produced in the nation last year, to rescue the financial system since the credit markets seized up 15 months ago.
Only someof this money comes rom the bailout. The rest is apparently being divied up by the Fed in a manner unknown to Congress:
When Congress approved the TARP on Oct. 3, Fed Chairman Ben S. Bernanke and Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson acknowledged the need for transparency and oversight. Now, as regulators commit far more money while refusing to disclose loan recipients or reveal the collateral they are taking in return, some Congress members are calling for the Fed to be reined in.
“Whether it’s lending or spending, it’s tax dollars that are going out the window and we end up holding collateral we don’t know anything about,” said Congressman Scott Garrett, a New Jersey Republican who serves on the House Financial Services Committee. “The time has come that we consider what sort of limitations we should be placing on the Fed so that authority returns to elected officials as opposed to appointed ones.”
The U.S. government is prepared to lend more than $7.4 trillion on behalf of American taxpayers, or half the value of everything produced in the nation last year, to rescue the financial system since the credit markets seized up 15 months ago.
Only someof this money comes rom the bailout. The rest is apparently being divied up by the Fed in a manner unknown to Congress:
When Congress approved the TARP on Oct. 3, Fed Chairman Ben S. Bernanke and Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson acknowledged the need for transparency and oversight. Now, as regulators commit far more money while refusing to disclose loan recipients or reveal the collateral they are taking in return, some Congress members are calling for the Fed to be reined in.
“Whether it’s lending or spending, it’s tax dollars that are going out the window and we end up holding collateral we don’t know anything about,” said Congressman Scott Garrett, a New Jersey Republican who serves on the House Financial Services Committee. “The time has come that we consider what sort of limitations we should be placing on the Fed so that authority returns to elected officials as opposed to appointed ones.”
Less a Coalition than a Clubhouse
Sorry to keep hammering on this theme, but it is pervasive in the press:
As George W. Bush's presidency winds down, the Republican Party's greatest problem is that it doesn't appear to be reaching much of anybody who isn't already watching Fox News. Bush leaves behind a party that looks less like a coalition than a clubhouse.
The consistent thread linking the 2006 and 2008 elections was the narrowing of the playing field for Republicans even as Democrats extended their reach into places once considered reliably "red."
...McCain cratered in such places as Philadelphia's upscale, socially moderate suburbs, which he lost by almost 200,000 votes, double Bush's already daunting deficit last time. Until Republicans restore their ability to speak to voters in the Philadelphia suburbs and to their counterparts outside Detroit and Denver or Columbus and Orlando, rousing the faithful on Fox isn't likely to halt the Democratic advance.
On a lighter note -- one hopes, here is one person's about how the Republican Party can rebound:
The future of the Grand Old Party needs to be dangerously youthful, devastatingly attractive and outrageously fun.
...With the economy in the pits, the young, the restless and unapologetically handsome should use their looks, vigor and Internet knowledge to wrest away elective office from joyless bureaucrats who gallingly repackaged the soiled utopian promises of their overly replayed Woodstock days as "hope" and "change."
...The suburban Mall Rats will be the first Obamacons to come back to the fold when they realize that trickle-up socialism limits their lifestyle options. So let's stop first at Abercrombie and Fitch. See those shirtless models in the storefront tossing footballs in the air? There's a better use of their time and efforts. Tanned, coiffed and seriously cut, these young studs could be tossing free-trade legislation across the halls of the Cannon House Office Building faster than you can Twitter "The Bella Twins."
For the sake of the Republic's future lets hope the GOP is smarter than this.
As George W. Bush's presidency winds down, the Republican Party's greatest problem is that it doesn't appear to be reaching much of anybody who isn't already watching Fox News. Bush leaves behind a party that looks less like a coalition than a clubhouse.
The consistent thread linking the 2006 and 2008 elections was the narrowing of the playing field for Republicans even as Democrats extended their reach into places once considered reliably "red."
...McCain cratered in such places as Philadelphia's upscale, socially moderate suburbs, which he lost by almost 200,000 votes, double Bush's already daunting deficit last time. Until Republicans restore their ability to speak to voters in the Philadelphia suburbs and to their counterparts outside Detroit and Denver or Columbus and Orlando, rousing the faithful on Fox isn't likely to halt the Democratic advance.
On a lighter note -- one hopes, here is one person's about how the Republican Party can rebound:
The future of the Grand Old Party needs to be dangerously youthful, devastatingly attractive and outrageously fun.
...With the economy in the pits, the young, the restless and unapologetically handsome should use their looks, vigor and Internet knowledge to wrest away elective office from joyless bureaucrats who gallingly repackaged the soiled utopian promises of their overly replayed Woodstock days as "hope" and "change."
...The suburban Mall Rats will be the first Obamacons to come back to the fold when they realize that trickle-up socialism limits their lifestyle options. So let's stop first at Abercrombie and Fitch. See those shirtless models in the storefront tossing footballs in the air? There's a better use of their time and efforts. Tanned, coiffed and seriously cut, these young studs could be tossing free-trade legislation across the halls of the Cannon House Office Building faster than you can Twitter "The Bella Twins."
For the sake of the Republic's future lets hope the GOP is smarter than this.
Sunday, November 23, 2008
The Nadler Resolution
Here is an attempt by Jerrod Nadler, New York Congressman and chair of the House Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Liberties, and Civil Rights to put a limit on the coming Bush pardons.
Proposition 8 and the Courts
Perhaps the best place to watch the intersection of majority rule and individual liberty, between elections and the courts, is in California and their struggle over same-sex marriage.
Saturday, November 22, 2008
And Still More About Republicans
More commentary on the Republican realignment that wasn't and the essential components of the Obama Coalition. At the moment it seems that white college educated professionals have realigned from the Republican to Democratic Party. By joining the ranks of the young, black, Latino and secular, they helped Obama win the most impressive victory by a Democrat since 1964's Johnson landslide.
The author tells us:
Perhaps the most revealing post-election data on that question came from within the defeated McCain campaign. In an interview with Roger Simon of Politico, the Republican candidate's speechwriter and friend, Mark Salter, disclosed that in the campaign's own internal polling data, 60 percent of Americans regarded Obama as "liberal." The campaign thought that would be enough to defeat him, which is why it hammered on the "left-wing" themes.
Baiting the liberals didn't work this year. Disgusted with the Republican right, voters wanted something different and weren't afraid to look leftward. That is what "realignment" means.
At one time, the mere mention of the word "liberal" was enough to tar a candidate and make him or her unelectable. No more. This may be due to generational effects. Younger voters aren't turned off by liberalism. The strategy still works in Texas though, and may well for some time.
The author tells us:
Perhaps the most revealing post-election data on that question came from within the defeated McCain campaign. In an interview with Roger Simon of Politico, the Republican candidate's speechwriter and friend, Mark Salter, disclosed that in the campaign's own internal polling data, 60 percent of Americans regarded Obama as "liberal." The campaign thought that would be enough to defeat him, which is why it hammered on the "left-wing" themes.
Baiting the liberals didn't work this year. Disgusted with the Republican right, voters wanted something different and weren't afraid to look leftward. That is what "realignment" means.
At one time, the mere mention of the word "liberal" was enough to tar a candidate and make him or her unelectable. No more. This may be due to generational effects. Younger voters aren't turned off by liberalism. The strategy still works in Texas though, and may well for some time.
Pre Filing Bills in Texas
Incoming Representatives and Senators in Texas are prefiling bills for the upcoming session. Comments on them abound in various sources. We'll catch up with that when we can, but click on the links below for lists the the prefiled bills in each chamber:
- The Texas House.
- The Texas Senate.
- The Texas House.
- The Texas Senate.
Meet Timothy Geithner
The current president of the New York Federal Reserve and Obama's choice to head the U.S. Treasury Department.
For background and info:
- Wikipedia: Timothy Geithner.
- Slate: The Un-Paulson.
- Times Topics: Timothy Geithner.
For background and info:
- Wikipedia: Timothy Geithner.
- Slate: The Un-Paulson.
- Times Topics: Timothy Geithner.
The First Presidential Pardon
Meet "Tom the Tinker," the pseudonym of the force behind the Whisky Rebellion. It's organizers -- who represented the interests of the small distillers who were most effected by the whisky tax -- were imprisoned by national forces, but later pardoned by George Washington.
This was the first use of presidential pardoning authority.
This was the first use of presidential pardoning authority.
Laying Odds on Possible Pardons
Now that the midnight rules are out of the way, attention will turn to presidential pardons.
Here is one person's guesses as to what noteworthy people are likely to be pardoned or not.
Here is background about presidential pardons from:
- The U.S. Constitution Online.
- Twelve Steps to a Presidential Pardon.
- Wikipedia: Pardons.
- Wikipedia: Lists of People Pardoned by American Presidents.
Here is one person's guesses as to what noteworthy people are likely to be pardoned or not.
Here is background about presidential pardons from:
- The U.S. Constitution Online.
- Twelve Steps to a Presidential Pardon.
- Wikipedia: Pardons.
- Wikipedia: Lists of People Pardoned by American Presidents.
Midnight Regulations
As of midnight last night the Bush Administration's window for passing rules and having them take effect before the Obama Administration takes office passed.
The rulemaking process, as established in the Administrative Procedures Act, states that all rule stake effect within 60 days of their establishment. Within 60 days (30 if the rules has lees than a $100 million impact on the economy) public comment can be offered that can have an impact on the proposed rule.
Here's a bit from Yahoo News discussing whether the rules are reversible:
Getting rid of a rule that is already in effect is enormously difficult, because it must be replaced with another rule. That process can take months or even years and could leave some of the Bush rules in place in the meantime. It can also lead to lawsuits.
“If you start the rulemaking process over again, the end product is likely to be challenged in court by somebody, and the administration would need to develop a record that supports the decision to promulgate a new rule,” said Robert Glicksman, an administrative law professor at the University of Kansas.
Bush’s midnight regulations also could be challenged by public interest groups, who are already considering legal actions to get some of them overturned. If the Obama administration agrees with the group’s position, it could promise the court to develop a new rule that both parties can agree on. But that would open up the possibility of further legal challenges from third parties, such as utility companies or other industry interests, which could assert that the Obama administration and the group were participating in a “collusion of interests” without adequately considering the impact on industry.
“By intervening, industry could buy more time and save billions of dollars by avoiding compliance to a new rule,” said Rena Steinzor, a University of Maryland law professor who is also a member of the Center for Progressive Regulation, a Washington, D.C.- based advocacy group.
Leave it to Congress to bypass such an arduous process, some Democrats in Congress are contemplating the use of the Congressional Review Act, an obscure Clinton-era law that allows Congress to vote to disapprove any rule finalized within about six months before Congress adjourns. It was passed by the Republican-dominated House in 1996, partly because Republicans wanted to shoot down Clinton-backed rules.
Here are links for more background:
From ProPublica: A masterlist of proposed regulations.
From the LAT: Environmentalists upset over some rules.
From Market Watch: Teamsters concerned about change in rules regarding hours truckers can drive.
From OMB Watch: Limits placed on use of Family and Medical Leave Act.
From ProPublica: Can Obama Reverse Rules?
The rulemaking process, as established in the Administrative Procedures Act, states that all rule stake effect within 60 days of their establishment. Within 60 days (30 if the rules has lees than a $100 million impact on the economy) public comment can be offered that can have an impact on the proposed rule.
Here's a bit from Yahoo News discussing whether the rules are reversible:
Getting rid of a rule that is already in effect is enormously difficult, because it must be replaced with another rule. That process can take months or even years and could leave some of the Bush rules in place in the meantime. It can also lead to lawsuits.
“If you start the rulemaking process over again, the end product is likely to be challenged in court by somebody, and the administration would need to develop a record that supports the decision to promulgate a new rule,” said Robert Glicksman, an administrative law professor at the University of Kansas.
Bush’s midnight regulations also could be challenged by public interest groups, who are already considering legal actions to get some of them overturned. If the Obama administration agrees with the group’s position, it could promise the court to develop a new rule that both parties can agree on. But that would open up the possibility of further legal challenges from third parties, such as utility companies or other industry interests, which could assert that the Obama administration and the group were participating in a “collusion of interests” without adequately considering the impact on industry.
“By intervening, industry could buy more time and save billions of dollars by avoiding compliance to a new rule,” said Rena Steinzor, a University of Maryland law professor who is also a member of the Center for Progressive Regulation, a Washington, D.C.- based advocacy group.
Leave it to Congress to bypass such an arduous process, some Democrats in Congress are contemplating the use of the Congressional Review Act, an obscure Clinton-era law that allows Congress to vote to disapprove any rule finalized within about six months before Congress adjourns. It was passed by the Republican-dominated House in 1996, partly because Republicans wanted to shoot down Clinton-backed rules.
Here are links for more background:
From ProPublica: A masterlist of proposed regulations.
From the LAT: Environmentalists upset over some rules.
From Market Watch: Teamsters concerned about change in rules regarding hours truckers can drive.
From OMB Watch: Limits placed on use of Family and Medical Leave Act.
From ProPublica: Can Obama Reverse Rules?
Friday, November 21, 2008
Texas Oh Texas
Two separate posts point out that Texas will have far less power beginning in January 2009 than it has enjoyed for most of the past decades.
One of the reasons for this is Tom Delay's redistricting scheme which focused on removing senior Democrats from office. These people would have been prime candidates for committee chairs when Democrats took control of Congress. Now there are few if any truly powerful Texans in elected office in Washington:
And while The Hammer’s redistricting crusade in 2003 certainly helped Texas Republicans at the time, it has come back to haunt the state under Democratic rule. If not for DeLay’s machinations, three Texas Democrats would likely be sitting pretty these days as chairmen of powerful House committees: former Reps. Jim Turner (Homeland Security), Martin Frost (Rules) and Charlie Stenholm (Agriculture).
Instead, they’re all now exes, living in Texas, having lost their elections in 2004.
One of the reasons for this is Tom Delay's redistricting scheme which focused on removing senior Democrats from office. These people would have been prime candidates for committee chairs when Democrats took control of Congress. Now there are few if any truly powerful Texans in elected office in Washington:
And while The Hammer’s redistricting crusade in 2003 certainly helped Texas Republicans at the time, it has come back to haunt the state under Democratic rule. If not for DeLay’s machinations, three Texas Democrats would likely be sitting pretty these days as chairmen of powerful House committees: former Reps. Jim Turner (Homeland Security), Martin Frost (Rules) and Charlie Stenholm (Agriculture).
Instead, they’re all now exes, living in Texas, having lost their elections in 2004.
Speaker Summit
A proposal by one of the candidates for Texas House Speaker to meet to sort through the potential mess.
Click here for all posts in Capitol Annex about the 2009 Speaker's race.
Click here for all posts in Capitol Annex about the 2009 Speaker's race.
Habeas Corpus
From the NYT:
A federal judge issued the Bush administration a sharp setback on Thursday, ruling that five Algerian men have been held unlawfully at the Guantánamo Bay detention camp for nearly seven years and ordering their release.
It was the first hearing on the government’s evidence for holding detainees at Guantánamo. The judge, Richard J. Leon of Federal District Court in Washington, said the government’s secret evidence in the case had been weak: what he described as “a classified document from an unnamed source” for its central claim against the men, with little way to measure credibility.
“To rest on so thin a reed would be inconsistent with this court’s obligation,” Judge Leon said. He urged the government not to appeal and said the men should be released “forthwith.”
The habeas corpus case was an important test of the administration’s detention policies, which critics have long argued swept up innocent men and low-level foot soldiers along with hardened fighters and terrorist commanders.
A federal judge issued the Bush administration a sharp setback on Thursday, ruling that five Algerian men have been held unlawfully at the Guantánamo Bay detention camp for nearly seven years and ordering their release.
It was the first hearing on the government’s evidence for holding detainees at Guantánamo. The judge, Richard J. Leon of Federal District Court in Washington, said the government’s secret evidence in the case had been weak: what he described as “a classified document from an unnamed source” for its central claim against the men, with little way to measure credibility.
“To rest on so thin a reed would be inconsistent with this court’s obligation,” Judge Leon said. He urged the government not to appeal and said the men should be released “forthwith.”
The habeas corpus case was an important test of the administration’s detention policies, which critics have long argued swept up innocent men and low-level foot soldiers along with hardened fighters and terrorist commanders.
Thursday, November 20, 2008
The Texas Speakers Race
Click here for an update from the Texas Ethics Commission on the people who have filed to run for the Texas Speaker.
Click kere for information about the process for becoming Speaker.
Click kere for information about the process for becoming Speaker.
Change in the House Energy and Commerce Committee
From the NYT, an example of change in control of House committees:
Representative Henry A. Waxman of California ousted Representative John D. Dingell of Michigan from his post as chairman of the influential Committee on Energy and Commerce on Thursday, giving President-elect Barack Obama an advantage in his plans to promote efforts to combat global warming.
By a secret vote of 137 to 122, House Democrats ended Mr. Dingell’s nearly 28-year reign as his party’s top member on the committee. In doing so, Mr. Waxman’s backers upended the seniority system to install a leader more in tune with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi on a variety of issues.
Representative Henry A. Waxman of California ousted Representative John D. Dingell of Michigan from his post as chairman of the influential Committee on Energy and Commerce on Thursday, giving President-elect Barack Obama an advantage in his plans to promote efforts to combat global warming.
By a secret vote of 137 to 122, House Democrats ended Mr. Dingell’s nearly 28-year reign as his party’s top member on the committee. In doing so, Mr. Waxman’s backers upended the seniority system to install a leader more in tune with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi on a variety of issues.
Wednesday, November 19, 2008
The Shrinking Republican Base
According to a study by Emory PoliSci guy Alan Abramowitz, the Republican base is primarily white, married and Christian. These are also three groups that are decreasing in the electorate:
Married white Christians now make up less than half of all voters in the United States and less than one fifth of voters under the age of 30. The declining proportion of married white Christians in the electorate has important political implications because in recent years married white Christians have been among the most loyal supporters of the Republican Party. In American politics today, whether you are a married white Christian is a much stronger predictor of your political preferences than your gender or your class -- the two demographic characteristics that dominate much of the debate on contemporary American politics.
We are becoming less white, less married, and less Christian. This makes the future problematic for the Republican Party, unless they reach out to this constituency. But this group tends to hold much more liberal positions on many issues including abortion and universal health care, so chances are that any efforts to reach out to liberals will be checked by the conservative base. Will the party be able to manage this problem? Is the problem misdiagnosed?
Married white Christians now make up less than half of all voters in the United States and less than one fifth of voters under the age of 30. The declining proportion of married white Christians in the electorate has important political implications because in recent years married white Christians have been among the most loyal supporters of the Republican Party. In American politics today, whether you are a married white Christian is a much stronger predictor of your political preferences than your gender or your class -- the two demographic characteristics that dominate much of the debate on contemporary American politics.
We are becoming less white, less married, and less Christian. This makes the future problematic for the Republican Party, unless they reach out to this constituency. But this group tends to hold much more liberal positions on many issues including abortion and universal health care, so chances are that any efforts to reach out to liberals will be checked by the conservative base. Will the party be able to manage this problem? Is the problem misdiagnosed?
Tuesday, November 18, 2008
The Bureaucracy in Transition
From Slate, a useful tale about the bureaucracy:
The Washington Post leads with a look at how a number of political appointees have been transferring over to civil service posts in preparation for the end of the Bush administration. Between March and November, about 20 political appointees in a variety of departments have become career civil servants.
....
It is difficult for managers to get rid of employees with civil service status, which means the Bush appointees who have changed their status are for all practical purposes guaranteed a job in the Obama administration, at least for a while. These types of transfers are hardly new: The Clinton administration approved 47 such changes in the former president's last 12 months in office. This time around, the most stark example of this practice is in the Interior Department, where six political appointees were given senior civil service positions. Career Interior officials naturally see this as an attempt by the Bush administration to prevent the Democratic White House from putting its mark on the department.
The Washington Post leads with a look at how a number of political appointees have been transferring over to civil service posts in preparation for the end of the Bush administration. Between March and November, about 20 political appointees in a variety of departments have become career civil servants.
....
It is difficult for managers to get rid of employees with civil service status, which means the Bush appointees who have changed their status are for all practical purposes guaranteed a job in the Obama administration, at least for a while. These types of transfers are hardly new: The Clinton administration approved 47 such changes in the former president's last 12 months in office. This time around, the most stark example of this practice is in the Interior Department, where six political appointees were given senior civil service positions. Career Interior officials naturally see this as an attempt by the Bush administration to prevent the Democratic White House from putting its mark on the department.
Monday, November 17, 2008
The Texas Speaker's Race
It appears to be wide open. Current Speaker Tom Craddick is running for re-election against eight opponents.
On James Baker . . .
A useful profile of a Texas power broker from a well heeled Houston family.
Here are some worthwhile links about the Baker family:
- Guide to the James A. Baker family papers.
- Answers.com: James Addison Baker III.
- Wikipedia: James A. Baker Sr.
Here are some worthwhile links about the Baker family:
- Guide to the James A. Baker family papers.
- Answers.com: James Addison Baker III.
- Wikipedia: James A. Baker Sr.
Wednesday, November 12, 2008
A Realignment?
I tend to think these claims are overblown, but here are pieces which together suggest that the Reagan Coalition has been substituted with an Obama Coalition.
Here is a sober piece from the National Journal, and something a bit more hysterical from P.J. O'Rourke.
From the former:
Barack Obama on Tuesday won the most decisive Democratic presidential victory in a generation largely by tapping into growing elements of American society: young people, Hispanics and other minorities, and white upper-middle-class professionals. That coalition of the ascendant -- combined with unprecedented margins among African-Americans -- powered Obama to a commanding victory over Republican John McCain, even though Obama achieved only modest and intermittent gains with the working-class white voters who provided the foundation of the Democratic coalition from Franklin D. Roosevelt's election in 1932 to Humphrey's defeat 36 years later.
"Obama is reimagining a Democratic coalition for the 21st century," says Simon Rosenberg, president of NDN, a Democratic group that studies electoral trends and tactics. "Democrats [are]... surging with all the ascending and growing parts of the electorate. He is building a coalition that Democrats could ride for 30 or 40 years, the way they rode the FDR coalition of the 1930s."
As witht he piece below, the author points out the problems that the Republican party is having in appealing to the cosmopolitan centers of the country as social concervatives become stronger in the party and help determine what positions it takes on hot button issues.
Here is a sober piece from the National Journal, and something a bit more hysterical from P.J. O'Rourke.
From the former:
Barack Obama on Tuesday won the most decisive Democratic presidential victory in a generation largely by tapping into growing elements of American society: young people, Hispanics and other minorities, and white upper-middle-class professionals. That coalition of the ascendant -- combined with unprecedented margins among African-Americans -- powered Obama to a commanding victory over Republican John McCain, even though Obama achieved only modest and intermittent gains with the working-class white voters who provided the foundation of the Democratic coalition from Franklin D. Roosevelt's election in 1932 to Humphrey's defeat 36 years later.
"Obama is reimagining a Democratic coalition for the 21st century," says Simon Rosenberg, president of NDN, a Democratic group that studies electoral trends and tactics. "Democrats [are]... surging with all the ascending and growing parts of the electorate. He is building a coalition that Democrats could ride for 30 or 40 years, the way they rode the FDR coalition of the 1930s."
As witht he piece below, the author points out the problems that the Republican party is having in appealing to the cosmopolitan centers of the country as social concervatives become stronger in the party and help determine what positions it takes on hot button issues.
Tuesday, November 11, 2008
The Seven Aphorisms
The Supreme Court hears arguments today in Pleasant Grove City Ut, v. Summum.
Since the court has ruled that the Ten Commandments can be placed in public parks despite suspicions that doing so violates the separation of church and state, can it? or must it? also allow for displays of other religious monuments?
In 2003, the president of the Summum church wrote to the mayor here with a proposal: the church wanted to erect a monument inscribed with the Seven Aphorisms in the city park, "similar in size and nature" to the one devoted to the Ten Commandments.
The city declined, a lawsuit followed and a federal appeals court ruled that the First Amendment required the city to display the Summum monument. The Supreme Court on Wednesday will hear arguments in the case, which could produce the most important free speech decision of the term.
The justices will consider whether a public park open to some donations must accept others as well. In cases involving speeches and leaflets, the courts have generally said that public parks are public forums where the government cannot discriminate among speakers on the basis of what they propose to say. The question of how donated objects should be treated is, however, an open one.
Since the court has ruled that the Ten Commandments can be placed in public parks despite suspicions that doing so violates the separation of church and state, can it? or must it? also allow for displays of other religious monuments?
In 2003, the president of the Summum church wrote to the mayor here with a proposal: the church wanted to erect a monument inscribed with the Seven Aphorisms in the city park, "similar in size and nature" to the one devoted to the Ten Commandments.
The city declined, a lawsuit followed and a federal appeals court ruled that the First Amendment required the city to display the Summum monument. The Supreme Court on Wednesday will hear arguments in the case, which could produce the most important free speech decision of the term.
The justices will consider whether a public park open to some donations must accept others as well. In cases involving speeches and leaflets, the courts have generally said that public parks are public forums where the government cannot discriminate among speakers on the basis of what they propose to say. The question of how donated objects should be treated is, however, an open one.
Whither the South?
After dominating politics for generations, the influnce of the South, or at least the Old South, is waning. It may well be on the way out.
The NYT tells us that the only counties that voted more Republican than Democrat in 2008 as compared with 2004 are in the South, especially the Appalacian South:
Southern counties that voted more heavily Republican this year than in 2004 tended to be poorer, less educated and whiter, a statistical analysis by The New York Times shows. Mr. Obama won in only 44 counties in the Appalachian belt, a stretch of 410 counties that runs from New York to Mississippi. Many of those counties, rural and isolated, have been less exposed to the diversity, educational achievement and economic progress experienced by more prosperous areas.
This is especially interesting: The Southern Strategy that helped the Republicans become a dominant party beginning in 1980 may be coming back to haunt the party since the souothern influence may be pulling the party too far to the right, making it uncompetitive nationally:
[This] could spell the end of the so-called Southern strategy, the doctrine that took shape under President Richard M. Nixon in which national elections were won by co-opting Southern whites on racial issues. And the Southernization of American politics — which reached its apogee in the 1990s when many Congressional leaders and President Bill Clinton were from the South — appears to have ended.
“I think that’s absolutely over,” said Thomas Schaller, a political scientist who argued prophetically that the Democrats could win national elections without the South.
The Republicans, meanwhile, have “become a Southernized party,” said Mr. Schaller, who teaches at the University of Maryland, Baltimore County. “They have completely marginalized themselves to a mostly regional party,” he said, pointing out that nearly half of the current Republican House delegation is now Southern.
Merle Black, an expert on the region’s politics at Emory University in Atlanta, said the Republican Party went too far in appealing to the South, alienating voters elsewhere.
“They’ve maxed out on the South,” he said, which has “limited their appeal in the rest of the country.”
Only four years ago Republicans were talking about dominating the next generation of elections. Funny how things change.
The NYT tells us that the only counties that voted more Republican than Democrat in 2008 as compared with 2004 are in the South, especially the Appalacian South:
Southern counties that voted more heavily Republican this year than in 2004 tended to be poorer, less educated and whiter, a statistical analysis by The New York Times shows. Mr. Obama won in only 44 counties in the Appalachian belt, a stretch of 410 counties that runs from New York to Mississippi. Many of those counties, rural and isolated, have been less exposed to the diversity, educational achievement and economic progress experienced by more prosperous areas.
This is especially interesting: The Southern Strategy that helped the Republicans become a dominant party beginning in 1980 may be coming back to haunt the party since the souothern influence may be pulling the party too far to the right, making it uncompetitive nationally:
[This] could spell the end of the so-called Southern strategy, the doctrine that took shape under President Richard M. Nixon in which national elections were won by co-opting Southern whites on racial issues. And the Southernization of American politics — which reached its apogee in the 1990s when many Congressional leaders and President Bill Clinton were from the South — appears to have ended.
“I think that’s absolutely over,” said Thomas Schaller, a political scientist who argued prophetically that the Democrats could win national elections without the South.
The Republicans, meanwhile, have “become a Southernized party,” said Mr. Schaller, who teaches at the University of Maryland, Baltimore County. “They have completely marginalized themselves to a mostly regional party,” he said, pointing out that nearly half of the current Republican House delegation is now Southern.
Merle Black, an expert on the region’s politics at Emory University in Atlanta, said the Republican Party went too far in appealing to the South, alienating voters elsewhere.
“They’ve maxed out on the South,” he said, which has “limited their appeal in the rest of the country.”
Only four years ago Republicans were talking about dominating the next generation of elections. Funny how things change.
Friday, November 7, 2008
Post Mortem
Here's a dialogue on Slate about where the Republican Party and/or the conservative movement should head following this election.
In recent years it has been very unusual for a party to suffer two significant back to back setbacks in national races. No incumbent democrat has been defeated in the U.S. Senate since 2004. That's a big deal.
In recent years it has been very unusual for a party to suffer two significant back to back setbacks in national races. No incumbent democrat has been defeated in the U.S. Senate since 2004. That's a big deal.
Thursday, November 6, 2008
Obama and the Youth Vote
Apparently it made the difference in the election:
Had the Democratic 18-29 vote stayed the same as 2004's already impressive percentage, Obama would have won by about 2 points, and would not have won 73 electoral votes from Florida, Ohio, North Carolina, or Indiana.
So, to clarify here: Obama's youth margin = 73 electoral votes. Without the economic crisis, this would have been the difference.
Had the Democratic 18-29 vote stayed the same as 2004's already impressive percentage, Obama would have won by about 2 points, and would not have won 73 electoral votes from Florida, Ohio, North Carolina, or Indiana.
So, to clarify here: Obama's youth margin = 73 electoral votes. Without the economic crisis, this would have been the difference.
Every Vote Counts -- 2008 Edition
At the moment, Republicans hold a 75 - 74 lead over Democrats in the Texas House. 25 votes separate the two candidates in the last contested race.
The seat is HD 101 in east Dallas County.
The seat is HD 101 in east Dallas County.
Obama's Transition Team
From Politicalbase.com:
Chicago – For the past several months, a board of advisors has been informally planning for a possible presidential transition. Among the many projects undertaken by the transition board have been detailed analyses of previous transition efforts, policy statements made during the campaign, and the workings of federal government agencies, and priority positions that must be filled by the incoming administration.
With Barack Obama and Joe Biden's election, this planning process will be now be formally organized as the Obama-Biden Transition Project, a 501(c)(4) organization to ensure a smooth transition from one administration to the next. The work of this entity will be overseen by three co-chairs: John Podesta, Valerie Jarrett, and Pete Rouse.
The co-chairs will be assisted by an advisory board comprised of individuals with significant private and public sector experience: Carol Browner, William Daley, Christopher Edley, Michael Froman, Julius Genachowski, Donald Gips, Governor Janet Napolitano, Federico Peña, Susan Rice, Sonal Shah, Mark Gitenstein, and Ted Kaufman. Gitenstein and Kaufman will serve as co-chairs of Vice President-elect Biden's transition team.
Supervising the day-to-day activities of the transition will be: Transition Senior Staff:
Chris Lu – Executive Director
Dan Pfeiffer – Communications Director
Stephanie Cutter – Chief Spokesperson
Cassandra Butts – General Counsel
Jim Messina – Personnel Director
Patrick Gaspard – Associate Personnel Director
Christine Varney - Personnel Counsel
Melody Barnes – Co-Director of Agency Review
Lisa Brown – Co-Director of Agency Review
Phil Schiliro – Director of Congressional Relations
Michael Strautmanis – Director of Public Liaison and Intergovernmental Affairs
Katy Kale – Director of Operations
Brad Kiley – Director of Operations
Chicago – For the past several months, a board of advisors has been informally planning for a possible presidential transition. Among the many projects undertaken by the transition board have been detailed analyses of previous transition efforts, policy statements made during the campaign, and the workings of federal government agencies, and priority positions that must be filled by the incoming administration.
With Barack Obama and Joe Biden's election, this planning process will be now be formally organized as the Obama-Biden Transition Project, a 501(c)(4) organization to ensure a smooth transition from one administration to the next. The work of this entity will be overseen by three co-chairs: John Podesta, Valerie Jarrett, and Pete Rouse.
The co-chairs will be assisted by an advisory board comprised of individuals with significant private and public sector experience: Carol Browner, William Daley, Christopher Edley, Michael Froman, Julius Genachowski, Donald Gips, Governor Janet Napolitano, Federico Peña, Susan Rice, Sonal Shah, Mark Gitenstein, and Ted Kaufman. Gitenstein and Kaufman will serve as co-chairs of Vice President-elect Biden's transition team.
Supervising the day-to-day activities of the transition will be: Transition Senior Staff:
Chris Lu – Executive Director
Dan Pfeiffer – Communications Director
Stephanie Cutter – Chief Spokesperson
Cassandra Butts – General Counsel
Jim Messina – Personnel Director
Patrick Gaspard – Associate Personnel Director
Christine Varney - Personnel Counsel
Melody Barnes – Co-Director of Agency Review
Lisa Brown – Co-Director of Agency Review
Phil Schiliro – Director of Congressional Relations
Michael Strautmanis – Director of Public Liaison and Intergovernmental Affairs
Katy Kale – Director of Operations
Brad Kiley – Director of Operations
Obama's First Pick: Chief of Staff - Rahm Emanuel
Normally (during non-Cheney era's) this is the second most important position in the White House. The White House Chief of Staff is responsible for organizing the president's day and determining who gets to meet him. He is the president's "gatekeeper."
Obama has selected Rahm Emanuel serve as his chief of staff, who as of this moment has yet to accept it. He has a reputation as being very aggressive and opinionated. Qualities which which should serve him well in setting the president's agenda, assuming he does not feel constrained in the role.
Here is a profile from Rolling Stone, and one from the Telegraph.
Obama has selected Rahm Emanuel serve as his chief of staff, who as of this moment has yet to accept it. He has a reputation as being very aggressive and opinionated. Qualities which which should serve him well in setting the president's agenda, assuming he does not feel constrained in the role.
Here is a profile from Rolling Stone, and one from the Telegraph.
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
Obama Wins
But you knew that already.
Here's the NYT's elections page with full details of the results for all national races.
Here's the Chron's elections page for all local races.
Here's the NYT's elections page with full details of the results for all national races.
Here's the Chron's elections page for all local races.
Tuesday, November 4, 2008
A Loss Can Be a Win
Were Democrats fortunate to lose the 2004 election? Might Republicans be fortunate in losing this one?
Had Gerald Ford won in 1976, would there have been a President Ronald Reagan?
Had Gerald Ford won in 1976, would there have been a President Ronald Reagan?
Not on the Ballot in Texas
In case you weren't aware, here are three candidates for the president / vice president that were not on the ballot in Texas:
Green Party: Cynthia McKinney / Rosa Clemente
American Independent Party: Alan Keyes / Wiley S. Drake
Peace and Freedom Party: Ralph Nader / Matt Gonzalez
Green Party: Cynthia McKinney / Rosa Clemente
American Independent Party: Alan Keyes / Wiley S. Drake
Peace and Freedom Party: Ralph Nader / Matt Gonzalez
Sunday, November 2, 2008
Chronicle Endorsements
Click here for the full list.
Here is a list of the various Harris County races on the ballot:
11th District Judge
125th District Judge
127th District Judge
129th District Judge
133rd District Judge
14th Court of Appeals, Pl. 4
151st District Judge
152nd District Judge
164th District Judge
165th District Judge
174th District Judge
176th District Judge
177th District Judge
178th District Judge
179th District Judge
190th District Judge
215th District Judge
312th District Judge
333rd District Court
334th District Judge
337th District Judge
338th District Judge
339th District Court
351st District Judge
55th District Judge
61st District Judge
80th District Judge
Commissioner Pct. 1
Commissioner Pct. 3
Constable Pct. 1
Constable Pct. 2
Constable Pct. 3
Constable Pct. 4
Constable Pct. 5
Constable Pct. 7
County Judge
District Attorney
District Clerk
JP Pct. 1, Pl. 1
JP Pct. 2, Pl. 1
JP Pct. 5, Pl. 1
JP Pct. 7, Pl. 1
JP Pct. 8, Pl. 1
Probate Court 1
Sheriff
Tax Assessor-Collector
Here is a list of the various Harris County races on the ballot:
11th District Judge
125th District Judge
127th District Judge
129th District Judge
133rd District Judge
14th Court of Appeals, Pl. 4
151st District Judge
152nd District Judge
164th District Judge
165th District Judge
174th District Judge
176th District Judge
177th District Judge
178th District Judge
179th District Judge
190th District Judge
215th District Judge
312th District Judge
333rd District Court
334th District Judge
337th District Judge
338th District Judge
339th District Court
351st District Judge
55th District Judge
61st District Judge
80th District Judge
Commissioner Pct. 1
Commissioner Pct. 3
Constable Pct. 1
Constable Pct. 2
Constable Pct. 3
Constable Pct. 4
Constable Pct. 5
Constable Pct. 7
County Judge
District Attorney
District Clerk
JP Pct. 1, Pl. 1
JP Pct. 2, Pl. 1
JP Pct. 5, Pl. 1
JP Pct. 7, Pl. 1
JP Pct. 8, Pl. 1
Probate Court 1
Sheriff
Tax Assessor-Collector
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)