Thanks to Peter for sending me this story about a conflict between a patriotic homeowner who wants to display a flag (on a lighted flag pole in front of his house) and a homeowners' association that wants a more discreet display, and is fining the homeowner $25 a day for each day he refuses to remove the flag pole.
We can talk it over in both 2301 and 2302. Is there a right to display a flag that cannot be denied by a governing institution? If so, what right is that? Do police powers preclude that right? How is this dispute best resolved? Assuming there is a resolution.
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
Monday, March 30, 2009
Term Limits for the Supreme Court
We need to debate this in 2302.
Do term limits erode judicial independence or are they a necessary way to guard against judicial tyranny?
Do term limits erode judicial independence or are they a necessary way to guard against judicial tyranny?
Judicial Vacancies
Dahlia Lithwick fills us in on the possibility of judicial vacancies this year, and on the internal workings of the Supreme Court.
Sunday, March 29, 2009
How is Wikipedia Like a City?
Like a city, Wikipedia is greater than the sum of its parts; for example, the random encounters there are often more compelling than the articles themselves. The search for information resembles a walk through an overbuilt quarter of an ancient capital. You circle around topics on a path that appears to be shifting. Ultimately the journey ends and you are not sure how you got there.
Read on...
Read on...
John Hope Franklin
The historian who did most of the research used by the petitioners in Brown v. Board of Ed.
Take notes 2301 student working on grievance papers.
Take notes 2301 student working on grievance papers.
On Reading Tests
I'm a big fan of E.D. Hirsch. Here's a recent opinion piece where he argues that reading tests should not ignore context, that is, actual knowledge of the subject a students is asked to read about. We tend to ignore context in K-12, and it shows in higher ed. We see reading as a discreet skill separate from what we read about.
He suggests that the entire curriculum should be knowledge based, not skills based. Once basic knowledge is obtained, skills take care of themselves (more or less).
He suggests that the entire curriculum should be knowledge based, not skills based. Once basic knowledge is obtained, skills take care of themselves (more or less).
Saturday, March 28, 2009
Regarding Peter Orszap
An NYT profile of the OMB director. 2302 students should check out his conflicts with Larry Summers, the Director of the National Economic Council. Early insights into the inner workings of the Obama Administration
Alexander Hamilton, Toxic Assets, and the Location of the Nation's Capitol
While discussing the financial crisis in class, I've tried to make the point that there is nothing new under the sun. The following op-ed from the Boston Globe (and an approving second from Salon) reminds us that this is true for the current dilemma over how to handle toxic assets. Alexander Hamilton, it turns out, had to deal with what we now call toxic assets when he was Treasury Secretary:
When he took office the new republic was drowning in a sea of wild financial speculation and crushing debt from the Revolution. To pay off these obligations the 13 states and the Continental and Confederation Congresses printed paper money to the point where it had become worthless. When the printing press could no longer suffice, they resorted to borrowing funds. Altogether by the time Hamilton took office the states and the federal government owed more than $77 million, a sum roughly equivalent to more than 10 times the government's budget. In a decade and a half of incessant printing and borrowing, these obligations had been sold, resold, bartered, and bundled so many times that no one understood their "real" value. Unless Hamilton could bring sense to this financial mess the republic might collapse.
Hamilton proposed that regardless of their "real" value the federal government should assume these debts at their face value. Southerners saw this as a power grab by northern bankers and merchants aimed at enhancing the power of the federal government over the states. Worse, they argued, it would reward greed and double dealing.
Speculators would make out like bandits, and since they tended to live in northern states, so would the north in general. So southern senators and representatives could kill the deal if they wanted, but he goes on to remind us that a solution was arranged in a dinner with Hamilton, Jefferson, and Madison. In exchange for their agreement to not actively oppose the proposal, Hamilton would support placing the nation's capital in Virginia.
The article points out the importance of compromise in order to solve major problems, but also -- though the author does not state this outright -- that speculators tend to get what they want. Remember that one of the major objectives of nationalization, by which I mean swapping out the Articles of Confederation for the Constitution, was to decrease the risk associated with business speculation. Again, there is nothing new under the sun.
When he took office the new republic was drowning in a sea of wild financial speculation and crushing debt from the Revolution. To pay off these obligations the 13 states and the Continental and Confederation Congresses printed paper money to the point where it had become worthless. When the printing press could no longer suffice, they resorted to borrowing funds. Altogether by the time Hamilton took office the states and the federal government owed more than $77 million, a sum roughly equivalent to more than 10 times the government's budget. In a decade and a half of incessant printing and borrowing, these obligations had been sold, resold, bartered, and bundled so many times that no one understood their "real" value. Unless Hamilton could bring sense to this financial mess the republic might collapse.
Hamilton proposed that regardless of their "real" value the federal government should assume these debts at their face value. Southerners saw this as a power grab by northern bankers and merchants aimed at enhancing the power of the federal government over the states. Worse, they argued, it would reward greed and double dealing.
Speculators would make out like bandits, and since they tended to live in northern states, so would the north in general. So southern senators and representatives could kill the deal if they wanted, but he goes on to remind us that a solution was arranged in a dinner with Hamilton, Jefferson, and Madison. In exchange for their agreement to not actively oppose the proposal, Hamilton would support placing the nation's capital in Virginia.
The article points out the importance of compromise in order to solve major problems, but also -- though the author does not state this outright -- that speculators tend to get what they want. Remember that one of the major objectives of nationalization, by which I mean swapping out the Articles of Confederation for the Constitution, was to decrease the risk associated with business speculation. Again, there is nothing new under the sun.
Friday, March 27, 2009
Obama's Online Chat Session
I'm sorry I missed this, but here's additional proof that the internet revolution has hit an entirely new level with this tech savvy White House.
The Bully Pulpit is now fully digital, for better or worse.
The Bully Pulpit is now fully digital, for better or worse.
Thursday, March 26, 2009
Is the Media Hyping Border Violence?
Its a great story, and the level of violence in Mexico is horrific in places, but not everywhere, and apparently not in towns on the American side. The mayors of border cities are a bit miffed about the hysteria and concerned with its policy consequences.
But again, its a great story and its tough to put it down. We eat this stuff up. Its worth considering the degree to which public policy is more a response to media sensationalism than to pragmatic reality.
I see similarities between this story and the AIG bonus flap.
But again, its a great story and its tough to put it down. We eat this stuff up. Its worth considering the degree to which public policy is more a response to media sensationalism than to pragmatic reality.
I see similarities between this story and the AIG bonus flap.
More National Expansion
Inkeeping with our 2302 discussion about the factors which lead to the expansion of national governmental power comes the following:
The Obama administration on Thursday detailed its wide-ranging plan to overhaul financial regulation by subjecting hedge funds and traders of exotic financial instruments, now among the biggest and most freewheeling players on Wall Street, to potentially strict new government supervision.
The Treasury secretary, Timothy F. Geithner, outlined the plan Thursday before the House Financial Services Committee. He said the changes were needed to fix a badly flawed system that was exposed by the current financial crisis. Mr. Geithner, in his opening statement, called for “comprehensive reform. Not modest repairs at the margin, but new rules of the game.”
Included in the plan would be the establishment of one single agency “with responsibility for systemic stability over the major institutions and critical payment and settlement systems and activities.”
The scope of the national government increases, by and large, due to crises and the accompanying calls to handle the crisis. The regulatory structure in place is still based on the types of problems created during the Great Depression. What is now happening is an adjustment based on the types of financial instruments that have developed since then, and sit outside the regulatory jurisdiction of entities like the Securities and Exchange Commission.
Libertarians and conservatives might object, but we wouldn't be talking about any of this had the private transactions been on the up and up. If you don't want big government, behave.
The Obama administration on Thursday detailed its wide-ranging plan to overhaul financial regulation by subjecting hedge funds and traders of exotic financial instruments, now among the biggest and most freewheeling players on Wall Street, to potentially strict new government supervision.
The Treasury secretary, Timothy F. Geithner, outlined the plan Thursday before the House Financial Services Committee. He said the changes were needed to fix a badly flawed system that was exposed by the current financial crisis. Mr. Geithner, in his opening statement, called for “comprehensive reform. Not modest repairs at the margin, but new rules of the game.”
Included in the plan would be the establishment of one single agency “with responsibility for systemic stability over the major institutions and critical payment and settlement systems and activities.”
The scope of the national government increases, by and large, due to crises and the accompanying calls to handle the crisis. The regulatory structure in place is still based on the types of problems created during the Great Depression. What is now happening is an adjustment based on the types of financial instruments that have developed since then, and sit outside the regulatory jurisdiction of entities like the Securities and Exchange Commission.
Libertarians and conservatives might object, but we wouldn't be talking about any of this had the private transactions been on the up and up. If you don't want big government, behave.
Local Government and the Dynamo Stadium
The ongoing controversy over how the Houston Dynamo's proposed stadium will be financed provides a terrific example of the cumbersome nature of local government coordination and public-private partnerships.
On Sobriety Checkpoints
Grits for Breakfast has a great post on a sobriety checkpoint bill being considered by the Texas Senate.
Sobriety checkpoints can help secure the greater good, if they are designed -- procedurally -- to narrowly focus on drunk driving. If not, they allow for random, arbitrary fishing expeditions, a hallmark of totalitarianism (at its most extreme anyway).
He outlines a bill designed to do just that, which he still opposes on principle, but his discussion helps clarify how procedural restrictions are essential in order to both protect the general welfare while securing individual liberty. In essence, this is a Fourth Amendment issue. What makes a search reasonable?
Sobriety checkpoints can help secure the greater good, if they are designed -- procedurally -- to narrowly focus on drunk driving. If not, they allow for random, arbitrary fishing expeditions, a hallmark of totalitarianism (at its most extreme anyway).
He outlines a bill designed to do just that, which he still opposes on principle, but his discussion helps clarify how procedural restrictions are essential in order to both protect the general welfare while securing individual liberty. In essence, this is a Fourth Amendment issue. What makes a search reasonable?
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
A Petition From Quintana Beach
A hint to my 2301 students about how to do paper #2. The Brazoria Facts reports on an actual grievance coming from Quintana Beach:
All but three town residents have signed a petition asking federal regulators to deny Freeport LNG’s request to bring big rigs carrying liquefied natural gas onto the island.
Quintana Island resident Harold Doty plans to send the petition, which has 36 signatures, to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission by week’s end in hopes of reversing the regulators’ March 13 assessment that trucks wouldn’t affect the environment on the small island city.
All but three town residents have signed a petition asking federal regulators to deny Freeport LNG’s request to bring big rigs carrying liquefied natural gas onto the island.
Quintana Island resident Harold Doty plans to send the petition, which has 36 signatures, to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission by week’s end in hopes of reversing the regulators’ March 13 assessment that trucks wouldn’t affect the environment on the small island city.
Tuesday, March 24, 2009
More Power to the Treasury and Fed?
From the NYT:
The crisis surrounding the American International Group was a near-tragedy that underlines the need for broad new government authority to regulate or even take control of financial institutions other than banks, the government’s top fiscal officials told lawmakers on Tuesday.
Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner said financial crises like those caused by the recklessness of A.I.G. “contain a basic and tragic unfairness — that those who were prudent and responsible in their personal and professional judgments are harmed by the actions of those who were less careful and less prudent.”
The Federal Reserve Chairman, Ben S. Bernanke, agreed with Mr. Geithner that Congress should grant the Treasury Department and Federal Reserve new powers. Mr. Bernanke told members of the House Financial Services Committee that if the government had had such authority in September, when the depth of A.I.G.’s troubles became obvious, the company could have been put into receivership or conservatorship and regulators would have been able to “unwind it slowly, protect policyholders” and take other prudent measures.
The crisis surrounding the American International Group was a near-tragedy that underlines the need for broad new government authority to regulate or even take control of financial institutions other than banks, the government’s top fiscal officials told lawmakers on Tuesday.
Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner said financial crises like those caused by the recklessness of A.I.G. “contain a basic and tragic unfairness — that those who were prudent and responsible in their personal and professional judgments are harmed by the actions of those who were less careful and less prudent.”
The Federal Reserve Chairman, Ben S. Bernanke, agreed with Mr. Geithner that Congress should grant the Treasury Department and Federal Reserve new powers. Mr. Bernanke told members of the House Financial Services Committee that if the government had had such authority in September, when the depth of A.I.G.’s troubles became obvious, the company could have been put into receivership or conservatorship and regulators would have been able to “unwind it slowly, protect policyholders” and take other prudent measures.
Turning the Page
As I suggested in class, the bailout furor seems to be dying down. Some House leaders are claiming the bill has had its intended effect because so many AIG executives are returning the money:
House Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer said Tuesday that a House-passed bill that would slap a 90 percent tax on bonuses paid to executives and others at companies receiving federal bailout aid seems to already have had much of its desired impact.
The bill (HR 1586) has been criticized by President Obama and some senators as potentially unconstitutional, and as bad policy precedent in any case.
Neither the House measure nor a companion bill (S 651) produced by the Senate Finance Committee are likely to move through the Senate anytime soon. But Hoyer, D-Md., said it appears that executives at American International Group Inc. still have received Congress’ message, because a large number of them have agreed to return their share of the $165 million bonus money that triggered public and congressional outrage.
“I think apparently the House bill had its intended effect. They’re giving it back,” Hoyer said, referring to New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo’s announcement that about half of the money from the giant insurance company’s bonus program will be returned.
House Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer said Tuesday that a House-passed bill that would slap a 90 percent tax on bonuses paid to executives and others at companies receiving federal bailout aid seems to already have had much of its desired impact.
The bill (HR 1586) has been criticized by President Obama and some senators as potentially unconstitutional, and as bad policy precedent in any case.
Neither the House measure nor a companion bill (S 651) produced by the Senate Finance Committee are likely to move through the Senate anytime soon. But Hoyer, D-Md., said it appears that executives at American International Group Inc. still have received Congress’ message, because a large number of them have agreed to return their share of the $165 million bonus money that triggered public and congressional outrage.
“I think apparently the House bill had its intended effect. They’re giving it back,” Hoyer said, referring to New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo’s announcement that about half of the money from the giant insurance company’s bonus program will be returned.
Monday, March 23, 2009
About Those Troubled Assets
The Obama Administration announces their plan. The program will attempt to entice private investors to purchase assets that no one can quite place a value on:
Initially, a new Public-Private Investment Program will provide financing for $500 billion in purchasing power to buy those troubled or toxic assets — which the government refers to more diplomatically as legacy assets — with the potential of expanding later to as much as $1 trillion, according to a fact sheet issued by the Treasury Department.
At the core of the financing package will be $75 billion to $100 billion in capital from the existing financial bailout known as TARP, the Troubled Assets Relief Program, along with the share provided by private investors, which the government hopes will come to 5 percent or more. By leveraging this program through the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation and the Federal Reserve, huge amounts of bad loans can be acquired.
The private investors would be subsidized but could stand to lose their investments, while the taxpayers could share in prospective profits as the assets are eventually sold, the Treasury said. The administration said that it expected participation from pension funds, insurance companies and other long-term investors.
The plan calls for the government to put up most of the money for buying up troubled assets, and it would give private investors a clearly advantageous deal. In one program, the Treasury would match, one for one, every dollar of equity that private investors invest of their own money in each “Public Private Investment Fund.”
On top of that, the F.D.I.C. — tapping its own credit lines with the Treasury — will lend six dollars for each dollar invested by the Treasury and private investors. If the mortgage pool turns bad and runs big losses, the private investors will be able to walk away from their F.D.I.C. loans and leave the government holding the soured mortgages and the bulk of the losses.
The Opinionator provides a run down of the commentary on the plan.
Initially, a new Public-Private Investment Program will provide financing for $500 billion in purchasing power to buy those troubled or toxic assets — which the government refers to more diplomatically as legacy assets — with the potential of expanding later to as much as $1 trillion, according to a fact sheet issued by the Treasury Department.
At the core of the financing package will be $75 billion to $100 billion in capital from the existing financial bailout known as TARP, the Troubled Assets Relief Program, along with the share provided by private investors, which the government hopes will come to 5 percent or more. By leveraging this program through the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation and the Federal Reserve, huge amounts of bad loans can be acquired.
The private investors would be subsidized but could stand to lose their investments, while the taxpayers could share in prospective profits as the assets are eventually sold, the Treasury said. The administration said that it expected participation from pension funds, insurance companies and other long-term investors.
The plan calls for the government to put up most of the money for buying up troubled assets, and it would give private investors a clearly advantageous deal. In one program, the Treasury would match, one for one, every dollar of equity that private investors invest of their own money in each “Public Private Investment Fund.”
On top of that, the F.D.I.C. — tapping its own credit lines with the Treasury — will lend six dollars for each dollar invested by the Treasury and private investors. If the mortgage pool turns bad and runs big losses, the private investors will be able to walk away from their F.D.I.C. loans and leave the government holding the soured mortgages and the bulk of the losses.
The Opinionator provides a run down of the commentary on the plan.
J.P. Morgan and the Financial Panic of 1907
We've talked about this episode in class several times, especially in my 2302's. The NYT has an op-ed on the subject as a ways to underscore J.P. Morgan's authority and conviction in how to best handle the crisis. The suggestion is that we need the same today:
No single figure, much less a private banker, could wield the kind of power in today’s gargantuan collapsing markets that Morgan had a hundred years ago. And so far, not even the combined official powers of the Fed and Treasury have been able to stop the cascading disasters. Paul Volcker, the former Federal Reserve chairman, said recently that he couldn’t remember a time “maybe even in the Great Depression, when things went down quite so fast, quite so uniformly around the world.”
Perhaps new economic leadership will emerge during this crisis, under our gifted, charismatic president. It seems likely to consist of people who have the kind of experience, judgment and authority Morgan had — possibly a new “trio” made up of the current Fed chairman, Ben Bernanke; Paul Volcker; and Warren Buffett.
No single figure, much less a private banker, could wield the kind of power in today’s gargantuan collapsing markets that Morgan had a hundred years ago. And so far, not even the combined official powers of the Fed and Treasury have been able to stop the cascading disasters. Paul Volcker, the former Federal Reserve chairman, said recently that he couldn’t remember a time “maybe even in the Great Depression, when things went down quite so fast, quite so uniformly around the world.”
Perhaps new economic leadership will emerge during this crisis, under our gifted, charismatic president. It seems likely to consist of people who have the kind of experience, judgment and authority Morgan had — possibly a new “trio” made up of the current Fed chairman, Ben Bernanke; Paul Volcker; and Warren Buffett.
Sunday, March 22, 2009
Alvin Bans Alcohol in Local Parks
A standing room only crowd at the city council meeting supported the ban.
A decision to change the designation of Kendall Lakes to include commercial and light industrial activity was tabled. Existing residents apparently did not know about the proposed change. I drive by the development every day and it looks a bit sad.
A decision to change the designation of Kendall Lakes to include commercial and light industrial activity was tabled. Existing residents apparently did not know about the proposed change. I drive by the development every day and it looks a bit sad.
On the Constitutionality of the Social Security Act
I ran across this after a discussion about what national programs are and are not constitutional according to a strict reading of the Constitution. Its an analysis of the dispute, and how it was resolved by the Supreme Court, from the Social Security Online.
In brief, the power rests on the opening sentence of Article One, Section Eight which allows for Congress to levy taxes ... and provide for the general welfare.
It's a great read.
In brief, the power rests on the opening sentence of Article One, Section Eight which allows for Congress to levy taxes ... and provide for the general welfare.
It's a great read.
Bicameralism in Action
As expected, the effort to tax bonuses at a 90% rate is meeting opposition in the Senate. Two issues are at work here, both procedural in nature.
First, the minority in the Senate has more influence than it does in the House, so is better able to say no to proposed legislation. This doesn't mean they can set the agenda, they are simply better able to thwart things they do not like.
Second, the Senate takes its time. The process is more open ended and can be slowed down long enough for rage to subside. The very fact that legislation passed by the House has to go to a second institution contributes to this.
Is this good or bad for public policy? If you believe that the current the focus on AIG bonuses takes attention from more serious problems then you probably think it its good. My hunch is that the Constitution's authors would agree.
First, the minority in the Senate has more influence than it does in the House, so is better able to say no to proposed legislation. This doesn't mean they can set the agenda, they are simply better able to thwart things they do not like.
Second, the Senate takes its time. The process is more open ended and can be slowed down long enough for rage to subside. The very fact that legislation passed by the House has to go to a second institution contributes to this.
Is this good or bad for public policy? If you believe that the current the focus on AIG bonuses takes attention from more serious problems then you probably think it its good. My hunch is that the Constitution's authors would agree.
Saturday, March 21, 2009
A Rocky Road
Here's a chunk from Slate's Today's Papers detailing the problems his budget might face in the coming weeks as it heads to Congress. Remember, Congress holds the purse strings:
The Los Angeles Times leads with a look at how President Obama's budget faces "a rocky road" in the congressional debate that is set to formally start next week. On top of a slew of recent developments, the chairman of the Senate budget committee said the deficits could be $1.6 trillion higher over the next 10 years than what the Obama administration had calculated, partly because of the worsening economic climate. The Congressional Budget Office is expected to reveal similar numbers today. The budget debate will "force Congress, for the first time this session, to make tough choices between competing priorities," notes the LAT.
The Los Angeles Times leads with a look at how President Obama's budget faces "a rocky road" in the congressional debate that is set to formally start next week. On top of a slew of recent developments, the chairman of the Senate budget committee said the deficits could be $1.6 trillion higher over the next 10 years than what the Obama administration had calculated, partly because of the worsening economic climate. The Congressional Budget Office is expected to reveal similar numbers today. The budget debate will "force Congress, for the first time this session, to make tough choices between competing priorities," notes the LAT.
Friday, March 20, 2009
TARP to get Specific
From the NYT:
The Treasury Department is expected to unveil early next week its long-delayed plan to buy as much as $1 trillion in troubled mortgages and related assets from financial institutions, according to people close to the talks.
The plan is likely to offer generous subsidies, in the form of low-interest loans, to coax investors to form partnerships with the government to buy toxic assets from banks.
To help protect taxpayers, who would pay for the bulk of the purchases, the plan calls for auctioning assets to the highest bidders.
...
For what it's worth, here's an interview on the subject with George Soros.
The Treasury Department is expected to unveil early next week its long-delayed plan to buy as much as $1 trillion in troubled mortgages and related assets from financial institutions, according to people close to the talks.
The plan is likely to offer generous subsidies, in the form of low-interest loans, to coax investors to form partnerships with the government to buy toxic assets from banks.
To help protect taxpayers, who would pay for the bulk of the purchases, the plan calls for auctioning assets to the highest bidders.
...
For what it's worth, here's an interview on the subject with George Soros.
Thursday, March 19, 2009
Did the U.S. House Pass a Bill of Attainder?
Responding to general anger, the House passed a bill establishing a 90% tax on the bonuses received by AIG executives, among others.
It has been suggested that this is an unconstitutional bill of attainder, a punishment placed on a specific group of people.
This will go to the Senate next week. I'm interested in whether by then, the furor dies down and a different response to this issue is determined. That's the point of bicameralism.
It has been suggested that this is an unconstitutional bill of attainder, a punishment placed on a specific group of people.
This will go to the Senate next week. I'm interested in whether by then, the furor dies down and a different response to this issue is determined. That's the point of bicameralism.
The Fed Purchases $1 Trillion in Treasury Bonds
This is an example of a monetary policy:
Having already reduced the key interest rate it controls nearly to zero, the central bank has increasingly turned to alternatives like buying securities as a way of getting more dollars into the economy, a tactic that amounts to creating vast new sums of money out of thin air. But the moves on Wednesday were its biggest yet, almost doubling all of the Fed’s measures in the last year.
The action makes the Fed a buyer of long-term government bonds rather than the short-term debt that it typically buys and sells to help control the money supply.
The idea was to encourage more economic activity by lowering interest rates, including those on home loans, and to help the financial system as it struggles under the crushing weight of bad loans and poor investments.
What are these things anyway?
Having already reduced the key interest rate it controls nearly to zero, the central bank has increasingly turned to alternatives like buying securities as a way of getting more dollars into the economy, a tactic that amounts to creating vast new sums of money out of thin air. But the moves on Wednesday were its biggest yet, almost doubling all of the Fed’s measures in the last year.
The action makes the Fed a buyer of long-term government bonds rather than the short-term debt that it typically buys and sells to help control the money supply.
The idea was to encourage more economic activity by lowering interest rates, including those on home loans, and to help the financial system as it struggles under the crushing weight of bad loans and poor investments.
What are these things anyway?
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
Populism and Publis Policy
As I write this the furor of the AIG bonuses is working its way through whatever it will work its way through. The more interesting question being asked is whether populist furor over the bonuses will interfere with the government's ability to deal with the current crisis?
Thomas Friedman thinks so:
Let me be specific: If you didn’t like reading about A.I.G. brokers getting millions in bonuses after their company — 80 percent of which is owned by U.S. taxpayers — racked up the biggest quarterly loss in the history of the Milky Way Galaxy, you’re really not going to like the bank bailout plan to be rolled out soon by the Obama team. That plan will begin by using up the $250 billion or so left in TARP funds to start removing the toxic assets from the banks. But ultimately, to get the scale of bank repair we need, it will likely require some $750 billion more.
The plan makes sense, and, if done right, it might even make profits for U.S. taxpayers. But in this climate of anger, it will take every bit of political capital in Barack Obama’s piggy bank — as well as Michelle’s, Sasha’s and Malia’s — to sell it to Congress and the public.
Recall that the authors of the Constitution did not have a high opinion of the mass public and designed government institutions in order to limit their direct involvement. The passions of the public were to be removed from policymaking. The instability infused into government by mass hatred was to be prevented. I think this is a great example of what they were talking about.
Thomas Friedman thinks so:
Let me be specific: If you didn’t like reading about A.I.G. brokers getting millions in bonuses after their company — 80 percent of which is owned by U.S. taxpayers — racked up the biggest quarterly loss in the history of the Milky Way Galaxy, you’re really not going to like the bank bailout plan to be rolled out soon by the Obama team. That plan will begin by using up the $250 billion or so left in TARP funds to start removing the toxic assets from the banks. But ultimately, to get the scale of bank repair we need, it will likely require some $750 billion more.
The plan makes sense, and, if done right, it might even make profits for U.S. taxpayers. But in this climate of anger, it will take every bit of political capital in Barack Obama’s piggy bank — as well as Michelle’s, Sasha’s and Malia’s — to sell it to Congress and the public.
Recall that the authors of the Constitution did not have a high opinion of the mass public and designed government institutions in order to limit their direct involvement. The passions of the public were to be removed from policymaking. The instability infused into government by mass hatred was to be prevented. I think this is a great example of what they were talking about.
Sunday, March 15, 2009
The Homelanders
That's a potential name for the new generation of kids raised during the current economic recession. Another Silent Generation, according to the author.
File this under generational politics, the tendency of groups born around the same time, and exposed to the same experiences, to think alike.
File this under generational politics, the tendency of groups born around the same time, and exposed to the same experiences, to think alike.
Are the Culture Wars Over?
Frank Rich thinks so. The economy may have something to do with it. People stopped worrying about prohibition when the Great Depression started. There were more important things to worry about. Same thing today.
Thursday, March 12, 2009
Wednesday, March 11, 2009
Voter ID Bill Passes Texas Senate
From The Dallas Morning News:
Democratic and Republican senators skirmished Tuesday over legislation that would require Texans to show a photo ID before voting – but the debate was mainly for show, as the measure was expected to win approval.
From the moment the Senate convened Tuesday morning to consider the GOP-backed voter ID bill, it was obvious that any important votes would wind up 19-12, the exact partisan split in the chamber.
- Republicans like it.
- Democrats don't.
- The controlling Supreme Court case: Crawford v. Marion County Election Board.
Democratic and Republican senators skirmished Tuesday over legislation that would require Texans to show a photo ID before voting – but the debate was mainly for show, as the measure was expected to win approval.
From the moment the Senate convened Tuesday morning to consider the GOP-backed voter ID bill, it was obvious that any important votes would wind up 19-12, the exact partisan split in the chamber.
- Republicans like it.
- Democrats don't.
- The controlling Supreme Court case: Crawford v. Marion County Election Board.
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
Obama's Budget Meets the Committee Chairs
After years of diminished strength, congressional committee chairman have additional strength and are using it to force changes in Obama's proposed budget:
What the Democratic barons of Congress liked best about President Obama’s audacious budget was his invitation to fill in the details. They have started by erasing some of his.
The apparent first casualty is a big one: a proposal to limit tax deductions for the wealthiest 1.2 percent of taxpayers. Mr. Obama says the plan would produce $318 billion over the next decade as a down payment for overhauling health care.
But the chairmen of the House and Senate tax-writing committees, Senator Max Baucus of Montana and Representative Charles B. Rangel of New York, have objected to the proposal, citing a potential drop in tax-deductible gifts to charities.
Billions in savings from cutting government subsidies to big farmers and agribusinesses? No dice, said Senator Kent Conrad of North Dakota, who heads the Senate Budget Committee.
Mr. Conrad also panned the limit on tax deductions. And his criticisms of those savings proposals aside, Mr. Conrad said Mr. Obama’s 10-year plan would not do enough to reduce future debt.
Congress is, after all, the legislative branch.
Shrink spending on Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security? Representative John M. Spratt Jr. of South Carolina, chairman of the House Budget Committee, suggested Mr. Obama’s proposals did not go far enough.
Cap industries’ emissions of the gases blamed for climate change? Representative Henry A. Waxman of California, who leads the House Energy and Commerce Committee, will have to contend with dissent on a panel with Democrats from coal and manufacturing states.
What the Democratic barons of Congress liked best about President Obama’s audacious budget was his invitation to fill in the details. They have started by erasing some of his.
The apparent first casualty is a big one: a proposal to limit tax deductions for the wealthiest 1.2 percent of taxpayers. Mr. Obama says the plan would produce $318 billion over the next decade as a down payment for overhauling health care.
But the chairmen of the House and Senate tax-writing committees, Senator Max Baucus of Montana and Representative Charles B. Rangel of New York, have objected to the proposal, citing a potential drop in tax-deductible gifts to charities.
Billions in savings from cutting government subsidies to big farmers and agribusinesses? No dice, said Senator Kent Conrad of North Dakota, who heads the Senate Budget Committee.
Mr. Conrad also panned the limit on tax deductions. And his criticisms of those savings proposals aside, Mr. Conrad said Mr. Obama’s 10-year plan would not do enough to reduce future debt.
Congress is, after all, the legislative branch.
Shrink spending on Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security? Representative John M. Spratt Jr. of South Carolina, chairman of the House Budget Committee, suggested Mr. Obama’s proposals did not go far enough.
Cap industries’ emissions of the gases blamed for climate change? Representative Henry A. Waxman of California, who leads the House Energy and Commerce Committee, will have to contend with dissent on a panel with Democrats from coal and manufacturing states.
David Axelrod
The New York Times has a brief overview of Obama's senior aide:
He arrives at the White House shortly after 7 a.m., a torturously early hour for a man known during the campaign for sending messages until the small hours of the morning. A cup of Earl Grey tea is waiting for him — he hates the taste of coffee and recalls having only two cups in his life — as he walks into his first appointment of the day, a meeting in the office of Rahm Emanuel, the chief of staff, who has been a friend for 25 years.
He attends the economic briefing in the Oval Office, where the latest news and grim statistics are relayed to the president by a battery of advisers. When the classified intelligence briefing begins, Mr. Axelrod leaves the room. Later, he and a speechwriter sit down with Mr. Obama to review the three-ring binder containing each speech or statement the president will make that day.
Often in the late afternoons, he walks to the Situation Room to attend some meetings of the National Security Council, stopping to grab a handful or two of the M&Ms that are in a large bowl outside the room.
He also helps decide which fights to pick and which ones to avoid, making him a leading voice in setting the political tone in Washington. The recent back-and-forth with Rush Limbaugh, for example, was explicitly authorized by Mr. Axelrod, who told aides that it was not a moment to sit quietly after Mr. Limbaugh said he hoped that Mr. Obama would “fail.”
- Here's his bio from Wikipedia.
He arrives at the White House shortly after 7 a.m., a torturously early hour for a man known during the campaign for sending messages until the small hours of the morning. A cup of Earl Grey tea is waiting for him — he hates the taste of coffee and recalls having only two cups in his life — as he walks into his first appointment of the day, a meeting in the office of Rahm Emanuel, the chief of staff, who has been a friend for 25 years.
He attends the economic briefing in the Oval Office, where the latest news and grim statistics are relayed to the president by a battery of advisers. When the classified intelligence briefing begins, Mr. Axelrod leaves the room. Later, he and a speechwriter sit down with Mr. Obama to review the three-ring binder containing each speech or statement the president will make that day.
Often in the late afternoons, he walks to the Situation Room to attend some meetings of the National Security Council, stopping to grab a handful or two of the M&Ms that are in a large bowl outside the room.
He also helps decide which fights to pick and which ones to avoid, making him a leading voice in setting the political tone in Washington. The recent back-and-forth with Rush Limbaugh, for example, was explicitly authorized by Mr. Axelrod, who told aides that it was not a moment to sit quietly after Mr. Limbaugh said he hoped that Mr. Obama would “fail.”
- Here's his bio from Wikipedia.
Monday, March 9, 2009
Obama Executive Order on Stem Cell Research
From the New York Times:
Mr. Obama delighted many scientists and patients by formally announcing that he was overturning the Bush administration’s limits on embryonic stem cell research. But the president also went one step further, issuing a memorandum that sets forth broad parameters for how his administration would choose expert advisers and use scientific data.
The document orders Mr. Obama’s top science adviser to help draft guidelines that will apply to every federal agency. Agencies will be expected to pick science advisers based on expertise, not political ideology, the memorandum said, and will offer whistle-blower protections to employees who expose the misuse or suppression of scientific information.
The idea, the president said in remarks before an audience of lawmakers, scientists, patients advocates and patients in the East Room, is to ensure that “we make scientific decisions based on facts, not ideology”: a line that drew more applause than any other. Irv Weissman, who directs an institute at Stanford University devoted to studying stem cells, called the declaration “of even greater importance” than the stem cell announcement itself.
It was also another in a long string of rebukes by Mr. Obama toward his predecessor, President George W. Bush. Mr. Bush was often accused of trying to shade or even suppress the findings of government scientists on climate change, sex education, contraceptives and other issues, as well as stem cells. But Mr. Obama’s announcement does not elevate science to some new and exalted place in his administration.
Mr. Obama delighted many scientists and patients by formally announcing that he was overturning the Bush administration’s limits on embryonic stem cell research. But the president also went one step further, issuing a memorandum that sets forth broad parameters for how his administration would choose expert advisers and use scientific data.
The document orders Mr. Obama’s top science adviser to help draft guidelines that will apply to every federal agency. Agencies will be expected to pick science advisers based on expertise, not political ideology, the memorandum said, and will offer whistle-blower protections to employees who expose the misuse or suppression of scientific information.
The idea, the president said in remarks before an audience of lawmakers, scientists, patients advocates and patients in the East Room, is to ensure that “we make scientific decisions based on facts, not ideology”: a line that drew more applause than any other. Irv Weissman, who directs an institute at Stanford University devoted to studying stem cells, called the declaration “of even greater importance” than the stem cell announcement itself.
It was also another in a long string of rebukes by Mr. Obama toward his predecessor, President George W. Bush. Mr. Bush was often accused of trying to shade or even suppress the findings of government scientists on climate change, sex education, contraceptives and other issues, as well as stem cells. But Mr. Obama’s announcement does not elevate science to some new and exalted place in his administration.
Limits Place on Extent of Votign Rights Act
From the New York Times:
Only election districts in which minorities make up at least half of the voting-age population are entitled to the protections of a part of the Voting Rights Act that seeks to ensure and preserve minority voting power, the Supreme Court ruled on Monday.
...
Officials in North Carolina had argued that the act required them to help maintain black influence at the voting booth by creating a district that included about 39 percent of the black voting-age population. The theory was that the law protected black voters who joined with white “crossover voters” to elect a candidate of the black voters’ choice. The court rejected that argument by a 5-to-4 vote.
- Read the decision here.
- Scotus Wiki.
- Scotus Blog.
- ACLU.
Only election districts in which minorities make up at least half of the voting-age population are entitled to the protections of a part of the Voting Rights Act that seeks to ensure and preserve minority voting power, the Supreme Court ruled on Monday.
...
Officials in North Carolina had argued that the act required them to help maintain black influence at the voting booth by creating a district that included about 39 percent of the black voting-age population. The theory was that the law protected black voters who joined with white “crossover voters” to elect a candidate of the black voters’ choice. The court rejected that argument by a 5-to-4 vote.
- Read the decision here.
- Scotus Wiki.
- Scotus Blog.
- ACLU.
Week Nine Quizes
In my quest to make these things as easy as possible, here are some hints about what will be on the next quiz:
2301:
- the definition of civil rights
- understand how the Declaration of Independence is a civil rights document
- the Dred Scott Decision
- the equal protection clause
- the Civil War amendments
- the 15th Amendment
- Plessy v. Ferguson
- the White Primary
- Brown v. Board of Education
- Strict Scrutiny
- what justifies discrimination
- the Civil Rights Act
2302:
- the scope of government under during the Washington Administration
- the factors which led to an increase of the bureaucracy
- the cabinet
- the executive agencies created during the New Deal
- the similarities and difference between the cabinet, executive office of the president and the White House staff.
- the function of bureaucratic agencies
- the function of the White House Chief of Staff
2301:
- the definition of civil rights
- understand how the Declaration of Independence is a civil rights document
- the Dred Scott Decision
- the equal protection clause
- the Civil War amendments
- the 15th Amendment
- Plessy v. Ferguson
- the White Primary
- Brown v. Board of Education
- Strict Scrutiny
- what justifies discrimination
- the Civil Rights Act
2302:
- the scope of government under during the Washington Administration
- the factors which led to an increase of the bureaucracy
- the cabinet
- the executive agencies created during the New Deal
- the similarities and difference between the cabinet, executive office of the president and the White House staff.
- the function of bureaucratic agencies
- the function of the White House Chief of Staff
Saturday, March 7, 2009
Judicial Misconduct in Texas
Sharon Keller, the presiding judge of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, is in trouble:
Seventeen months ago, lawyers for a man facing execution sought extra time to file a last-minute appeal. Judge Keller refused to delay the closing of her clerk’s office past 5 p.m., even though late filings are common on the day of a scheduled execution. The man, Michael Richard, was put to death by lethal injection a few hours later.
Based on that case, the State Commission on Judicial Conduct last month charged Judge Keller with incompetence, violating her duties and casting public discredit on the judiciary. Judge Keller, who has been the chief judge of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals since 2000, faces a public trial and could be forced off the bench.
Her lawyer insists that she did nothing wrong and that she was being blamed for the mistakes of the defendant’s lawyers and court staff.
Some links:
- Sharon Keller's website.
- State Commission on Judicial Misconduct.
- The Chron details efforts to prevent similar problems in the future.
- Rick Casey's commentary.
Seventeen months ago, lawyers for a man facing execution sought extra time to file a last-minute appeal. Judge Keller refused to delay the closing of her clerk’s office past 5 p.m., even though late filings are common on the day of a scheduled execution. The man, Michael Richard, was put to death by lethal injection a few hours later.
Based on that case, the State Commission on Judicial Conduct last month charged Judge Keller with incompetence, violating her duties and casting public discredit on the judiciary. Judge Keller, who has been the chief judge of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals since 2000, faces a public trial and could be forced off the bench.
Her lawyer insists that she did nothing wrong and that she was being blamed for the mistakes of the defendant’s lawyers and court staff.
Some links:
- Sharon Keller's website.
- State Commission on Judicial Misconduct.
- The Chron details efforts to prevent similar problems in the future.
- Rick Casey's commentary.
Who Protects You From the Police?
We've been discussing paper assignments in my 2301 and 2302 classes and some students have expressed interests in pursuing questions regarding aggressive police behavior. While we like the idea that the police around to save us from bad guys, we're stuck if the bad guys turn out to be the police themselves.
Here's a disturbing Washington Post story about suspicions that some DC police would cause problems at the inauguration:
In the days leading up to President Obama's inauguration, U.S. law enforcement agencies huddled regularly in an effort to minimize any possible security risk to an event that promised record crowds for the country's first black president. But one agenda item led authorities to a target close to home: the ranks of the U.S. Capitol Police.
An FBI investigation that included taped surveillance had placed two off-duty veteran Capitol Police officers in the company of individuals whose racial views and capacity for violence were under scrutiny. Although the recorded discussion did not center on Obama, federal law enforcement officials wanted to ensure that the officers were not on duty covering the Capitol, where the president took the oath of office, according to two sources involved in the matter.
Here's a disturbing Washington Post story about suspicions that some DC police would cause problems at the inauguration:
In the days leading up to President Obama's inauguration, U.S. law enforcement agencies huddled regularly in an effort to minimize any possible security risk to an event that promised record crowds for the country's first black president. But one agenda item led authorities to a target close to home: the ranks of the U.S. Capitol Police.
An FBI investigation that included taped surveillance had placed two off-duty veteran Capitol Police officers in the company of individuals whose racial views and capacity for violence were under scrutiny. Although the recorded discussion did not center on Obama, federal law enforcement officials wanted to ensure that the officers were not on duty covering the Capitol, where the president took the oath of office, according to two sources involved in the matter.
Friday, March 6, 2009
Casino Gambling
The Houston Press summarizes the current prospects for a bill allowing casino gambling in the state. Notice how its passage is hampered by Governor Perry's need to shore up support among the social conservatives who are opposed to it, and other gaming legislation. He will veto any bill sent to him, which means that it will have to be passed in amendment form, which doesn't need a signature, but requires 2/3rds votes in the leg and a simple majority of the general population.
The HP does not seem hopeful.
The HP does not seem hopeful.
Tier One Universities
One of the Higher Ed issues on the Texas legislative agenda is whether the state should fund another, and perhaps more than one, Tier One Universities.
UH, along with Texas Tech and the Univesity of North Texas, are considered the front runners, but here's an interesting bit from the Dallas Morning News which puts the issue in perspective:
The term "Tier One" draws from various criteria, including membership in the Association of American Universities, quality of faculty, dollar amount of research, and selective admissions. By those measures, Texas can claim only three such elite schools – UT-Austin, Texas A&M and Houston's Rice University. By contrast, California has nine, and New York has five. (Dallas-Fort Worth has no AAU school, even though it is more populous than eight states that do support a Tier One university.)
In recent days, lawmakers have sought clarity on the cost of catching up. One estimate is about $70 million per year to establish and nourish one of Texas' seven emerging research universities – the list includes UT-Dallas, UT-Arlington and UNT – as a national competitor.
To put that into perspective, consider road construction. The cost of a major freeway interchange could fund the annual effort to boost three emerging universities to elite status.
The last paragraph reminds us the politics is, at root, a question of trade-offs among competing priorities. Which do you want? Cutting edge research or another freeway interchange. Of course its a trick question. If you are talking about a freeway intersection that cuts down my traffic time, it's a no brainer.
UH, along with Texas Tech and the Univesity of North Texas, are considered the front runners, but here's an interesting bit from the Dallas Morning News which puts the issue in perspective:
The term "Tier One" draws from various criteria, including membership in the Association of American Universities, quality of faculty, dollar amount of research, and selective admissions. By those measures, Texas can claim only three such elite schools – UT-Austin, Texas A&M and Houston's Rice University. By contrast, California has nine, and New York has five. (Dallas-Fort Worth has no AAU school, even though it is more populous than eight states that do support a Tier One university.)
In recent days, lawmakers have sought clarity on the cost of catching up. One estimate is about $70 million per year to establish and nourish one of Texas' seven emerging research universities – the list includes UT-Dallas, UT-Arlington and UNT – as a national competitor.
To put that into perspective, consider road construction. The cost of a major freeway interchange could fund the annual effort to boost three emerging universities to elite status.
The last paragraph reminds us the politics is, at root, a question of trade-offs among competing priorities. Which do you want? Cutting edge research or another freeway interchange. Of course its a trick question. If you are talking about a freeway intersection that cuts down my traffic time, it's a no brainer.
Thursday, March 5, 2009
No More TAKS
From the Chron:
The much-maligned, high-stakes TAKS test would be eliminated, and more emphasis put on preparing high school students for college or a job, under legislation intended to dramatically change the way education progress is measured in Texas.
“We have counted on testing and testing only. And it’s caused a lot of angst in the schools,” Senate Public Education Chair Florence Shapiro, R-Plano, said Wednesday about the Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills.
“We’ll still test, but we’re using other variables to give us the results that we need.”
Shapiro and House Public Education Chair Rob Eissler, R-The Woodlands, plan to file the school accountability legislation on Thursday. The changes — which would start in the 2011-12 school year — aim to gradually elevate Texas into the top 10 states when it comes to preparing students for college or equipping them with workforce skills.
The much-maligned, high-stakes TAKS test would be eliminated, and more emphasis put on preparing high school students for college or a job, under legislation intended to dramatically change the way education progress is measured in Texas.
“We have counted on testing and testing only. And it’s caused a lot of angst in the schools,” Senate Public Education Chair Florence Shapiro, R-Plano, said Wednesday about the Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills.
“We’ll still test, but we’re using other variables to give us the results that we need.”
Shapiro and House Public Education Chair Rob Eissler, R-The Woodlands, plan to file the school accountability legislation on Thursday. The changes — which would start in the 2011-12 school year — aim to gradually elevate Texas into the top 10 states when it comes to preparing students for college or equipping them with workforce skills.
Mario Gallegos v. the Rodeo
Miya Shay's political blog reports on a bill filed by State Senator Mario Gallegos which would require:
non-profits to appoint a board of directors that reflect the diversity of its constituents, answer fully to all open records requests, and make reasonable efforts to increase minority participation in contracts.
The city and county spend a lot of taxpayer money on the Rodeo and there are questions about where the bulk of the funds collected by the rodeo go. They don't all go to scholarships.
The bill is SB 1196.
non-profits to appoint a board of directors that reflect the diversity of its constituents, answer fully to all open records requests, and make reasonable efforts to increase minority participation in contracts.
The city and county spend a lot of taxpayer money on the Rodeo and there are questions about where the bulk of the funds collected by the rodeo go. They don't all go to scholarships.
The bill is SB 1196.
Wednesday, March 4, 2009
Closed Primaries in Texas?
As of now, you don't have to declare your party affiliation before voting in a primary in Texas. We have an open primary. HB 1821 seeks to change that.
Vince Leibowitz at Capitol Annex thinks this would benefit the Texas Republican Party:
[the] bill is clearly aimed to cut Texas Democrats off at the knees after an election cycle in which primary participation exceeded two million and at a time when the party is on the rise statewide after 2008’s record turnout.
The bill, HB 1821, would require voters to declare a party affiliation at the time of registration, or be declared “independent.” Those who do not would be able to change their party affiliation. A 30 day waiting period would apply in odd-numbered years. In even numbered years (typically election years), a voter would have to change party affiliation–even if they are already registered–at least 31 days prior to the primary; the change would take effect after 30 days, meaning that the change would take effect the day before the primary and after early voting has closed, resulting in new voters being shut out of early voting.
It isn’t hard to see how the change would hurt Democrats in Texas. Given that more and more people are voting Democratic who were previously independent or Republican, it would mean that more people would have to cross a hurdle before being able to vote in the party’s primaries.
The change would also mean that Democratic campaigns in the primary would be spending a lot of money not just on voter registration but making sure that voters who did want to vote in those primaries changed their affiliation before the primary.
Vince Leibowitz at Capitol Annex thinks this would benefit the Texas Republican Party:
[the] bill is clearly aimed to cut Texas Democrats off at the knees after an election cycle in which primary participation exceeded two million and at a time when the party is on the rise statewide after 2008’s record turnout.
The bill, HB 1821, would require voters to declare a party affiliation at the time of registration, or be declared “independent.” Those who do not would be able to change their party affiliation. A 30 day waiting period would apply in odd-numbered years. In even numbered years (typically election years), a voter would have to change party affiliation–even if they are already registered–at least 31 days prior to the primary; the change would take effect after 30 days, meaning that the change would take effect the day before the primary and after early voting has closed, resulting in new voters being shut out of early voting.
It isn’t hard to see how the change would hurt Democrats in Texas. Given that more and more people are voting Democratic who were previously independent or Republican, it would mean that more people would have to cross a hurdle before being able to vote in the party’s primaries.
The change would also mean that Democratic campaigns in the primary would be spending a lot of money not just on voter registration but making sure that voters who did want to vote in those primaries changed their affiliation before the primary.
Lawsuit Against Drug Company Upheld by Supreme Court
From the NYT:
In one of the most important business cases in years, the Supreme Court on Wednesday ruled that a drug company is not protected from injury claims in state court merely because the federal government had approved the product and its labeling.
Follow this link to the decision: Wyeth v. Levine.
In one of the most important business cases in years, the Supreme Court on Wednesday ruled that a drug company is not protected from injury claims in state court merely because the federal government had approved the product and its labeling.
Follow this link to the decision: Wyeth v. Levine.
Harvard Medical Students Have a Beef
My 2301 students are supposed to begin on their grievance papers -- the object is to determine how to convert a grievance into action.
For an example of how this has been done by other students, here's a story about how a group of Harvard students addressed the influence of drug companies in the classroom.
For an example of how this has been done by other students, here's a story about how a group of Harvard students addressed the influence of drug companies in the classroom.
Obama on the Line
One of the bigger questions asked about presidents regards their decision making styles and how much they make themselves open to outside viewpoints. The NYT reports that Obama likes to make phone calls to a wide variety of people (apparently including W. Bush).
He commented on one of the advantages of being a senator:
“Everybody takes your phone calls,” Mr. Obama told me. “If there is a topic I’m interested in, I can call the smartest people in the world on that topic and talk to them about it. Sometimes they’ll come into my office and that is just a huge luxury.
“If I’m interested in finance, I can call Warren Buffet. If I’m interested in health care, I can call the top administrators or health-care experts in the country. If I’m interested in foreign policy, I can not only call experts here, but I can call experts overseas,” Mr. Obama added. “That’s fun.”
Its too soon to determine whether this strategy will be an asset or a liability for him. Clinton was criticized for being too open to outside opinions, which made him indecisive and prone to be mostly influenced by the last person he spoke to, and W. Bush, Nixon and LBJ were argued to be too limited in the range of people they spoke to which turned the White House into an echo chamber, prone to groupthink.
He commented on one of the advantages of being a senator:
“Everybody takes your phone calls,” Mr. Obama told me. “If there is a topic I’m interested in, I can call the smartest people in the world on that topic and talk to them about it. Sometimes they’ll come into my office and that is just a huge luxury.
“If I’m interested in finance, I can call Warren Buffet. If I’m interested in health care, I can call the top administrators or health-care experts in the country. If I’m interested in foreign policy, I can not only call experts here, but I can call experts overseas,” Mr. Obama added. “That’s fun.”
Its too soon to determine whether this strategy will be an asset or a liability for him. Clinton was criticized for being too open to outside opinions, which made him indecisive and prone to be mostly influenced by the last person he spoke to, and W. Bush, Nixon and LBJ were argued to be too limited in the range of people they spoke to which turned the White House into an echo chamber, prone to groupthink.
Justice For Sale?
Can you buy a judge? In the abstract no, but how can you clarify what it takes to buy a judge's vote clearly enough to know when it happened? The court heard arguments in Caperton v. A.T. Massey Wednesday. Here's background from Slate:
In 2002, a West Virginia jury determined that the A.T. Massey Coal Co. had fraudulently forced competitor Hugh Caperton into bankruptcy. Massey's CEO, Don Blankenship, promptly appealed, having warned Caperton: "We spend a million dollars a month on lawyers, and we'll tie you up for years." West Virginia has only one appellate court—its Supreme Court. Concerned about his odds on appeal, Blankenship spent $3 million of his own money to take out sitting Justice Warren McGraw by backing his opponent in a 2004 judicial election.
Blankenship's $3 million represented 60 percent of the total funding of a 527 group called (what else?) "And for the Sake of the Kids." The group ran creepy election ads accusing McGraw of (what else?) setting a pedophile loose in the schools. McGraw lost his seat on the state high court to an unknown lawyer called Brent Benjamin. And in a Disney-like rotation of the circle of life, the newly elected Chief Justice Benjamin then voted 3-2 to reverse the verdict against Massey. Asked to recuse himself from hearing the case, Benjamin refused. Twice.
In 2002, a West Virginia jury determined that the A.T. Massey Coal Co. had fraudulently forced competitor Hugh Caperton into bankruptcy. Massey's CEO, Don Blankenship, promptly appealed, having warned Caperton: "We spend a million dollars a month on lawyers, and we'll tie you up for years." West Virginia has only one appellate court—its Supreme Court. Concerned about his odds on appeal, Blankenship spent $3 million of his own money to take out sitting Justice Warren McGraw by backing his opponent in a 2004 judicial election.
Blankenship's $3 million represented 60 percent of the total funding of a 527 group called (what else?) "And for the Sake of the Kids." The group ran creepy election ads accusing McGraw of (what else?) setting a pedophile loose in the schools. McGraw lost his seat on the state high court to an unknown lawyer called Brent Benjamin. And in a Disney-like rotation of the circle of life, the newly elected Chief Justice Benjamin then voted 3-2 to reverse the verdict against Massey. Asked to recuse himself from hearing the case, Benjamin refused. Twice.
Tuesday, March 3, 2009
Broad Executive Powers
The NYT reports on the scope of power claimed by the Bush Administration post 9-11.
How to Prevent the Next Boom
For my 2302's, this builds right off the discussion we had about economic policymaking and the boom and bust cycles recently. It also explains the factors which have led to increases in the size, scope and power of the national government.
Power Shift
This builds off the post below about the waning power of Texas.
Texas' loss may be California's gain. This doesn't necessarily bode well for the Democratic Party however since the state may pull the party as far to the uncompetitive left as the South has pulled the Republicans to the right.
Texas' loss may be California's gain. This doesn't necessarily bode well for the Democratic Party however since the state may pull the party as far to the uncompetitive left as the South has pulled the Republicans to the right.
Secret Executive Memos
One of President Bush's more aggressive claims was that the inherent powers of the presidency allowed him broad latitude in conducting the war of terror. It has been tough to evaluate this claim because we are only now getting to know exactly what these claims were. Now we are beginning to find out.
Monday, March 2, 2009
Rush v the Rest of the Republican Party
Following Rush Limbaugh's triumphant performance at the Conservative Political Action Conference, other Republican commentators respond.
HR 256
Leo Berman (R-Tyler) wants to pick a fight with the 14th Amendment.
His bill is specifically designed to provoke a legal dispute that could wind up in the Supreme Court forcing it to decide whether the 14th Amendment requires that the children of illegal immigrants be granted citizenship if born on U.S. soil:
State Rep. Leo Berman ramped up his support today for a proposal that would challenge the concept of birthright citizenship for U.S.-born children of illegal immigrants with the hopes that passage of such a measure would trigger a federal lawsuit.
Speaking to a group of about 20 members of the Minuteman Civil Defense Corps., Berman said if his proposal to prohibit automatic citizenship for U.S.-born children of undocumented immigrants passes it would undoubtedly spark a court fight that he hopes lands in the U.S. Supreme Court.
"That's exactly what we're looking for," said Berman, R-Tyler. "We want to be sued into federal court where our attorney general can take this all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court."
Berman's argument is based on the notion that the 14th Amendment, which says all persons born in the U.S. shall be granted citizenship, does not "apply to foreigners."
"We hope that at some point and time some judge will say 'you're absolutely right. It doesn't apply to illegal aliens,'" Berman said.
His bill is specifically designed to provoke a legal dispute that could wind up in the Supreme Court forcing it to decide whether the 14th Amendment requires that the children of illegal immigrants be granted citizenship if born on U.S. soil:
State Rep. Leo Berman ramped up his support today for a proposal that would challenge the concept of birthright citizenship for U.S.-born children of illegal immigrants with the hopes that passage of such a measure would trigger a federal lawsuit.
Speaking to a group of about 20 members of the Minuteman Civil Defense Corps., Berman said if his proposal to prohibit automatic citizenship for U.S.-born children of undocumented immigrants passes it would undoubtedly spark a court fight that he hopes lands in the U.S. Supreme Court.
"That's exactly what we're looking for," said Berman, R-Tyler. "We want to be sued into federal court where our attorney general can take this all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court."
Berman's argument is based on the notion that the 14th Amendment, which says all persons born in the U.S. shall be granted citizenship, does not "apply to foreigners."
"We hope that at some point and time some judge will say 'you're absolutely right. It doesn't apply to illegal aliens,'" Berman said.
Sunday, March 1, 2009
Libertarian Pork
Ron Paul voted against the stimulus bill but was still able to secure almost $100 million in earmarks. The best among Texans, but others did well too.
Its Over.
Texas is far from the dominant player in politics it once was. This Wapo piece, just reproduced in the Chron today, outlines the factors which led to its influence, and those that have worked against it recently.
The "S" Word
Republicans seemingly believe that they can gain traction against Obama's proposals by referring to them as being socialist.
We will see whether this strategy is successful, but I'm more interested in whether people understand what the term means, whether it is fact a relevant term to use in the current financial climate, and what the arguments are for and against it.
Here's a brief reading list.
- A critical evaluation from the Library of Economics and Liberty.
- The Wikipedia entry.
- Albert Einstein's Why Socialism.
- Newsweek: We are all Socialists Now.
- Democratic Socialism.
We will see whether this strategy is successful, but I'm more interested in whether people understand what the term means, whether it is fact a relevant term to use in the current financial climate, and what the arguments are for and against it.
Here's a brief reading list.
- A critical evaluation from the Library of Economics and Liberty.
- The Wikipedia entry.
- Albert Einstein's Why Socialism.
- Newsweek: We are all Socialists Now.
- Democratic Socialism.
The Birthers
For you conspiracy theorists out there, but you probably already knew about this.
The genesis and distribution of this story seems to be a direct consequence of the rapid fire communication facilitated by the internet. Questions to ponder:
- Is this the Internet run amok?
- Is speech too free? Must it be monitored? Does it justify regulation, or would that be worse than the disease?
- Is the mainstream media negligent in not focusing on this story?
- Does the internet allow for the passionate to lash out in a healthy manner?
- Is this just a natural consequence of living in a free society?
The genesis and distribution of this story seems to be a direct consequence of the rapid fire communication facilitated by the internet. Questions to ponder:
- Is this the Internet run amok?
- Is speech too free? Must it be monitored? Does it justify regulation, or would that be worse than the disease?
- Is the mainstream media negligent in not focusing on this story?
- Does the internet allow for the passionate to lash out in a healthy manner?
- Is this just a natural consequence of living in a free society?
Liberal Interest Groups Rule
Another consequence of November's shift in power. Groups that had wandered the wasteland for the past 8 years -- or even since 1981 -- once again have access to power. And of course those that had enjoyed access have lost it:
Less than 48 hours after Mr. Obama released his budget outline last week, oil and gas executives closely aligned with Republicans telegraphed a major fight against several tax provisions proposed for their industry. And real estate executives made it clear they would resist new limits on deductions for interest paid on mortgages for higher-income households, an area of common cause with Republicans.
Liberal groups are developing a broad variety of groups which intend to counter the highly effective communication apparatus that conservatives have built up over the past three decades:
Spurred in part by former Clinton White House aides seeking a return to power, and inspired by the success of the activist group MoveOn, liberals formed organizations like Media Matters for America, which calls attention to what it considers conservative-slanted news coverage, and the Center for American Progress, a group founded by John D. Podesta, Mr. Clinton’s former chief of staff and Mr. Obama’s transition director, to promote liberal solutions to major problems. With support from the billionaire George Soros and the Hollywood producer Steve Bing, among other undisclosed donors, the group became a liberal government in exile, developing a full range of policy prescriptions.
More signs of the significant shift in politics we are witnessing. We will monitor the conservative response.
Less than 48 hours after Mr. Obama released his budget outline last week, oil and gas executives closely aligned with Republicans telegraphed a major fight against several tax provisions proposed for their industry. And real estate executives made it clear they would resist new limits on deductions for interest paid on mortgages for higher-income households, an area of common cause with Republicans.
Liberal groups are developing a broad variety of groups which intend to counter the highly effective communication apparatus that conservatives have built up over the past three decades:
Spurred in part by former Clinton White House aides seeking a return to power, and inspired by the success of the activist group MoveOn, liberals formed organizations like Media Matters for America, which calls attention to what it considers conservative-slanted news coverage, and the Center for American Progress, a group founded by John D. Podesta, Mr. Clinton’s former chief of staff and Mr. Obama’s transition director, to promote liberal solutions to major problems. With support from the billionaire George Soros and the Hollywood producer Steve Bing, among other undisclosed donors, the group became a liberal government in exile, developing a full range of policy prescriptions.
More signs of the significant shift in politics we are witnessing. We will monitor the conservative response.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)