From the National Journal, an illustration for my 2301's about how different groups see the same things:
On the long climb to health care reform that ended with this week's momentous signing ceremony, President Obama aimed many of his arguments at a different audience from the one targeted by predecessors who faltered on the same steep hill.
Compared with earlier presidents, Obama focused his case less on helping the uninsured and more on providing those with coverage greater leverage against their insurers. That shift was especially evident in his final drive toward passage.
And yet, polling just before the bill's approval showed that most white Americans believed that the legislation would primarily benefit the uninsured and the poor, not people like them. In a mid-March Gallup survey, 57 percent of white respondents said that the bill would make things better for the uninsured, and 52 percent said that it would improve conditions for low-income families. But only one-third of whites said that it would benefit the country overall -- and just one-fifth said that it would help their own family.
Wednesday, March 31, 2010
Monday, March 29, 2010
Craig Becker
Some background about one of the recess appointees that contains recent history about the how the appointment process has become so gridlocked.
- Here's a full list of the appointees.
- Here's a full list of the appointees.
Racial Differences in Attitudes About Health Care Bill
From the National Journal, a story confirming points we will make in 2301 about how different groups see the same things differently.
Friday, March 26, 2010
Reconciliation Bill Passes, So Does Student Loan Bill
The NYT covers the HCR vote, as well as the vote on the Student Loan bill. This was the bill removed from the reconciliated health care bill. The bill effectively removes banks as middle men in the guaranteed federal student loan process.
Again there was unanimous Republican opposition to both bills.
Again there was unanimous Republican opposition to both bills.
DC Gun Laws Upheld
For my 2302's, from ScotusBlog, as we dive into the Supreme Court:
A federal judge in Washington, applying the Supreme Court’s 2008 decision creating a constitutional right to have a gun, ruled on Friday that three new gun control restrictions in the Nation’s capital city survive a Second Amendment challenge. . . .
Such gun control laws, the judge ruled, are to be subjected to constitutional analysis using an “intermediate” level of review — that is, a challenged law will be upheld if it is “substantially related to an important governmental interest.” Courts around the country have differed on what level of review should apply to gun regulation, and that issue thus is a likely one for future Supreme Court analysis.
A federal judge in Washington, applying the Supreme Court’s 2008 decision creating a constitutional right to have a gun, ruled on Friday that three new gun control restrictions in the Nation’s capital city survive a Second Amendment challenge. . . .
Such gun control laws, the judge ruled, are to be subjected to constitutional analysis using an “intermediate” level of review — that is, a challenged law will be upheld if it is “substantially related to an important governmental interest.” Courts around the country have differed on what level of review should apply to gun regulation, and that issue thus is a likely one for future Supreme Court analysis.
Will John Paul Stevens Retire? And Who Will Replace Him if He Does?
The NYT makes some predictions and touches on the firestorm likely to result from it:
If Justice Stevens retires, Democrats close to the White House said, the leading contenders will be three runners-up from last year: Elena Kagan, the solicitor general; Diane P. Wood, an appeals court judge in Chicago; and Merrick B. Garland, an appeals court judge in Washington [The article also mentions Harold Hongju Koh, Cass R. Sunstein and Pamela S. Karlan].
The choice would depend in part on what kind of fight Mr. Obama is willing to wage amid other tough legislative battles. Energized if bruised from his campaign to overhaul the nation’s health system, Mr. Obama this year wants to push through energy, education and financial regulation measures, ratify an arms control treaty and make progress on immigration legislation.
A confirmation battle could not only provoke fresh skirmishing on longstanding issues like guns, abortion, race and terrorism; it might also generate new divisions stemming from constitutional challenges to Mr. Obama’s new health care program and a recent Supreme Court ruling guaranteeing the right of corporations and unions to spend unlimited amounts of money in candidate elections.
Mr. Obama may feel empowered to take on a fight.
Glenn Greenwald hopes the nominee is not Cass Sunstein.
If Justice Stevens retires, Democrats close to the White House said, the leading contenders will be three runners-up from last year: Elena Kagan, the solicitor general; Diane P. Wood, an appeals court judge in Chicago; and Merrick B. Garland, an appeals court judge in Washington [The article also mentions Harold Hongju Koh, Cass R. Sunstein and Pamela S. Karlan].
The choice would depend in part on what kind of fight Mr. Obama is willing to wage amid other tough legislative battles. Energized if bruised from his campaign to overhaul the nation’s health system, Mr. Obama this year wants to push through energy, education and financial regulation measures, ratify an arms control treaty and make progress on immigration legislation.
A confirmation battle could not only provoke fresh skirmishing on longstanding issues like guns, abortion, race and terrorism; it might also generate new divisions stemming from constitutional challenges to Mr. Obama’s new health care program and a recent Supreme Court ruling guaranteeing the right of corporations and unions to spend unlimited amounts of money in candidate elections.
Mr. Obama may feel empowered to take on a fight.
Glenn Greenwald hopes the nominee is not Cass Sunstein.
Thursday, March 25, 2010
About the Student Loan Provisions in the Health Care Bill
Here's background on the student loan bill tacked onto the health bill and later removed in the Senate.
Back to the House
Senate Republicans forced changes to the reconciliation bill, which means that the bill that was approved by the Senate now has to be approved by the House, due to the changes.
Apparently Republicans were able to successfully challenge education provisions tacked into the bill that had no direct impact on the budget, these were removed. That's why a new vote must take place, it's scheduled for today.
Apparently Republicans were able to successfully challenge education provisions tacked into the bill that had no direct impact on the budget, these were removed. That's why a new vote must take place, it's scheduled for today.
An Overview of the Health Care Bill
From the Washington Post:
COST: $940 billion over 10 years, according to the Congressional Budget Office.
HOW MANY COVERED: 32 million uninsured. Major coverage expansion begins in 2014. When fully phased in, 95 percent of eligible Americans would have coverage, compared with 83 percent today.
INSURANCE MANDATE: Almost everyone is required to be insured or else pay a fine. There is an exemption for low-income people. Mandate takes effect in 2014.
INSURANCE MARKET REFORMS: Starting this year, insurers would be forbidden from placing lifetime dollar limits on policies, from denying coverage to children because of pre-existing conditions, and from canceling policies because someone gets sick. Parents would be able to keep older kids on their coverage up to age 26. A new high-risk pool would offer coverage to uninsured people with medical problems until 2014, when the coverage expansion goes into high gear. Major consumer safeguards would also take effect in 2014. Insurers would be prohibited from denying coverage to people with medical problems or charging them more. Insurers could not charge women more.
MEDICAID: Expands the federal-state Medicaid insurance program for the poor to cover people with incomes up to 133 percent of the federal poverty level, $29,327 a year for a family of four. Childless adults would be covered for the first time, starting in 2014. The federal government would pay 100 percent of costs for covering newly eligible individuals through 2016. A special deal that would have given Nebraska 100 percent federal financing for newly eligible Medicaid recipients in perpetuity is eliminated. A different, one-time deal negotiated by Democratic Sen. Mary Landrieu for her state, Louisiana, worth as much as $300 million, remains.
TAXES: Dramatically scales back a Senate-passed tax on high-cost insurance plans that was opposed by House Democrats and labor unions. The tax would be delayed until 2018, and the thresholds at which it is imposed would be $10,200 for individuals and $27,500 for families. To make up for the lost revenue, the bill applies an increased Medicare payroll tax to the investment income and to the wages of individuals making more than $200,000, or married couples above $250,000. The tax on investment income would be 3.8 percent.
PRESCRIPTION DRUGS: Gradually closes the "doughnut hole" coverage gap in the Medicare prescription drug benefit that seniors fall into once they have spent $2,830. Seniors who hit the gap this year will receive a $250 rebate. Beginning in 2011, seniors in the gap receive a discount on brand name drugs, initially 50 percent off. When the gap is completely eliminated in 2020, seniors will still be responsible for 25 percent of the cost of their medications until Medicare's catastrophic coverage kicks in.
EMPLOYER RESPONSIBILITY: As in the Senate bill, businesses are not required to offer coverage. Instead, employers are hit with a fee if the government subsidizes their workers' coverage. The $2,000-per-employee fee would be assessed on the company's entire work force, minus an allowance. Companies with 50 or fewer workers are exempt from the requirement. Part-time workers are included in the calculations, counting two part-timers as one full-time worker.
SUBSIDIES: The proposal provides more generous tax credits for purchasing insurance than the original Senate bill did. The aid is available on a sliding scale for households making up to four times the federal poverty level, $88,200 for a family of four. Premiums for a family of four making $44,000 would be capped at around 6 percent of income.
HOW YOU CHOOSE YOUR HEALTH INSURANCE: Small businesses, the self-employed and the uninsured could pick a plan offered through new state-based purchasing pools called exchanges, opening for business in 2014. The exchanges would offer the same kind of purchasing power that employees of big companies benefit from. People working for medium-to-large firms would not see major changes. But if they lose their jobs or strike out on their own, they may be eligible for subsidized coverage through the exchange.
GOVERNMENT-RUN PLAN: No government-run insurance plan. People purchasing coverage through the new insurance exchanges would have the option of signing up for national plans overseen by the federal office that manages the health plans available to members of Congress. Those plans would be private, but one would have to be nonprofit.
ABORTION: The proposal keeps the abortion provision in the Senate bill. Abortion opponents disagree on whether restrictions on taxpayer funding go far enough. The bill tries to maintain a strict separation between taxpayer dollars and private premiums that would pay for abortion coverage. No health plan would be required to offer coverage for abortion. In plans that do cover abortion, policyholders would have to pay for it separately, and that money would have to be kept in a separate account from taxpayer money. States could ban abortion coverage in plans offered through the exchange. Exceptions would be made for cases of rape, incest and danger to the life of the mother.
GOP HEALTH CARE SUMMIT IDEAS: Following a bipartisan health care summit last month, Obama announced he was open to incorporating several Republican ideas into his legislation. But two of the principle ones - hiring investigators to pose as patients and search for fraud at hospitals and increasing spending for medical malpractice reform initiatives - did not make it into the legislation released Thursday. The legislation incorporates only one, an increase in payments to primary care physicians under Medicaid, an idea mentioned by Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa.
COST: $940 billion over 10 years, according to the Congressional Budget Office.
HOW MANY COVERED: 32 million uninsured. Major coverage expansion begins in 2014. When fully phased in, 95 percent of eligible Americans would have coverage, compared with 83 percent today.
INSURANCE MANDATE: Almost everyone is required to be insured or else pay a fine. There is an exemption for low-income people. Mandate takes effect in 2014.
INSURANCE MARKET REFORMS: Starting this year, insurers would be forbidden from placing lifetime dollar limits on policies, from denying coverage to children because of pre-existing conditions, and from canceling policies because someone gets sick. Parents would be able to keep older kids on their coverage up to age 26. A new high-risk pool would offer coverage to uninsured people with medical problems until 2014, when the coverage expansion goes into high gear. Major consumer safeguards would also take effect in 2014. Insurers would be prohibited from denying coverage to people with medical problems or charging them more. Insurers could not charge women more.
MEDICAID: Expands the federal-state Medicaid insurance program for the poor to cover people with incomes up to 133 percent of the federal poverty level, $29,327 a year for a family of four. Childless adults would be covered for the first time, starting in 2014. The federal government would pay 100 percent of costs for covering newly eligible individuals through 2016. A special deal that would have given Nebraska 100 percent federal financing for newly eligible Medicaid recipients in perpetuity is eliminated. A different, one-time deal negotiated by Democratic Sen. Mary Landrieu for her state, Louisiana, worth as much as $300 million, remains.
TAXES: Dramatically scales back a Senate-passed tax on high-cost insurance plans that was opposed by House Democrats and labor unions. The tax would be delayed until 2018, and the thresholds at which it is imposed would be $10,200 for individuals and $27,500 for families. To make up for the lost revenue, the bill applies an increased Medicare payroll tax to the investment income and to the wages of individuals making more than $200,000, or married couples above $250,000. The tax on investment income would be 3.8 percent.
PRESCRIPTION DRUGS: Gradually closes the "doughnut hole" coverage gap in the Medicare prescription drug benefit that seniors fall into once they have spent $2,830. Seniors who hit the gap this year will receive a $250 rebate. Beginning in 2011, seniors in the gap receive a discount on brand name drugs, initially 50 percent off. When the gap is completely eliminated in 2020, seniors will still be responsible for 25 percent of the cost of their medications until Medicare's catastrophic coverage kicks in.
EMPLOYER RESPONSIBILITY: As in the Senate bill, businesses are not required to offer coverage. Instead, employers are hit with a fee if the government subsidizes their workers' coverage. The $2,000-per-employee fee would be assessed on the company's entire work force, minus an allowance. Companies with 50 or fewer workers are exempt from the requirement. Part-time workers are included in the calculations, counting two part-timers as one full-time worker.
SUBSIDIES: The proposal provides more generous tax credits for purchasing insurance than the original Senate bill did. The aid is available on a sliding scale for households making up to four times the federal poverty level, $88,200 for a family of four. Premiums for a family of four making $44,000 would be capped at around 6 percent of income.
HOW YOU CHOOSE YOUR HEALTH INSURANCE: Small businesses, the self-employed and the uninsured could pick a plan offered through new state-based purchasing pools called exchanges, opening for business in 2014. The exchanges would offer the same kind of purchasing power that employees of big companies benefit from. People working for medium-to-large firms would not see major changes. But if they lose their jobs or strike out on their own, they may be eligible for subsidized coverage through the exchange.
GOVERNMENT-RUN PLAN: No government-run insurance plan. People purchasing coverage through the new insurance exchanges would have the option of signing up for national plans overseen by the federal office that manages the health plans available to members of Congress. Those plans would be private, but one would have to be nonprofit.
ABORTION: The proposal keeps the abortion provision in the Senate bill. Abortion opponents disagree on whether restrictions on taxpayer funding go far enough. The bill tries to maintain a strict separation between taxpayer dollars and private premiums that would pay for abortion coverage. No health plan would be required to offer coverage for abortion. In plans that do cover abortion, policyholders would have to pay for it separately, and that money would have to be kept in a separate account from taxpayer money. States could ban abortion coverage in plans offered through the exchange. Exceptions would be made for cases of rape, incest and danger to the life of the mother.
GOP HEALTH CARE SUMMIT IDEAS: Following a bipartisan health care summit last month, Obama announced he was open to incorporating several Republican ideas into his legislation. But two of the principle ones - hiring investigators to pose as patients and search for fraud at hospitals and increasing spending for medical malpractice reform initiatives - did not make it into the legislation released Thursday. The legislation incorporates only one, an increase in payments to primary care physicians under Medicaid, an idea mentioned by Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa.
Now the Public Supports Health Care Reform
I had a strange hunch this would happen. A few commentators try to figure out why this is the case. Perhaps as a a consequence, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce is backing away from its original support of an outright repeal.
So is this further evidence of an irrational public?
So is this further evidence of an irrational public?
Tuesday, March 23, 2010
Health Care Legislative Histories
For my 2302's, links to the legislative histories of both the health care reform bill and the reconciliation bill:
- H.R. 3590.
- H.R. 4872.
- H.R. 3590.
- H.R. 4872.
What's With all the Pens?
A couple of students have asked about the large number of pens Obama used to sign the health care bill. He made different marks with each pen which added up to a complete signature. It simply allows a president the ability to give these pen to a variety of people who can each say that this was the pen used to sign the bill into law.
Nice PR basically.
Nice PR basically.
Interpreting the National Labor Relations Act
For my 2302's, an example of statutory interpretation. One of the functions of the judicial system.
Corporate Election Ads
The Texas Tribune reports on the first political ad paid by a corporation in a Texas newspaper since the Citizens United decision.
Responsible Party Model
For my 2301's, as we begin to discuss political parties:
Political science types tend to argue that parties must provide clear alternatives to the voters in order to provide them a choice. This allows the population to collectively influence the direction of public policy, enhancing the democratic nature of the republic. If this is true, then the division of the parties on health care provides such an opportunity -- assuming nothing else comes up between now and November to overshadow health care.
William Saletan says as much in Slate. He wonders whether there might be risks for Republicans in opposing the bill after Democrats are able to shift to campaign mode presenting the bill in a positive light:
This is the risk Republicans have taken by voting unanimously against health care reform. They've bet their whole party against it. If the public hates the program, they'll be rewarded at the polls. But if the public likes it, they're in trouble. And if the public fears it might be taken it away, they could suffer a beating, as they did in 1996 when voters feared cuts in Medicare.
Political science types tend to argue that parties must provide clear alternatives to the voters in order to provide them a choice. This allows the population to collectively influence the direction of public policy, enhancing the democratic nature of the republic. If this is true, then the division of the parties on health care provides such an opportunity -- assuming nothing else comes up between now and November to overshadow health care.
William Saletan says as much in Slate. He wonders whether there might be risks for Republicans in opposing the bill after Democrats are able to shift to campaign mode presenting the bill in a positive light:
This is the risk Republicans have taken by voting unanimously against health care reform. They've bet their whole party against it. If the public hates the program, they'll be rewarded at the polls. But if the public likes it, they're in trouble. And if the public fears it might be taken it away, they could suffer a beating, as they did in 1996 when voters feared cuts in Medicare.
Monday, March 22, 2010
Is the Health Care Bill Constitutional?
Some Smart people go at it:
No it isn't: Randy Barnett.
Yes it is: Jack Balkin.
Yes it is: Jeffrey Toobin.
No it isn't: Randy Barnett.
Yes it is: Jack Balkin.
Yes it is: Jeffrey Toobin.
Obama's Executive Order
Some commentary on the executive order Obama will sign to satisfy Democratic pro-lifers.
- Will the executive order restrict abortion?
- Text of the Executive Order on Abortion
- Abortion rights groups not happy with Obama executive order on ...
- Will the executive order restrict abortion?
- Text of the Executive Order on Abortion
- Abortion rights groups not happy with Obama executive order on ...
Obama's Leadership Style
An assessment of Obama's presidential style from Ronald Brownstein:
The fight has opened a . . . window into Obama. The key here is his 2008 campaign assertion that "Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America" more than Richard Nixon or Bill Clinton did. The health care struggle suggests that Obama views changing that trajectory as the ultimate measure of a presidency's success. His aim is to establish a long-term political direction -- one centered on a more activist government that shapes and polices the market to strengthen the foundation for sustainable, broadly shared growth. Everything else -- the legislative tactics, even most individual policies -- is negotiable. He wants to chart the course for the supertanker, not to steer it around each wave or decide which crates are loaded into its hull.
The fight has opened a . . . window into Obama. The key here is his 2008 campaign assertion that "Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America" more than Richard Nixon or Bill Clinton did. The health care struggle suggests that Obama views changing that trajectory as the ultimate measure of a presidency's success. His aim is to establish a long-term political direction -- one centered on a more activist government that shapes and polices the market to strengthen the foundation for sustainable, broadly shared growth. Everything else -- the legislative tactics, even most individual policies -- is negotiable. He wants to chart the course for the supertanker, not to steer it around each wave or decide which crates are loaded into its hull.
Sunday, March 21, 2010
Partisan Opinion on Health Care Reform
Here's more proof that Republicans and Democrats live in two separate worlds.
Comments on Health Care and the Obama Presidency
Here are a couple of interesting arguments:
- David Sanger.
- Andrew Sprung.
This is being considered already to be an historic achievement regardless of what happens next. Now commentators wonder whether Obama has spent political capital and can accomplish little else until after the next election, or whether this has actually built up his capital and can more effectively drive forward on climate change, financial regulation and energy.
- David Sanger.
- Andrew Sprung.
This is being considered already to be an historic achievement regardless of what happens next. Now commentators wonder whether Obama has spent political capital and can accomplish little else until after the next election, or whether this has actually built up his capital and can more effectively drive forward on climate change, financial regulation and energy.
Jamestown and the Common Law
I had a great spring break trip to Colonial Williamsburg, Virginia and popped over to Yorktown and Jamestown. Among the ruins in Jamestown -- the town was largely abandoned after the capitol moved to Williamsburg in the late 1600's -- is an old church where a variety of commemorative panels have been hung including this one that stated that the founding of Jamestown marked the introduction of the common law to America.My 2302's will soon cover the judiciary and with it an overview of common law.
Friday, March 19, 2010
Public Perception v. Reality
Bruce Bartlett finds evidence that Tea Party members, on average, cannot correctly answer questions about taxes.
This is not a surprising result. As my 2301's dive into public opinion we'll see that people often distort facts to justify their image of the world. Tea Partiers are no different than anyone else.
This is not a surprising result. As my 2301's dive into public opinion we'll see that people often distort facts to justify their image of the world. Tea Partiers are no different than anyone else.
Deem and Pass
This appears to be the term of the moment. It refers to the process Democrats plan to use to pass health care reform. The election of the 41st Republican to the Senate (the one that allows filibusters to be maintained) has made it necessary for the party to find someway to convince House members to pass the Senate plan, with the guarantees that changes to the bill will be made mandatory.
Its a confusing and controversial process that some argue may be unconstitutional. Here's some background:
- MSNBC.
- Ezra Klein.
- Kevin Drum.
- ProPublica.
Its a confusing and controversial process that some argue may be unconstitutional. Here's some background:
- MSNBC.
- Ezra Klein.
- Kevin Drum.
- ProPublica.
Greenspan v the Regulatory State
Alan Greenspan reflects on the recent financial crisis and has second thoughts on the ability of the private sector to regulate itself.
Williamsburg
I've been in Williamsburg VA the past few days on spring break touring Jamestown (what little there is of it) Williamsburg and Yorktown. All things must end though so I'll be back to posting material for the class soon. I've learned a few things about the evolution of American governing institutions which I plan on sharing when I get back. This might be a tamer break than some of you care for, but I highly recommend a trip at some point in your lives.
- Jamestown.
- Williamsburg.
- Yorktown.
- Jamestown.
- Williamsburg.
- Yorktown.
Thursday, March 11, 2010
The Rise of the Health Care Lobby
From Ezra Klein:
Over the past hundred or so years, the health-care system has gone from a very small portion of our economy to about a fifth of it. That's a remarkable rise. And it has been accompanied by a similar rise in the political power of the health-care industry.
File this under Iron Triangles.
Over the past hundred or so years, the health-care system has gone from a very small portion of our economy to about a fifth of it. That's a remarkable rise. And it has been accompanied by a similar rise in the political power of the health-care industry.
File this under Iron Triangles.
Profiles of Timothy Geithner
A couple of articles about our current Secretary of the Treasury:
- Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner : The New Yorker
- Inside Man - Magazine - The Atlantic
- Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner : The New Yorker
- Inside Man - Magazine - The Atlantic
Privileges and Immunities v Due Process
Here's a link to an article in the National Law Journal that analyses the arguments used before the Supreme Court in the gun rights case, McDonald v. Chicago.
The attempt to persuade the court to use the privileges and immunities clause as the legal reasoning behind the case apparently failed, so the due process clause was used instead. There's inside info here that I'm not privy to, but it seems that some of the justices are uncomfortable with extending rights to the state, but felt the need to in this second amendment case. Their task was to ensure they did not extend this right using an argument that might be applied elsewhere.
I may be wrong in my reasoning though.
This'll be a good read for my 2302s as we begin to discuss the judiciary following the break
The attempt to persuade the court to use the privileges and immunities clause as the legal reasoning behind the case apparently failed, so the due process clause was used instead. There's inside info here that I'm not privy to, but it seems that some of the justices are uncomfortable with extending rights to the state, but felt the need to in this second amendment case. Their task was to ensure they did not extend this right using an argument that might be applied elsewhere.
I may be wrong in my reasoning though.
This'll be a good read for my 2302s as we begin to discuss the judiciary following the break
Roberts v. Obama
A war of words is heating up between the White House and the Supreme Court. The court tends to rank at the top of respected American governing institutions. I wonder if Robert's decision to criticize Obama's comments about the Citizens United decision in the state of the union address was wise. Might there be institutional consequences?
- Supreme debate: Obama vs. Roberts
- White House and Roberts get snippy again
- John Roberts' nonpartisan attack on presidential partisanship. - Dahlia ...
- Scotus Blog commentary.
- Supreme debate: Obama vs. Roberts
- White House and Roberts get snippy again
- John Roberts' nonpartisan attack on presidential partisanship. - Dahlia ...
- Scotus Blog commentary.
Tuesday, March 9, 2010
Presidential Persuasion
Obama's push for passage of health care is a test of his powers of persuasion. Andrew Sullivan sees evidence it might be working.
Angling for Deals
Here's great insight into how Congress works. Health Care reform is a game of chicken. Some members arr pretending to be opposed to the bill so that they may be able to get goodies for their districts:
...if the representative wants to extract concessions from the Democratic leadership, it’s thus a good idea to signal uncertainty or even opposition to the bill — as many conservative Democrats have done. This raises the possibility, as one friend noted to me, that the prevalence of these signals in news stories may inflate the perceived chance that health care reform will fail in the House.
Perhaps the health care bill has more support than is being reported
...if the representative wants to extract concessions from the Democratic leadership, it’s thus a good idea to signal uncertainty or even opposition to the bill — as many conservative Democrats have done. This raises the possibility, as one friend noted to me, that the prevalence of these signals in news stories may inflate the perceived chance that health care reform will fail in the House.
Perhaps the health care bill has more support than is being reported
The President as Party Leader
Obama reverts to campaign mode to push passage of health care reform.
For 2302's this illustrates (tests?) the central aspect of presidential power: the power to persuade.
For 2302's this illustrates (tests?) the central aspect of presidential power: the power to persuade.
An Irreparably Polarized Supreme Court?
From the NYT:
A few times a year, Supreme Court justices go out of their way to emphasize their unhappiness by reading a dissent from the bench out loud, supplementing the dry reason on the page with vivid tones of sarcasm, regret, anger and disdain. The practice is on the rise, and it is suggestive of an increasingly polarized court.
“Dissenting from the bench,” a new study to be published in Justice System Journal contends, is a sort of nuclear option that “may indicate that bargaining and accommodation have broken down irreparably.”
A few times a year, Supreme Court justices go out of their way to emphasize their unhappiness by reading a dissent from the bench out loud, supplementing the dry reason on the page with vivid tones of sarcasm, regret, anger and disdain. The practice is on the rise, and it is suggestive of an increasingly polarized court.
“Dissenting from the bench,” a new study to be published in Justice System Journal contends, is a sort of nuclear option that “may indicate that bargaining and accommodation have broken down irreparably.”
Monday, March 8, 2010
The First Amendment and Funeral Protests
The Supreme Court will determine whether funeral protests are protected by the First Amendment.
Contributions and Earmarks
From the Washington Post:
House Appropriations defense subcommittee member James P. Moran Jr. (D-Va.) works hard at fundraising: Two to three times a week, he telephones contributors to ask for more. Yet, according to the account he supplied to the Office of Congressional Ethics last year, he is unaware of "who made donations" or how much they gave, and so that information plays no role in his earmarking -- the systematic granting of public funds for mostly private purposes.
Fellow subcommittee member Norm Dicks (D-Wash.) similarly presides over fundraisers arranged by his staff for defense firms and lobbyists every three months or so, according to his office's account. An aide in charge of Dicks's earmarks attends the fundraising events. But Dicks and the aide told investigators they were unaware of the substantial overlap between defense industry contributions to Dicks and his earmarks to contributors.
We'll be discussing elections in 2301 and the amount of time and energy members of Congress have to spend raising campaign funds. This story suggests that the contributors may be getting more than an open ear from recipients.
House Appropriations defense subcommittee member James P. Moran Jr. (D-Va.) works hard at fundraising: Two to three times a week, he telephones contributors to ask for more. Yet, according to the account he supplied to the Office of Congressional Ethics last year, he is unaware of "who made donations" or how much they gave, and so that information plays no role in his earmarking -- the systematic granting of public funds for mostly private purposes.
Fellow subcommittee member Norm Dicks (D-Wash.) similarly presides over fundraisers arranged by his staff for defense firms and lobbyists every three months or so, according to his office's account. An aide in charge of Dicks's earmarks attends the fundraising events. But Dicks and the aide told investigators they were unaware of the substantial overlap between defense industry contributions to Dicks and his earmarks to contributors.
We'll be discussing elections in 2301 and the amount of time and energy members of Congress have to spend raising campaign funds. This story suggests that the contributors may be getting more than an open ear from recipients.
Liberal Wing of Democratic Party Pulls Party to the Left
From the Washington Post, word of a rupture within the Democratic Party. Liberals are as upset about Washington as as conservatives.
Democratic activists flooding money into a primary challenge against Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.) say the race isn't simply about defeating the incumbent. It is also about rebuking a Democratic-controlled Congress that they say isn't pursuing an aggressive, populist agenda.
After Arkansas Lt. Gov. Bill Halter announced Monday that he would challenge Lincoln, liberal donors from groups such as MoveOn.org poured more than $1 million into his campaign, an unusually high sum for the first two days of campaigning. Liberals blasted Lincoln with anti-Washington rhetoric that sounded more like the conservative tea party movement. The groups are particularly critical of her opposition to the public option, as it is known, in the health-care bill and her support in 2008 for a Wall Street bailout.
Democratic activists flooding money into a primary challenge against Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.) say the race isn't simply about defeating the incumbent. It is also about rebuking a Democratic-controlled Congress that they say isn't pursuing an aggressive, populist agenda.
After Arkansas Lt. Gov. Bill Halter announced Monday that he would challenge Lincoln, liberal donors from groups such as MoveOn.org poured more than $1 million into his campaign, an unusually high sum for the first two days of campaigning. Liberals blasted Lincoln with anti-Washington rhetoric that sounded more like the conservative tea party movement. The groups are particularly critical of her opposition to the public option, as it is known, in the health-care bill and her support in 2008 for a Wall Street bailout.
Saturday, March 6, 2010
Blaming Axelrod
Obama's top aide David Axelrod is feeling the heat for perceived the administration's perceived failures.
Friday, March 5, 2010
Political Mythology
Michael Lind places the Tea Party/Obama conflict in historical perspective. My 2302's should be able to follow his historical references. He claims that our current political debate comes down to archetypes that have persisted over the centuries.
David Brooks picks up from this argument and argues ties the current tea party devotees to the radicals of the 1960s. Each believed that the pure innocent masses were being unduly persecuted by elites.
David Brooks picks up from this argument and argues ties the current tea party devotees to the radicals of the 1960s. Each believed that the pure innocent masses were being unduly persecuted by elites.
Thursday, March 4, 2010
What's in a Word?
Plenty, especially if the word is "navigable," and it is used in legislation to state what waters the EPA can regulate.
A narrow definition of navigable by the Supreme Court (in two cases: Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County v. United States Army Corps of Engineers in 2001 and Rapanos v. United States in 2006) has, according to the New York Times, led to increased levels of water pollution in the country. The majority stuck to what it considered to be the plain meaning of the text, despite arguments by others that that negated the intent of the act itself.
Congress is currently determining whether to revise the Clean Water Act to restore the intended broad intent of the law.
A narrow definition of navigable by the Supreme Court (in two cases: Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County v. United States Army Corps of Engineers in 2001 and Rapanos v. United States in 2006) has, according to the New York Times, led to increased levels of water pollution in the country. The majority stuck to what it considered to be the plain meaning of the text, despite arguments by others that that negated the intent of the act itself.
Congress is currently determining whether to revise the Clean Water Act to restore the intended broad intent of the law.
Not So Faithfully Executing the Laws
Charlie Savage, who investigates the use of signing statements by President Bush, notices that they are continuing under Obama. Or at least he continues to make the claim that a President does not have to execute laws he believes are unconstitutional.
Some history from the article:
Since the 19th century, presidents have occasionally used signing statements to declare that parts of a bill were unconstitutional and need not be enforced or obeyed as written. But the tactic was rare until the second term of President Ronald Reagan, whose legal team developed a strategy of issuing the statements more frequently to increase presidential power.
Reagan’s successors continued that approach. And the practice escalated again under Mr. Bush, who used it to advance expansive theories of executive power. He challenged about 1,200 sections of bills — more than all predecessors combined — including a ban on torture and oversight provisions of the USA Patriot Act.
Mr. Bush’s assertive use of the tactic set off a national debate over its propriety. The American Bar Association declared that signing statements “undermine the rule of law and our constitutional system of separation of powers,” and argued that the Constitution gave presidents only two choices: veto a bill, or sign it and obey all of it.
But other scholars said the tactic was appropriate if a president cited only mainstream legal theories. Mr. Obama, whose advisers sided with the latter camp, has characterized Mr. Bush’s use of signing statements as an abuse and pledged greater restraint.
Mr. Obama nevertheless challenged dozens of provisions early last year. The last time was in June, when his claim that he could disobey a new law requiring officials to push the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund to adopt certain policies angered Congress. The White House sought to reassure lawmakers that it intended to take those negotiating positions anyway and was merely noting its view that Congress cannot control foreign negotiations. Many lawmakers rejected that theory, and the House quickly voted 429 to 2 to bar officials from disobeying the restrictions.
- Some background from Findlaw.
Some history from the article:
Since the 19th century, presidents have occasionally used signing statements to declare that parts of a bill were unconstitutional and need not be enforced or obeyed as written. But the tactic was rare until the second term of President Ronald Reagan, whose legal team developed a strategy of issuing the statements more frequently to increase presidential power.
Reagan’s successors continued that approach. And the practice escalated again under Mr. Bush, who used it to advance expansive theories of executive power. He challenged about 1,200 sections of bills — more than all predecessors combined — including a ban on torture and oversight provisions of the USA Patriot Act.
Mr. Bush’s assertive use of the tactic set off a national debate over its propriety. The American Bar Association declared that signing statements “undermine the rule of law and our constitutional system of separation of powers,” and argued that the Constitution gave presidents only two choices: veto a bill, or sign it and obey all of it.
But other scholars said the tactic was appropriate if a president cited only mainstream legal theories. Mr. Obama, whose advisers sided with the latter camp, has characterized Mr. Bush’s use of signing statements as an abuse and pledged greater restraint.
Mr. Obama nevertheless challenged dozens of provisions early last year. The last time was in June, when his claim that he could disobey a new law requiring officials to push the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund to adopt certain policies angered Congress. The White House sought to reassure lawmakers that it intended to take those negotiating positions anyway and was merely noting its view that Congress cannot control foreign negotiations. Many lawmakers rejected that theory, and the House quickly voted 429 to 2 to bar officials from disobeying the restrictions.
- Some background from Findlaw.
Wednesday, March 3, 2010
Executive Agency in the News: The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
Toyota's recent troubles led to congressional investigations that also included oversight of the actions of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, an agency within the Department of Transportation.
- NYT Story.
- NHTSA website.
- Wikipedia entry.
- Times Topics: NHTSA.
- House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.
- NYT Story.
- NHTSA website.
- Wikipedia entry.
- Times Topics: NHTSA.
- House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.
The Bureau of Financial Protection
The Senate Banking Committee continues to discuss financial regulation reform. One item on the table is the creation of another independent agency in the executive. At one time it was to be called the Consumer Financial Protection Agency, but the banking lobby was put off by the proposal.
Now it is to be called the Bureau of Financial Protection. It will not be a stand alone agency like the Consumer Agency was to be, but will exist within the Treasury Department and is to "supervise mortgages, credit cards and other financial products."
My 2302's should take note since we have been discussing the growth of the executive branch. Agencies are developed piecemeal to respond to various crises as they happen. Here's an example.
Related stories:
- Frank Luntz Pens Memo To Kill Financial Regulatory Reform
- Financial Regulatory Reform News - The New York Times
- United States - Department of The Treasury - Keeping the Economy ...
- Regulatory Reform - FinancialStability.gov US Department of the ...
Now it is to be called the Bureau of Financial Protection. It will not be a stand alone agency like the Consumer Agency was to be, but will exist within the Treasury Department and is to "supervise mortgages, credit cards and other financial products."
My 2302's should take note since we have been discussing the growth of the executive branch. Agencies are developed piecemeal to respond to various crises as they happen. Here's an example.
Related stories:
- Frank Luntz Pens Memo To Kill Financial Regulatory Reform
- Financial Regulatory Reform News - The New York Times
- United States - Department of The Treasury - Keeping the Economy ...
- Regulatory Reform - FinancialStability.gov US Department of the ...
Texas 2010 Primary Results
Here are a few links to stories about yesterday's primaries. We'll cover these in 2301 primarily, since we're about to discuss elections.
- Gov. Perry defeats Hutchison in Texas GOP primary
- Tea Party activists coming up short in Texas Legislature races
- Lessons From The Texas Republican Primary
- In Texas, It's Perry Vs. White
- Carl Leubsdorf: Is Rick Perry's next race for president?
- Brazoria County Results.
- Harris County Results.
- Results from the Texas Secreatry of State's Office.
- Gov. Perry defeats Hutchison in Texas GOP primary
- Tea Party activists coming up short in Texas Legislature races
- Lessons From The Texas Republican Primary
- In Texas, It's Perry Vs. White
- Carl Leubsdorf: Is Rick Perry's next race for president?
- Brazoria County Results.
- Harris County Results.
- Results from the Texas Secreatry of State's Office.
Obama '10 = Reagan '82?
Are pundits being premature in predicting Obama's demise? They said similar things about Reagan.
Tuesday, March 2, 2010
Protected Speech: Flippin the Bird
This is for an interested student:
- The Bird is the (Constitutionally Protected) Word - Law Blog - WSJ
- The Bird is the (Constitutionally Protected) Word - Law Blog - WSJ
U.S. Post Office in Trouble
From the Washington Post:
The U.S. Postal Service estimates $238 billion in losses in the next 10 years if lawmakers, postal regulators and unions don't give the mail agency more flexibility in setting delivery schedules, price increases and labor costs.
- USPS - The United States Postal Service (U.S. Postal Service)
- United States Post Office Department - Wikipedia, the free ...
The U.S. Postal Service estimates $238 billion in losses in the next 10 years if lawmakers, postal regulators and unions don't give the mail agency more flexibility in setting delivery schedules, price increases and labor costs.
- USPS - The United States Postal Service (U.S. Postal Service)
- United States Post Office Department - Wikipedia, the free ...
Is Obama Not Listening to his Chief of Staff?
From the Washington Post:
Rahm Emanuel is officially a Washington caricature. He's the town's resident leviathan, a bullying, bruising White House chief of staff who is a prime target for the failings of the Obama administration.
But a contrarian narrative is emerging: Emanuel is a force of political reason within the White House and could have helped the administration avoid its current bind if the president had heeded his advice on some of the most sensitive subjects of the year: health-care reform, jobs and trying alleged terrorists in civilian courts.
It is a view propounded by lawmakers and early supporters of President Obama who are frustrated because they think the administration has gone for the perfect at the expense of the plausible. They believe Emanuel, the town's leading purveyor of four-letter words, a former Israeli army volunteer and a product of a famously argumentative family, was not aggressive enough in trying to persuade a singularly self-assured president and a coterie of true-believer advisers that "change you can believe in" is best pursued through accomplishments you can pass.
read on ....
For more info
- White House Chief of Staff - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- Rahm Emanuel - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel The White House
- Obama's White House: There's something about Rahm
Rahm Emanuel is officially a Washington caricature. He's the town's resident leviathan, a bullying, bruising White House chief of staff who is a prime target for the failings of the Obama administration.
But a contrarian narrative is emerging: Emanuel is a force of political reason within the White House and could have helped the administration avoid its current bind if the president had heeded his advice on some of the most sensitive subjects of the year: health-care reform, jobs and trying alleged terrorists in civilian courts.
It is a view propounded by lawmakers and early supporters of President Obama who are frustrated because they think the administration has gone for the perfect at the expense of the plausible. They believe Emanuel, the town's leading purveyor of four-letter words, a former Israeli army volunteer and a product of a famously argumentative family, was not aggressive enough in trying to persuade a singularly self-assured president and a coterie of true-believer advisers that "change you can believe in" is best pursued through accomplishments you can pass.
read on ....
For more info
- White House Chief of Staff - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- Rahm Emanuel - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel The White House
- Obama's White House: There's something about Rahm
Now For Something Completely Radical
The Coffee Party.
Their mission statement: The Coffee Party Movement gives voice to Americans who want to see cooperation in government. We recognize that the federal government is not the enemy of the people, but the expression of our collective will, and that we must participate in the democratic process in order to address the challenges that we face as Americans. As voters and grassroots volunteers, we will support leaders who work toward positive solutions, and hold accountable those who obstruct them.
That'll tick the Tea Party people off. Are people really ready to hear good things about government or are we hard wired to always think it is bad?
Apparently this has been organized primarily through Facebook. Social networking sites are having a fascinating impact on politics. They fascilitate rapid organization. Its up in the air whether they have legs though.
The "coffee" label in interesting. The term "tea party" has the obvious connection to the American revolution against the British, but the concept of individual freedom and the formation of early political groups happened in coffee houses. Ale Houses and taverns too, so I'm holding out for the Beer Party.
For more info:
- NYT Story.
- Facebook page.
Their mission statement: The Coffee Party Movement gives voice to Americans who want to see cooperation in government. We recognize that the federal government is not the enemy of the people, but the expression of our collective will, and that we must participate in the democratic process in order to address the challenges that we face as Americans. As voters and grassroots volunteers, we will support leaders who work toward positive solutions, and hold accountable those who obstruct them.
That'll tick the Tea Party people off. Are people really ready to hear good things about government or are we hard wired to always think it is bad?
Apparently this has been organized primarily through Facebook. Social networking sites are having a fascinating impact on politics. They fascilitate rapid organization. Its up in the air whether they have legs though.
The "coffee" label in interesting. The term "tea party" has the obvious connection to the American revolution against the British, but the concept of individual freedom and the formation of early political groups happened in coffee houses. Ale Houses and taverns too, so I'm holding out for the Beer Party.
For more info:
- NYT Story.
- Facebook page.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)