- Lawsuit Against SEC settled.
- Space Policy Reversal.
- Unsuccessful White House Energy Meeting.
- More Changes to FinReg Bill.
- Political Consequences of Robert Byrd's Death.
- Regulating AIG.
Wednesday, June 30, 2010
Tuesday, June 29, 2010
Busy Period for the Judiciary
End of session decisions are coming out, and the Kagan hearings are underway.
We can start making sense of both by looking through scotusblog. More specific posts will follow.
We can start making sense of both by looking through scotusblog. More specific posts will follow.
Why Are Conservatives Upset At Obama?
According to this commentator because he has done more in 18 months than Carter and Clinton did in 12 years.
Monday, June 28, 2010
Sunday, June 27, 2010
Does Press Access Make it Less Likely the Press Will Take Critical Stances in Their Stories?
Yes, it does. Presidents have counted on this for years.
What Drives Public Policy?
Another stolen post, but worth considering as we attempt to determine what types of factors influence shifts in policy: Do arguments matter?
Are Liberals Rational in their Criticism of Obama?
Ross Douthat contributes to the ongoing question about whether we expect too much from presidents in general, and whether liberals specifically are getting a bit too exasperated with Obama.
Thursday, June 24, 2010
Sobering News For Republicans
David Frum thinks they may not do as well as they hope in November.
Tom Schaller and Ruy Teixeira thinks they have serious work to do if they want to avoid becoming the permanent minority party.
Update: Alan Abramowitz argues that Democrats have more safe seats this year the 1994, which gives Republicans less to work with this November.
Tom Schaller and Ruy Teixeira thinks they have serious work to do if they want to avoid becoming the permanent minority party.
Update: Alan Abramowitz argues that Democrats have more safe seats this year the 1994, which gives Republicans less to work with this November.
Honest Services Law Overturned Due to Vagueness
My 2302s will start discussing the judiciary soon, and this will among the recent decisions we will cover:
From Slatest:
Supreme Court Deals Blow to "Honest Services" Law
The Supreme Court sided with former Enron CEO and smartest-guy-in-the-room Jeffrey Skilling and media mogul Conrad Black on Thursday by ruling against a fraud law commonly used to go after white-collar criminals. The "honest services" law, which the Court determined to be excessively vague, allows prosecutors to file suit against executives who don't act in companies' best interests. The law was critical in targeting former Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich (whose own trial has been keeping Chicagoans entertained since June 3), lobbyist Jack Abramoff (now employed at a kosher Baltimore pizzeria) and former New York State Senate majority leader, Joseph Bruno, who was indicted last January. Now, there's concern that today's ruling could overturn convictions and make it harder to file fraud cases. Writing for the majority, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg ruled that Skilling's "honest services" conviction was flawed (he's serving a 24-year sentence for duping investors about Enron's financial health) and that the law should only be limited to "schemes involving bribery and kickbacks." The Court also challenged the conviction of Conrad Black, who was sentenced to 6 ½ years in prison in 2007 for allegedly stealing millions from the Hollinger International Inc. media company through insider dealings. Both cases will be sent back to appeals court, but the ruling won't necessarily overturn their convictions. Despite the victory over "honest services," the Supreme Court disagreed with the second part of Skilling's argument—that bad media coverage had prevented him from getting a fair trial in Enron's home city of Houston.
The Wall Street Journal Thursday, June 24, 2010
As with the decision to overrule the drilling ban, the key seems to be an overly broad, excessively vague law which allows for too much arbitrary and capricious activity by prosecutors.
- SCOTUSblog » “Honest services” law pared down
- Honest services fraud - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
From Slatest:
Supreme Court Deals Blow to "Honest Services" Law
The Supreme Court sided with former Enron CEO and smartest-guy-in-the-room Jeffrey Skilling and media mogul Conrad Black on Thursday by ruling against a fraud law commonly used to go after white-collar criminals. The "honest services" law, which the Court determined to be excessively vague, allows prosecutors to file suit against executives who don't act in companies' best interests. The law was critical in targeting former Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich (whose own trial has been keeping Chicagoans entertained since June 3), lobbyist Jack Abramoff (now employed at a kosher Baltimore pizzeria) and former New York State Senate majority leader, Joseph Bruno, who was indicted last January. Now, there's concern that today's ruling could overturn convictions and make it harder to file fraud cases. Writing for the majority, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg ruled that Skilling's "honest services" conviction was flawed (he's serving a 24-year sentence for duping investors about Enron's financial health) and that the law should only be limited to "schemes involving bribery and kickbacks." The Court also challenged the conviction of Conrad Black, who was sentenced to 6 ½ years in prison in 2007 for allegedly stealing millions from the Hollinger International Inc. media company through insider dealings. Both cases will be sent back to appeals court, but the ruling won't necessarily overturn their convictions. Despite the victory over "honest services," the Supreme Court disagreed with the second part of Skilling's argument—that bad media coverage had prevented him from getting a fair trial in Enron's home city of Houston.
The Wall Street Journal Thursday, June 24, 2010
As with the decision to overrule the drilling ban, the key seems to be an overly broad, excessively vague law which allows for too much arbitrary and capricious activity by prosecutors.
- SCOTUSblog » “Honest services” law pared down
- Honest services fraud - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Organic Decentralization of Governmental Power
I'm re-reading parts of Democracy in America and ran across the following bit in the Preface. For my 2301s (and 2302s) it shows how Tocqueville described the gradual dispersal of governmental power in France. Certainly a similar story happened in Britain, which lead to the institutional arrangement embodied in our Constitution. This sounds very much like the evolution of the forces that would allow for checks and balances. Sounds a bit Madisonian also.
It is evident to all alike that a great democratic revolution is going on among us, but all do not look at it in the same light. To some it appears to be novel but accidental, and, as such, they hope it may still be checked; to others it seems irresistible, because it is the most uniform, the most ancient, and the most permanent tendency that is to be found in history.
I look back for a moment on the situation of France seven hundred years ago, when the territory was divided among a small number of families, who were the owners of the soil and the rulers of the inhabitants; the right of governing descended with the family inheritance from generation to generation; force was the only means by which man could act on man; and landed property was the sole source of power.
Soon, however, the political power of the clergy was founded and began to increase: the clergy opened their ranks to all classes, to the poor and the rich, the commoner and the noble; through the church, equality penetrated into the government, and he who as a serf must have vegetated in perpetual bondage took his place as a priest in the midst of nobles, and not infrequently above the heads of kings.
The different relations of men with one another became more complicated and numerous as society gradually became more stable and civilized. Hence the want of civil laws was felt; and the ministers of law soon rose from the obscurity of the tribunals and their dusty chambers to appear at the court of the monarch, by the side of the feudal barons clothed in their ermine and their mail.
While the kings were ruining themselves by their great enterprises, and the nobles exhausting their resources by private wars, the lower orders were enriching themselves by commerce. The influence of money began to be perceptible in state affairs. The transactions of business opened a new road to power, and the financier rose to a station of political influence in which he was at once flattered and despised.
Gradually enlightenment spread, a reawakening of taste for literature and the arts became evident; intellect and will contributed to success; knowledge became an attribute of government, intelligence a social force; the educated man took part in affairs of state.
The value attached to high birth declined just as fast as new avenues to power were discovered. In the eleventh century, nobility was beyond all price; in the thirteenth, it might be purchased. Nobility was first conferred by gift in 1270, and equality was thus introduced into the government by the aristocracy itself.
....
This is just a taste of a broader argument, but as avenues to power increase, the ability of one group top check the power of others increases. Political equality (or perhaps more accurately, equal access to power) sets the stage for the establishment of individual liberty.
This is worth a discussion in class.
It is evident to all alike that a great democratic revolution is going on among us, but all do not look at it in the same light. To some it appears to be novel but accidental, and, as such, they hope it may still be checked; to others it seems irresistible, because it is the most uniform, the most ancient, and the most permanent tendency that is to be found in history.
I look back for a moment on the situation of France seven hundred years ago, when the territory was divided among a small number of families, who were the owners of the soil and the rulers of the inhabitants; the right of governing descended with the family inheritance from generation to generation; force was the only means by which man could act on man; and landed property was the sole source of power.
Soon, however, the political power of the clergy was founded and began to increase: the clergy opened their ranks to all classes, to the poor and the rich, the commoner and the noble; through the church, equality penetrated into the government, and he who as a serf must have vegetated in perpetual bondage took his place as a priest in the midst of nobles, and not infrequently above the heads of kings.
The different relations of men with one another became more complicated and numerous as society gradually became more stable and civilized. Hence the want of civil laws was felt; and the ministers of law soon rose from the obscurity of the tribunals and their dusty chambers to appear at the court of the monarch, by the side of the feudal barons clothed in their ermine and their mail.
While the kings were ruining themselves by their great enterprises, and the nobles exhausting their resources by private wars, the lower orders were enriching themselves by commerce. The influence of money began to be perceptible in state affairs. The transactions of business opened a new road to power, and the financier rose to a station of political influence in which he was at once flattered and despised.
Gradually enlightenment spread, a reawakening of taste for literature and the arts became evident; intellect and will contributed to success; knowledge became an attribute of government, intelligence a social force; the educated man took part in affairs of state.
The value attached to high birth declined just as fast as new avenues to power were discovered. In the eleventh century, nobility was beyond all price; in the thirteenth, it might be purchased. Nobility was first conferred by gift in 1270, and equality was thus introduced into the government by the aristocracy itself.
....
This is just a taste of a broader argument, but as avenues to power increase, the ability of one group top check the power of others increases. Political equality (or perhaps more accurately, equal access to power) sets the stage for the establishment of individual liberty.
This is worth a discussion in class.
Joe Barton and the Committee System
The reaction to Joe Barton's apology to BP in a recent House Energy and Commerce Committee (wikipedia) meeting gives us insight into the contemporary workings of the House Republican Conference, the strength of the party's leadership, and the autonomy of the committee system. It also helps understand how the party is positioning itself or the upcoming elections and the readjustments it is making due to the politics of the oil spill.
Barton is the ranking member of the committee (meaning he would become chair if Republicans take control of the House in November), which has jurisdiction over national energy policy and oversees the Energy Department. It is also one of the oldest committees in Congress. It's constitutional authority derives from the commerce clause.
Barton is one of five Texas (3 Republicans) on the committee. As ranking member he is an ex-officio member of each of the committee's five subcomittees, as is the committee's chair, Henry Waxman. He holds his position, officially, because the House Republican Conference placed him there in deference to his seniority, but since parties dominate committees, not the other way around, they are in a position to remove him should they feel the need.
Here's a Barton quote to that end: “I am the ranking member and serve at the pleasure of the conference and hope that the conference has confidence that will allow me to continue to serve,”
This would have been impossible in the days of strict seniority when Barton's position would be guaranteed due to his senior years of service. Parties now matter more than committees though.
Interestingly, Barton's original position (the apology) seems to have the support of the Republican Study Committee, a caucus composed of conservatives Republicans (roughtly 2'3rds of the Conference). They seem to have approved of his position on the apology - and that the $20 billion set aside was abusive and perhaps unconstitutional. So this suggests that in the Republican Party, perhaps party leaders themselves take a back seat to the conservative wing of the party.
Here are some related stories:
- Eric Cantor, The Republican Whip, defends the party's decision to keep Barton in his post to Joe Scarborough.
- The Republican Study Committee (wikipedia), a caucus of conservative Republicans, had already made the same argument Barton made.
- Barton apologizes to fellow Republicans in a closed door meeting. Similar story in The Hill.
Barton is the ranking member of the committee (meaning he would become chair if Republicans take control of the House in November), which has jurisdiction over national energy policy and oversees the Energy Department. It is also one of the oldest committees in Congress. It's constitutional authority derives from the commerce clause.
Barton is one of five Texas (3 Republicans) on the committee. As ranking member he is an ex-officio member of each of the committee's five subcomittees, as is the committee's chair, Henry Waxman. He holds his position, officially, because the House Republican Conference placed him there in deference to his seniority, but since parties dominate committees, not the other way around, they are in a position to remove him should they feel the need.
Here's a Barton quote to that end: “I am the ranking member and serve at the pleasure of the conference and hope that the conference has confidence that will allow me to continue to serve,”
This would have been impossible in the days of strict seniority when Barton's position would be guaranteed due to his senior years of service. Parties now matter more than committees though.
Interestingly, Barton's original position (the apology) seems to have the support of the Republican Study Committee, a caucus composed of conservatives Republicans (roughtly 2'3rds of the Conference). They seem to have approved of his position on the apology - and that the $20 billion set aside was abusive and perhaps unconstitutional. So this suggests that in the Republican Party, perhaps party leaders themselves take a back seat to the conservative wing of the party.
Here are some related stories:
- Eric Cantor, The Republican Whip, defends the party's decision to keep Barton in his post to Joe Scarborough.
- The Republican Study Committee (wikipedia), a caucus of conservative Republicans, had already made the same argument Barton made.
- Barton apologizes to fellow Republicans in a closed door meeting. Similar story in The Hill.
Wednesday, June 23, 2010
The Press and The Administration
Glenn Greenwald points out (and is critical of)the cozy relationship between the media and government officials -- in this case people in the Obama Administration. He highlights a recent dinner.
Note the following:
GUESTS INCLUDED [White House Deputy Press Secretary] Bill Burton, Laura Burton Capps [lobbyist, wife of Burton and daughter of Rep. Louise Capps], Helene Cooper [of The New York Times], [Deputy White House Press Secretary] Josh Earnest, Betsy Fischer [Executive Producer, Meet the Press], Jonathan Karl [of ABC News], Ryan Lizza [New Yorker political reporter and author of forthcoming White House book], Norah O’Donnell [MSNBC reporter], Rep. Aaron Schock, Jamal Simmons [CNN reporter], Jim VandeHei [Politico's Editor-in-Chief], Natalie Wyeth [former Treasury spokesperson and now corporate spokesperson] and Jessica Yellin [CNN reporter].
How critical are these reporters likely to be of the administration after being given such a treat? Do we really have a free press?
Note the following:
GUESTS INCLUDED [White House Deputy Press Secretary] Bill Burton, Laura Burton Capps [lobbyist, wife of Burton and daughter of Rep. Louise Capps], Helene Cooper [of The New York Times], [Deputy White House Press Secretary] Josh Earnest, Betsy Fischer [Executive Producer, Meet the Press], Jonathan Karl [of ABC News], Ryan Lizza [New Yorker political reporter and author of forthcoming White House book], Norah O’Donnell [MSNBC reporter], Rep. Aaron Schock, Jamal Simmons [CNN reporter], Jim VandeHei [Politico's Editor-in-Chief], Natalie Wyeth [former Treasury spokesperson and now corporate spokesperson] and Jessica Yellin [CNN reporter].
How critical are these reporters likely to be of the administration after being given such a treat? Do we really have a free press?
Tuesday, June 22, 2010
Is the Presidency Really Weak
In the wake of the oil spill, and the ongoing question about who is in charge, some commentators have wondered what this means for presidential power. Is it, despite worries/fears to the side, a weak office?
Here are a couple of smart guys going at it:
- Jonathan Bernstein.
- Glenn Greenwald.
Here are a couple of smart guys going at it:
- Jonathan Bernstein.
- Glenn Greenwald.
Administration v Civil Service
Today we discussed the ongoing conflict within the executive branch between those in the administration and those in the civil service. The dust-up involving McChrystal, and his big mouth, is a nice example.
- An Accident Waiting to Happen.
- McChrystal Apologizes, But The Question Remains: Defrock The Pope?
- The Rolling Stone article: As bad as advertised.
Here's a link to the article. Great PR for Rolling Stone!
- An Accident Waiting to Happen.
- McChrystal Apologizes, But The Question Remains: Defrock The Pope?
- The Rolling Stone article: As bad as advertised.
Here's a link to the article. Great PR for Rolling Stone!
Tension in Obama Administration
General McChrystal had tart words about members of the Obama Administration in a recent interview. He's since backed down, but his comments illustrate the tension common within presidential administrations and among advisers.
Monday, June 21, 2010
Two New Links
I found a couple of useful websites to link to:
1 - Potus - Tracker is ruin by the Washington post and it tracks the daily activities and travels of the president. I've put this in the "executive links" and "news review" sections.
2 - Under the Influence is a blog run by the National Journal which tracks the lobbying industry. I placed this in the "interest groups" section.
1 - Potus - Tracker is ruin by the Washington post and it tracks the daily activities and travels of the president. I've put this in the "executive links" and "news review" sections.
2 - Under the Influence is a blog run by the National Journal which tracks the lobbying industry. I placed this in the "interest groups" section.
Cumulative Voting in New York
Thanks to Ronald for pointing this story out in class and for sending me the link to it. A town in New York is using cumulative voting in its elections, which allows people to distribute their votes as they wish.
Instead of having, for example, one vote in each of six separate city council races, voters have six total votes and if they want to put them all behind one candidate, they can. They give up the chance to vote in the other races, but they are able to vote with intensity. A normal up or down vote does not allow this.
Instead of having, for example, one vote in each of six separate city council races, voters have six total votes and if they want to put them all behind one candidate, they can. They give up the chance to vote in the other races, but they are able to vote with intensity. A normal up or down vote does not allow this.
Are Advocates of Living Constitutions Traitors?
Here's a brief argument that they are:
Dear Professor Jeffries,
Only one (1) U.S. Constitution exists, the Constitution as ratified by the whole People sitting in convention. Terms like 'judicial philosophy' are just deceptive ways of saying that the judicial officer is creating his own constitution. Such creativity comprises the high felony of Article III Treason because that judicial officer is levying war against the People. Prosecutions for Treason maintain the Constitution's uniqueness.
I'd like to see the argument backed up more thoroughly, but the author is accusing those who broadly interpret Constitutional language of treason and is advocating prosecution for it. Good idea? Bad idea? Is there precedence for such a thing? And where in fact do we get clear guidelines for how the document is to be interpreted (from the document's authors – not latter day commentators) and how those who misinterpret the document should be treated? Did they intend a hard and fast interpretation to be adhered to in perpetuity or did they anticipate that future generations would be able to apply the document as needed to contemporary problems?
Democrats Hope to Get Out The Vote
Again, from Slatest:
Democrats Hope Young and Minority Voters Return to Polls
Democrats are pinning their hopes—and their war chest—on enticing young and minority voters back to the polls this fall. Typically, both parties focus on bringing out their reliable base in midterm elections. But this year, Democrats have carved out $50 million to spend on trying to bring 2008's 15 million first-time voters back to the polls. Like in 2008, Democrats plan to get out the vote by canvassing door-to-door and spending heavily on the Web. But will this strategy be successful in "a political climate in which hope and exhilaration has given way to anger and disappointment" where the momentum has shifted to the Republicans? Some party organizers are skeptical of the approach and think the money should be spent in more traditional ways, like on television ads. "I think they're going to come in for a very rude awakening. It's going to be brutal," one organizer said.
The Washington Post Sunday, June 20, 2010
This fits with 2301s' discussion about elections. Democrats did especially well in 2008 because young and minority voters actually voted. The party took names and number and hopes to use them to repeat that performance.
Democrats Hope Young and Minority Voters Return to Polls
Democrats are pinning their hopes—and their war chest—on enticing young and minority voters back to the polls this fall. Typically, both parties focus on bringing out their reliable base in midterm elections. But this year, Democrats have carved out $50 million to spend on trying to bring 2008's 15 million first-time voters back to the polls. Like in 2008, Democrats plan to get out the vote by canvassing door-to-door and spending heavily on the Web. But will this strategy be successful in "a political climate in which hope and exhilaration has given way to anger and disappointment" where the momentum has shifted to the Republicans? Some party organizers are skeptical of the approach and think the money should be spent in more traditional ways, like on television ads. "I think they're going to come in for a very rude awakening. It's going to be brutal," one organizer said.
The Washington Post Sunday, June 20, 2010
This fits with 2301s' discussion about elections. Democrats did especially well in 2008 because young and minority voters actually voted. The party took names and number and hopes to use them to repeat that performance.
Rahm Emanuel Might Quit
From Slatest:
Rahm Emanuel Expected To Quit After Midterm Elections
Rahm Emanuel has always been known to get things done. Washington insiders are saying that the White House chief of staff will quit his post within six to eight months because he is frustrated by Obama's closest advisers' idealism and their unwillingness to push through legislation. "Friends say he is also worried about burnout and losing touch with his young family due to the pressure of one of the most high profile jobs in U.S. politics," the London Telegraph reported. The Telegraph didn't name any of its sources, and the White House did not respond to a request for comment, but Emanuel himself has reportedly said that he believes the position is only an 18-month job because of its intensity. "Mr. Emanuel, 50, enjoys a good working relationship with Mr. Obama but they are understood to have reached an understanding that differences over style mean he will serve only half the full four-year term," the Telegraph reported. The paper also quotes a Democratic consultant as saying that the job just isn't working out the way it's supposed to. "Nobody thinks it's working but they can't get rid of him—that would look awful. He needs the right sort of job to go to but the consensus is he'll go."
The London Telegraph Monday, June 21, 2010
We covered this in class today. It introduced us to the White House Staff and the other institutions (along with the Cabinet and Executive Office of the President) that advise the president.
Here are a few recent stories about Emanuel:
- Wonkbook: WH talks climate compromise; meet the anti-stimulus ...
- Emanuel: Hayward yachting 'a big mistake'
- In the speaker's office, a quiet liberal lion: Wendell E. Primus
- Emanuel invites Netanyahu to the White House
Rahm Emanuel Expected To Quit After Midterm Elections
Rahm Emanuel has always been known to get things done. Washington insiders are saying that the White House chief of staff will quit his post within six to eight months because he is frustrated by Obama's closest advisers' idealism and their unwillingness to push through legislation. "Friends say he is also worried about burnout and losing touch with his young family due to the pressure of one of the most high profile jobs in U.S. politics," the London Telegraph reported. The Telegraph didn't name any of its sources, and the White House did not respond to a request for comment, but Emanuel himself has reportedly said that he believes the position is only an 18-month job because of its intensity. "Mr. Emanuel, 50, enjoys a good working relationship with Mr. Obama but they are understood to have reached an understanding that differences over style mean he will serve only half the full four-year term," the Telegraph reported. The paper also quotes a Democratic consultant as saying that the job just isn't working out the way it's supposed to. "Nobody thinks it's working but they can't get rid of him—that would look awful. He needs the right sort of job to go to but the consensus is he'll go."
The London Telegraph Monday, June 21, 2010
We covered this in class today. It introduced us to the White House Staff and the other institutions (along with the Cabinet and Executive Office of the President) that advise the president.
Here are a few recent stories about Emanuel:
- Wonkbook: WH talks climate compromise; meet the anti-stimulus ...
- Emanuel: Hayward yachting 'a big mistake'
- In the speaker's office, a quiet liberal lion: Wendell E. Primus
- Emanuel invites Netanyahu to the White House
Thursday, June 17, 2010
The Statute of Anne
I had never heard of this before. Written in 1710, it is considered to be the origin of copyright law.
I'll apply this to 2301's discussion of the press. This clearly provides the opportunity for a news media to evolve since you can claim ownership of your work. You can make money starting a newspapers, ideas and news can become sources of income. The right to print, utter and publish items that were critical of the ruling class had yet to follow, but were probably inevitable at this point.
I'll apply this to 2301's discussion of the press. This clearly provides the opportunity for a news media to evolve since you can claim ownership of your work. You can make money starting a newspapers, ideas and news can become sources of income. The right to print, utter and publish items that were critical of the ruling class had yet to follow, but were probably inevitable at this point.
About the Financial Reform Conference Committee
The House and Senate finance reform bills (H.R.4173 Title: Restoring American Financial Stability Act of 2010) have gone a conference committee where they will, or are intended to be, reconciled with each other. If they are able to pass a single report, and if that report is then accepted by each chamber, the report will be sent to the president for a signature.
The Center for Media and Democracy tells us that this is the schedule so far:
- Thursday, June 17: Systemic risk regulation, resolution authority and payments/clearing/settlement issues.
- Tuesday, June 22: The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, predatory lending, remittances, interchange fee and access issues.
- Wednesday, June 23: Prudential regulation.
- Thursday, June 24: Derivatives regulation.
I've also read that this could drag on for two weeks, so who knows how accurate this timetable is.
For information about the members of the conference, click here: A look at House, Senate conferees .
Some comments on the process:
- Do You Like to Whip It?
- House-Senate panel lets SEC create credit rating board
- Reviving Investor Protection
- Cheques and imbalances
- Will The Next Three Weeks Change Wall Street Forever?
- Financial Reform: Credit Rating Agencies Most Worried About Liability
Plus:
- Everything you ever wanted to know about Conference Committees.
- The impact of the Filibuster on Conference Committees.
The Center for Media and Democracy tells us that this is the schedule so far:
- Thursday, June 17: Systemic risk regulation, resolution authority and payments/clearing/settlement issues.
- Tuesday, June 22: The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, predatory lending, remittances, interchange fee and access issues.
- Wednesday, June 23: Prudential regulation.
- Thursday, June 24: Derivatives regulation.
I've also read that this could drag on for two weeks, so who knows how accurate this timetable is.
For information about the members of the conference, click here: A look at House, Senate conferees .
Some comments on the process:
- Do You Like to Whip It?
- House-Senate panel lets SEC create credit rating board
- Reviving Investor Protection
- Cheques and imbalances
- Will The Next Three Weeks Change Wall Street Forever?
- Financial Reform: Credit Rating Agencies Most Worried About Liability
Plus:
- Everything you ever wanted to know about Conference Committees.
- The impact of the Filibuster on Conference Committees.
The Revolving Door: From Congressional Staffer to Financial Industry Lobbyist
From the Center for Responsive Politics:
Lobbyists for the financial services industry enjoy longstanding ties to the members of Congress who were named this week to the conference committee on financial reform legislation, according to a joint analysis of available data released today by Public Citizen and the Center for Responsive Politics.
At least 56 current industry lobbyists previously served on the personal staffs of the 43 members of Congress named Wednesday to the conference committee, according to the study, available here: ConferenceKlatchReport.pdf. Notably, these figures do not include 59 lobbyists who served on either the Senate or House of Representatives banking committee but never worked directly for a member. Those lobbyists were enumerated in a report published in early June by Public Citizen and the Center for Responsive Politics.
Lobbyists for the financial services industry enjoy longstanding ties to the members of Congress who were named this week to the conference committee on financial reform legislation, according to a joint analysis of available data released today by Public Citizen and the Center for Responsive Politics.
At least 56 current industry lobbyists previously served on the personal staffs of the 43 members of Congress named Wednesday to the conference committee, according to the study, available here: ConferenceKlatchReport.pdf. Notably, these figures do not include 59 lobbyists who served on either the Senate or House of Representatives banking committee but never worked directly for a member. Those lobbyists were enumerated in a report published in early June by Public Citizen and the Center for Responsive Politics.
More on Investments and Committee Assignments
Following the recent post on Ron Paul's investments in gold mining operations, and speculation about whether his position on the House Financial Services committee presents a conflict of interest, here is a similar story regarding the investments members of Congress, who are members of committees with jurisdiction over oil and gas companies, have in the industry.
Nearly 30 members of the congressional committees overseeing oil and gas companies held personal assets in the industry totaling $9 million to $14.5 million late last year. That included at least $400,000 in the three companies at the heart of the Gulf of Mexico oil-drilling disaster, according to a Washington Post analysis of financial disclosure forms released
Wednesday.
Ought there be limits on such investments? If not, how would you address this conflict of interests? Perhaps its no conflict at all.
Nearly 30 members of the congressional committees overseeing oil and gas companies held personal assets in the industry totaling $9 million to $14.5 million late last year. That included at least $400,000 in the three companies at the heart of the Gulf of Mexico oil-drilling disaster, according to a Washington Post analysis of financial disclosure forms released
Wednesday.
Ought there be limits on such investments? If not, how would you address this conflict of interests? Perhaps its no conflict at all.
Tuesday, June 15, 2010
Some National News for Today: 6/15/10
A few things to chew over today from Ezra Klein at the Washington Post:
Obama will try to reinvigorate a climate bill in his address tonight, reports Mike Allen: Obama plans to include a call for an energy bill in his Oval Office address about the Gulf on Tuesday night. And the Obama administration has told key senators that 'an energy deal must include some serious effort to price carbon as a way to slow climate change,' according to a Senate Democratic leadership aide."
And Obama's top pollster is circulating a memo to lawmakers arguing that a big energy bill makes good political sense. But the memo never mentions "global warming" or "climate change," so it's clear those word don't make good political sense. Read it: http://politi.co/aKhagF
Henry Waxman and energy committee oversight chair Bart Stupak are alleging that BP took "shortcuts" on the exploded oil rig, report Steven Mufson and Anne Kornblut: "In one instance, four days before the April 20 explosion, Brett Cocales, one of BP's operations drilling engineers, sent an e-mail to a colleague noting that engineers had not taken all the usual steps to center the steel pipe in the drill hole, a standard procedure designed to ensure that the pipe would be properly cemented in place. '[W]ho cares, it's done, end of story, will probably be fine and we'll get a good cement job,' he wrote."
The campaign disclosure bill being considered in the House will exempt the NRA, reports John Bresnahan: "The proposal would exempt organizations that have more than 1 million members, have been in existence for more than 10 years, have members in all 50 states and raise 15 percent or less of their funds from corporations. Democrats say the new language would apply to only the NRA, since no other organization would qualify under these specific provisions. The NRA, with 4 million members, will not actively oppose the DISCLOSE Act, according to Democratic sources."
Obama will try to reinvigorate a climate bill in his address tonight, reports Mike Allen: Obama plans to include a call for an energy bill in his Oval Office address about the Gulf on Tuesday night. And the Obama administration has told key senators that 'an energy deal must include some serious effort to price carbon as a way to slow climate change,' according to a Senate Democratic leadership aide."
And Obama's top pollster is circulating a memo to lawmakers arguing that a big energy bill makes good political sense. But the memo never mentions "global warming" or "climate change," so it's clear those word don't make good political sense. Read it: http://politi.co/aKhagF
Henry Waxman and energy committee oversight chair Bart Stupak are alleging that BP took "shortcuts" on the exploded oil rig, report Steven Mufson and Anne Kornblut: "In one instance, four days before the April 20 explosion, Brett Cocales, one of BP's operations drilling engineers, sent an e-mail to a colleague noting that engineers had not taken all the usual steps to center the steel pipe in the drill hole, a standard procedure designed to ensure that the pipe would be properly cemented in place. '[W]ho cares, it's done, end of story, will probably be fine and we'll get a good cement job,' he wrote."
The campaign disclosure bill being considered in the House will exempt the NRA, reports John Bresnahan: "The proposal would exempt organizations that have more than 1 million members, have been in existence for more than 10 years, have members in all 50 states and raise 15 percent or less of their funds from corporations. Democrats say the new language would apply to only the NRA, since no other organization would qualify under these specific provisions. The NRA, with 4 million members, will not actively oppose the DISCLOSE Act, according to Democratic sources."
Monday, June 14, 2010
Two Takes on the Presidency
Two recent articles highlight how Obama is performing two of the undefined roles of the president. The first is party leader, meaning that he is supposed to provide guidance and leadership for his party, The second is, for lack of a better term, savior-in-chief, where the president is expected to wave a wand and solve all conceivable problems.
In related items, what should we make of the recent spate of comments taking Obama to task for not losing his temper over the oil spill? Do they have a point, or do we want someone who can keep cool in a crisis. Or is what one person takes as cool, really indifference?
In related items, what should we make of the recent spate of comments taking Obama to task for not losing his temper over the oil spill? Do they have a point, or do we want someone who can keep cool in a crisis. Or is what one person takes as cool, really indifference?
Texas Budgetting and Districting
For future discussion:
- The Texas Legislative Budget Board.
- Texas Redistricting.
- Texas Legislative Council.
- The Texas Legislative Budget Board.
- Texas Redistricting.
- Texas Legislative Council.
Regional Texas Representatives
A list of the current members of the Texas Legislature from this general area. Click here for access to maps.
- 23rd District, Craig Eiland.
- 24th District, Larry Taylor.
- 25th District, Dennis Bonnen.
- 27th District, Dora Olivo.
- 29th District, Randy Weber.
- 23rd District, Craig Eiland.
- 24th District, Larry Taylor.
- 25th District, Dennis Bonnen.
- 27th District, Dora Olivo.
- 29th District, Randy Weber.
Ron Paul, Subcommittee Asssignments, and Investments
Just in time for our discussion of committee assignments comes this Washington Post story on Ron Paul.
As we saw in class, he a member of the House Financial Services subcommittee on Domestic Monetary Policy and Technology. He uses this post to advocate for a return to the gold standard, but he also invests heavily in companies that mine for gold. He doesn't consider this a conflict of interest, but the articles author isn't quite sure. What's more, nothing he is doing is unethical under Congressional guidelines, though it is illegal for executive officials and others.
Though Paul is the subject of the piece, he is far from the only member of Congress in a position to pass laws that benefit their investments:
In both houses of Congress, a host of other committee chairmen and ranking members have reported that they have millions invested in business sectors that their panels oversee, according to a Post analysis of financial disclosure records through 2008, committee assignments and lawmaker investments by industry.
The disclosure reports covering 2009 will be made public in the coming days. But because lawmakers still use a pen-and-paper method of reporting, it will be months before the information is entered into a database by the Center for Responsive Politics and then made available for analysis by The Post.
For more information about Dr. Paul's gold standard positions:
- What was the gold standard?
- Gold standard - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- Monetary policy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- FRB: Monetary Policy
As we saw in class, he a member of the House Financial Services subcommittee on Domestic Monetary Policy and Technology. He uses this post to advocate for a return to the gold standard, but he also invests heavily in companies that mine for gold. He doesn't consider this a conflict of interest, but the articles author isn't quite sure. What's more, nothing he is doing is unethical under Congressional guidelines, though it is illegal for executive officials and others.
Though Paul is the subject of the piece, he is far from the only member of Congress in a position to pass laws that benefit their investments:
In both houses of Congress, a host of other committee chairmen and ranking members have reported that they have millions invested in business sectors that their panels oversee, according to a Post analysis of financial disclosure records through 2008, committee assignments and lawmaker investments by industry.
The disclosure reports covering 2009 will be made public in the coming days. But because lawmakers still use a pen-and-paper method of reporting, it will be months before the information is entered into a database by the Center for Responsive Politics and then made available for analysis by The Post.
For more information about Dr. Paul's gold standard positions:
- What was the gold standard?
- Gold standard - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- Monetary policy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- FRB: Monetary Policy
Sunday, June 13, 2010
Area Representatives – 111th Congress
For our discussion of legislators, a list of area representatives here's a list of area representatives to the United States House:
- 2nd District: Ted Poe.
- 7th District: John Culberson.
- 8th District: Kevin Brady.
- 9th District: Al Green.
- 14th District: Ron Paul.
- 18th District: Sheila Jackson-Lee.
- 22nd District: Pete Olson.
- 29th District: Gene Green.
Texas currently has 32 representatives to the United States House. Click here for information about Texas' occasional at-large districts.
- Click here for a list of the Texas delegation for each year since its admission to the union.
Committee assignments:
Ted Poe
Committee on the Judiciary
- Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security
- Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security, and International Law
Committee on Foreign Affairs
- Subcommittee on Europe
- Subcommittee on Terrorism Nonproliferation and Trade
- Subcommittee on International Organizations, Human Rights, and Oversight
John Culberson
Committee on Appropriations
- Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies
- Subcommittee on Financial Services and General Government
- Subcommittee on Homeland Security
Kevin Brady
Committee on Ways and Means
- Subcommittee on Trade
- Subcommittee on Social Security
Al Green
Committee on Financial Services
- Subcommittee on Financial Institutions and Consumer Credit
- Subcommittee on Housing and Community Opportunity
- Subcommittee on Domestic Monetary Policy and Technology
Committee on Homeland Security
- Subcommittee on Border, Maritime and Global Counterterrorism
- Subcommittee on Intelligence, Information Sharing, and Terrorism Risk Assessment
- Subcommittee on Management, Investigations, and Oversight
Ron Paul
Committee on Financial Services
- Subcommittee on Domestic Monetary Policy and Technology
- Subcommittee on International Monetary Policy and Trade
- Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations
Committee on Foreign Affairs
- Subcommittee on International Organizations, Human Rights, and Oversight
- Subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere
Joint Economic Committee
Sheila Jackson-Lee
Committee on Foreign Affairs
- Subcommittee on Africa and Global Health
- Subcommittee on Terrorism, Nonproliferation, and Trade
- Subcommittee on the Middle East and South Asia
Committee on Homeland Security
- Subcommittee on Border, Maritime and Global Counterterrorism
- Subcommittee on Transportation Security and Infrastructure Protection (Chairwoman)
Committee on the Judiciary
- Subcommittee on Courts and Competition Policy
- Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties
- Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security, and International Law
- Task Force on Judicial Impeachment
Pete Olson
Committee on Homeland Security
- Subcommittee on Transportation Security and Infrastructure Protection (Deputy Ranking Member)
- Subcommittee on Emergency Communications, Preparedness, and Response
Committee on Science and Technology
- Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics (Ranking Member)
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
- Subcommittee on Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation
- Subcommittee on Railroads, Pipelines, and Hazardous Materials
- Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment
Gene Green
Committee on Energy and Commerce
- Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade and Consumer Protection
- Subcommittee on Energy and Environment
- Subcommittee on Health
- Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations
Committee on Foreign Affairs
- Subcommittee on the Middle East and South Asia
- Subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere
Friday, June 11, 2010
The Book on Pelosi
Nancy Pelosi's speakership has become a subject of analysis and study. Here's a recently released one:
Senate Proposal to Limit EPA Regulatory Authority on Greenhouse Gasses Defeated
From the Washington Post.
Senator Murkoski's Resolution (see text here) would have overturned the EPA's finding in December 2009 that greenhouse gases endangered the public health and welfare, and they therefore had the right to regulate them as a pollutant. Murkowski wanted Congress to have that authority, independent regulatory agency, like the EPA. Her proposal raises questions about where and how to strike a dividing line between legislative and executive functions.
- FYI: What is a Senate Joint Resolution? (from wikipedia)
The EPA used its rulemaking authority (see process detailed here) to establish these regulations last year. Click here for the advanced notice of the regulations sent our June 11, 2008. In the notice the EPA mentions that its authority to make such regulations was found to to be constitutional in Massachusetts v. EPA. For additional information on the EPA's rulings click here.
This story is a terrific example of the interplay between institutions, and levels of government, that are a direct consequence of the separated powers, the checks and balances and federalism. It also points out the difficulty Congress has with coming up with any solutions on polarizing issues and helps explain why bureaucratic agencies sometime step in if there is to be action at all on these problems. But doing so raises questions of accountability, which is Murkowski's point. The bureaucracy is not restrained by electoral forces, and is free to make decisions based on its professional judgement. This is either a good or bad thing depending on one's ideological leanings and opinions on how expansive the democratic process ought to be.
Senator Murkoski's Resolution (see text here) would have overturned the EPA's finding in December 2009 that greenhouse gases endangered the public health and welfare, and they therefore had the right to regulate them as a pollutant. Murkowski wanted Congress to have that authority, independent regulatory agency, like the EPA. Her proposal raises questions about where and how to strike a dividing line between legislative and executive functions.
- FYI: What is a Senate Joint Resolution? (from wikipedia)
The EPA used its rulemaking authority (see process detailed here) to establish these regulations last year. Click here for the advanced notice of the regulations sent our June 11, 2008. In the notice the EPA mentions that its authority to make such regulations was found to to be constitutional in Massachusetts v. EPA. For additional information on the EPA's rulings click here.
This story is a terrific example of the interplay between institutions, and levels of government, that are a direct consequence of the separated powers, the checks and balances and federalism. It also points out the difficulty Congress has with coming up with any solutions on polarizing issues and helps explain why bureaucratic agencies sometime step in if there is to be action at all on these problems. But doing so raises questions of accountability, which is Murkowski's point. The bureaucracy is not restrained by electoral forces, and is free to make decisions based on its professional judgement. This is either a good or bad thing depending on one's ideological leanings and opinions on how expansive the democratic process ought to be.
Texas Republicans Turn Green
Sort of. In an obvious attempt to split the Democratic vote, the Texas Republican Party has worked to get the Green Party on the ballot for 2010. Democrats don't like it a bit and are trying to dig up a scandal over this. I'm not sure what's illegal about this though.
- Green Party makes the Texas ballot
- Republicans Go Green
- Texas Secretary of State Says Green Party Petition is Valid
- Texas Democrats Sue Green Party
- TX Democrats file suit: Who funded Green Party petition drive?
File this under 2301: elections and the consequence of the winner take all system.
- Green Party makes the Texas ballot
- Republicans Go Green
- Texas Secretary of State Says Green Party Petition is Valid
- Texas Democrats Sue Green Party
- TX Democrats file suit: Who funded Green Party petition drive?
File this under 2301: elections and the consequence of the winner take all system.
Report on the Imperial Presidency
I was just tracking some information down on John Conyers, who chairs the House Judiciary Committee, and ran across this report from March 2009 on accusations that the Bush Administration's use of executive power bordered on the imperial. Its quite partisan, but introduces the concept of the Imperial Presidency, which my 2302s study when we cover the executive.
For what its worth, there are allegations that Obama has picked up where Bush-Cheney left off with similar abuses. Glenn Greenwald at Salon beats this drum quite a bit. Power once acquired is difficult to relinquish.
For what its worth, there are allegations that Obama has picked up where Bush-Cheney left off with similar abuses. Glenn Greenwald at Salon beats this drum quite a bit. Power once acquired is difficult to relinquish.
Thursday, June 10, 2010
California's Top Two Primary
Proposition 14 passed in California and could radically change party competition in the state.
- Overview.
- Comments.
- Overview.
- Comments.
Wednesday, June 9, 2010
Too Much Information?
Does our easy access to current events and newly published books and ideas distract us from the really important stuff?
Maybe.
I wrestle with this as prepare subject matter for class. How much attention do I give to the everyday give and take of government and politics and how much to I devote to the timeless issues related to how a group of people decide how to govern themselves?
Maybe.
I wrestle with this as prepare subject matter for class. How much attention do I give to the everyday give and take of government and politics and how much to I devote to the timeless issues related to how a group of people decide how to govern themselves?
CQ Update on Congress 6-8-10
Something to chew on today. Congressional Quarterly provides daily updates on major activity in Congress. This gives us some context for class discussion. You can sign up for these as well if you go to their site.
Today in Washington
The House considers minor bills and resolutions under suspension of the rules.
The Senate begins debate on a package extending various tax breaks and unemployment benefits, along with other expired programs.
The President meets with advisers; visits a Wheaton, Md., senior citizens’ center to tout improved Medicare drug benefits in a tele-town hall session with groups around the country; meets with Sen. Byron L. Dorgan, D-N.D.; hosts congressional picnic dinner at the White House.
In Washington, the Global Business Coalition on HIV/AIDS, Malaria and Tuberculosis holds its conference and awards dinner, with appearances by Annie Lennox; Ashley Judd, Board of Directors, PSI; Michel Sidibe, Executive Director, UNAIDS. Keynote address by Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius. 7 p.m., Renaissance Washington Hotel, 999 9th St. NW.
---------------------------------
Top Stories
White House Orders Agencies To Pinpoint Least Important Programs The White House on Tuesday instructed federal agencies to compile a list of their least important programs that add up to at least five percent of their budgets as the administration begins preparing next year's budget. [Read More]
House Chairman Defends Unwanted Jet Engine as Job Creator The chairman of the House Armed Services Committee upped the ante Tuesday in the debate over an alternate engine for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter by tying the program to the need to create more jobs. [Read More]
Feinstein Calls for Inquiry Into Israeli Raid on Aid Flotilla In a significant departure from most colleagues, Sen. Dianne Feinstein called Tuesday for an "impartial inquiry" into the Israeli commando raid on a humanitarian flotilla carrying aid to the Gaza Strip that left nine activists dead, including one American. [Read More]
Health Science Experts Urge Stronger Food Safety Regulation The Food and Drug Administration needs more resources and a more focused, risk-based approach to safeguarding the nation's food supply, according to a report released Tuesday. [Read More]
Senate Democrats Seek To Restore Medicaid Funds, Hit Oil Industry Harder Senate Democrats unveiled their proposed changes to a tax and benefits bill on Tuesday and urged quick passage of the measure, which now carries a price tag of about $140.2 billion and would add about $77.5 billion to the federal deficit. [Read More]
Today in Washington
The House considers minor bills and resolutions under suspension of the rules.
The Senate begins debate on a package extending various tax breaks and unemployment benefits, along with other expired programs.
The President meets with advisers; visits a Wheaton, Md., senior citizens’ center to tout improved Medicare drug benefits in a tele-town hall session with groups around the country; meets with Sen. Byron L. Dorgan, D-N.D.; hosts congressional picnic dinner at the White House.
In Washington, the Global Business Coalition on HIV/AIDS, Malaria and Tuberculosis holds its conference and awards dinner, with appearances by Annie Lennox; Ashley Judd, Board of Directors, PSI; Michel Sidibe, Executive Director, UNAIDS. Keynote address by Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius. 7 p.m., Renaissance Washington Hotel, 999 9th St. NW.
---------------------------------
Top Stories
White House Orders Agencies To Pinpoint Least Important Programs The White House on Tuesday instructed federal agencies to compile a list of their least important programs that add up to at least five percent of their budgets as the administration begins preparing next year's budget. [Read More]
House Chairman Defends Unwanted Jet Engine as Job Creator The chairman of the House Armed Services Committee upped the ante Tuesday in the debate over an alternate engine for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter by tying the program to the need to create more jobs. [Read More]
Feinstein Calls for Inquiry Into Israeli Raid on Aid Flotilla In a significant departure from most colleagues, Sen. Dianne Feinstein called Tuesday for an "impartial inquiry" into the Israeli commando raid on a humanitarian flotilla carrying aid to the Gaza Strip that left nine activists dead, including one American. [Read More]
Health Science Experts Urge Stronger Food Safety Regulation The Food and Drug Administration needs more resources and a more focused, risk-based approach to safeguarding the nation's food supply, according to a report released Tuesday. [Read More]
Senate Democrats Seek To Restore Medicaid Funds, Hit Oil Industry Harder Senate Democrats unveiled their proposed changes to a tax and benefits bill on Tuesday and urged quick passage of the measure, which now carries a price tag of about $140.2 billion and would add about $77.5 billion to the federal deficit. [Read More]
Monday, June 7, 2010
Republicans in the Senate Try to Limit the EPA
From Ezra Klein's WonkBook:
The Senate will debate stripping the EPA's authority over climate change Thursday, reports Taylor Rushing: "The debate will center on a Thursday vote on a disapproval resolution by Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) that would block the EPA from enforcing emission rules under the Clean Air Act...Murkowski is bringing the resolution forward under the Congressional Review Act, which prevents any filibusters and only requires 51 votes for passage. Murkowski has said she has about 41 votes, including Democratic Sens. Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, Ben Nelson of Nebraska and Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas."
Wondering what the Congressional Review Act does? The Congressional Research Service has you covered. Bottom line: Senate can't filibuster, but the president can veto, and that means Murkowski's resolution would need 2/3rds of both the House and the Senate to make it into law.
The Senate will debate stripping the EPA's authority over climate change Thursday, reports Taylor Rushing: "The debate will center on a Thursday vote on a disapproval resolution by Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) that would block the EPA from enforcing emission rules under the Clean Air Act...Murkowski is bringing the resolution forward under the Congressional Review Act, which prevents any filibusters and only requires 51 votes for passage. Murkowski has said she has about 41 votes, including Democratic Sens. Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, Ben Nelson of Nebraska and Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas."
Wondering what the Congressional Review Act does? The Congressional Research Service has you covered. Bottom line: Senate can't filibuster, but the president can veto, and that means Murkowski's resolution would need 2/3rds of both the House and the Senate to make it into law.
Presidential Power and the Gulf Oil Spill
From the National Journal, some commentary on the state of presidential power. While executive powers have expanded considerably over the past century, it still has practical limits. Campaign rhetoric aside, presidents aren't Superman. And while we hear concerns about Obama's apparent attempts to expand executive power we nevertheless, we also hear calls that Obama should do more to contain the oil spill, which requires him to usurp more executive power of course. We did the same with Bush and terrorism, as well as other presidents and whatever crises happened during their tenure. We want executive power both expanded and limited at the same time. We criticize presidents for abusing power, and for not using it.
So, as a public, do we say that we want limited government in principle, but demand expansive power in practice? Is we wish government to be limited, we have to accept the idea that certain things are going to happen without our control or influence -- like huge oil spills. Do we really, collectively, want that? I think the American public is conflicted about governmental power and attitudes about Obama's response to the oil spill encapsulate that.
Here's the story:
The Gulf, Unplugged: When it comes to stopping the Gulf oil spill, we don't hear the president shouting 'Yes, we can!'
by Will Englund
Saturday, June 5, 2010
Looking for more?
This week, the Obama administration made a show of the various ways it is taking care of business connected to the oil spill -- steps that are significant and most likely necessary, but none of them having any effect on the gusher itself.
Attorney General Eric Holder announced that the Justice Department is opening a criminal investigation into the disaster. President Obama held a Rose Garden ceremony to introduce the co-chairmen of a commission charged with figuring out how to prevent another such catastrophe. (They are Bob Graham, the former senator and Florida governor, and William K. Reilly, who was President George H.W. Bush's Environmental Protection Agency chief, back when the Exxon Valdez was hitting the rocks.)
As always at such events, the two eminent commissioners kept mum, but that may have been especially prudent in this instance, in which no one, at the moment, has a good solution to the unfolding disaster.
Obama doesn't have the luxury of silence. He has to talk about this mess. Last week, at his press conference, he veered into long explanations of what the government could and could not do, and what it should be doing.
In the Rose Garden, he was a little more trenchant and a lot terser. Yet White House reporters later badgered press secretary Robert Gibbs about whether the president has displayed sufficient rage over the BP spill. Gibbs parried and talked around the question and, before the dialogue had played itself out, several dozen more barrels of petroleum, at least, had flowed out of the Deepwater Horizon well and into the Gulf of Mexico.
Neither a raging president nor commissioners nor crusading prosecutors can stop the oil. All may have a role to play in the larger story surrounding the event but none is central to the solution.
In the meantime, Obama isn't getting very good marks on the spill. By margins of 5-to-10 percentage points, polls taken in late May show that more Americans disapprove than approve of his handling of the crisis. Conservative critics lambaste the president for not doing more about the spill and accuse him of plotting to use it as a pretext to halt offshore drilling. Public support for drilling has dropped dramatically, however, since the "drill, baby, drill" days of 2008; support fell from 62 percent to 45 percent in CBS News polls.
Americans have come to expect their presidents to be able to set right anything that goes wrong. It's an idea that presidential candidates like to nurture -- and maybe none more so than Obama, with his "Yes, we can" slogan -- but no president, once in office, can live up to that expectation. Theater, and a sense of timing, though, can help.
Ronald Reagan went to Berlin and demanded, "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!" And when, two years later, the wall did come down, Reagan's supporters seized on it as proof of his genius and daring. If Obama had gone down to the Gulf at the right moment and declaimed, "BP, plug up this hole!" it wouldn't have stopped the oil any more than Reagan's speech brought down the wall, but it could have been thrilling to his allies.
It wasn't always like this. The biggest oil spill in U.S. history was the Lakeview Gusher, in California. It blew in March 1910 and went on for 18 months. President Taft appears to have said nothing about it. Two statewide Democratic candidates made a point of driving by it one day -- to enjoy the thrilling sight of a fountain of crude.
The Gulf spill, whatever its ultimate dimensions, will clearly inflict far more environmental damage than Lakeview did, given its location. But this is also not an era that is receptive to an "accidents happen" outlook on life.
Obama has been lucky in one aspect: Oil companies are about as unpopular as health insurers. BP makes a handy villain (and the British accent of its CEO, Tony Hayward, may reinforce the point). Polls show that virtually no one approves of BP's handling of the crisis. One puzzle is that an administration that is powerless to address the physical problem -- the oil welling up from below -- has been so slow to turn against the oil company that drilled the hole in the first place.
So, as a public, do we say that we want limited government in principle, but demand expansive power in practice? Is we wish government to be limited, we have to accept the idea that certain things are going to happen without our control or influence -- like huge oil spills. Do we really, collectively, want that? I think the American public is conflicted about governmental power and attitudes about Obama's response to the oil spill encapsulate that.
Here's the story:
The Gulf, Unplugged: When it comes to stopping the Gulf oil spill, we don't hear the president shouting 'Yes, we can!'
by Will Englund
Saturday, June 5, 2010
Looking for more?
This week, the Obama administration made a show of the various ways it is taking care of business connected to the oil spill -- steps that are significant and most likely necessary, but none of them having any effect on the gusher itself.
Attorney General Eric Holder announced that the Justice Department is opening a criminal investigation into the disaster. President Obama held a Rose Garden ceremony to introduce the co-chairmen of a commission charged with figuring out how to prevent another such catastrophe. (They are Bob Graham, the former senator and Florida governor, and William K. Reilly, who was President George H.W. Bush's Environmental Protection Agency chief, back when the Exxon Valdez was hitting the rocks.)
As always at such events, the two eminent commissioners kept mum, but that may have been especially prudent in this instance, in which no one, at the moment, has a good solution to the unfolding disaster.
Obama doesn't have the luxury of silence. He has to talk about this mess. Last week, at his press conference, he veered into long explanations of what the government could and could not do, and what it should be doing.
In the Rose Garden, he was a little more trenchant and a lot terser. Yet White House reporters later badgered press secretary Robert Gibbs about whether the president has displayed sufficient rage over the BP spill. Gibbs parried and talked around the question and, before the dialogue had played itself out, several dozen more barrels of petroleum, at least, had flowed out of the Deepwater Horizon well and into the Gulf of Mexico.
Neither a raging president nor commissioners nor crusading prosecutors can stop the oil. All may have a role to play in the larger story surrounding the event but none is central to the solution.
In the meantime, Obama isn't getting very good marks on the spill. By margins of 5-to-10 percentage points, polls taken in late May show that more Americans disapprove than approve of his handling of the crisis. Conservative critics lambaste the president for not doing more about the spill and accuse him of plotting to use it as a pretext to halt offshore drilling. Public support for drilling has dropped dramatically, however, since the "drill, baby, drill" days of 2008; support fell from 62 percent to 45 percent in CBS News polls.
Americans have come to expect their presidents to be able to set right anything that goes wrong. It's an idea that presidential candidates like to nurture -- and maybe none more so than Obama, with his "Yes, we can" slogan -- but no president, once in office, can live up to that expectation. Theater, and a sense of timing, though, can help.
Ronald Reagan went to Berlin and demanded, "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!" And when, two years later, the wall did come down, Reagan's supporters seized on it as proof of his genius and daring. If Obama had gone down to the Gulf at the right moment and declaimed, "BP, plug up this hole!" it wouldn't have stopped the oil any more than Reagan's speech brought down the wall, but it could have been thrilling to his allies.
It wasn't always like this. The biggest oil spill in U.S. history was the Lakeview Gusher, in California. It blew in March 1910 and went on for 18 months. President Taft appears to have said nothing about it. Two statewide Democratic candidates made a point of driving by it one day -- to enjoy the thrilling sight of a fountain of crude.
The Gulf spill, whatever its ultimate dimensions, will clearly inflict far more environmental damage than Lakeview did, given its location. But this is also not an era that is receptive to an "accidents happen" outlook on life.
Obama has been lucky in one aspect: Oil companies are about as unpopular as health insurers. BP makes a handy villain (and the British accent of its CEO, Tony Hayward, may reinforce the point). Polls show that virtually no one approves of BP's handling of the crisis. One puzzle is that an administration that is powerless to address the physical problem -- the oil welling up from below -- has been so slow to turn against the oil company that drilled the hole in the first place.
Sunday, June 6, 2010
Race, Peremptory Challenges and Impartial Juries
Here's an editorial highlighting a recently released study which claims that race is still being used to strike people from juries despite the practice being declared to be a violation of the right to a fair trial in Batson v. Kentucky in 1986.
This applies to 2301 in both our civil liberties and civil rights sections. It's a civil liberties issue because the right to an impartial jury is meant to ensure that government cannot use its power in an arbitrary fashion and make convictions against certain individuals, or groups of individuals more or less likely. It's a civil rights issue because prosecutors in certain states are accused of using it specifically against defendant on the basis of race. The assumption is that a conviction against an African-American defendant is more likely if there are no African-American on the jury.
Relevant Links:
- Batson v. Kentucky.
- The Study: Illegal Racial Discrimination in Jury Trials.
- Peremptory Challenges.
Friday, June 4, 2010
Are Institutional Changes Necessary to Solve Economic Crisis?
William Galston, writing for the Brookings Institution, thinks so and outlines some proposals.
He begins by pointing out previous periods in American history where institutional change was needed to solve crises.
1 - The replacement of the Articles of Confederation with the Constitution helped solidify the newly formed nation.
2 - The passage of the Civil War Amendments (the 13th, 14th and 15th) resolved the ambivalent relationship between the national and state governments in favor of the former.
3 - The creation of the Federal Reserve, the Department of Defense and other large agencies allowed the nation to position itself effectively internationally.
He details a variety of institutional changes he considers necessary to handle our current fiscal mess.
He begins by pointing out previous periods in American history where institutional change was needed to solve crises.
1 - The replacement of the Articles of Confederation with the Constitution helped solidify the newly formed nation.
2 - The passage of the Civil War Amendments (the 13th, 14th and 15th) resolved the ambivalent relationship between the national and state governments in favor of the former.
3 - The creation of the Federal Reserve, the Department of Defense and other large agencies allowed the nation to position itself effectively internationally.
He details a variety of institutional changes he considers necessary to handle our current fiscal mess.
Thursday, June 3, 2010
The Politics of the Oil Spill
A few random notes:
- Obama has proposed tighter regulations in the wake of the oil spill, but oil companies are working to halt them.
- Criminal investigations have begun. And oil companies may lose tax breaks as well.
- What impact will the spill have on the Obama Presidency? Is it his spill now? Does the spill create an opportunity to advance clean energy? Does it minimize the chance to accomplish any other goals he may have had?
- Obama has proposed tighter regulations in the wake of the oil spill, but oil companies are working to halt them.
- Criminal investigations have begun. And oil companies may lose tax breaks as well.
- What impact will the spill have on the Obama Presidency? Is it his spill now? Does the spill create an opportunity to advance clean energy? Does it minimize the chance to accomplish any other goals he may have had?
A Couple Views of the Constitution
Arguments about the meaning and proper interpretation of the U.S. Constitution continue:
- E.J.Dionne discusses David Souter's recent speech criticizing the doctrine of original intent.
update (6-5-10): Linda Greenhouse comments on the speech also. Souter argues that the Constitution contains values that are in conflict and Justices must reconcile, or choose, among those values.
update (6-11-10): Dahlia Lithwick comments on the same speech and thinks Souter is telling Americans to grow up.
- George Will thinks Obama is leaning too far to the Wilsonian approach to the Constitution, which allows for "unlimited" power, and not enough towards Madison's more limited view of governing power.
- E.J.Dionne discusses David Souter's recent speech criticizing the doctrine of original intent.
update (6-5-10): Linda Greenhouse comments on the speech also. Souter argues that the Constitution contains values that are in conflict and Justices must reconcile, or choose, among those values.
update (6-11-10): Dahlia Lithwick comments on the same speech and thinks Souter is telling Americans to grow up.
- George Will thinks Obama is leaning too far to the Wilsonian approach to the Constitution, which allows for "unlimited" power, and not enough towards Madison's more limited view of governing power.
Do Minor Parties Really Impact Major Parties?
Charles Kuffner looks at recent Texas races and sees little evidence that they have -- though Greens are more likely to affect Dems than Libertarians are to affect Reps. Given current volatility, this year might be different.
Wednesday, June 2, 2010
Is There a Right to Racially Discriminate?
From the Washington Post: Can Private Clubs Segregate? If not, what allows government to intervene?
Touching the Third Rail
Should the retirement age be pushed back? Here's some discussion on the topic. Doing so would instantly make Social Security solvent for generations, but proposing doing so might be political suicide.
Repeal the 17th Amendment
Part of the Tea Party platform. But is it either feasible, or wise? Are people anxious to relinquish the right to elect their Senators?
Tuesday, June 1, 2010
Stupid News Story
Slate points out how the AP has recycled the same alarmist story for thirty years as if it was news.
Miranda Warnings Narrowed
The Supreme Court narrowed the impact of Miranda Warnings by ruling that a suspect that remains silent has not implicitly invoked the right against self incrimination. Simply remaining silent is not enough to establish that one claims the right to remain silent. The decision continues the current courts march rightward, in this case in terms of the rights of criminal defendant v the police.
The case is Berghuis v. Thompkins
- ScotusWiki.
- ScotusBlog.
- The Washington Post.
- New York Times.
- The Decision.
The case is Berghuis v. Thompkins
- ScotusWiki.
- ScotusBlog.
- The Washington Post.
- New York Times.
- The Decision.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)