2302s: Consider this early fodder for next week's written assignment, which will most likely ask you to summarize evaluations of Newt Gingrich's 4 year term as Speaker of the House.
The author points out that people who think Congress is broken, they ought to look at Gingrich as the man responsible for that. It argues that he expanded the use of obstructionism as a legislative tactic
Tuesday, January 31, 2012
From the Volokh Conspiracy: Tenth Circuit Upholds Stolen Valor Act
This was the subject of a written assignment in the fall. The Stolen Valor Act, among other things, makes it a crime to lie about having earned military decorations. Does this statutory law violate the freedom of speech?
Can a lie be protected speech under the Constitution?
The 10th Circuit federal court said that it is not protected speech (quotes lifted from Eugene Volokh):
From the majority decision: "As the Supreme Court has observed time and again, false statements of fact do not enjoy constitutional protection, except to the extent necessary to protect more valuable speech. Under this principle, the Stolen Valor Act does not impinge on or chill protected speech, and therefore does not offend the First Amendment."
From the dissent: "The majority holds that such statements — at least when made knowingly and with an intent to deceive — are categorically beyond the protective universe of the First Amendment. In contrast, I believe that the First Amendment generally accords protection to such false statements of fact. Consequently, because it is a content-based restriction on speech, the Stolen Valor Act must satisfy strict scrutiny. This it cannot do."
The Supreme Court apparently will hear this case this session. Look for United States v. Alvarez.
Can a lie be protected speech under the Constitution?
The 10th Circuit federal court said that it is not protected speech (quotes lifted from Eugene Volokh):
From the majority decision: "As the Supreme Court has observed time and again, false statements of fact do not enjoy constitutional protection, except to the extent necessary to protect more valuable speech. Under this principle, the Stolen Valor Act does not impinge on or chill protected speech, and therefore does not offend the First Amendment."
From the dissent: "The majority holds that such statements — at least when made knowingly and with an intent to deceive — are categorically beyond the protective universe of the First Amendment. In contrast, I believe that the First Amendment generally accords protection to such false statements of fact. Consequently, because it is a content-based restriction on speech, the Stolen Valor Act must satisfy strict scrutiny. This it cannot do."
The Supreme Court apparently will hear this case this session. Look for United States v. Alvarez.
A "tsunami of slime"
That's what reporter Joe Hagan calls the current onslaught of Super PAC funded negative advertising - which he projects will only get worse as we dig further into the election.
Here is his cover story about this in the New York Magazine, and a radio interview he did about it later.
Among the points he raises is that millions of dollars are now being spent by Super PACs on opposition research, and they are uncovering far more than any investigative reporter can about any and all of the candidates. They actually develop relationships with reporters in order to get their stories out when they think they will be most effective. They also have sophisticated communications operations that turn this content into effective advertising.
Its a good inside look at today's - post Citizens United - world.
Here is his cover story about this in the New York Magazine, and a radio interview he did about it later.
Among the points he raises is that millions of dollars are now being spent by Super PACs on opposition research, and they are uncovering far more than any investigative reporter can about any and all of the candidates. They actually develop relationships with reporters in order to get their stories out when they think they will be most effective. They also have sophisticated communications operations that turn this content into effective advertising.
Its a good inside look at today's - post Citizens United - world.
Congress is increasingly polarized
This builds off the power below about partisan polarization in approval of Obama. Congress is similarly polarized. This graph shows how the ideological differences between the parties have risen and fallen since the late 1800s. Note that the House is more polarized than the Senate.
Two commentators point out that our system is designed for compromise, and this is unlikely to occur given the polarized environment - which is unlikely to change any time soon. Even following the upcoming election, each party will have the ability to negate what the other attempts to do. More evidence for those who like to argue that Congress is broken.
Two commentators point out that our system is designed for compromise, and this is unlikely to occur given the polarized environment - which is unlikely to change any time soon. Even following the upcoming election, each party will have the ability to negate what the other attempts to do. More evidence for those who like to argue that Congress is broken.
Is there a psychological basis for ideology?
A study suggests that there is. The study shows that people who identify as conservative focus on negative imagery while those who identify as liberal focus on positive images.
- The Daily Show was here first (a bit colorful).
A growing subset within political science focuses on the link between biology and ideology. Here's a recent articles (gated).
- The Daily Show was here first (a bit colorful).
A growing subset within political science focuses on the link between biology and ideology. Here's a recent articles (gated).
Obama's Polarized Ratings
The Gallup Poll reports that Obama's approval ratings are among the most polarized ratings - based on partisanship - yet measured.
Clinton has emerged, at least in hindsight, as one of the least polarizing presidents.
Clinton has emerged, at least in hindsight, as one of the least polarizing presidents.
The Florida Primary is today
Its winner take all, fifty delegates are up for graps.
The polls show Mitt Romney with a large lead.
- Wikipedia: Florida Republican primary, 2012.
- Wikipedia: Republican Party presidential primaries, 2012.
- Washington Post story.
- NYT story.
The polls show Mitt Romney with a large lead.
- Wikipedia: Florida Republican primary, 2012.
- Wikipedia: Republican Party presidential primaries, 2012.
- Washington Post story.
- NYT story.
Bills on insider trading and the Buffet tax advance in the Senate
From the NYT:
In an effort to regain public trust, the Senate voted Monday to take up a bill that would prohibit members of Congress from trading stocks and other securities on the basis of confidential information they receive as lawmakers.
Senators of both parties said the bill was desperately needed at a time when the public approval rating of Congress had sunk below 15 percent.
The insider trading bill is called the Stop Trading on Congressional Knowledge Act, or Stock Act. A similar bill passed the House last year.
The bill states that members and employees of Congress are not exempt from the federal law and regulations that ban insider trading.
“No member of Congress and no employee of Congress shall use any nonpublic information derived from the individual’s position as a member of Congress or employee of Congress, or gained from performance of the individual’s duties, for personal benefit,” the bill says.
. . . The bill also requires members of Congress to disclose the purchase or sale of stocks, bonds, commodities futures and other forms of securities within 30 days of transactions. The information would be posted on the Web in a searchable format.
. . . the bill does not subject lawmakers to a second type of restriction suggested by Mr. Obama, who said Congress should “limit any elected official from owning stocks in industries they impact.”
This seems likely to pass, the Buffet tax less so:
Households with adjusted annual gross incomes over $1 million would prepare their taxes as they do now, with all the deductions, credits and loopholes intact. They would also calculate what 30 percent of their adjusted gross income amounts to. They would then pay whichever amount was larger.
Republicans showed no sign of coming to the table on the Buffett Rule legislation. Senator Orrin G. Hatch of Utah, the ranking Republican on the Senate Finance Committee, said he had breakfast with Mr. Buffett on Sunday, but rejected his personal entreaties. He cited an estimate by the liberal-leaning Citizens for Tax Justice that the proposal would raise $50 billion a year, a small percentage of a budget deficit that will probably top $1 trillion.
In an effort to regain public trust, the Senate voted Monday to take up a bill that would prohibit members of Congress from trading stocks and other securities on the basis of confidential information they receive as lawmakers.
Senators of both parties said the bill was desperately needed at a time when the public approval rating of Congress had sunk below 15 percent.
The insider trading bill is called the Stop Trading on Congressional Knowledge Act, or Stock Act. A similar bill passed the House last year.
The bill states that members and employees of Congress are not exempt from the federal law and regulations that ban insider trading.
“No member of Congress and no employee of Congress shall use any nonpublic information derived from the individual’s position as a member of Congress or employee of Congress, or gained from performance of the individual’s duties, for personal benefit,” the bill says.
. . . The bill also requires members of Congress to disclose the purchase or sale of stocks, bonds, commodities futures and other forms of securities within 30 days of transactions. The information would be posted on the Web in a searchable format.
. . . the bill does not subject lawmakers to a second type of restriction suggested by Mr. Obama, who said Congress should “limit any elected official from owning stocks in industries they impact.”
This seems likely to pass, the Buffet tax less so:
Households with adjusted annual gross incomes over $1 million would prepare their taxes as they do now, with all the deductions, credits and loopholes intact. They would also calculate what 30 percent of their adjusted gross income amounts to. They would then pay whichever amount was larger.
Republicans showed no sign of coming to the table on the Buffett Rule legislation. Senator Orrin G. Hatch of Utah, the ranking Republican on the Senate Finance Committee, said he had breakfast with Mr. Buffett on Sunday, but rejected his personal entreaties. He cited an estimate by the liberal-leaning Citizens for Tax Justice that the proposal would raise $50 billion a year, a small percentage of a budget deficit that will probably top $1 trillion.
Monday, January 30, 2012
Congress to Investigate Freddie Mac
From NPR:
Several U.S. lawmakers and prominent economists on Monday said Congress and the White House should end a financial conflict of interest at the taxpayer-owned mortgage company Freddie Mac.
Freddie Mac, which has a public mission to help make home ownership affordable, also has placed multibillion-dollar bets against American homeowners being able to refinance to cheaper mortgages. NPR, in partnership with ProPublica, an independent, nonprofit newsroom, first revealed Freddie's bets on NPR during Monday's Morning Edition.
Later in the day, Sen. Bob Casey, D-Pa., expressed "outrage" in a letter to President Obama, calling on the White House to "to put an end to these practices."
Freddie's regulator, the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA), late Monday issued a statement saying that last year, it began assessing Freddie Mac's controversial investment strategy. In December, "Freddie Mac agreed that these transactions would not resume pending completion of the examination work," it said.
Oversight on the way....
- More from ABC.
- From Pro Publica: Freddie Mac Bets Against American Homeowners.
Several U.S. lawmakers and prominent economists on Monday said Congress and the White House should end a financial conflict of interest at the taxpayer-owned mortgage company Freddie Mac.
Freddie Mac, which has a public mission to help make home ownership affordable, also has placed multibillion-dollar bets against American homeowners being able to refinance to cheaper mortgages. NPR, in partnership with ProPublica, an independent, nonprofit newsroom, first revealed Freddie's bets on NPR during Monday's Morning Edition.
Later in the day, Sen. Bob Casey, D-Pa., expressed "outrage" in a letter to President Obama, calling on the White House to "to put an end to these practices."
Freddie's regulator, the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA), late Monday issued a statement saying that last year, it began assessing Freddie Mac's controversial investment strategy. In December, "Freddie Mac agreed that these transactions would not resume pending completion of the examination work," it said.
Oversight on the way....
- More from ABC.
- From Pro Publica: Freddie Mac Bets Against American Homeowners.
Why Tuesday?
A non-profit organization wants to know why we vote on Tuesday? If we want to increase voter turnout (and not everyone does) why not have it on a weekend? Most other democracies do.
From the NYT: Newt Gingrich and the Future of the Right
Thomas Edsall looks at the dilemmas facing members of the Christian Right as they try to settle on a Republican to back. He argues that the movement is still trying to adjust to the shifting opinions in the general electorate. This applies to the entire party as well:
The larger issue facing the Republican Party is how it will respond to political market forces, to the pressure of changes in public opinion. The party could open up beyond its core believers to accommodate old-school Republican moderates and hold on to its libertarians and still have decent size, strength and power.
But the country is going through a profound restructuring in moral and economic thinking and the danger for Republicans is that their current coalition might become obsolete. If the party doesn’t adapt, the alternative is that its power centers — the Christian right, anti-immigration forces, and proponents of policies that benefit the affluent at the expense of the less well-off — will refuse to adjust, in which case the party risks going the way of the Studebaker.
In 2301 we will be discussing parties soon enough and come to terms with their coalition nature - they each tend to be composed of groups that fight among each other for control.
The larger issue facing the Republican Party is how it will respond to political market forces, to the pressure of changes in public opinion. The party could open up beyond its core believers to accommodate old-school Republican moderates and hold on to its libertarians and still have decent size, strength and power.
But the country is going through a profound restructuring in moral and economic thinking and the danger for Republicans is that their current coalition might become obsolete. If the party doesn’t adapt, the alternative is that its power centers — the Christian right, anti-immigration forces, and proponents of policies that benefit the affluent at the expense of the less well-off — will refuse to adjust, in which case the party risks going the way of the Studebaker.
In 2301 we will be discussing parties soon enough and come to terms with their coalition nature - they each tend to be composed of groups that fight among each other for control.
Sunday, January 29, 2012
Obama meets with House Democrats at retreat
A week after House Republicans met to start off the new session, House Democrats did the same. President Obama spoke to the group to attempt to rally them as the election season heats up. His ability to rally them in the past has been considered suspect.
Some stories regarding the meeting:
- Obama rallies House Democrats at retreat.
- House Democrats Huddle With Biden and Obama Today.
- President, Buoyed by Rising Numbers, Seeks to Rally Democrats.
The feeling seems to be that improving economic numbers combined with questions about either of his potential rivals make re-election (never a guarantee) more likely, and that an enthusiastic base would be more likely to make that happen. House Democrats are toying with the possibility that they may be able to take back the House this year, though other caution that redistricting and restrictions on voting may make this more difficult.
Some stories regarding the meeting:
- Obama rallies House Democrats at retreat.
- House Democrats Huddle With Biden and Obama Today.
- President, Buoyed by Rising Numbers, Seeks to Rally Democrats.
The feeling seems to be that improving economic numbers combined with questions about either of his potential rivals make re-election (never a guarantee) more likely, and that an enthusiastic base would be more likely to make that happen. House Democrats are toying with the possibility that they may be able to take back the House this year, though other caution that redistricting and restrictions on voting may make this more difficult.
A year after the start of the Arab Spring, now what?
Something for 2301:
Revolutions, including the American revolution, tend to have two distinct part. The first is the fight for either independence, or to overthrow an existing regime, and it generally includes a broad coalition of groups that have a shared grievance against the existing leadership. The second is the fight over what is to replace the now defunct regime and it usually outs those coalitions that had been allies, in conflict with each other.
The first step in the American Revolution was the war of independence, and the roughly 2/3rds of the colonial population that were not loyalists cooperated more or less to achieve independence. After the Treaty of Paris was signed, the battle in the United States pitted the commercial classes against the agrarians over whose interests were going to be protected in the new republic. The ratification of the Constitution was a victory for the commercial classes.
That seems to be a useful way to frame the state of the Arab Spring. A series of nations threw off autocratic rule, but none have as yet determined exactly what will replace them. Each nation had a different history and the institutions in each are at different level of development. Some. like Libya, have to build them from scratch. Others, like Egypt, have established institutions, but there is no indication yet which forces in society will control them.
This will be monitored for years, if not decades.
Revolutions, including the American revolution, tend to have two distinct part. The first is the fight for either independence, or to overthrow an existing regime, and it generally includes a broad coalition of groups that have a shared grievance against the existing leadership. The second is the fight over what is to replace the now defunct regime and it usually outs those coalitions that had been allies, in conflict with each other.
The first step in the American Revolution was the war of independence, and the roughly 2/3rds of the colonial population that were not loyalists cooperated more or less to achieve independence. After the Treaty of Paris was signed, the battle in the United States pitted the commercial classes against the agrarians over whose interests were going to be protected in the new republic. The ratification of the Constitution was a victory for the commercial classes.
That seems to be a useful way to frame the state of the Arab Spring. A series of nations threw off autocratic rule, but none have as yet determined exactly what will replace them. Each nation had a different history and the institutions in each are at different level of development. Some. like Libya, have to build them from scratch. Others, like Egypt, have established institutions, but there is no indication yet which forces in society will control them.
This will be monitored for years, if not decades.
The conflict over SOPA and PIPA was good for lobbyists
First, content providers spent tons of cash lobbying in favor of them, then Google and Wikipedia began spending money to fight it. And all this money may end up simply leading to a stalemate.
Congressional Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) Caucus
A telling story from Open Secrets. Four leading military contractors who stand to benefit from the development of a new fighter have contributed just over $300,000 to the campaigns of 48 House members who have joined the Congressional Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) Caucus. The bulk of the money is going to the co-chairs of the caucus. Considering the amount of money spent on the program, the contributions seem tiny. A potentially wise investment.
One of the co-chairs is Kay Granger who represents a district surrounding Fort Worth, where these fighters will very likely be built. Other members of the caucus also represent district that will receive benefits from the program, as well as jobs and something to crow about each election.
One of the co-chairs is Kay Granger who represents a district surrounding Fort Worth, where these fighters will very likely be built. Other members of the caucus also represent district that will receive benefits from the program, as well as jobs and something to crow about each election.
3 - Written Assignment GOVT 2301 Spring Semester
If you've been following the news, the post office is in trouble financially. Online communication has made its business model somewhat problematic. So you might ask: why do we have a federally run post office to begin with? As we will see this week as we look over the structure of the Constitution, it seems to be one of the delegated powers of the national government:
Article One, Section Eight, Clause Seven is the Postal Clause: The Congress shall have the power to "establish Post Offices and post Roads".
I want you to find out why that particular clause is in the Constitution (what was the "intent" of the founders regarding the post office), what the current debate is regarding the state of the post office and how is may be modified to deal with the current realities of 21st century communications.
Article One, Section Eight, Clause Seven is the Postal Clause: The Congress shall have the power to "establish Post Offices and post Roads".
I want you to find out why that particular clause is in the Constitution (what was the "intent" of the founders regarding the post office), what the current debate is regarding the state of the post office and how is may be modified to deal with the current realities of 21st century communications.
3 - Written Assignment GOVT 2302 Spring Semester
This week we will be reading through Article 1 of the US Constitution and Article 3 of the Texas Constitution which outline, respectively, the US Congress and the Texas Legislature. As we already know, they are bicameral, meaning that they are composed of two fundamentally different chambers, one which is connected somewhat tightly to the preferences of the electorate, and the other which is not. Conflict between the House and the Senate is intentional and ought to be considered to be part of the broader system of checks and balances - one that is fully internal within the legislature.
But then again, maybe this claim is unwarranted. Perhaps they rubber stamp each other's decisions.
I want you to look through the news and find examples of conflict between the House and the Senate and try to come to terms with the nature of that conflict. Does it seem to be due to the fundamental difference between the two institutions? Any recent news item will do. Do they seem to be checking each other as they were constitutionally intended to?
But then again, maybe this claim is unwarranted. Perhaps they rubber stamp each other's decisions.
I want you to look through the news and find examples of conflict between the House and the Senate and try to come to terms with the nature of that conflict. Does it seem to be due to the fundamental difference between the two institutions? Any recent news item will do. Do they seem to be checking each other as they were constitutionally intended to?
Thursday, January 26, 2012
Policy Proposals in the SOTU
Ezra Klein runs through five major policy proposals in the State of the Union Address. These will give us something to chew on over the semester as we discuss public policy, the pros and cons of different proposals and whether they are politically feasible.
1 - The Buffet Tax - which loosely argues that secretaries should not be taxed at a higher rate than bosses. More specifically, people making more than $1 million a year should pay at least a 30% tax rate.
2 - A Global Minimum Tax must be established to multinational companies will not have an incentive to shelter their incomes in countries with lower tax rates than ours.
3 - An infrastructure bill where half of the savings of ending the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan will be spent building up roads, bridges, dams etc here at home.
4 - A mass refinancing plan to allow more home-owners to refinance their mortgages.
5 - An expedited process for voting up or down on nominees in the Senate.
Expect written questions on some of these subjects in the near future.
1 - The Buffet Tax - which loosely argues that secretaries should not be taxed at a higher rate than bosses. More specifically, people making more than $1 million a year should pay at least a 30% tax rate.
2 - A Global Minimum Tax must be established to multinational companies will not have an incentive to shelter their incomes in countries with lower tax rates than ours.
3 - An infrastructure bill where half of the savings of ending the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan will be spent building up roads, bridges, dams etc here at home.
4 - A mass refinancing plan to allow more home-owners to refinance their mortgages.
5 - An expedited process for voting up or down on nominees in the Senate.
Expect written questions on some of these subjects in the near future.
Wednesday, January 25, 2012
Some hearings in the House: 1/25/12
For 2302, in order to get comfortable with committees and the legislative process. These links are from the House website as of today:
- Hearing: A Legislative Hearing on H.R. 3548, the North American Energy Access Act. Committee on Energy and Commerce: Subcommittee on Energy and Power.
- Business Meeting: To consider legislation amending Title VII of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. Committee on Agriculture: Full Committee
- Hearing: H.R. 3582, H.R. 3578, H.R. 3581, H.R. 3575. Committee On The Budget: Full CommitteeThe bills listed separately:
- H.R. 3582, Pro-Growth Budgeting Act of 2011
- H.R. 3578, Baseline Reform Act of 2011
- H.R. 3581, Budget and Accounting Transparency Act of 2011
- H.R. 3575, Legally Binding Budget Act of 2011
Here are three separate hearings in the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee
- Hearing: Volt Vehicle Fire: What Did NHTSA Know And When Did They Know It? Committee on Oversight and Government Reform: Subcommittee on Regulatory Affairs.
- Hearing: Retirement Readiness: Strengthening The Federal Pension System. Committee on Oversight and Government Reform: Subcommittee on Federal Workforce
- Hearing: Solutions Needed: Improper Payments Total $115 Billion In Federal Misspending. Committee on Oversight and Government Reform: Subcommittee on Government Organization
- Hearing: A Legislative Hearing on H.R. 3548, the North American Energy Access Act. Committee on Energy and Commerce: Subcommittee on Energy and Power.
- Business Meeting: To consider legislation amending Title VII of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. Committee on Agriculture: Full Committee
- Hearing: H.R. 3582, H.R. 3578, H.R. 3581, H.R. 3575. Committee On The Budget: Full CommitteeThe bills listed separately:
- H.R. 3582, Pro-Growth Budgeting Act of 2011
- H.R. 3578, Baseline Reform Act of 2011
- H.R. 3581, Budget and Accounting Transparency Act of 2011
- H.R. 3575, Legally Binding Budget Act of 2011
Here are three separate hearings in the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee
- Hearing: Volt Vehicle Fire: What Did NHTSA Know And When Did They Know It? Committee on Oversight and Government Reform: Subcommittee on Regulatory Affairs.
- Hearing: Retirement Readiness: Strengthening The Federal Pension System. Committee on Oversight and Government Reform: Subcommittee on Federal Workforce
- Hearing: Solutions Needed: Improper Payments Total $115 Billion In Federal Misspending. Committee on Oversight and Government Reform: Subcommittee on Government Organization
Tuesday, January 24, 2012
Blueprint for Basic Tax Reform
In a link buried below, Bruce Bartlett points to a 1977 report on tax reform. Here's a link to it. This might make a good subject for a 2302 written assignment when we touch on fiscal policy.
From the Austin American Statesman: Conservative groups disagree on gambling
Last week in 2301 we introduced the topic of ideology and how it helps us understand political conflict. Liberals on one side of issues and conservatives on the other. I mentioned this is simplistic and stumbled across an article pointing out a conservative split on whether gambling - casino gambling most likely - should be permitted in the state.
On one side you have the Americans for Tax Reform and small government / anti tax guru Grover Norquist. He wrote a letter to state legislators urging them to consider expanding gambling in order to counter projected budget problems during the next session.
On the other is the Texas Public Policy, which shares some of the same small government goals, but is funded by individuals with social conservative backgrounds. They'd rather not see gambling in the state. Morally minded conservatives tend to oppose gambling. So there's your tension.
Liberals tend to also be split by gambling as well, so perhaps this is one of those issues that ideology as we know it does not help us make sense of.
Here's input from a smart guy - and the general topic of the internal and external coherence of ideology:
I remember thinking about this several years ago regarding positions on legalized gambling (casinos, state lotteries, and the like). Some commentators were liberal and pro-gambling (people should be allowed to gamble if they want, without fundamentalist bible thumpers telling them what to do), some were conservative and pro-gambling (people should be allowed to gamble if they want, without do-gooder liberals telling them what to do), and similarly on the other side. And I recall reading passionate arguments from various of these perspectives.
On aggregate, I suspect there’s a slight correlation between being a liberal or Democrat and supporting gambling (it’s a traditional morals issue, after all, William F. Bennett notwithstanding), but the correlation is surely weak if there at all
On one side you have the Americans for Tax Reform and small government / anti tax guru Grover Norquist. He wrote a letter to state legislators urging them to consider expanding gambling in order to counter projected budget problems during the next session.
On the other is the Texas Public Policy, which shares some of the same small government goals, but is funded by individuals with social conservative backgrounds. They'd rather not see gambling in the state. Morally minded conservatives tend to oppose gambling. So there's your tension.
Liberals tend to also be split by gambling as well, so perhaps this is one of those issues that ideology as we know it does not help us make sense of.
Here's input from a smart guy - and the general topic of the internal and external coherence of ideology:
I remember thinking about this several years ago regarding positions on legalized gambling (casinos, state lotteries, and the like). Some commentators were liberal and pro-gambling (people should be allowed to gamble if they want, without fundamentalist bible thumpers telling them what to do), some were conservative and pro-gambling (people should be allowed to gamble if they want, without do-gooder liberals telling them what to do), and similarly on the other side. And I recall reading passionate arguments from various of these perspectives.
On aggregate, I suspect there’s a slight correlation between being a liberal or Democrat and supporting gambling (it’s a traditional morals issue, after all, William F. Bennett notwithstanding), but the correlation is surely weak if there at all
Tax Reform and the State of the Union Address
Romney's revelation that he paid a 13.9% effective tax rate on his recent taxes may spur attention to tax reform. Both former TX Rep. Martin Frost and Andrew Sullivan think Obama should highlight tax reform (Bruce Bartlett's suggestions are here) in his State of the Union message tonight. This article reports that it will be a major component of the speech. Frost suggests that he can argue for lower rates, while cutting back on exemptions, and end up with a system that is both more equitable and collects more revenue.
In a related post, Sullivan wonders how and why the capital gains tax rate is so low compared with rates applied to earned income. The how should be interesting to us, and might be the subject of a written assignment some time in the near future. What political forces were able to drive down the capital gains rate at the expense of other tax rates?
Neat symbolism: Obama supports the "Buffet Rule" which simply states that the tax code should not force Warren Buffett's secretary should not have to pay a higher rate than her boss. Buffett's secretary will be at the speech tonight.
In a related post, Sullivan wonders how and why the capital gains tax rate is so low compared with rates applied to earned income. The how should be interesting to us, and might be the subject of a written assignment some time in the near future. What political forces were able to drive down the capital gains rate at the expense of other tax rates?
Neat symbolism: Obama supports the "Buffet Rule" which simply states that the tax code should not force Warren Buffett's secretary should not have to pay a higher rate than her boss. Buffett's secretary will be at the speech tonight.
Perry's departure
Before too much time passes, here's a rundown of various reactions to Perry's withdrawal from the presidential race.
Aside from comments about what makes a good campaign and what doesn't, the most interesting thought concerns what this means for Perry's future. How much pull does he still have in the state?
Aside from comments about what makes a good campaign and what doesn't, the most interesting thought concerns what this means for Perry's future. How much pull does he still have in the state?
Monday, January 23, 2012
Montana Challenges Citizens United
The Montana Supreme Court has defied the US Supreme Court by upholding state law - the 1912 Corrupt Practices Act - which places limits on corporate contributions, the exact thing that the US Supreme Court found to violate free speech rights in the increasingly infamous Citizens United decision.
The Montana law was passed as a direct consequence of corruption instigated by corporations - copper companies primarily - doing business in the state. The state claims that this is still an issue justifying limits of corporate election financing. The case will be appealed to the Supreme Court, which has the opportunity to revisit it previous ruling.
For further info:
- Montana High Court Says 'Citizens United' Does Not Apply In Big Sky State.
- Montana State Supreme Court: Citizens United Not Welcome Here.
- The Beginning of the End of Citizens United?
The Montana law was passed as a direct consequence of corruption instigated by corporations - copper companies primarily - doing business in the state. The state claims that this is still an issue justifying limits of corporate election financing. The case will be appealed to the Supreme Court, which has the opportunity to revisit it previous ruling.
For further info:
- Montana High Court Says 'Citizens United' Does Not Apply In Big Sky State.
- Montana State Supreme Court: Citizens United Not Welcome Here.
- The Beginning of the End of Citizens United?
In the US Senate today . . .
Just to keep up to date, from January 23rd's calendar:
4:00 p.m.: Proceed to executive session to consider the nomination of John M. Gerrard to be United States District Judge for the District of Nebraska.
The Senate Glossary defines an executive session as one where "A portion of the Senate's daily session in which it considers executive business." Wikipedia's section on the standing rules of the Senate has more, in addition to a list of the executive positions subject to advise and consent.
Here's background on John M. Gerrard. He was appointed on the recommendation of retiring Nebraska Senator Ben Nelson. This is the customary way that Federal District Judges are appointment when one of the state's US Senators are of the same party as the president. Alabama Senator Sessions has opposed Gerrard's nomination partly due to an opinion he issued challenging whether the executions by electric chair was constitutional.
If approved, Gerrard would fill a vacancy on the court (here's the Wikipedia page for the court, here's the court's website) and become its sixth judge. This is the only district court for the state of Nebraska. There are 89 such courts across the country. Each state has to have one according to the Constitution.
What is a US District Judge you ask? The US Court's website explains (its the trial court on the federal level) here's more info from the relevant Wikipedia page.
The appointment and confirmation has become increasingly contentious. Senate rules allow a minority to prevent confirmation votes - or any vote really - from going to the floor. Reports suggest that judicial vacancies have risen during the Obama Administration. Here are numbers from the US Courts site and judicialnomination.org.
For a list of Obama's judicial nominees, click here.
4:00 p.m.: Proceed to executive session to consider the nomination of John M. Gerrard to be United States District Judge for the District of Nebraska.
The Senate Glossary defines an executive session as one where "A portion of the Senate's daily session in which it considers executive business." Wikipedia's section on the standing rules of the Senate has more, in addition to a list of the executive positions subject to advise and consent.
Here's background on John M. Gerrard. He was appointed on the recommendation of retiring Nebraska Senator Ben Nelson. This is the customary way that Federal District Judges are appointment when one of the state's US Senators are of the same party as the president. Alabama Senator Sessions has opposed Gerrard's nomination partly due to an opinion he issued challenging whether the executions by electric chair was constitutional.
If approved, Gerrard would fill a vacancy on the court (here's the Wikipedia page for the court, here's the court's website) and become its sixth judge. This is the only district court for the state of Nebraska. There are 89 such courts across the country. Each state has to have one according to the Constitution.
What is a US District Judge you ask? The US Court's website explains (its the trial court on the federal level) here's more info from the relevant Wikipedia page.
The appointment and confirmation has become increasingly contentious. Senate rules allow a minority to prevent confirmation votes - or any vote really - from going to the floor. Reports suggest that judicial vacancies have risen during the Obama Administration. Here are numbers from the US Courts site and judicialnomination.org.
For a list of Obama's judicial nominees, click here.
The police need warrants needed to put GPS devices on cars.
This wraps up another case we first discussed in the fall.
From the Washington Post:
The Supreme Court ruled unanimously Monday
that police must obtain a search warrant before using a GPS device to
track criminal suspects. But the justices left for another day larger
questions about how technology has altered a person’s expectation of
privacy.
Justice Antonin Scalia wrote that the government needed a valid warrant before attaching a GPS device to the Jeep used by D.C. drug kingpin Antoine Jones, who was convicted in part because police tracked his movements on public roads for 28 days.
“We hold that the government’s installation of a GPS device on a target’s vehicle, and its use of that device to monitor the vehicle’s movements, constitutes a ‘search’ ” under the Fourth Amendment’s protection against unreasonable searches and seizures, Scalia wrote.
More from ScotusBlog, including links to all relevant court documents.
From the Washington Post:
Justice Antonin Scalia wrote that the government needed a valid warrant before attaching a GPS device to the Jeep used by D.C. drug kingpin Antoine Jones, who was convicted in part because police tracked his movements on public roads for 28 days.
“We hold that the government’s installation of a GPS device on a target’s vehicle, and its use of that device to monitor the vehicle’s movements, constitutes a ‘search’ ” under the Fourth Amendment’s protection against unreasonable searches and seizures, Scalia wrote.
More from ScotusBlog, including links to all relevant court documents.
Sunday, January 22, 2012
Some Legislative News
For this week's 2302 as we begin discussing the legislature, some random news items:
- House approves symbolic resolution disapproving of debt-ceiling raise.
- Votes scheduled for this week in the House:
- - Buffalo Soldiers in the National Parks Study Act
- - Permanent Electronic Duck Stamp Act of 2011
- - Rota Cultural and Natural Resources Study Act
- - World War II Memorial Prayer Act of 2011
- House Republicans huddle to debate 2012 tax strategy.
- Recovering Giffords Steps Down.
- House GOP Uses Retreat to Lay 2012 Plans.
- House approves symbolic resolution disapproving of debt-ceiling raise.
- Votes scheduled for this week in the House:
- - Buffalo Soldiers in the National Parks Study Act
- - Permanent Electronic Duck Stamp Act of 2011
- - Rota Cultural and Natural Resources Study Act
- - World War II Memorial Prayer Act of 2011
- House Republicans huddle to debate 2012 tax strategy.
- Recovering Giffords Steps Down.
- House GOP Uses Retreat to Lay 2012 Plans.
One Person One Vote under fire?
Possibly. ScotusBlog outlines a recent decision by the Supreme Court wondering whether the requirements that districts redrawn every ten years be done so that each has the exact number of people in them. At various points in 2301 and 2302 we discuss Baker v Carr, which established the concept of equal representation in newly redrawn districts. This decision might represent a scaling back of that decision.
Supreme Court throws out judge drawn district map
The saga that is Texas' districting plan continues. From the Washington Post:
The Supreme Court on Friday set aside court-drawn redistricting plans for Texas that were favored by minorities and Democrats, saying the lower court “exceeded its mission” by not deferring to maps drawn by the state legislature.
In an unsigned opinion that drew no dissents, the justices said a legislature’s reapportionment plan should be the “starting point” for judges who are called upon to draw maps when there are constitutional challenges. . .
. . . The Supreme Court’s opinion was the first round in a series of looming challenges in which the justices are likely to be asked to referee battles over redistricting, the application of the Voting Rights Act of 1964 and the Obama administration’s vow to police voter law changes enacted by Republican-dominated state legislatures.
The Supreme Court decision can be found here. The San Antonio court has to redraw the map, which means that it is likely that Texas' primary - which has already been postponed until April - will be postponed further until June. Commentators point out that Clarence Thomas authored a concurring opinion arguing that the requirement that Texas' district maps be pre-cleared - based in the Voting Rights Act - is unconstitutional. No one else signed along.
The Supreme Court on Friday set aside court-drawn redistricting plans for Texas that were favored by minorities and Democrats, saying the lower court “exceeded its mission” by not deferring to maps drawn by the state legislature.
In an unsigned opinion that drew no dissents, the justices said a legislature’s reapportionment plan should be the “starting point” for judges who are called upon to draw maps when there are constitutional challenges. . .
. . . The Supreme Court’s opinion was the first round in a series of looming challenges in which the justices are likely to be asked to referee battles over redistricting, the application of the Voting Rights Act of 1964 and the Obama administration’s vow to police voter law changes enacted by Republican-dominated state legislatures.
The Supreme Court decision can be found here. The San Antonio court has to redraw the map, which means that it is likely that Texas' primary - which has already been postponed until April - will be postponed further until June. Commentators point out that Clarence Thomas authored a concurring opinion arguing that the requirement that Texas' district maps be pre-cleared - based in the Voting Rights Act - is unconstitutional. No one else signed along.
2 - Written Assignment GOVT 2302 Spring Semester
As we've mentioned in class - and as I've posted on below - President Obama's recent resess appointments have raised an important two fold question that the courts will likely have to weigh in on soon. First, what is a session of Congress - and does a pro-forma session qualify as a real session? And second, who gets to make this decision?
I want you to research and review the argumwents on either side of the issue and speculate on what decision is likely to be made ultimately.
150 words at a minimum, remember to submit this in blackboard.
Here are past posts on recess appointments.
I want you to research and review the argumwents on either side of the issue and speculate on what decision is likely to be made ultimately.
150 words at a minimum, remember to submit this in blackboard.
Here are past posts on recess appointments.
2 - Written Assignment GOVT 2301 Spring Semester
As I suggested below, this week I want my 2301s to weigh in on the possible implications of a bit of loose language in the Declaration of Independence - which is the subject of this week's class.
The sentence itself is quite famous: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." The word "among" suggests that there are more than three listed, but how are we to figure out what those additional rights might be? And what does this tell about conflicts about the meaning of fundamental documents?
In 150 words weigh in on this question: Are there unalienable rights that exist beyond the three listed in the Declaration of Independence? If so, how can we tell what they night be? That last part might be the tricky part.
This will set us up for a further exploration of conflicts over the meaning of language within the Constitution.
The sentence itself is quite famous: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." The word "among" suggests that there are more than three listed, but how are we to figure out what those additional rights might be? And what does this tell about conflicts about the meaning of fundamental documents?
In 150 words weigh in on this question: Are there unalienable rights that exist beyond the three listed in the Declaration of Independence? If so, how can we tell what they night be? That last part might be the tricky part.
This will set us up for a further exploration of conflicts over the meaning of language within the Constitution.
Who represents future generations?
Here's a provocative read that relates to both 2301 and 2302. We are a representative democracy under the theory that people ought to be able to consent to the rules that will impact us, but many decisions made today really only have an impact - good or bad - on future generations.
How are their interests best represented?
How are their interests best represented?
Five Public Policy Priorities
Here's one person's list of 5 trends calling for attention by government leaders. We can file this away for a future 2302 discussion of public policy.
In reverse order:
5. The U.S.’s Strategic Pivot Toward the Pacific
4. Technological Changes Empowering Small Groups and Non-State Actors
3. Political Dysfunction
2. Natural Resource Scarcity
1. America’s National Debt
In reverse order:
5. The U.S.’s Strategic Pivot Toward the Pacific
4. Technological Changes Empowering Small Groups and Non-State Actors
3. Political Dysfunction
2. Natural Resource Scarcity
1. America’s National Debt
Saturday, January 21, 2012
The Magna Carta in the news
I'm preparing material for next week's 2301 and 2302, both of which will include discussions of the Magna Carta and its role in the establishment of the foundation for our Constitution and our governing institutions.
Here are a couple stories where the document has been recently cited.
First, three freshmen members of the New Hampshire legislature have introduced legislation - HB 1580 - that will require legislation to find its origins in the Magna Carta.
From the bill: "All members of the general court proposing bills and resolutions addressing individual rights or liberties shall include a direct quote from the Magna Carta which sets forth the article from which the individual right or liberty is derived," is the bill's one sentence.
Commentators wonder whether this is in fact feasible. Plus there are some problmatic parts of the charter dealing with religious minorities. The authors of the bill have admitted to not actually having read much of the document.
Second, the Supreme Court - in a unanimous decision - ruled that religious organizations are exempt from following laws limiting unequal treatment for the disabled because doing so would allow government to wade into the issue of who is and is not a minister. The decision introduces logic dating back to language in the Magna Carta (see section one) stating that the "church shall be free." Here's quote from the decision:
Controversy between church and state over religious offices is hardly new. In 1215, the issue was addressed in the very first clause of Magna Carta. There, King John agreed that "the English church shall be free, and shall have its rights undiminished and its liberties unimpaired." [*7] The King in particular accepted the "freedom of elections," a right "thought to be of the greatest necessity and importance to the English church." J. Holt, Magna Carta App. IV, p. 317, cl. 1 (1965).
The ministerial exception - where laws applying to you and I may not necessarily apply to ministers - builds off this statement. It continues to discuss the evolving nature of the separation between church and state after this episode. I suggest you try reading through it.
- The entire case from ScotusBlog.
Here are a couple stories where the document has been recently cited.
First, three freshmen members of the New Hampshire legislature have introduced legislation - HB 1580 - that will require legislation to find its origins in the Magna Carta.
From the bill: "All members of the general court proposing bills and resolutions addressing individual rights or liberties shall include a direct quote from the Magna Carta which sets forth the article from which the individual right or liberty is derived," is the bill's one sentence.
Commentators wonder whether this is in fact feasible. Plus there are some problmatic parts of the charter dealing with religious minorities. The authors of the bill have admitted to not actually having read much of the document.
Second, the Supreme Court - in a unanimous decision - ruled that religious organizations are exempt from following laws limiting unequal treatment for the disabled because doing so would allow government to wade into the issue of who is and is not a minister. The decision introduces logic dating back to language in the Magna Carta (see section one) stating that the "church shall be free." Here's quote from the decision:
Controversy between church and state over religious offices is hardly new. In 1215, the issue was addressed in the very first clause of Magna Carta. There, King John agreed that "the English church shall be free, and shall have its rights undiminished and its liberties unimpaired." [*7] The King in particular accepted the "freedom of elections," a right "thought to be of the greatest necessity and importance to the English church." J. Holt, Magna Carta App. IV, p. 317, cl. 1 (1965).
The ministerial exception - where laws applying to you and I may not necessarily apply to ministers - builds off this statement. It continues to discuss the evolving nature of the separation between church and state after this episode. I suggest you try reading through it.
- The entire case from ScotusBlog.
Friday, January 20, 2012
Thinking about next week's written assignments
I haven;t finalized these yet, but for 2301 I'll probably ask something very loose about how were might determine what unalienable rights might exist "among" those written in the Declaration of Independence. For 2302, a more specific question regarding the question raised by Obama's recent recess appointments. What is a session of Congress? What isn't? And perhaps more importantly, who gets to decide.
I'll have them up - probably - Sunday.
I'll have them up - probably - Sunday.
Do Wifi Scum Have First Amendment Rights?
This is a bit too touchy to discuss in class, but it could be worth a read. Should it - or more properly, can it - be a crime to have a racist wifi network name?
Does "stop and frisk" violate the principle of equal treatment before the law?
This story allows us to look ahead to our discussion of the 14th Amendment and the equal protection clause. Young black and Latino males tend to be stopped and searched far more than other people. Does this pose a constitutional problem?
- Wikipedia: Frisking.
- Legal Definition from the Free Dictionary.
- Comments from Legal Zoom.
- Wikipedia: Frisking.
- Legal Definition from the Free Dictionary.
- Comments from Legal Zoom.
What Texas money can't buy
For anyone not named Bush - it can't get you elected President. What does this tell us about the influence of money in politics? Is it overstated? Necessary but not sufficient? Maybe its just a Texas thing.
Today is the one year anniversary of the House vote to repeal health care reform
The bill was called the Repealing the Job Killing Health Care Law Act (HR 2). It failed in the Senate - which was controlled by Democrats -but the Washington Post details changes that have happened to the original bill since it was passed two years ago.
A New Crop of Lobbyists?
A lrage number of members of Congress have announced that they will be retiring after this session and lobbying firms intend to hire them. Its the revolving dorr and helsp explain how iron triangles form.
Corporate headhunters are sizing up the K Street prospects of the retiring members of the 112th Congress — and they like what they see.
Twenty-five representatives and senators so far have announced they will retire from Capitol Hill after this year’s election. Executives who work to place ex-lawmakers at law firms, lobby shops and corporate boards are monitoring the outgoing lawmakers and discussing who could go where — and how much they would earn.
“We are doing a mock draft with some of our clients,” Ivan Adler, a principal with the McCormick Group, told The Hill.
A mock draft - nice analogy.
Corporate headhunters are sizing up the K Street prospects of the retiring members of the 112th Congress — and they like what they see.
Twenty-five representatives and senators so far have announced they will retire from Capitol Hill after this year’s election. Executives who work to place ex-lawmakers at law firms, lobby shops and corporate boards are monitoring the outgoing lawmakers and discussing who could go where — and how much they would earn.
“We are doing a mock draft with some of our clients,” Ivan Adler, a principal with the McCormick Group, told The Hill.
A mock draft - nice analogy.
Did the Blackout Work?
Wikipedia's decision - along with other websites - to close down Wednesday seems to have had an impact on Congress.
The Hill reports that support for the bills crumbled, with Senate Republicans leading the charge.
PC World details the following results:
-4.5 million people signed Google's anti-SOPA/PIPA petition, according to the Los Angeles Times
-25 Senators now oppose PIPA (the Senate version of SOPA), according to OpenCongress
-Twitter saw more than 2.4 million SOPA-related tweets between midnight and 4 p.m. Eastern on Wednesday
-Two SOPA co-sponsors and several others dropped support for the House bill
-More than 162 million people saw Wikipedia's protest page
-More than 8 million people used Wikipedia's search tool to look up their elected representatives' contact information
-News Corp. Chairman and CEO Rupert Murdoch accused "the blogosphere" of "terrorizing many senators and congressmen who previously committed" to SOPA and PIPA.
-Conservative publication The National Review called on Congress to dump SOPA
Here's a nice graphic showing who changed positions on the bill.
The Hill reports that support for the bills crumbled, with Senate Republicans leading the charge.
PC World details the following results:
-4.5 million people signed Google's anti-SOPA/PIPA petition, according to the Los Angeles Times
-25 Senators now oppose PIPA (the Senate version of SOPA), according to OpenCongress
-Twitter saw more than 2.4 million SOPA-related tweets between midnight and 4 p.m. Eastern on Wednesday
-Two SOPA co-sponsors and several others dropped support for the House bill
-More than 162 million people saw Wikipedia's protest page
-More than 8 million people used Wikipedia's search tool to look up their elected representatives' contact information
-News Corp. Chairman and CEO Rupert Murdoch accused "the blogosphere" of "terrorizing many senators and congressmen who previously committed" to SOPA and PIPA.
-Conservative publication The National Review called on Congress to dump SOPA
Here's a nice graphic showing who changed positions on the bill.
Thursday, January 19, 2012
Two Stories Regarding Autocracy
For this week's 2301 introduction:
- Russia's civilization model? It's autocracy. A scholar reacts to Vladimir Putin's claim that his attempt to expand power have been beneficial to Russia.
- Hungary's Rush Towards Autocracy. "Its right-wing nationalist government has launched an assault on its democratic system of government. Using a two-thirds majority in parliament, it has pushed through a new constitution as well as a series of fundamental laws that give the ruling party sweeping powers over the judiciary, the media, churches and the central bank. With the new charter and laws taking effect Jan. 1, the government of Prime Minister Viktor Orban now more resembles the autocratic regimes of Russia and Belarus than fellow E.U. democracies."
- Russia's civilization model? It's autocracy. A scholar reacts to Vladimir Putin's claim that his attempt to expand power have been beneficial to Russia.
- Hungary's Rush Towards Autocracy. "Its right-wing nationalist government has launched an assault on its democratic system of government. Using a two-thirds majority in parliament, it has pushed through a new constitution as well as a series of fundamental laws that give the ruling party sweeping powers over the judiciary, the media, churches and the central bank. With the new charter and laws taking effect Jan. 1, the government of Prime Minister Viktor Orban now more resembles the autocratic regimes of Russia and Belarus than fellow E.U. democracies."
Obama's recess appointments might not hold up in court
Charles Fried - a former Solicitor General who has argued that health care reform is constitutional - thinks the court may be unwilling to find Obama's recent recess appointment constitutional since they probably will not want to step into the debate about what is and is not a session of Congress:
“It’s untested ground. If I were a judge, I could write out an opinion either way. There’s no clear precedent,” said Charles Fried, a constitutional expert at Harvard Law School who served as solicitor general under former President Reagan.
The Justice Department has argued that the pro forma sessions the Senate has held since Dec. 17 do not constitute genuine sessions of work and that the upper chamber has been, for all practical purposes, on vacation.
But Fried, who has sided with the Obama administration on challenges to the constitutionality of healthcare reform, said courts might not be willing to judge what qualifies as working sessions of the Senate, especially considering how much time the chamber spends on quorum calls lately.
“A court might very well say that we don’t want to start saying something the Senate calls a session is not a real session because not a lot of senators are around,” Fried said. “One might say that this whole year is one which is not a real session.”
“It’s untested ground. If I were a judge, I could write out an opinion either way. There’s no clear precedent,” said Charles Fried, a constitutional expert at Harvard Law School who served as solicitor general under former President Reagan.
The Justice Department has argued that the pro forma sessions the Senate has held since Dec. 17 do not constitute genuine sessions of work and that the upper chamber has been, for all practical purposes, on vacation.
But Fried, who has sided with the Obama administration on challenges to the constitutionality of healthcare reform, said courts might not be willing to judge what qualifies as working sessions of the Senate, especially considering how much time the chamber spends on quorum calls lately.
“A court might very well say that we don’t want to start saying something the Senate calls a session is not a real session because not a lot of senators are around,” Fried said. “One might say that this whole year is one which is not a real session.”
Santorum Wins Iowa Caucus - Maybe?
From the Washington Post:
Republican front-runner Mitt Romney’s narrow lead in the Iowa caucuses disappeared when officials certified the vote count, a Republican involved in the process said Thursday, but former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum cannot be declared the winner because of irregularities in some precincts.
Republican front-runner Mitt Romney’s narrow lead in the Iowa caucuses disappeared when officials certified the vote count, a Republican involved in the process said Thursday, but former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum cannot be declared the winner because of irregularities in some precincts.
Regarding Romney's effective tax rate
Commentators are wondering if Romney will suffer from his admission that he pays taxes at a 15% effective rate while most other Americans pay a higher rate. The variance is due to the fact that investments are taxes at 15% while income is taxed according to a progressive marginal rate. There's debate about how this compares to everyone else's. Here a take that claims if you make $50,000 your effective rate is 16% and it goes up to almost 30% if you earn $1 million. Here's an alternative take here, with different numbers.
We should try to figure out which is correct, but regardless, it raises questions about how fairly the tax burden is spread (never mind that current tax rates do not - have generally not - paid for the costs of government. The rest is funded by selling bonds, which have to be repaid sometime down the road).
Ezra Klein has an interesting take on how Romney might be politically deal with this revelation:
Here's what we know, or think we know, about Mitt Romney's tax returns: He's paying an effective rate of 15 percent. He has millions of dollars stored in investment funds in the Cayman Islands. And though he says “I have nothing in them that suggests there’s any problem," he originally wasn't going to release them at all, and though he backed off of that position, now he won't release them until April. Why wait till April? Well, here's one theory: April is after Super Tuesday.
If the returns are released when Romney is already effectively the GOP nominee, the Republican Party will rally around him and treat the attacks on his returns as just one more partisan assault. They'll note, for instance, that if you combined John Kerry and Theresa Heinz Kerry's 2004 tax returns, the Kerrys were only paying an effective tax rate of 13 percent. They'll argue, as James Pethokoukis did yesterday, that the problem isn't that Romney managed to lower his tax bill, but that every other American hasn't been able to do the same.
But if they're released before that, and they contain other embarrassing revelations, they may lead the GOP, or at least a substantial portion of it, to conclude that Romney is not the strongest candidate to put up against President Obama in November. So the Romney campaign appears to have made a simple judgment: if the candidate's tax returns are going to pose a problem, better they pose a problem when Republicans have nowhere else to go.
That makes good strategic sense for the Romney campaign. It's not as obviously a winning strategy for the Republican Party. In an editorial published last night, the conservative National Review put it starkly. "It is critical that Romney release his tax records now, that voters might 'take a look and decide if we’ve got a flawed candidate,'" they wrote. "We know that should Romney become the nominee, he will be criticized over the sources of his wealth and will have to effectively respond. Republican primary voters deserve to see whether he can do so before they vote."
Its worth pointing out that the lower rate paid by investors almost certainly is a product of their greater influence in Congress than those who survive by earning incomes. We will note that Madison in Federalist #10 warned that powerful interests in Congress would ensure that the tax burden would fall more on those with less pull in the institution.
- Newt Gingrich says he paid 31% in 2010.
- George Romney paid a 37% tax rate.
We should try to figure out which is correct, but regardless, it raises questions about how fairly the tax burden is spread (never mind that current tax rates do not - have generally not - paid for the costs of government. The rest is funded by selling bonds, which have to be repaid sometime down the road).
Ezra Klein has an interesting take on how Romney might be politically deal with this revelation:
Here's what we know, or think we know, about Mitt Romney's tax returns: He's paying an effective rate of 15 percent. He has millions of dollars stored in investment funds in the Cayman Islands. And though he says “I have nothing in them that suggests there’s any problem," he originally wasn't going to release them at all, and though he backed off of that position, now he won't release them until April. Why wait till April? Well, here's one theory: April is after Super Tuesday.
If the returns are released when Romney is already effectively the GOP nominee, the Republican Party will rally around him and treat the attacks on his returns as just one more partisan assault. They'll note, for instance, that if you combined John Kerry and Theresa Heinz Kerry's 2004 tax returns, the Kerrys were only paying an effective tax rate of 13 percent. They'll argue, as James Pethokoukis did yesterday, that the problem isn't that Romney managed to lower his tax bill, but that every other American hasn't been able to do the same.
But if they're released before that, and they contain other embarrassing revelations, they may lead the GOP, or at least a substantial portion of it, to conclude that Romney is not the strongest candidate to put up against President Obama in November. So the Romney campaign appears to have made a simple judgment: if the candidate's tax returns are going to pose a problem, better they pose a problem when Republicans have nowhere else to go.
That makes good strategic sense for the Romney campaign. It's not as obviously a winning strategy for the Republican Party. In an editorial published last night, the conservative National Review put it starkly. "It is critical that Romney release his tax records now, that voters might 'take a look and decide if we’ve got a flawed candidate,'" they wrote. "We know that should Romney become the nominee, he will be criticized over the sources of his wealth and will have to effectively respond. Republican primary voters deserve to see whether he can do so before they vote."
Its worth pointing out that the lower rate paid by investors almost certainly is a product of their greater influence in Congress than those who survive by earning incomes. We will note that Madison in Federalist #10 warned that powerful interests in Congress would ensure that the tax burden would fall more on those with less pull in the institution.
- Newt Gingrich says he paid 31% in 2010.
- George Romney paid a 37% tax rate.
A 22,000% return on investments
That's what Jack Abramoff claims businesses get for their investments in lobbyists (or at least those that hired him), and its far larger than what they can expect from investments in research and development. This shodul lead to a discussion of what exactly businesses (or anyone else for that matter) expect to get from Congress.
- story here.
I picked up this link from the previous story.
- story here.
I picked up this link from the previous story.
Innovators v Goliath
The authors of this article claim that the battle over SOPA and PIPA comes down to conflict between companies whose interests are served by innovating, and those who seek to preserve the status quo. They argue that the companies that pushing the bills are attempting to stifle the free market by muzzling innovation, and using political connections to do it:
SOPA and PIPA are prime examples of big companies trying to do everything they can to stop new competitors from innovating. They're also examples of how lobbying in the United States has become one of the most effective ways of limiting this sort of competition.
. . . If you take a look at many of the largest backers of SOPA or PIPA — the Business of Software Alliance, Comcast, Electronic Arts, Ford, L'Oreal, Scholastic, Sony, Disney — you'll see that they represent a wide range of businesses. Some are technology companies, some are content companies, some are historic innovators, and some are not. But one characteristic is the same across all of SOPA's supporters — they all have an interest in preserving the status quo. If there is meaningful innovation by startups in content creation and delivery, the supporters of SOPA and PIPA are poised to lose.
Even for those SOPA supporters that are historic innovators, their organizations focus on improving products in the pursuit of profit. They innovate to increase prices and limit production cost. Even when new models and technologies give rise to huge businesses, these incumbent firms reject meaningful innovation.
On the other side of the debate, you'll see a few the most successful companies in recent history. Wikipedia. Google. Twitter. Zynga. What these firms have in common is they have upended entire industries — and many are still in the process of doing so. Each of these businesses has roots in embracing new technologies and building models to deliver value to customers at the lowest cost. They're fighting this legislation because they're aware it will tip the finely tuned balance of creative destruction against startups and very much in favor of companies unwilling to embrace change.
So Congress is dealing with a conflict between business interests - which is what it was designed to do from the beginning. Its not uncommon for business who normally promote market competition to use their political power to place restrictions on it in order to preserve their status. The authors are concerned about what this means for future American competitiveness:
SOPA is a legislative attempt by big companies with vested interests to protect their downside. And unfortunately, these companies have conscripted Congress to help them. What's worse is that even though limiting start-up innovation might help big content in the short run, it's not going to do them in favors in the long run. Nor is going to do America any favors. In the midst of one of the worst recessions in living memory, passage of legislation like this is just going to result in innovators moving to geographies where the regulatory environment is more favorable. Start-ups will be less competitive in the United States and we'll have effectively disabled one of the few remaining growth engines of the economy.
SOPA and PIPA are prime examples of big companies trying to do everything they can to stop new competitors from innovating. They're also examples of how lobbying in the United States has become one of the most effective ways of limiting this sort of competition.
. . . If you take a look at many of the largest backers of SOPA or PIPA — the Business of Software Alliance, Comcast, Electronic Arts, Ford, L'Oreal, Scholastic, Sony, Disney — you'll see that they represent a wide range of businesses. Some are technology companies, some are content companies, some are historic innovators, and some are not. But one characteristic is the same across all of SOPA's supporters — they all have an interest in preserving the status quo. If there is meaningful innovation by startups in content creation and delivery, the supporters of SOPA and PIPA are poised to lose.
Even for those SOPA supporters that are historic innovators, their organizations focus on improving products in the pursuit of profit. They innovate to increase prices and limit production cost. Even when new models and technologies give rise to huge businesses, these incumbent firms reject meaningful innovation.
On the other side of the debate, you'll see a few the most successful companies in recent history. Wikipedia. Google. Twitter. Zynga. What these firms have in common is they have upended entire industries — and many are still in the process of doing so. Each of these businesses has roots in embracing new technologies and building models to deliver value to customers at the lowest cost. They're fighting this legislation because they're aware it will tip the finely tuned balance of creative destruction against startups and very much in favor of companies unwilling to embrace change.
So Congress is dealing with a conflict between business interests - which is what it was designed to do from the beginning. Its not uncommon for business who normally promote market competition to use their political power to place restrictions on it in order to preserve their status. The authors are concerned about what this means for future American competitiveness:
SOPA is a legislative attempt by big companies with vested interests to protect their downside. And unfortunately, these companies have conscripted Congress to help them. What's worse is that even though limiting start-up innovation might help big content in the short run, it's not going to do them in favors in the long run. Nor is going to do America any favors. In the midst of one of the worst recessions in living memory, passage of legislation like this is just going to result in innovators moving to geographies where the regulatory environment is more favorable. Start-ups will be less competitive in the United States and we'll have effectively disabled one of the few remaining growth engines of the economy.
Tuesday, January 17, 2012
No Wikipedia Tomorrow
To protest SOPA and other measures that strengthen intellectual property online by giving the Justice Department additional power to shut down sites with copyrighted material.
- here's how they explain their position.
The conflict pits Hollywood vs Silicon Valley (roughly). Content creators vs content distributors. Eacg has an interest and is seeking to influence Congress to address that interest. Its what Congress does.
- here's how they explain their position.
The conflict pits Hollywood vs Silicon Valley (roughly). Content creators vs content distributors. Eacg has an interest and is seeking to influence Congress to address that interest. Its what Congress does.
Congress is back in session
And this guy does not seem too impressed by the fact:
The most-hated Congress on record is back in session today, as the House of Representatives reconvenes after the holiday break for some good old-fashioned election-year gridlock. (The Senate won't join them in Washington until next week.) With the entire House and one-third of the Senate up for re-election — and oh, yeah, that pesky presidential race — experts expect one of the most dysfunctional legislative bodies of all-time to accomplish even less that it did in its first go-around.
- Job approval is just 13% in one charitable poll.
- It is non-productive.
- And no one seems to expect it to get much done this year.
The most-hated Congress on record is back in session today, as the House of Representatives reconvenes after the holiday break for some good old-fashioned election-year gridlock. (The Senate won't join them in Washington until next week.) With the entire House and one-third of the Senate up for re-election — and oh, yeah, that pesky presidential race — experts expect one of the most dysfunctional legislative bodies of all-time to accomplish even less that it did in its first go-around.
- Job approval is just 13% in one charitable poll.
- It is non-productive.
- And no one seems to expect it to get much done this year.
Direct Democracy in Wisconsin
A recall election against their governor seems to have collected enough petitions to go forward.
In the US House of Representatives this week . . .
To prep 2302 for our discussion of the legislature starting next week, here are a few items from today's schedule. We'll dig into the subject matter of each as a way to figure out what's going in the House. Other items will be considered as they become pertinent.
First some hearings in committees in the House:
- H.J. Res. 98 - Relating to the disapproval of the President's exercise of authority to increase the debt limit. Committee on Rules: Full Committee.
- Examining the Impact of the Volcker Rule on Markets,Businesses, Investors and Job Creation Committee on Financial Services: Joint Committee Hearing: Subcommittee on Capital Markets and Government Sponsored Enterprises.
- Government Mandated DNS Blocking and Search Takedowns - Will It End the Internet as We Know It Committee on Oversight and Government Reform: Full Committee.
A Review of the Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy Committee on Science, Space, and Technology: Energy Subcommittee.
And some recent votes in the House:
- 949
- H RES 501
- Passed
- Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives regarding any final measure to extend the payroll tax holiday, extend Federally funded unemployment insurance benefits, or prevent decreases in reimbursement for physicians who provide care to Medicare beneficiaries
- 948
- H R 3630
- Failed
- On motion to go to conference - To provide incentives for the creation of jobs, and for other purposes
- 946
- H R 3630
- Passed
- On motion to instruct conferees - To provide incentives for the creation of jobs, and for other purposes
- 945
- H RES 502
- Passed
First some hearings in committees in the House:
- H.J. Res. 98 - Relating to the disapproval of the President's exercise of authority to increase the debt limit. Committee on Rules: Full Committee.
- Examining the Impact of the Volcker Rule on Markets,Businesses, Investors and Job Creation Committee on Financial Services: Joint Committee Hearing: Subcommittee on Capital Markets and Government Sponsored Enterprises.
- Government Mandated DNS Blocking and Search Takedowns - Will It End the Internet as We Know It Committee on Oversight and Government Reform: Full Committee.
A Review of the Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy Committee on Science, Space, and Technology: Energy Subcommittee.
And some recent votes in the House:
- 949
- H RES 501
- Passed
- Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives regarding any final measure to extend the payroll tax holiday, extend Federally funded unemployment insurance benefits, or prevent decreases in reimbursement for physicians who provide care to Medicare beneficiaries
- 948
- H R 3630
- Failed
- On motion to go to conference - To provide incentives for the creation of jobs, and for other purposes
- 946
- H R 3630
- Passed
- On motion to instruct conferees - To provide incentives for the creation of jobs, and for other purposes
- 945
- H RES 502
- Passed
| - Providing for consideration of the Senate amendments to the bill (H.R. 3630) to provide incentives for the creation of jobs; and providing for consideration of the resolution (H.Res. 501) |
On this day in history - 27 BC
Well yesterday actually, Augustus Caesar becomes emperor and the era of the Roman Republic comes to an end, and the era of empire begins. We make a big deal about this in 2301. Its a transition the founding generation wished to avoid.
Shifting attitudes about Martin Luther King
John Sides highlights a year old Gallup Poll that shows how attitudes about Martin Luther King have shifted over time. Note how the favorable and unfavorable numbers have shifted.
It's worth assessing why and what this tells us about public opinion. Like many public figures of the past - meaning they've been dead for some time - MLK is no longer a flesh and blood person, but is an icon. Personal animosity has long since subsided, so people no longer evaluate him based on feelings about an actual person, rather what that person stands for.
This shift happens of course not because people changed their minds about him, but because those who formed opinions of him while he was alive - and was a more controversial public figure - are themselves dead. Or if not, getting on in years. Many who form opinions now do so based on what they learn in history books, and the lessons it contains tend to be very positive. It's tough to come out strongly against someone who stood for civil rights and was killed doing so. This is an example of generational politics - something my 2301s hit when we discuss public opinion.
The same thing happens with all sorts of public figures - people like Washington and Lincoln were far more polarizing in their day than they are now. Its worth considering what future opinions about current polarizing figures (maybe W Bush and Obama) might be in the future once those who have personal grudges against them, or affinity towards them are no longer around to answer pollster's questions.
It's worth assessing why and what this tells us about public opinion. Like many public figures of the past - meaning they've been dead for some time - MLK is no longer a flesh and blood person, but is an icon. Personal animosity has long since subsided, so people no longer evaluate him based on feelings about an actual person, rather what that person stands for.
This shift happens of course not because people changed their minds about him, but because those who formed opinions of him while he was alive - and was a more controversial public figure - are themselves dead. Or if not, getting on in years. Many who form opinions now do so based on what they learn in history books, and the lessons it contains tend to be very positive. It's tough to come out strongly against someone who stood for civil rights and was killed doing so. This is an example of generational politics - something my 2301s hit when we discuss public opinion.
The same thing happens with all sorts of public figures - people like Washington and Lincoln were far more polarizing in their day than they are now. Its worth considering what future opinions about current polarizing figures (maybe W Bush and Obama) might be in the future once those who have personal grudges against them, or affinity towards them are no longer around to answer pollster's questions.
Might Russia become a democracy after all?
A point I briefly make in the introductory slides in 2301 is that democracies tend to develop in places where a strong middle class has evolved and pushes for political power. The Moscow Times argues that despite setbacks in recent years, including apparent attempts by Vladimir Putin to consolidate control of the nation, a Russian middle class is asserting itself.
People who study democratization often argue that economic freedom - market reforms - have to preceed political freedom. Increased per capita wealth - especially is it is spread somewhat equitably - give people the autonomy and strength to participate politically and to effectively make demands on government. The authors argues that the basis for a transformation to democracy has already been laid in Russia, but the market transformation has to be supported by the vigorous political class. Increased per-capita income seems to be allowing for the necessary political support:
While market reforms brought substantial prosperity — average annual per capita GDP at purchasing power parity is now $17,000 — a large middle class, based mostly in small and medium-sized companies and the service sector, all developed beyond the reach of the state-owned behemoths. Most of this middle class also lives in large cities, where the battle for the country's future is now taking place.
The demands of this middle class have become crucial. Its representatives understand that they must win the battle against corruption or leave the country, as they would, otherwise, have no future in Russia. That is why they have rallied around the young blogger Alexei Navalny, whose WikiLeaks-like anti-corruption campaign has brought forth evidence of billions of dollars stolen from state-owned companies, luxury limousines bought by officials and spectacular business careers by the ruling elite's "wunderkinder" sons and daughters.
[note: the need for a press to distribute information to a population ready to consume it and to work on it. This includes the ability to engage in sedition - accusing government of corruption. Legal freedoms have to be established and enforced]
The evidence of corruption produced by Navalny and the nickname he gave to Putin's political party, United Russia — "the party of crooks and thieves" — were perhaps the single most important factors behind United Russia's large losses in December's State Duma elections. Moreover, massive electoral fraud galvanized middle-class grievances, driving tens of thousands of protesters into the streets.
[note here the right to assemble]
Ironically, the wave of protests since then is consistent with the "modernization hypothesis" that Putin's government has always used to justify the rollback of democracy in Russia: Democracy is sustainable only if society is sufficiently well-off and has a solid middle class; until then, centralized rule is needed.
Now, it seems, sufficient prosperity has arrived, calling forth a middle class solid enough to demand government accountability, the rule of law and a genuine fight against corruption. Whatever happens in the March presidential election, the political mobilization of the middle class will eventually lead to democratization.
This is worth a class discussion. We might also wonder whether democracies once established can descend into a more tyrannical or autocratic form if the middle class checks out, or if freedoms to speak, assemble and use the press are curtailed.
People who study democratization often argue that economic freedom - market reforms - have to preceed political freedom. Increased per capita wealth - especially is it is spread somewhat equitably - give people the autonomy and strength to participate politically and to effectively make demands on government. The authors argues that the basis for a transformation to democracy has already been laid in Russia, but the market transformation has to be supported by the vigorous political class. Increased per-capita income seems to be allowing for the necessary political support:
While market reforms brought substantial prosperity — average annual per capita GDP at purchasing power parity is now $17,000 — a large middle class, based mostly in small and medium-sized companies and the service sector, all developed beyond the reach of the state-owned behemoths. Most of this middle class also lives in large cities, where the battle for the country's future is now taking place.
The demands of this middle class have become crucial. Its representatives understand that they must win the battle against corruption or leave the country, as they would, otherwise, have no future in Russia. That is why they have rallied around the young blogger Alexei Navalny, whose WikiLeaks-like anti-corruption campaign has brought forth evidence of billions of dollars stolen from state-owned companies, luxury limousines bought by officials and spectacular business careers by the ruling elite's "wunderkinder" sons and daughters.
[note: the need for a press to distribute information to a population ready to consume it and to work on it. This includes the ability to engage in sedition - accusing government of corruption. Legal freedoms have to be established and enforced]
The evidence of corruption produced by Navalny and the nickname he gave to Putin's political party, United Russia — "the party of crooks and thieves" — were perhaps the single most important factors behind United Russia's large losses in December's State Duma elections. Moreover, massive electoral fraud galvanized middle-class grievances, driving tens of thousands of protesters into the streets.
[note here the right to assemble]
Ironically, the wave of protests since then is consistent with the "modernization hypothesis" that Putin's government has always used to justify the rollback of democracy in Russia: Democracy is sustainable only if society is sufficiently well-off and has a solid middle class; until then, centralized rule is needed.
Now, it seems, sufficient prosperity has arrived, calling forth a middle class solid enough to demand government accountability, the rule of law and a genuine fight against corruption. Whatever happens in the March presidential election, the political mobilization of the middle class will eventually lead to democratization.
This is worth a class discussion. We might also wonder whether democracies once established can descend into a more tyrannical or autocratic form if the middle class checks out, or if freedoms to speak, assemble and use the press are curtailed.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)