Tuesday, October 30, 2012
From the NYT: Over the Decades, How States Have Shifted
Here's a great interactive graphic showing how the states have swung from party to party since 1952.
Do we have standing to sue the US government for unauthorized surveillance?
The recently argued case Clapper v. Amnesty International asked this question. The case is a challenge to secret wiretapping but - as we discussed in 2305 when we covered the Supreme Court - one can only take a lawsuit forward if one has standing, which means you have been harmed by the enforcement of a law. But if its a clandestine wiretap (and aren't they all?) how do we know if you've been harmed by it? How do you prove you have standing?
The law in question is the FISA Amendments Act of 2008, FISA stands for Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.
Oyez describes the facts of the case:
Several groups, including attorneys, journalists, and human rights organizations, brought a facial challenge to a provision of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). The provision creates new procedures for authorizing government electronic surveillance of non-U.S. persons outside the U.S. for foreign intelligence purposes. The groups argue that the procedures violate the Fourth Amendment, the First Amendment, Article III of the Constitution, and the principle of separation of powers. The new provisions would force these groups to take costly measures to ensure the confidentiality of their international communications. The District Court for the Southern District of New York granted summary judgment for the government, holding that the groups did not have standing to bring their challenge. The groups only had an abstract subjective fear of being monitored and provided no proof that they were subject to the FISA. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed, holding that the groups had standing based on a reasonable fear of injury and costs incurred to avoid that injury.
And states the question presented the court:
Do respondents have Article III standing to seek prospective relief under the FISA?
So there's no substantive issue at hand as to whether it is legal for the government to engage in surveillance. There's only a question about whether there can be a challenge to it at all.
- Commentary here from the New Republic.
- Transcripts of the oral argument here.
The law in question is the FISA Amendments Act of 2008, FISA stands for Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.
Oyez describes the facts of the case:
Several groups, including attorneys, journalists, and human rights organizations, brought a facial challenge to a provision of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). The provision creates new procedures for authorizing government electronic surveillance of non-U.S. persons outside the U.S. for foreign intelligence purposes. The groups argue that the procedures violate the Fourth Amendment, the First Amendment, Article III of the Constitution, and the principle of separation of powers. The new provisions would force these groups to take costly measures to ensure the confidentiality of their international communications. The District Court for the Southern District of New York granted summary judgment for the government, holding that the groups did not have standing to bring their challenge. The groups only had an abstract subjective fear of being monitored and provided no proof that they were subject to the FISA. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed, holding that the groups had standing based on a reasonable fear of injury and costs incurred to avoid that injury.
And states the question presented the court:
Do respondents have Article III standing to seek prospective relief under the FISA?
So there's no substantive issue at hand as to whether it is legal for the government to engage in surveillance. There's only a question about whether there can be a challenge to it at all.
- Commentary here from the New Republic.
- Transcripts of the oral argument here.
The Victory Lab
The New Republic reviews a book that provides an inside look at how data-management has transformed elections. Things have changed dramatically since the digital revolution, but you wouldn't know it based on how the media covers campaigns:
OVER THE LAST ten years, political campaigns have become extraordinarily sophisticated. New technology and an eagerness to identify and exploit the slightest competitive edge have turned campaign strategy into a number-crunching, detail-oriented science. Campaign coverage, on the other hand, has remained mainly concerned with unsubstantiated assertions and campaign lore: the attacks, the themes, and the advertisements that are assumed to be central to the outcome of the race, even without strong evidence.
Here's the website that accompanies the book, and the book itself.
OVER THE LAST ten years, political campaigns have become extraordinarily sophisticated. New technology and an eagerness to identify and exploit the slightest competitive edge have turned campaign strategy into a number-crunching, detail-oriented science. Campaign coverage, on the other hand, has remained mainly concerned with unsubstantiated assertions and campaign lore: the attacks, the themes, and the advertisements that are assumed to be central to the outcome of the race, even without strong evidence.
Here's the website that accompanies the book, and the book itself.
From TNR: How Hurricane Sandy Could Spoil Election Day
This sounds ominous, the Constitution has no provisions in place for natural disasters:
Could Hurricane Sandy lead to a constitutional crisis? Since 1845, Congress has mandated that the presidential election take place on the Tuesday after the first Monday in November. But no one in the waning days of the Tyler administration anticipated a giant hurricane hitting the East Coast within a week of Election Day. In fact, there is no precedent whatsoever for a natural disaster of this scale before a federal election. A devastating storm, like Sandy, could produce several constitutional and legal crises if voting can’t take place on November 6.
Keith Gaddie, a professor of political science at the University of Oklahoma who focuses on elections, notes that, “[while] the Constitution had mechanisms in place to deal with [the 2000 presidential election], this one may reside out of the realm of process to resolve.” The founders saw the risk of electoral ties and close results, but extreme weather was not a priority in 1787.
Could Hurricane Sandy lead to a constitutional crisis? Since 1845, Congress has mandated that the presidential election take place on the Tuesday after the first Monday in November. But no one in the waning days of the Tyler administration anticipated a giant hurricane hitting the East Coast within a week of Election Day. In fact, there is no precedent whatsoever for a natural disaster of this scale before a federal election. A devastating storm, like Sandy, could produce several constitutional and legal crises if voting can’t take place on November 6.
Keith Gaddie, a professor of political science at the University of Oklahoma who focuses on elections, notes that, “[while] the Constitution had mechanisms in place to deal with [the 2000 presidential election], this one may reside out of the realm of process to resolve.” The founders saw the risk of electoral ties and close results, but extreme weather was not a priority in 1787.
From the NYT: Billionaires Going Rogue
Some thoughts on what havoc unleashed billionaires might have on elections in the wake of the Citizens United decision, It also provides some interesting insight into the difference between the two parties organizationally:
While, the rapid growth of well-financed and autonomous competitors threatens all existing power structures, the bulk of the costs are likely to fall on the Republican Party. The right wing of the Republican Party has more disruptive potential than the left wing of the Democratic Party because it is more willing to go to extremes: see the billboards showing Obama bowing down before an Arab Sheik, or the ads and DVD claiming that Obama is the bastard son of the African American communist, Frank Marshall Davis.
There are, furthermore, structural and historical differences between the parties: the Republican Party and the conservative establishment is institutionally stronger than the Democratic Party, with an infrastructure that served as a bulwark through the 1960s and 70s – the American Enterprise Institute, the Heritage Foundation, the Cato Institute, the Olin Foundation, etc. — when Republicans appeared to be a permanent congressional minority. Its financial prowess enabled the party to enforce more discipline on its consultants and elected officials. The Republican establishment also exercises more authority over policy and candidate selection than does its Democratic counterpart.
In recent years, the Democratic Party organization has gained some strength and it plays a much more active role in campaigns at all levels than in the past, but as an institutional force capable of command and control, it remains light years behind the Republican Party.
Republicans, in contrast to Democrats, prefer hierarchical, well-ordered organizations, and are much more willing to cede authority to those in power. Democrats, despite the discipline of individual campaign efforts, tend more toward anarchy than hierarchy. Historically, one result of this partisan difference is that the Republican establishment has tightly managed candidate selection at the presidential level. With extraordinary consistency, the party has crushed insurgent candidates and selected the next in line. Ronald Reagan and Bob Dole, for example, both had to wait until it was their turn.
While, the rapid growth of well-financed and autonomous competitors threatens all existing power structures, the bulk of the costs are likely to fall on the Republican Party. The right wing of the Republican Party has more disruptive potential than the left wing of the Democratic Party because it is more willing to go to extremes: see the billboards showing Obama bowing down before an Arab Sheik, or the ads and DVD claiming that Obama is the bastard son of the African American communist, Frank Marshall Davis.
There are, furthermore, structural and historical differences between the parties: the Republican Party and the conservative establishment is institutionally stronger than the Democratic Party, with an infrastructure that served as a bulwark through the 1960s and 70s – the American Enterprise Institute, the Heritage Foundation, the Cato Institute, the Olin Foundation, etc. — when Republicans appeared to be a permanent congressional minority. Its financial prowess enabled the party to enforce more discipline on its consultants and elected officials. The Republican establishment also exercises more authority over policy and candidate selection than does its Democratic counterpart.
In recent years, the Democratic Party organization has gained some strength and it plays a much more active role in campaigns at all levels than in the past, but as an institutional force capable of command and control, it remains light years behind the Republican Party.
Republicans, in contrast to Democrats, prefer hierarchical, well-ordered organizations, and are much more willing to cede authority to those in power. Democrats, despite the discipline of individual campaign efforts, tend more toward anarchy than hierarchy. Historically, one result of this partisan difference is that the Republican establishment has tightly managed candidate selection at the presidential level. With extraordinary consistency, the party has crushed insurgent candidates and selected the next in line. Ronald Reagan and Bob Dole, for example, both had to wait until it was their turn.
Monday, October 29, 2012
Week Ten Written Assignment 2302 / 2306
I want you to use your websearching skills and find the ballot that applies to the precinct you live in. You might want to go to the County Clerk's office for whichever county you live in. There you should be able to determine what precint you live in, and get a digital copy of the ballot.
Using this I want you to look at the major Texas races on your ballot and describe the nature of these races.
Using this I want you to look at the major Texas races on your ballot and describe the nature of these races.
Week Ten Written Assignment 2301 /2305
Since the election is coming up we ought to talk it over. Elections provide great opportunities to gauge the level of support political parties are receiving from different sectors of the population.
I want you to search available polling organizations - The Gallup Poll might be the best resource - and determine the level of support each party is receiving from the different demographic groups in society. Also try to determine how the number today differ from those of two and four years ago. Party identification can be dynamic, see if you can determine how much so.
I want you to search available polling organizations - The Gallup Poll might be the best resource - and determine the level of support each party is receiving from the different demographic groups in society. Also try to determine how the number today differ from those of two and four years ago. Party identification can be dynamic, see if you can determine how much so.
A few polls and forecasts to chew through
With a tight presidential race, polls and forecasts are teling differetn stories, but here are a few we can start to track until next week's election:
- Huffington Post.
- Votamatic
- RCP: Poll Averages.
- 538.
- Commentary from the Dish on differences among polls.
- Huffington Post.
- Votamatic
- RCP: Poll Averages.
- 538.
- Commentary from the Dish on differences among polls.
Sunday, October 28, 2012
Republicans, Democrats, and Independents since October 2008
From The Dish, a graph that combines the data gathered regarding party identification in over 700 polls. Blue is Democrat, green is Independent, red is Republican.
Do people know what they are voting for?
As we discuss elections in most of my current classes, we ought to take a critical look at one of the assumptions of elections. The electorate - the argument goes - can direct the actions of government by making choices between candidates that will determine that direction. But this assumes that people know which party and which candidate stands for what.
A YouGov study throws water on that assumption. People determine which candidate they like - for whatever reason - and change their positions on issues to match that. In all honesty, this finding is not novel.
In deciding between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney, we hope that voters are choosing between candidates based in part on candidates’ policy stances, such as their positions on taxes and war. In a book I have coming out this month, Follow the Leader (press release), I find surprisingly little evidence that policy stances matter to voters. Specifically, I find that voters’ prior policy views rarely lead them to change votes or even approval of candidates during campaigns. Instead, voters usually choose candidates for some other reason, such as the election-year economy, and then follow their preferred candidate on policy issues, adopting that candidate’s stances as their own. Rather than leading politicians on policy, voters mostly follow.
Are voters choosing between Obama and Romney on policy issues such as healthcare, taxes, and the war in Afghanistan? Or are they merely following, adopting their preferred candidates' views? Determining whether citizens are leading or following on policy is tricky—it's a “chicken and egg” problem. In the book, I use repeated interviews with the same individuals. But I can illustrate this tendency to follow with a surprising pattern that shows up in a single survey.
In a recent YouGov poll, I asked participants about their views on abortion policy and what position they thought Obama, Romney, the Democratic Party, and the Republican Party took on abortion. Only about 60% of respondents knew that Obama and the Democrats supported more pro-choice policies than Romney and Republicans. Given that the parties have had clear and long-standing positions on this issue, it's astonishing that 40% of Americans don't know this basic fact (other surveys find even higher levels of ignorance).
A YouGov study throws water on that assumption. People determine which candidate they like - for whatever reason - and change their positions on issues to match that. In all honesty, this finding is not novel.
In deciding between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney, we hope that voters are choosing between candidates based in part on candidates’ policy stances, such as their positions on taxes and war. In a book I have coming out this month, Follow the Leader (press release), I find surprisingly little evidence that policy stances matter to voters. Specifically, I find that voters’ prior policy views rarely lead them to change votes or even approval of candidates during campaigns. Instead, voters usually choose candidates for some other reason, such as the election-year economy, and then follow their preferred candidate on policy issues, adopting that candidate’s stances as their own. Rather than leading politicians on policy, voters mostly follow.
Are voters choosing between Obama and Romney on policy issues such as healthcare, taxes, and the war in Afghanistan? Or are they merely following, adopting their preferred candidates' views? Determining whether citizens are leading or following on policy is tricky—it's a “chicken and egg” problem. In the book, I use repeated interviews with the same individuals. But I can illustrate this tendency to follow with a surprising pattern that shows up in a single survey.
In a recent YouGov poll, I asked participants about their views on abortion policy and what position they thought Obama, Romney, the Democratic Party, and the Republican Party took on abortion. Only about 60% of respondents knew that Obama and the Democrats supported more pro-choice policies than Romney and Republicans. Given that the parties have had clear and long-standing positions on this issue, it's astonishing that 40% of Americans don't know this basic fact (other surveys find even higher levels of ignorance).
Saturday, October 27, 2012
A critique of the press' coverage of the national race
A political scientist criticizes the media's approach to covering the election and their recent tendency to infer which candidate does and does not have "momentum" and what factors have contributed to the rise and fall of support for either Obama or Romney. Media narratives tend to be developed and repeated without enough self criticism to determine what the facts reveal.
He offers the following chart to mute the alleged impact the first debate had on shifts in support for either candidate - these were already underway prior to the debate:
He offers the following chart to mute the alleged impact the first debate had on shifts in support for either candidate - these were already underway prior to the debate:
State Ballot Initiatives Across the Nation
Here's a comprehensive list from Project Vote Smart. Since Texas does not allow state-wide ballot initiatives, we won't be voting on any.
Note the breadth of items.
Note the breadth of items.
Friday, October 26, 2012
Mob Justice in Nigeria
This is a pretty gruesome story and I only link to it because the author points out the speed of vigilante justice. It only takes seconds for a mob to decide to act against someone - which is hardly time to determine whether it is appropriate to do so. Remember that the purpose of a republic it to slow the procedures down so that reason, not passion, can be applied to disputes.
From TNR: Romney Has Historic Lead Among White Voters
Building off a post below, the New Republic looks at polling data detailing the racial gap in the electorate.
Should The Woodlands incorporate?
In my discussion - in GOVT 2306 - of municipal governments in the state, I neglected any mention of The Woodlands - which isn't a city at all. Its still a master-planned community - or a census designated place (a CDP!).
Here's an article detailing whether it should be incorporated or whether it should continue to be run as a business. It might be worth wondering what the future of democracy is likely to be in the US and Texas if the latter happens.
Here's an article detailing whether it should be incorporated or whether it should continue to be run as a business. It might be worth wondering what the future of democracy is likely to be in the US and Texas if the latter happens.
From the Guardian: Will 2012 see the most divided American electorate ever?
The author walks through recent polling information and points out that in most areas where it matters, a large divide has developed between those who support Romney and those who support Obama. This is worth a discussion in class - what does this mean about the governability of the nation at this moment in time?
I'll point out one of his findings, the developing age gap:
In 2008, those 60 years and older supported John McCain by a 4-point margin, while those 18-29 voted for Obama by a 34-point margin. This 38-point age gap was the largest gap since exit polls were first taken in 1972.
It would probably surprise you to learn that the age gap is a relatively recent phenomenon. There was no relation between age and voting patterns in 1992, for instance. Today, the Greatest Generation has been replaced by the much more conservative "silent generation". Today's younger voters are 40% non-white, a core Democratic group, and those who are white grew up during the Bush years.
The result is that the age gap is larger today than it was even four years ago. A recent GWU/Battleground Politico poll has Obama holding a large 24-point lead among 18-29 year-olds, and trailing among those 60-plus by 18 points.
I'll point out one of his findings, the developing age gap:
In 2008, those 60 years and older supported John McCain by a 4-point margin, while those 18-29 voted for Obama by a 34-point margin. This 38-point age gap was the largest gap since exit polls were first taken in 1972.
It would probably surprise you to learn that the age gap is a relatively recent phenomenon. There was no relation between age and voting patterns in 1992, for instance. Today, the Greatest Generation has been replaced by the much more conservative "silent generation". Today's younger voters are 40% non-white, a core Democratic group, and those who are white grew up during the Bush years.
The result is that the age gap is larger today than it was even four years ago. A recent GWU/Battleground Politico poll has Obama holding a large 24-point lead among 18-29 year-olds, and trailing among those 60-plus by 18 points.
Tuesday, October 23, 2012
From Wired: Peeling Away Health Care’s Sticker Shock
One of the reasons why health care costs have exploded is that we have no idea what things cost. There is no requirement for prices for health services to be made public. This apparently the case for cars until a law was passed in 1958 requiring that cars have sticker prices. The laws was promoted by Oklahoma Senator Mike Monroney.
Should a similar bill be passed for health care? Do you have any idea what health services cost?
If there is ever an industry in need of a Senator Monroney today, it is health care, in which 1950s-era thinking still rules the day, and irrational and inexplicable pricing is routine. The health care industry plays a gigantic game of Blind Man’s Bluff, keeping patients in the dark while asking them to make life-and-death decisions. The odds that they will make the best choice are negligible and largely depend on chance. Patients need to have data, including costs and their own medical histories, liberated and made freely available for thorough analysis. What health care needs is a window sticker—a transparent, good-faith effort at making prices clear and setting market forces to work.
Should a similar bill be passed for health care? Do you have any idea what health services cost?
If there is ever an industry in need of a Senator Monroney today, it is health care, in which 1950s-era thinking still rules the day, and irrational and inexplicable pricing is routine. The health care industry plays a gigantic game of Blind Man’s Bluff, keeping patients in the dark while asking them to make life-and-death decisions. The odds that they will make the best choice are negligible and largely depend on chance. Patients need to have data, including costs and their own medical histories, liberated and made freely available for thorough analysis. What health care needs is a window sticker—a transparent, good-faith effort at making prices clear and setting market forces to work.
1972 Presidential Candidate McGovern Dies
The NYT has a look at his life. The word liberal is tossed around carelessly, this is what one really looks like.
50% Chance that Ohio Decides the Election
So says polling guru Nate Silver:
We are now running about 40,000 Electoral College simulations each day. In the simulations that we ran on Monday, the candidate who won Ohio won the election roughly 38,000 times, or in about 95 percent of the cases. (Mr. Romney won in about 1,400 simulations despite losing Ohio, while Mr. Obama did so roughly 550 times.)
Whether you call Ohio a “must-win” is a matter of semantics, but its essential role in the Electoral College should not be hard to grasp.
We are now running about 40,000 Electoral College simulations each day. In the simulations that we ran on Monday, the candidate who won Ohio won the election roughly 38,000 times, or in about 95 percent of the cases. (Mr. Romney won in about 1,400 simulations despite losing Ohio, while Mr. Obama did so roughly 550 times.)
Whether you call Ohio a “must-win” is a matter of semantics, but its essential role in the Electoral College should not be hard to grasp.
The Third Debate
The NYT has a breakdown of the last presidential race here, and Andrews Sullivan links to reactions from various sources around the web.
We will review specific points made in the debate, but some critics argue that certain topics were ignored. Few seem to feel that the result - most argue Obama won it - will substantively move opinions about either man. The percentage of undecideds is getting pretty low.
We will review specific points made in the debate, but some critics argue that certain topics were ignored. Few seem to feel that the result - most argue Obama won it - will substantively move opinions about either man. The percentage of undecideds is getting pretty low.
Monday, October 22, 2012
Are we headed for a repeat of 2000?
Nate Silver points out that while a handful of polls show Romney ahead in the popular vote, Obama is leading in many swing states, enough to give him a lead in the Electoral College. This would be a repeat of 2000, except that the Democrat would win the race, not the Republican.
The bad news for President Obama: it’s been almost a week since the second presidential debate, in Hempstead, N.Y., one that instant-reaction polls said was a narrow victory for him. But there is little sign that this has translated into a bounce for Mr. Obama in his head-to-head polls against Mitt Romney. Instead, the presidential race may have settled into a period of relative stability.
There is bad news for Mr. Romney as well, however. The “new normal” of the presidential campaign is considerably more favorable for him than the environment before the first debate, in Denver. However, it is one in which he still seems to be trailing, by perhaps 2 percentage points, in the states that are most vital in the Electoral College.
The bad news for President Obama: it’s been almost a week since the second presidential debate, in Hempstead, N.Y., one that instant-reaction polls said was a narrow victory for him. But there is little sign that this has translated into a bounce for Mr. Obama in his head-to-head polls against Mitt Romney. Instead, the presidential race may have settled into a period of relative stability.
There is bad news for Mr. Romney as well, however. The “new normal” of the presidential campaign is considerably more favorable for him than the environment before the first debate, in Denver. However, it is one in which he still seems to be trailing, by perhaps 2 percentage points, in the states that are most vital in the Electoral College.
Week Nine Writing Assignment
Here's another assignment focused on helping you prep for the 1000 word report. I want you to cite at least three sources (non-Wikipedia) for your work, and the citations have to be in MLA format. Go to the original assignment on the syllabus to find a link that reviews the MLA format.
In brief, tell me where you're getting your information, what have you learned so far from it, and how will you cite it in your report?
In brief, tell me where you're getting your information, what have you learned so far from it, and how will you cite it in your report?
Saturday, October 20, 2012
From Forbes: Will You Waste Your Vote? Why?
Here's a link to a reasonable article in Forbes which hits a point we will discuss next week in class (my 2305's are about to discuss elections and parties in the the US).
Why waste your vote for Romney and Obama if there is a candidate from a smaller party that better fits your specific preferences? Why throw your vote away?
What the author fails to note is that not voting for the "lesser of two evils" can swing elections more fully against one's interests. Votes for Nader in 2000 helped elect George W. Bush. More on this in class. It will help clarify how electoral rules in the US have guaranteed us a two party system.
Why waste your vote for Romney and Obama if there is a candidate from a smaller party that better fits your specific preferences? Why throw your vote away?
What the author fails to note is that not voting for the "lesser of two evils" can swing elections more fully against one's interests. Votes for Nader in 2000 helped elect George W. Bush. More on this in class. It will help clarify how electoral rules in the US have guaranteed us a two party system.
Thursday, October 18, 2012
Opinions on the environment inverserly related to those on the economy
Why do people change their opinions about what sorts of problems are important years after year?
Currently, very few people tell pollsters that the environment is a top concerns for them, but this has not always been the case. In 2000, a high percentage of people claimed to be worried about the environment, but not now. What's changed is the economy. When the economy does well, people tend to worry about other things - like the environment. When it isn't, the more immediate pressing concerns drive out those that won't materialize until sometime in the future.
Currently, very few people tell pollsters that the environment is a top concerns for them, but this has not always been the case. In 2000, a high percentage of people claimed to be worried about the environment, but not now. What's changed is the economy. When the economy does well, people tend to worry about other things - like the environment. When it isn't, the more immediate pressing concerns drive out those that won't materialize until sometime in the future.
Texas Senator Mario Gallegos Dies
The Texas Tribune discusses the life of the senator here, and the peculiar situation voters are in now since it is too late to remove his name from the ballot. For Democrats to hold the seat, they must vote for him so that the governor must call a special election after the general election.
The Texas Tax Reform Commission
The story below refers critically to tax reforms in Texas' which happened in 2006.
However, as many acknowledge, Texas has a structural deficit created by insufficiencies in the margins tax that was part of the state's 2006 tax reform. Some lawmakers, most notably Sen. Steve Ogden, R-Bryan, the Finance Committee chairman, wanted to fix the margins tax now. But their pleas fell on deaf ears.
So we can prep for future discussions of the Texas budget, here's background on the reform measures and the assessment of its impact on the current fiscal state of Texas. It continues to be a controversial change in the state's tax policy.
- Archive: Texas Tax Reform Commission.
- Wikipedia: Texas Tax Reform Commission.
- Texas Tax Reform Commission Releases Tax Plan.
- Letter from Comptroller to Perry.
- Governor's Office: Property Tax Relief and Appraisal Reform.
- WSJ: Perry's Tax Plan Runs Unto Criticism.
- Tax Foundation: Texas Margin Tax Experiment Failing.
- Understanding the Texas Franchise — or “Margin”—Tax
However, as many acknowledge, Texas has a structural deficit created by insufficiencies in the margins tax that was part of the state's 2006 tax reform. Some lawmakers, most notably Sen. Steve Ogden, R-Bryan, the Finance Committee chairman, wanted to fix the margins tax now. But their pleas fell on deaf ears.
So we can prep for future discussions of the Texas budget, here's background on the reform measures and the assessment of its impact on the current fiscal state of Texas. It continues to be a controversial change in the state's tax policy.
- Archive: Texas Tax Reform Commission.
- Wikipedia: Texas Tax Reform Commission.
- Texas Tax Reform Commission Releases Tax Plan.
- Letter from Comptroller to Perry.
- Governor's Office: Property Tax Relief and Appraisal Reform.
- WSJ: Perry's Tax Plan Runs Unto Criticism.
- Tax Foundation: Texas Margin Tax Experiment Failing.
- Understanding the Texas Franchise — or “Margin”—Tax
Accounting tricks used to make Texas budget look better?
A brief audio file in the Texas Tribune reports that state legislators think that they are and they intend to put a stop to that practice in the next legistaive session.
Here's detail from the Austin American Statesman:
What is the shape of Texas' budget for the next biennium? According to the state constitution, Texas must have a balanced budget. Indeed, from a technical standpoint, the 2012-13 budget is balanced, and the state comptroller, as required by the Texas Constitution, has certified that sufficient revenues will be available to cover expenditures. However, the reality is much more grim. The time has come to be transparent and look at the real situation. History repeats itself, and balancing this budget is a repeat play with a much larger shortfall than in prior years.
The 2012-13 budget was balanced using cuts, accounting tricks and deferrals. There were real cuts to state agencies' budgets, but cuts alone would not get the job done. If you want to make big cuts, you have to go where the big dollars are.
Because, according to the Legislative Budget Board's Texas Fact Book , approximately 60 percent of the state's 2011 general revenue — the state's discretionary spending — is for education and 30 percent is for health and human services, there was only so far that lawmakers were willing to go with cuts.
We will pursue this further in 2306 when we cover the Texas budget.
The story mentioned the LBB's Texas Fact Book, Click here for the archive, the 2012 Fact book can be found in a PDF file on the top left corner of the LBB's home page.
Here's detail from the Austin American Statesman:
What is the shape of Texas' budget for the next biennium? According to the state constitution, Texas must have a balanced budget. Indeed, from a technical standpoint, the 2012-13 budget is balanced, and the state comptroller, as required by the Texas Constitution, has certified that sufficient revenues will be available to cover expenditures. However, the reality is much more grim. The time has come to be transparent and look at the real situation. History repeats itself, and balancing this budget is a repeat play with a much larger shortfall than in prior years.
The 2012-13 budget was balanced using cuts, accounting tricks and deferrals. There were real cuts to state agencies' budgets, but cuts alone would not get the job done. If you want to make big cuts, you have to go where the big dollars are.
Because, according to the Legislative Budget Board's Texas Fact Book , approximately 60 percent of the state's 2011 general revenue — the state's discretionary spending — is for education and 30 percent is for health and human services, there was only so far that lawmakers were willing to go with cuts.
We will pursue this further in 2306 when we cover the Texas budget.
The story mentioned the LBB's Texas Fact Book, Click here for the archive, the 2012 Fact book can be found in a PDF file on the top left corner of the LBB's home page.
Greg Abbott intervenes in Kountze cheerleader case
We discussed this case in class so we saw it coming. From the Texas Tribune:
The state of Texas, known for its frequent legal scuffles with the federal government, has picked yet another high-profile courtroom fight.
This time, though, the case centers on one of the state's own school districts, Kountze ISD, which last month ordered high school cheerleaders to stop holding banners bearing Bible verses during football games.
Attorney General Greg Abbott announced Wednesday at a press conference with Gov. Rick Perry that the state had filed a motion to intervene in a suit challenging the order, which the district imposed after it received a letter from the Wisconsin-based Freedom From Religion Foundation calling the display of the verses unconstitutional.
The state of Texas, known for its frequent legal scuffles with the federal government, has picked yet another high-profile courtroom fight.
This time, though, the case centers on one of the state's own school districts, Kountze ISD, which last month ordered high school cheerleaders to stop holding banners bearing Bible verses during football games.
Attorney General Greg Abbott announced Wednesday at a press conference with Gov. Rick Perry that the state had filed a motion to intervene in a suit challenging the order, which the district imposed after it received a letter from the Wisconsin-based Freedom From Religion Foundation calling the display of the verses unconstitutional.
Wednesday, October 17, 2012
Is The Cancer Prevention and Research Institute of Texas driven by politics?
The Dallas Observer argues that it is, and that this reality is driving away top researchers:
Since the taxpayer-funded agency's creation in 2007, backed by Governor Rick Perry and Lance Armstrong, it has awarded hundreds of millions of dollars in grants. But its top talent is fleeing the agency, characterizing its selection process as unscientific at best, and political favoritism at worst.
The agency's former chief scientific officer, Dr. Alfred Gilman -- a pharmacology professor emeritus at Dallas' UT Southwestern and a Nobel laureate -- worries about fast-tracked grants approved by the agency without scientific peer review.
Lately, the agency has focused on "commercialization projects" -- an injection of capital to speed research down the drug-development pipeline. Which would be good, the defecting scientists say, if the projects chosen didn't carry more than just a whiff of politics. Some seven CPRIT scientists handed in letters of resignation last week, according to the Associated Press.
"You may find that it was not worth subverting the entire scientific enterprise -- and my understanding was that the intended goal of C.P.R.I.T. was to fund the best cancer research in Texas -- on account of this ostensibly new, politically driven, commercialization-based mission," wrote scientist Brian Dynlacht in his resignation letter.
We covered the research institute in GOVT 2306 and looked through the section in Article III of the Texas Constitution which established it in 2007. It was one of a large numbers of sections within the constitution that authorizes new areas where unique funds drawn from the sale of binds can be spent on items not normally covered under the Texas budget.
The controversy is whether political pressure is being placed in the scientists peer reviewing research proposals. Some given low marks have been reconsidered. Critics wonder if the process has become corrupted by the promise of commercial profits enabled by tax-payer funded research.
Follow the latest news from Google here.
Since the taxpayer-funded agency's creation in 2007, backed by Governor Rick Perry and Lance Armstrong, it has awarded hundreds of millions of dollars in grants. But its top talent is fleeing the agency, characterizing its selection process as unscientific at best, and political favoritism at worst.
The agency's former chief scientific officer, Dr. Alfred Gilman -- a pharmacology professor emeritus at Dallas' UT Southwestern and a Nobel laureate -- worries about fast-tracked grants approved by the agency without scientific peer review.
Lately, the agency has focused on "commercialization projects" -- an injection of capital to speed research down the drug-development pipeline. Which would be good, the defecting scientists say, if the projects chosen didn't carry more than just a whiff of politics. Some seven CPRIT scientists handed in letters of resignation last week, according to the Associated Press.
"You may find that it was not worth subverting the entire scientific enterprise -- and my understanding was that the intended goal of C.P.R.I.T. was to fund the best cancer research in Texas -- on account of this ostensibly new, politically driven, commercialization-based mission," wrote scientist Brian Dynlacht in his resignation letter.
We covered the research institute in GOVT 2306 and looked through the section in Article III of the Texas Constitution which established it in 2007. It was one of a large numbers of sections within the constitution that authorizes new areas where unique funds drawn from the sale of binds can be spent on items not normally covered under the Texas budget.
The controversy is whether political pressure is being placed in the scientists peer reviewing research proposals. Some given low marks have been reconsidered. Critics wonder if the process has become corrupted by the promise of commercial profits enabled by tax-payer funded research.
Follow the latest news from Google here.
Romney's move to the center ok with conservative leaders.
From Dana Milbank:
Key to the success of Romney’s Etch a Sketch movement has been the cooperation of conservatives, who have been unusually docile in the face of the candidate’s heresies: pledging not to enact a tax cut that adds to the deficit, promising not to decrease the share of taxes paid by the wealthy, vowing not to slash education funding, praising financial regulations, insisting that he would make health insurers cover preexisting conditions and disavowing his earlier claim that 47 percent of Americans are parasites living off of the government.
At Tuesday night’s debate, Romney continued his sprint to the center. He took pains to say he is “so different” from George W. Bush. He asserted that “every woman in America should have access to contraceptives,” and, on immigration, he said the children of illegal immigrants “should have a pathway to become a permanent resident of the United States.” After a primary battle in which GOP candidates tried to out-tough each other on immigration, Romney said that he was in agreement with President Obama and that “I’m not in favor of rounding up people.”
The conservatives’ complicity seems to be driven by two things: a belief that Romney’s moves to the middle are mere feints, shifts more in tone than in substance; and an acceptance that Romney’s rhetorical reversals are necessary if he is to deny Obama a second term.
“I hear all this as tonal,” Grover Norquist, the Republican purity enforcer and keeper of the antitax pledge, told me. Romney’s new pledge that his tax cuts wouldn’t increase the deficit, for example, could be honored simply by using an alternative accounting method, known as “dynamic scoring,” that conservatives favor. “You’re now in the general election and you’ve already convinced conservatives why they should vote for you,” Norquist said of Romney. “You’re now talking to undecided voters, who have a completely different set of issues.”
Key to the success of Romney’s Etch a Sketch movement has been the cooperation of conservatives, who have been unusually docile in the face of the candidate’s heresies: pledging not to enact a tax cut that adds to the deficit, promising not to decrease the share of taxes paid by the wealthy, vowing not to slash education funding, praising financial regulations, insisting that he would make health insurers cover preexisting conditions and disavowing his earlier claim that 47 percent of Americans are parasites living off of the government.
At Tuesday night’s debate, Romney continued his sprint to the center. He took pains to say he is “so different” from George W. Bush. He asserted that “every woman in America should have access to contraceptives,” and, on immigration, he said the children of illegal immigrants “should have a pathway to become a permanent resident of the United States.” After a primary battle in which GOP candidates tried to out-tough each other on immigration, Romney said that he was in agreement with President Obama and that “I’m not in favor of rounding up people.”
The conservatives’ complicity seems to be driven by two things: a belief that Romney’s moves to the middle are mere feints, shifts more in tone than in substance; and an acceptance that Romney’s rhetorical reversals are necessary if he is to deny Obama a second term.
“I hear all this as tonal,” Grover Norquist, the Republican purity enforcer and keeper of the antitax pledge, told me. Romney’s new pledge that his tax cuts wouldn’t increase the deficit, for example, could be honored simply by using an alternative accounting method, known as “dynamic scoring,” that conservatives favor. “You’re now in the general election and you’ve already convinced conservatives why they should vote for you,” Norquist said of Romney. “You’re now talking to undecided voters, who have a completely different set of issues.”
Should solitary confinement for juveniles be considered cruel and unusual punishment?
As with solitary confinement in general there is a movement to claim that it is.
Does the 4th Amendment protect you from drug sniffing dogs?
Where are about to find out. Where do we draw the line between search and seizures and the reasonable expectation of privacy?
THIS Halloween, the United States Supreme Court will devote its day to dogs. The court will hear two cases
from Florida to test whether “police dog sniffs” violate our privacy
rights under the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution. These two cases
have not yet grabbed many headlines, but the court’s decisions could
shape our rights to privacy in profound and surprising ways.
The Fourth Amendment
protects the right of the people to be free from “unreasonable searches
and seizures.” Ordinarily, unless the police trespass or otherwise
intrude upon a reasonable expectation of privacy,
they need not have probable cause or a warrant to justify their
investigative activity. For decades now, the court has struggled with
what it means for a person to have a “reasonable expectation of privacy”
— especially when the police investigate with sense-enhancing means or
technology.
One case asks whether drug sniffing dogs can be brought to the porch of a house to sniff what is inside of it. The author worries about what precedence that might set if it is approved:
If the court rules for the government in the home-sniff case, it is hard to see why the police could not station drug-sniffing dogs outside the entrances to every school, supermarket and movie theater as a routine form of drug interdiction. Dog sniffs would never involve a privacy intrusion and therefore would not trigger the requirement that the police obtain a warrant or have individual suspicion.
One case asks whether drug sniffing dogs can be brought to the porch of a house to sniff what is inside of it. The author worries about what precedence that might set if it is approved:
If the court rules for the government in the home-sniff case, it is hard to see why the police could not station drug-sniffing dogs outside the entrances to every school, supermarket and movie theater as a routine form of drug interdiction. Dog sniffs would never involve a privacy intrusion and therefore would not trigger the requirement that the police obtain a warrant or have individual suspicion.
Moreover, today’s dogs will give way to tomorrow’s high-tech
contraband-scanning devices that, under the reasoning pressed in the dog
cases, would free the government to conduct routine scans of people’s
homes or their bodies for all manner of contraband (or possibly for
noncontraband, like marijuana grow lights, that are most commonly
associated with illegality).
Was the 14th Amendment meant to be color-blind?
Here's a great argument that it was not, and that legislation passed around the time the 14th Amendment was ratified - the 1866 Freedmen's Bureau Act - explicitly intended to provide extra opportunities to the recently freed slaves. This might potentially buttress arguments in favor of affirmative action today.
The author points out that this is an originalist argument, which conservatives tend to employ in other areas, but not here. The author thinks the conservatives are mimicking the liberal tendency to read the Constitution in moral terms, which allows for flexibility in interpretation.
The author points out that this is an originalist argument, which conservatives tend to employ in other areas, but not here. The author thinks the conservatives are mimicking the liberal tendency to read the Constitution in moral terms, which allows for flexibility in interpretation.
The Texas Veteran's Commission
In our discussion of the Texas bureaucracy this morning we surfed around to look at some of the less well-known agencies and commissions and we spent some time looking at the Texas Veteran's Commission, in addition to the Veteran's Land Board.
Texas goes beyond the national government in providing various benefits to veteran's - probably more than most other states. I'll try to incorporate this to my notes for GOVT 2306.
Texas goes beyond the national government in providing various benefits to veteran's - probably more than most other states. I'll try to incorporate this to my notes for GOVT 2306.
Tuesday, October 16, 2012
From the NYT: The Self-Destruction of the 1 Percent
To continue a theme, does inequality threaten the vitality of a nation? The author looks back at Venice in the 14th Century, which expanded when there was open competition in society, but declined when the powerful tried to cement their gains by limiting it.
Is the American economy is running on empty?
The NYT discusses an economist's allegation that U.S. economic growth is over and the three separate economic revolutions that have fueled the expansion of the American economy are over, and there's little on the horizon to replace it. They also cover criticisms of the thesis.
Innovation has sparked growth in GDP, the author seems dubious that further innovation can do more.
Innovation has sparked growth in GDP, the author seems dubious that further innovation can do more.
The NYT: Which Millionaire Are You Voting For?
The NYT points out that policies aside, Democratic and Republican candidates for office each tend to be very well off. Very legislators on the national and state level have blue collar backgrounds - according to this story 3% of state legislators have working class backgrounds. Does this mean that legislators have little understanding of the circumstances and needs of the working class? This question gets to the heart of democratic representation.
A quote from the story:
If millionaires were a political party, that party would make up roughly 3 percent of American families, but it would have a super-majority in the Senate, a majority in the House, a majority on the Supreme Court and a man in the White House. If working-class Americans were a political party, that party would have made up more than half the country since the start of the 20th century. But legislators from that party (those who last worked in blue-collar jobs before entering politics) would never have held more than 2 percent of the seats in Congress.
And these trends don’t stop at the federal level. Since the 1980s, the number of state legislators whose primary occupations are working-class jobs has fallen from 5 percent to 3 percent. In City Councils, fewer than 10 percent of members have blue-collar day jobs. Everywhere we look in government, almost no one with personal experience in working-class jobs has a seat at the table.
Their absence, moreover, has real consequences. Lawmakers from different classes tend to bring different perspectives to public office. John Boehner is fond of saying that he’s a small-business man at heart and that “It gave me a perspective on our country that I’ve carried with me throughout my time in public service.” And he’s right. Former businesspeople in government tend to think like businesspeople, former lawyers tend to think like lawyers, and (the few) former blue-collar workers tend to think like blue-collar workers.
The author has an interesting book coming out: “White-Collar Government: How Class-Imbalanced Legislatures Distort Economic Policy-Making in the United States.”
A quote from the story:
If millionaires were a political party, that party would make up roughly 3 percent of American families, but it would have a super-majority in the Senate, a majority in the House, a majority on the Supreme Court and a man in the White House. If working-class Americans were a political party, that party would have made up more than half the country since the start of the 20th century. But legislators from that party (those who last worked in blue-collar jobs before entering politics) would never have held more than 2 percent of the seats in Congress.
And these trends don’t stop at the federal level. Since the 1980s, the number of state legislators whose primary occupations are working-class jobs has fallen from 5 percent to 3 percent. In City Councils, fewer than 10 percent of members have blue-collar day jobs. Everywhere we look in government, almost no one with personal experience in working-class jobs has a seat at the table.
Their absence, moreover, has real consequences. Lawmakers from different classes tend to bring different perspectives to public office. John Boehner is fond of saying that he’s a small-business man at heart and that “It gave me a perspective on our country that I’ve carried with me throughout my time in public service.” And he’s right. Former businesspeople in government tend to think like businesspeople, former lawyers tend to think like lawyers, and (the few) former blue-collar workers tend to think like blue-collar workers.
The author has an interesting book coming out: “White-Collar Government: How Class-Imbalanced Legislatures Distort Economic Policy-Making in the United States.”
Monday, October 15, 2012
Week Eight Assignment For All Classes
This week I want everyone to give me a second look at the subject of your 1000 word report. If I previously asked for clarification, I'd like to see that, if not - hopefully you've made progress on the report over the past few weeks.
Remember that the more work you get done on this now, the less you work you have to do later in the semester when you will also have to be focusing on the final.
Remember that the more work you get done on this now, the less you work you have to do later in the semester when you will also have to be focusing on the final.
Wednesday, October 10, 2012
The Constitutional Sources Project
The folks at Scotus Blog are affiliated with this project. It calls itself a free online library of constitutional history.
Looks promising, and worth integrating into class material.
Looks promising, and worth integrating into class material.
Fisher v UT
The NYT provides background on the affirmative action case argued today before the Supreme Court. As with many other cases, Anthony Kennedy is projected to be the key vote:
The questioning was exceptionally sharp, but the member of the court who probably holds the decisive vote, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, tipped his hand only a little, asking a few questions that indicated discomfort with at least some race-conscious admissions programs. He told a lawyer for the University of Texas at Austin, which was challenged over its policies, that he was uncomfortable with its efforts to attract privileged minorities.
“What you’re saying,” Justice Kennedy said, “is what counts is race above all.”
He asked a lawyer for Abigail Fisher, a white woman who was denied admission to the university, whether the modest racial preferences used by the university crossed a constitutional line. Then he proposed an answer to his own question.
“Are you saying that you shouldn’t impose this hurt, this injury, for so little benefit?” he asked.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor summarized the central question in the case. “At what point — when — do we stop deferring to the university’s judgment that race is still necessary?” she asked. “That’s the bottom line of this case.”
I highly recommend the following post in ScotusBlog which contains complete info on the case.
The questioning was exceptionally sharp, but the member of the court who probably holds the decisive vote, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, tipped his hand only a little, asking a few questions that indicated discomfort with at least some race-conscious admissions programs. He told a lawyer for the University of Texas at Austin, which was challenged over its policies, that he was uncomfortable with its efforts to attract privileged minorities.
“What you’re saying,” Justice Kennedy said, “is what counts is race above all.”
He asked a lawyer for Abigail Fisher, a white woman who was denied admission to the university, whether the modest racial preferences used by the university crossed a constitutional line. Then he proposed an answer to his own question.
“Are you saying that you shouldn’t impose this hurt, this injury, for so little benefit?” he asked.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor summarized the central question in the case. “At what point — when — do we stop deferring to the university’s judgment that race is still necessary?” she asked. “That’s the bottom line of this case.”
I highly recommend the following post in ScotusBlog which contains complete info on the case.
Tuesday, October 9, 2012
What is the Fiscal Cliff?
Since we've been covering the legislative branch and the question about whether the current Congress is the worst ever, its past time I posted links to stories about the fiscal cliff. This refers to the automatic spending cuts and tax increases that are scheduled to occur at the end of the year if Congress does not actively work to stop it. They are projected to come back into session after the election is over in order to address it.
On the bright side, going off the cliff would trim the deficit considerable, but at the cost of sending the country back into a recession. Spending cuts and tax increases would tighten the amount of money flowing in the economy. Passing laws preventing this requires a degree of cooperation that seems beyond the capacity of Congress at the moment.
Some useful links:
- What is the fiscal cliff?
- Must avoid fiscal cliff or will slip back into recession.
- Group of Eight Senators Meets to Work on Fiscal Cliff Plan.
On the bright side, going off the cliff would trim the deficit considerable, but at the cost of sending the country back into a recession. Spending cuts and tax increases would tighten the amount of money flowing in the economy. Passing laws preventing this requires a degree of cooperation that seems beyond the capacity of Congress at the moment.
Some useful links:
- What is the fiscal cliff?
- Must avoid fiscal cliff or will slip back into recession.
- Group of Eight Senators Meets to Work on Fiscal Cliff Plan.
From the National Journal: Generational Warfare: The Case Against Parasitic Baby Boomers
Here's something to stir the pot. Might be fun to bring up at Thanksgiving in a month or so. Are the baby boomers spoiled parasites who've deliberately left things worse for their kids?
Ultimately, members of my father’s generation—generally defined as those born between 1946 and 1964—are reaping more than they sowed. They graduated smack into one of the strongest economic expansions in American history. They needed less education to snag a decent-salaried job than their children do, and a college education cost them a small fraction of what it did for their children or will for their grandkids. One income was sufficient to get a family ahead economically. Marginal federal income-tax rates have fallen steadily, with rare exception, since boomers entered the labor force; government retirement benefits have proliferated. At nearly every point in their lives, these Americans chose to slough the costs of those tax cuts and spending hikes onto future generations.
The Dow Jones industrial average rose twelvefold from the time the first boomers began working until last year, when they began to cash out their retirement. (The growth trend over the 12 years since I entered the workforce suggests that the Dow will double exactly once before I retire.) They will leave the workforce far wealthier than their parents did, with even more government promises awaiting them. Boomers will be the first generation of retirees to fully enjoy the Medicare prescription-drug benefit; because Social Security payouts rise faster than price inflation, they will draw more-generous retirement benefits than their parents did, in real terms—at their children’s expense. The Urban Institute estimated last year that a couple retiring in 2011, having both earned average wages, will accrue about $200,000 more in Medicare and Social Security benefits over their lifetimes than they paid in taxes to support those programs.
Ultimately, members of my father’s generation—generally defined as those born between 1946 and 1964—are reaping more than they sowed. They graduated smack into one of the strongest economic expansions in American history. They needed less education to snag a decent-salaried job than their children do, and a college education cost them a small fraction of what it did for their children or will for their grandkids. One income was sufficient to get a family ahead economically. Marginal federal income-tax rates have fallen steadily, with rare exception, since boomers entered the labor force; government retirement benefits have proliferated. At nearly every point in their lives, these Americans chose to slough the costs of those tax cuts and spending hikes onto future generations.
The Dow Jones industrial average rose twelvefold from the time the first boomers began working until last year, when they began to cash out their retirement. (The growth trend over the 12 years since I entered the workforce suggests that the Dow will double exactly once before I retire.) They will leave the workforce far wealthier than their parents did, with even more government promises awaiting them. Boomers will be the first generation of retirees to fully enjoy the Medicare prescription-drug benefit; because Social Security payouts rise faster than price inflation, they will draw more-generous retirement benefits than their parents did, in real terms—at their children’s expense. The Urban Institute estimated last year that a couple retiring in 2011, having both earned average wages, will accrue about $200,000 more in Medicare and Social Security benefits over their lifetimes than they paid in taxes to support those programs.
Monday, October 8, 2012
The Perryman argues that Texas must expand Medicaid under the ACA
One of the provisions in the ACA is that states expand Medicaid coverage to families with incomes up to 133% of poverty line. The governor does not want to comply with the program but the economic analysts at the Perryman Group argue that accepting the expansion is Texas' only rational choice:
“Neither the Affordable Care Act nor the Medicaid program is perfect, and there are many opportunities to provide needed health services in a more efficient and cost effective manner,” said Dr. Ray Perryman, “but if we don’t expand Medicaid coverage as envisioned under the Affordable Care Act, Texas loses an opportunity to enhance access to health care for about 1.5 million Texans and foregoes almost $90 billion in federal health care funds over the first 10 years.”
Texas is currently plagued by the highest rate of uninsurance and underinsurance in the nation, leading to lower than optimal health care spending, excessive uncompensated care, excessive morbidity and mortality, and lost productivity. If Texas doesn’t expand Medicaid under the ACA, there is a significant economic downside which must be weighed against potential savings in direct State outlays. The Perryman Group found that the economic benefits of improving access to care far more than outweigh the costs.
During the first 10 years after implementation, The Perryman Group estimates that the total cumulative gross benefits to the state economy include $270.0 billion (in 2012 dollars) in output (real gross product) and 3,174,640 person-years of employment. These overall gains stem from spending for health care which would be provided through the expansion, reducing uncompensated care (and, thus, the local government and private funds needed to pay for it), and improving outcomes through better care (reducing morbidity and mortality and thus increasing productivity).
State revenues required to implement the Medicaid expansion will of necessity be diverted from other potential uses, either in terms of the fiscal resources funding other public goods and services, lower taxes allowing for greater private sector activity, or some combination of spending increases and tax reductions. When this diversion is accounted for, the outcomes from expanding Medicaid are still $255.8 billion (in 2012 dollars) in output (real gross product) and 3,031,400 person-years of employment (about 300,000 per annum over the first 10 years of implementation).
“Neither the Affordable Care Act nor the Medicaid program is perfect, and there are many opportunities to provide needed health services in a more efficient and cost effective manner,” said Dr. Ray Perryman, “but if we don’t expand Medicaid coverage as envisioned under the Affordable Care Act, Texas loses an opportunity to enhance access to health care for about 1.5 million Texans and foregoes almost $90 billion in federal health care funds over the first 10 years.”
Texas is currently plagued by the highest rate of uninsurance and underinsurance in the nation, leading to lower than optimal health care spending, excessive uncompensated care, excessive morbidity and mortality, and lost productivity. If Texas doesn’t expand Medicaid under the ACA, there is a significant economic downside which must be weighed against potential savings in direct State outlays. The Perryman Group found that the economic benefits of improving access to care far more than outweigh the costs.
During the first 10 years after implementation, The Perryman Group estimates that the total cumulative gross benefits to the state economy include $270.0 billion (in 2012 dollars) in output (real gross product) and 3,174,640 person-years of employment. These overall gains stem from spending for health care which would be provided through the expansion, reducing uncompensated care (and, thus, the local government and private funds needed to pay for it), and improving outcomes through better care (reducing morbidity and mortality and thus increasing productivity).
State revenues required to implement the Medicaid expansion will of necessity be diverted from other potential uses, either in terms of the fiscal resources funding other public goods and services, lower taxes allowing for greater private sector activity, or some combination of spending increases and tax reductions. When this diversion is accounted for, the outcomes from expanding Medicaid are still $255.8 billion (in 2012 dollars) in output (real gross product) and 3,031,400 person-years of employment (about 300,000 per annum over the first 10 years of implementation).
Week Seven Written Assignment - GOVT 2301 / 2306
I want to use this assignment to turn attention to the redistricting process in the state of Texas, and more specifically, how redistricting occurred in the 82nd of the Texas Legislature. As with previous assignments This is intended to provide background for the 1000 word written report due later this semester, in addition to giving you an inside look at the redistricting process in the state.
Using the links below, I want you to outline how districts are redrawn in Texas, and how US House, Texas Senate and Texas House districts were in fact redrawn in the 82nd session. I want you to pay special attention to the role the legislature played in the process.
You can use the links below for your information - but other sources can work as well.
- Legislative Redistricting Board.
- Redistricting Timeline.
- Ballotpedia: Redistricting in Texas.
- SB22: A bill to create a citizens redistricting commission.
- HB150: A bill to redistrict the Texas House.
- SB31: A bill to redistrict the Texas Senate.
- SB308: A bill to redistrict congressional districts.
Using the links below, I want you to outline how districts are redrawn in Texas, and how US House, Texas Senate and Texas House districts were in fact redrawn in the 82nd session. I want you to pay special attention to the role the legislature played in the process.
You can use the links below for your information - but other sources can work as well.
- Legislative Redistricting Board.
- Redistricting Timeline.
- Ballotpedia: Redistricting in Texas.
- SB22: A bill to create a citizens redistricting commission.
- HB150: A bill to redistrict the Texas House.
- SB31: A bill to redistrict the Texas Senate.
- SB308: A bill to redistrict congressional districts.
Sunday, October 7, 2012
Week Seven Written Assignment - GOVT 2302 / 2305
I'm about finished with the proposals for the 1000 word essay on the ACA and its seem that there are too many people unsure about what's in the bill. So this week I want you to look through some of the links below and list the items. Don't deal with controversies regarding them, just tell me what;s in the bill. There's lots there - and we will talk through some of it at other times in class - but I just want to make sure that you have an understanding about what the bill does and does not do.
The remainder of the questions I'll ask this semester will also focus on aspects of the bill. I think I've been negligent in not spending more time clarifying this for you.
These should be helpful:
- Wikipedia: Affordable Care and Patient Protection Act.
- White House: Affordable Care Act.
- Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act - U.S. Government ...
- Department of Labor: Affordable Care and Patient Protection Act.
- HealthCare.org.
- HealthCare.org: Fact Sheet.
The remainder of the questions I'll ask this semester will also focus on aspects of the bill. I think I've been negligent in not spending more time clarifying this for you.
These should be helpful:
- Wikipedia: Affordable Care and Patient Protection Act.
- White House: Affordable Care Act.
- Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act - U.S. Government ...
- Department of Labor: Affordable Care and Patient Protection Act.
- HealthCare.org.
- HealthCare.org: Fact Sheet.
Friday, October 5, 2012
Romney's Pivot to the Center?
I have few links below to stories touching on the recent debate between Obama and Romney, which most seem to think Romney won - which fits the "incumbent's curse - where most incumbents have been judged to have been beaten in their first debate. There's no consensus on whether this yet matters though - as of now no polling data conducted since the debate have been released.
The stories which interested me the most were the one's that argued that Romney used this debate to begin to reposition himself in the minds of the voters. Prior to Wednesday he was still the Romney that had to win over the Republicans base and sometimes run to the right of other candidates. Since it is difficult to win a general election with very conservative positions, he had to pivot and in hind sight, what better time to do that than in the first debate?
Here are two stories making that argument:
- The Return of Massachusetts Mitt.
- Entering Stage Right, Romney Moved to the Center.
- And a doubter: No, "moderate Mitt" isn't back.
This illustrates a story repeated every time we cover elections. Primaries are won at the extremes, general elections in the middle - for the obvious reason. Who votes in each. It may seem cynical, and seems to confirm the negative attitudes people have about politicians, but its how races are won. Beyond that, its how the rules of the races require candidates to behave if they are to win.
Some commentators have argued that Obama may have been ready to debate the conservative Romney, but was thrown off when the more moderate Romney took different stances on some key issues like health care and taxes on the wealthy.
Here are some Andrew Sullivan posts that discuss specific issues about the debate itself:
- Live Blog.
- First Debate: Blog Reax I.
- The Etch-A-Sketch Debate: Blog Reax II
- The Etch-A-Sketch Debate: Blog Reax III
The stories which interested me the most were the one's that argued that Romney used this debate to begin to reposition himself in the minds of the voters. Prior to Wednesday he was still the Romney that had to win over the Republicans base and sometimes run to the right of other candidates. Since it is difficult to win a general election with very conservative positions, he had to pivot and in hind sight, what better time to do that than in the first debate?
Here are two stories making that argument:
- The Return of Massachusetts Mitt.
- Entering Stage Right, Romney Moved to the Center.
- And a doubter: No, "moderate Mitt" isn't back.
This illustrates a story repeated every time we cover elections. Primaries are won at the extremes, general elections in the middle - for the obvious reason. Who votes in each. It may seem cynical, and seems to confirm the negative attitudes people have about politicians, but its how races are won. Beyond that, its how the rules of the races require candidates to behave if they are to win.
Some commentators have argued that Obama may have been ready to debate the conservative Romney, but was thrown off when the more moderate Romney took different stances on some key issues like health care and taxes on the wealthy.
Here are some Andrew Sullivan posts that discuss specific issues about the debate itself:
- Live Blog.
- First Debate: Blog Reax I.
- The Etch-A-Sketch Debate: Blog Reax II
- The Etch-A-Sketch Debate: Blog Reax III
General comment on assignment #4
I asked everyone to submit their proposed topic a couple weeks back and I'm still plowing through them. One problem I'm finding is that very few people are actually giving me a simple, clearly defined topic. I'm getting a lot of general restatements of the broad issue I asked you to look at. I'm trying to help everyone out individually, which is taking some time. It might be a few more days before I get comments back if you haven't already heard from me.
Very likely I will ask this question again for the week 8 assignment so you can get a clearly defined, specific direction to head down. Once you do, the project should be relatively easy to finish .
Very likely I will ask this question again for the week 8 assignment so you can get a clearly defined, specific direction to head down. Once you do, the project should be relatively easy to finish .
Wednesday, October 3, 2012
The Gender Gap 2012
A poll from Quinnipiac University shows Obama with an 18% lead over Romney among women.
Do debates matter?
Aside from 1976, there is little evidence that presidential debates have had a major impact on the relative positions of the two candidates, but there are a slew on of minor effects.
Ezra Klein outlines them here, and John Sides here.
The biggest impact seems not to be from the debate, but from the media spin following the debate.
Ezra Klein outlines them here, and John Sides here.
The biggest impact seems not to be from the debate, but from the media spin following the debate.
Is the 112th Congress the worst Congress ever?
A number of commentators think it is. Here are some links:
- Ezra Klein: 14 reasons why this is the worst Congress ever.
- Fox Business: Worst Congress Ever.
- National Journal: Worst Congress Ever? Then We're the Worst Electorate Ever.
- The American Spectator: Worst Congress Ever?
- Foreign Policy: Worst.Congress.Ever.
This is just a handful of the many similar stories out there. Its almost enough to make you wonder if the media has adopted this as a talking point and there might be a contrary take to make, but perhaps not.
Here are two recently published books that argue that increasingly extreme politics driven by ideologically polarized parties have overcome the ability of governing institutions to function.
2008: The Broken Branch
2012: It's even worse than it looks.
- Ezra Klein: 14 reasons why this is the worst Congress ever.
- Fox Business: Worst Congress Ever.
- National Journal: Worst Congress Ever? Then We're the Worst Electorate Ever.
- The American Spectator: Worst Congress Ever?
- Foreign Policy: Worst.Congress.Ever.
This is just a handful of the many similar stories out there. Its almost enough to make you wonder if the media has adopted this as a talking point and there might be a contrary take to make, but perhaps not.
Here are two recently published books that argue that increasingly extreme politics driven by ideologically polarized parties have overcome the ability of governing institutions to function.
2008: The Broken Branch
2012: It's even worse than it looks.
From the Diane Rehm Show: How the electoral college works
A terrific interview with some experts on the electoral college. They do a much better job than I do outlining the history and purpose of the electoral college, in addition to the changes that have been made to it over history.
Give this a listen.
Give this a listen.
Tuesday, October 2, 2012
Is inequality dangerous?
Jonathan Rauch - the guy who's concept of "demosclerosis" we read along with Fed 10 - argues that inequality suppresses demand, which inhibits growth, and leads to instability which can fuel financial crashes. Was the financial crisis which began 4 years ago caused by - and continues to linger because of - significant inequality between the rich and everyone else?
Worth looking through before we attempt economic policymaking. A brief bit:
As Christopher Brown, an economist at Arkansas State University, put it in a pioneering 2004 paper, “Income inequality can exert a significant drag on effective demand.” Looking back on the two decades before 1986, Brown found that if the gap between rich and poor hadn’t grown wider, consumption spending would have been almost 12 percent higher than it actually was. That was a big enough number to have produced a noticeable macroeconomic impact. Stiglitz, in his book, argues that an inequality-driven shift away from consumption accounts for “the entire shortfall in aggregate demand—and hence in the U.S. economy—today.”
. . . So inequality might suppress growth. It might also cause instability. In a democracy, politicians and the public are unlikely to accept depressed spending power if they can help it. They can try to compensate by easing credit standards, effectively encouraging the non-rich to sustain purchasing power by borrowing. They might, for example, create policies allowing banks to write flimsy home mortgages and encouraging consumers to seek them. Call this the “let them eat credit” strategy.
. . . You can see where the logic leads. The economy, propped up on shaky credit, becomes more vulnerable to shocks. When a recession comes, the economy takes a double hit as banks fail and credit-fueled consumer spending collapses. That is not a bad description of what happened in the 1920s and again during these past few years. “When—as appears to have happened in the long run-up to both crises—the rich lend a large part of their added income to the poor and middle class, and when income inequality grows for several decades,” the IMF’s Michael Kumhof and Romain Rancière wrote, “debt-to-income ratios increase sufficiently to raise the risk of a major crisis.”
Andrew Sullivan comments here.
Worth looking through before we attempt economic policymaking. A brief bit:
As Christopher Brown, an economist at Arkansas State University, put it in a pioneering 2004 paper, “Income inequality can exert a significant drag on effective demand.” Looking back on the two decades before 1986, Brown found that if the gap between rich and poor hadn’t grown wider, consumption spending would have been almost 12 percent higher than it actually was. That was a big enough number to have produced a noticeable macroeconomic impact. Stiglitz, in his book, argues that an inequality-driven shift away from consumption accounts for “the entire shortfall in aggregate demand—and hence in the U.S. economy—today.”
. . . So inequality might suppress growth. It might also cause instability. In a democracy, politicians and the public are unlikely to accept depressed spending power if they can help it. They can try to compensate by easing credit standards, effectively encouraging the non-rich to sustain purchasing power by borrowing. They might, for example, create policies allowing banks to write flimsy home mortgages and encouraging consumers to seek them. Call this the “let them eat credit” strategy.
. . . You can see where the logic leads. The economy, propped up on shaky credit, becomes more vulnerable to shocks. When a recession comes, the economy takes a double hit as banks fail and credit-fueled consumer spending collapses. That is not a bad description of what happened in the 1920s and again during these past few years. “When—as appears to have happened in the long run-up to both crises—the rich lend a large part of their added income to the poor and middle class, and when income inequality grows for several decades,” the IMF’s Michael Kumhof and Romain Rancière wrote, “debt-to-income ratios increase sufficiently to raise the risk of a major crisis.”
Andrew Sullivan comments here.
From the NYT: Pennsylvania Judge Puts Voter ID Law on Hold for Election
This seems similar to the decision affecting Texas' elections:
A Pennsylvania judge on Tuesday delayed full implementation of a highly contested state law requiring strict photographic identification to vote in next month’s election, saying that the authorities had not done enough to ensure that potential voters had access to the new documents.
A Pennsylvania judge on Tuesday delayed full implementation of a highly contested state law requiring strict photographic identification to vote in next month’s election, saying that the authorities had not done enough to ensure that potential voters had access to the new documents.
The judge, Robert Simpson, who upheld the law in August when it was
challenged by liberal and civil rights groups, was instructed by the
state’s Supreme Court two weeks ago to hold further hearings. He was
told to focus on the question of whether enough had been done to ensure “liberal access” to the picture ID cards or alternatives.
Judge Simpson said in his Tuesday ruling that for the presidential
election of Nov. 6, voters in Pennsylvania could be asked to produce the
newly required photo IDs, but if they did not have them could still go
ahead and vote. The decision could still be appealed to the state
Supreme Court.
From Wonkblog: Missouri court: Yes, the feds can mandate contraceptive coverage
This dispute will very likely wind up in the Supreme Court:
A number of lawsuits, challenging the health law’s required coverage of contraceptives, are winding their way up through the federal court system. A few have seen preliminary rulings on ripeness (whether the case can even be brought yet) and standing (whether the people bringing the suit have actually suffered damage).
A court in Missouri today became the first to rule on a lawsuit’s merits: Whether, as the case argues, the contraceptives mandate is a violation of the First Amendment freedom to practice religion. In a ruling written by George Bush-appointee Carol Jackson, the Eastern District of Missouri court found the health law provision to be constitutional.
You can read the full 29-page opinion here. The main thrust of the opinion though, is this: The requirement that employers cover contraceptives does not represent a substantial burden on employers’ ability to practice religion.
Looks like we will have opportunities to dig into the meaning and extent of religious freedom.
A number of lawsuits, challenging the health law’s required coverage of contraceptives, are winding their way up through the federal court system. A few have seen preliminary rulings on ripeness (whether the case can even be brought yet) and standing (whether the people bringing the suit have actually suffered damage).
A court in Missouri today became the first to rule on a lawsuit’s merits: Whether, as the case argues, the contraceptives mandate is a violation of the First Amendment freedom to practice religion. In a ruling written by George Bush-appointee Carol Jackson, the Eastern District of Missouri court found the health law provision to be constitutional.
You can read the full 29-page opinion here. The main thrust of the opinion though, is this: The requirement that employers cover contraceptives does not represent a substantial burden on employers’ ability to practice religion.
Looks like we will have opportunities to dig into the meaning and extent of religious freedom.
From The Texas Tribune: A Boom on Texas Roads
Policymakers in the state are trying to figure out how public policies need to be changed in order to accommodate the huge number of baby boomers that are starting to retire. One area of concern: traffic policies.
What about traffic, and old people?
[State demographer Steve] Murdock sees the number of drivers growing, which makes sense since the overall population will grow. Since the population will be older over all, he projects the number of drivers per 1,000 residents will grow. More adults per 1,000 means more drivers per 1,000.
And the fastest growth of any age group will be the gray-hairs — drivers 65 or older. Depending on the growth model for Texas — what you think migration will do, whether you think the state will be as magnetic as it has been for the last two decades — the over-65 driving population will grow by anywhere from 218 percent to 268 percent between 2005 and 2040. Put another way: A population that numbered about 1.8 million in Texas in 2005 will grow to somewhere between 5.7 million and 6.6 million in 2040.
That group is part of a bigger issue: If the state continues to grow like it has, we will need more roads. “We’re adding lots of bodies to roads that are already congested,” Murdock said.
And lots of them are older bodies. Texas, as with some other states, has a different set of laws for its oldest drivers; after age 85, for instance, they have to get their licenses renewed every 2 years instead of every 6, and everyone who is 79 or older has to do it in person instead of by mail or online.
That might get another look as more drivers get old. The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety says fatal crashes per mile driven “increase noticeably starting at age 70-74.”
The bright spot in the demographics-as-traffic-policy is on the other end, where the most dangerous drivers live. The number of drivers under 25 will have the lowest growth rate on the charts through 2040. Their crash rate per mile is five times the rate of seniors.
One of the examples I like to look at for [potentially] justifiable discrimination is age discrimination regarding drivers licences. the state toys with the idea that older folks ought to take tests again once they hit their 70s. Maybe that idea gets re-introduced.
What about traffic, and old people?
[State demographer Steve] Murdock sees the number of drivers growing, which makes sense since the overall population will grow. Since the population will be older over all, he projects the number of drivers per 1,000 residents will grow. More adults per 1,000 means more drivers per 1,000.
And the fastest growth of any age group will be the gray-hairs — drivers 65 or older. Depending on the growth model for Texas — what you think migration will do, whether you think the state will be as magnetic as it has been for the last two decades — the over-65 driving population will grow by anywhere from 218 percent to 268 percent between 2005 and 2040. Put another way: A population that numbered about 1.8 million in Texas in 2005 will grow to somewhere between 5.7 million and 6.6 million in 2040.
That group is part of a bigger issue: If the state continues to grow like it has, we will need more roads. “We’re adding lots of bodies to roads that are already congested,” Murdock said.
And lots of them are older bodies. Texas, as with some other states, has a different set of laws for its oldest drivers; after age 85, for instance, they have to get their licenses renewed every 2 years instead of every 6, and everyone who is 79 or older has to do it in person instead of by mail or online.
That might get another look as more drivers get old. The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety says fatal crashes per mile driven “increase noticeably starting at age 70-74.”
The bright spot in the demographics-as-traffic-policy is on the other end, where the most dangerous drivers live. The number of drivers under 25 will have the lowest growth rate on the charts through 2040. Their crash rate per mile is five times the rate of seniors.
One of the examples I like to look at for [potentially] justifiable discrimination is age discrimination regarding drivers licences. the state toys with the idea that older folks ought to take tests again once they hit their 70s. Maybe that idea gets re-introduced.
Texas still has more uninsured people than any other state
Detail from the Texas Tribune, plus interactive graphics.
The data comes form the 2011 American Community Survey, conducted by the Census Bureau. More commentary from the Texas Tribune, plus reactions to comments from the new head of Texas Health and Human Services Commission.
The data comes form the 2011 American Community Survey, conducted by the Census Bureau. More commentary from the Texas Tribune, plus reactions to comments from the new head of Texas Health and Human Services Commission.
From the Houston Chronicle: Race to replace Ron Paul: The Houston area’s only competitive congressional race
As is generally the case, the only race in the general area where the eventual winner has not already locked up victory is in Ron Paul's open seat. The district has been redesigned to include some union friendly territory, so the Democratic and the Republican are running a tight race, which also features a Libertarian and Green Party candidate.
From the Chron:
One of the state’s 36 congressional races is a real, true, honest-to-goodness competition, according to the political maps, the candidates, the consultants, the activists and everybody else who’s paying attention.
Another 34 districts were designed to protect incumbents, the parties that now hold them, or both. Weird things happen in politics all the time, but barring the unexpected, those are set. The lawmakers who did the designing got what they wanted.
Then, there’s the race in the state’s 14th Congressional District — the place opened when U.S. Rep. Ron Paul, R-Lake Jackson, decided he wouldn’t seek another term. It’s been redrawn to include all of Jefferson and Galveston counties and part of Brazoria County.
State Rep. Randy Weber, R-Alvin, faces Democrat Nick Lampson, a former congressman from Beaumont; Libertarian Zach Grady; and the Green Party’s Rhett Rosenquest Smith.
It’s conservative turf. Gov. Rick Perry got 55.9 percent of the vote in his 2010 re-election. Two years before that, Republican U.S. Sen. John McCain got 57 percent of the vote in the presidential race.
Weber is counting on those tendencies — and on the unpopularity of President Obama in the district — to carry the day.
Lampson has run in this area before, on different political maps, at different times, but on political ground that closely matches the current district. He’s a known quantity, he argues. And though he has lost a couple of races since leaving Congress, he says a Democrat can succeed under the right circumstances, especially at a time when voters are fed up with partisans.
From the Chron:
One of the state’s 36 congressional races is a real, true, honest-to-goodness competition, according to the political maps, the candidates, the consultants, the activists and everybody else who’s paying attention.
Another 34 districts were designed to protect incumbents, the parties that now hold them, or both. Weird things happen in politics all the time, but barring the unexpected, those are set. The lawmakers who did the designing got what they wanted.
Then, there’s the race in the state’s 14th Congressional District — the place opened when U.S. Rep. Ron Paul, R-Lake Jackson, decided he wouldn’t seek another term. It’s been redrawn to include all of Jefferson and Galveston counties and part of Brazoria County.
State Rep. Randy Weber, R-Alvin, faces Democrat Nick Lampson, a former congressman from Beaumont; Libertarian Zach Grady; and the Green Party’s Rhett Rosenquest Smith.
It’s conservative turf. Gov. Rick Perry got 55.9 percent of the vote in his 2010 re-election. Two years before that, Republican U.S. Sen. John McCain got 57 percent of the vote in the presidential race.
Weber is counting on those tendencies — and on the unpopularity of President Obama in the district — to carry the day.
Lampson has run in this area before, on different political maps, at different times, but on political ground that closely matches the current district. He’s a known quantity, he argues. And though he has lost a couple of races since leaving Congress, he says a Democrat can succeed under the right circumstances, especially at a time when voters are fed up with partisans.
Monday, October 1, 2012
From the Gallup Poll: Americans Trust Judicial Branch Most, Legislative Least
No surprise here. This replicates past results. Notice that the democratic branch is least popular.
![Trend: How much trust and confidence [do] you have at this time in the executive branch headed by the president, the judicial branch headed by the U.S. Supreme Court, and the legislative branch, consisting of the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives?](http://sas-origin.onstreammedia.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/_qvjizdhmuoo578wjdyjxq.gif)
More on this subject:
- Party Divide Still Evident in Supreme Court Job Approval
- Video commentary.
More on this subject:
- Party Divide Still Evident in Supreme Court Job Approval
- Video commentary.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)