From The Hill: 25 Regulations to Watch

After out look at Congress in 2305 we will look at the executive branch and discuss the rulemaking power in the bureaucracy. We mentioned it already when we outlined the iron triangle, so its not an entirely new thing.

To prep us, here's an article in The Hill about 25 noteworthy proposed rules that being debated in DC.

From the NYT: Senate Action on Health Law Moves to Brink of Shutdown

Keeping up with the excitement on Capitol Hill:

Plus: Who works and who stays home in a shut down?

The Hastert Rule

Here is one of the factors driving dysfunction in Congress.

Despite the fact that we assume we are a majoritarian democracy there are many places were the will of the majority - which tends to be understood as the will of the people is thwarted. One of the many areas this happens is in the US House of Representatives where the majority of House members do not determine what comes to the floor of the chamber - rather it is a majority of the majority party that matters.

Theoretically this means that 117 members can prevent the preferences of the remaining 318.

The Republican Conference tends to use this rule when in charge. It has been called the Hastert Rule after Speaker Dennis Hastert who was speaker from 1999 - 2007, and also the majority of the majority rule. Other Speakers have also adhered to the rule.

- Hastert was quoted as saying that his job as Speaker was to please the majority of the majority.

There is nothing set in stone about the rule, but it argued to be an effective way to keep House Republicans cohesive, though it does not encourage bi-partisanship.

Related stories:

- Hastert rule not working.
- The absurdity of the Hastert Rule.
- What the rule tells us about House Republicans.

The Tea Party Caucus

Most commentators argue that the current stand off over the government funding - the debt ceiling - and the ACA - etc..., all stem from the demands imposed by a very disciplined and cohesive Tea Party Caucus within Congress. It contains 50 or so members - but has been able to drive its agenda forcefully.

For more info

- Wikipedia - Tea Party Caucus.
- Politico - The Tea Party Returns.
- Who is the Tea Party in the House?
- NYT- The Tea Party Caucus

The Hill argues that the caucus has gained control over Speaker Boehner - which allows it to control the House to a great degree.

By the way, what is a congressional caucus?
Here is a comprehensive list of caucuses in Congress.

WonkBlog explains Obama Care in Two Minutes

One of a series if videos apparently.

Written Assignment #6

By now - hopefully - you've submitted your proposal and you should have received feedback from me on it.

Take that feedback into consideration and revise and resubmit your proposal - if necessary - or build it further if you've been given the green light to go ahead.

Give at least 150 words.
Be sure to give me your answer in the submissions box in Blackboard.
If you send me a file - use Microsoft Word.

From NPR: How Two Brothers Waged A 'Secret World War' In The 1950s

NPR has an interview with the author of a book I'm tempted to order for a future class.

It's called The Brothers: John Foster Dulles, Allen Dulles, and Their Secret World War.

Its about two brothers - the Dulles' - who seem to have dominated the nature of American foreign policy for the couple decades following WWII. Their activities seem to have been allowed to go forward by the presidents of that era.

They had this tendency to overthrown democratically elected governments in places like Iran. The author suggests that many of the problems we face internationally are the result of an ongoing backlash against their actions.

Its an interesting inside look at how foreign policy was actually made during a 20-30 years period of American history.

380 agreements

The article linked to in the previous post mentions 380 agreements. Here's my best at describing what these are and what they tell us about state and local policy making. I've added the appropriate links so you can find out where they are described more fully and what the issues surrounding them tend to be.

The simple description is that they are allowances for Texas cities to enter into agreements with private entities in order to provide assistance for economic development.

The are named after Chapter 380 of the Texas Local Government Code.

- Click here for a presentation by the Texas City Attorney Association about the agreements.
- Click here for the actual code.

Here's a description from the Comptroller's Office:

Chapter 380 of the Local Government Code authorizes municipalities to offer incentives designed to promote economic development such as commercial and retail projects. Specifically, it provides for offering loans and grants of city funds or services at little or no cost to promote state and local economic development and to stimulate business and commercial activity.

In order to provide a grant or loan, a city must establish a program to implement the incentives. Before proceeding, cities must review their city charters or local policies that may restrict a city's ability provide a load or grant.

There is a comparable agreement - 381 - that allows counties to offer similar incentives.

You can also find a good run description by clicking on the website of the International Business District. From what I can see the district appears to be promoting 380's to individuals and business who seek to work with them.

The City of Houston has entered into over a dozen 380 agreements since they were established - no more than six can be funded at one time.

- Click here for a list of them.

The Parker Administration has entered into a great number of these - we had a question in class about her tenure in office and what she has accomplished. She makes the argument that these agreements have increased the economic vitality of certain areas of town and the quality of life there as well.

That doesn't mean they have not been controversial. One of the agreements was with the developer who helped build a Walmart in the Heights. Critics argued that the largest corporation in the US did not need a local tax abatement, but it got one anyway.

Here are a few related links that ought to help fill in gaps. One of the areas where I am deficient is in discussing land use policy on the state and local level. Hopefully this helps fill in some of that gap.

- Residents don't like details of 380 agreement.
- Mayor Parker defends incentives to lure development.
- Comment of the day.
- That mysterious 380 agreement.

Houston tries to make itself attractive to the Millenials

This Houston Chronicle story is behind a pay-wall, but it fits our general discussion of cities as networks of economic interests. It also tells us something about how the more vibrant cities do what they can to continually re-position themselves so that they remain vibrant.

Often this means ensuring that the city is appealing to the young since they are the engines that drive future growth.

The story - Mid Main project will ride with the millennials - details a development in the midtown area, on the light rail line between downtown and the Museum District, which is geared to wards the 18-32 year old demographic. Developers hope it will be the first of money other such projects, and it comes after other efforts to make the area hip.

Much of this effort requires partnerships between the public and private sector in order to make it happen. I'll post a few separate items about the institutions and rules that try to make that a reality. Remember that Houston still suffers from a general sense that it is looked down upon nationally, so it has to try hard to overcome that reputation.

What is the 113th Congress anyway?

For 2305's to chew on this week as we look through the legislative branch.

It's the 113th meeting of the Congress since they first met in 1789 following the first election held under the current Constitution.We will discuss the achievements of the first Congress periodically - they established the original agencies, passed the Bill of Rights and put in place early legislative processes.

We'll talk loosely about factors related to it, but the Wikipedia on it is worth a quick look.

It contains a list of party leaders and the standing committees and subcommittees.The principle feature of the current Congress is its split control - one party controls the House - the other the Senate. Another - as mentioned below - is the polarization between the parties. The ideological distance between the two parties is only increasing. The current impasse over the continuing resolution and the debt ceiling is argued to be a direct consequence of it.

External forces which have spurred this division between the parties punishes members who might seek to compromise.

We'll go it this week.

What exactly does a Speaker do anyway?

I though this list from a helpful stranger named Jack on Yahoo answers was worth sharing:

There was a time when Speakers of the House were all powerful. Those days are long gone. Nevertheless, Speakers still possess a few formidable powers worth noting:

1. The Speaker is the chair of the steering committee that chooses all committee chairs.

2. The Speaker directs all bills to their respective committees. (This is a HUGE power -- as if the Speaker hates the bill he can send it to a committee he knows will kill it -- or vice versa).

3. The Speaker is personally responsible for elevating members to the all powerful (and never to be messed with) "Rules Committee". 

4. The Speaker is responsible for organizing floor debates, ruling on the acceptability of floor motions, and recognizing members who wish to address the House. 

5. In any dealings with the Senate, the Speaker appoints all members of conference committees. 

6. Because of all of these things, the Speaker is the agenda setter of the House. What bills are heard? What bills simply get thrown away? What policies do we wish to impact, and how? These are all questions that only the Speaker gets to answer.

I'll keep posting criticisms of the Speaker Boehner's job performance, but this gives us a guideline for evaluating him.

Its important to keep in mind that while the Speaker is meant to preside over the entire House - and is elected by the entire House - each party nominates its leader for the position. Obviously the party which holds the majority will win, so the Speaker is less a neutral presiding officer than an advocate for the interests of the majority party.

The 113th Congress is the most divisive one yet - at least going back to 1879

VoteView measures polarization in Congress, and though the 113th has a long way to go, its shaping up to be the most polarized yet. Click on the link to see how they measure polarization. Their assessment is that the Republican Conference is being pulled increasingly to the right - Democrats are holding steady.



The Washington Post comments.

Is Boehner to blame for the House's dysfunction?

An ex-Republican member of the House lays blame with House Democrats - who refuse to vote for anything Republicans propose - and "No On Everything Caucus" within the Republican Party.

The focus on Boehner has been more intense because House Democrats have abdicated any meaningful role in passing legislation. Few bills are able to garner Democratic support, often not because of policy differences but because House Democratic leaders have decided they would rather wash their hands of responsibility for governing and, instead, focus on winning back the majority.

The role of the minority party is to be the “loyal opposition,” and Democrats have gotten it half right — they are opposed to everything House Republicans do, but there is not much loyal about it.

. . . Boehner is a skilled politician who is more than able to lead his caucus — well, at least the 180 or so members interested in actively participating in the legislative process. Unfortunately for Boehner, for the House as an institution and for the country in general, these 180 public servants are not the problem.

Thirty to 40 other members of the House, however, believe their only responsibility as a member of Congress is to show up and vote “no.” Frankly, they take such a dim view of their job that a trained monkey could do what they do. And, sadly, the situation is becoming one in which the monkeys are running the zoo.

It is these members who are largely responsible for the dysfunction in Washington and the failure of the legislative process. They have gleefully ground to a halt the work of the people. Because of them, agreement cannot be reached on legislation once deemed too important not to pass, such as the farm bill or the transportation bill.

These members are cheered on by interest groups such as the Club for Growthand FreedomWorks, organizations that have made a lucrative business out of Washington’s dysfunction.

If Boehner is ousted he won't be the first Republican Speaker to suffer that fate

The Week tells us its actually common, Democrats have been less likely to do so - surprising since Democrats have traditionally been argued to be less cohesive than Republicans (though this seems less the case now).

House Republicans have had a propensity, throughout the 20th century, for periodically getting rid of their leaders. 

Tossing out a speaker is in many ways a drastic measure because, unlike other congressional leaders, the Speaker of the House has demonstrable power over the institution. In one of the many ironies of American politics, the House of Representatives, which was intended to channel voters' opinions, has been a top-down, leadership driven branch of government, in contrast to the historical every-Senator-for-himself model on the other side of the Capitol. Due to this top-down structure, the speaker, unlike the majority leader of the Senate (frequently referred to derisively as the majority pleader), can bend the chamber to his or her will. 

Nevertheless, speakers occasionally have had to ward off intra-party threats to their power. These attacks are unusual — in The Ambition and the Power, John Barry compares overthrowing a speaker or minority leader to regicide. And, perhaps surprisingly, all of the successful overthrows have been on the Republican side of the aisle.

The most notable of which was Newt Gingrich, who was originally revered for leading the party back to the promised land of the majority after 40 years in the minority, but then had a very rocky tenure. Gingrich was forced out right after the party's unexpectedly poor showing in 1998.

High hopes for Boehner in 2010

I ran across this hopeful profile of a then potential Speaker Boehner written just before Republicans took over the House in 2010. It contains this insight into the internal power struggles within the party and the job a Speaker is supposed to do:

It’s an open secret that Boehner’s Republican lieutenants—Eric Cantor, Kevin McCarthy, and Paul Ryan, who spent last week promoting a new, coauthored book (Young Guns) about how they’re more in tune with the times than their slick establishment predecessors—harbor leadership ambitions of their own. So when they instantly distanced themselves from the boss’s remarks, no one was surprised. As one GOP staffer puts it, “Those guys are pushing themselves forward, with the implication that they’re leaving the rest of the leadership behind. That includes John Boehner.”

The funny thing about all the anti-Boehner ferment, however, is that the Ohioan’s critics may soon come to consider him irreplaceable. In truth, Boehner is one of the few players in American politics with the potential to give both Republicans and Democrats what they need in the wake of November’s anticipated GOP landslide. For the left, that means an experienced legislative negotiator on the opposite side of the aisle. For the right, it means a leader who can rack up tangible accomplishments for the party to run on in 2012—while also keeping the new, red-meat caucus from eating him alive.

Assessing Speaker Boehner

Speaker of the House John Boehner has not had an easy go of it recently. For some time he has been accused of being unable to adequately manage the House Republican Conference (the Tea Party faction does not trust him), much less the chamber as a whole.

Here's a roundup of the latest evaluations of him:

No following this leader:

Boehner’s collapse as speaker has been sad to watch. Unable to control his own caucus, negotiate effectively with the president or pass legislation, he flounders in office — a likable man who is utterly ineffective. He is the prisoner of the extreme wing of his party, and of his supposed lieutenants, such as Majority Leader Eric Cantor, who spend their time pandering to the extremists rather than helping Boehner lead.

Boehner’s problem is that he is unable to deliver the 218 House Republicans for any pragmatic piece of legislation. He survives from crisis to crisis, thanks to Democratic votes that salvage last-minute compromises. But on major issues that Boehner personally supports, such asimmigration reform, he has been powerless.

The author argues Majority leader Cantor is the real seat of power in the Conference:

House Republican sources tell me that Cantor has cunningly worked to undermine his nominal boss. By often allying himself with the roughly 40 tea party extremists who refuse any compromise with Obama, Cantor gives them political oxygen. He encourages their showboating, as on the bill he championed this month to slash the food-stamp program. Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.), chair of the Senate Agriculture Committee, described this bill as “a monumental waste of time.” House committee chairmen ignore Boehner; they know Cantor is the guy with the knife.

John Boehner, Eric Cantor struggle to lead House:

The skirmish is yet another example of how few Republicans are willing to follow Boehner and Cantor’s lead during tough legislative fights. And in practical terms, the rejection of what became known as the Cantor Plan — a continuing resolution, with an unattached provision to defund Obamacare — makes it more likely that the House and Senate will be at loggerheads with a government shutdown looming on Sept. 30.

A clearly frustrated Boehner seemed to realize that he leads a conference where no plan is quite good enough. There are frequently about 30 Republicans who oppose leadership’s carefully crafted plans — just enough to mess things up. A reporter asked him whether he has a new idea to resolve the government funding fight. He laughed and said, “No.”

“Do you have an idea?” he asked the reporters. “They’ll just shoot it down anyway.”

A small handful of House Republican have floated the idea of replacing Speaker Boehner with Senator Cruz - there is no requirement in the Constitution that the speaker be a member of the House.

Are we really naturally violent?

The Dish flags a story that challenges a self evident truth contained in the Declaration of Independence, one based on an assumption enlightenment philosophers made about the state of nature.

It was generally assumed that it was violent, and that this was why people in the state of nature decided to form government - to secure the unalienable rights. Thomas Hobbes argued that the state of nature was a perpetual state of war of all against all.

But other philosophers during the enlightenment period scoffed at that idea - they saw little evidence that a state of nature every really existed.

An evolutionary biologist challenges the idea that there was ever any proof that ancient people were actually that violent. The assumption that they were has clouded how evidence has been evaluated. Yes we can be violent, but we can be compassionate as well.

When it comes to human aggression, violence and war, there simply is no unitary direction impelled by evolution. On the one hand, we are capable of despicable acts of horrific violence; on the other, we evince remarkable compassion and self-abnegation. Our selfish genes can generate a wide array of nasty, destructive and unpleasant actions; and yet, these same selfish genes can incline us toward altruistic acts of extraordinary selflessness. It is at least possible that our remarkably rapid brain evolution has been driven by the pay-off derived by successful warlike competition with other primitive human and humanoid groups. But it is equally possible that it was driven by the pay-off associated with co-operation, co‑ordination and mutual care-taking.

Perhaps we need to rethink why government evolve and what purposes they serve.

Wrapping up week 5 - 2306

This week was meant to be a bridge to a discussion of the three branches of government outlined in Articles 3, 4, and 5 of the Texas Constitution.

Before digging into it, I though it was necessary to make sure we were clear on the purpose of and problems presented by the separated powers. The simple purpose of it was to ensure that the three principle powers of government would not be concentrated in the hands of one person, group, or institution.But it comes at a cost because it makes the governing system inefficient.

Texas' mechanism for separating power is different from that you see on the national level, an an open question in any state - especially Texas - is whether the powers are in fact adequately separated.

After doing so we ran through basic features of each of the three branches and tried to understand how Texas is different from each of the states. We hit the following point repeatedly, but the amateur legislature, plural executive and elected judiciary - together - are meant to minimize the power of the state government. Whether that makes Texas government more susceptible to private interests is a topic we pick up later.

Next up: a look at the constitutional design of the legislature.

Then we will hit the pause button and spend a week walking through the book you are assigned to read.

Wrapping up week 5 - 2305

We covered two subjects this week and ignored - maybe just postponed - a third.

The first looked at public policy and included an observation of the public policy process and - in my view more importantly - the concept of a sub-government, or issue network, or advocacy coalition. These are terms that refer to the networks of interested parties - stakeholders - that develop around a specific policy impacted by government.

I suggested that despite the constitutional arrangements we discussed in previous lectures, these might best describe the actual workings of government, and its relationship with private organizations which benefit from those policies. We discussed the iron triangle since that provides the clearest picture of what these networks might actually look like. I mentioned that this is a simplistic picture - and other institutions can play a role in preserving certain policies - but the relationship between legislative committees, bureaucratic agencies and interest groups might be the best way to visualize these networks.

I also mentioned that a revolving door exists between these institutions, and it describes the tendency of people to move from a job in one institution to another. Each step of the way the knowledge and connections built up in one institution tie into those in another. The interests of the committee and the agency become intertwined. Interest groups - the strong ones especially - can drive the connection between them. Members of Congress can often cash in when they retire by joining one of the interest groups focusing on the policy the member focused on when in office.

The major point I tried to drive home was that network matter, and we can best understand what governments actually do less in terms of the constitutional principles we discussed in the two previous weeks - though they still matters - but in terms of these networks. Critics argue they compromise democracy and ought to enter into our assessment of whether the people either rule, or our understanding of consent.

We then looked at civil rights and the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. I encouraged you to consider it as being a fifth principle - equality before the law - added to the Constitution following the Civil War. It - along with the 13th and 15th Amendment.

A couple points to keep in mind as we go further:

- A lot of the ongoing conflict between the state and national governments - especially states like Texas - are based on the equal protection clause. Definitions of what it takes to be equally protected by the law can vary, and have varied over history.

- Its up to the Supreme Court to define which groups are covered under the equal protection clause and how much protection they are provided. Legislatures - local, state, national - pass laws related to these groups, which are generally challenged by opponents, which begins a process which can lead to the case being heard in the Supreme Court.

Finally a word about the section we did not cover: Ideology - What is Government for anyway?

I'm still developing this section and its not quite ready to go live. It'll provide a little more in-depth analysis of the history of ideological movement in American history and how they tie into broader movements throughout western political history. This should help us know how different political movements rose and fell over American history, and how we got to where we are now ideologically. There's an outside possibility it will be included later in the year. I'll let you know if that happens.

Keep reading - and I hope this review helps.

Next week we begin looking at the US legislature.

I mentioned in class that the week after that will be devoted to the assigned book in order to help you more clearly build on your proposed topic for the 1000 word essay.

I hope the class is going well so far - let me know otherwise.

From The Texas Tribune: Bag Bans May Sweep Through Texas Again

More from the Trib.

In 2306 we discuss areas of conflict between the state and local governments. One area ripe for conflict is between the conservative state legislature and liberal city council of Austin.

Austin passed an ordinance banning plastic and paper bags. The argument is that quickly become trash and undermine the city's quality of life. In response, a member of the legislature introduced HB 2416, the Shopping Bag Freedom Act.

It didn't pass, but a lawsuit was issued against the city by the Texas Retailers Association. It has since been dropped leading to the speculation that cities might renew these bans.

From The Texas Tribune: Judge Ken Anderson Resigns Amid Ethics Lawsuit

This picks up a story we highlighted in the spring.

The state district judge was found to have withheld evidence in a murder case while he was a prosecutor in 1986. He is now facing civil and criminal proceedings, but has already been accused by the State Bar's Commission for Lawyer Discipline of violating several of its rules of disciplinary conduct.

From the Texas Tribune: Education Could Test Both Parties

The Texas Tribune reports that its polling indicates the education will be a major issue in next year's election - especially for each party's gubernatorial nominee. End each party has challenges to face.

For Republicans it's the lackluster quality of the educational system and the degree that can be blamed on current Republican policies:

Both supporters and opponents of the current educational regime have lamented Texas’ lackluster numbers when it comes to per pupil spending and graduation rates. While Perry has worked hard to focus his and others’ attention on Texas’ economy and the so-called “Texas Miracle,” the public education system is an unhealed sore spot for the party in power. The numbers used to judge the state of the public education system can be complex and seem to point in contradictory directions, but after a decade of Republican hegemony, the public education funding system is once again under review by the courts. In the absence of an easy solution to the funding model, the public discussion on education defaulted to a set of important but unclear side issues in the most recent legislative session — charter schools, testing and testing companies, graduation requirements.

For Democrats its the different opinions its supporters have on key issues regarding education:

In the February 2013 UT/TT Poll, we found Texans to be supportive of school choice by a margin of 63 percent to 36 percent. Unlike the graduation requirement question, blacks and Hispanics were equally supportive of school choice, and not surprisingly, Republicans overwhelmingly support the idea. For Davis and the Democrats, the trouble is that 68 percent of liberals expressed opposition to school choice. Liberals have long opposed school choice reflexively; it is a kind of litmus test among the white liberals that Davis will count on as the core of her coalition.

So the major issues appear to be:

- per pupil spending
- graduation rates
- charter schools
- testing - the STARR test
- school choice - vouchers

Inequality in funding per district has been a traditional issue, but it does not appear to register at the moment.

From The Dish: The Disagreement Gap

The Dish flags a story that attempts to measure which pieces of major legislation over the past 100 years have been most controversial. The author looks at the difference between the Republican and Democratic vote in both the House and Senate and calls this the disagreement gap.

Here's is how it looks graphically - you can see the stimulus bill and the Affordable Care Act have been the most divisive in the past century.



And a chart with greater detail.

A campaign speech, not a filibuster

Our Senator's 21 hour speech was technically not a filibuster since there were already enough votes collected to ensure cloture - meaning that a vote on the continuing resolution was guaranteed to occur.

The National Journal explains here.

Rand Paul's speech which held up the nomination of a CIA director and Wendy Davis' which forced the end of a special session of the Texas Legislature both qualified. But it was similar to a speech given by Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders in 2010 - which was also not a filibuster.

A filibuster - according to Wikipedia - is:

a type of parliamentary procedure where debate is extended, allowing one or more members to delay or entirely prevent a vote on a given proposal. It is sometimes referred to as talking out a bill, and characterized as a form of obstruction in a legislature or other decision-making body.

The consensus seems to be that the speech had little to do with defunding Obamacare, and more to do with raising Cruz's viability as a 2016 presidential candidate and gathering campaign contributions.

This might have been the first big speech of the 2016 presidential race.

Scary thought.

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

Since we will be discussing the bill in some classes, it'll be worth walking through it and understanding what its about.

- Click here for the full text.
- Click here to review the law section by section.
- Here's the Wikipedia page detailing the provisions by effective date.
- Here's the Wikipedia on the bill itself and the politics surrounding it.

From the Atlantic: How a City With Two Dozen Law Enforcement Agencies Handles a Huge Crisis

How do 27 law enforcement agencies with overlapping jurisdiction (as exists in DC) respond efficiently to an event like the Navy Yard shooting?

Here's an attempt at an answer:

"Dispatch gets the 911 call saying shots have been heard or fired, and the closest police units respond. Park Police gets a call as well and they show up too," [Homeland Security and Emergency Management Agency Director Chris] Geldhart says. Those earliest responders, no matter their rank, are responsible for setting up an "Incident Command System," which the Department of Homeland Security describes as an "incident management approach" that:

• Allows for the integration of facilities, equipment, personnel, procedures and communications operating within a common organizational structure.
• Enables a coordinated response among various jurisdictions and functional agencies, both public and private.
• Establishes common processes for planning and managing resources.

Every law enforcement agency in D.C. knows how to set up an ICS, according to Geldhart. As representatives from more agencies begin to show up, the responders rely on interoperable radio systems to keep everyone on the same page. These radios allow users to talk across agencies, though Geldhart did say that Navy Yard police were not able to communicate via radio with people outside the building (Congress is looking into this claim, as well as a report that Capitol Police were told to stand down). Interviews and intelligence gathered by various agents, largely from witness and survivor interviews, is relayed to the ICS through the radios, and then vetted.

A history of government shutdowns

From the Washington Post.

By this count there have been 17 since 1976.

Health Reform Watch

The Affordable Care Act's insurance exchanges are set to roll out next week, so we need to start catching up on the overall nature of health care policy in the US.

One of my 2305 classes is focusing on it in their assigned book anyway.

Here's a website from the Washington Post focusing on stories related to it: Health Reform Watch.

We will refer to it repeatedly.

The Revolving Door

One of the principle connecting mechanisms of the iron triangle is the "revolving door," the tendency of people who work in one of the institutions in the triangle to go off to work in others. This strengthens the connection between those institutions.

Some news items related to the it:

- Washington's Revolving Door Catches SEC.
- The Media's Revolving White House Door.
- Reaping Profit After Assisting on Health Care Law.
- How Washington Caved to Wall Street.

AIPAC

I'll throw occasional posts out highlighting some of the stronger interest groups in politics right now - those that are in the best position to shape and coordinate the activities of Congress and the executive branch. We'll begin with AIPAC - the American Israeli Public Affairs Committee - which was founded in 1951 and has emerged as a driving force in strengthening American support for Israel.

Here are a few stories on the group's attempt to influence America's stanch towards Syria:

- Lobbying Group for Israel to Press Congress on Syria.
- Israel Lobby silent on Syria.
- Pro-Israel Lobby finds longtime supporters defect on Syria.

Click here for a broader overview of the Israel lobby in the United States.

A few more links related to the iron triangle

To supplement 2305's look at the role iron triangles, issues networks, and the like play in sustaining existing public policies.

Images. I prefer this to the one I have on the slides:



Here's a reasonable definition from a polisci prof at Auburn:

The closed, mutually supportive relationships that often prevail in the United States between the government agencies, the special interest lobbying organizations, and the legislative committees or subcommittees with jurisdiction over a particular functional area of government policy. As long as they hang together, the members of these small groups of movers and shakers tend to dominate all policy-making in their respective specialized areas of concern, and they tend to present a united front against "outsiders" who attempt to invade their turf and alter established policies that have been worked out by years of private negotiations among the "insiders."

The classic example of an Iron Triangle is the military industrial complex, a term coined by Dwight Eisenhower to refer to the

. . . policy and monetary relationships between legislators, national armed forces, and the military industrial base that supports them. These relationships include political contributions, political approval for military spending, lobbying to support bureaucracies, and oversight of the industry. 

The Wikipedia entry has other examples. For example:

Agriculture: agribusiness (the food industry) is an interest group constituency that seeks to benefit from certain government agricultural policies, such as agricultural subsidies. The U.S. Department of Agriculture services these constituencies. Senators and representatives wield enormous power, and are unlikely to obtain office in agriculture-driven regions if they oppose these policies. This results in certain agricultural products being subsidized by taxpayers.

Ted Cruz wants to be Mel Gibson

That's what The Dish makes of our senator's effort to defund Obamacare despite the reservations of his party leaders.

What is your state worst at?

From Policymic

Has austerity hampered economic growth?

Here is an argument that it has.

In recent recessions, government spending has increased. Not in the current recession. Here's one factoid. Government jobs have been cut, which keeps the unemployment rate high. In previous recessions they increased.



A CBO report argues that austerity has cut GDP growth by .8 percent.

From Wonkblog: Why are 47 million Americans on food stamps? It’s the recession — mostly.

Charts and graphs are offered to provide background for the current debate over the program - the one House Republicans voted to cut substantively last week.

Aside from graphs - the story answers basic questions reagrding the current state of both the program and the nature of hunger in America.

Here's a look at the recent growth in the program:

C40 Cities

The previous story mentions the C40 Climate Leadership Group which enlists cities in the effort to make adaptations to climate change.

Houston is one of 10 global cities designated as a "steering committee." I;m not clear on what that means, but it sounds impressive (Dallas ain't on the list).

Here it highlights a recent CNN story highlighting Houston's efforts, along with Seoul and Rio de Janeiro, to shift to renewable energy. The previous stories point is that while political disputes are hampering the ability of states and the nation to address these issues, cities are plowing right ahead.

It might be worth studying whether these is something in the governing structure of cities that allows them to move quicker on these issues than the other two levels of government.

From the Atlantic: Can Mayors Really Save the World?

For 2306 - where we recently looked at the nature of local governments and said a word or two about mayors.

The author of this article wonders if dysfunction on the national and state levels is empowering mayors, and city leaders in general to play a bigger role in setting and implementing public policies. He mentions a movement among members towards something called "glocalization" which provides local areas the opportunity to accept global standards, but adapt them to the needs of a specific community. The theory is based on the idea that the nation-state has failed.

"The federal government has basically sent the signal, 'We won’t be resolving any of this for the foreseeable future,'" says Bruce Katz, the director of the Brookings Institution's Metropolitan Policy Program and co-author of The Metropolitan Revolution. "And that’s a somewhat similar story around the world." For that reason, glocalists say, we should stop expecting big, centralized governments to solve the world's problems and start looking to cities for innovative solutions.

Provocative point.

Here are some other useful bits from the article - many dovetail with points we have made in 2306:

Mayors are driven my different motives than state and national leaders and are better suited to solve problems:

"Mayors are, by definition, non-ideological problem-solvers. They’re pragmatists – they have to be," Barber says. If cities don't function smoothly, people’s trash won’t get picked up. Their sewers won’t work. Their kids won’t be able to go to school. Especially in the United States, where national leaders are locked into ideological camps and party-line negotiations, there seems to be a fundamental difference in what national and local leaders can actually accomplish.

Perhaps this is because local elections are non-partisan. Worth a discussion.

Cities are networks of interests based on trade (economic entities as we suggested:

. . . it’s also important to remember that cities are more than just councils and mayors. "Cities are not governments, unlike the federal and state governments. They’re networks," says Katz. As urban theorist Jane Jacobs wrote in her famed 1961 book, The Death and Life of Great American Cities, "The economic foundation of cities is trade."

Urbanists often forget that part of Jacobs's work, Katz says. But what it means is that a lot of people and organizations, including hospitals, universities, companies, businesses, unions, and philanthropies, are investing money and thought in projects like creating jobs for 20-somethings and making sure buildings are sturdy enough to weather storms. This is what local innovation looks like: regular people finding work-arounds so that the stores they own or the homeless shelters they run can thrive.

Cities are more democratic than other levels of government and have a more tangible identity than a state or nation:

. . . local leaders understand what people want and need far better than national or international leaders ever could, glocalists say. "You pay taxes, and maybe serve in the military, and vote once in a while in the presidential election, and that’s the only relationship you have with the nation-state," Barber says. "Locally, you’re related to your workplace, your school, your church, your hospitals. … Our real connections with the political entity are local."

Put another way, glocalization is a fight to make democracy something people can touch and feel. Cities are made up of tangible things like streets and subways and storefronts, but nation-states are deeply theoretical entities — we have to use symbols like flags and food to understand what they mean. In the same way, glocalists might argue, national and international leaders are trapped in the realm of abstractions and ideas. By definition, they’re too removed from people and their problems to create effective policy.

Its an interesting - and light - read.

From the Atlantic: These 2 Charts Prove American Drivers Don't Pay Enough for Roads

While most Americans would argue they are overtaxed, the author argues that we are in a road funding crisis because we are not paying enough for roads and our infrastructure suffers as a result.

He points out that the federal gas tax has not been raised since 1993, and that Highway Trust Fund is expected to run out of money in two years as a result.

Chart one shows that we pay more for roads than we earn in road revenue, especially when compared to other nations:



Chart two show how much less American pay in road taxes than other nations. The authors point out that this means that funding for roads has to diverted from other sources.



They suggest that our current model for funding roads is unsustainable.

Could the Boston Tea Party be considered an act of terrorism by the British?

This appears to be one of the questions that set off the opponents of CSCOPE and led them to believe that the curriculum is fraught with political bias.

Here's a related clip from a news source covering the debate:

Criticism intensified when parents discovered a lesson plan used in previous incarnations of CSCOPE that asked students to consider whether participants in the Boston Tea Party could be considered terrorists in some contexts by the British. Another sample lesson asked students to design a flag for a new socialist country. Some critics also suggested that lessons on the world’s major religions contained too much material on Islam.

Patrick opened Saturday’s debate arguing that studies showed that students in school districts that use CSCOPE performed worse on state standardized tests that those who didn’t. However, he acknowledged that his source was a survey conducted by a ninth-grade business class.

When the debate shifted to the question of bias, Ratliff referred to the Boston Tea Party lesson, saying: “The lesson does not say the Boston Tea party members were terrorists. It does not say it.”

Patrick shot back: “Do you think it’s a good idea to plant the seed (of terrorism) in the mind of high school students?” When Ratliff tried to answer about international perspectives, hecklers shouted: “This is America! You’re American!”

“Read it for yourself and see if you become a terrorist overnight,” Ratliff responded.

In a story last year, the Huntington Post hunted down the assignment, which has since been changed. It asked student to comment on a news story and whether the event covered met the definitions of terrorism:

News report: New Act of Terrorism A local militia, believed to be a terrorist organization, attacked the property of private citizens today at our nation’s busiest port. Although no one was injured in the attack, a large quantity of merchandise, considered to be valuable to its owners and loathsome to the perpetrators, was destroyed. The terrorists, dressed in disguise and apparently intoxicated, were able to escape into the night with the help of local citizens who harbor these fugitives and conceal their identities from the authorities. It is believed that the terrorist attack was a response to the policies enacted by the occupying country’s government. Even stronger policies are anticipated by the local citizens.

Its actually a question historians have asked before, so there's nothing new about it:

Here's the simple definition of terrorism from Websters: 

the use of violent acts to frighten the people in an area as a way of trying to achieve a political goal

And a description of the event from about.com: 

On the night of December 16, 1773, the Sons of Liberty, a loosely knit secret organization of American colonists in favor of American independence, illegally boarded three British East India cargo ships in the Boston Harbor and threw 45 tons of tea into the harbor, rather than let the tea be landed. Today, as some have argued, this protest might be considered an act of terrorism, since it was property sabotage designed to bring to wide attention the political objectives of a non-state group, the American colonists. The event is considered one of the catalysts of the American revolution.

Also check out the Wikipedia entry on the Boston Tea Party.

So the question seems to be whether property sabotage is an act of violence that tries to achieve a political goal. The goal was in fact to provoke the British to do something extreme, which it did by passing the Coercive Acts, which included shutting down trade. This hit the merchants in the pocket and drove them to stop waffling on independence and start supporting it.

So it did have its intended political consequence, though no lives were lost - maybe that does not make it terrorism in the minds of some.

Its worth trying to dig into what drives this dispute - aside from pure politics of course.

The entire CSCOPE lesson plan

Courtesy of the Texas Tribune.

We should click through the section on government at some point to see what the fuss is about.

The CSCOPE debate

CSCOPE, a K-12 educational curriculum support system designed to assist the smaller ISD's in Texas to prepare it students for the STARR tests (State of Texas Assessments of Academic Readiness) has been controversial for a variety of reasons.

Teachers complain it imposes limits on what they do in the classroom and parent complain about a lack of transparency - they can't see the lesson plans.

But the most heated area has to do - no big surprise - with content. How do students cover certain subjects, most social studies?

A month back - while we were discussing the importance of education in maintaining republics - a debate was held between a member of the State Board of Education - Thomas Ratliff - and the chair of the State Senate's Education Committee - Dan Patrick. While both men are Republicans, Patrick is affiliated with the Tea Party wing of the party. Ratliff sides with the moderates.

The Tea Party maintains the curriculum is liberal, Anti-American and pro-Islamic.

For further background:

- Ratliff, Patrick Exchange Words over CSCOPE Lessons.
- Debate again thrusts CSCOPE into Texas spotlight.
- Sen. CSCOPE announce sweeping changes.

The curriculum was designed by the Texas Education Service Center Curriculum Collaborative and overseen by the Texas Curriculum Management Program.

There will be no written assignment for week 5

I know this disappoints you.

I'll catch up on grading, and if you need to catch up on work on your end, go for it.

This day in history - the first junior college opens in the state

From the TSHA, note the constitutional issue it raised in bold.

On this day in 1925, San Antonio College formally opened as University Junior College with an enrollment of 200 students. It is the oldest public two-year college in Texas still in operation. Classes were first conducted in San Antonio's old Main High School building. Under the administration of the University of Texas and in the absence of an appropriation to support the junior college, fees were charged on a quarterly basis. The state attorney general ruled in December 1925 that operation of a junior college by the University of Texas violated the state constitution; thus, supervision of the college, renamed San Antonio Junior College, passed to the San Antonio board of education for the second year of operation. In 1926 the college was assigned part of the building on Alamo Street formerly occupied by the German-English School. James Otis Loftin, president from 1941 to 1955, oversaw the period of the college's greatest growth. San Antonio College was adopted as the official name in 1948, and shortly thereafter the school moved to a thirty-seven-acre campus on San Pedro Avenue. The Alamo Community College District, consisting of San Antonio College, St. Philip's College, and two other campuses, enrolled nearly 49,000 students in the spring of 2003.

Money beats grassroots

The Texas Tribune reports that Debra Medina, who ran as the Tea Party candidate for Texas governor in 2010, is considering running again, but this time to be Tax Assessor.

But a lack of funds may prevent her from doing so:

Four years after emerging as a Tea Party darling, Medina is eyeing the open race to succeed Comptroller Susan Combs. But as she weighs another run, she knows that donations from grass-roots supporters can take a candidate only so far in Texas.

“I’m hesitant to go out to these meetings and say, ‘I’m running,’ because I’m not going to run underfunded,” said Medina, who predicts that grass-roots supporters could provide 30 percent of what she needs for a campaign.

“I think the other 70 percent is going to have to come from high-wealth individuals who fund campaigns in Texas. There, it’s not coming,” Medina said.

Her comments underscore the extent to which wealthy donors play an outsize role in Texas elections, where there are no limits on how much an individual can donate to a candidate for a state office. With the majority of voters spread among several large media markets, running a statewide campaign is prohibitively expensive.

It's a reminder of who determines who wins state-wide office in Texas.

Medina’s campaign for governor came on the heels of the birth of the Tea Party movement. Though Gov. Rick Perry, who ultimately won re-election, quickly embraced many of the movement’s views of limited government, some voters believed it conflicted with his record, and they turned to Medina in the Republican primary, according to Mark Jones, chairman of political science at Rice University in Houston.

“There’s a certain level of support she has out there,” Jones said. “There are people who remember her and identify with that wing of the party.”

In July, Medina reported having $55,000 in her campaign account. Two Republicans already running for comptroller, state Sen. Glenn Hegar, of Katy, and state Rep.Harvey Hilderbran, of Kerrville, reported war chests of $1.8 million and $1 million, respectively. Former state Rep. Raul Torres, a Republican, is also a candidate and Democrat Michael Collier, a retired accountant, has said he may run for the position as well.

From the Atlantic: Here Are the 10 Biggest U.S. Cities by GDP—And How They've Grown Since 2009

According to the story, Houston's GDP grew quicker than that of any of the ten largest cities in the nation since the end of the recession.

Here's proof:



But Houston is still in the middle of the pack in total GDP:



Click here for the source of those numbers.

From the Atlantic: The States That Have Already Recovered From the Great Recession—and the States That Won't Until 201

Texas, New York, and a few others already recovered. Nevada and Michigan wont until 2018.

The oil and finance industries have done well, and the housing boom didn't hit these states as hard as others.

The author draws an interesting comparison between the governing system of the United States and that of the European Union in explaining how a federal system works better than a confederacy in speeding recovery along:

Okay, this is obviously horrible for Nevada, Michigan, and Rhode Island — but so what? It's good when people move from where the jobs aren't to where they are. It's part of what makes a currency union work. See, we don't usually think of it this way, but we live in something called the dollar zone. We have 50 states that share the same language and fiscal policy — and monetary policy too. But, as the euro zone amply shows, the monetary policy that makes sense for one member of a currency union might not make sense for others. So what do you do if one country (or state) is stuck in a depression, and the other is booming? Well, in Europe, nothing. Or, more accurately, blame the country stuck in a depression for being stuck in a depression — and demand that it cut spending like you'd always wanted it to.  

But, in the U.S., states have a few escape hatches from a slump. Or, more accurately, the people do. People can more readily move from a depressed state to a booming one than people can move from, say, Portugal to Germany (although that has happened to an extent). And, remember, the federal government will keep sending out Social Security checks to retirees in Nevada regardless of how many young workers leave the state. That isn't true when young Portuguese workers leave; that just makes its pension picture uglier. It's actually the same problem that U.S. state and municipalities face over state and municipal pensions — losing too many people for too long can leave state and municipal governments staring into too deep budget holes. But, again, at least people don't have to worry about their federal benefits.

What is a continuing resolution?

The NYT provides an overview of the politics associated with the continuing resolution just passed by the US House. The one that also cuts funding for ObamaCare.

But first - what is a continuing resolution (also referred to as continuing appropriations) and why do they matter?

Here's a definition from the US Senate website:

continuing resolution/continuing appropriations - Legislation in the form of a joint resolution enacted by Congress, when the new fiscal year is about to begin or has begun, to provide budget authority for Federal agencies and programs to continue in operation until the regular appropriations acts are enacted.

It all comes down to the budgetary process in the US, and that fact that the Constitution stipulates that money cannot be drawn from the Treasury unless it has been appropriated by law - the is the Appropriations Clause.

Both the House and Senate have Appropriations Committees that oversee this process.

Aside from that - as we will soon see - there is nothing in the Constitution about a budgetary process. One only began to be established in the early years of 20th Century when efforts were made - driven by progressives - to professionalize the governing process. This includes the establishment of Budget Committees in the House and Senate. They are in charge of determining how Congress wants funding to be directed - sort of - because some funding is mandatory. This is referred to as the authorization process of the budgetary process. We will cover this soon enough.

- Here's the Wikipedia on the US budget process.

But none of this really matters here. What matter is the appropriations process and the fact that we are near the end of the fiscal year. What is that? Again, from the Senate:

fiscal year - The fiscal year is the accounting period for the federal government which begins on October 1 and ends on September 30. The fiscal year is designated by the calendar year in which it ends; for example, fiscal year 2013 begins on October 1, 2012 and ends on September 30, 2013. Congress passes appropriations legislation to fund the government for every fiscal year.

- Click here for a CRS report on the process.
- And here for another CRS report - a bit more thorough.

We are coming up on the end of the 2012-2013 fiscal year. That's what the media really refers to when it says that the US government is about to run out of money. In theory, the new fiscal year 2013-2014 cannot begin, or at least money for that period cannot be drawn from the Treasury, unless appropriations bills are passed. These are to provide funding through the next fiscal year.

As we will see when we discuss the budget, this seldom really happens. Conflicts over spending usually result in these bills not being passed in time. So how does the US government get the money it is required to spend due to existing law?

From the continuing resolutions. These are bills that provide short term funding for government when the appropriations bills are not passed. So what the House passed was such a bill, but with a condition - that funding for Obamacare be terminated - which won't happen of course.

We'll follow this over the next couple of weeks. Since war does not appear to be likely with Syria - this is the most exciting stuff we have going on.

The 2003 Texas Redistricting

The case involving Tom Delay stemmed from his efforts to obtain a Republican Majority in the Texas House in the election of 2002, which would have been the first time the Republican Party had controlled the institution since Reconstruction.

Of course it was a very different Republican Party back then - nationalist in outlook and supportive of - Civil Rights.

What made this controversial was that DeLay's intent was to enable the Republican Party to draw new districts for the House of Representatives and give the Republican majority in the House a few extra seats. These are normally only redrawn in the legislative sessions immediately following the census when House seats are reapportioned. The Democratic Party still controlled the Texas Senate though, so Republicans were unable to dominate the redistricting process.

The legislature elected in 2000 was able to draw the US House districts that allowed the Democratic Party to continue to dominate the state delegation - there were 17 Democrats to 15 Republicans. The one elected in 2002 was able to redraw the districts, target certain Democrats - mostly white males - and result in a scheme that elected 21 Republicans and 11 Democrats.

This demonstrates the effectiveness of gerrymandering.

What got DeLay into trouble was that the manner in which donations from corporation were funneled to candidates. Corporate financing for candidates was illegal at that time. Prosecutors argued that DeLay circumvented those rules by funneling corporate money through his account to those of the Texas Senate candidates. The appellate court seems to have argued that these funds were not meant for the campaign, but rather to have access to DeLay.

As we should expect, a Wikipedia page exists that provides an overview of the 2003 redistricting effort.

We will discuss elections in Texas soon enough - this gives us a head start.

Here are more sources:

- The Texas Gerrymander
- Justice staff saw Texas districting as illegal
- The Killer D's
- Sourcewatch

House Republicans pass bill cutting food stamps

This story applies to our discussion of several items in the class including Congress, Separated Powers the Bureaucracy, and Social Welfare policy making in 2305. It also touches on federalism as we cover it in both 2305 and 2306.

- From the Washington Post: House passes GOP plan slash food stamp funding.
- From the NYT: House Republicans pass deep cuts in Food Stamps.
- From the Hill: House votes to cut food stamps by $39 billion.

The bill is H.R. 3102, the Nutrition Reform and Work Opportunity Act. Click here for information on the bill from Thomas.You can also find it here - on govtrack.

We reviewed what the Constitution says about the bill making process in Section 7 of Article 1 and noticed that its says little about what happens within Congress. When we discuss the bill making process we will touch on how it has evolved over time as well as the institutions involved in the bill making process that are not mentioned in the Constitution, most notably committees and parties.

Just so you know, the bill now goes to the Senate and if approved there in the exact same language, it goes to the president for a signature. But this is not going to happen due to the dynamics between the political parties and how these exacerbate the checks and balances.

I'll post a few things below that apply this event to various topics in the class.

A word on week 4's written assignment

Remember that you are to turn in your paper proposal this week.

I'm still getting questions about what types of topics are acceptable. Remember that you are to draw a topic from your assigned book and dig deeply into it. Develop a critical essay analyzing the topic. Be sure that the topic hits one of the major topics that we cover in class.

I need to repeat a key point: This is not a book report. I don't want to see you paper start of with something like: "insert title" is a book about really great things that happened in Texas."

Find some nuance with the book's content that's worthy of a 1000 word - at least - report. I'll help you fine tune it once you turn it in. I imagine that week 6's report will ask for a revision - then you can start getting the writing out of the way.

I hope this helps.

Remember to write at least 150 words.

What is the Fed doing to pump up the economy and why?

More from Wonkblog:

The Fed is doing two things right now to stimulate the economy. One is holding their interest rates pretty much at 0%. The other is buying $85 billion in housing and treasury bonds each month in order to try and pump money into the economy.

At some point, the Fed intends to begin backing off these policies. But they only want to do it once the economy is strong enough, and even then, they want to do it slowly, so the economy has time to adjust.

To put it differently, rather than cut off their support, they want to "taper" it.

We will discuss both the Federal Reserve and monetary policy on 2305 in a few weeks. Monetary policy refers to - according to Wikipedia -

". . . the process by which the monetary authority of a country controls the supply of money, often targeting a rate of interest for the purpose of promoting economic growth and stability. The official goals usually include relatively stable prices and low unemployment.

Here's a secondary definition:

Monetary policy is the process by which the government, central bank, or monetary authority of a country controls (i) the supply of money, (ii) availability of money, and (iii) cost of money or rate of interest to attain a set of objectives oriented towards the growth and stability of the economy.

The setting of interest rates is a standard part of the fed's toolkit, the purchasing of bonds is not. The purchasing of the bonds has a fancy name: quantitative easing. It means:

. . . an unconventional monetary policy used by central banks to stimulate the national economy when standard monetary policy has become ineffective. A central bank implements quantitative easing by buying specified amounts of financial assets from commercial banks and other private institutions, thus increasing the monetary base. This is distinguished from the more usual policy of buying or selling government bonds in order to keep market interest rates at a specified target value.

The big news this week is that the Fed decided not to cut back on the amount of bonds it is purchasing - that is what "the taper" refers to.

Why? Here's one answer: Because Congress is horrible.

Which fits a theme in 2305 so far - 2306 too, sort of. One of the major differences between the design of the legislative and executive branches in the US Constitution is that Congress' design lends itself to stalemate and dysfunction. This is due to its democratic nature, which is why Congress has done an awful job handling the economy.

The executive has more of an autocratic design, and many of its agencies - the Federal Reserve included - are designed to be able to act swiftly to address problems they have been designated to address. For that reason the Federal Reserve has been in a much better position to grow the economy than Congress. Its the nature of the beast.

From Wonkblog: Nine questions about the Federal Reserve you were too embarrassed to ask

This is a very good primer for an upcoming discussion in 2305 about economic policy, as well as the nature of bureaucratic power.

It includes very simple answers to very simple question about the Federal Reserve, its duties, the job of the chairman and what its been up to recently.

From the Monkey Cage: Will the Media Treat Navy Yard Like Newtown?

When events - like the recent Navy Yard shooting - occur, usually there is a call for some type of response. A look through the history of significant pieces of legislation shows that quite often their passage follows some type of event which created a window of opportunity for the passage of the law. Often the media plays a role because they highlight the issue and keeps it on the minds of both the public and of public officials

But that seems less and less the case with stories about gun control following mass shooting.

Monkey Cage contributor Danny Hayes shows how media attention to gun control waned quickly after the Sandy Hook shooting and is likely to do the same after the Navy Yard shooting.

Like with other shootings, gun control coverage increased dramatically after the Newtown massacre, but tailed off within a few weeks. But in contrast to other cases, gun control arrived back on the front page in early January, when President Obama issued a series of executive actions intended to reduce gun violence.

The president’s influence, however immediate, was short-lived, as media attention fell off through the early spring. It was only in April – when a Senate bill to expand background checks failed to surmount a filibuster – that the issue gained prominence again.

Since the bill’s demise, gun control has largely disappeared from debates on Capitol Hill – and with it, the news. While advocates have continued to push for change at both the state and federal levels (with one group coincidentally on lobbying trip to Washington this week), the national media’s interest has continued to wane. Even Giffords’ nationwide tour in July failed to stop the slide.

This pattern suggests that only if Sen. Dianne Feinstein gets her way, with Congress taking up gun control legislation once again, will a renewed media debate over gun control occur. If political leaders in Washington decide the issue isn’t worth pursuing, the media are likely to turn their attention elsewhere – whether back to Syria, the next NSA intelligence-gathering revelation, or the looming battle over the debt ceiling.

This suggests that gun control is less likely to be passed into law because it is less likely to get on, and stay on, the public's and Congress' agenda.