From Wonkblog: Whom to blame for HealthCare.gov in one flowchart

A summary of the oversight hearings held in Congress recently.

From the Texas Tribune: CPRIT Operations Moratorium Lifted Following Reforms

Another item we covered in 2306 when we read through Article 3 of the Texas Constitution is in the news:

State leadership decided on Wednesday that the Cancer Prevention and Research Institute of Texas has restored enough public trust to resume grant operations and finalize remaining contracts following a review of the agency’s processes and major reforms passed in the last legislative session.

On Wednesday, Gov. Rick Perry, Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst and House Speaker Joe Straus lifted a moratorium on new grants placed on the agency in December 2012.

In 2007, Texas voters approved the use of $3 billion in bonds to create CPRIT and finance cancer research and the development of cancer treatments and prevention programs for 10 years. The institute came under scrutiny last year when a state audit revealed in January that $56 million in grants had been approved without the proper peer review process. Lawmakers grilled former members of the CPRIT oversight committee during the 83rd legislative session and eventually approved Senate Bill 149, which adds more checks and balances to the agency’s grant-making processes to ensure adequate peer review. Lawmakers also budgeted $595 million for the institute in the 2014-15 biennium

.
Note the following appointees to the oversight committee:

State leadership has appointed new members to a CPRIT oversight committee, which guides the work of the institute and approves all grant applications. Perry and Dewhurst have each made their three appointments to the committee. Straus has made two and still has one pending appointment.

Perry appointed Angelos Angelou, founder and principal executive of AngelouEconomics and former vice president of the Austin Chamber of Commerce; Gerry Geistweidt, an attorney who has argued cases before the Texas Supreme Court, among others; and Dr. William Rice, senior vice president of clinical innovation for St. David’s Healthcare and the Central and West Texas Division of the Hospital Corporation of America.

Dewhurst appointed Ned Holmes, a businessman with experience in finance and real estate; Dr. Craig Rosenfeld, a physician and chief executive of Collaborative Medical Development, which develops treatments for neurogenerative and psychiatric diseases; and Amy Mitchell, a cancer survivor and attorney at Fulbright and Jaworski.

Straus appointed Pete Geren, president of the Sid W. Richardson Foundation, which provides grants to educational, health, human service and cultural nonprofit organizations in Texas, and Dr. Cynthia Mulrow, senior deputy editor of Annals of Internal Medicine and a member of the prestigious Institute of Medicine.

The most expensive high school sports venue ever built

That's what registered voters in the Katy Independent School District can approve if they pass a bond approving $69 million for the project.

From the Chron:

At $69 million, the 14,000-seat stadium would surpass by almost $10 million one built specifically for the Allen Eagles two years ago. Supporters say it's not a luxury item inspired by the gridiron success of the Katy High School Tigers, who last year won their fourth state championship since 2000. They say it's simply a matter of growth: One stadium cannot handle the scheduling requirements of seven high schools, especially with two or three more to come.

"We didn't do this to be the most expensive or one-up the guy next door," said John Eberlan, a bond project committee member spearheading the publicity effort. "We wanted a good conservative design that will serve the district for years down the road. This is about serving the entire district."

Opponents balk at the cost, regardless of school trustees' insistence that no taxes would need to be raised were the project to pass.

"A $69 million price tag for a second stadium is excessive on the backs of the taxpayers," said Cyndi Lawrence, the head of a Katy tea party organization that opposes the bond project. "I think the people should vote it down and it should go back to the drawing board. We need another committee, an unbiased committee."

The stadium is part of three major capital projects that make up a Katy ISD bond project of just under $100 million. The proposal includes a new agriculture arena along with support facilities and an education center devoted to the so-called STEM subjects of math, science and engineering. But it's the stadium that carries the most cost and has drawn the most controversy - a familiar scenario in countless Texas communities, with accusations of misplaced priorities running up against demands to modernize and expand.

From the Houston Chronicle: Pasadena voters to face redistricting measure

The story is for subscribers only, but it follows the Supreme Court's decision in Shelby v Holder, which my mini 2 2306 students are focusing on. This is one of the first consequences of the removal of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act.

The city wants to cut back on single members districts and expand at large seats. Since single member districts were instituted in order to enhance minority representation, the cutback is taken to be a way to limit it.

The measure, Proposition One, is among the first litmus tests for the high court's June ruling in a Southern state, and if successful could trigger similar redistricting efforts elsewhere.

Four council members from the older, predominantly Hispanic north end oppose the restructuring. They note that the U.S. Justice Department rejected this exact plan as potentially discriminatory, but now the pre-clearance requirement has been voided and opened the door for reconsideration.

"We are standing our ground against the change," said Cody Wheeler, one of two Hispanics on the council.

Opponents contend Proposition One is a "power grab" by the mayor, who was first elected to the council four decades ago and has served off and on ever since. They say the mayor doesn't like the changes that he's seeing in Harris County's second-largest city, population 150,000, that once gained fame for its refineries and Gilley's bar as featured in "Urban Cowboy," starring John Travolta and Debra Winger.

Just as important as the possible racial aspects to the measure is a deep geographic divide, a kind of civil war between the northern, more Hispanic part of town and the more affluent southern end of the city.

Mayor Johnny Isbell and four council members from the more conservative southern side of town argue that the charter change would provide each citizen with more representation. They say each voter would then be able to elect three council members, instead of just one, to represent them.

Here's the sample ballot from Pasadena with the language of Proposition One.

Texas Redistricting.org weighs in.

For what its worth

This is my ballot for next week's election.

Generic Tea Party candidate polls better than Senator Cornyn

The Tea Party continues to be strong in Texas:

A generic “Tea Party” candidate beats Sen. John Cornyn III  (R.-Texas) a Oct. 26 Human Events/Gravis poll of Republican voters in Texas 46 percent to 33 percent for the GOP’s number two senator.

The poll clearly shows Cornyn is trouble, especially when you see that in the poll Sen. R. Edward Cruz (R.-Texas) has a job approval rating of 73 percent among Republicans and Cornyn 46 percent, said the pollster Doug Kaplan, who founded Gravis Marketing in 2010 and whose polls were included in the Real Clear Politics basket of polls during the 2012 campaign.

Business leaders plan to challenge the Tea Party

This will be fun to watch:

A slice of corporate America thinks tea partyers have overstayed their welcome in Washington and should be shown the door in next year's congressional elections.

In what could be a sign of challenges to come across the country, two U.S. House races in Michigan mark a turnabout from several years of widely heralded contests in which right-flank candidates have tried — sometimes successfully — to unseat Republican incumbents they perceive as not being conservative enough.

In the Michigan races, longtime Republican businessmen are taking on two House incumbents — hardline conservative Reps. Justin Amash and Kerry Bentivolio — in GOP primaries. The 16-day partial government shutdown and the threatened national default are bringing to a head a lot of pent-up frustration over GOP insurgents roughing up the business community's agenda.

. . . Call it the wrath of establishment Republicans and corporate America, always considered the best of friends. Since the Republican takeover of the House in 2010, they've watched the GOP insurgents slow a transportation bill and reauthorization of the Export-Import Bank, block a treaty governing the high seas and stand in the way of comprehensive immigration legislation.

The final straw was the bitter budget standoff that partly shuttered the government, precipitated by Republicans like Amash and Bentivolio who enlisted early in the campaign demanding that President Barack Obama dismantle his health care law in exchange for keeping the government operating.

Even after 16 days of a shutdown, falling poll numbers for the GOP and a threatened economy-jarring default, the two broke with their House Republican leaders and voted against the final deal to reopen the government.

Long before the shutdown, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which has spent tens of millions boosting mainly Republicans in congressional races, urged the GOP to fund the government and prevent a default, then double back and try and work out changes to the health care law later.

A significant number of House Republicans have given a cold-shoulder to the Chamber's agenda.

The article mentions a new political action committee - Defending Main Street - that looks to back center right candidates against the more conservative candidates backed by Heritage Action, Club for Growth and Freedom Works.

What is the total cost of emergency room care?

I stumbled across this in Politifact:

It appears to be in the single digits, but there are various ways to calculate the cost so a precise number may be in the end subjective.

During the Oct. 22, 2013, edition of CNN’s Crossfire, Gillespie had an exchange with Van Jones, one of the show’s liberal co-hosts. Jones argued that Obama’s health care law should be able to bring uninsured Americans into the health care system in less costly and more efficient ways, cutting the use of emergency rooms for front-line care.

Gillespie countered that "emergency rooms (are) 2 percent of all health care spending. It's not a huge amount. That's a big red herring in this."

We wondered whether Gillespie was correct.

We easily found the source of the statistic -- a calculation publicized by the American College of Emergency Physicians. Obviously, this is a group with a dog in the fight, but the calculation they made was pretty straightforward and is based on federal data.

The group used figures from 2008 collected by the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey, a study undertaken by a division of the Department of Health and Human Services. The survey found that the total amount of money spent on emergency care -- including physician and other emergency-room services -- was $47.3 billion. That’s slightly less than 2 percent of the same survey’s $2.4 trillion estimate of total health care expenditures that year.

From WonkBlog: What went wrong with HealthCare.gov

A handy graphic:

Planned Parenthood v Abbott

Here's a link to the decision.

Here's the heart of the decision:

No ruling of this court will sway the opinion regarding abortion held by anyone. And, indeed, that is not the role of this court. The court may not and will not decide whether there should be abortions in Texas. This court is charged only with determining whether certain provisions of House Bill 2 are consistent with the Constitution of the United States under existing Supreme Court precedent. 

. . . Three established principles govern this court's consideration of House Bill 2: (1) Before fetal viability, a woman has a right to terminate her pregnancy. (2) A law designed to further the State's interest in fetal life which imposes an undue burden on a woman's decision before fetal viability is unconstitutional. A state regulation that has the purpose or effect of placing a substantial obstacle in the path of a woman seeking an abortion of a nonviable fetus is an undue burden. (3) After fetal viability, the State, in promoting its interest in the potentiality of human life, may regulate or proscribe abortion, except where it is necessary for the preservation of the life or health of the mother.

Having carefully considered the parties' briefing, stipulations, exhibits, trial testimony, arguments of counsel, and the applicable law3, the court concludes: (1) the act's admitting-privileges provision is without a rational basis and places a substantial obstacle in the path of a woman seeking an abortion of a nonviable fetus, and (2) the act's provisions that place restrictions on medication abortions do not place such an obstacle, except when a physician finds such an abortion necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother. In so deciding, the court makes the following findings of fact and conclusions of law.

From the Washington Post: The death of the political middle, in 1 PowerPoint slide

More evidence that there is no political middle in Congress:

There are any number of reasons for this disappearance — partisan gerrymandering and closed primaries being the two most obvious — but the numbers are unbelievably stark, particularly when you consider that roughly 30 percent of the electorate consider themselves political independents. (According to exit polling, 29 percent of people named themselves independents in the 2008 and 2012 presidential elections.)

The slide above also explains why there will be no grand or even big bargain on debt and spending — or much of anything else — anytime soon. The political incentive to make deals simply does not exist in the House and, in fact, there is almost always a disincentive for members to work across the aisle. (This is less true in the Senate where a centrist coalition — Susan Collins, Lisa Murkowski, Kelly Ayotte, Joe Manchin, Mark Pryor, Mark Begich etc — exists although that coalition has shrunk in recent years too.)

The deal-makers — as we have seen from the last month in the House — are largely gone. The two people who do seem capable of crafting deals — Vice President Joe Biden and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell — come from a different time in politics. (Biden was elected to the Senate in 1972, McConnell in 1984.) The middle’s voice in the House is so soft as to be almost non-existent. And it’s hard to see that changing — at least in the near term.

Are neighborhoods and media usage polarized?

Possibly not. A political scientist challenges the idea - that I'm guilty of spreading - that people are sorting themselves into politically polarized neighborhoods, and limit themselves to ideologically narrow media sources.

Most precincts are composed of diverse groups:




And self described partisans actually frequent news sources that are not ideologically polarized:

From the Texas Monthly: How Texas Lost the World's Largest Super Collider

When we walked through Article 3 in the Texas Constitution we stumbled across this sad, relic:

It relates to Texas' successful effort to lure this large national scientific project to the state. Quickly afterwards, the project was terminated due to concerns over costs and the looming deficit. This didn't take into consideration the future benefits than could result due to the basic research that would occur in the facility - all that is happening in Europe now.

A writer reminds us of what could have happened here:

Five-thousand miles southwest of Geneva, just outside Waxahachie, Texas, are the remnants of a super collider whose energy and circumference—true to American sensibility—would have dwarfed those of CERN’s Large Hadron Collider. Nobody doubts that the 40 TeV Superconducting Super Collider (SSC) in Texas would have discovered the Higgs boson a decade before CERN. The collider’s tunnel would have entrenched Waxahachie in a topographical oval that curved east before the southern Dallas County line, then running southwest under Bardwell Lake and curving north at Onion Creek. Since Congress canceled the project twenty years ago, on October 21, 1993, Waxahachie has witnessed the bizarre and disquieting history of its failure.

HB 2

The bill that was found party unconstitutional by a federal judge - HB 2 - was one of a handful of bill related to abortion in the 83rd session: 13 in the House and 7 in the Senate.

While HB 2 was introduced early in the legislative session - which is why it had such a low number - it was not driven through the legislative process until the three special sessions of the legislature called by the governor in the early summer.

Click here to look at the process in the first, second, and third session.

From WonkBlog: Obamacare’s tech problems, explained in two minutes

Here's a brief video outlining the three principle problems in the website.

A federal judge overturns Texas' abortion laws

I predicted this in class (thank you very much).

The district court judge applied existing precedence to the case, which is why this is no surprise. Texas now gets to take the appeal to the 5th Circuit and the loser there will appeal to the Supreme Court. Then the fireworks will fly because the court may then be in a position to change the precedence established in previous abortion cases, including Roe v. Wade.

Which is probably the long term goal of supporters of the bill anyway.

Who is CGI Federal?

It's one of the contractors responsible for the creation of HealthCare.gov. A total of 55 were involved according to Kliff:

Who built this thing?

Mostly federal contractors -- 55 of them were involved in the project, according to the Government Accountability Office. Two of the biggest contractors are CGI Federal -- more on them here -- and QSSI, which both do a lot of big government contract work. CGI was “in charge of knitting all the pieces together, making Quality Software Services's data hub work seamlessly with Development Seed's sleek user interface and Oracle's identity management software,” Lydia DePillis explained earlier on Wonkblog.

Or, to put it in the contractor’s own words, CGI Senior Vice President Cheryl Campbell said in September that her company was responsible for “designing an IT solution that is adaptable and modular to accommodate the implementation of additional functional requirements and services.”

QSSI, which is owned by the health insurer UnitedHealthCare, built the “federal data hub,” which is essentially responsible for ferrying data from different agencies (like the Internal Revenue Service and Homeland Security) to and from the insurance marketplace.

“Simply put, the Data Services Hub is a pipeline that transfers data – routing queries and responses between a given marketplace and various trusted data sources,” QSSI’s Andrew Slavitt wrote in prepared testimony for Thursday morning’s hearing.

Wonkblog has a separate article that describes the number of federal contracts CGI gets and how they get them. Their efforts are a consequence of past efforts to downsize the federal government by outsourcing work that was once done in-house to private contractors. One of the questions raised by the failures of the healthcare.gov is whether outsourcing and privatization might be to responsible. Would these project be better performed in-house?

For my 16 week classes: week ten's written assignment has been cancelled.

We will resume next week.

Catching up with the healthcare.gov snafu

Much of this fits with 2305's coverage of the executive branch and its role in implementing the law. Here's the first of a few links to stories that relate to subject matter we've either covered, or will get to soon.

It takes you to an overview of the problems so far complied by Wonkblog's Sarah Kliff.

The snafu in question is the problem the federal government is having getting its health insurance exchange - which is meant to help the currently uninsured get insurance - up and running. In the 16 week 2305 classes we've been discussing the expanding role of the federal government, and creating exchanges for purchasing health insurance - for those who cannot afford it at the prices commanded in the existing marketplace - is an example. As far I know, the federal government has never done anything like this before. Some services - like Social Security and Medicare - are provided by the national government directly - so there is no need to create an exchange which allows people to purchase the service from a private provider. Others - like Medicaid - are funded by the national government, but run by the states.  

Kliff points out which states have opted to create their own exchanges and which have not.





The exchanges created in many of the states have apparently been working well - New York's for example.

Some aren't doing quite as well:

What about states running their own marketplaces? Are they doing any better?

It depends a bit on the state. A few, like Kentucky and Connecticut, have been able to enroll people pretty seamlessly. They credit this to extensive testing prior to launch and realistic expectations. Connecticut, for example, scaled back its workload about a year ago, deciding to focus on getting the really important pieces of the marketplace ready to launch on day one.

Other states have...had some trouble. Hawaii’s Web site only launched last Tuesday, two weeks after it was meant to go live. Oregon has signed up lots of people for Medicaid -- but technical issues have prevented their exchange, Cover Oregon, from enrolling anyone into private insurance coverage.

Note that Texas chose to not create its own exchange. This was a contentious topic in the 83rd session of the legislature earlier this year. People who want to purchase this insurance in Texas have to go to the national exchange - here's a report that Governor Perry wants Texans to sign up through the federal exchange. When we discussed federalism - in both 2305 and 2306 - we discussed the pros and cons of allowing state discretion in the implementation of public policies - this might be a further argument in favor of state implementation of laws.

Written Assignment #2 - 8 week classes

Below you'll notice the subject of your 1000 word essay. I want to help you get going on it.

Read through your assigned reading and provide a rough outline of the major points you intend to make in your paper. I wont commit you to it - so you can change your mind - but start thinking about what you intend to say.

I'll give you feedback.

GOVT 2306 IM2 - 1000 word critical essay

For my GOVT 2306 mini 2 students: The subject of the 1000 word critical essay.

I asked you already to access and review the Supreme Court's decision in Shelby County v. Holder, a hugely consequential Supreme Court case which whittled back the impact of the 1965 Voting Rights Act.

For the essay I want you to consider the arguments made on either side of the case - as well as commentary made since the decision was made public - and weigh in on whether this decision makes it more difficult for minority populations to vote across the nation. Doing so will require you to clarify exactly what the Supreme Court did in the case, and understanding the dispute over the impact of that decision.

Some argue the decision takes us back to segregation days - others disagree. Where do you stand on this and why?

Give proof.

GOVT 2305 IM2 - 1000 word critical essay

For my Mini 2 GOVT 2305 students: Here's the subject of the critical essay for this semester.

I already asked you to review a 1964 essay titled The Paranoid Style in American Politics.

Now I want you to apply it to a question raised by some current political commentators about the current political environment. Are we now in a political era dominated by this "paranoid style?" Is this a reasonable criticism to make about the positions and methods made by recent political participants? Might there be an underlying rationality implicit in the methods we have seen used by these participants?

I want you to argue for and against this position and weigh in on whether you agree what paranoid politics are dominant. The I want you to investigate whether the American constitutional system - republicanism, separated powers, federalism, individual liberty. etc. . . - is structured in such a way as to compensate for the paranoid style.

Is it a threat to the Republic?

From the Atlantic Cities: Americans Vastly Overestimate How Diverse the Country Really Is - Part Two

I thought this graph was worth posting separately. It points out which groups are more and less open to diversity - white conservatives not so much, liberals and non-whites much more so.



Attitudes about inequality - whether it is a problem - also varies depending on race:

From the Atlantic Cities: Americans Vastly Overestimate How Diverse the Country Really Is - Part One

And this impacts political decisions, erroneously. We tend to worry about things that aren't really happening.

In the last few years, the U.S. Census Bureau has released a series of high-profile projections narrowing in on a significant demographic milestone for the United States set to take place in the early 2040s. By then, America's population will for the first time become "majority-minority" (the Census Bureau has revised the target a few times between 2043 and 2041). At that moment, non-Hispanic whites will make up less than 50 percent of the U.S. population. And groups that we now consider "minorities" will collectively make up the largest share.

In effect, no individual group in America will constitute a "majority" any more.

That moment is still three decades away. But apparently most Americans think it's already nearly upon us. The Center for American Progress, PolicyLink and the Rockefeller Foundation released some interesting survey data today on perceptions about America's looming demographic change. One of the first questions asked of nearly 3,000 adults (with an over-sample of minorities): What percentage of the current population do you think are racial and ethnic minorities?

On average, people went with 49 percent. The reality is closer to 37 percent.

From the Atlantic: The Myers Briggs States of America

A nice counterpoint to the three part description of political culture across the states we cover in 2306. This is based on personality traits and asks whether that provides the best way to understand differences between the states?



Here's Texas:

The Temperamental and Uninhibited Region is the deep orange area that covers the Northeast, New England and Middle Atlantic states. There are also lighter concentrations in the contiguous areas of Ohio and Indiana, as well as Texas. This region's psychological profile is defined by very high levels neuroticism (hence the temperamental moniker), moderately high levels of openness, low levels of extroversion (or high levels of introversion) and very low levels of agreeableness and conscientiousness. This constellation of personality traits depict a type of person that is "reserved, aloof, impulsive, irritable, and inquisitive," while also being "passionate, competitive, and liberal." This region is highly educated and affluent, with high levels of ethnic and cultural diversity and a liberal political orientation.

And commentary:

While most analysts focus on the concretely measurable attributes of a place (its ethnic and cultural divisions, religious orientation or economic characteristics), these findings suggest that psychological factors play a role. The profile and traits of the Midwest (Friendly and Conventional) implies a regional cluster of personalities that are family-oriented, religious, and thus drawn to more conservative political orientations.

There is a psychological dimension to highly innovative, entrepreneurial and creative places

Their research also offers potentially new insights for economic development, specifically for understanding the geographic clustering of talent and innovation. The study suggests "part of the reason why certain regions of the United States are economically vibrant may have to do with the psychological characteristics of residents."

It calls attention to the selective migration of certain regional personality types. People in the Friendly and Conventional Region are more likely to stay close to family and friends. People in the other regional types are much more likely to be drawn to and engage in inventive, entrepreneurial and creative activity as well. This helps explain the cluster of innovative and creative activity in places like Silicon Valley, San Francisco, New York and Boston. The orange shading in Texas also helps explain the high level of innovation and creativity in Austin and around Houston.

From Texas Tribune: Court Battle Begins Over New Abortion Regulations

For our look at the federal judiciary, in addition to federalism:

Seeking to block the state of Texas from implementing new abortion regulations, plaintiffs representing abortion providers argued Monday in a federal court that the state’s law violates the constitutional right of women to access the procedure. But the state’s attorneys defended Texas’ right to enact laws that advance protections for the life of a fetus.

U.S. District Judge Lee Yeakel, who presided over the hearing, in which arguments are scheduled to wrap up on Tuesday, was clear about what the court's role was. “This court’s job is not to rule on whether women should be allowed abortions,” said Yeakel, “but to rule on whether or not this statute comes within the existing constitutional confine.”

Given the significance of the law, Yeakel said he'd like to make a decision as soon as possible after arguments conclude.

The plaintiffs, who represent the majority of abortion providers in Texas, including four Planned Parenthood affiliates, Whole Woman’s Health and other independent abortion providers, asked the court for a preliminary injunction to block the implementation of two provisions in House Bill 2 that would take effect Oct. 29: a requirement that doctors who perform abortion have active admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles of the facility, and that doctors follow the FDA regimen, rather than a commonly used evidenced-based protocol, for drug-induced abortions. The plaintiffs argued that both of these provisions present an undue burden on women attempting to access abortion and are therefore unconstitutional.

The attorney general’s office argued that these provisions were not approved just to protect the safety of the mother. They were also enacted to advance the state’s interest in promoting and protecting fetal life, one state attorney said at the hearing. The burden of proof lies on the plaintiffs, the attorney said, as the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Casey v. Planned Parenthood allows the state to enact laws that advance its interest in protecting fetal life, so long as it does not create an undue burden on the patient. The court could not overturn the provisions in whole, the state’s attorney argued, because a severability clause in the law requires doctors and patients who believe their constitutional rights have been violated by the law to individually seek exclusion from its provisions.

About the 2013 AISD Bond election

Aside from the 9 proposed amendments to the Texas Constitution, area voters will only have to decide on whether to approve a $212 million bond proposal by the Alvin Independent School District.

Click here for the announcement of the election - and a description of the bond - in the AISD webpage. It was approved by the board in August:

Contents of the school bond proposal were recommended by the Citizen’s Advisory Committee (CAC), a group of parents, local citizens, and school staff. “The CAC worked long and hard for about six months to figure out the best options to address the fast growth that the district is experiencing,” said David Becker, co-chair of the group.

The recommended package totals $212,445,000 and includes funds for the District’s third high school to accommodate 2,500 students; elementary 16 for 800 students; replacing Longfellow Elementary on the original site to accommodate 800 students, land and design for elementary 17 and 18; a junior high school in Manvel to accommodate 1,000 students; renovation and expansion of Alvin Junior High for 300 more students, land for junior high seven; design and related costs for a Career and Technical Education Facility, and a new Godwin Ag Facility to improve instructional access. Also in the proposal are safety and security projects, including the addition of more secure entrances on older campuses, replacing outdated communication systems and adding surveillance cameras. The proposal also includes land and design for a centralized facility for a district athletic stadium, satellite transportation center and district competition swimming pool (natatorium).

With their focus on meeting the educational needs of students and their commitment to being good stewards of tax dollars, the Board voted to allocate $8.6 million from available fund balance and $3.46 million from current maintenance and operations funds to cover some of the projects recommended by the CAC. “These include items with shorter term use such as band uniforms, buses and technology,” said Tommy King, deputy superintendent for business. Additionally, due to lower construction costs, the District has $28,095,000 of authorized, yet unissued, bond funds available from the 2009 bond referendum which will also be used to fund bond some of the projects.

The Chronicle had a comprehensive story on the matter in August. This followed a previous one on the Citizens Advisory Committee that recommended the bond. The need for a high school on the west side was a major issue in the recent election:

When Nicole Tonini successfully ran in May for Position 5 Alvin school trustee, she said, "Many on this side of the district feel a high school on the west side is long overdue.

"It would be good for this area and also for the east side as it will alleviate growth at Alvin and Manvel high schools," she said.

. . . "The need for a third high school is incredibly crucial," said Paul Ingamells, who served as committee co-chair with David Becker. Ingamells added that the need for the third high school is documented by a third-party demographic company.

"This bond has really got to pass," Ingamells said.

Demographic forecasts indicate Manvel High School will have 2,504 students in the fall. It has a capacity of 2,500. Officials project it could have as many as 3,416 by 2017.

The district has already engaged SWA Architects to begin the design process, said district spokesman Dan Combs. The school's location is at Kirby and Broadway, across from Pearland Town Center. The district purchased the land as part of its 2009 bond initiative.

The third high school site prevents the inclusion of a varsity football stadium and natatorium; so the citizens committee recommends spending $8.9 million to purchase land and build such facilities.

Alvin ISD trustees voted 5-2 on Aug. 8 to call the election.

Tonini voted in favor along with board president Tiffany Wennerstrom, vice president Regan Metoyer and trustees Cheryl Harris and Charles McCauley.

Trustees Mike Lansford and Sue Stringer voted in opposition.

Some of the opposition was due to the way the vote was to be conducted:

Stringer said she is not specifically against the bond, but has concern over the district's practice of using branch polling locations in addition to the usual early voting and Election Day locations.

She believes it is an "attempt to skew the vote."

"Seniors, for example, are not going to be out after dark and could be disenfranchised," she said.

Lansford agrees with concerns over rotating polling locations, saying the additional cost is unnecessary. He adds, "Since the additional 23 sites are not neutral, many people will perceive the school district as stacking the vote in the bond's favor."

Combs said the district has been using branch voting locations for years when it comes to bond elections. He explained this allows for greater participation among residents.

"It means more people are enabled to participate," he said, adding that the practice is also used by neighboring school districts. Residents can also early vote and vote on Election Day. 

From the Alvin Sun-Advertiser: Mayor says future is bright for City of Alvin

Mayor Gary Appelt gave the state of the city address to the Alvin-Manvel Chamber of Commerce with the assistance of Economci Development Director Larry Buehler.

Here are highlights:

Housing permits have doubled from last year,” he said. “The sales tax is up 4.4 percent over last year.”

Airgas is adding a facility that will employee 17 people when it is operational at the end of the year, and CenterPoint Energy is consolidating two locations to Alvin, according to Buehler.

“Local entrepreneurs are investing in the community,” Buehler added. Big Kuntry Indoor Range is now open and Wellborne Cinema 4 is opening soon, he noted.

“Of course, the growth brings additional challenges such as traffic issues,” Buehler said.

The city and the Texas Department of Transportation are working on solutions to traffic flow, according to Beuhler.

“We will be making needed changes relating to the bypass and Mustang intersection, and the bypass and CR 1462. For example, motorists now face two traffic lights when turning from the bypass onto 1462 heading east or west.

The left turn lanes on the bypass will be moved over to eliminate one of the two traffic lights, he said.

Don Sapaugh, the president of University General Health System, told the gathering that plans to build a hospital in Alvin are back on track.

He said that 20 acres have already been dedicated to a medical facility, and it will be built in three phases.

“The first phase will have 10-beds, a 10-bay emergency room and an imagining room. Phase 2 will have an ICU and operating rooms. Phase 3 will add beds,” Sapaugh said.

Other items discussed were the Alvin Municipal Shooting Range and Youth Development Center that the city is currently pursuing and the innovative programs Police Chief Robert Lee has brought to the city.

Early voting begins in Texas

It actually began yesterday, October 21.

Click here for important 2013 election dates in Texas - this is from votetexas.gov.
Click here for similar information from the Secretary of State's office.

Texas Tribune reports that this election will provide an early indication of the impact of voter ID laws in the state.

Early voting is one of a handful of processes that make it easier for people to vote - Tuesday's can be difficult for working people. The NCSL provides a look at the range of methods used by different states. In addition to early voting, there's absentee voting - either with or without an excuse - and all mail voting.

Click here for detail and the map - suffice to say that the political culture in some states - in addition to the political interests in different states - lead to drives to enhance or restrict access to the polls. Texas historically has tended to restrict access, which leads to the suspicion by some that the intent of voter ID laws is to impact the tendency of certain groups to turn out.

Prop 3 - Texas Constitutional Amendment - 2013

What you will see on the ballot:

The constitutional amendment to authorize a political subdivision of this state to extend the number of days that aircraft parts that are exempt from ad valorem taxation due to their location in this state for a temporary period may be located in this state for purposes of qualifying for the tax exemption.”

This relates to the "freeport exemption" which seems to allow for products that are sent to a manufacturing facility in order to be assembled and ultimately exported to be exempt from property tax evaluations. It is intended to enhance the export industry in the state.

Some pros and cons lifted from another site:

Proposition 3: HJR 133 by Harper-Brown
The Texas Constitution currently allows for what is known as the “Freeport Exemption.” This exemption allows for goods and tangible property to be exempt from property taxes if the property is used for manufacturing purposes, the property is transported from out of state, and the property is then transported outside of the state within 175 days. In other words, if the goods are a stored in a pass-through facility, the goods are tax exempt. This constitutional amendment extends the 175 day Freeport exemption to 730 days for aircraft parts before the parts must be transported outside of the state.

Supporters Say:
Companies that ship aircraft parts currently utilize the Freeport exemption. However, aircraft parts frequently sit on shelves for longer than 175 days and after the 175 days, they are subject to property taxes. Extending the days aircraft parts may sit on the shelves of warehouses and distribution centers from ½ a year to 2 years before being subject to property taxes will allow additional distribution centers for aircraft parts to develop in Texas around our airports. This growth in distribution centers and warehouses will provide additional economic development which would offset any potential revenue decline.

Opponents Say:
The legislature should not single out specific industries for tax breaks without considering other types of pass-through distribution centers or warehouses that were excluded by this law. The legislature should instead eliminate the property tax on tangible property and inventory which will then produce even more economic development. 

And click here for more detail from the Texas Legislative Council.

Texas insiders support limits on campaign financing - but just barely

From the Texas Weekly

With the U.S. Supreme Court hearing a case about individual contribution caps during political cycles, we asked the insiders this week about that and other campaign finance restrictions.

Unanimous, they are not.

While 54 percent said there should be a limit on the aggregate amount a donor can give during a two-year election cycle, 45 percent said there should not be. The standing federal limit on contributions from any individual donor to any particular federal candidate had more proponents, with 58 percent saying that should remain in place.

The insiders — keep in mind that these are people more likely to be on the giving side of campaign finance than on the getting side — favor limits on contributions to state candidates. There are no such limits now, but 57 percent said there ought to be.

And what about donations from virtual “persons” — corporations and unions? A slight majority — 53 percent — said they should be allowed to contribute directly to political campaigns.

I have a strong hunch that opinions on this vary depending on whether unlimited contributions help or hurt one's political supporters.

For the mini 2 GOVT 2305 and 2306 classes - Written Assignment #1

Class starts officially tomorrow and most of the syllabus is ready to go. I'll have the subject of the 1000 word critical essays up soon - I'll post them here when they are ready.

The readings will be online, here are links if you want to get a head start on them.

For 2305: The Paranoid Style in American Politics.
For 2306: The decisions in SHELBY COUNTY, ALABAMA, PETITIONER v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., ATTORNEY GENERAL,ET AL.

I'll have the precise assignments up soon.

A review of the major cases of the October 2012 Supreme Court term

Something to file away for future reference.

From Scotusblog - a list of all the cases argued before the court during the 2102 term along with summaries of the decisions made.

Does a state violate the equal protection clause when it bans affirmative action with a constitutional amendment?

That's the question the court faces in Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action.

Oral arguments were held yesterday.

NPR details the history of this dispute - which involves a previous Supreme Court case.

The U.S. Supreme Court takes up the issue of affirmative action again Tuesday, but this time the question is not whether race may be considered as a factor in college admissions. Instead, this case tests whether voters can ban affirmative action programs through a referendum.

In 2003, the the University of Michigan Law School's affirmative action policy. The next day, opponents of affirmative action launched a referendum campaign to bar such programs, and in 2006, voters overwhelmingly approved a ballot initiative amending the state constitution to ban affirmative action programs in higher education.

Michigan's state colleges and universities promptly abandoned any use of race or ethnicity to promote diversity, and minority enrollment plummeted. In 2012, a federal appeals court ruled that the referendum itself was discriminatory, and the U.S. Supreme Court stepped in to decide the issue.

. . . opponents of the referendum claim that the ballot initiative rigged the system. They note that other state admissions policies are set by the popularly elected boards of regents of the three state universities. Indeed, affirmative action defenders observe that some regent elections have focused on the issue of affirmative action. If that process isn't working, they argue, the state Legislature could give the power to set all admissions policies to another body. Or the Legislature could enact a different system to promote diversity — for instance, guaranteeing admission to students graduating in the top 10 percent of their high school classes.

"The one thing they can't do," says the American Civil Liberties Union's Mark Rosenbaum, "is to take our political process, to take the way that decisions are made with respect to higher education, and say, 'There will be one set of rules for race, which are particularly onerous, and another set of rules for all other admissions policies, including all other preferences.' "

Rosenbaum will tell the justices on Tuesday that passage of the referendum means that the only way for minority groups to reinstate affirmative action programs is to re-amend the state constitution. That task is extremely difficult — and, he asserts, doubly difficult and costly, given that the state is 79 percent white. In contrast, if other Michigan citizens want to change other preferences in university admissions — for example, the preference for the children of alumni — they can lobby the regents.

"They have created a separate and unequal system when it comes to considering racial matters," he says.

Will the Tea Party become its own party?

Normally the winner take all rules embedded in the American electoral system prevents this, but this author suggests that Tea Party Republicans - since they already hold office and have established funding sources - might be able to pull it off:

Advocates of a big shake-up in the partisan landscape, whether in the centre or on the right or left, tend to talk about building new political parties from the ground up by fielding candidates in elections. This is vanishingly unlikely to work in the first-past-the-post American system; third-party candidates almost always lack the resources and the name recognition to compete. Voters tend to stick with one of the two major parties in order to avoid the risk of wasting their vote. So upstart parties like the Greens on the left, the Libertarians on the right, or Ross Perot's United We Stand America in the centre face tremendous hurdles, and in practice none have been successful.

A factional split in an existing party reduces that wasted-vote risk. When a faction cleaves from an existing party, it comes with ready-made political power in Congress, and can even play the role of kingmaker. A party that already has members in Congress is a more serious contender in subsequent elections. A strong regional base would probably be needed to stay in contention in any first-past-the-post system; a splinter party that draws 10% of the vote nationwide probably won't win many seats, but a splinter party that draws 10% of the vote concentrated in 25% of the country could.

The biggest weakness in a top-down effort to form a third party via congressional revolt, rather than a bottom-up party-building effort, would be a lack of ideological coherence or connection with voters. A collection of members of Congress disaffected with their leadership will probably not have a strong organic link to any common voter base. But if those members of Congress already come from a common movement with shared organisations and voter bases that had helped elect them, they might take that organisation with them when they split off. Or national political organisations and movements that wanted to form a third party might themselves be the ones pressuring sitting members of Congress to form a breakaway faction.

He doesn't think this is very likely right now, but events might make this more likely to occur:

Of course, there's not much incentive for tea-party Republicans to leave the party right now, since they've succeeded in bending it to their will. But if moderate Republicans finally revolt and dump their agenda, I think tea-party Republicans would have a better shot at launching a sustainable third party than we've seen in America in a long time. Not that it would be a particularly good shot; the segregationist Dixiecrats had a similar combination of congressional power, loyal voter blocs and a unifying ideology when they tried to set up the States' Rights Democratic Party in 1948, and it didn't last past that one election. Still, for anyone who does want to see American politics shaken up through the entrance of a third party, it's worth thinking about the congressional-revolt strategy in combination with the bottom-up one.

From The Hill: Fitch eyes downgrade amid chaos

Click here for the full story:

In its announcement, Fitch said it believed the debt ceiling could be raised but criticized Washington politics for undermining international confidence in the U.S. system.

“Although Fitch continues to believe that the debt ceiling will be raised soon, the political brinkmanship and reduced financing flexibility could increase the risk of a U.S. default,” the rater said in a statement.

“The U.S. risks being forced to incur widespread delays of payments to suppliers and employees, as well as Social Security payments to citizens — all of which would damage the perception of U.S. sovereign creditworthiness and the economy.”

Investors on Tuesday showed tepid interest in a weekly offering of Treasury bonds amid growing concern about the reliability of U.S. debt. Citigroup reportedly told analysts it was getting rid of any Treasury debt due to mature around the end of the month.

Outside experts believe the government could be in danger of a default anytime between Oct. 22 and Nov. 1.

The stock market has yet to show any dramatic swings, but markets closed before the House canceled its plans for a vote. The Dow Jones Industrial Average ended the day down 135 points.

A spokesman for Standard & Poor’s, which downgraded the nation in the aftermath of the 2011 debt limit fight, said that rater still expects a last-minute deal to emerge. And Moody’s Investors Service said earlier this month it sees no risk of a default even if the debt limit is not raised, saying the Treasury would ensure interest payments on debts were made above all others.

From Bloomberg: Five Reasons to Fear the Debt Ceiling

A quick primer:

1. Global markets will see the U.S. government as grossly and dangerously incompetent.2. Forced spending cuts will kill the economic recovery.3. The U.S. government might actually default on its debts.4. A default could trigger a global crash.5. The government’s fiscal problems will only get worse.

More on fragmentation within the Republican Party

Here are a few more stories that amplify the theme of the previous one:

- Whither the GOP? Republicans Want Change, But Split over Party’s Direction
- A tea party exit would be a blessing for GOP
- The GOP Can't Survive Without the Tea Party

From TNR: The Last Days of the GOP We could be witnessing the death throes of the Republican Party

I can't comment on whether this author's broader claims are true, but this article contains great information on how the contemporary Republican coalition came to be. It'll add to a forthcoming look at political parties in the US and the forces that shift the balance of power from one to the other.

The authors point is that the current coalition that has formed the core of the Republican Party for a couple decades at least is starting to unravel. The fight over the shut down and debt ceiling is driving it:

The battle over the shutdown has highlighted the cracks and fissures within the party. The party’s leadership has begun to lose control of its members in Congress. The party’s base has become increasingly shrill and is almost as dissatisfied with the Republican leadership in Washington as it is with President Obama. New conservative groups have echoed, and taken advantage of, this sentiment by targeting Republicans identified with the leadership for defeat. And a growing group of Republican politicians, who owe their election to these groups, has carried the battle into the halls of Congress. That is spelling doom for the Republican coalition that has kept the party afloat for the last two decades.

American party coalitions are heterogeneous, but they endure as along as the different groups find more agreement with each other than with the opposition. After Republicans won back the Congress in 1994, they developed a political strategy to hold their coalition together. Many people contributed to the strategy including Newt Gingrich, Karl Rove, Paul Coverdell, Paul Weyrich, and Ralph Reed, but the chief architect was probably Grover Norquist, a political operative who, along with Rove and Reed, came of age in the early Reagan years. The strategy was based on creating an alliance between business, which had sometimes divided its loyalties between Republicans and Democrats, and the array of social and economic interest groups that had begun backing Republicans.

In weekly meeting held on Wednesdays at the office of his Americans for Tax Reform, Norquist put forth the idea that business groups, led by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB), but also including the specialized trade associations, should back socially conservative Republican candidates, while right-to-life or gun rights organizations should back tax cuts and deregulation. What would bind the different parts together was a common opposition to raising taxes, which Norquist framed in a pledge he demanded that Republican candidates make. Business could provide the money, and the single-issue and evangelical groups the grassroots energy to win elections.

The strategy worked reasonably well, especially in House races. The Chamber and NFIB became election-year arms of the Republican Party. In Congress, a succession of leaders, including Gingrich, Dennis Hastert, Tom DeLay, and Roy Blunt, followed the strategy. Gingrich initially overreached, and DeLay took ethical end-runs, but by the time John Boehner became Minority Leader in 2007, it had been refined. Its economic approach consisted of promoting cuts in taxes, spending, and regulation. Boehner, as lobbyists close to him explained to me, wanted to use the battle over continuing resolutions and the debt ceiling to achieve incremental changes on these fronts. He did not contemplate shutting down the government or allowing the government to default on its obligations.

But now the strategy does not seem to be working. Tea Party activists and evangelicals seem unwilling to bend to business interests.

Under pressure from grassroots radicals and the new outsider groups, the old Republican coalition is beginning to shatter. The single-issue and evangelical groups have been superseded by right-wing populist groups, which are generally identified with the Tea Party, although there is no single Tea Party organization. These groups can’t easily be co-opted by the party’s Washington leadership. And the business groups in Washington, who funded the party over the last two decades, have grown disillusioned with a party that appears to be increasingly held hostage by its radical base and by outsider groups. The newspapers are now filled with stories about business opposition to the shutdown strategy, and there are even hints of business groups backing challenges to Tea Party candidates. “The business community has got to stand up and say we are not going to back the most self-described conservative candidate. We are going to back the candidates that are the most rational,” says John Feehery, a former aide to DeLay and Hastert who is now president of Quinn Gillespie & Associates, a Washington lobbying firm.

Business interests have not been shy about donating to the occasional Democrat - that might continue.

In Washington, today’s business lobbies may come to understand what the lobbies of the ‘50s grasped—that the Democratic Party is a small “c” conservative party that has sought to preserve and protect American capitalism by sanding off its rough edges. Joe Echevarria, the chief executive of Deloitte, the accounting and consulting firm, recently told The New York Times, “I’m a Republican by definition and by registration, but the party seems to have split into two factions.” Echevarria added that while the Democrats also had an extreme faction, it had no power in the party, while the Republican’s extreme faction did. “The extreme right has 90 seats in the House,” he said. “Occupy Wall Street has no seats.” That realization could lead business to resume splitting its contributions, which would spell trouble for the Republicans.

Republicans in Washington could repudiate their radical base and shun the groups that appeal to it. That is roughly what people like Feehery are suggesting. But the question, then, is what would be the Republican base? How would Republicans win elections? Are there enough rational Republicans to make up for the loss of the radical ones?

What is happening in the Republican Party today is reminiscent of what happened to the Democrats in the late 1960s and early 1970s. At that time, the Democrats in Washington were faced by a grassroots revolt from the new left over the war in Vietnam and from the white South over the party’s support for civil rights. It took the Democrats over two decades to do undo the damage—to create a party coalition that united the leadership in Washington with the base and that was capable of winning national elections. The Republicans could be facing a similar split between their base and their Washington leadership, and it could cripple them not just in the 2014 and 2016 elections, but for decades to come.

If the South can realign to the Republican Party anything is possible.  This is a must read article for 2305 students.

For this week's look at the Texas budget in GOVT 2306

The plan is to look at both the budgetary process and the description of spending in the Fiscal Size Up.

Click here for past posts on the Texas budget - the topics vary depending on what was topical on a given day.

And here are a few random items topical today.

- Lawyer updates Fort Bend leaders on state finance lawsuit.

The massive cuts to public education budget in the 82nd Session of the legislature led to a - still ongoing - lawsuit by 600 school districts against the legislature alleging they violated the Texas Constitutions mandate that appropriate funds be provided to public education in the state. A Texas district judge agreed, but some funds were added in the 83rd Session - which led to a delay in the final verdict.

This story contains an appraisal of what the budget cuts will mean for the quality of the public education system.

- Leap backwards: TxDOT downgrading paved roads to gravel prompts new funding.

A "citizen activist" walks through the problems involved in Texas' method for funding roads in the state - especially roads in rural areas that are being heavily damaged by the increased activity associated with fracking. Not only are insufficient funds being made available for repair - leading the Department of Transportation to propose converting many of these roads to gravel - but few funds area available to police these areas.

The state is reaping the benefits of these increased revenues, but the areas where the drilling is occurring are not.

-Rep. Donna Howard Talks Family Planning, Education, and the Future of the Legislature

A member of the Texas legislature's Women's Health Caucus discusses efforts to undo cuts to women's health and family planning programs.

-Higher ed funding fails. 

Disagreements over how to distribute over $2 billion in tuition revenue bonds prevented the legislature from authorizing any new campus construction for higher education.

58% of Texans support legalizing marijuana - area Congressman cosponsors bill requiring federal officials to comply with state marijuana laws

Two related stories provide further evidence that attitudes about marijuana are changing.

First

A majority of Texas voters would like to see the state go the way of Washington and Colorado and legalize possession of marijuana, according to a new poll conducted by Public Policy Polling for the Marijuana Policy Project.

According to the poll, 58 percent of the 860 respondents said they either "strongly support (41 percent)" or "somewhat support (17 percent)" changing the law in Texas to regulate marijuana similarly to alcohol, licensing stores to sell the substance to adults age 21 and older. Of those in opposition, 14 percent "somewhat oppose" the full legalization of marijuana and 24 percent "strongly oppose" such a change.

Sixty-one percent of respondents said they would like to remove criminal penalties for those in possession of an ounce or less of marijuana and make it a civil rather than criminal offense, punishable by a fine of up to $100 with no jail time. Under the current law, a person in possession of a small amount of the drug faces up to a year in jail and a fine of up to $2,000.

"I would take this poll seriously, because it does generally track with Gallup and Pew polls nationwide," said Nathan Jones, a postdoctoral fellow in Drug Policy at Rice University's Baker Institute.

"This shows that a majority of Texans are in support of fully legalizing marijuana."

Jones attributes the poll results in part to Texans' libertarian attitudes on spending tax dollars to enforce the state's marijuana policy and the cost of incarcerating drug offenders. The state also loses money due to lost productivity, when a non-violent offender is released from prison and is unable to find a good job.

Notice that some of the support for legalization has less to do with attitudes about the drug than concerns over the costs of prosecution.

Second

Texas Rep. Steve Stockman, R-Friendswood, has recently backed a bill to require federal officials to comply with state marijuana laws, which was introduced in April and has since garnered support from Congressmen on both sides of the aisle.

The Respect State Marijuana Laws Act of 2013, introduced by California Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, a Republican, would bar federal drug enforcement agents from penalizing any person abiding by the marijuana laws in their own state.

The law “shall not apply to any person acting in compliance with State laws” — that is, people who are in compliance with their state laws regarding possession, manufacture or use of marijuana will not be subjected to federal penalties.

Twenty-one states and Washington, D.C. have already legalized medical marijuana, and both Washington and Colorado legalized marijuana for both medicinal and recreational use.

Stockman’s name was added to the bill as a sponsor on Saturday. He currently is the only Texas Congressman to cosponsor the bill, which has a total of 19 cosponsors. The bill was referred to to the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations in April.

Prop 2 - Texas Constitutional Amendment - 2013

Here's what the ballot wording will look like:

The constitional amendment eliminating an obsolete requirement for a State Medical Education Board and a State Medical Education Fund, neither of which is operational.

The purpose seem to just clean up the Texas Constitution of an extraneous section.

Click here for detail from the Texas Legislative Council.

The Texas Constitution currently requires a constitutional State Medical Education Board and State Medical Education Fund.  The program, created in 1952, did not ultimately serve its intended purpose so the loans from the fund were discontinued in 1988.  The Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board absorbed the State Medical Education Fund as part of its overall duties for scholarships and student loans, making the constitutional board and fund obsolete.  HJR 79 eliminates the constitutional requirement to continue the board and fund.

Supporters Say: This constitutional amendment repeals an obsolete provision in the Texas Constitution. The State Medical Education Fund is operated by the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board, so there is no need to maintain the discontinued program in the constitution.

Opponents Say: No opposition.

All you need to know about Perry, Abbott and Davis from the Texas Tribune

I anticipate that they'll do something similar for other politicians, but they provide pages devoted to all the stories compiled for these noted Texas politicos.

- Perrypedia.
- Abbott Archives.
- Davis Digest.

Almost Back - FYI - this week's assessments will be opened a day late

Classes cancelled Thursday 10/10 and Monday 10/14

I made this announcement in class and elsewhere, but in case you haven't heard, I'll be out of town through Tuesday the 15th.

The next round of assessments might be a posted a bit late, but we will get back on track next week.

McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission

Oral arguments were heard yesterday over whether limits on contributions violate free speech rights.

- ScotusBlog has full detail here.
- The transcript of the argument can be found here.
- Why Limit Political Donations?

Houston's mayoral debate

The six candidates for Houston's mayoral race met last night in a debate. The Chronicle reports that roads, city finances and public transportation were dominant themes.

Many House Republicans doubt default will result in economic crisis.

From the NYT:

As President Obama steps up his declarations about the dire consequences of not raising the debt limit, increasing numbers of Congressional Republicans are disputing that forecast, as well as the timing of when the Treasury might run out of money and the implications of a default, further complicating the negotiating situation for both Mr. Obama and Speaker John A. Boehner, who must find a way out of the impasse.

Both men were counting on the prospect of a global economic meltdown to help pull restive Republicans into line. On Wall Street, among business leaders and in a vast majority of university economics departments, the threat of significant instability resulting from a debt default is not in question. But a lot of Republicans simply do not believe it.

A surprisingly broad section of the Republican Party is convinced that a threat once taken as economic fact may not exist — or at least may not be so serious. Some question the Treasury’s drop-dead deadline of Oct. 17. Some government services might have to be curtailed, they concede. “But I think the real date, candidly, the date that’s highly problematic for our nation, is Nov. 1,” said Senator Bob Corker, Republican of Tennessee.

Others say there is no deadline at all — that daily tax receipts would be more than enough to pay off Treasury bonds as they come due.

One critics calls them debt ceiling truthers.

What does the 14th Amendment say about public debt and why?

We already spent time in 2305 discussing Section One of the 14th Amendment - which established national citizenship and contains the equal protection clause among other things - but Section Four contains language which might apply to the current standoff:

Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

Why is it here? It has to do with the politics following the Civil War once the southern states were allowed to send representatives back to Congress. What consequences would follow?

The threat of debt default and its impact on national security was very much on the minds of those who drafted the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution. The historian Franklin Noll has explained how representatives of the former Confederate states, now back in Congress, were highly disinclined to tax their constituents to pay the debts of the Civil War’s victors – the Confederate debt was repudiated, only the Union debt was repaid. Consequently, the threat of default was a very real one in the immediate postwar period.

From the abstract of Noll's article:

From 1865 to 1870, a crisis atmosphere hovered around the issue of the massive public debt created during the recently concluded Civil War, leading, in part, to the passage of a Constitutional Amendment ensuring the “validity of the public debt.” However, the Civil War debt crisis was not a financial one, but a political one. The Republican and Democratic Parties took concerns over the public debt and magnified them into panics so that they could serve political ends — there was never any real danger that the United States would default on its debt for financial reasons. There were, in fact, three interrelated crises generated during the period: a repudiation crisis (grounded upon fears of the cancellation of the war debt), a repayment crisis (arising from calls to repay the debt in depreciated currency), and a refunding crisis (stemming from a concern of a run on the Treasury). The end of the Civil War debt crisis came only when there was no more political advantage to be gained from exploiting the issue of the public debt.

Bruce Bartlett On The Debt Limit

More on "brinksmanship."

This article has been called a must read by some smart folks

Bartlett walks through the consequences of not extending the debt ceiling, then discusses President Obama's options, but argues that if necessary he must continue to borrow money to fund the government even if it means defying Congress over the debt ceiling.

He wouldn't be the first president to do so.

Previous presidents have also faced the dilemma of being under insurmountable pressure to act in various circumstances with no clear legal authority or conflicting legal demands. Thomas Jefferson concluded that he did not have the authority to buy the Louisiana territory, but did so anyway because it was essential to the national interest.

During the Civil War, Abraham Lincoln often had to take extra-constitutional actions, such as suspending the writ of habeas corpus. In a message to Congress on July 4, 1861, he explained that when forced by grave necessity to break the law, the president must do so, choosing the least unconstitutional option. As Lincoln put it, “To state the question more directly, are all the laws, but one, to go unexecuted, and the government itself go to pieces, lest that one be violated?”

Franklin D. Roosevelt suspended the enforcement of gold clauses in private contracts fully expecting that the Supreme Court would rule against him.

Word of the day: Brinksmanship

From Wikipedia:

Brinkmanship (also brinksmanship) is the practice of pushing dangerous events to the verge of—or to the brink of—disaster in order to achieve the most advantageous outcome. It occurs in international politics, foreign policy, labour relations, and (in contemporary settings) military strategyinvolving the threatened use of nuclear weapons.

This maneuver of pushing a situation with the opponent to the brink succeeds by forcing the opponent to back down and make concessions.

As applied to current news:

- 11th-Hour Brinkmanship Before Government Shutdown.
- CR Blues: Constant Brinkmanship Brings Fatigue
- Boehner can't let go of brinkmanship
- Brinkmanship in US Congress as debt ceiling looms

Americans like their member of Congress more than they like Congress itself

This is a common finding.

11% approve of Congress, 44% approve of their member of Congress.

The Gallup poll shows dips in both, but the numbers for Congress overall is close to a record low.



The number for the individual member is a record low - but its 4 times the number for Congress.



Notice the persistence of the difference in these two figures. There's lot to be made of it. I always found it interesting that we have a lower collective opinion of the institution we have the connection too, but it is also composed of individuals from across the country, many of whom have opinions we loath. It's democratic and messy.

Abbott v. Davis

The Economist looks ahead to the governor's race. We will. too.

From Wonkblog: A snapshot of today's college students

Most of the discourse on college education seems based on a incorrect assumption of who college students really are. A plurality g to community colleges, a quarter have children, and most are independent.

But you probably knew that already.

The Tea Party is not interested in compromise

That's the theme of a handful of recent stories. Here are a couple examples

- ‘People don’t fully appreciate how committed the tea party is to not compromising'
- The Tea Party Doesn’t Want Compromise; It Wants Surrender

Most highlight a recently published book which tries to detail how Tea Party members are distinct from other Republican Party identifiers. The authors uses surveys and other methods to determine that Tea Party members are far more likely to be reactionary (take may country back) and conspiratorial than other Republicans.

- This focus group report on Tea Party members hits the same point.

Some quotes from the book's author: 

So if you look at this postwar discourse in the National Review Online you have some content about limited government, some about social conservatism, and some about national security. That content accounts for 76 percent of that National Review online. Now if you look at the Tea Party Web sites, that only accounts for 30 percent. Then there’s this conspiratorial discourse Hofstadter talks about that says government is really trying to bring about socialism, etc. That’s only about five percent of what you find at the National Review. On tea party Web sites it’s about a third.

So it’s not just that we’re seeing results like 76 percent of tea partiers want to see Obama fail. We also ask if people think Obama is destroying the country. We asked this question of all self-identified conservatives. If you look at all conservatives, 35 percent believe that. If you look at tea party conservatives and non-tea party conservatives, only six percent of non-tea party conservatives believe that vs. 71 percent of tea party conservatives.

So to draw this together, the reason people should believe us is we have disparate data sources that collapse on the same answer. It’s that these people are not the traditional, mainstream conventional conservatives. If you look at tea party conservatives, or as we call them in the book, reactionary conservatives, they don’t want change at all. They want to go back in time.

. . . You’ve got about 52 members of the Republican conference who are affiliated with the tea party in some official way. That’s a bit less than a quarter of all House Republicans. That’s enough in the House. They refuse to compromise because, to them, compromise is capitulation. If you go back to Hofstadter’s work when he’s talking about when the John Birch Society rode high, he talks about how conservatives would see people who disagree as political opponents, but reactionary conservatives saw them as evil. You can’t capitulate to evil.