Tuesday, August 31, 2010
Coercion vs Consent
A good read for my 2301 as we wrestle with debates over how governments originate.
Conservatives v Libertarians
For 2301s discussion of ideology, here are a couple of critiques a noted libertarian -- Brink Lindsey -- wrote regarding the current state of conservatism.
- Where do Libertarians Belong?
- Another Culture War? No Thanks.
Lindsey does not believe the Tea Party movement actually wants to reduce the size of government -- at least where it matters most: Middle Class Entitlement like Social Security and Medicare. Like the story on the Koch brothers below, his analysis offers a summary of recent political history.
Lindsey and was recently "purged" from the Cato Institute for, the rumor has it, aligning more with liberals than conservatives.
- Where do Libertarians Belong?
- Another Culture War? No Thanks.
Lindsey does not believe the Tea Party movement actually wants to reduce the size of government -- at least where it matters most: Middle Class Entitlement like Social Security and Medicare. Like the story on the Koch brothers below, his analysis offers a summary of recent political history.
Lindsey and was recently "purged" from the Cato Institute for, the rumor has it, aligning more with liberals than conservatives.
Stories for 8/31/10
A few relevant items today:
- A Washington Post story illustrating the difficulty party's have enforcing unity among their members: A freshman Republican goes against the leadership on Afghanistan.
- The National Beer Wholesalers Association works the Hill.
- Wall Street turns on Obama.
- Does Language Shape How You Think? Politicians have known that words matter for quite some time. An entire industry has emerged around determining which words lead people to think a particular way. Can an entire language do the same?
- Glenn Beck follows his rally with a launch of a new web site.
- The electoral landscape looks better and better for Republicans.
- A Washington Post story illustrating the difficulty party's have enforcing unity among their members: A freshman Republican goes against the leadership on Afghanistan.
- The National Beer Wholesalers Association works the Hill.
- Wall Street turns on Obama.
- Does Language Shape How You Think? Politicians have known that words matter for quite some time. An entire industry has emerged around determining which words lead people to think a particular way. Can an entire language do the same?
- Glenn Beck follows his rally with a launch of a new web site.
- The electoral landscape looks better and better for Republicans.
Sunday, August 29, 2010
Harris County Judicial Elections
A Rick Casey piece in the Chronicle gives us a peek at how county judicial elections are run.
Investigations to Come?
Politico reports that Republicans plan to launch a variety of investigations of the Obama Administration if they take control of the House and/or Senate after this election. Could an impeachment proceeding be in the works?
My two cents? Don't forget that President Clinton's highest approval ratings were measured the day he was impeached. If the investigations are seem as being entirely partisan by independents, Republicans could easily help Obama regain the popularity he's lost in the past year. The public is very very fickle.
My two cents? Don't forget that President Clinton's highest approval ratings were measured the day he was impeached. If the investigations are seem as being entirely partisan by independents, Republicans could easily help Obama regain the popularity he's lost in the past year. The public is very very fickle.
Saturday, August 28, 2010
The Economy is Great
For corporations anyway. Corporate profits are back to where they were before the recession. Again, the question is why this hasn't translated into jobs and whether there is a policy government can pursue that can address that.
Here is one theory: The most obvious explanation is that the relationship between labor and capital (to borrow Marxist vocabulary) has changed. Capital has gotten stronger; labor has weakened. Economist Robert J. Gordon of Northwestern University argues that the "shift of executive compensation towards much greater use of stock options" has made corporate managers more zealous cost-cutters in recessions and more reluctant hirers early in recoveries. Lowering the head count is the quickest way to restore profits and, from there, a company's stock price.
Another, offered below, is that people are not buying anything sat the moment other than what they immediately need. They are paying down debt and saving. Companies know this and see no need to hire new workers. So there are no new jobs for people to apply for.
So here's a question for 2301s. What does this tell us about the role of government at this moment? Do we just hunker down and take lumps until personal debt levels are low enough that people start spending again? What do we do about people who can find no employment? Let them waste away? Is there a moral element here that requires intervention or not?
Here is one theory: The most obvious explanation is that the relationship between labor and capital (to borrow Marxist vocabulary) has changed. Capital has gotten stronger; labor has weakened. Economist Robert J. Gordon of Northwestern University argues that the "shift of executive compensation towards much greater use of stock options" has made corporate managers more zealous cost-cutters in recessions and more reluctant hirers early in recoveries. Lowering the head count is the quickest way to restore profits and, from there, a company's stock price.
Another, offered below, is that people are not buying anything sat the moment other than what they immediately need. They are paying down debt and saving. Companies know this and see no need to hire new workers. So there are no new jobs for people to apply for.
So here's a question for 2301s. What does this tell us about the role of government at this moment? Do we just hunker down and take lumps until personal debt levels are low enough that people start spending again? What do we do about people who can find no employment? Let them waste away? Is there a moral element here that requires intervention or not?
Friday, August 27, 2010
Personal Debt, Credit, and the State of the Economy
A couple of New Republic articles try to get to the heart of the economy, why we are here we are, and what it takes to get out of it: It was a bubble driven recession, not a typical business cycle recession, and that makes everything worse. Household debt has almost tripled between the late 1990s and 2007. Now people are paying off that debt, which limits current spending and places a limit to any current expansion. Ironically, now that people are doing the right thing (pay off debt, not add to it) the economy continues to suffer.
- William Galston.
- Raghuram Rajan.
- William Galston.
- Raghuram Rajan.
The Koch Brothers
This is a terrific insider look at the forces that shape politics.
And a related story about a backlash against the brothers.
And a related story about a backlash against the brothers.
The Fed Considers New Action on the Economy
Estimates of the economy's performance in the 2nd quarter of this year have been revised downward and the Federal Reserve is considering whether and how to respond. Given past activities, their tool box is running low.
2302 students should read up on the Federal Reserve -- our central bank, sort of -- which is part of the bureaucratic component of the federal executive branch. It was created in the early years of the 1900s -- interestingly -- due to a financial crisis, and is in charge of the country's monetary policy. One of their functions is to pump money into the economy during recessions and pull it out when inflation threatens. The trick is figuring out when and how to do this. That is part of the debate going on within the fed at the moment.
2301 students might want to consider disputes concerning the propriety of the very existence of the Fed, as well as the institution's insulation from the general population. As we will see, the founders differed on the strength of the attachment that ought to exist between the workings of governing institutions and the immediate preferences of the public. The Fed is very insulated. We should discuss in class whether this is a good idea.
Some links:
- The Fed is currently meeting Jackson Hole, Wyoming (sweet) at a conference organized by the Kansas City Branch.
- Fed Chair Bernacke weighs possible options, most probably purchasing securities, which is an effective way to pump money into the economy.
- Bernacke's best tool may be persuasion.
- Federal Reserve tags from the Washington Post.
- Wikipedia: Federal Reserve System.
- Times Topics: Federal Reserve System.
Thursday, August 26, 2010
For GOVT 2302: News Sources
For 2302 classes, you'll note that I tend to pull information about the legislative, executive and judicial branches from three principle sources:
- Congressional Quarterly, for information about Congress.
- Ezra Klein's WonkBook, for information about the executive branch and public policy debates.
- ScotusBlog, for information about the Federal Courts, including the Supreme Court.
There are others also, you'll see them on the right hand side of this blog under news review, but these have become my go to sources for info on national governmental issues.
For Texas expect to see info from the following sources:
- Quorum Report -- click on Daily Buzz.
- The Houston and Texas Section in the Houston Chronicle.
- Congressional Quarterly, for information about Congress.
- Ezra Klein's WonkBook, for information about the executive branch and public policy debates.
- ScotusBlog, for information about the Federal Courts, including the Supreme Court.
There are others also, you'll see them on the right hand side of this blog under news review, but these have become my go to sources for info on national governmental issues.
For Texas expect to see info from the following sources:
- Quorum Report -- click on Daily Buzz.
- The Houston and Texas Section in the Houston Chronicle.
Wednesday, August 25, 2010
Welcome Fall 2010 Students
Tomorrow -- Thursday August 26th -- the fall 2010 semester officially begins and I'll resume posting information to this site. Given the upcoming midterm elections, we should have plenty to discuss. Here are a couple of items that ought to be pertinent to you, some of you anyway.
- The Beloit College Mindset List.
- The Pew Research Center: The Millenials: Confident, Connected, Open to Change.
You are a trippy group of kids you know that?
In 2301 we will cover, late in the semester, the concept of a political generation. This refers to the group of people raised around the same time who share the same attitudes because they were exposed to the same experiences at the same time in their lives -- more or less. You are now being pegged. Now just in case you're looking and around and wondering about who these old people are all around you, here's what we know about the generation that already thinks you're too old.
- The Beloit College Mindset List.
- The Pew Research Center: The Millenials: Confident, Connected, Open to Change.
You are a trippy group of kids you know that?
In 2301 we will cover, late in the semester, the concept of a political generation. This refers to the group of people raised around the same time who share the same attitudes because they were exposed to the same experiences at the same time in their lives -- more or less. You are now being pegged. Now just in case you're looking and around and wondering about who these old people are all around you, here's what we know about the generation that already thinks you're too old.
Monday, August 16, 2010
Money in Judicial Elections
The Brennan Center has released a report on the recent increase in interest group spending on judicial elections. Sandra Day O'Connor has been critical of state judicial elections. Here's a link to her project focusing on them.
Thursday, August 12, 2010
Economic Transformation.
This builds off the previous post. Richard Florida wonders if the root of our economic troubles is the chaos that naturally occurs when an economic system is undergoing transformation. We are still in the process of changing from a manufacturing to an information based economy. Florida argues that existing policies have to be reexamined in order to allow for the population to fit into this new order, much as they were when we became an suburban, highway driving economy following the Great Depression. Part of the problem is homeownership. Owning a home ties one to a particular place and makes mobility difficult. We have to adjust expectations and policies accordingly, meaning we should stop encouraging people to buy homes, among other things.
Should Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac Die?
An ex-president of the Federal Reserve says yes.
- Wikipedia: Fannie Mae.
- Wikipedia: Freddie Mac.
- Wikipedia: Government Sponsored Enterprise.
- Wikipedia: Fannie Mae.
- Wikipedia: Freddie Mac.
- Wikipedia: Government Sponsored Enterprise.
About Birthright Citizenship
There's controversy concerning whether the opening language of the 14th Amendment actually establishes birthright citizenship. Here's the text:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.
The highlighted text appears to be the tricky part. Are illegal immigrants truly subject to the jurisdiction of the United States? Can they vote and are they subject to a draft, if one were established? The courts have never ruled on this issue -- it took a court ruling to determine that the children of legal immigrants were citizens -- so we simply don't know.
- CRS Report: U.S. Citizenship of Persons Born in the United States to Alien Parents.
- Christian Science Monitor: Is Birthright Citizenship Really in the Constitution?
- Wikipedia: Birthright Citizenship in the United States.
- Wikipedia: Jus Soli.
- Wikipedia: Jus Sanguinis.
-
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.
The highlighted text appears to be the tricky part. Are illegal immigrants truly subject to the jurisdiction of the United States? Can they vote and are they subject to a draft, if one were established? The courts have never ruled on this issue -- it took a court ruling to determine that the children of legal immigrants were citizens -- so we simply don't know.
- CRS Report: U.S. Citizenship of Persons Born in the United States to Alien Parents.
- Christian Science Monitor: Is Birthright Citizenship Really in the Constitution?
- Wikipedia: Birthright Citizenship in the United States.
- Wikipedia: Jus Soli.
- Wikipedia: Jus Sanguinis.
-
Tuesday, August 10, 2010
Proposed Constitutional Amendments
In response to the flurry of suggestions that the birthright citizenship provision of the 14th Amendment ought to be removed, Jonathan Chait lists other Constitutional Amendments "endorsed by mainstrean Republicans."
The Free Flow of Information Act, Media Shield Laws and Wikileaks
Wikileaks, and its ongoing drive to release as much information as possible to the public, has led members of the Senate to modify a bill introduced last year: H.R. 985: The Free Flow of Information Act. The law would be the first federal media shield law, which would provide protection for journalists who wish to keep their sources confidential. Under the law:
... federal judges could quash subpoenas demanding testimony or information from reporters if the judges determined that the public interest in news gathering outweighed the need to uncover the source of a leak, including, in some circumstances, unauthorized disclosure of classified government information.
Protection under the so-called shield law would also be extended to unpaid bloggers engaged in gathering and disseminating news.
Perhaps not for wikileaks however.
For 2301: Think about not only freedom of the press, but how the courts balance civil liberties against the greater interest of society
For 2302: This is an example of the bill making process, and also the ability of Congress to design the judiciary.
... federal judges could quash subpoenas demanding testimony or information from reporters if the judges determined that the public interest in news gathering outweighed the need to uncover the source of a leak, including, in some circumstances, unauthorized disclosure of classified government information.
Protection under the so-called shield law would also be extended to unpaid bloggers engaged in gathering and disseminating news.
Perhaps not for wikileaks however.
For 2301: Think about not only freedom of the press, but how the courts balance civil liberties against the greater interest of society
For 2302: This is an example of the bill making process, and also the ability of Congress to design the judiciary.
Sunday, August 8, 2010
Scientific Journalism
This will be one in a series of posts on the issues associated with Wikileaks -- which I've posted on before -- and its ongoing efforts to make previously secret information available online. This included the recent release of documents related to the ongoing war in Afghanistan.
In an article in the New Yorker, Wikileak's founder (Julian Assange) states the following: “I want to set up a new standard: ‘scientific journalism.’ If you publish a paper on DNA, you are required, by all the good biological journals, to submit the data that has informed your research—the idea being that people will replicate it, check it, verify it. So this is something that needs to be done for journalism as well. There is an immediate power imbalance, in that readers are unable to verify what they are being told, and that leads to abuse.” Because Assange publishes his source material, he believes that WikiLeaks is free to offer its analysis, no matter how speculative.
This fits into 2301s discussion of the media. The web has transformed journalism and raised questions about who in fact qualifies as a journalist. The job involves collecting and processing information. It seems that Wikileaks is trying to make the former easier and opening up the latter to all comers.
- Wikipedia: Wikileaks.
- NY Topics: Wikileaks.
In an article in the New Yorker, Wikileak's founder (Julian Assange) states the following: “I want to set up a new standard: ‘scientific journalism.’ If you publish a paper on DNA, you are required, by all the good biological journals, to submit the data that has informed your research—the idea being that people will replicate it, check it, verify it. So this is something that needs to be done for journalism as well. There is an immediate power imbalance, in that readers are unable to verify what they are being told, and that leads to abuse.” Because Assange publishes his source material, he believes that WikiLeaks is free to offer its analysis, no matter how speculative.
This fits into 2301s discussion of the media. The web has transformed journalism and raised questions about who in fact qualifies as a journalist. The job involves collecting and processing information. It seems that Wikileaks is trying to make the former easier and opening up the latter to all comers.
- Wikipedia: Wikileaks.
- NY Topics: Wikileaks.
Saturday, August 7, 2010
Jonathan Rauch on Democracy, Free Speech, Government etc...
He does a much better job with this than I do. The key to well functioning societies? Trial and error.
Friday, August 6, 2010
The New Normal
These may be two most depressing articles a college student -- or an unemployed person -- could read. Is the current unemployment rate -- 9.5% -- the new normal? Some economic indicators are actually pretty good. Can our economy exist comfortably with high unemployment? Can our society? Can you? Will public opinion eventually adapt itself to this new normal?
- Krugman.
- Peck.
- Krugman.
- Peck.
Christina Romer -- Head of the Council of Economic Advisors -- to Step Down.
The Huffington Post claims her resignation is due to conflicts with official within the Obama White House Staff (The CEA is part of the Executive Office of the President): Romer's resignation came amid a report that she had been frustrated that she didn't have as much access to the president as Larry Summers, director of the White House National Economic Council.The story mentions a New Yorker article which also highlighted conflicts between Romer and Summers:
Romer had run simulations of the effects of stimulus packages of varying sizes: six hundred billion dollars, eight hundred billion dollars, and $1.2 trillion. The best estimate for the output gap was some two trillion dollars over 2009 and 2010. Because of the multiplier effect, filling that gap didn't require two trillion dollars of government spending, but Romer's analysis, deeply informed by her work on the Depression, suggested that the package should probably be more than $1.2 trillion. The memo to Obama, however, detailed only two packages: a five-hundred-and-fifty-billion-dollar stimulus and an eight-hundred-and-ninety-billion-dollar stimulus. Summers did not include Romer's $1.2-trillion projection. The memo argued that the stimulus should not be used to fill the entire output gap; rather, it was "an insurance package against catastrophic failure." At the meeting, according to one participant, "there was no serious discussion to going above a trillion dollars."
Given the increased possibility of a double dip recession, perhaps the decision to not go over a trillion dollars, almost certainly a political decision, was unwise. Previous posts have highlighted the conflict in the Obama White House between the political team and the economic team over how best to deal with the recession.
8/7/10: Update
Here's some background on her resignation and how the story broke. The author tells us it had been known for weeks, but the story broke before the White House could annouce it and has beem trying to contain how the resignation has been framed. The author points to the comments specifically:
Check the comment section on Hotline On Call, and you'll get a sense of how challenging it is for the White House to contain a story once it breaks. Larry Summers is the bad guy; HE should have been forced out; HE hates women; he's muscling women who have good advice out of the way; why is the president so reliant on him and Tim Geithner, anyway?
A sample:
"Summers was the worst pick ever, along with that weasel Geithner and Rahm "Karl Rove" Emanuel. At least Romer was a progressive voice to counter the the Harvard/Chicago axis that represents Goldman Sachs, Wall St and the kind of unfettered, unregulated, "free"-market larceny that has been eroding this country's economic vitality for 30 years, while making the rich much richer still. Summers and company are the same ding-dongs and charlatans posing as economic gurus who have enabled the on-going plunder of America
"The person writing this could be a world-renown policy expert or someone with great insight into the motivations of the White House economic team. Or, he or she could be a crank. One would not know from reading the commentators' post that Summers is among the most forceful advocates for more spending...that Summers and Romer were among those who pushed the Senate and the House to consider a state bailout bill that, two weeks ago, had no chance at passing.
Suddently this story has shifted from one about economic policymaking to media relations in the age of the internet. Which raises a question: Has the increase in available information actually increased public ignorance of government, politics and public policy due to the increase in the noise that purports to be informative?
Romer had run simulations of the effects of stimulus packages of varying sizes: six hundred billion dollars, eight hundred billion dollars, and $1.2 trillion. The best estimate for the output gap was some two trillion dollars over 2009 and 2010. Because of the multiplier effect, filling that gap didn't require two trillion dollars of government spending, but Romer's analysis, deeply informed by her work on the Depression, suggested that the package should probably be more than $1.2 trillion. The memo to Obama, however, detailed only two packages: a five-hundred-and-fifty-billion-dollar stimulus and an eight-hundred-and-ninety-billion-dollar stimulus. Summers did not include Romer's $1.2-trillion projection. The memo argued that the stimulus should not be used to fill the entire output gap; rather, it was "an insurance package against catastrophic failure." At the meeting, according to one participant, "there was no serious discussion to going above a trillion dollars."
Given the increased possibility of a double dip recession, perhaps the decision to not go over a trillion dollars, almost certainly a political decision, was unwise. Previous posts have highlighted the conflict in the Obama White House between the political team and the economic team over how best to deal with the recession.
8/7/10: Update
Here's some background on her resignation and how the story broke. The author tells us it had been known for weeks, but the story broke before the White House could annouce it and has beem trying to contain how the resignation has been framed. The author points to the comments specifically:
Check the comment section on Hotline On Call, and you'll get a sense of how challenging it is for the White House to contain a story once it breaks. Larry Summers is the bad guy; HE should have been forced out; HE hates women; he's muscling women who have good advice out of the way; why is the president so reliant on him and Tim Geithner, anyway?
A sample:
"Summers was the worst pick ever, along with that weasel Geithner and Rahm "Karl Rove" Emanuel. At least Romer was a progressive voice to counter the the Harvard/Chicago axis that represents Goldman Sachs, Wall St and the kind of unfettered, unregulated, "free"-market larceny that has been eroding this country's economic vitality for 30 years, while making the rich much richer still. Summers and company are the same ding-dongs and charlatans posing as economic gurus who have enabled the on-going plunder of America
"The person writing this could be a world-renown policy expert or someone with great insight into the motivations of the White House economic team. Or, he or she could be a crank. One would not know from reading the commentators' post that Summers is among the most forceful advocates for more spending...that Summers and Romer were among those who pushed the Senate and the House to consider a state bailout bill that, two weeks ago, had no chance at passing.
Suddently this story has shifted from one about economic policymaking to media relations in the age of the internet. Which raises a question: Has the increase in available information actually increased public ignorance of government, politics and public policy due to the increase in the noise that purports to be informative?
Thursday, August 5, 2010
California Gay Marriage Ban (Prop 8) Overtuned by Federal Judge
Both the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the 14th Amendment played a role in the decision. In our discussion of civil rights, we discuss the gradual increase in the application of each to the various distinctions that the law continues to make between groups of people. Discrimination by the majority has become tougher to justify under federal law.
Everyone expects this case to wind up in the Supreme Court. The only question is when.
- Story in the NYT.
- A digital copy of the ruling here.
- A complilation of comments from Andrew Sullivan.
- A summary of the relevant facts in the ruling.
This is the latest in several rulings against gay marriage laws, but there's a twist: Andrew Sullivan points out a comment from one of his readers that Republican appointed judges were responsible for all these recent rulings:
"The Prop 8 case now makes three consecutive judicial opinions holding that laws prohibiting same-sex marriages have no rational basis. Interestingly, all three were authored by judges who were nominated or appointed by Republicans. Today’s Northern District of California opinion was authored by Judge Vaughn Walker, who was nominated by Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush. Last month’s District of Massachusetts opinion was authored by Judge Joseph Tauro, who was nominated by Richard Nixon. The Iowa Supreme Court (unanimous) opinion was authored by Justice Mark Cady, who was appointed by Republican Governor Terry E. Branstad."
There are some who argued that this decision might help drive conservatives to the polls and punish Democrats for their party's support of same sex rights, but if Republican appointed judges are responsible for these rulings, what's the point in that? Can elections play any role in this process? Or have the courts decided that homosexuals are, following Fed #10, a minority to be protected from the tyranny of the majority? This removes these policies from the direct impact of the electoral process.
Everyone expects this case to wind up in the Supreme Court. The only question is when.
- Story in the NYT.
- A digital copy of the ruling here.
- A complilation of comments from Andrew Sullivan.
- A summary of the relevant facts in the ruling.
This is the latest in several rulings against gay marriage laws, but there's a twist: Andrew Sullivan points out a comment from one of his readers that Republican appointed judges were responsible for all these recent rulings:
"The Prop 8 case now makes three consecutive judicial opinions holding that laws prohibiting same-sex marriages have no rational basis. Interestingly, all three were authored by judges who were nominated or appointed by Republicans. Today’s Northern District of California opinion was authored by Judge Vaughn Walker, who was nominated by Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush. Last month’s District of Massachusetts opinion was authored by Judge Joseph Tauro, who was nominated by Richard Nixon. The Iowa Supreme Court (unanimous) opinion was authored by Justice Mark Cady, who was appointed by Republican Governor Terry E. Branstad."
There are some who argued that this decision might help drive conservatives to the polls and punish Democrats for their party's support of same sex rights, but if Republican appointed judges are responsible for these rulings, what's the point in that? Can elections play any role in this process? Or have the courts decided that homosexuals are, following Fed #10, a minority to be protected from the tyranny of the majority? This removes these policies from the direct impact of the electoral process.
Its Still the Economy Stupid
A story in today's NYT illustrates the point. Voters tend to be motivated by the economy (pocketbook voting) more than other factors, and vote against who ever is in power if the economy sours. What got Democrats voted into office in 2008, works against them in 2010. So, what happens if the economy is still bad in 2012?
This also complicates the idea that voters send messages about which policies (health care, education, climate change, gay marriage, etc...) with their votes. Perhaps its just about the economy, and everything else is secondary.
This also complicates the idea that voters send messages about which policies (health care, education, climate change, gay marriage, etc...) with their votes. Perhaps its just about the economy, and everything else is secondary.
Wednesday, August 4, 2010
Does the Public Always Gets What it Wants?
Some of you are diving into public opinion at the moment, and one of the simplistic points made in the lectures is that in a democracy, shifts in public opinion tend to drive public policy. But we are a republic, not a democracy, and certain institutions (including the Senate) are designed to allow a minority to halt the majority. That seems to be the case with climate change legislation:
Despite polling showing public support for climate and energy policies, the Senate is unable to pass even a vastly scaled-back bill that only addresses the Gulf of Mexico oil spill. And that's because a perfect storm of a sharply partisan Senate, ailing economy and the polarizing and complex issue of climate change has made it impossible to pass any type of energy and climate bill, no matter how much the public supports it.
"There has just not been the debate and consideration of energy legislation that would lead to a successful result," Sen. Richard Lugar, R-Ind., said. "Essentially, one group of senators believes that any energy bill had to have a cap-and-trade or a carbon pricing mechanism. That was the red line. Without that, it was not a valid bill."
The more than two dozen Democrats Lugar is referring to aren't alone in supporting a limit on carbon emissions. Almost two-thirds of Americans also support limiting greenhouse gas emissions, according to the latest Society for Human Resource Management/National Journal Congressional Connection Poll, conducted with the Pew Research Center.
Despite polling showing public support for climate and energy policies, the Senate is unable to pass even a vastly scaled-back bill that only addresses the Gulf of Mexico oil spill. And that's because a perfect storm of a sharply partisan Senate, ailing economy and the polarizing and complex issue of climate change has made it impossible to pass any type of energy and climate bill, no matter how much the public supports it.
"There has just not been the debate and consideration of energy legislation that would lead to a successful result," Sen. Richard Lugar, R-Ind., said. "Essentially, one group of senators believes that any energy bill had to have a cap-and-trade or a carbon pricing mechanism. That was the red line. Without that, it was not a valid bill."
The more than two dozen Democrats Lugar is referring to aren't alone in supporting a limit on carbon emissions. Almost two-thirds of Americans also support limiting greenhouse gas emissions, according to the latest Society for Human Resource Management/National Journal Congressional Connection Poll, conducted with the Pew Research Center.
People Like Pork
So says the National Journal:
Despite being fed a steady diet of political vitriol about the evils of earmarking, Americans are more likely to vote for a congressional candidate who brings home the bacon, according to the latest Society for Human Resource Management/National Journal Congressional Connection Poll, conducted with the Pew Research Center.
In addition, the public is nonplussed about partisan standard-bearers. More respondents by far said it makes no difference to their vote if a candidate is affiliated with President Obama, former Republican Gov. Sarah Palin of Alaska, or the tea party movement.
Funneling money back to the folks back home was the only factor that would indicate support for a congressional candidate.
This applies to both 2301 and 2302.
In 2301 we over elections and the factors which lead voters to choose one candidate or party over the other. While people like to talk about principles, we tend to be driven by pocketbook considerations. Who in fact is going to provide us with the material needs we need to live our lives?
It's a similar point in 2302 when we cover the legislature. We say we don't like earmarks, but we punish members of Congress who don't provide them for us. Member of Congress know this, and it helps explain why they seldom give serious thought to deficit cutting. Again, we like it when they say they want to cut the deficit, but we punish them when they do, especially when it means that we must lose a local spending project.
This brings us to another point from 2301: The quality of public opinion. Are we truly rational? Do our individual preferences make sense in the aggregate?
Despite being fed a steady diet of political vitriol about the evils of earmarking, Americans are more likely to vote for a congressional candidate who brings home the bacon, according to the latest Society for Human Resource Management/National Journal Congressional Connection Poll, conducted with the Pew Research Center.
In addition, the public is nonplussed about partisan standard-bearers. More respondents by far said it makes no difference to their vote if a candidate is affiliated with President Obama, former Republican Gov. Sarah Palin of Alaska, or the tea party movement.
Funneling money back to the folks back home was the only factor that would indicate support for a congressional candidate.
This applies to both 2301 and 2302.
In 2301 we over elections and the factors which lead voters to choose one candidate or party over the other. While people like to talk about principles, we tend to be driven by pocketbook considerations. Who in fact is going to provide us with the material needs we need to live our lives?
It's a similar point in 2302 when we cover the legislature. We say we don't like earmarks, but we punish members of Congress who don't provide them for us. Member of Congress know this, and it helps explain why they seldom give serious thought to deficit cutting. Again, we like it when they say they want to cut the deficit, but we punish them when they do, especially when it means that we must lose a local spending project.
This brings us to another point from 2301: The quality of public opinion. Are we truly rational? Do our individual preferences make sense in the aggregate?
Tuesday, August 3, 2010
Blogs v Science
An author wonders why science blogs, at least the popular ones, spend so little time discussing science:
Clearly I’ve been out of some loop for too long, but does everyone take for granted now that science sites are where graduate students, researchers, doctors and the “skeptical community” go not to interpret data or review experiments but to chip off one-liners, promote their books and jeer at smokers, fat people and churchgoers? And can anyone who still enjoys this class-inflected bloodsport tell me why it has to happen under the banner of science?
The same point can be made about political sites of course. Perhaps there's something in the medium itself that encourages the juvenile, or are we living in a superficial age?
Clearly I’ve been out of some loop for too long, but does everyone take for granted now that science sites are where graduate students, researchers, doctors and the “skeptical community” go not to interpret data or review experiments but to chip off one-liners, promote their books and jeer at smokers, fat people and churchgoers? And can anyone who still enjoys this class-inflected bloodsport tell me why it has to happen under the banner of science?
The same point can be made about political sites of course. Perhaps there's something in the medium itself that encourages the juvenile, or are we living in a superficial age?
Monday, July 26, 2010
From Jefferson's Letter to Francis Hopkinson
I'm preparing notes for the upcoming section on political parties for my 2301's and I came across an extended quote from Jefferson's Letter to Francis Hopkins. This is where the smaller quote: "If I could not go to heaven but with a party, I would not go there at all" comes from. It places the quote in some context:
Paris, Mar. 13, 1789.
Dear Sir,
— * * * You say that I have been dished up to you as an antifederalist, and ask me if it be just. My opinion was never worthy enough of notice to merit citing; but since you ask it I will tell it you. I am not a Federalist, because I never submitted the whole system of my opinions to the creed of any party of men whatever in religion, in philosophy, in politics, or in anything else where I was capable of thinking for myself. Such an addiction is the last degradation of a free and moral agent. If I could not go to heaven but with a party, I would not go there at all. Therefore I protest to you I am not of the party of federalists. But I am much farther from that of the Antifederalists. I approved, from the first moment, of the great mass of what is in the new constitution, the consolidation of the government, the organization into Executive legislative & judiciary, the subdivision of the legislative, the happy compromise of interests between the great & little states by the different manner of voting in the different houses, the voting by persons instead of states, the qualified negative on laws given to the Executive which however I should have liked better if associated with the judiciary also as in New York, and the power of taxation. I thought at first that the latter might have been limited. A little reflection soon convinced me it ought not to be. What I disapproved from the first moment also was the want of a bill of rights to guard liberty against the legislative as well as executive branches of the government, that is to say to secure freedom in religion, freedom of the press, freedom from monopolies, freedom from unlawful imprisonment, freedom from a permanent military, and a trial by jury in all cases determinable by the laws of the land. I disapproved also the perpetual reeligibility of the President. To these points of disapprobation I adhere. My first wish was that the 9. first conventions might accept the constitution, as the means of securing to us the great mass of good it contained, and that the 4. last might reject it, as the means of obtaining amendments. But I was corrected in this wish the moment I saw the much better plan of Massachusetts and which had never occurred to me. With respect to the declaration of rights I suppose the majority of the United States are of my opinion: for I apprehend all the antifederalists, and a very respectable proportion of the federalists think that such a declaration should now be annexed. The enlightened part of Europe have given us the greatest credit for inventing this instrument of security for the rights of the people, and have been not a little surprised to see us so soon give it up. With respect to the re-eligibility of the president, I find myself differing from the majority of my countrymen, for I think there are but three states out of the 11. which have desired an alteration of this. And indeed, since the thing is established, I would wish it not to be altered during the life of our great leader, whose executive talents are superior to those I believe of any man in the world, and who alone by the authority of his name and the confidence reposed in his perfect integrity, is fully qualified to put the new government so under way as to secure it against the efforts of opposition. But having derived from our error all the good there was in it I hope we shall correct it the moment we can no longer have the same name at the helm. These, my dear friend, are my sentiments, by which you will see I was right in saying I am neither federalist nor antifederalist; that I am of neither party, nor yet a trimmer between parties. These my opinions I wrote within a few hours after I had read the constitution, to one or two friends in America. I had not then read one single word printed on the subject. I never had an opinion in politics or religion which I was afraid to own. A costive reserve on these subjects might have procured me more esteem from some people, but less from myself. My great wish is to go on in a strict but silent performance of my duty; to avoid attracting notice & to keep my name out of newspapers, because I find the pain of a little censure, even when it is unfounded, is more acute than the pleasure of much praise. The attaching circumstance of my present office is that I can do it’s duties unseen by those for whom they are done.—You did not think, by so short a phrase in your letter, to have drawn on yourself such an egotistical dissertation.
Link to the Online Library of Liberty.
Paris, Mar. 13, 1789.
Dear Sir,
— * * * You say that I have been dished up to you as an antifederalist, and ask me if it be just. My opinion was never worthy enough of notice to merit citing; but since you ask it I will tell it you. I am not a Federalist, because I never submitted the whole system of my opinions to the creed of any party of men whatever in religion, in philosophy, in politics, or in anything else where I was capable of thinking for myself. Such an addiction is the last degradation of a free and moral agent. If I could not go to heaven but with a party, I would not go there at all. Therefore I protest to you I am not of the party of federalists. But I am much farther from that of the Antifederalists. I approved, from the first moment, of the great mass of what is in the new constitution, the consolidation of the government, the organization into Executive legislative & judiciary, the subdivision of the legislative, the happy compromise of interests between the great & little states by the different manner of voting in the different houses, the voting by persons instead of states, the qualified negative on laws given to the Executive which however I should have liked better if associated with the judiciary also as in New York, and the power of taxation. I thought at first that the latter might have been limited. A little reflection soon convinced me it ought not to be. What I disapproved from the first moment also was the want of a bill of rights to guard liberty against the legislative as well as executive branches of the government, that is to say to secure freedom in religion, freedom of the press, freedom from monopolies, freedom from unlawful imprisonment, freedom from a permanent military, and a trial by jury in all cases determinable by the laws of the land. I disapproved also the perpetual reeligibility of the President. To these points of disapprobation I adhere. My first wish was that the 9. first conventions might accept the constitution, as the means of securing to us the great mass of good it contained, and that the 4. last might reject it, as the means of obtaining amendments. But I was corrected in this wish the moment I saw the much better plan of Massachusetts and which had never occurred to me. With respect to the declaration of rights I suppose the majority of the United States are of my opinion: for I apprehend all the antifederalists, and a very respectable proportion of the federalists think that such a declaration should now be annexed. The enlightened part of Europe have given us the greatest credit for inventing this instrument of security for the rights of the people, and have been not a little surprised to see us so soon give it up. With respect to the re-eligibility of the president, I find myself differing from the majority of my countrymen, for I think there are but three states out of the 11. which have desired an alteration of this. And indeed, since the thing is established, I would wish it not to be altered during the life of our great leader, whose executive talents are superior to those I believe of any man in the world, and who alone by the authority of his name and the confidence reposed in his perfect integrity, is fully qualified to put the new government so under way as to secure it against the efforts of opposition. But having derived from our error all the good there was in it I hope we shall correct it the moment we can no longer have the same name at the helm. These, my dear friend, are my sentiments, by which you will see I was right in saying I am neither federalist nor antifederalist; that I am of neither party, nor yet a trimmer between parties. These my opinions I wrote within a few hours after I had read the constitution, to one or two friends in America. I had not then read one single word printed on the subject. I never had an opinion in politics or religion which I was afraid to own. A costive reserve on these subjects might have procured me more esteem from some people, but less from myself. My great wish is to go on in a strict but silent performance of my duty; to avoid attracting notice & to keep my name out of newspapers, because I find the pain of a little censure, even when it is unfounded, is more acute than the pleasure of much praise. The attaching circumstance of my present office is that I can do it’s duties unseen by those for whom they are done.—You did not think, by so short a phrase in your letter, to have drawn on yourself such an egotistical dissertation.
Link to the Online Library of Liberty.
Sunday, July 25, 2010
The Roberts Court Tilts to the Right
This is hardly news, but this NYT article provides empirical support for the nature of the conservative
direction the Supreme Court has taken since Roberts and Alito joined it.
direction the Supreme Court has taken since Roberts and Alito joined it.
Extra Credit Book Review - Being Wrong: Adventures in the Margin of Error.
I'm adding a new feature to the class. For anyone needing extra credit, I'd like you to review a recently published book. This one caught my eye this week: Being Wrong: Adventures in the Margin of Error. Here's the NYT review.
It seems to touch an an intersting point that applies to politics and governance: Why is it so difficult for people to admit that they are wrong?
It seems to touch an an intersting point that applies to politics and governance: Why is it so difficult for people to admit that they are wrong?
Friday, July 23, 2010
Does the Web and Cable News Promote Rage?
A couple of comments on the recent -- and brief -- political controversy involving Shirley Sherrod argue that the 24/7 news cycle and web based commentary fuel hysterical, hateful and unreasonable political discourse.
Is deliberative democracy, or self government in general, possible in this environment? Would politics be as virulent if media technology was slower?
- The Market for Reason.
- The Age of Rage.
Is deliberative democracy, or self government in general, possible in this environment? Would politics be as virulent if media technology was slower?
- The Market for Reason.
- The Age of Rage.
Topics - 7/23/10
In the news, and relevant to the subject matter:
- The House Ethics Committee is set to try Rep. Charles Rangel for ethics violations.
- Democratic House Campaign Committee outlines effort to retain House Majority.
- Climate Bill to be trimmed.
- The House Ethics Committee is set to try Rep. Charles Rangel for ethics violations.
- Democratic House Campaign Committee outlines effort to retain House Majority.
- Climate Bill to be trimmed.
Thursday, July 22, 2010
Travelling the Ozarks
I've been driving through the Ozarks the past few day (I'm sitting in a motel in Hot Springs Ark at the moment) so I've no had time to keep up on posts. I'll fill in blanks when I come back home.
- Here's a start: Finance Reform Legislation is signed into law.
- Here's a start: Finance Reform Legislation is signed into law.
Saturday, July 17, 2010
Discussion Question - 7/17/10
I'm fielding discussion questions from Blackboard and wanted to add some of what's popped up from them.
In response to a question about whether we are in fact a country based on consent -- or if we are just another coercive society -- we touched on Chomsky's theory of "manufactured consent" and the classic doctrine of "ordered liberty" (which I did not know also applied to the extent of 14th Amendment protections).
Some links I ran across:
- answer.com on ordered liberty.
- an essay on Edmund Burke.
- an essay on ordered liberty.
- something from the Acton Institute.
- the wikipedia for Manufacturing Consent.
I'll be back with more.
In response to a question about whether we are in fact a country based on consent -- or if we are just another coercive society -- we touched on Chomsky's theory of "manufactured consent" and the classic doctrine of "ordered liberty" (which I did not know also applied to the extent of 14th Amendment protections).
Some links I ran across:
- answer.com on ordered liberty.
- an essay on Edmund Burke.
- an essay on ordered liberty.
- something from the Acton Institute.
- the wikipedia for Manufacturing Consent.
I'll be back with more.
Thursday, July 15, 2010
FCC Ruling on Fleeting Expletives Overturned
From the New York Times:
A federal appeals court struck down a Federal Communications Commission policy on indecency Tuesday, saying that regulations barring the use of “fleeting expletives” on radio and television violated the First Amendment because they were vague and could inhibit free speech.
...
In a unanimous three-judge decision, the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in New York said that the F.C.C.’s current policy created “a chilling effect that goes far beyond the fleeting expletives at issue here” because it left broadcasters without a reliable guide to what the commission would find offensive.
The appeals court emphasized that it was not precluding federal regulation of broadcast standards. “We do not suggest that the F.C.C. could not create a constitutional policy,” the court said. “We hold only that the F.C.C.’s current policy fails constitutional scrutiny.”
More from ScotuBlog.
This is the latest stage of the saga of FCC v Fox, which is more about the vagueness of rules rather than speech -- as far as I can tell anyway. The FCC may be able to punish broadcasters for these outbursts, but it has to be able to clearly and non-capriciously define them. That seems to be a difficult thing to do.
- What is a fleeting expletive?
A federal appeals court struck down a Federal Communications Commission policy on indecency Tuesday, saying that regulations barring the use of “fleeting expletives” on radio and television violated the First Amendment because they were vague and could inhibit free speech.
...
In a unanimous three-judge decision, the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in New York said that the F.C.C.’s current policy created “a chilling effect that goes far beyond the fleeting expletives at issue here” because it left broadcasters without a reliable guide to what the commission would find offensive.
The appeals court emphasized that it was not precluding federal regulation of broadcast standards. “We do not suggest that the F.C.C. could not create a constitutional policy,” the court said. “We hold only that the F.C.C.’s current policy fails constitutional scrutiny.”
More from ScotuBlog.
This is the latest stage of the saga of FCC v Fox, which is more about the vagueness of rules rather than speech -- as far as I can tell anyway. The FCC may be able to punish broadcasters for these outbursts, but it has to be able to clearly and non-capriciously define them. That seems to be a difficult thing to do.
- What is a fleeting expletive?
Party Leader?
House Democrats accuse Obama of favoring Senate Democrats and hanging them out to dry on key votes. Part of a president's job is to be party leader. This raises questions about Obama's effectiveness in that role.
Did George Washington Really add "So Help Me God" to the Presidential Oath of Office?
Thanks to a student for pointing this story out to me. The common story, which I've repeated, is that Washington altered the presidential oath of office to include "so help me God" at the end, thus beginning a tradition that lasts til today.
A historian points out that not only is there no evidence from that time that he did so (the story evolved decades later) altering the oath seem not to be the sort of thing Washington would have been inclined to do -- having just approved the oath as written in the Constitution. There's more to the argument.
Reminds me of the story regarding the cherry tree (look here and here).
This fits into our discussion of the personal presidency, the efforts to define in terms of the characters of the individuals who occupy it. The stories reflect less on Washington than on what we (or more appropriately the storytellers) want to believe about historical figures.
Please send more.
A historian points out that not only is there no evidence from that time that he did so (the story evolved decades later) altering the oath seem not to be the sort of thing Washington would have been inclined to do -- having just approved the oath as written in the Constitution. There's more to the argument.
Reminds me of the story regarding the cherry tree (look here and here).
This fits into our discussion of the personal presidency, the efforts to define in terms of the characters of the individuals who occupy it. The stories reflect less on Washington than on what we (or more appropriately the storytellers) want to believe about historical figures.
Please send more.
Wednesday, July 14, 2010
Adjusting the Electoral College
The New York Senate has voted to alter how it allocates its electoral college vote. They will all be assigned to the candidate that wins the national popular vote.
Welcome Summer 2 Students
The second summer session is about to start and I want to welcome students aboard. You should use this blog as the primary way to access current news as it relates to class material. Comments are always welcomed.
Thursday, July 8, 2010
Souter's Speech
Something to read through today: Ex-Justice David Souter's recent speech at Harvard about his approach to the Constitution.
Wednesday, July 7, 2010
Topics for 7/7/10
- The Justice Department files a lawsuits against Arizona's immigration law. File this under federalism, U. S. Constitution, checks and balances, executive departments and the judiciary. For 2302s note that this was done at the discretion of the Attorney General, the Justice Department is to be independent of the White House so it cannot be used for political purposes.
- The gay marriage controversy seems destined to be settle in the courts. What impact might Elena Kagan have on such a decision? File this under civil rights, federalism, checks and balances and the judiciary
- The gay marriage controversy seems destined to be settle in the courts. What impact might Elena Kagan have on such a decision? File this under civil rights, federalism, checks and balances and the judiciary
Tuesday, July 6, 2010
Topics for 7/6/10
Yesterday we watched the first part of the Kagan confirmation hearings -- Leahy's opening remarks. Today we will watch Session's remarks and as much of what follows as we can handle.
I also want to read through this article on the Robert Court's coming of age (the NYT editorializes that it was "aggressive"). It contains a graphic that outlines the major cases of this terms and how the justices voted on them.
In Texas news, the Texas Supreme Court clears the way for the Green Party to be on the November ballot.
I also want to read through this article on the Robert Court's coming of age (the NYT editorializes that it was "aggressive"). It contains a graphic that outlines the major cases of this terms and how the justices voted on them.
In Texas news, the Texas Supreme Court clears the way for the Green Party to be on the November ballot.
Monday, July 5, 2010
Some Bits for Today: 7/5/10
- Maryland is one of several states that must periodically decide whether to rewrite it's constitution.
- Debate continues over unemployment benefit extension. See unemployment data from the BLS for background.
- Teachers' union upset with Obama.
- The perks of seniority.
- Conflict between Obama's economic and political advisers.
- Commerce Clause in the news.
- From "subjects" to "citizens."
- Video of the Kagan hearings.
- Debate continues over unemployment benefit extension. See unemployment data from the BLS for background.
- Teachers' union upset with Obama.
- The perks of seniority.
- Conflict between Obama's economic and political advisers.
- Commerce Clause in the news.
- From "subjects" to "citizens."
- Video of the Kagan hearings.
Wednesday, June 30, 2010
Tuesday, June 29, 2010
Busy Period for the Judiciary
End of session decisions are coming out, and the Kagan hearings are underway.
We can start making sense of both by looking through scotusblog. More specific posts will follow.
We can start making sense of both by looking through scotusblog. More specific posts will follow.
Why Are Conservatives Upset At Obama?
According to this commentator because he has done more in 18 months than Carter and Clinton did in 12 years.
Monday, June 28, 2010
Sunday, June 27, 2010
Does Press Access Make it Less Likely the Press Will Take Critical Stances in Their Stories?
Yes, it does. Presidents have counted on this for years.
What Drives Public Policy?
Another stolen post, but worth considering as we attempt to determine what types of factors influence shifts in policy: Do arguments matter?
Are Liberals Rational in their Criticism of Obama?
Ross Douthat contributes to the ongoing question about whether we expect too much from presidents in general, and whether liberals specifically are getting a bit too exasperated with Obama.
Thursday, June 24, 2010
Sobering News For Republicans
David Frum thinks they may not do as well as they hope in November.
Tom Schaller and Ruy Teixeira thinks they have serious work to do if they want to avoid becoming the permanent minority party.
Update: Alan Abramowitz argues that Democrats have more safe seats this year the 1994, which gives Republicans less to work with this November.
Tom Schaller and Ruy Teixeira thinks they have serious work to do if they want to avoid becoming the permanent minority party.
Update: Alan Abramowitz argues that Democrats have more safe seats this year the 1994, which gives Republicans less to work with this November.
Honest Services Law Overturned Due to Vagueness
My 2302s will start discussing the judiciary soon, and this will among the recent decisions we will cover:
From Slatest:
Supreme Court Deals Blow to "Honest Services" Law
The Supreme Court sided with former Enron CEO and smartest-guy-in-the-room Jeffrey Skilling and media mogul Conrad Black on Thursday by ruling against a fraud law commonly used to go after white-collar criminals. The "honest services" law, which the Court determined to be excessively vague, allows prosecutors to file suit against executives who don't act in companies' best interests. The law was critical in targeting former Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich (whose own trial has been keeping Chicagoans entertained since June 3), lobbyist Jack Abramoff (now employed at a kosher Baltimore pizzeria) and former New York State Senate majority leader, Joseph Bruno, who was indicted last January. Now, there's concern that today's ruling could overturn convictions and make it harder to file fraud cases. Writing for the majority, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg ruled that Skilling's "honest services" conviction was flawed (he's serving a 24-year sentence for duping investors about Enron's financial health) and that the law should only be limited to "schemes involving bribery and kickbacks." The Court also challenged the conviction of Conrad Black, who was sentenced to 6 ½ years in prison in 2007 for allegedly stealing millions from the Hollinger International Inc. media company through insider dealings. Both cases will be sent back to appeals court, but the ruling won't necessarily overturn their convictions. Despite the victory over "honest services," the Supreme Court disagreed with the second part of Skilling's argument—that bad media coverage had prevented him from getting a fair trial in Enron's home city of Houston.
The Wall Street Journal Thursday, June 24, 2010
As with the decision to overrule the drilling ban, the key seems to be an overly broad, excessively vague law which allows for too much arbitrary and capricious activity by prosecutors.
- SCOTUSblog » “Honest services” law pared down
- Honest services fraud - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
From Slatest:
Supreme Court Deals Blow to "Honest Services" Law
The Supreme Court sided with former Enron CEO and smartest-guy-in-the-room Jeffrey Skilling and media mogul Conrad Black on Thursday by ruling against a fraud law commonly used to go after white-collar criminals. The "honest services" law, which the Court determined to be excessively vague, allows prosecutors to file suit against executives who don't act in companies' best interests. The law was critical in targeting former Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich (whose own trial has been keeping Chicagoans entertained since June 3), lobbyist Jack Abramoff (now employed at a kosher Baltimore pizzeria) and former New York State Senate majority leader, Joseph Bruno, who was indicted last January. Now, there's concern that today's ruling could overturn convictions and make it harder to file fraud cases. Writing for the majority, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg ruled that Skilling's "honest services" conviction was flawed (he's serving a 24-year sentence for duping investors about Enron's financial health) and that the law should only be limited to "schemes involving bribery and kickbacks." The Court also challenged the conviction of Conrad Black, who was sentenced to 6 ½ years in prison in 2007 for allegedly stealing millions from the Hollinger International Inc. media company through insider dealings. Both cases will be sent back to appeals court, but the ruling won't necessarily overturn their convictions. Despite the victory over "honest services," the Supreme Court disagreed with the second part of Skilling's argument—that bad media coverage had prevented him from getting a fair trial in Enron's home city of Houston.
The Wall Street Journal Thursday, June 24, 2010
As with the decision to overrule the drilling ban, the key seems to be an overly broad, excessively vague law which allows for too much arbitrary and capricious activity by prosecutors.
- SCOTUSblog » “Honest services” law pared down
- Honest services fraud - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Organic Decentralization of Governmental Power
I'm re-reading parts of Democracy in America and ran across the following bit in the Preface. For my 2301s (and 2302s) it shows how Tocqueville described the gradual dispersal of governmental power in France. Certainly a similar story happened in Britain, which lead to the institutional arrangement embodied in our Constitution. This sounds very much like the evolution of the forces that would allow for checks and balances. Sounds a bit Madisonian also.
It is evident to all alike that a great democratic revolution is going on among us, but all do not look at it in the same light. To some it appears to be novel but accidental, and, as such, they hope it may still be checked; to others it seems irresistible, because it is the most uniform, the most ancient, and the most permanent tendency that is to be found in history.
I look back for a moment on the situation of France seven hundred years ago, when the territory was divided among a small number of families, who were the owners of the soil and the rulers of the inhabitants; the right of governing descended with the family inheritance from generation to generation; force was the only means by which man could act on man; and landed property was the sole source of power.
Soon, however, the political power of the clergy was founded and began to increase: the clergy opened their ranks to all classes, to the poor and the rich, the commoner and the noble; through the church, equality penetrated into the government, and he who as a serf must have vegetated in perpetual bondage took his place as a priest in the midst of nobles, and not infrequently above the heads of kings.
The different relations of men with one another became more complicated and numerous as society gradually became more stable and civilized. Hence the want of civil laws was felt; and the ministers of law soon rose from the obscurity of the tribunals and their dusty chambers to appear at the court of the monarch, by the side of the feudal barons clothed in their ermine and their mail.
While the kings were ruining themselves by their great enterprises, and the nobles exhausting their resources by private wars, the lower orders were enriching themselves by commerce. The influence of money began to be perceptible in state affairs. The transactions of business opened a new road to power, and the financier rose to a station of political influence in which he was at once flattered and despised.
Gradually enlightenment spread, a reawakening of taste for literature and the arts became evident; intellect and will contributed to success; knowledge became an attribute of government, intelligence a social force; the educated man took part in affairs of state.
The value attached to high birth declined just as fast as new avenues to power were discovered. In the eleventh century, nobility was beyond all price; in the thirteenth, it might be purchased. Nobility was first conferred by gift in 1270, and equality was thus introduced into the government by the aristocracy itself.
....
This is just a taste of a broader argument, but as avenues to power increase, the ability of one group top check the power of others increases. Political equality (or perhaps more accurately, equal access to power) sets the stage for the establishment of individual liberty.
This is worth a discussion in class.
It is evident to all alike that a great democratic revolution is going on among us, but all do not look at it in the same light. To some it appears to be novel but accidental, and, as such, they hope it may still be checked; to others it seems irresistible, because it is the most uniform, the most ancient, and the most permanent tendency that is to be found in history.
I look back for a moment on the situation of France seven hundred years ago, when the territory was divided among a small number of families, who were the owners of the soil and the rulers of the inhabitants; the right of governing descended with the family inheritance from generation to generation; force was the only means by which man could act on man; and landed property was the sole source of power.
Soon, however, the political power of the clergy was founded and began to increase: the clergy opened their ranks to all classes, to the poor and the rich, the commoner and the noble; through the church, equality penetrated into the government, and he who as a serf must have vegetated in perpetual bondage took his place as a priest in the midst of nobles, and not infrequently above the heads of kings.
The different relations of men with one another became more complicated and numerous as society gradually became more stable and civilized. Hence the want of civil laws was felt; and the ministers of law soon rose from the obscurity of the tribunals and their dusty chambers to appear at the court of the monarch, by the side of the feudal barons clothed in their ermine and their mail.
While the kings were ruining themselves by their great enterprises, and the nobles exhausting their resources by private wars, the lower orders were enriching themselves by commerce. The influence of money began to be perceptible in state affairs. The transactions of business opened a new road to power, and the financier rose to a station of political influence in which he was at once flattered and despised.
Gradually enlightenment spread, a reawakening of taste for literature and the arts became evident; intellect and will contributed to success; knowledge became an attribute of government, intelligence a social force; the educated man took part in affairs of state.
The value attached to high birth declined just as fast as new avenues to power were discovered. In the eleventh century, nobility was beyond all price; in the thirteenth, it might be purchased. Nobility was first conferred by gift in 1270, and equality was thus introduced into the government by the aristocracy itself.
....
This is just a taste of a broader argument, but as avenues to power increase, the ability of one group top check the power of others increases. Political equality (or perhaps more accurately, equal access to power) sets the stage for the establishment of individual liberty.
This is worth a discussion in class.
Joe Barton and the Committee System
The reaction to Joe Barton's apology to BP in a recent House Energy and Commerce Committee (wikipedia) meeting gives us insight into the contemporary workings of the House Republican Conference, the strength of the party's leadership, and the autonomy of the committee system. It also helps understand how the party is positioning itself or the upcoming elections and the readjustments it is making due to the politics of the oil spill.
Barton is the ranking member of the committee (meaning he would become chair if Republicans take control of the House in November), which has jurisdiction over national energy policy and oversees the Energy Department. It is also one of the oldest committees in Congress. It's constitutional authority derives from the commerce clause.
Barton is one of five Texas (3 Republicans) on the committee. As ranking member he is an ex-officio member of each of the committee's five subcomittees, as is the committee's chair, Henry Waxman. He holds his position, officially, because the House Republican Conference placed him there in deference to his seniority, but since parties dominate committees, not the other way around, they are in a position to remove him should they feel the need.
Here's a Barton quote to that end: “I am the ranking member and serve at the pleasure of the conference and hope that the conference has confidence that will allow me to continue to serve,”
This would have been impossible in the days of strict seniority when Barton's position would be guaranteed due to his senior years of service. Parties now matter more than committees though.
Interestingly, Barton's original position (the apology) seems to have the support of the Republican Study Committee, a caucus composed of conservatives Republicans (roughtly 2'3rds of the Conference). They seem to have approved of his position on the apology - and that the $20 billion set aside was abusive and perhaps unconstitutional. So this suggests that in the Republican Party, perhaps party leaders themselves take a back seat to the conservative wing of the party.
Here are some related stories:
- Eric Cantor, The Republican Whip, defends the party's decision to keep Barton in his post to Joe Scarborough.
- The Republican Study Committee (wikipedia), a caucus of conservative Republicans, had already made the same argument Barton made.
- Barton apologizes to fellow Republicans in a closed door meeting. Similar story in The Hill.
Barton is the ranking member of the committee (meaning he would become chair if Republicans take control of the House in November), which has jurisdiction over national energy policy and oversees the Energy Department. It is also one of the oldest committees in Congress. It's constitutional authority derives from the commerce clause.
Barton is one of five Texas (3 Republicans) on the committee. As ranking member he is an ex-officio member of each of the committee's five subcomittees, as is the committee's chair, Henry Waxman. He holds his position, officially, because the House Republican Conference placed him there in deference to his seniority, but since parties dominate committees, not the other way around, they are in a position to remove him should they feel the need.
Here's a Barton quote to that end: “I am the ranking member and serve at the pleasure of the conference and hope that the conference has confidence that will allow me to continue to serve,”
This would have been impossible in the days of strict seniority when Barton's position would be guaranteed due to his senior years of service. Parties now matter more than committees though.
Interestingly, Barton's original position (the apology) seems to have the support of the Republican Study Committee, a caucus composed of conservatives Republicans (roughtly 2'3rds of the Conference). They seem to have approved of his position on the apology - and that the $20 billion set aside was abusive and perhaps unconstitutional. So this suggests that in the Republican Party, perhaps party leaders themselves take a back seat to the conservative wing of the party.
Here are some related stories:
- Eric Cantor, The Republican Whip, defends the party's decision to keep Barton in his post to Joe Scarborough.
- The Republican Study Committee (wikipedia), a caucus of conservative Republicans, had already made the same argument Barton made.
- Barton apologizes to fellow Republicans in a closed door meeting. Similar story in The Hill.
Wednesday, June 23, 2010
The Press and The Administration
Glenn Greenwald points out (and is critical of)the cozy relationship between the media and government officials -- in this case people in the Obama Administration. He highlights a recent dinner.
Note the following:
GUESTS INCLUDED [White House Deputy Press Secretary] Bill Burton, Laura Burton Capps [lobbyist, wife of Burton and daughter of Rep. Louise Capps], Helene Cooper [of The New York Times], [Deputy White House Press Secretary] Josh Earnest, Betsy Fischer [Executive Producer, Meet the Press], Jonathan Karl [of ABC News], Ryan Lizza [New Yorker political reporter and author of forthcoming White House book], Norah O’Donnell [MSNBC reporter], Rep. Aaron Schock, Jamal Simmons [CNN reporter], Jim VandeHei [Politico's Editor-in-Chief], Natalie Wyeth [former Treasury spokesperson and now corporate spokesperson] and Jessica Yellin [CNN reporter].
How critical are these reporters likely to be of the administration after being given such a treat? Do we really have a free press?
Note the following:
GUESTS INCLUDED [White House Deputy Press Secretary] Bill Burton, Laura Burton Capps [lobbyist, wife of Burton and daughter of Rep. Louise Capps], Helene Cooper [of The New York Times], [Deputy White House Press Secretary] Josh Earnest, Betsy Fischer [Executive Producer, Meet the Press], Jonathan Karl [of ABC News], Ryan Lizza [New Yorker political reporter and author of forthcoming White House book], Norah O’Donnell [MSNBC reporter], Rep. Aaron Schock, Jamal Simmons [CNN reporter], Jim VandeHei [Politico's Editor-in-Chief], Natalie Wyeth [former Treasury spokesperson and now corporate spokesperson] and Jessica Yellin [CNN reporter].
How critical are these reporters likely to be of the administration after being given such a treat? Do we really have a free press?
Tuesday, June 22, 2010
Is the Presidency Really Weak
In the wake of the oil spill, and the ongoing question about who is in charge, some commentators have wondered what this means for presidential power. Is it, despite worries/fears to the side, a weak office?
Here are a couple of smart guys going at it:
- Jonathan Bernstein.
- Glenn Greenwald.
Here are a couple of smart guys going at it:
- Jonathan Bernstein.
- Glenn Greenwald.
Administration v Civil Service
Today we discussed the ongoing conflict within the executive branch between those in the administration and those in the civil service. The dust-up involving McChrystal, and his big mouth, is a nice example.
- An Accident Waiting to Happen.
- McChrystal Apologizes, But The Question Remains: Defrock The Pope?
- The Rolling Stone article: As bad as advertised.
Here's a link to the article. Great PR for Rolling Stone!
- An Accident Waiting to Happen.
- McChrystal Apologizes, But The Question Remains: Defrock The Pope?
- The Rolling Stone article: As bad as advertised.
Here's a link to the article. Great PR for Rolling Stone!
Tension in Obama Administration
General McChrystal had tart words about members of the Obama Administration in a recent interview. He's since backed down, but his comments illustrate the tension common within presidential administrations and among advisers.
Monday, June 21, 2010
Two New Links
I found a couple of useful websites to link to:
1 - Potus - Tracker is ruin by the Washington post and it tracks the daily activities and travels of the president. I've put this in the "executive links" and "news review" sections.
2 - Under the Influence is a blog run by the National Journal which tracks the lobbying industry. I placed this in the "interest groups" section.
1 - Potus - Tracker is ruin by the Washington post and it tracks the daily activities and travels of the president. I've put this in the "executive links" and "news review" sections.
2 - Under the Influence is a blog run by the National Journal which tracks the lobbying industry. I placed this in the "interest groups" section.
Cumulative Voting in New York
Thanks to Ronald for pointing this story out in class and for sending me the link to it. A town in New York is using cumulative voting in its elections, which allows people to distribute their votes as they wish.
Instead of having, for example, one vote in each of six separate city council races, voters have six total votes and if they want to put them all behind one candidate, they can. They give up the chance to vote in the other races, but they are able to vote with intensity. A normal up or down vote does not allow this.
Instead of having, for example, one vote in each of six separate city council races, voters have six total votes and if they want to put them all behind one candidate, they can. They give up the chance to vote in the other races, but they are able to vote with intensity. A normal up or down vote does not allow this.
Are Advocates of Living Constitutions Traitors?
Here's a brief argument that they are:
Dear Professor Jeffries,
Only one (1) U.S. Constitution exists, the Constitution as ratified by the whole People sitting in convention. Terms like 'judicial philosophy' are just deceptive ways of saying that the judicial officer is creating his own constitution. Such creativity comprises the high felony of Article III Treason because that judicial officer is levying war against the People. Prosecutions for Treason maintain the Constitution's uniqueness.
I'd like to see the argument backed up more thoroughly, but the author is accusing those who broadly interpret Constitutional language of treason and is advocating prosecution for it. Good idea? Bad idea? Is there precedence for such a thing? And where in fact do we get clear guidelines for how the document is to be interpreted (from the document's authors – not latter day commentators) and how those who misinterpret the document should be treated? Did they intend a hard and fast interpretation to be adhered to in perpetuity or did they anticipate that future generations would be able to apply the document as needed to contemporary problems?
Democrats Hope to Get Out The Vote
Again, from Slatest:
Democrats Hope Young and Minority Voters Return to Polls
Democrats are pinning their hopes—and their war chest—on enticing young and minority voters back to the polls this fall. Typically, both parties focus on bringing out their reliable base in midterm elections. But this year, Democrats have carved out $50 million to spend on trying to bring 2008's 15 million first-time voters back to the polls. Like in 2008, Democrats plan to get out the vote by canvassing door-to-door and spending heavily on the Web. But will this strategy be successful in "a political climate in which hope and exhilaration has given way to anger and disappointment" where the momentum has shifted to the Republicans? Some party organizers are skeptical of the approach and think the money should be spent in more traditional ways, like on television ads. "I think they're going to come in for a very rude awakening. It's going to be brutal," one organizer said.
The Washington Post Sunday, June 20, 2010
This fits with 2301s' discussion about elections. Democrats did especially well in 2008 because young and minority voters actually voted. The party took names and number and hopes to use them to repeat that performance.
Democrats Hope Young and Minority Voters Return to Polls
Democrats are pinning their hopes—and their war chest—on enticing young and minority voters back to the polls this fall. Typically, both parties focus on bringing out their reliable base in midterm elections. But this year, Democrats have carved out $50 million to spend on trying to bring 2008's 15 million first-time voters back to the polls. Like in 2008, Democrats plan to get out the vote by canvassing door-to-door and spending heavily on the Web. But will this strategy be successful in "a political climate in which hope and exhilaration has given way to anger and disappointment" where the momentum has shifted to the Republicans? Some party organizers are skeptical of the approach and think the money should be spent in more traditional ways, like on television ads. "I think they're going to come in for a very rude awakening. It's going to be brutal," one organizer said.
The Washington Post Sunday, June 20, 2010
This fits with 2301s' discussion about elections. Democrats did especially well in 2008 because young and minority voters actually voted. The party took names and number and hopes to use them to repeat that performance.
Rahm Emanuel Might Quit
From Slatest:
Rahm Emanuel Expected To Quit After Midterm Elections
Rahm Emanuel has always been known to get things done. Washington insiders are saying that the White House chief of staff will quit his post within six to eight months because he is frustrated by Obama's closest advisers' idealism and their unwillingness to push through legislation. "Friends say he is also worried about burnout and losing touch with his young family due to the pressure of one of the most high profile jobs in U.S. politics," the London Telegraph reported. The Telegraph didn't name any of its sources, and the White House did not respond to a request for comment, but Emanuel himself has reportedly said that he believes the position is only an 18-month job because of its intensity. "Mr. Emanuel, 50, enjoys a good working relationship with Mr. Obama but they are understood to have reached an understanding that differences over style mean he will serve only half the full four-year term," the Telegraph reported. The paper also quotes a Democratic consultant as saying that the job just isn't working out the way it's supposed to. "Nobody thinks it's working but they can't get rid of him—that would look awful. He needs the right sort of job to go to but the consensus is he'll go."
The London Telegraph Monday, June 21, 2010
We covered this in class today. It introduced us to the White House Staff and the other institutions (along with the Cabinet and Executive Office of the President) that advise the president.
Here are a few recent stories about Emanuel:
- Wonkbook: WH talks climate compromise; meet the anti-stimulus ...
- Emanuel: Hayward yachting 'a big mistake'
- In the speaker's office, a quiet liberal lion: Wendell E. Primus
- Emanuel invites Netanyahu to the White House
Rahm Emanuel Expected To Quit After Midterm Elections
Rahm Emanuel has always been known to get things done. Washington insiders are saying that the White House chief of staff will quit his post within six to eight months because he is frustrated by Obama's closest advisers' idealism and their unwillingness to push through legislation. "Friends say he is also worried about burnout and losing touch with his young family due to the pressure of one of the most high profile jobs in U.S. politics," the London Telegraph reported. The Telegraph didn't name any of its sources, and the White House did not respond to a request for comment, but Emanuel himself has reportedly said that he believes the position is only an 18-month job because of its intensity. "Mr. Emanuel, 50, enjoys a good working relationship with Mr. Obama but they are understood to have reached an understanding that differences over style mean he will serve only half the full four-year term," the Telegraph reported. The paper also quotes a Democratic consultant as saying that the job just isn't working out the way it's supposed to. "Nobody thinks it's working but they can't get rid of him—that would look awful. He needs the right sort of job to go to but the consensus is he'll go."
The London Telegraph Monday, June 21, 2010
We covered this in class today. It introduced us to the White House Staff and the other institutions (along with the Cabinet and Executive Office of the President) that advise the president.
Here are a few recent stories about Emanuel:
- Wonkbook: WH talks climate compromise; meet the anti-stimulus ...
- Emanuel: Hayward yachting 'a big mistake'
- In the speaker's office, a quiet liberal lion: Wendell E. Primus
- Emanuel invites Netanyahu to the White House
Thursday, June 17, 2010
The Statute of Anne
I had never heard of this before. Written in 1710, it is considered to be the origin of copyright law.
I'll apply this to 2301's discussion of the press. This clearly provides the opportunity for a news media to evolve since you can claim ownership of your work. You can make money starting a newspapers, ideas and news can become sources of income. The right to print, utter and publish items that were critical of the ruling class had yet to follow, but were probably inevitable at this point.
I'll apply this to 2301's discussion of the press. This clearly provides the opportunity for a news media to evolve since you can claim ownership of your work. You can make money starting a newspapers, ideas and news can become sources of income. The right to print, utter and publish items that were critical of the ruling class had yet to follow, but were probably inevitable at this point.
About the Financial Reform Conference Committee
The House and Senate finance reform bills (H.R.4173 Title: Restoring American Financial Stability Act of 2010) have gone a conference committee where they will, or are intended to be, reconciled with each other. If they are able to pass a single report, and if that report is then accepted by each chamber, the report will be sent to the president for a signature.
The Center for Media and Democracy tells us that this is the schedule so far:
- Thursday, June 17: Systemic risk regulation, resolution authority and payments/clearing/settlement issues.
- Tuesday, June 22: The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, predatory lending, remittances, interchange fee and access issues.
- Wednesday, June 23: Prudential regulation.
- Thursday, June 24: Derivatives regulation.
I've also read that this could drag on for two weeks, so who knows how accurate this timetable is.
For information about the members of the conference, click here: A look at House, Senate conferees .
Some comments on the process:
- Do You Like to Whip It?
- House-Senate panel lets SEC create credit rating board
- Reviving Investor Protection
- Cheques and imbalances
- Will The Next Three Weeks Change Wall Street Forever?
- Financial Reform: Credit Rating Agencies Most Worried About Liability
Plus:
- Everything you ever wanted to know about Conference Committees.
- The impact of the Filibuster on Conference Committees.
The Center for Media and Democracy tells us that this is the schedule so far:
- Thursday, June 17: Systemic risk regulation, resolution authority and payments/clearing/settlement issues.
- Tuesday, June 22: The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, predatory lending, remittances, interchange fee and access issues.
- Wednesday, June 23: Prudential regulation.
- Thursday, June 24: Derivatives regulation.
I've also read that this could drag on for two weeks, so who knows how accurate this timetable is.
For information about the members of the conference, click here: A look at House, Senate conferees .
Some comments on the process:
- Do You Like to Whip It?
- House-Senate panel lets SEC create credit rating board
- Reviving Investor Protection
- Cheques and imbalances
- Will The Next Three Weeks Change Wall Street Forever?
- Financial Reform: Credit Rating Agencies Most Worried About Liability
Plus:
- Everything you ever wanted to know about Conference Committees.
- The impact of the Filibuster on Conference Committees.
The Revolving Door: From Congressional Staffer to Financial Industry Lobbyist
From the Center for Responsive Politics:
Lobbyists for the financial services industry enjoy longstanding ties to the members of Congress who were named this week to the conference committee on financial reform legislation, according to a joint analysis of available data released today by Public Citizen and the Center for Responsive Politics.
At least 56 current industry lobbyists previously served on the personal staffs of the 43 members of Congress named Wednesday to the conference committee, according to the study, available here: ConferenceKlatchReport.pdf. Notably, these figures do not include 59 lobbyists who served on either the Senate or House of Representatives banking committee but never worked directly for a member. Those lobbyists were enumerated in a report published in early June by Public Citizen and the Center for Responsive Politics.
Lobbyists for the financial services industry enjoy longstanding ties to the members of Congress who were named this week to the conference committee on financial reform legislation, according to a joint analysis of available data released today by Public Citizen and the Center for Responsive Politics.
At least 56 current industry lobbyists previously served on the personal staffs of the 43 members of Congress named Wednesday to the conference committee, according to the study, available here: ConferenceKlatchReport.pdf. Notably, these figures do not include 59 lobbyists who served on either the Senate or House of Representatives banking committee but never worked directly for a member. Those lobbyists were enumerated in a report published in early June by Public Citizen and the Center for Responsive Politics.
More on Investments and Committee Assignments
Following the recent post on Ron Paul's investments in gold mining operations, and speculation about whether his position on the House Financial Services committee presents a conflict of interest, here is a similar story regarding the investments members of Congress, who are members of committees with jurisdiction over oil and gas companies, have in the industry.
Nearly 30 members of the congressional committees overseeing oil and gas companies held personal assets in the industry totaling $9 million to $14.5 million late last year. That included at least $400,000 in the three companies at the heart of the Gulf of Mexico oil-drilling disaster, according to a Washington Post analysis of financial disclosure forms released
Wednesday.
Ought there be limits on such investments? If not, how would you address this conflict of interests? Perhaps its no conflict at all.
Nearly 30 members of the congressional committees overseeing oil and gas companies held personal assets in the industry totaling $9 million to $14.5 million late last year. That included at least $400,000 in the three companies at the heart of the Gulf of Mexico oil-drilling disaster, according to a Washington Post analysis of financial disclosure forms released
Wednesday.
Ought there be limits on such investments? If not, how would you address this conflict of interests? Perhaps its no conflict at all.
Tuesday, June 15, 2010
Some National News for Today: 6/15/10
A few things to chew over today from Ezra Klein at the Washington Post:
Obama will try to reinvigorate a climate bill in his address tonight, reports Mike Allen: Obama plans to include a call for an energy bill in his Oval Office address about the Gulf on Tuesday night. And the Obama administration has told key senators that 'an energy deal must include some serious effort to price carbon as a way to slow climate change,' according to a Senate Democratic leadership aide."
And Obama's top pollster is circulating a memo to lawmakers arguing that a big energy bill makes good political sense. But the memo never mentions "global warming" or "climate change," so it's clear those word don't make good political sense. Read it: http://politi.co/aKhagF
Henry Waxman and energy committee oversight chair Bart Stupak are alleging that BP took "shortcuts" on the exploded oil rig, report Steven Mufson and Anne Kornblut: "In one instance, four days before the April 20 explosion, Brett Cocales, one of BP's operations drilling engineers, sent an e-mail to a colleague noting that engineers had not taken all the usual steps to center the steel pipe in the drill hole, a standard procedure designed to ensure that the pipe would be properly cemented in place. '[W]ho cares, it's done, end of story, will probably be fine and we'll get a good cement job,' he wrote."
The campaign disclosure bill being considered in the House will exempt the NRA, reports John Bresnahan: "The proposal would exempt organizations that have more than 1 million members, have been in existence for more than 10 years, have members in all 50 states and raise 15 percent or less of their funds from corporations. Democrats say the new language would apply to only the NRA, since no other organization would qualify under these specific provisions. The NRA, with 4 million members, will not actively oppose the DISCLOSE Act, according to Democratic sources."
Obama will try to reinvigorate a climate bill in his address tonight, reports Mike Allen: Obama plans to include a call for an energy bill in his Oval Office address about the Gulf on Tuesday night. And the Obama administration has told key senators that 'an energy deal must include some serious effort to price carbon as a way to slow climate change,' according to a Senate Democratic leadership aide."
And Obama's top pollster is circulating a memo to lawmakers arguing that a big energy bill makes good political sense. But the memo never mentions "global warming" or "climate change," so it's clear those word don't make good political sense. Read it: http://politi.co/aKhagF
Henry Waxman and energy committee oversight chair Bart Stupak are alleging that BP took "shortcuts" on the exploded oil rig, report Steven Mufson and Anne Kornblut: "In one instance, four days before the April 20 explosion, Brett Cocales, one of BP's operations drilling engineers, sent an e-mail to a colleague noting that engineers had not taken all the usual steps to center the steel pipe in the drill hole, a standard procedure designed to ensure that the pipe would be properly cemented in place. '[W]ho cares, it's done, end of story, will probably be fine and we'll get a good cement job,' he wrote."
The campaign disclosure bill being considered in the House will exempt the NRA, reports John Bresnahan: "The proposal would exempt organizations that have more than 1 million members, have been in existence for more than 10 years, have members in all 50 states and raise 15 percent or less of their funds from corporations. Democrats say the new language would apply to only the NRA, since no other organization would qualify under these specific provisions. The NRA, with 4 million members, will not actively oppose the DISCLOSE Act, according to Democratic sources."
Monday, June 14, 2010
Two Takes on the Presidency
Two recent articles highlight how Obama is performing two of the undefined roles of the president. The first is party leader, meaning that he is supposed to provide guidance and leadership for his party, The second is, for lack of a better term, savior-in-chief, where the president is expected to wave a wand and solve all conceivable problems.
In related items, what should we make of the recent spate of comments taking Obama to task for not losing his temper over the oil spill? Do they have a point, or do we want someone who can keep cool in a crisis. Or is what one person takes as cool, really indifference?
In related items, what should we make of the recent spate of comments taking Obama to task for not losing his temper over the oil spill? Do they have a point, or do we want someone who can keep cool in a crisis. Or is what one person takes as cool, really indifference?
Texas Budgetting and Districting
For future discussion:
- The Texas Legislative Budget Board.
- Texas Redistricting.
- Texas Legislative Council.
- The Texas Legislative Budget Board.
- Texas Redistricting.
- Texas Legislative Council.
Regional Texas Representatives
A list of the current members of the Texas Legislature from this general area. Click here for access to maps.
- 23rd District, Craig Eiland.
- 24th District, Larry Taylor.
- 25th District, Dennis Bonnen.
- 27th District, Dora Olivo.
- 29th District, Randy Weber.
- 23rd District, Craig Eiland.
- 24th District, Larry Taylor.
- 25th District, Dennis Bonnen.
- 27th District, Dora Olivo.
- 29th District, Randy Weber.
Ron Paul, Subcommittee Asssignments, and Investments
Just in time for our discussion of committee assignments comes this Washington Post story on Ron Paul.
As we saw in class, he a member of the House Financial Services subcommittee on Domestic Monetary Policy and Technology. He uses this post to advocate for a return to the gold standard, but he also invests heavily in companies that mine for gold. He doesn't consider this a conflict of interest, but the articles author isn't quite sure. What's more, nothing he is doing is unethical under Congressional guidelines, though it is illegal for executive officials and others.
Though Paul is the subject of the piece, he is far from the only member of Congress in a position to pass laws that benefit their investments:
In both houses of Congress, a host of other committee chairmen and ranking members have reported that they have millions invested in business sectors that their panels oversee, according to a Post analysis of financial disclosure records through 2008, committee assignments and lawmaker investments by industry.
The disclosure reports covering 2009 will be made public in the coming days. But because lawmakers still use a pen-and-paper method of reporting, it will be months before the information is entered into a database by the Center for Responsive Politics and then made available for analysis by The Post.
For more information about Dr. Paul's gold standard positions:
- What was the gold standard?
- Gold standard - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- Monetary policy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- FRB: Monetary Policy
As we saw in class, he a member of the House Financial Services subcommittee on Domestic Monetary Policy and Technology. He uses this post to advocate for a return to the gold standard, but he also invests heavily in companies that mine for gold. He doesn't consider this a conflict of interest, but the articles author isn't quite sure. What's more, nothing he is doing is unethical under Congressional guidelines, though it is illegal for executive officials and others.
Though Paul is the subject of the piece, he is far from the only member of Congress in a position to pass laws that benefit their investments:
In both houses of Congress, a host of other committee chairmen and ranking members have reported that they have millions invested in business sectors that their panels oversee, according to a Post analysis of financial disclosure records through 2008, committee assignments and lawmaker investments by industry.
The disclosure reports covering 2009 will be made public in the coming days. But because lawmakers still use a pen-and-paper method of reporting, it will be months before the information is entered into a database by the Center for Responsive Politics and then made available for analysis by The Post.
For more information about Dr. Paul's gold standard positions:
- What was the gold standard?
- Gold standard - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- Monetary policy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- FRB: Monetary Policy
Sunday, June 13, 2010
Area Representatives – 111th Congress
For our discussion of legislators, a list of area representatives here's a list of area representatives to the United States House:
- 2nd District: Ted Poe.
- 7th District: John Culberson.
- 8th District: Kevin Brady.
- 9th District: Al Green.
- 14th District: Ron Paul.
- 18th District: Sheila Jackson-Lee.
- 22nd District: Pete Olson.
- 29th District: Gene Green.
Texas currently has 32 representatives to the United States House. Click here for information about Texas' occasional at-large districts.
- Click here for a list of the Texas delegation for each year since its admission to the union.
Committee assignments:
Ted Poe
Committee on the Judiciary
- Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security
- Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security, and International Law
Committee on Foreign Affairs
- Subcommittee on Europe
- Subcommittee on Terrorism Nonproliferation and Trade
- Subcommittee on International Organizations, Human Rights, and Oversight
John Culberson
Committee on Appropriations
- Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies
- Subcommittee on Financial Services and General Government
- Subcommittee on Homeland Security
Kevin Brady
Committee on Ways and Means
- Subcommittee on Trade
- Subcommittee on Social Security
Al Green
Committee on Financial Services
- Subcommittee on Financial Institutions and Consumer Credit
- Subcommittee on Housing and Community Opportunity
- Subcommittee on Domestic Monetary Policy and Technology
Committee on Homeland Security
- Subcommittee on Border, Maritime and Global Counterterrorism
- Subcommittee on Intelligence, Information Sharing, and Terrorism Risk Assessment
- Subcommittee on Management, Investigations, and Oversight
Ron Paul
Committee on Financial Services
- Subcommittee on Domestic Monetary Policy and Technology
- Subcommittee on International Monetary Policy and Trade
- Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations
Committee on Foreign Affairs
- Subcommittee on International Organizations, Human Rights, and Oversight
- Subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere
Joint Economic Committee
Sheila Jackson-Lee
Committee on Foreign Affairs
- Subcommittee on Africa and Global Health
- Subcommittee on Terrorism, Nonproliferation, and Trade
- Subcommittee on the Middle East and South Asia
Committee on Homeland Security
- Subcommittee on Border, Maritime and Global Counterterrorism
- Subcommittee on Transportation Security and Infrastructure Protection (Chairwoman)
Committee on the Judiciary
- Subcommittee on Courts and Competition Policy
- Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties
- Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security, and International Law
- Task Force on Judicial Impeachment
Pete Olson
Committee on Homeland Security
- Subcommittee on Transportation Security and Infrastructure Protection (Deputy Ranking Member)
- Subcommittee on Emergency Communications, Preparedness, and Response
Committee on Science and Technology
- Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics (Ranking Member)
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
- Subcommittee on Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation
- Subcommittee on Railroads, Pipelines, and Hazardous Materials
- Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment
Gene Green
Committee on Energy and Commerce
- Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade and Consumer Protection
- Subcommittee on Energy and Environment
- Subcommittee on Health
- Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations
Committee on Foreign Affairs
- Subcommittee on the Middle East and South Asia
- Subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)