- From The Daily Beast.
- From Andrew Sullivan.
Everyone wants to know if its time to stick a fork in our governor.
Thursday, November 10, 2011
Wednesday, November 9, 2011
Tuesday, November 8, 2011
Monday, November 7, 2011
From the Gallup POll: Support for Third U.S. Party Dips, but Is Still Majority View
Despite what we've discovered in class, thee is still strong support for third parties in the U.S:
Fifty-two percent of Americans believe the Republican and Democratic parties do such a poor job of representing the people that a third party is needed. Forty percent believe they do an adequate job. The percentage calling for a third party is down from August, when it tied its high of 58%.
Interestingly, this number includes a majority of Republicans and Tea Party supporters. Is an independent Tea Party bid out of the question?
Fifty-two percent of Americans believe the Republican and Democratic parties do such a poor job of representing the people that a third party is needed. Forty percent believe they do an adequate job. The percentage calling for a third party is down from August, when it tied its high of 58%.
Interestingly, this number includes a majority of Republicans and Tea Party supporters. Is an independent Tea Party bid out of the question?
From the Gallup Poll: Democrats More Liberal, Less White Than in 2008
The Gallup Poll looks at the Democratic Party:
In many respects, the demographic profile of Democrats nationwide is similar to what it was in 2008, although Democrats have become somewhat less white and more liberal than the party that nominated Barack Obama as its presidential candidate that year. As a group, Democrats are more likely than average to be women and nonwhite, less likely to be religious or married, much less likely to be conservative, and much more likely to be liberal than the U.S. population as a whole.
In many respects, the demographic profile of Democrats nationwide is similar to what it was in 2008, although Democrats have become somewhat less white and more liberal than the party that nominated Barack Obama as its presidential candidate that year. As a group, Democrats are more likely than average to be women and nonwhite, less likely to be religious or married, much less likely to be conservative, and much more likely to be liberal than the U.S. population as a whole.
So is crime getting worse or not?
This is an old story. Crime statistics are going down, but people think crime is getting worse:
The Gallup Poll speculates why:
This unwarranted pessimism may stem from the imperfect indications of crime that Americans receive from the news and other sources, as well as Americans' overall mood. In line with this point, the view that crime is worsening could reflect the broader decline in Americans' optimism about the country, as satisfaction with the way things are going declined from 71% in 1999 to 7% in 2008; and, after slightly higher ratings in 2009 and 2010, it is now back down to 13%. Whatever the case, there is a positive story to be told about the nation's violent crime problem that Americans haven't yet fully heard or absorbed.
The Gallup Poll speculates why:
This unwarranted pessimism may stem from the imperfect indications of crime that Americans receive from the news and other sources, as well as Americans' overall mood. In line with this point, the view that crime is worsening could reflect the broader decline in Americans' optimism about the country, as satisfaction with the way things are going declined from 71% in 1999 to 7% in 2008; and, after slightly higher ratings in 2009 and 2010, it is now back down to 13%. Whatever the case, there is a positive story to be told about the nation's violent crime problem that Americans haven't yet fully heard or absorbed.
From NPR: Court Weighs President's Power To Recognize Nations
A case before the court challenges the President's authority over this aspect of foreign policy:
Ever since the creation of the state of Israel in 1948, the U.S. government has declined to recognize Jerusalem as part of any country. Palestinians have long claimed the city as their own, and so have Israelis.
The U.S. State Department has long viewed the city's status as one of the key items to be negotiated in a Middle East peace deal. Consequently, the U.S. has avoided even seemingly minor actions that might undermine its role in the peace negotiations by implying any endorsement of Israeli or Arab sovereignty over the city.
Israel's supporters in Congress, however, have long objected to the U.S. policy, and have sought, through legislation, to force U.S. recognition of Jerusalem as Israel's capital. In 2002, Congress enacted a law urging the president to move the U.S. Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, and requiring the State Department to allow American citizens born in Jerusalem to list their place of birth as Israel on passport documents.
The case is Zivotofsky v. Clinton.
- From Scotusblog: Argument recap: Who controls foreign policy?
Ever since the creation of the state of Israel in 1948, the U.S. government has declined to recognize Jerusalem as part of any country. Palestinians have long claimed the city as their own, and so have Israelis.
The U.S. State Department has long viewed the city's status as one of the key items to be negotiated in a Middle East peace deal. Consequently, the U.S. has avoided even seemingly minor actions that might undermine its role in the peace negotiations by implying any endorsement of Israeli or Arab sovereignty over the city.
Israel's supporters in Congress, however, have long objected to the U.S. policy, and have sought, through legislation, to force U.S. recognition of Jerusalem as Israel's capital. In 2002, Congress enacted a law urging the president to move the U.S. Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, and requiring the State Department to allow American citizens born in Jerusalem to list their place of birth as Israel on passport documents.
The case is Zivotofsky v. Clinton.
- From Scotusblog: Argument recap: Who controls foreign policy?
GOVT 2302 16 Week Written Assignment: Judicial Nominations
One of a President's constitutional functions is to nominate people to the federal judiciary, a function that is checked by the Senate since they have to confirm those appointments. While this allows President the ability to shape the judiciary, some are more successful than others. I want you to research President Obama's success in shaping the federal judiciary as opposed to the success of other President's, Such as W. Bush and Clinton. What factors help explain what he has and has not been able to accomplish?
Here are some sites which should help you get going, but do your own research as well.
- JudicialNominations.org.
- Judicial Confirmation and the Constitution.
- Breaking the Judicial Nominations and Confirmations Logjam.
- The Judicial Confirmation Crisis.
Here are some sites which should help you get going, but do your own research as well.
- JudicialNominations.org.
- Judicial Confirmation and the Constitution.
- Breaking the Judicial Nominations and Confirmations Logjam.
- The Judicial Confirmation Crisis.
GOVT 2301 16 week Written Assignment: Is the Stolen Valor Act constitutional?
In a recent blog post I mentioned that the Supreme Court will soon hear arguments in the case of the United States v Alvarez, which will challenge the constitutionality of the Stolen Valor Act.
I want to read up on the case and detail the arguments on either side of the issue. Is punishing someone for lying about receiving military commendations a violation of speech rights or not? How might the Supreme Court rule on this issue. Back up your claim.
I want to read up on the case and detail the arguments on either side of the issue. Is punishing someone for lying about receiving military commendations a violation of speech rights or not? How might the Supreme Court rule on this issue. Back up your claim.
Friday, November 4, 2011
The Rise of Oligarchy in the US?
Will the information age be oligarchic? An increasing number of commentators think it will. Perhaps the middle class was unique to the industrial age. What might this mean for governance in the US?
- Libertarians For Oligarchy?
- What If Middle-Class Jobs Disappear?
- Texans for Oligarchy
- Libertarians For Oligarchy?
- What If Middle-Class Jobs Disappear?
- Texans for Oligarchy
Business Plan Candidates
This post is a bit hyper-critical of the Republican field, but it says some interesting things about the choices that have been made regarding who has decided to run - or not - and why - or why not.
Note the term "business plan candidates."
Note the term "business plan candidates."
Thursday, November 3, 2011
Before the Walmart Moms there was the Silent Majority
I strongly suggest that 2301 students read through this. It describes how Richard Nixon identified a group that had traditionally voted Democratic - but seemed up for grabs in the 1972 election - and how to mobilize them. His effort led to the realignment that continues to define the current party era. The Republican and Democratic parties look the way they do today as a consequence of this electoral strategy.
- the Southern Strategy.
- the Southern Strategy.
For tomorrow's 2301 dual credit....
According to the syllabus, you've studied elections this week. After wrapping up a few items related to federalism I want to discuss electoral matter that are in the news.
These are up for grabs:
- The Greek referendum - should we have national referendum elections?
- The proposed amendments to the Texas Constitution.
- The role the economy plays in electoral decisions.
- Should we elect judges? How about school board members?
- The tightening of election laws - is voting a right?
- OWS - direct democracy?
These are just a few thoughts, expect more.
These are up for grabs:
- The Greek referendum - should we have national referendum elections?
- The proposed amendments to the Texas Constitution.
- The role the economy plays in electoral decisions.
- Should we elect judges? How about school board members?
- The tightening of election laws - is voting a right?
- OWS - direct democracy?
These are just a few thoughts, expect more.
Maybe there wont be a referendum in Greece
From the Washington Post:
Prime Minister George Papandreou backed away Thursday from a proposal to hold a referendum on a European bailout plan as Greek politicians appeared to be rallying around the rescue despite the tough austerity measures it entails.
The move came after the country’s main opposition party dropped its objections to the bailout package and indicated it would back the measures. But the opposition also called for new elections, which Papandreou opposes, suggesting that a deal could still fall apart.
Papandreou’s proposal to hold a national referendum on the bailout plan, a vote that would also determine Greece’s future in the euro zone, had caused fissures within his Socialist party and sent shockwaves through Europe. Thursday evening, he told an emergency cabinet meeting that if the opposition agreed to the bailout, there was no need to put it to a popular test.
Apparently proposing a referendum on the bailout proposal - which was likely to fail, meaning no bailout - forced the issue. The opposition could have staged their own opposition to the proposal, but now they are stuck with it. To not support it would have risked the future of the European Union. This was less about the merit of the bailout than determining how best to rally support for it.
That raises an interesting point should we have national referenda in the United States? The agreement imposes costs on the general public. Should they be able to vote on it? Is it the right thing to do? But this creates tremendous uncertainty prior to the election. And what if they decide against the measure and Europe falls apart as a result. It wouldn't be the first time.
Prime Minister George Papandreou backed away Thursday from a proposal to hold a referendum on a European bailout plan as Greek politicians appeared to be rallying around the rescue despite the tough austerity measures it entails.
The move came after the country’s main opposition party dropped its objections to the bailout package and indicated it would back the measures. But the opposition also called for new elections, which Papandreou opposes, suggesting that a deal could still fall apart.
Papandreou’s proposal to hold a national referendum on the bailout plan, a vote that would also determine Greece’s future in the euro zone, had caused fissures within his Socialist party and sent shockwaves through Europe. Thursday evening, he told an emergency cabinet meeting that if the opposition agreed to the bailout, there was no need to put it to a popular test.
Apparently proposing a referendum on the bailout proposal - which was likely to fail, meaning no bailout - forced the issue. The opposition could have staged their own opposition to the proposal, but now they are stuck with it. To not support it would have risked the future of the European Union. This was less about the merit of the bailout than determining how best to rally support for it.
That raises an interesting point should we have national referenda in the United States? The agreement imposes costs on the general public. Should they be able to vote on it? Is it the right thing to do? But this creates tremendous uncertainty prior to the election. And what if they decide against the measure and Europe falls apart as a result. It wouldn't be the first time.
From Roll Call: Members of Congress are getting richer
The top 1% in the nation make up almost half of Congress. Does this inhibit their ability to represent the American population?
Members of Congress had a collective net worth of more than $2 billion in 2010, a nearly 25 percent increase over the 2008 total, according to a Roll Call analysis of Members' financial disclosure forms.
Nearly 90 percent of that increase is concentrated in the 50 richest Members of Congress.
Two years ago, Roll Call found that the minimum net worth of House Members was slightly more than $1 billion; Senators had a combined minimum worth of $651 million for a Congressional total of $1.65 billion.
Andrew Sullivan says this makes us an oligarchy.
Members of Congress had a collective net worth of more than $2 billion in 2010, a nearly 25 percent increase over the 2008 total, according to a Roll Call analysis of Members' financial disclosure forms.
Nearly 90 percent of that increase is concentrated in the 50 richest Members of Congress.
Two years ago, Roll Call found that the minimum net worth of House Members was slightly more than $1 billion; Senators had a combined minimum worth of $651 million for a Congressional total of $1.65 billion.
Andrew Sullivan says this makes us an oligarchy.
Incumbent Party’s Expected Vote Margin = 1.14 −.83 × (Years in Office) +4.51 × (4th-Year Income Growth) +1.66 × (3rd-Year Income Growth) −1.04 × (2nd-Year Income Growth) −2.34 × (1st-Year Income Growth)
This formula tells us how likely it is that a president (any president, not just Obama) is likely to be re-elected. The key factor here is "real disposable income per capita."
This is premature, but who cares? Handicapping the 2012 Election
From Nate Silver, a nice overview of where Obama stands now, about a year away from the general election. It all depends on three factors (1) Obama's approval rating, (2) who the Republican nominee is and (3) GDP growth in 2012.
Wednesday, November 2, 2011
A Visual History of the American Presidency
A pretty expensive poster, nice graphics though. You can zoom in on it pretty closely. Check it out.
Black and White? Or Shades of Gray?
This might be an interesting read for 2302 students as we plunge into the judiciary.
From the Volock Conspiracy:
One of the main things a law teacher does in class is to explore the boundary regions of a legal doctrine—the hard-to-categorize cases that are most likely to give rise to litigation: Is it an assault for a man to kiss a sleeping woman? Has the hunter acquired ownership of a wild animal when one of his bullets has been lodged in it, whereupon the animal stumbles into another hunter’s trap? Is the alumnus’ promise of a donation a binding contract? Posing these kinds of questions may be the activity law professors most often indulge in, often to excess.
One of the most fascinating problems raised by such boundary cases is why the law is so disturbingly rigid when dealing with them, why it paints in black and white, when reality seems to come in shades of gray. The law insists that something either is an assault or is not, either gives rise to ownership or does not, either is a binding contract or is not. There are no in-betweens.
The trouble is that many of the actual cases seem like in-betweens. In fact a case would never reach the courts if it did not seem to be in-between. But why not let the court say that while this is not a clear-cut case of an assault, it is sort of an assault and that therefore we will award the victim a fraction of the damages, or impose on the perpetrator a fraction of the punishment, that would be appropriate if this were a clear-cut case? Wouldn’t that avoid a lot of unnecessary hair-splitting hairsplitting? That’s what many legal scholars have come to believe. Are they right? Would it be better if the law were less either/or?
From the Volock Conspiracy:
One of the main things a law teacher does in class is to explore the boundary regions of a legal doctrine—the hard-to-categorize cases that are most likely to give rise to litigation: Is it an assault for a man to kiss a sleeping woman? Has the hunter acquired ownership of a wild animal when one of his bullets has been lodged in it, whereupon the animal stumbles into another hunter’s trap? Is the alumnus’ promise of a donation a binding contract? Posing these kinds of questions may be the activity law professors most often indulge in, often to excess.
One of the most fascinating problems raised by such boundary cases is why the law is so disturbingly rigid when dealing with them, why it paints in black and white, when reality seems to come in shades of gray. The law insists that something either is an assault or is not, either gives rise to ownership or does not, either is a binding contract or is not. There are no in-betweens.
The trouble is that many of the actual cases seem like in-betweens. In fact a case would never reach the courts if it did not seem to be in-between. But why not let the court say that while this is not a clear-cut case of an assault, it is sort of an assault and that therefore we will award the victim a fraction of the damages, or impose on the perpetrator a fraction of the punishment, that would be appropriate if this were a clear-cut case? Wouldn’t that avoid a lot of unnecessary hair-splitting hairsplitting? That’s what many legal scholars have come to believe. Are they right? Would it be better if the law were less either/or?
From the National Review: In Defense of the Establishment
An interesting take on the establishment - insiders know how to get things done.
While it contains a lot of errors, the Washington Consensus is right more often than it is wrong. Even more importantly, critiques of the Washington Consensus are wrong more of then than they are right—meaning that taking Washington Establishment down a peg will tend to do more harm than good.
Take, for example, the Federal Reserve. The Fed has made some big mistakes in the last few years—it was too loose during the middle of the last decade, allowing the housing bubble to inflate, and has been too tight since the housing crash. But the modal critique of the Fed has called for worse policy—even tighter money or, worse yet, a return to the Gold Standard.
Or look at banking. The government has mostly failed to address the root causes of the last financial crisis, by continuing to allow complex financial institutions to profit off risk-taking that is backstopped by an implicit government guarantee. But the ideas with the most populist energy—from calls for indiscriminate debt forgiveness on the left to insistence that we should have just let Citigroup and Bank of America fail on the right—are even worse than what Washington has actually done.
While it contains a lot of errors, the Washington Consensus is right more often than it is wrong. Even more importantly, critiques of the Washington Consensus are wrong more of then than they are right—meaning that taking Washington Establishment down a peg will tend to do more harm than good.
Take, for example, the Federal Reserve. The Fed has made some big mistakes in the last few years—it was too loose during the middle of the last decade, allowing the housing bubble to inflate, and has been too tight since the housing crash. But the modal critique of the Fed has called for worse policy—even tighter money or, worse yet, a return to the Gold Standard.
Or look at banking. The government has mostly failed to address the root causes of the last financial crisis, by continuing to allow complex financial institutions to profit off risk-taking that is backstopped by an implicit government guarantee. But the ideas with the most populist energy—from calls for indiscriminate debt forgiveness on the left to insistence that we should have just let Citigroup and Bank of America fail on the right—are even worse than what Washington has actually done.
From Diane Rhem The Constitution Today: Fourth Amendment
Click here for a radio interview on the 4th Amendment and whether placing a GPS tracking device on a car without a warrant is an unreasonable search.
What's up with Greece?
Financial markets are in a panic because the bailout deal worked out by European leadership last week - and will impose austerity measuers on the Greek population - is going to be put up for a referendum. It is not considered likely to pass, which may have global consequences.
This is a very democratic development, but is it a good thing or a bad thing? Is the type of activity that Madison and Hamilton wanted the American system to avoid? There are no national referendums in the U.S. Is Greece acting like one of the states under the Articles of Confederation?
This is worth heavy discussion.
- Greek Inaction Or Democracy In Action?
- What The Hell Just Happened In Greece?
This is a very democratic development, but is it a good thing or a bad thing? Is the type of activity that Madison and Hamilton wanted the American system to avoid? There are no national referendums in the U.S. Is Greece acting like one of the states under the Articles of Confederation?
This is worth heavy discussion.
- Greek Inaction Or Democracy In Action?
- What The Hell Just Happened In Greece?
Tuesday, November 1, 2011
Interested in practicing before the Supreme Court?
Here's a book you might find useful in order to prepare: Supreme Court Practice, Ninth Edition.
For guidance on every aspect of practicing before the Supreme Court, rely on this trusted source of the Justices’ law clerks for over 50 years.
Rely on this treatise for guidance on every aspect of practice before the Supreme Court—from how to pass through the guarded entrance to get to the Clerk’s Office, to whether to file one or more petitions in consolidated or related cases. Supreme Court Practice, Ninth Edition is the definitive resource for everything you need to know to prosecute or defend a case before the Supreme Court. This treatise provides:
And it seem to be a bargain at a mere $455.
For guidance on every aspect of practicing before the Supreme Court, rely on this trusted source of the Justices’ law clerks for over 50 years.
Rely on this treatise for guidance on every aspect of practice before the Supreme Court—from how to pass through the guarded entrance to get to the Clerk’s Office, to whether to file one or more petitions in consolidated or related cases. Supreme Court Practice, Ninth Edition is the definitive resource for everything you need to know to prosecute or defend a case before the Supreme Court. This treatise provides:
And it seem to be a bargain at a mere $455.
Monday, October 31, 2011
From the NYT: Outside Groups Eclipsing G.O.P. as Hub of Campaigns
In 2301 (16 week) we are discussing parties. One of our topics is the relative health of the two parties and this NYT story about the increasing strength of outsider groups - or individuals not directly affiliated with the party. Their power may be eclipsing the party's:
About once a month, a dozen or so of the country’s most influential Republicans meet in a bare-walled conference room in Washington to discuss how to make further gains in the Congressional elections next year and defeat President Obama.
They share polling and opposition research, preview their plans for advertising and contacting voters in swing states, and look for ways to coordinate spending hundreds of millions of dollars over the next 12 months, drawing on years of experience laboring for the party.
But almost none of them hold office or a job with the Republican Party itself. Instead, they represent conservative groups that channeled tens of millions of dollars into last year’s Congressional campaign. And as 2012 approaches, the groups — among them the Karl Rove-founded American Crossroads, the Republican Governors Association, the American Action Network and Americans for Prosperity, which is backed by the billionaire Koch brothers — have gathered into a loosely organized political machine poised to rival, and in many ways supplant, the official Republican Party apparatus.
About once a month, a dozen or so of the country’s most influential Republicans meet in a bare-walled conference room in Washington to discuss how to make further gains in the Congressional elections next year and defeat President Obama.
They share polling and opposition research, preview their plans for advertising and contacting voters in swing states, and look for ways to coordinate spending hundreds of millions of dollars over the next 12 months, drawing on years of experience laboring for the party.
But almost none of them hold office or a job with the Republican Party itself. Instead, they represent conservative groups that channeled tens of millions of dollars into last year’s Congressional campaign. And as 2012 approaches, the groups — among them the Karl Rove-founded American Crossroads, the Republican Governors Association, the American Action Network and Americans for Prosperity, which is backed by the billionaire Koch brothers — have gathered into a loosely organized political machine poised to rival, and in many ways supplant, the official Republican Party apparatus.
From SCOTUSblog: Remedy for ineffective assistance of counsel during plea bargaining?
The Supreme Court will hear arguments today two cases involving assistance of counsel and what happens when that assistance is ineffective - or incompetent.
- SCOTUSblog.
- SCOTUSblog.
Sunday, October 30, 2011
This week's written assignment for 16 week 2301 class - Mormons and Republicans
This is a question that I hope bridges this week's discussion of political parties with our very brief discussion of religious liberties when we covered civil liberties.
As we already know from class discussions and the report you have been thinking about, the battle for the Republican nominations seems to be between Mitt Romney and Not-Mitt Romney. Romney's numbers are steady, but he is regularly and briefly eclipsed by a series of alternate candidates (Bachmann, Perry, Cain, etc...). One of the reasons why - some speculate - is that the Republican Party coalition (that is the collection of different groups that comprise the party) includes factions that will not vote for a Mormon.
This could be a potentially fatal division should Romney become the party's nominee. Not that anti-Mormon Republicans woudl vote for Obama, but they may well sit this election out hoping for a better candidate i 2016 (if he is elected in 2012, chances are he is the party's nominee in 2016, so they wont have a shot at a preferred candidate until 2020).
I want you to get to the heart of this division - and also weight in on whether you think the point is overblown. Are there divisions within the party along religious lines? Do these overlap other divisions such as education and income? Perhaps these divisions reinforce themselves. What impact might these have on the party in the 2012 election? You may want to consider how the topics we covered in Federalist #10 - when we discussed Republicanism - impact this as well.
Do your own research - let me know where you get your information. 150 words at a minomum, thanks.
As we already know from class discussions and the report you have been thinking about, the battle for the Republican nominations seems to be between Mitt Romney and Not-Mitt Romney. Romney's numbers are steady, but he is regularly and briefly eclipsed by a series of alternate candidates (Bachmann, Perry, Cain, etc...). One of the reasons why - some speculate - is that the Republican Party coalition (that is the collection of different groups that comprise the party) includes factions that will not vote for a Mormon.
This could be a potentially fatal division should Romney become the party's nominee. Not that anti-Mormon Republicans woudl vote for Obama, but they may well sit this election out hoping for a better candidate i 2016 (if he is elected in 2012, chances are he is the party's nominee in 2016, so they wont have a shot at a preferred candidate until 2020).
I want you to get to the heart of this division - and also weight in on whether you think the point is overblown. Are there divisions within the party along religious lines? Do these overlap other divisions such as education and income? Perhaps these divisions reinforce themselves. What impact might these have on the party in the 2012 election? You may want to consider how the topics we covered in Federalist #10 - when we discussed Republicanism - impact this as well.
Do your own research - let me know where you get your information. 150 words at a minomum, thanks.
Saturday, October 29, 2011
The House passes two minor parts of the Jobs bill
From the NYT:
On Thursday, the House passed a very modest measure to end a tax withholding program, one that had yet to affect a single American, but which President Obama has agreed should go. No word from the Senate yet — those members are back in their home states this week taking a breather from their legislative labors — but chances are the bill will clear that chamber, too.
. . . Outside of a few recent flashes of light — the passage of three trade bills this month, and an agreement on patent reform — there have been no big bipartisan jobs initiatives in this Congress.
Republicans have broadly rejected Mr. Obama’s sweeping proposal to cut some taxes, raise others and stimulate hiring through government spending, denouncing it as a stimulus measure doomed to harm the economy.
Senate Democrats have largely snubbed Republicans’ measures to repeal government regulations, saying such efforts will not create jobs. Further, the bipartisan Congressional committee charged with eliminating $1.2 trillion in federal debt has made little progress, for now, over how to get there.
On a related note, Congress' approval rating is 9%.
On Thursday, the House passed a very modest measure to end a tax withholding program, one that had yet to affect a single American, but which President Obama has agreed should go. No word from the Senate yet — those members are back in their home states this week taking a breather from their legislative labors — but chances are the bill will clear that chamber, too.
. . . Outside of a few recent flashes of light — the passage of three trade bills this month, and an agreement on patent reform — there have been no big bipartisan jobs initiatives in this Congress.
Republicans have broadly rejected Mr. Obama’s sweeping proposal to cut some taxes, raise others and stimulate hiring through government spending, denouncing it as a stimulus measure doomed to harm the economy.
Senate Democrats have largely snubbed Republicans’ measures to repeal government regulations, saying such efforts will not create jobs. Further, the bipartisan Congressional committee charged with eliminating $1.2 trillion in federal debt has made little progress, for now, over how to get there.
On a related note, Congress' approval rating is 9%.
The media is trying to figure what to make of OWS
From Slate:
The mainstream media thrives on simple solutions. It has no idea whatsoever of how to report on a story that isn’t about easy fixes so much as it is about anguished human frustration and fear. The media prides itself on its ability to tell you how to clear your clutter, regrout your shower, or purge your closet of anything that makes you look fat—in 24 minutes or less. It is bound to be flummoxed by a protest that offers up no happy endings
The mainstream media thrives on simple solutions. It has no idea whatsoever of how to report on a story that isn’t about easy fixes so much as it is about anguished human frustration and fear. The media prides itself on its ability to tell you how to clear your clutter, regrout your shower, or purge your closet of anything that makes you look fat—in 24 minutes or less. It is bound to be flummoxed by a protest that offers up no happy endings
Does consumer spending drive the economy, not private investment?
Here's an argument that it does - and it goes against recent economic theory (but one of the consequences of economic events like the Great Recession is a rethinking of economic theory):
AS an economic historian who has been studying American capitalism for 35 years, I’m going to let you in on the best-kept secret of the last century: private investment — that is, using business profits to increase productivity and output — doesn’t actually drive economic growth. Consumer debt and government spending do. Private investment isn’t even necessary to promote growth.
This is, to put it mildly, a controversial claim. Economists will tell you that private business investment causes growth because it pays for the new plant or equipment that creates jobs, improves labor productivity and increases workers’ incomes. As a result, you’ll hear politicians insisting that more incentives for private investors — lower taxes on corporate profits — will lead to faster and better-balanced growth.
The general public seems to agree. According to a New York Times/CBS News poll in May, a majority of Americans believe that increased corporate taxes “would discourage American companies from creating jobs.”
But history shows that this is wrong.
Read on, we will discuss this in 2302.
AS an economic historian who has been studying American capitalism for 35 years, I’m going to let you in on the best-kept secret of the last century: private investment — that is, using business profits to increase productivity and output — doesn’t actually drive economic growth. Consumer debt and government spending do. Private investment isn’t even necessary to promote growth.
This is, to put it mildly, a controversial claim. Economists will tell you that private business investment causes growth because it pays for the new plant or equipment that creates jobs, improves labor productivity and increases workers’ incomes. As a result, you’ll hear politicians insisting that more incentives for private investors — lower taxes on corporate profits — will lead to faster and better-balanced growth.
The general public seems to agree. According to a New York Times/CBS News poll in May, a majority of Americans believe that increased corporate taxes “would discourage American companies from creating jobs.”
But history shows that this is wrong.
Read on, we will discuss this in 2302.
Writing Assignment for 2302 16 Week Class - The Supreme Court and the 2012 Election
My 16 week 2302 students are going to begin looking at the judiciary this week and an editorial (which is admittedly biased and pointed, though still useful), reminds us of a reality of the upcoming election - one that is rarely at the centerpiece of elections. There are three judges over the age of 75, and the next president may get to replace them all. Of course some work until they are in their 90s, so this is no guarantee this will happen.
The greater point is that elections help determine what direction the federal courts take. Read the editorial, as well as any other items you find useful, describe and comment on this issue.
The greater point is that elections help determine what direction the federal courts take. Read the editorial, as well as any other items you find useful, describe and comment on this issue.
Are civil rights policies working?
This author says they are not, and we need to transform how discrimination is addressed.
CIVIL rights have transformed American society, and made it fairer and less divided, by outlawing overt racial discrimination and making bigotry socially unacceptable. That success has inspired a host of social groups to press for new civil rights.
But civil rights have barely made a dent in today’s most severe and persistent social injustices, such as the disproportionate incarceration of African-Americans, the glass ceiling that blocks career advancement for many women and high unemployment among the elderly; in fact, some of these problems have gotten worse despite civil rights laws intended to address them. Today’s most pressing injustices require comprehensive changes in the practices of the police, schools and employers — not simply responses to individual injuries.
The author questions the use of lawsuits as a vehicle for handling civil rights complaints (notice the discussion of Brown and the Seattle Supreme Court decisions). 2301 students should be aware of this policy after discussing civil rights in class. 2302 students should read this because it points out the role the Supreme Court has played in promoting civil rights at one point, and being more skeptical of them recently.
- In a related story: Female Wal-Mart Employees File New Bias Case.
CIVIL rights have transformed American society, and made it fairer and less divided, by outlawing overt racial discrimination and making bigotry socially unacceptable. That success has inspired a host of social groups to press for new civil rights.
But civil rights have barely made a dent in today’s most severe and persistent social injustices, such as the disproportionate incarceration of African-Americans, the glass ceiling that blocks career advancement for many women and high unemployment among the elderly; in fact, some of these problems have gotten worse despite civil rights laws intended to address them. Today’s most pressing injustices require comprehensive changes in the practices of the police, schools and employers — not simply responses to individual injuries.
The author questions the use of lawsuits as a vehicle for handling civil rights complaints (notice the discussion of Brown and the Seattle Supreme Court decisions). 2301 students should be aware of this policy after discussing civil rights in class. 2302 students should read this because it points out the role the Supreme Court has played in promoting civil rights at one point, and being more skeptical of them recently.
- In a related story: Female Wal-Mart Employees File New Bias Case.
Friday, October 28, 2011
Some thoughts on whether placing a GPS device oin a car (without a warrant) is an unreasonable search
More from Scotusblog (the author is Orin Kerr):
My bottom line is that I find this a surprisingly difficult and open question: Justices wishing to apply the Fourth Amendment in a way that is consistent with Fourth Amendment text, history, principles, and precedents could plausibly go either way. One implication of this uncertainty is that if the Justices decide to regulate GPS under the Fourth Amendment, focusing on the installation of the device is a much better option than trying to jump into the thicket of issues discussed in my first post about use of the device once installed. At the same time, it’s worth noting two additional wrinkles. The first is the uncertain standard of reasonableness that would follow from a conclusion that installing the device is a search or seizure. The second is the important role of statutory regulation, which may deal with some of the concerns raised by those who want the Supreme Court to construe the Fourth Amendment to sharply limit GPS monitoring.
This might be a bit thick, but its worth a read.
My bottom line is that I find this a surprisingly difficult and open question: Justices wishing to apply the Fourth Amendment in a way that is consistent with Fourth Amendment text, history, principles, and precedents could plausibly go either way. One implication of this uncertainty is that if the Justices decide to regulate GPS under the Fourth Amendment, focusing on the installation of the device is a much better option than trying to jump into the thicket of issues discussed in my first post about use of the device once installed. At the same time, it’s worth noting two additional wrinkles. The first is the uncertain standard of reasonableness that would follow from a conclusion that installing the device is a search or seizure. The second is the important role of statutory regulation, which may deal with some of the concerns raised by those who want the Supreme Court to construe the Fourth Amendment to sharply limit GPS monitoring.
This might be a bit thick, but its worth a read.
The Supreme Court is set to look at challenges to health care reform
From Scotusblog:
The Supreme Court will take its first look at the challenges to the new federal health care law at its Conference on Thursday, November 10. Five of the six pending petitions (the sixth is not ready yet) were distributed to the Justices’ chambers on Wednesday, for consideration at that private session. Although a grant of review is not assured, that is highly likely, since all sides agree that the Court should take on the controversy, and the constitutionality of a key provision of the new law has been decided differently by federal appeals courts.
The first decision the Court will face in this historic dispute is whether to grant any of the petitions or any of the issues. The Justices have the discretion to grant all, some, or none, since none reached the Court as a mandatory appeal. (The filings in the cases can be found on the Court’s website, here.)
2302 students should take note of this case since it will help you answer the report due at the end of the class.
The Supreme Court will take its first look at the challenges to the new federal health care law at its Conference on Thursday, November 10. Five of the six pending petitions (the sixth is not ready yet) were distributed to the Justices’ chambers on Wednesday, for consideration at that private session. Although a grant of review is not assured, that is highly likely, since all sides agree that the Court should take on the controversy, and the constitutionality of a key provision of the new law has been decided differently by federal appeals courts.
The first decision the Court will face in this historic dispute is whether to grant any of the petitions or any of the issues. The Justices have the discretion to grant all, some, or none, since none reached the Court as a mandatory appeal. (The filings in the cases can be found on the Court’s website, here.)
2302 students should take note of this case since it will help you answer the report due at the end of the class.
What's Your Number?
Put your date of birth here and you can find out where you fit among the now 7 billion people on earth.
The Republican Party in 2012 looks like the Republican Party in 2008
From the Gallup Poll:
The Republican Party in 2011 looks similar, demographically and ideologically, to the Republican Party that nominated John McCain in 2008. As a group, Republicans continue to be more likely than average to be male, white, married, and religious, and to describe their political views as "conservative."
Commentary from the National Journal:
An analysis of tens of thousands of nightly Gallup tracking-poll interviews shows that the Republican primary electorate that will choose the party’s 2012 presidential nominee may look very much like the GOP’s voter base in 2008—with some potentially important changes at the margin. In this cycle, the Gallup trends suggest, the primaries could see an increase in both the youngest and oldest participants and a rise in the share of conservative voters.
The Republican Party in 2011 looks similar, demographically and ideologically, to the Republican Party that nominated John McCain in 2008. As a group, Republicans continue to be more likely than average to be male, white, married, and religious, and to describe their political views as "conservative."
Commentary from the National Journal:
An analysis of tens of thousands of nightly Gallup tracking-poll interviews shows that the Republican primary electorate that will choose the party’s 2012 presidential nominee may look very much like the GOP’s voter base in 2008—with some potentially important changes at the margin. In this cycle, the Gallup trends suggest, the primaries could see an increase in both the youngest and oldest participants and a rise in the share of conservative voters.
Federalism and Gay Marriage
A few posts for my 2301 dual -credit class' assignment on federalism and the increasingly complex relationship between the national and state governments on gay marriage.
- A Federalist Case for Gay Marriage.
- The Federal Marriage Amendment: Unnecessary, Anti-Federalist, and Anti-Democratic.
- Marriage equality: religious freedom, federalism, and judicial ...
For additional info: click here for a graph showing changes in support for gays marriage.
- A Federalist Case for Gay Marriage.
- The Federal Marriage Amendment: Unnecessary, Anti-Federalist, and Anti-Democratic.
- Marriage equality: religious freedom, federalism, and judicial ...
For additional info: click here for a graph showing changes in support for gays marriage.
Thursday, October 27, 2011
No Double Dip?
The economy grew 2.5% in the third quarter. This is not enough to regain lost jobs, but its positive territory.
Andrew Sullivan links to useful commentary.
Andrew Sullivan links to useful commentary.
Are Patent Laws Stifling Innovation?
Some thoughts from Andrew Sullivan: Should some ideas be easy to borrow?
Income Inequality Is Hobbling the Middle Class
From the Fiscal Times, questions about income mobility in the United States. Its not what it once was, and this makes the concentrationof wealth at the top even more problemtic than it would otherwise be:
Income inequality in the U.S. has been rising for the last several decades, and with it concern about the consequences. For example, to what extent does the large flow of income into the hands of financial executives give them the power to influence Congress through campaign donations? How does this have an impact on the willingness of legislators to impose regulations that would stabilize the financial system but inhibit the ability of the financial industry to make the huge profits that fund political campaigns?
If economic mobility increased along with the increase in inequality, then this would at least partially offset the worries associated with the rising concentration of income. To see how, suppose there are two types of jobs in society. One type is desirable and well paying; the other is hard, miserable work with little compensation. Suppose also that one group in society always gets the good jobs while the other gets the bad even though most people within each group are equally qualified to do both types of work. Thus, this is a highly unequal outcome. However if there is mobility – if we prevent one group from keeping the good jobs through political power or other means and instead use a lottery at the beginning of each week to see which of the qualified workers does which job – then the random allocation of jobs over time helps to solve the inequality problem.
What has happened to mobility in the U.S.? Is it any easier to move up and down the ladder than it used to be? Unfortunately, the answer is no.
Income inequality in the U.S. has been rising for the last several decades, and with it concern about the consequences. For example, to what extent does the large flow of income into the hands of financial executives give them the power to influence Congress through campaign donations? How does this have an impact on the willingness of legislators to impose regulations that would stabilize the financial system but inhibit the ability of the financial industry to make the huge profits that fund political campaigns?
If economic mobility increased along with the increase in inequality, then this would at least partially offset the worries associated with the rising concentration of income. To see how, suppose there are two types of jobs in society. One type is desirable and well paying; the other is hard, miserable work with little compensation. Suppose also that one group in society always gets the good jobs while the other gets the bad even though most people within each group are equally qualified to do both types of work. Thus, this is a highly unequal outcome. However if there is mobility – if we prevent one group from keeping the good jobs through political power or other means and instead use a lottery at the beginning of each week to see which of the qualified workers does which job – then the random allocation of jobs over time helps to solve the inequality problem.
What has happened to mobility in the U.S.? Is it any easier to move up and down the ladder than it used to be? Unfortunately, the answer is no.
Elections in Tunisia
While Qadaffi's killing has raised questions about the political future of Libya, Tunisia - where the Arab Spring began - recently held elections.
- Democracy Wins in Tunisia.
- Trust Tunisia.
- Democracy Wins in Tunisia.
- Trust Tunisia.
Wednesday, October 26, 2011
Obama issues executive order to ease student loan burdens
More executive action circumventing Congress:
From the Washington Post.
President Obama on Wednesday announced a plan to allow college graduates to cap federal student loan repayments at 10 percent of discretionary income starting in January, two years before the cap was due to take effect under federal law.
A muted response from the Atlantic:
Of the many long-term problems the U.S. economy faces, student loans are a big one. Education costs are rising very quickly and incomes aren't. As a result, students will have to borrow more and more money to obtain university degrees and will have a tougher time paying their loans. President Obama seeks to respond to this question with an executive order in the next part of his "We Can't Wait" unilateral stimulus effort. While the president's heart may be in the right place, his effort isn't like to have much impact.
The National Journal puts the effort in context:
The Obama administration is set to announce relaxations in student loan repayments on Wednesday, a third in a series of executive orders issued as part of the “we can’t wait” campaign to boost the economy without the help of Congress.
- Some Q and A.
From the Washington Post.
President Obama on Wednesday announced a plan to allow college graduates to cap federal student loan repayments at 10 percent of discretionary income starting in January, two years before the cap was due to take effect under federal law.
A muted response from the Atlantic:
Of the many long-term problems the U.S. economy faces, student loans are a big one. Education costs are rising very quickly and incomes aren't. As a result, students will have to borrow more and more money to obtain university degrees and will have a tougher time paying their loans. President Obama seeks to respond to this question with an executive order in the next part of his "We Can't Wait" unilateral stimulus effort. While the president's heart may be in the right place, his effort isn't like to have much impact.
The National Journal puts the effort in context:
The Obama administration is set to announce relaxations in student loan repayments on Wednesday, a third in a series of executive orders issued as part of the “we can’t wait” campaign to boost the economy without the help of Congress.
- Some Q and A.
Should members of school boards not be elected?
This is useful for our current conversation about elections:
Local control and direct democracy are concepts that no doubt warm the hearts of all democracy-loving San Antonians.
They shouldn't — not when it comes to educating our children.
Local control and direct democracy are concepts that no doubt warm the hearts of all democracy-loving San Antonians.
They shouldn't — not when it comes to educating our children.
Tuesday, October 25, 2011
The Top 1% has Doubled it's Income Since 1979
From the NYT:
The top 1 percent of earners more than doubled their share of the nation’s income over the last three decades, the Congressional Budget Office said Tuesday, in a new report likely to figure prominently in the escalating political fight over how to revive the economy, create jobs and lower the federal debt.
In addition, the report said, government policy has become less redistributive since the late 1970s, doing less to reduce the concentration of income.
“The equalizing effect of federal taxes was smaller” in 2007 than in 1979, as “the composition of federal revenues shifted away from progressive income taxes to less-progressive payroll taxes,” the budget office said.
Also, it said, federal benefit payments are doing less to even out the distribution of income, as a growing share of benefits, like Social Security, goes to older Americans, regardless of their income.
The top 1 percent of earners more than doubled their share of the nation’s income over the last three decades, the Congressional Budget Office said Tuesday, in a new report likely to figure prominently in the escalating political fight over how to revive the economy, create jobs and lower the federal debt.
In addition, the report said, government policy has become less redistributive since the late 1970s, doing less to reduce the concentration of income.
“The equalizing effect of federal taxes was smaller” in 2007 than in 1979, as “the composition of federal revenues shifted away from progressive income taxes to less-progressive payroll taxes,” the budget office said.
Also, it said, federal benefit payments are doing less to even out the distribution of income, as a growing share of benefits, like Social Security, goes to older Americans, regardless of their income.
What Is The Basis For Corporate Personhood?
An interview from NPR on how corporations came to be considered "persons" under the law.
A snippet - note that the idea comes from the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment:
WITT: Well, the law has treated corporations as what some lawyers call metaphysical persons. That is, they're persons for some purposes and they're not persons for others.
BLOCK: What sorts of purposes then would apply here?
WITT: Well, for example, a corporation can be prosecuted for a crime, which is something that usually only persons can be prosecuted for. But on the other hand, corporations get rights. They get rights to contract. They can't marry or run for office or vote, but they can speak. Things like that.
BLOCK: The legal doctrine, as I understand, it goes back to a Supreme Court case. It's in the late 19th century, Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad. What was that case about essentially?
WITT: So, this is a case where the Occupy Wall Street protestors have distorted the details, but they really have it right in spirit. That was a case in which the Southern Pacific Railroad was protesting taxes that had been placed on it by California and by counties in California. And in that case, the chief justice of the United States Supreme Court, Morrison Waite, stood up in January of 1886 and said what pretty much everybody in the courthouse thought, which was that corporations were persons for the purposes of the 14th Amendment.
BLOCK: The 14th Amendment dating from right after the Civil War, the Equal Protection Clause is what we're talking about.
WITT: Yeah, the Equal Protection Clause applies to all persons. It provides that all persons have a right to equal protection under the laws. And that question wasn't controversial at the time. What mattered, really, was what happened later.
- More about the case in question: Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad.
- Corporate personhood.
A snippet - note that the idea comes from the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment:
WITT: Well, the law has treated corporations as what some lawyers call metaphysical persons. That is, they're persons for some purposes and they're not persons for others.
BLOCK: What sorts of purposes then would apply here?
WITT: Well, for example, a corporation can be prosecuted for a crime, which is something that usually only persons can be prosecuted for. But on the other hand, corporations get rights. They get rights to contract. They can't marry or run for office or vote, but they can speak. Things like that.
BLOCK: The legal doctrine, as I understand, it goes back to a Supreme Court case. It's in the late 19th century, Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad. What was that case about essentially?
WITT: So, this is a case where the Occupy Wall Street protestors have distorted the details, but they really have it right in spirit. That was a case in which the Southern Pacific Railroad was protesting taxes that had been placed on it by California and by counties in California. And in that case, the chief justice of the United States Supreme Court, Morrison Waite, stood up in January of 1886 and said what pretty much everybody in the courthouse thought, which was that corporations were persons for the purposes of the 14th Amendment.
BLOCK: The 14th Amendment dating from right after the Civil War, the Equal Protection Clause is what we're talking about.
WITT: Yeah, the Equal Protection Clause applies to all persons. It provides that all persons have a right to equal protection under the laws. And that question wasn't controversial at the time. What mattered, really, was what happened later.
- More about the case in question: Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad.
- Corporate personhood.
So Just How Irresponsible Are Baby Boomers?
There's a generational war brewing, not only between the baby boomers, who have been responsible for building up the bulk of the debt that will be handed off to their kids, but between the generations since (the X's and Millenials) over who is suffering the worst from it.
This fits our discussion of political generations when we hit public opinion in 2301.
- The War to Be the Greatest Put-Upon Generation - National - The Atlantic Wire.
- Occupy Wall Street's Age Divide.
- 'Baby boomers are very privileged human beings'
- After the boomers, it’s Generation Squeeze.
- Blame the Baby Boomers.
This fits our discussion of political generations when we hit public opinion in 2301.
- The War to Be the Greatest Put-Upon Generation - National - The Atlantic Wire.
- Occupy Wall Street's Age Divide.
- 'Baby boomers are very privileged human beings'
- After the boomers, it’s Generation Squeeze.
- Blame the Baby Boomers.
Is the Individual Mandate a Conservative Idea?
The idea apparently came from the Heritage Foundation. It was a way to guarantee health insuance, but do so through the free market.
- History of the Individual Mandate.
- History of the Individual Mandate.
Coalition Building in Israel
In 2301 we've been discussing our two-party system - and its basis on our winner take all electoral system - and multi-party systems - and their basis on proportional representation. I use Israel as an example of proportional representation in large part because the process is described so well on the Knesett's website. I mentioned the political difficulty of forming coalition governments in parliamentary democracies without much detail, so if you would like to dig further into how Israel's prime minister has been able to do so successfully, I recommend reading the following.
Leading From Behind
President Obama's approach to foreign policy has been described as "leading from behind." Here are a few stories which attempt to determine what this means:
- The Obama Doctrine: Leading From Behind.
- Leading From Behind.
- Behind the Curtain.
- Libya: A Victory for Leading From Behind?
- The Obama Doctrine: Leading From Behind.
- Leading From Behind.
- Behind the Curtain.
- Libya: A Victory for Leading From Behind?
When the king dies ....
One of the advantages of a constitutional system is a peaceful - generally - predictable stable transitioin of power. The recent death of the head of the Saudi royal family reminds us about the consequences of the alternative.
Perry Brings in Reinforcements
Perry Brings in Reinforcements.
Our governor's campaign has been faltering so there have been shake-ups in personel. More detail from Paul Burka:
- Perry shuffles campaign team
- Perry shuffles campaign team [Update]
Updates:
- Perry announces his tax plan.
- Perry Calls His Flat Tax Proposal ‘Bold Reform’
Our governor's campaign has been faltering so there have been shake-ups in personel. More detail from Paul Burka:
- Perry shuffles campaign team
- Perry shuffles campaign team [Update]
Updates:
- Perry announces his tax plan.
- Perry Calls His Flat Tax Proposal ‘Bold Reform’
Monday, October 24, 2011
Does it matter how Qaddafi was killed?
Christopher Hitchens says that it does, and the fact that he seems to have been murdered does not bode well for the future of Libya, or the possibility that it may become a constitutional republic
At the close of an obscene regime, especially one that has shown it would rather destroy society and the state than surrender power, it is natural for people to hope for something like an exorcism. It is satisfying to see the cadaver of the monster and be sure that he can’t come back. It is also reassuring to know that there is no hateful figurehead on whom some kind of “werewolf” resistance could converge in order to prolong the misery and atrocity. But Qaddafi at the time of his death was wounded and out of action and at the head of a small group of terrified riff-raff. He was unable to offer any further resistance. And all the positive results that I cited above could have been achieved by the simple expedient of taking him first to a hospital, then to a jail, and thence to the airport. Indeed, a spell in the dock would probably hugely enhance the positive impact, since those poor lost souls who still put their trust in the man could scarcely have their illusions survive the exposure to even a few hours of the madman’s gibberings in court.
- The Lynching of Qaddafi.
Will Voters Punish Republicans for Killing the Jobs Bill?
Probably not. Presidents get the blame for the economy.
A few stories about the proposed amendments to the Texas Constitution
The Forth Worth Star-Telegram makes its recommendations. They oppose 6 and 9. Proposition 6 allows money from the General Land Office to be spent rather than be invested in the Permanent School Fund. Proposition 9 makes it easier for people to have their criminal records cleared. They also recommend voting for the two propositions related to water - 2 and 8.
Representative Scott Hochberg lists pros and cons for each amendment.
Eastex News has background on Proposition 3 - which provides for more funding for student loans (more opportunity for student debt!). Here's background on Proposition 10, which would adjust the rules related to when one has to resign in order to run for public office.
Representative Scott Hochberg lists pros and cons for each amendment.
Eastex News has background on Proposition 3 - which provides for more funding for student loans (more opportunity for student debt!). Here's background on Proposition 10, which would adjust the rules related to when one has to resign in order to run for public office.
Lobbyists Swarm the Super Committee
From Politico:
Groups that are worried that the super committee - which is charged with cutting over $1 trillion from the budget (over time) - will cut funds to their clients.
Groups that are worried that the super committee - which is charged with cutting over $1 trillion from the budget (over time) - will cut funds to their clients.
Jobs Plan Stalled, Obama to Try New Economic Drive
From the NYT:
With his jobs plan stymied in Congress by Republican opposition, President Obama on Monday will begin a series of executive-branch actions to confront housing, education and other economic problems over the coming months, heralded by a new mantra: “We can’t wait” for lawmakers to act.
From the Washington Post:
The federal government on Monday announced new rules that would
allow many more struggling borrowers to refinance their mortgages at
today’s ultra-low rates, reducing monthly payments for some homeowners
and potentially providing a modest boost to the economy.
The Federal Housing Finance Agency, working with the Obama administration, said that up to 1 million “underwater” borrowers might benefit from an expanded program that targets homeowners who owe more than their properties are worth.
These two stories, in addition to a few others related to Obama efforts to address the economy despite congressional resistance. Congress has already authorized through previously passed legislation activities that might allow the president the ability to act independent of Congress.
Update: The Daily Beast - We Can't Wait for Congress: With congressional Republicans having killed his job plan, President Obama is turning to actions that don’t require their approval: he will travel to Las Vegas Monday and Denver Wednesday in order to announce executive actions to revamp housing and student-loan regulations. His message will be “we can’t wait” for lawmakers to fix the economy. Obama’s housing plan will allow homeowners to refinance their mortgages no matter how much value they have lost; the current program, originally designed to aid 9 million homeowners, reached only about 1.7 million.
With his jobs plan stymied in Congress by Republican opposition, President Obama on Monday will begin a series of executive-branch actions to confront housing, education and other economic problems over the coming months, heralded by a new mantra: “We can’t wait” for lawmakers to act.
From the Washington Post:
The Federal Housing Finance Agency, working with the Obama administration, said that up to 1 million “underwater” borrowers might benefit from an expanded program that targets homeowners who owe more than their properties are worth.
These two stories, in addition to a few others related to Obama efforts to address the economy despite congressional resistance. Congress has already authorized through previously passed legislation activities that might allow the president the ability to act independent of Congress.
Update: The Daily Beast - We Can't Wait for Congress: With congressional Republicans having killed his job plan, President Obama is turning to actions that don’t require their approval: he will travel to Las Vegas Monday and Denver Wednesday in order to announce executive actions to revamp housing and student-loan regulations. His message will be “we can’t wait” for lawmakers to fix the economy. Obama’s housing plan will allow homeowners to refinance their mortgages no matter how much value they have lost; the current program, originally designed to aid 9 million homeowners, reached only about 1.7 million.
Tensions over immigration tear away at GOP candidates - TheHill.com
2301 students will soon be reading up on the two political parties, which are best understood as being composed of coalitions of groups that tend to see eye to eye on issues, but do not always. Parties are also difficult to control - sometimes it is difficult to determine who is actually in charge of a party at a particular point in time, and who determines what the party stands for.
This story in the Hill points out the difficulty the Republican Party is facing in expanding its coalition since parts of its membership - and most of its announced presidential candidates - are anti-immigration. This doesn't make the party attractive to the Latino community.
This story in the Hill points out the difficulty the Republican Party is facing in expanding its coalition since parts of its membership - and most of its announced presidential candidates - are anti-immigration. This doesn't make the party attractive to the Latino community.
Sunday, October 23, 2011
Third Parties Don't Work
A relevant story - for this week's 2301 16 week students - from Jonathan Bernstein about the impact of third parties on elections.
Written assignment for 16 week 2302 students - Obama and the Two Presidencies Thesis
In last week's readings we briefly touched n the "two (or dual) presidencies thesis" which argues that "there are two versions of the American President: one who is concerned with domestic policy and one concerned with foreign policy." Presidents tend to have greater discretion in foreign policy than domestic policy because Congress has a greater role to play in domestic policy and can place limits on what presidents can do there than in foreign policy. The Constitution also seems to grant the president greater leeway in foreign affairs than domestic affairs.
Recent stories have hit on this issue regarding President Obama and his relative successes and failures in each domain. Some seem to confirm the idea that presidents have more success in foreign affairs than domestic affairs. Read through the following stories (feel free to look for more) and weigh in on this. How might this impact the election of 2012? Some of the stories below suggest that we might be seeing a change in the way voters look at each party. Republicans tend to have advantages on security matters and Democrats on well being issues - these might be changing.
- Governing with a Free Hand.
- The National Security Advantage.
- The Difference Between Foreign and Domestic Successes.
- Can Obama Win as a War President? - The Atlantic.
- Is Obama Still Weak?
Recent stories have hit on this issue regarding President Obama and his relative successes and failures in each domain. Some seem to confirm the idea that presidents have more success in foreign affairs than domestic affairs. Read through the following stories (feel free to look for more) and weigh in on this. How might this impact the election of 2012? Some of the stories below suggest that we might be seeing a change in the way voters look at each party. Republicans tend to have advantages on security matters and Democrats on well being issues - these might be changing.
- Governing with a Free Hand.
- The National Security Advantage.
- The Difference Between Foreign and Domestic Successes.
- Can Obama Win as a War President? - The Atlantic.
- Is Obama Still Weak?
Walmart Moms - Written Assignment for 16 Week 2301 Students
My 16 week 2301 students will be studying elections this week. As we will note, electoral rules - the winner take all system specifically - favors the development of two large political parties, and thought there is a degree of stability in the membership of each (at least in the short to mid term) certain groups can fluctuate between the two and prove to be factor that determines who wins a given election. Often these groups are given catchy names: "soccer moms" and "NASCAR dads" are two recent examples.
This year it seems to be the "Walmart moms."
Here are a few stories that describe this demographic group, explain what motivates them and how they might impact the election in 2012. I want you to read through them - and please do your own research as well - and tell me whether you think that this group may well end up determining who wins in 2012.
- Watch Out for Walmart Moms.
- Meet the New Swing Voters: Walmart Moms.
- Insight: Wal-Mart moms - The election pollsters' new favorites.
- Walmart Moms: Not giving up on Obama yet.
- Wikipedia: Swing Vote.
This year it seems to be the "Walmart moms."
Here are a few stories that describe this demographic group, explain what motivates them and how they might impact the election in 2012. I want you to read through them - and please do your own research as well - and tell me whether you think that this group may well end up determining who wins in 2012.
- Watch Out for Walmart Moms.
- Meet the New Swing Voters: Walmart Moms.
- Insight: Wal-Mart moms - The election pollsters' new favorites.
- Walmart Moms: Not giving up on Obama yet.
- Wikipedia: Swing Vote.
Saturday, October 22, 2011
The Latest on the Debt
A couple related stories:
- Believe it or not, we were on a trajectory as of 2000 to have the national debt paid paid off by 2012. But not having any debt raised its own interesting set of problems. The following link explains, click here for a once classified document detailing the concern. For example: what happens when there are no more treasury notes for the financial sectors to invest in? (commentary here, and here)
- A "seven decades long experiment" seems to be coming to an end. Do we have any idea what comes next? What will life after debt look like?
- Believe it or not, we were on a trajectory as of 2000 to have the national debt paid paid off by 2012. But not having any debt raised its own interesting set of problems. The following link explains, click here for a once classified document detailing the concern. For example: what happens when there are no more treasury notes for the financial sectors to invest in? (commentary here, and here)
- A "seven decades long experiment" seems to be coming to an end. Do we have any idea what comes next? What will life after debt look like?
Friday, October 21, 2011
Health care regulation passed
For 16 week 2302s: we discussed rulemaking this week, and here's a story about a recent rule proposed by the Obama Administration on health care:
It’s a big moment in health policy wonk land right now: the Obama administration has just published the final Accountable Care Organization rule. You can read all 694 pages of it here.
Sound dull? Let’s rephrase: The Obama administration has just released a regulation that could decide whether the American health-care system moves past the broken, expensive fee-for-service model. The idea is to encourage groups of providers to band together into “accountable care organizations” and accept a flat fee for all care related to a particular patient or condition. If they could deliver high-quality care in a cost-effective way, they could keep the money they saved. The hope is to do nothing less than change the basic business model of American medicine from making money by getting patients to spend more money to making money by saving patients money.
It’s a big moment in health policy wonk land right now: the Obama administration has just published the final Accountable Care Organization rule. You can read all 694 pages of it here.
Sound dull? Let’s rephrase: The Obama administration has just released a regulation that could decide whether the American health-care system moves past the broken, expensive fee-for-service model. The idea is to encourage groups of providers to band together into “accountable care organizations” and accept a flat fee for all care related to a particular patient or condition. If they could deliver high-quality care in a cost-effective way, they could keep the money they saved. The hope is to do nothing less than change the basic business model of American medicine from making money by getting patients to spend more money to making money by saving patients money.
What is a "natural born citizen?"
Now that birthers seem to be unable to pursue legitimate claims that President Obama was not born in the United States, they have turned their attention - ironically - to a Tea Party favorite - Florida Senator Marco Rubio. Here's the issue:
. . . the activists are not challenging whether Rubio was born in Miami. Rather, they say Rubio is ineligible under Article 2 of the Constitution, which says "no person except a natural born citizen … shall be eligible to the Office of President."
The rub is that "natural born citizen" was never defined.
The birthers rely on writings at the time of the formation of the republic and references in court cases since then to contend that "natural born" means a person born to U.S. citizens. Rubio was born in 1971 at Cedars of Lebanon Hospital, his office said, but his parents did not become citizens until 1975.
"Marco Rubio was born a Cuban citizen via his parents," screams a headline on a blog by birther Charles Kerchner, who obtained copies of the naturalization petitions by Rubio's parents in May, igniting talk that is spreading across the Internet.
Kerchner said Rubio is no different from Obama, who even if he was born in Hawaii (which he doubts) was not born to two U.S. citizens. Obama's father was a Kenyan national. The birthers say Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, whose parents are from India and were not citizens at the time of his birth, is also unqualified.
. . . the activists are not challenging whether Rubio was born in Miami. Rather, they say Rubio is ineligible under Article 2 of the Constitution, which says "no person except a natural born citizen … shall be eligible to the Office of President."
The rub is that "natural born citizen" was never defined.
The birthers rely on writings at the time of the formation of the republic and references in court cases since then to contend that "natural born" means a person born to U.S. citizens. Rubio was born in 1971 at Cedars of Lebanon Hospital, his office said, but his parents did not become citizens until 1975.
"Marco Rubio was born a Cuban citizen via his parents," screams a headline on a blog by birther Charles Kerchner, who obtained copies of the naturalization petitions by Rubio's parents in May, igniting talk that is spreading across the Internet.
Kerchner said Rubio is no different from Obama, who even if he was born in Hawaii (which he doubts) was not born to two U.S. citizens. Obama's father was a Kenyan national. The birthers say Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, whose parents are from India and were not citizens at the time of his birth, is also unqualified.
Thursday, October 20, 2011
Why is the top 1% so powerful?
They are the ones who contribute to lobbyists:
If you want to understand how the top 1 percent have accumulated such power in American politics, look no further than Washington’s K Street lobbying corridor. Wall Street has long been the dominant player in the capital. “The banks,” Senator Dick Durbin said in 2009, “are still the most powerful lobby on Capitol Hill. And they frankly own the place.”
The financial sector has spent more money on campaign contributions and lobbying than any other sector of the economy—$4.6 billion on lobbying since 1998, according to Open Secrets. This year, commercial banks and securities and investment firms have spent over $82 million on lobbying, employing over 1,000 lobbyists.
If you want to understand how the top 1 percent have accumulated such power in American politics, look no further than Washington’s K Street lobbying corridor. Wall Street has long been the dominant player in the capital. “The banks,” Senator Dick Durbin said in 2009, “are still the most powerful lobby on Capitol Hill. And they frankly own the place.”
The financial sector has spent more money on campaign contributions and lobbying than any other sector of the economy—$4.6 billion on lobbying since 1998, according to Open Secrets. This year, commercial banks and securities and investment firms have spent over $82 million on lobbying, employing over 1,000 lobbyists.
NGDP targeting
Something the Fed is considering. It would focus their actions on ensuring a level of GDP growth that would lead to full(er) employment.
Texas Infrastructure Now wants you to vote for Proposition 2
Texas Infrastructure Now was established by the Associated General Contractors of Texas - an interest group - to promote infrastructure development. I'm they'd like the chance to build some of that infrastructure.
They are heavily promoting Proposition 2, which authorizes up to $6 billion for water development projects.
- Links from the Texas Water Development Board.
They are heavily promoting Proposition 2, which authorizes up to $6 billion for water development projects.
- Links from the Texas Water Development Board.
Cain 28% Romney 21% Paul 10%
Poll results are in from Iowa, where the first primary will be held. People are still trying to figure out Cain's support. Here's a graphical analysis of the impact of Cain's 999 tax plan, plus suggestions for improvement.
Election Matters: When Obama Should Start to Worry
From the Gallup Poll: Using past polls as a guide, February.
Still too early to make predictions, he still leads Romney and other Republicans in the polls - but he lags behind a "generic" Republican.
Still too early to make predictions, he still leads Romney and other Republicans in the polls - but he lags behind a "generic" Republican.
Why are the self employed largely ingnored in jobs bills?
From Democracy Journal. Perhaps it has to do with their political weakness. Its an unfortunate, but readily understood story. People do not get support because they do beneficial things, but because they connected:
As the National Bureau of Economic Research and the Kauffman Foundation have recently reported, businesses under one-year old—startups—have created an average of three million new jobs each year for 30 years, more than the net job creation of the whole economy. A big proportion of those jobs are by self-employed entrepreneurs who don’t have any employees. Each year some 22 million Americans file Schedule C to report self-employment income, two million of them for the first time. Half of these filers report family adjusted gross income of less than $50,000.
And yet, despite contributing millions of jobs to the U.S. economy, such businesses are all but ignored by policy-makers. They have no associations or lobbies. They are largely left out of the agenda of the President’s Start-up program, which focuses only on rapidly growing, often older firms, which can take venture capital investment and pay handsome returns. Small business groups focus on the agendas of small firms while the Chamber of Commerce and others focus largely on the perceived needs of big businesses. States still focus on luring large, established firms.
As the National Bureau of Economic Research and the Kauffman Foundation have recently reported, businesses under one-year old—startups—have created an average of three million new jobs each year for 30 years, more than the net job creation of the whole economy. A big proportion of those jobs are by self-employed entrepreneurs who don’t have any employees. Each year some 22 million Americans file Schedule C to report self-employment income, two million of them for the first time. Half of these filers report family adjusted gross income of less than $50,000.
And yet, despite contributing millions of jobs to the U.S. economy, such businesses are all but ignored by policy-makers. They have no associations or lobbies. They are largely left out of the agenda of the President’s Start-up program, which focuses only on rapidly growing, often older firms, which can take venture capital investment and pay handsome returns. Small business groups focus on the agendas of small firms while the Chamber of Commerce and others focus largely on the perceived needs of big businesses. States still focus on luring large, established firms.
Ezra Klein: Where Are the Republican Heavyweights?
Other than Romney - and he's a bit of a stretch - no big name Republican is running for the nomination. Why?
Tuesday, October 18, 2011
Regarding the current state of the Republican Party
For 2301's upcoming discussion of elections and parties. The following stories try to come to terms with the division within the party of the conservative ideologues and the party "establishment."
- Does anyone have a grip on the GOP?
- Why Mitt Romney is not a moderate.
- Is Mitt Romney the New Nelson Rockefeller?
- Does anyone have a grip on the GOP?
- Why Mitt Romney is not a moderate.
- Is Mitt Romney the New Nelson Rockefeller?
A Geography Lesson
The author's purpose here is to question whether the Tea Party will have an ongoing influence across the U.S. but his article touches on cultural differences within the nation. I had some of my students write about what the nation might look like had the U.S. Constitution not been ratified, and I think the map he assembles is as good a guess as any about what North American might look like had it not.
Is gender segregation in schools a good idea? Is it legal?
An interesting debate in the NYT: Single Sex Schools: Separate but Equal?
The Supreme Court questions diversity
From the New York Times, a report on the Supreme Court's further skeptical attitude towards diversity as a goal for college entrance. 2301 students should consider this story in light of our dicusssion of civil rights, for 2302 students this is a look ahead of the judiciary:
Diversity is the last man standing, the sole remaining legal justification for racial preferences in deciding who can study at public universities. Should the Supreme Court disavow it, the student body at the University of Texas and many other public colleges and universities would almost instantly become whiter and more Asian, and less black and Hispanic.
A judicial retreat from diversity would be deeply symbolic, too. The term — a gauzy, unobjectionable way to talk about the combustible topic of race — has had a remarkable run. If the diversity rationale falls apart in university admissions, it could start to test the societal commitment to it in other arenas, notably private hiring and promotion.
Diversity is the last man standing, the sole remaining legal justification for racial preferences in deciding who can study at public universities. Should the Supreme Court disavow it, the student body at the University of Texas and many other public colleges and universities would almost instantly become whiter and more Asian, and less black and Hispanic.
A judicial retreat from diversity would be deeply symbolic, too. The term — a gauzy, unobjectionable way to talk about the combustible topic of race — has had a remarkable run. If the diversity rationale falls apart in university admissions, it could start to test the societal commitment to it in other arenas, notably private hiring and promotion.
Monday, October 17, 2011
Texas Constitutional Amendments 2011
We need to go over these soon. November 8 there will be an election for ten proposed amendments to the Texas Constitution. Click here for a link to the Texas Legislative Reference Library.
Also: - votexas.org.
Also: - votexas.org.
This Week's Written Assignments foir 16 Week Classes
If you haven't noticed already, I want you to give me a preliminary report on the paper due at the end of the semester. This also serves as a reminder that, yes, you have a small paper due at the end of the semester.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)