Is the Military-Industrial Complex Invincible?

Apparently it is, despite warnings from Dwight Eisenhower:


Today we are living Ike’s nightmare.  Defense spending is not just one of the most sacrosanct parts of the budget but also one of the largest and most inscrutable. Adjusting for inflation, military spending has grown for an unprecedented 13 consecutive years and is now higher than at any time since World War II. Even excluding war costs, the military baseline budget has grown by about 50 percent during the last decade.

Yet the faintest suggestion of a plan to reduce the rate of the defense budget’s growth inevitably triggers dire warnings that Americans will soon be speaking Russian, Chinese, Arabic, or the mother tongue of whoever is deemed the most powerful adversary of the moment.

This is a lesson in the difficulty of shrinking spending in the US.

For information about global spending on the military click here.

Just in case you didn't get enough of the Philip's Curve

My 2302s had to field a question about the Philip's Curve on the past assessment so I couldn't pass up this very rare example of the Philip's Curve's mention in a prominent magazine.

Happy Presidents' Day!

Originally established to celebrate Washington and Lincoln, its been expanded to be a somewhat generic observance of Presidents. Its tricky figuring out when Washington was really born because it was prior to the adoption of the Georgian calendar, so its was February 11th, which now falls on February 22nd. Lincoln was born on February 12 (on the same day - the actual day and year - Charles Darwin was born).

Since 1971 these birthday's have been celebrated on the third Monday of February following the passage of the Uniform Monday Holiday Act.

- Background from about.com and wikipedia.

Constitutional historian Akhil Reed Amar offers some general comments about the Presidency.

Regarding the "political intelligence industry "

I want to highlight a separate quote from the story on the political intelligence industry linked to below since it makes a separate point about the changing role of the media given the online environment and changes in the way people use the news and in how it is gathered:

As journalism and the habit of reading decline, it seems entirely possible that political intelligence will develop into a billion-dollar industry. People will still need information about government affairs, after all. But this information may become a luxury commodity for the very rich rather than something ordinary citizens consume by reading newspapers and magazines or listening to the radio or watching the evening news. Demand for all these mediums has dwindled, and the rise of the Internet doesn’t appear to have taken up the slack. Politicians, meanwhile, who after all have limited time on their hands, may increasingly wonder why they should spend any of it talking to a mere reporter when they can talk instead to a political intelligence consultant who just might reward the favor with a fat campaign contribution.

No written assignments for week 6

Either catch up, take a break or get working on your written report.

The Payroll Tax Cut and the Stock Act

Staying in touch with Congress:

- 8 Things You Didn’t Know about Payroll Tax-Cut Deal.


- Louise Slaughter, Tim Walz Press for STOCK Act Conference Committee.

A hang up with the STOCK Act is whether it will require "political intelligence consultants" to register in the same way lobbyists do. House Republicans want to remove these provisions, the bill's authors do not.

If you, like me, have no real idea what the political intelligence business industry is, here's background.

It turns out that the political intelligence industry is something that sprang up as a way to convey inside information to hedge funds and mutual funds. Although it’s illegal to trade on the basis of inside information about public companies, it’s perfectly legal, in most instances, to trade on the basis of inside information about stuff the government does. So these hedge funds and mutual funds (and, to a lesser extent, other Wall Street investors) hire “expert network” companies like Gerson Lehrman, Coleman Research Group, Inc., and Public Insight LP to tell them the latest on what Washington will or won’t do, and when. The expert network firms operate worldwide collecting all kinds of information for investors, but lately they’ve been ramping up their activities in Washington.

William Henry Harrison

OK, so a slept a little late and watched some of CBS This Morning in bed, but they had this great story on William Henry Harrison (the guy who was president for 30 days) and pointed out that the 1840 presidential race was the first "modern" race.

As 2302s begin discussing the presidency, and 2301s gear up for a discussion elections, it might be worth noting that presidential races are the only national political races in the US. It may well be that these races were responsible for helping the nation bond.

On Presidents and Foxes and Hedgehogs

What kind of person makes the best president? Or at least is the kind of president voters tend to prefer? Someone who is pretty good at a lot of things, or has one big idea? The idea stems from a popular essay written by the philosopher Isaiah Berlin who argued that writers and thinkers could be divided into two categories: "hedgehogs, who view the world through the lens of a single defining idea (examples given include Plato, Lucretius, Dante, Pascal, Hegel, Dostoevsky, Nietzsche, Ibsen, and Proust) and foxes who draw on a wide variety of experiences and for whom the world cannot be boiled down to a single idea (examples given include Herodotus, Aristotle, Erasmus, Shakespeare, Montaigne, Molière, Goethe, Pushkin, Balzac, Joyce, Anderson)."


Andrew Sullivan points to a couple of articles that apply this thought to the presidential race (here is an application of it to political pundits). Liel Leibovitz argues that "What we want is a decently intelligent president with one solid idea. Or, to borrow Isaiah Berlin’s well-known distinction, what we want is not a fox but a hedgehog." She suggests that Rick Santorum comes closest to being this type of candidate (Obama and Romney are both foxes in her opinion).

"In word and deed, he is largely committed to the idea that most Americans live in communities, that they’ve seen these communities battered badly by deregulation, global trade, and the other angry angels of the free market, and that no policy or political statement matters unless it’s directly geared toward restoring a sense of mutual responsibility and collective well-being."

She offers the following intruguing thought: "Foxes are rational animals, and they often offer good solutions to all sorts of problems. But voters aren’t rational animals, which is why they often fail to see or support these solutions. This is why someone like Santorum resonates much better than someone like Mitt Romney: Beyond his wealth and his android-like lack of social grace, Romney is a fox through and through, a politician who takes pride in attacking issues individually and logically. That’s a great approach for a venture capitalist, a governor, a law professor. It’s a terrible approach for a president. Great presidents tend to be hedgehogs."

Daniel Drezner thinks Ron Paul - and his relentless focus on "foreign policy/national security/civil liberties" - is the hedgehog in the race: "He knows One Big Thing and uses it to construct his worldview."

But Drezner doesn't seem to accept Leibovitz' belief that great president tend to be hedgehogs. The unwillingness to compromise - which is key to being a hedgehog - undermines their ability to be effective presidents:

"I would posit that only someone who fanatically accepted this entire worldview would have been capable of inspiring the Ron Paul movement.  Only those leaders with sufficient levels of ideological zeal to never compromise, never bend on principle, until they eventually reach a position of power are able to foment revolution.    
. . . The great presidents -- Washington, Lincoln, FDR -- knew the when to compromise and when to stand firm, when to lead public opinion and when to follow it. They were, in other words, great politicians. The presidents who simply knew they were right on everything and resisted compromise -- Jackson, Wilson, Bush 43 -- tended towards the disastrous. Paul would be part of the latter group.


These are worth a good discussion.

This is going to get good

From the Huffington Post: Harry Reid Will Ask Obama To Recess Appoint All Nominees If GOP Delays Continue.

Will higher gas prices become an election issue?

The NYT reports that Republicans are trying to ensure that it will and Obama's political advisers are trying to head it off.

. . . talking points from the Republican National Committee that go out to conservative commentators every Friday often include rising gas prices among the “Top Line Messaging” for the week. A recent “Pundit Prep” document cited the national debt, unemployment and the price of gas as the three best ways to define the “Obama economy.”

The president’s political advisers are bracing for battle as they envision the price of gas rising steadily through the summer, as it usually does. As the president’s motorcade whisked him through scenic Orange County on Thursday on the way to a California fund-raiser, one sign held by a protester read, “Gas prices up 91 percent under Obama.”

Aides say they know the attacks are inevitable. But they also say they are prepared to respond forcefully with a defense of the president’s energy policies and a critique of the Republican line.
In related news, CNN reports that we've been exporting gasoline at record rates.

Republicanism and Gay Marriage

2301 students ought to read the following post by Andrew Sullivan, who has been an advocate for gay marriage since the 1990s. He details the evolving argument regarding what process ought to be used to establish such a right. If you read Federalist #10, and have understood the tension that exists between popular sovreignty and individual rights, the argument should seem familiar. Are rights best established in the courts, the legislature, or by the people in popular referenda? Each has their relative merits and demerits.

He points to the recent debates in the legislatures of Washington and New Jersey as an example of what can happen in the legislative branch that does not necessarily happen in the general public, and suggests that this was part of the reason we have a republic, not a pure democracy. Give it a read.

2301s ought to think about this in terms of the subject of the week 2 question regarding what unalienable rights might exist beyond the three listed in the Declaration of independence and how we might be able to determine what they are. The process used to determine this question may be more important than the substantive question of what these rights might end up being.

1996, the year the Texas Republican Party turned hard right

Paul Burka - from Texas Monthly - explains what happened that year and how. The establishment Republican - and he points out the Bush's and Senator Hutchison specifically, were nudged out of authotitative positions within the state party in favor of social conservatives. It all went down in the 1996 Republican Convention when the governor was no longer designated as the party's chair. State party chair Tom Pauken - who was far more socially conservative than Bush - became chair instead. And the shift in power ensued.

The US tax system might be progressive, but it is not redistributive

That's the conclusion of this study.

A peek inside the Obama campaign: Narwhal

It involves processing - intelligently - a lot of data.

The campaign knew very little about the 13 million people who had registered for online updates, not even their age or gender or party registration. Without the ability to filter its recipients based on those criteria, the campaign stuck to safe topics for email blasts and reserved its sharp-edged messages for individual delivery by direct mail or phone call. In those channels, the campaign could be certain of the political identities of those it was reaching, because the recipients had been profiled based on hundreds of personal characteristics—enough to guarantee that each message was aimed at a receptive audience.

This year, however, as part of a project code-named Narwhal, Obama’s team is working to link once completely separate repositories of information so that every fact gathered about a voter is available to every arm of the campaign. Such information-sharing would allow the person who crafts a provocative email about contraception to send it only to women with whom canvassers have personally discussed reproductive views or whom data-mining targeters have pinpointed as likely to be friendly to Obama’s views on the issue.

As with SuperPACs, its a brave new world out there.

Oversight hearing held on contraception mandate

Another example for 2302 as we wrap up our discussion of the legislature. The House Committee on Oversight and Reform held the hearings, the NYT provides details.

Click here for documents related to the hearings.

Voter in primaries are not the same as those who vote in the general election

That sounds obvious, but Timothy Egan gives us numbers to back that claims up. He points out that the voters that have weighed in on the Republican candidates so far in the states that have held caucuses and primaries are far whiter, older and more Christian that the general population.

Brazoria County Regional Water Study

I can't find a "State of Brazoria County Address" but here's a story about efforts to ensure that Brazoria County continues to have adequate levels of water. The Brazoria Water Authority has authorized the creation of a study - the Brazoria County Regional Water Study - to figure out how to do so. The drought and development further north are draining sources that were once reliable. 

The State of Harris County

County Judge Ed Emmett says it's good.

A Perfect Candidate

Here's a recommendation for a 1996 documentary about the 1994 Senate race between Oliver North and Chuck Robb including a great short video clip with a - temporarily - introspective campaign consultant.

The FDA and counterfeit drugs

To prep 2302 for our exploration of the executive branch next week, a radio story about the Food and Drug Administration's ability - given resources allocated to it - to regulate the sale of drugs, including the ability to detect a remove from the market - counterfeit drug. I'm not absolutely certain, but FDA funding is likely discretionary, so it can be cut at any time. The question is whether doing so is beneficial.

Pipelines and eminent domain in Texas: Is a pipeline a "public use" under the Texas Constitution?

Here's controversy over the meaning of constitutional terminology - it can happen in Texas too.

Property owners in the state are complaining about  pipelines forcibly constructed over their land. The pipeline companies argue that doing so is legal in the same sense that it would be legal to construct a highway. The highway allows for "public use" of the land and fits within the limits set in both the Texas and US Constitutions. But is a pipeline a public use? Property owners argue that the state is allowing the companies access to their land for a public benefit, which is not allowed under either Constitution.

In August the Texas Supreme Court ruled against Denbury Resources saying that their proposed pipeline was not a public use. Pipeline companies are pushing back however.

Presidential Approval Matters

Ezra Klein thinks Congressional Republican willingness to compromise with Obama on the payroll tax extension is largely due to his rising approval rating, which in turn is largely due to recent improvements in the economy. Obama has gone from "seeking compromise to welcoming confrontation."

For 2302, this fits subject matter we will hit very soon as we begin to discuss the factors which influence presidential power. From Klein's post:

Over the last few days . . . something remarkable happened: The negotiations over the payroll tax cut, the unemployment-insurance benefits, and the Medicare doc fix moved from deadlock to deal. And it didn't happen at the last minute, or because the markets were about to tumble into the abyss. It happened because Republicans coolly assessed the politics and decided they were better off compromising with the Democrats than taking this one to the edge.

Would this deal have happened if the president's numbers were weaker, if the economy was in worse shape, and if the Republican primary was producing a more able set of champions? Perhaps. But perhaps not. Rather, it looks as if the president's strengthened position and his clear appetite for further conflict led Republicans to conclude that compromise might serve them better in this case.

Conference committee reaches deal to extend payroll taxcut; Rank and File House Republicans may vote against it

From the NYT:

After fighting until the very final hour over how to pay for parts of a $150 billion plan that would also extend unemployment benefits and prevent a pay cut for doctors who accept Medicare, leaders of both parties put together a bill that the majority of the committee could support.

. . . While the committee’s work has the blessing of House Republican leadership, many rank-and-file Republicans, while cheered by a reduction in unemployment benefits and proposed erosion of the health care law, were nonetheless leaning against the deal.

“They are framing it as a middle-class tax cut even though this is a significant change to how Social Security has traditionally been treated,” said Representative Jeff Fortenberry, Republican of Nebraska, who plans to oppose the measure. “The payroll tax keeps Americans attentive to the fact that they put a little bit aside each check for Social Security. That connection is now gone.”

More detail about the agreement here.

From Wonkbook, questions about whether the payroll tax cut will actually stimulate the economy:

Since these measures were all in place last year, economists say, they won’t actually jolt the U.S. economy any further, but they will avoid additional drag. Mark Zandi of Moody’s Analytics has estimated that failing to reach a deal would’ve slowed the economy down by about 0.9 percentage points. (By contrast, President Obama’s proposed $447 billion American Jobs would’ve injected additional money into the economy, but that’s not on the table.)

Torcaso v. Watkins

Some 2301 students have noted in last week's written assignment that the Texas Bill of Rights contains a clause that says: No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office, or public trust, in this State; nor shall any one be excluded from holding office on account of his religious sentiments, provided he acknowledge the existence of a Supreme Being.
This makes it clear that atheists cannot hold public office in the state, and is very different than language in the US Constitution that preculdes such limitations.

This clause was negated however in the 1961 court case Torcaso v. Watkins, which argued that it violated the establishment clause which, they argued, protects people from being compeled to profess a belief in a church or religion. It was also held that the requirement violated the Constitution's mandate that religious tests not be used as a qualification to hold office.

This applied not only to Texas, but to other state constitutions that had similar clauses that allowed for discrimination against atheists.

Can a single theory adequately describe the Constitution?

I really like this post from Balkinization, and strongly recommend both 2301 and 2302 students to read it. The author - J. Harvie Wilkinson III - is a judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.

He argues that attempts to develop legal theories to succinctly encapsulate the meaning and intent of the Constitution fall short. Why?

Perhaps it is because the Constitution is not at bottom an abstraction. It is by nature less amenable to theory than to the experience that ground-level governance represents. Moreover, the Constitution was designed to resist answers and incorporate tensions rather than yield its secrets to a single or comprehensive viewpoint. The problem is that cosmic constitutional theories can falsely suggest simple answers to intractable problems, thereby abetting judicial hubris. The theories supply ingredients of appropriate constitutional interpretation, but only ingredients. To see them as answers is to succumb to the notion that a document as complex as the Constitution can somehow be bottled and pasteurized.


If I understand this correctly, the pragmatic nature of the Constitution makes it resistant to abstract principle. Yes it may be argued that abstract principles exist in the document, but they are complex. One set may not necessarily compliment another. he further argues that the attempt to do so makes the preservation of democratic liberty difficult.

The grand quest of the theorists has left restraint by the wayside and placed the inalienable right of Americans to self-governance at unprecedented risk. The increasing willingness of leading thinkers in the law to claim that their theory of the Constitution provides the answers has made citizens all the more willing to look to the courts to resolve the great social controversies of our time. In turn, the courts’ eagerness to resolve such debates has cast them in a decidedly political light, making judicial selections and confirmation battles all the more disputatious. This state of affairs is exactly backwards. In a democracy, courts protect individual rights and personal liberties, but they are not, and should not be, the primary agents of social change. It is the people at the ballot box who should decide, not the people wearing black robes—the many, not the few.
He also, very helpfully (for me at least), listed dominant theories of interpretation and the authors responsible for developing them - I'll add these to my power points where appropriate:

living constitutionalism: William Brennan
originalism: Robert Bork
political process theory: John Hart Ely
textualism: Hugo Black
minimalism: Cass Sunstein
cost-benefit pragmatism: Richard Posner
active liberty: Stephen Breyer
moral readings: Ronald Dworkin

Commentary on the CBO's economic forecast

Two items from the the Bipartisan Policy Center, each comments on the CBO's recently released budget and economci forecast:

1 - It’s That Time of Year Again!


2 - The Twelve Takeaways from CBO’s 2012 Budget and Economic Outlook

Obama reassembling the coalition that won him the 2008 election

From the Atlantic, a demographic by demographic comparison of where Obama is now versus 2008. This may seem cynical, but its worth considering if there is an overlap between the policies he is promoting now and the groups whose support he need to be re-elected.

An insurer with a large army

That's Ezra Klein's description of the federal government based on the amount of the budget that is devoted to Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and Defense.

The Rise and Fall of Miranda

A useful video for my 2301s to watch prior to an upcoming discussion of the Bill of Rights. Miranda Warnings have been part of law enforcement since the 1960s, but for how much longer?

- Watch here.

Senators attempt to tack amendment limiting contraception coverage to transportation bill

An example of what can happen on the floor of the Senate due to its loose procedural rules. Republican opponents of Obama's recent decision to require health insurance companies to provide birth control coverage - even if the employees work for institutions affiliated with the Catholic Church - has led proposals to insert language allowing for employees to opt out of such coverage id they have moral objections to it.

Its called the Blunt Amendment after its sponsor - Senator Roy Blunt R-Missouri.

See the text here.

Here's a suggestion that Obama has been hoping for this fight for some time in order to drive a wedge within the Republican Party. For 2301s this fits the theme of this weeks class. How do issues divide factions - especially majority factions - into smaller groups? There are also suggestions that this has been intended to give Santorum an issue he can use to rally his supporters against Romney. Romney proposed similar rules while governors of Massachusetts.

Assuming this issue has legs, we ought to watch how it is spun, some see it as a religious liberty issue (which is good for Republicans) and others see it as a women's health / birth control issue (which is good for Democrats).

Maybe "necessary" but is it "proper?"

An interesting take on the constitutionality of the individual mandate. Some argue that it is constitutional under the necessary and proper clause, but here's an argument that it is not "proper." The brief prepared by the authors will join other amicus briefs presented to the Supreme Court for consideration in the upcoming challenge to the health care law.

Catching up with the election

1 - Santorum is now leading national polls.

2 - There's more talk of a brokered convention.

A few items from The Hill

For 2302, as we begin to wind up our discussion of the legislature, soem random stories regarding Congress this week:

- GOP lawmakers to grill Panetta over cuts to Pentagon budget: The Defense Secretary and the Joint Chiefs Chair wil lbe questioned by committees in the House and Senate. Consider this an example of oversight.

- Republicans retreat on payroll tax cut: While a conference committee meets to reconcile differences between the House and Senate plans regarding the extension of the payroll tax cut, House Republicans are offering to accept the extension without requiring the costs to be offset elsewhere. They want to focus simply on that issue without dealing with extensions of unemployment insurance and the doc fix, which had been part of the original bill.


- Democrats split on handling Iran threat: Democratic Senators are split on how to deal with the threat posed by Iran's nuclear program.

- GOP revives pipeline push in highway bill: Republicans are hoping to revive the stalled Keystone pipeline project by insertign language green lighting it in transportation bills beign considered.

A report for the CPPP: How to Fill the Hole in the Texas Revenue System

In 2302 we will be spending most of our time on the US Budget. Currently we are at some midpoint in the budget past past year by the Texas Legislature, but a study by the Center for Public Policy Priorities criticizes changes made in Texas' tax code in 2006, arguing that it has created a structural deficit in the state which will make it difficult for the state to meet it obligations, especially in education.

In brief, caps were placed on property taxes and the lost revenue was to made up by a new franchise tax. The study suggests that the new tax has not made up the revenue lost from the property taxes, and schools are bearing the brunt of the loss.

- How to Fill the Hole in the Texas Revenue System.

A Contraception Trap?

Andrew Sullivan thinks that  President Obama issued the rule on contraception last week to goad opponents to position themselves against birth control which he may be able to use as a wedge issue in the upcoming election.

CBO Report: The Budget and Economic Outlook: Fiscal Years 2012 to 2022

As promised in today's 2302 classes: the CBO report on the Budget and Economic Outlook: Fiscal Years 2012 to 2022.

This kicks off Congress' part of the budgeting process.

The Fiscal Year 2013 Budget

President Obama introduced his budget to Congress today. Here's a stories related to it:

- WaPo: Read the document here.
- NYT: Obama Uses Budget to Set Election-Year  Priorities.
- WaPo: Five things to watch in the Budget.
- WaPo: Two comparisons with current policy and Paul Ryan's plan. Taxes and Spending.
- WaPo: Winners and losers.

The Comstock Act

While preparing a post on the recent controversy about mandating coverage of contraception I ran across mention of the 1873 Comstock Act which made it illegal to, among other things, send contraceptive devices through the mail. Looks like we've been dealing with issues for some time.

2301s just completed work on the postal clause and while it may seem that a law like this may be problematic on federalism grounds since it involves a police power - regulating morals - which is purely a state affair, it does (or did) so by regulating the ability of devices to be sent through the mail. That makes it constitutional, but its a bit slippery nevertheless.

5 - Written Assignment GOVT 2301 Spring Semester

This week we look at the principle of republicanism, and how Madison argues in favor of it in Federalist #10. If you read Federalist #10 closely enough you'll notice that it argues that majorities can be broken apart by issues that divide them. Madison was worried that the majority of non-property owners would violate the rights of the minority of property owners, and that the democratic process would make that easy to do.

I want you to apply that principle by looking at what we are learning about the nature of the current Republican Party throughout the electoral process so far. As with the Democratic Party, Republicans have internal divisions, many are coming to light as the various candidates reveal them by appealing to libertarians, neo-conservatives, or social conservatives, or other groups. Democrats hope that these divisions will split the party and make the eventual nominee uncompetitive in November, but it is far too early to determine if that is likely to occur.

For now I want you to catch up on the campaigns of the remaining Republican presidential candidates and discuss what their relative successes tell us about the major divisions within the party. Comment on whether these divisions are sever enough to cause the party major problems in November.  

5 - Written Assignment GOVT 2302 Spring Semester

Just in time for our discussion of budgeting, President Obama is releasing his Fiscal Year 2012 budget to Congress, which they will consider according to a calendar we will review this week.

Click here for the document.

Since it is guaranteed to be heavily debated, its appropriate for us to look at the nature of that debate this week - or at least the early stages of it. So this week I want you to review the debate on either side of it - the partisan/ideological debate primarily - and outline it. Please give em your sources.

The Line Item Veto is revived

A long standing goal of fiscal conservatives is to give presidents line item veto authority. This allows them to strike spending items from appropriations bills. They can do this and not feel the heat because they serve a national constituency. Members of Congress tend to be defeated when they do these things because their constituents tend to benefit from these projects and can easily ficus their rage on their House members and to a lesser - but still real - extent to their Senators. Their impact on presidential races is minuscule.

In the 1990s, Congress passed a law allowing the president to strike items from an appropriations bill. Clinton did so, and many stuck. But lawsuits followed from those affected by the cuts and when the case reached the Supreme Court, they decided that the law violated the checks and balances by giving the the president legislative power and interfering with Congress' power of the purse. The presentment clause in the Article One Section Seven, is interpreted to mean that the president must ether sign or veto the entire bill placed before him, not pick and choose.

The House is trying again though and this week passed the Expedited Legislative Line-Item Veto and Rescissions Act of 2011 (HR 3521). See GovTrack's page on it here. They are attempting to overcome the objections made by the court in the previous attempt by making a significant modification to the process.

From USA Today: Supporters say the bill has been written to meet constitutional standards. They say that while the president can propose items for rescission, or elimination, Congress must vote on the revised spending package and then the president must sign what is in effect a new bill.
The Senate has yet to consider the bill. As my 2302s begin to look at the executive branch soon, its worth pointing out that this seems to be another effort on the part of the legislature - at least indirectly - to minimize its powers and expand those of the executive. They are willingly giving up their complete control of the appropriations process and granting presidents the ability - effectively - to edit their work

In an excellent overview in The Monkey Cage, a commentator says its not about giving up power, but instead about "blame avoidance." If the president has this power, then the president can be blamed for runaway spending, not Congress: Giving just enough responsibility to the president to make it seem the deficit is his problem – without enough responsibility to actually reduce the deficit – becomes an attractive option.


Some additional links:
- A statement from Paul Ryan, House Budget Chair.
- A similar statement from the Ranking Democrat on the committee.

Assessment 3 Retakes

If you've noticed, I reopened the week 3 assessments so can take them again. The grades were pretty low across the board so I'd like to see some improvement. I wont make a habit of doing this, by the way.

Foster Friess

A few posts back I mentioned that casino owner Sheldon Anderson has pumped considerable cash into Newt Gingrich's campaign and may have been single-handedly responsible for his success in South Carolina. Now comes word that a wealthy investor - Foster Friess - did the same trick for Rick Santorum.

More indications that the world of campaigning has changed utterly in the wake of Citizens United.

Justice Department announces mortgage relief plan

The housing bust still has an impact on both the housing market and the millions of people who owe more money on their houses than they are now worth. Some of this has been due to abuses by lenders and five have agreed to provide funds to assist those still trapped by the crunch. More are expected to follow suit.

From the NYT:

After months of painstaking talks, government authorities and five of the nation’s biggest banks have agreed to a $26 billion settlement that could provide relief to nearly two million current and former American homeowners harmed by the bursting of the housing bubble, state and federal officials said in Washington on Thursday. 


. . . Under the plan, federal officials said, about $5 billion would be cash payments to states and federal authorities, $17 billion would be earmarked for homeowner relief, roughly $3 billion would go for refinancing and a final $1 billion would be paid to the Federal Housing Administration. If nine other major mortgage servicers join the pact, a possibility that is now under discussion with the government, the total package could rise to $30 billion.

More people commit suicide when a Republican is in the White House?

Apparently. The red indicates that a Republican is president, the blue indicates a Democrat.

House Staff Retention Rates

For grins, here's a study about who in the House keeps their staff and who does not.

Will Republicans in the House cause problems for Mitt Romney

Jonathan Bernstein thinks so. He points to the 50 or so members of the Tea Party Caucus who are unwilling to compromise on measures that the public supports - preserving Medicare and extending payroll tax cuts and unemployment insurance. Opposition to these programs proved problematic for them last year, and a refusal to seek the middle ground on these issues could force Romney's hand. Does he support the House members and risk upsetting the Tea Party, or does he side with them and risk upsetting a large chunk of the electorate?

Do tax cuts pay for themselves?

From a link in the previous story, the answer is no.

Pro-Growth Budgeting Act of 2012

Here's a topic that bridges this week's look at bill making and next week's look at the budgeting. Bruce Bartlett analyzes a bill passed by the House Feb 3 which will impact the ability of the Congressional Budgetary Office and the Joint Committee on Taxation to accurately estimate the revenues as well as the impact that tax cuts have on the economy. Bartlett is critical of the effort and is concerned that it inserts a political element into what ought to be a neutral, objective process.

Republicans don’t really care about accurate revenue estimates; they just want them to show that tax cuts pay for themselves, so they can pass more of them without constraint. As my fellow Economix contributor Simon Johnson has noted, the corruption of the agencies that produce budget data is a crucial cause of Europe’s debt crisis.

Jobs v. Culture in the 2012 election

Here two articles suggesting that Mitt Romney's defeat yesterday in three states to Rick Santorum might indicate a shift - even if it is a temporary one - in the narrative defining this election.

- Forget Jobs.
- Minnesota, Missouri and Colorado results: panel verdict.

The election has been all about the economy recently, but the jobs report released last week, which showed the unemployment rate dropping to 8.3%, has undercut the argument that the state of the economy is the most important problem facing the nation. This played into Romney's strength. As a businessman he could argue that he had the background necessary to fix it, but if the numbers continue to improve, there's no need.

Recent stories touching on cultural issues have raised the profile of the culture wars. These include the federal courts overruling California's ban on gay marriage, Obama's decision to force churches to provide birth control coverage in their insurance plans, and the decision (reversed) of the Komen Foundation to defund Planned Parenthood. These issues are strengths for Santorum, and his success yesterday may be a reflection of a shift in the electorate about what issues are most important in their minds.

Bernie Sanders wants to save the post office

Thanks to a 2301 student for pointing out this floor speech by Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders in support of the post office.

Catching up on New Hampshire's Magna Carta Bill

It died in committee.

Regarding Ron Paul's Raising

When we discuss the presidency in 2302, we spend a while discussing the personal presidency including the personality traits that seem to impact how different presidents perform their jobs, and how aspects of candidate's backgrounds help mold those trait. This NYT background of Ron Paul points out how growing up in the Depression, among other things, molded his world view.

Federal court checks California ballot measure

From the Washington Post:

A federal appeals panel in San Francisco ruled Tuesday that California’s ban on same-sex marriage violates the constitutional right to equal protection.

The panel overturned Proposition 8, which was approved by 52 percent of the state’s voters in 2008 and amended the state’s constitution to limit marriage to a man and a woman.

inShare

The court’s decision upheld a 2010 decision by former Judge R. Vaughn Walker that found marriage to be a fundamental right protected by the Constitution, and that the proposition “fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license.”

Opponents of same-sex marriage have the option of appealing Tuesday’s decision to the full U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit or taking it directly to the Supreme Court, which has never ruled on the matter.

This raises a number of question relevant to class discussions, namely, can - or ought - individual rights be subject to a majority vote or are they best determined by an appointed court that may be better able to protect the minority from the majority?

Is this one of those subjects where democracy and individual rights conflict?

- From SCOTUSblog: Ban on Gay Marriage Struck Down.
- NYT: Court Strikes Down Ban on Gay Marriage in California.

The Fix Now Congress Caucus

Two freshman Republicans in the House have created a caucus intended to repair the institution's image.

- Here's a link to it.

Catching up with the payroll taxcut extension

Politico calls it a mess, there's little sense that the cut will actually be extended.

Catching up with the STOCK Act

Here are recent events related to the STOCK Act. STOCK, by the way, is an acronym for Stop Trading on Congressional Knowledge.

The House Bill is H.R. 1148, click here for detail from Thomas, and here for detail from OpenCongress.

The Senate version is S. 2038, click here for info from Thomas, and here for info from OpenCongress.

The Washington Post reports that the bill became a magnet on the Senate floor for all types of reform proposals, not necessarily related to the subject of insider trading. They argue, plausibly, that it is an attempt by the Senate to turn around public opinion.

Rank and file Democrats in the Senate grumbling over Majority Leader Reid's leadership

For our discussionof how party leaders attempt to manage their party's rank and file, in this case the Senate.

From the Hill:

Some Democrats are grumbling over how Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) has run the floor this year.

The frustration is felt mostly among junior lawmakers, who want more of a role in decision-making and have yet to resign themselves to the traditional pace of the Senate, where seniority rules and lawmakers often have to wait years to have significant influence.

Resentment stems from Reid's decision to work with Republicans over recent legislation without consulting them:

But while Reid’s decisive action could help him check off accomplishments and pressure House Republicans, some Democrats feel like he’s sometimes running ahead without them.

“There’s a brewing frustration about how the last few things were managed,” said a Senate Democratic aide, who added that some senators have felt shut out of leadership decisions. “There’s a discontent with the rank and file that people have not been read into the process.”
The feeling is that bills are rushed to floor without giving traditional Democratic supporters time to weign in on content.

Earmarks used for projects near lawmaker's property

This won't help raise Congress' approval ratings. The Washington Post released a study showing that "thirty-three members of Congress have directed more than $300 million in earmarks and other spending provisions to dozens of public projects that are next to or within about two miles of the lawmakers’ own property." And is legal under ethics rules within Congress. 
- Click here for the study: Capitol Assets.

Will the new democracies in the Middle East survive?

A researcher sticks his neck out and makes predictions for three countries:

Tunisia: 82%

Egypt: 48%
Libya: 89%

The key is expected economic growth. If new democracies experience economic growth innitially, the democracy is likely to survive, if not it won't.

Senate GOP Conference divided on how to respond to Obama's recess appointments

From Politico. One freshman member wants to block all his appointments this year, others disagree. 

A Test for Speaker Boehner

From the Hill: Speaker Boehner faces tough test on $260 billion transportation bill

Dan Burton to retire

Dan Burton (R-Ind), longtime chair of the House Oversight Committee is retiring, but this story suggests that his legacy will live on. Burton made a name for himself by diligently investigating the Clinton Administration in the 1990s. He seems to have been responsible for the increased visibility of the committee:

Regardless of one’s take on his investigations, Burton’s impact is lasting. He helped transform the somewhat sleepy oversight panel into one of the most feared committees on Capitol Hill, particularly when the chairman hails from the opposing party of the president. Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., who bristled under Burton’s chairmanship for six years, used his two years with the gavel to pummel the Bush White House’s use of security contractors in Iraq and its ties to failed energy concern Enron.
The story points out how several of his staffers are building up careers of their own, and may well end up back in the House on their own. This one stick out especially:

Perhaps no other Burton staffer summed up the tumult of the committee at that time better than David Bossie, who is now the president of Citizens United, the conservative group that served as lead protagonist in the landmark 2010 Supreme Court ruling that opened up a new pathway for hundreds of millions of dollars in special-interest money into elections.

The House Democratic Caucus to lose powerful voices

A number of members of the House Democratic Caucus have announced that they will not run for re-election this year. Some of these members have served for some time, leading other members to wonder whether the caucus will suffer from a loss of "institutional memory."

If you read through the story you'll note that apart from Barney Frank - who is one of the more liberal members of the House - most of the retirees are members of the Blue Dog Coalition, self described conservative Democrats who have found themselves increasingly marginalized form the party. This is the same thing swe have noted in class that happens among Republicans where liberal members of their party have become practically extinct.

Is the House Republican leadership divided?

For 2302 here is the first in a series of posts regarding the current House and Senate and the personalities and organizations within them.

The two top Republicans in the House - Speaker John Boehner and Majority Leader Eric Cantor - are apparently not the best of friends. Politico writes of tension between the staff's of both men:

The top aides to House Majority Leader Eric Cantor and Speaker John Boehner are now seeking a truce after a bitter year of behind-the-scenes fighting that pitted the top House Republicans against one another.

Tensions had gotten so bad between the two offices that senior aides decided, for the good of the party and their own bosses, that the rivalry has to be toned down.

The interoffice tensions were so prominent that elected Republican lawmakers were chafing at the public and private tribulations of the ongoing Boehner-Cantor drama — one GOP lawmaker stood up and complained about it in a recent closed-door meeting of House Republicans — and the two operations came to the realization that the constant sparring between their camps could hurt both lawmakers politically.

Disputes have centered on how and whether to compromise with Democrats on the payroll tax extension, the debt ceiling and proposals to cut the budget.

The dispute may test of the viability of the Republican majority and could impact the ability of the party to be effective this year and to hold onto their majority after the 2012 election.

4 - Written Assignment GOVT 2301 Spring Semester

This week we look through states constitutions in general, and the Texas Constitution in particular. There are many areas where the Texas and US Constitutions differ, but one I'd like you to look at specifically is how each treats individual rights. While the Bill of Rights was added to the US Constitution as a result of a compromise, the Texas Bill of Rights is listed in Article One of the document. And as with much of the rest of the document, Texas' list is longer and more detailed.

A want you to read each Bill of Rights and note where they are similar and where they differ. Comment as necessary.

4 - Written Assignment GOVT 2302 Spring Semester

This week we will look at the development of various institutions in Congress, including the Speaker, which is the presiding officer of the House of Representatives. Interestingly one of the remaining candidates for the Republican presidential nomination is an ex-Speaker: Newt Gingrich.

Mr. Gingrich's tenure as Speaker was controversial and he was ultimately removed as part of an internal power struggle within the party. But he left his imprint on the House. In order to become familiar with the office and the different styles that people bring to it, I want you to research his Speakership and outline what critics - good and bad - say about it.

What does this tell us about the nature of the office itself?

FDR's Four Freedoms

I may almost be done grading the question about "among" in the D of C and I'll comment on the responses at some point, but I though 2301s might be interested in FDR's proposal in his 1941 State of the Union address that people everywhere in the world ought to enjoy four freedoms:

Freedom of speech and expression
Freedom of worshipFreedom from want
Freedom from fear

Click here for audio of the speech.

The first two are familiar to us, but the other two are novel. What are we to make of them? They remind me of the Churchill quote we read where he stated the advantages of civilization. Perhaps they contain freedoms from want and fear. 

What is civilized society? “It means a society based on the opinions of civilians. It means that violence, the rule of warriors and despotic chiefs, the conditions of camps and warfare, of riot and tyranny, give place to parliaments where laws are made, and independent courts of justice in which over long periods those laws are maintained. That is civilization – and in its soil grow continually freedom, comfort and culture. When Civilization reigns in any country, a wider and less harassed life is afforded to the masses of the people.”

Are manufacturing jobs gone forever?

Building off the post below, this article argues that yest they are.

How many people are employed in new industries?

In one of the 2301 sections yesterday - while we talking up the assignment on the current state of the (constitutionally authorized) post office - we discussed the fact that newer industries tend to employ far fewer people than traditional industries. This graphic makes the point. Some companies with the highest market capitalization have very few employees: