Friday, July 31, 2009
An American Oligarchy?
Here's some back and forth about the best and brightest in American politics. Does a natural aristocracy rule America?
Texas Open Meetings Act
From the Dallas Morning News, a story about the unique situation small local legislative bodies have when it come to meeting to conduct business. Since it is so easy for them to form quorums, there's always the possibility that they may be able to conduct official meetings outside public inspection, which puts them at odds with the Texas Open Meetings Act:
In Texas, as in other states, meetings of city councils, school boards and other public bodies are open to the public, unless specifically protected under the law. The Texas Open Meetings Act usually applies when the majority of the members of a governmental body discuss public business. It doesn't apply, for example, when such groups are together for social events or workshops.
...the definition of a meeting can be tricky. In 2002, members of the Texas State Board of Education got in a pickle for meeting at an Austin deli. They were indicted for discussing public business in private.
Technology has made the definition of a meeting even trickier. Board members who text-message one another during a meeting could be violating the open meetings law.
A recent case has added a new twist to meetings via electronic communication.
The case involves Alpine City Council members who, in 2004, discussed city business via private e-mail. A U.S. District Court judge found that the members violated the Texas Open Meetings Act. But a federal appeals court ruled in May that not allowing the council members to discuss city business via e-mail violated their free speech rights.
There's a chance now that the Texas Open Meetings Act may be found unconstitutional.
Relevant legislation:
- Texas Open Meetings Act.
- Government in the Sunshine Act.
- Federal Advisory Committee Act.
In Texas, as in other states, meetings of city councils, school boards and other public bodies are open to the public, unless specifically protected under the law. The Texas Open Meetings Act usually applies when the majority of the members of a governmental body discuss public business. It doesn't apply, for example, when such groups are together for social events or workshops.
...the definition of a meeting can be tricky. In 2002, members of the Texas State Board of Education got in a pickle for meeting at an Austin deli. They were indicted for discussing public business in private.
Technology has made the definition of a meeting even trickier. Board members who text-message one another during a meeting could be violating the open meetings law.
A recent case has added a new twist to meetings via electronic communication.
The case involves Alpine City Council members who, in 2004, discussed city business via private e-mail. A U.S. District Court judge found that the members violated the Texas Open Meetings Act. But a federal appeals court ruled in May that not allowing the council members to discuss city business via e-mail violated their free speech rights.
There's a chance now that the Texas Open Meetings Act may be found unconstitutional.
Relevant legislation:
- Texas Open Meetings Act.
- Government in the Sunshine Act.
- Federal Advisory Committee Act.
Thursday, July 30, 2009
Man Arrested for Saying He Hates the Police
This might have legs. I wouldn't be surprised to see a test case to come out of this. The Gates arrest might have the unintended consequence of persuading more people to think of disorderly conduct arrests as merely tools for police to stifle protest.
"People talk about the Gates thing in terms of race, but it's an ongoing problem of police using disorderly conduct to shut people up."
Two Bits on Compelled Testimony
Two stories from Grits for Breakfast raise questions about 4th and 5th Amendment issues.
The first concerns neuroscience's increased ability to map brain activity and the role it might play in criminal proceedings. Is a scan compelled testimony? Can a search warrant be issued for a brain scan?
The second concerns false confessions and whether they are coerced or persuaded.
The first concerns neuroscience's increased ability to map brain activity and the role it might play in criminal proceedings. Is a scan compelled testimony? Can a search warrant be issued for a brain scan?
The second concerns false confessions and whether they are coerced or persuaded.
What if There is No Recovery?
Here's a depressing read. The author argues that the nature of unemployment in this recession differs from those of previous depressions, which is one of the reasons why the increase in unemployment was underestimated. Past models were applied to current circumstance and gave a faulty prediction.
Explanations for the collapse of the great American job machine begin with the marked absence of what is called labor hoarding. Usually during recessions, firms keep most of their employees on the payroll even as business slows, in effect stockpiling them for better days. In the current downturn, hoarding seems to have gone into reverse. Not only are firms laying off redundant workers, but they seem to be cutting into the bone. . . . the absence of hoarding means that firms do not expect business to pick up soon. This is supported by other evidence, like a doubling in the number of involuntary part-time workers (there are nine million of them) and the shrinking workweek, now 33 hours — the shortest ever recorded. Presumably, before companies start to rehire laid-off workers, they will ask their current employees to work more.
In short, even if the recession ends, unemployment may hold steady as firms on the rebound simply increase the hours of current employees before they start rehiring.
It's a good time to be in school I suppose.
Explanations for the collapse of the great American job machine begin with the marked absence of what is called labor hoarding. Usually during recessions, firms keep most of their employees on the payroll even as business slows, in effect stockpiling them for better days. In the current downturn, hoarding seems to have gone into reverse. Not only are firms laying off redundant workers, but they seem to be cutting into the bone. . . . the absence of hoarding means that firms do not expect business to pick up soon. This is supported by other evidence, like a doubling in the number of involuntary part-time workers (there are nine million of them) and the shrinking workweek, now 33 hours — the shortest ever recorded. Presumably, before companies start to rehire laid-off workers, they will ask their current employees to work more.
In short, even if the recession ends, unemployment may hold steady as firms on the rebound simply increase the hours of current employees before they start rehiring.
It's a good time to be in school I suppose.
Are the 80s Over?
This video builds off a point I made below regarding generational shifts in attitudes. Have recent events -- the Great Recession especially -- led to a shift in attitudes about politics, government and society in general?
Fees v. Mortage Relief
Recent legislation designed to make it easier for homeowners at risk of defaulting on mortgages to stay in their homes has failed to make an impact because the existing fee structure makes it lucrative for mortgage companies to have loans go delinquent.
From the NYT:
This week, the Obama administration summoned mortgage company executives to Washington to demand they move faster to lower payments for homeowners sliding toward foreclosure. Treasury officials called on the companies to hire and train more people quickly to field applications for relief.
But industry insiders and legal experts say the limited capacity of mortgage companies is not the primary factor impeding the government’s $75 billion program to prevent foreclosures. Instead, it is that many mortgage companies are reluctant to give strapped homeowners a break because the companies collect lucrative fees on delinquent loans.
Even when borrowers stop paying, mortgage companies that service the loans collect fees out of the proceeds when homes are ultimately sold in foreclosure. So the longer borrowers remain delinquent, the greater the opportunities for these mortgage companies to extract revenue — fees for insurance, appraisals, title searches and legal services.
From the NYT:
This week, the Obama administration summoned mortgage company executives to Washington to demand they move faster to lower payments for homeowners sliding toward foreclosure. Treasury officials called on the companies to hire and train more people quickly to field applications for relief.
But industry insiders and legal experts say the limited capacity of mortgage companies is not the primary factor impeding the government’s $75 billion program to prevent foreclosures. Instead, it is that many mortgage companies are reluctant to give strapped homeowners a break because the companies collect lucrative fees on delinquent loans.
Even when borrowers stop paying, mortgage companies that service the loans collect fees out of the proceeds when homes are ultimately sold in foreclosure. So the longer borrowers remain delinquent, the greater the opportunities for these mortgage companies to extract revenue — fees for insurance, appraisals, title searches and legal services.
Wednesday, July 29, 2009
Are Attitudes About Government Changing?
For well over a generation, probably dating back to the late 1960s, attitudes about government and its ability to do anything right have declined. This helps explain Republican success over the past several electoral cycles. This was due to the reaction to the expansion of the size of government during the Great Society, the Vietnam War, growing debt, among other factors. But since the private sector has been making serious mistakes recently, it's worth considering whether attitudes might shift. This poll suggest so:
Americans overwhelmingly support substantial changes to the health care system and are strongly behind one of the most contentious proposals Congress is considering, a government-run insurance plan to compete with private insurers, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News poll.
The poll found that most Americans would be willing to pay higher taxes so everyone could have health insurance and that they said the government could do a better job of holding down health-care costs than the private sector.
Yet the survey also revealed considerable unease about the impact of heightened government involvement, on both the economy and the quality of the respondents’ own medical care. While 85 percent of respondents said the health care system needed to be fundamentally changed or completely rebuilt, 77 percent said they were very or somewhat satisfied with the quality of their own care.
This might have serious political implications if the shift is noted mostly among the young. As they age -- assuming their attitudes don't change -- support for expanded services and the higher tax levels to pay for them might be sustained for the next generation or two.
Americans overwhelmingly support substantial changes to the health care system and are strongly behind one of the most contentious proposals Congress is considering, a government-run insurance plan to compete with private insurers, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News poll.
The poll found that most Americans would be willing to pay higher taxes so everyone could have health insurance and that they said the government could do a better job of holding down health-care costs than the private sector.
Yet the survey also revealed considerable unease about the impact of heightened government involvement, on both the economy and the quality of the respondents’ own medical care. While 85 percent of respondents said the health care system needed to be fundamentally changed or completely rebuilt, 77 percent said they were very or somewhat satisfied with the quality of their own care.
This might have serious political implications if the shift is noted mostly among the young. As they age -- assuming their attitudes don't change -- support for expanded services and the higher tax levels to pay for them might be sustained for the next generation or two.
The Right to Competent Counsel
Just after we discussed the right to counsel in 2301 comes this story from the Chronicle:
Texas, which executes more convicts than any other state in the nation, will open its first capital defense office next year to manage appeals for death row inmates after years of reports that appointed private attorneys repeatedly botched the job.
“The status quo has been an international embarrassment,” said state Sen. Rodney Ellis, D-Houston, who sponsored the law that created the office. It was supported by an unusual alliance between the State Bar of Texas, the Court of Criminal Appeals and public defense advocates, who all backed it in the last legislative session.
The law was inspired by a series of stories about Texas inmates who lost crucial appeals after court-appointed attorneys missed deadlines or filed only so-called “skeletal” writs — documents with little information often copied from other cases. It represents a significant reform for Texas, one of the only capital punishment states that lacks a public defender to oversee key death row appeals known as state writs of habeas corpus.
Texas, which executes more convicts than any other state in the nation, will open its first capital defense office next year to manage appeals for death row inmates after years of reports that appointed private attorneys repeatedly botched the job.
“The status quo has been an international embarrassment,” said state Sen. Rodney Ellis, D-Houston, who sponsored the law that created the office. It was supported by an unusual alliance between the State Bar of Texas, the Court of Criminal Appeals and public defense advocates, who all backed it in the last legislative session.
The law was inspired by a series of stories about Texas inmates who lost crucial appeals after court-appointed attorneys missed deadlines or filed only so-called “skeletal” writs — documents with little information often copied from other cases. It represents a significant reform for Texas, one of the only capital punishment states that lacks a public defender to oversee key death row appeals known as state writs of habeas corpus.
An Illegal Seizure?
From the Chronicle:
A new Texas law allowing police to draw blood from DWI suspects without a judge's OK is riling defense attorneys, pleasing prosecutors and has crime labs gearing up for more work.
The law, which takes effect Sept. 1, also has sparked debate among constitutional experts, including some who are troubled by the prospect of allowing the state to invade a person's body on suspicion of a crime.
Police will be allowed to order blood drawn from a person suspected of driving while intoxicated without judicial review under certain circumstances, including instances in which the suspect is a repeat offender, a passenger died or in which a child under 15 was a passenger in the vehicle.
“The real problem is they've taken authority away for judicial review, and it's now at the sole discretion of police officers,“ said Houston lawyer Doug Murphy, who co-chairs the DWI committee of the Texas Criminal Defense Attorney's Association. “There are no checks and balances. Once you give police officers sole discretion, one branch of government can run amok.”
A new Texas law allowing police to draw blood from DWI suspects without a judge's OK is riling defense attorneys, pleasing prosecutors and has crime labs gearing up for more work.
The law, which takes effect Sept. 1, also has sparked debate among constitutional experts, including some who are troubled by the prospect of allowing the state to invade a person's body on suspicion of a crime.
Police will be allowed to order blood drawn from a person suspected of driving while intoxicated without judicial review under certain circumstances, including instances in which the suspect is a repeat offender, a passenger died or in which a child under 15 was a passenger in the vehicle.
“The real problem is they've taken authority away for judicial review, and it's now at the sole discretion of police officers,“ said Houston lawyer Doug Murphy, who co-chairs the DWI committee of the Texas Criminal Defense Attorney's Association. “There are no checks and balances. Once you give police officers sole discretion, one branch of government can run amok.”
Constitutional Amendment Election Set
Ten proposals will be on the ballot this November including one limiting eminent domain, whcih we discussed in class Tuesday:
One of the most notable proposals on the ballot would ban the government from taking private property and giving it to a private developer to boost the local tax base. It also would limit the Legislature's authority in granting eminent domain power in the future.
One of the most notable proposals on the ballot would ban the government from taking private property and giving it to a private developer to boost the local tax base. It also would limit the Legislature's authority in granting eminent domain power in the future.
The Gates Arrest
The recent arrest of Henry Louis Gates Jr. at his home for disorderly conduct raises two issues central to the 2301 topics this week. The first concerns civil rights, the second civil liberties.
The civil rights question regards, no surprise, race. The term racial profiling has evolved to describe police activities that seem to target minorities largely on the assumption that they are more likely to commit crimes. Beyond profiling, the case also calls to mind cognitive studies that suggest that many instantaneous decisions are made subconsciously by people based on racial characteristics, just the same way that we make many on the spot decisions. Historically, police have been used as the mechanism by which certain groups are kept in their place, and certainly the news is still full of examples of people being accused of DWB, especially in neighborhoods where they are a minority. The question posed as a result of the recent arrest is whether this is still a problem, or have police distanced themselves from this past. Some argue that the arresting officer was within his proper authority to handcuff Gates since he popped off to the police, which leads to the question of civil liberties.
Wasn't Gates in fact using his freedom of speech to question a person granted authority by the state? Why is this illegal? Do we not have the right to question, quarrel or argue with a police officer without the risk of arrest? Is the handcuff in fact a means of suppressing speech? Colin Powell seemed to admit as much when he said you don't argue with the police. An interesting link from Liberty Papers makes the case that Gates was within his rights and that "police officers often seem to think the purpose of [disorderly conduct] laws is to punish people for talking back to cops. Christopher Hitchens agrees. Not only were Gate's free speech rights violated, but so was his right to be secure in his own home, as established by the 4th Amendment.
The civil rights question regards, no surprise, race. The term racial profiling has evolved to describe police activities that seem to target minorities largely on the assumption that they are more likely to commit crimes. Beyond profiling, the case also calls to mind cognitive studies that suggest that many instantaneous decisions are made subconsciously by people based on racial characteristics, just the same way that we make many on the spot decisions. Historically, police have been used as the mechanism by which certain groups are kept in their place, and certainly the news is still full of examples of people being accused of DWB, especially in neighborhoods where they are a minority. The question posed as a result of the recent arrest is whether this is still a problem, or have police distanced themselves from this past. Some argue that the arresting officer was within his proper authority to handcuff Gates since he popped off to the police, which leads to the question of civil liberties.
Wasn't Gates in fact using his freedom of speech to question a person granted authority by the state? Why is this illegal? Do we not have the right to question, quarrel or argue with a police officer without the risk of arrest? Is the handcuff in fact a means of suppressing speech? Colin Powell seemed to admit as much when he said you don't argue with the police. An interesting link from Liberty Papers makes the case that Gates was within his rights and that "police officers often seem to think the purpose of [disorderly conduct] laws is to punish people for talking back to cops. Christopher Hitchens agrees. Not only were Gate's free speech rights violated, but so was his right to be secure in his own home, as established by the 4th Amendment.
Sunday, July 26, 2009
Antitrust Initiatives Strengthened, but also Resisted
From the NYT:
President Obama’s top antitrust official and some senior Democratic lawmakers are preparing to rein in a host of major industries, including airline and railroad giants, moving so aggressively that they are finding some resistance from officials within the administration.
...
The more aggressive antitrust policy was described in interviews with officials at the White House, the Justice Department, other agencies and Congress. It is a major policy reversal from the Bush administration, which did not prosecute cases in which some dominant companies engaged in potentially anticompetitive behavior, often because those officials maintained such behavior was not harmful to consumers.
Democrats have spent years trying to gain the support of businesses, and the policy changes under way may have long-term political implications for their party. Some companies would like to see more aggressive antitrust enforcement against their rivals, while others could be hurt by it.
In some cases, though, the new approach is being opposed by administration officials. Some fear that the crackdown is coming at a bad time, as corporate America reels from the recession. Other officials embrace the Bush administration’s view that larger companies and industry alliances can provide consumer benefits by making their businesses more efficient.
A variety of subjects we cover in class, both 2301 and 2302, are covered in this story.
One regards the proper functions of government, should it have the power to regulate "anticompetitive" behavior by larger companies? Since the late 19th Century it has, so also file this under our discussion of the growth of the national government. The major parties tend to disagree on this issue (Democrats tend to favor aggressive anti-trust policy more than Republicans), so it also fits within our discussion of parties, and since the story also highlights conflicts within the White House, it fits with our discussion of executive power, especially the complicated nature of executive power that has accompanied the growth of the functions of the national government.
President Obama’s top antitrust official and some senior Democratic lawmakers are preparing to rein in a host of major industries, including airline and railroad giants, moving so aggressively that they are finding some resistance from officials within the administration.
...
The more aggressive antitrust policy was described in interviews with officials at the White House, the Justice Department, other agencies and Congress. It is a major policy reversal from the Bush administration, which did not prosecute cases in which some dominant companies engaged in potentially anticompetitive behavior, often because those officials maintained such behavior was not harmful to consumers.
Democrats have spent years trying to gain the support of businesses, and the policy changes under way may have long-term political implications for their party. Some companies would like to see more aggressive antitrust enforcement against their rivals, while others could be hurt by it.
In some cases, though, the new approach is being opposed by administration officials. Some fear that the crackdown is coming at a bad time, as corporate America reels from the recession. Other officials embrace the Bush administration’s view that larger companies and industry alliances can provide consumer benefits by making their businesses more efficient.
A variety of subjects we cover in class, both 2301 and 2302, are covered in this story.
One regards the proper functions of government, should it have the power to regulate "anticompetitive" behavior by larger companies? Since the late 19th Century it has, so also file this under our discussion of the growth of the national government. The major parties tend to disagree on this issue (Democrats tend to favor aggressive anti-trust policy more than Republicans), so it also fits within our discussion of parties, and since the story also highlights conflicts within the White House, it fits with our discussion of executive power, especially the complicated nature of executive power that has accompanied the growth of the functions of the national government.
Thursday, July 23, 2009
Its Good to be a Blue Dog
From USA Today:
The conservative House Democrats known as the Blue Dog Coalition have seen their political clout grow dramatically as they work to shape the health care debate.
- Wikipedia: Blue Dog Coalition.
- Official Website.
- Open Secrets: Long Term trends in Contributions from Health Care Professionals.
The conservative House Democrats known as the Blue Dog Coalition have seen their political clout grow dramatically as they work to shape the health care debate.
- Wikipedia: Blue Dog Coalition.
- Official Website.
- Open Secrets: Long Term trends in Contributions from Health Care Professionals.
Wednesday, July 22, 2009
Going Public on Health Care
The term "going public" refers to efforts of a president to go around Congress and rally support for a program in the general public. If successful, the president can use this support to warn members of Congress that if they don't go along, they might suffer at the polls. Reagan was a master of this technique. We'll see how we'll Obama does after his press conference today on his health care initiative.
- WikiSummary: Going Public.
- WikiSummary: Going Public.
Limits on Concealed Weapons Permits
An interesting federalism case. Can the federal government mandate that concealed weapons permits issued in one state be respected by another? Does this fall under the Full Faith and Credit Clause? Whether it can or not, it doesn't seem inclined to try, at least at the moment:
The Senate on Wednesday turned aside the latest attempt by gun advocates to expand the rights of gun owners, narrowly voting down a provision that would have allowed gun owners with valid permits from one state to carry concealed weapons in other states.
A group comprising mostly Republicans, along with some influential Democrats, had tried to attach the gun amendment to the annual defense authorization bill, a must-pass piece of legislation. But the provision got only 58 votes, two short of the 6o votes needed for passage under Senate rules.
I wonder if some intrepid soul might try to make a test case out of this. Carry a licensed concealed weapon in a state where the state does not recognize the permit, subject himself to arrest and punishment, then challenge the constitutionality of the conviction on Second Amendment grounds.
The Senate on Wednesday turned aside the latest attempt by gun advocates to expand the rights of gun owners, narrowly voting down a provision that would have allowed gun owners with valid permits from one state to carry concealed weapons in other states.
A group comprising mostly Republicans, along with some influential Democrats, had tried to attach the gun amendment to the annual defense authorization bill, a must-pass piece of legislation. But the provision got only 58 votes, two short of the 6o votes needed for passage under Senate rules.
I wonder if some intrepid soul might try to make a test case out of this. Carry a licensed concealed weapon in a state where the state does not recognize the permit, subject himself to arrest and punishment, then challenge the constitutionality of the conviction on Second Amendment grounds.
Tuesday, July 21, 2009
A History of Health Care Reform
A good graphic from the NYT.
In 2301 today we discussed the election of 1912. The graphic tells us that TR ran on a platform promising national health insurance. The proposal has been around for a long time.
In 2301 today we discussed the election of 1912. The graphic tells us that TR ran on a platform promising national health insurance. The proposal has been around for a long time.
Rethinking Economics
From the Economist, more fallout from the financial crisis:
- What Went Wrong With Economics?
- The Other Wordly Philosophers.
- Efficiency and Beyond.
- What Went Wrong With Economics?
- The Other Wordly Philosophers.
- Efficiency and Beyond.
The Public Option
As we wade into party competition we should discuss the ideological divisions over perhaps the most controversial component of current health care proposals, the public option. This would allow government to set up a publicly financed insurance option for the general public that would compete with existing insurance plans.
Liberal and conservative would already differ over the idea that government in general and the federal government in particular, would offer anything beyond basic services. The liberal desire for equal access to services, in this case access to health care, leads to governmental involvement since such access would be considered to be a right. The conservative position would hold that government is minimizing the freedom of individuals to make choices for themselves, and intruding on the ability of people to offer services in the market. The entry of a large entity like government would distort the competitive process and eradicate the efficiencies that markets can provide.
Here's additional info and commentary:
- The Public Option and the Hope of Health Care Reform.
- Debating the Public Option.
- The Pitfalls of the Public Option.
- The Public Option Two Step.
From my perspective the dispute boils down to whether one trusts the private or public sector more with this basic service, which is the essence of ideological dispute.
Some of the articles above refer to a single payer system, which would remove the private sector altogether from this market. People would be given some form of payment, voucher or whatever, and use it to select among providers for their health services.
- Wikipedia: Single Payer Health Care.
- What is Single Payer?
Liberal and conservative would already differ over the idea that government in general and the federal government in particular, would offer anything beyond basic services. The liberal desire for equal access to services, in this case access to health care, leads to governmental involvement since such access would be considered to be a right. The conservative position would hold that government is minimizing the freedom of individuals to make choices for themselves, and intruding on the ability of people to offer services in the market. The entry of a large entity like government would distort the competitive process and eradicate the efficiencies that markets can provide.
Here's additional info and commentary:
- The Public Option and the Hope of Health Care Reform.
- Debating the Public Option.
- The Pitfalls of the Public Option.
- The Public Option Two Step.
From my perspective the dispute boils down to whether one trusts the private or public sector more with this basic service, which is the essence of ideological dispute.
Some of the articles above refer to a single payer system, which would remove the private sector altogether from this market. People would be given some form of payment, voucher or whatever, and use it to select among providers for their health services.
- Wikipedia: Single Payer Health Care.
- What is Single Payer?
Saturday, July 18, 2009
The Failed States Index 2009
Foreign Policy Magazine lists the countries with governments that are either collapsing or at risk of collapse.
Here's an interesting bit about Somalia:
A recent report by West Point’s Combating Terrorism Center, drawing on captured al Qaeda documents, revealed that Osama bin Laden’s outfit had an awful experience trying to operate out of Somalia, for all the same reasons that international peacekeepers found Somalia unmanageable in the 1990s: terrible infrastructure, excessive violence and criminality, and few basic services, among other factors. In short, Somalia was too failed even for al Qaeda.
Here's an interesting bit about Somalia:
A recent report by West Point’s Combating Terrorism Center, drawing on captured al Qaeda documents, revealed that Osama bin Laden’s outfit had an awful experience trying to operate out of Somalia, for all the same reasons that international peacekeepers found Somalia unmanageable in the 1990s: terrible infrastructure, excessive violence and criminality, and few basic services, among other factors. In short, Somalia was too failed even for al Qaeda.
Political Culture, Employee Flexibility, and Health Care
There's a good read in Slate about how a country's health care system tends to reflect that country's values:
Health care systems are not just policy choices but expressions of national character and values. ...
All advanced, wealthy countries have structures that are more egalitarian and cost-effective than ours. Each also has its quirks, which tend to reinforce familiar stereotypes. Britain, land of the stiff upper lip, rations care explicitly, providing what to us would seem shockingly minimalist treatment. It doesn't cover many procedures we regard as standard, such as PSA tests for men in their 50s or even regular physical exams for adults. That's what you get when you spend 8 percent of your GDP on health care (versus our 16 percent). The Japanese, on the other hand, venerate doctors and visit them 14.5 times per year on average, three times the U.S. rate. They do this in an orderly, ritualized way, usually bringing a bottle of sake or cash in an envelope as a gratuity.
America's evolved, undesigned system is also an expression of our culture at its best and it worst. Health care in the United States is innovative, entrepreneurial, expensive, litigious, and wasteful. It is decentralized, driven by self-interest, excellent at the high end, and increasingly unequal. It resists acknowledging trade-offs or limits and is characterized by shocking gaps in basic care. As we plunge into a long-overdue comprehensive overhaul, it's useful to think not just about how we can build on what works in this hodgepodge but about how we can bring health care into better alignment with our own national identity. In reforming our system, we need to create something that is "more like us," in the phrase of the journalist James Fallows—not more like what the French, Finns, or Swiss have, as appealing as that might sound.
The author plugs a health care proposal by Ron Wyden which acknowledges and compensates for a significant change in the workplace:
It is on the sociological level, though, that we're missing the boat most completely by sticking doggedly with a workplace-based system that no longer makes sense. America has always been a mobile society with a labor market that grows more fluid over time. Once, the norm was to work for a single employer for one's entire career. Today, people change jobs an average of 11 times before they reach 40. Fear of losing health coverage keeps people in jobs they would otherwise leave, creating a drag on economic efficiency. As the Senate's smartest health care wonk, Ron Wyden of Oregon, says: "A big part of the reform challenge is to look at how the culture of the American workforce has changed since the basic structure of American health care was put in place. Today's culture is all about flexibility."
The premise of Wyden's bipartisan bill is that we should move away from job-based insurance. It would do this by converting the tax deduction for employer-provided health insurance into a tax credit and requiring that individuals use it to buy insurance. Wyden's bill would achieve universal coverage, apply meaningful cost controls, and, according to the Congressional Budget Office, pay for itself within a few years. It's going nowhere.
Health care systems are not just policy choices but expressions of national character and values. ...
All advanced, wealthy countries have structures that are more egalitarian and cost-effective than ours. Each also has its quirks, which tend to reinforce familiar stereotypes. Britain, land of the stiff upper lip, rations care explicitly, providing what to us would seem shockingly minimalist treatment. It doesn't cover many procedures we regard as standard, such as PSA tests for men in their 50s or even regular physical exams for adults. That's what you get when you spend 8 percent of your GDP on health care (versus our 16 percent). The Japanese, on the other hand, venerate doctors and visit them 14.5 times per year on average, three times the U.S. rate. They do this in an orderly, ritualized way, usually bringing a bottle of sake or cash in an envelope as a gratuity.
America's evolved, undesigned system is also an expression of our culture at its best and it worst. Health care in the United States is innovative, entrepreneurial, expensive, litigious, and wasteful. It is decentralized, driven by self-interest, excellent at the high end, and increasingly unequal. It resists acknowledging trade-offs or limits and is characterized by shocking gaps in basic care. As we plunge into a long-overdue comprehensive overhaul, it's useful to think not just about how we can build on what works in this hodgepodge but about how we can bring health care into better alignment with our own national identity. In reforming our system, we need to create something that is "more like us," in the phrase of the journalist James Fallows—not more like what the French, Finns, or Swiss have, as appealing as that might sound.
The author plugs a health care proposal by Ron Wyden which acknowledges and compensates for a significant change in the workplace:
It is on the sociological level, though, that we're missing the boat most completely by sticking doggedly with a workplace-based system that no longer makes sense. America has always been a mobile society with a labor market that grows more fluid over time. Once, the norm was to work for a single employer for one's entire career. Today, people change jobs an average of 11 times before they reach 40. Fear of losing health coverage keeps people in jobs they would otherwise leave, creating a drag on economic efficiency. As the Senate's smartest health care wonk, Ron Wyden of Oregon, says: "A big part of the reform challenge is to look at how the culture of the American workforce has changed since the basic structure of American health care was put in place. Today's culture is all about flexibility."
The premise of Wyden's bipartisan bill is that we should move away from job-based insurance. It would do this by converting the tax deduction for employer-provided health insurance into a tax credit and requiring that individuals use it to buy insurance. Wyden's bill would achieve universal coverage, apply meaningful cost controls, and, according to the Congressional Budget Office, pay for itself within a few years. It's going nowhere.
Friday, July 17, 2009
The White House v. The State Department
A recent speech by Hillary Clinton may have been an attempt to stay relevant.
Diplomatic responsibilities are split between various players in the executive branch, with the obvious consequence.
Diplomatic responsibilities are split between various players in the executive branch, with the obvious consequence.
Thursday, July 16, 2009
No Comprehensive Reforms
Michael Lind thinks Congress should not enact comprehensive reforms of anything, including health care. The piecemeal approach works better.
His main points:
1 - Comprehensive reform tries to address too many problems at the same time, instead of addressing particular problems by particular pieces of legislation.
2 - Comprehensive reform tries to assemble a single majority for a multipurpose bill, instead of assembling different majorities for different bills.
3 - Comprehensive reform by its very nature shuts out the public.
4 - Comprehensive reform kills the appetite for subsequent reform.
Comments:
- Patrick Appel wants to keep it simple.
- Publius is worried about agency capture.
His main points:
1 - Comprehensive reform tries to address too many problems at the same time, instead of addressing particular problems by particular pieces of legislation.
2 - Comprehensive reform tries to assemble a single majority for a multipurpose bill, instead of assembling different majorities for different bills.
3 - Comprehensive reform by its very nature shuts out the public.
4 - Comprehensive reform kills the appetite for subsequent reform.
Comments:
- Patrick Appel wants to keep it simple.
- Publius is worried about agency capture.
Warnings About Health Plan
From the Washington Post:
Instead of saving the federal government from fiscal catastrophe, the health reform measures being drafted by congressional Democrats would increase rather than reduce public spending on health care, potentially worsening an already bleak budget outlook, the director of the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said this morning.
Under questioning by members of the Senate Budget Committee, CBO director Douglas Elmendorf said bills crafted by House leaders and the Senate health committee do not propose "the sort of fundamental changes that would be necessary to reduce the trajectory of federal health spending by a significant amount."
- Washington Post: CBO Chief: Health Reform Measures Would Weaken Economy
- CQ: CBO Chief: Health Bills To Increase Federal Costs
Instead of saving the federal government from fiscal catastrophe, the health reform measures being drafted by congressional Democrats would increase rather than reduce public spending on health care, potentially worsening an already bleak budget outlook, the director of the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said this morning.
Under questioning by members of the Senate Budget Committee, CBO director Douglas Elmendorf said bills crafted by House leaders and the Senate health committee do not propose "the sort of fundamental changes that would be necessary to reduce the trajectory of federal health spending by a significant amount."
- Washington Post: CBO Chief: Health Reform Measures Would Weaken Economy
- CQ: CBO Chief: Health Bills To Increase Federal Costs
Bill White and the Energy Sector
Fundraising disclosures for the Texas Senate race show that Bill White is a top recipient from the Oil and Gas sector.
From the Dallas Morning News:
This morning's Politico carries a special section on climate change legislation that mentions the top beneficiaries of the energy industry's 2008 campaign cycle donations. The oil and gas sector -- with perhaps the most to lose from the legislation -- gave the most. Top beneficiary: Senator John Cornyn, with $667,600.
It's no surprise that Cornyn cleaned up with donations from oil and gas interests. Texas is the leading producer of both commodities among U.S. states, and the industry is famously loyal to the GOP (and vice versa). Cornyn was up for reelection last year, and was a member of the Senate GOP leadership, which fought legislation that would have pinched the industry's profits.
Cornyn could be even more important to the industry in 2010, if the controversial climate change bill finds a seam to advance through the Senate. He is chairman of the NRSC, which would pillory any climate bill as an "energy tax." He's also inclined to fight on behalf of oil and gas employers throughout Texas, most of which would oppose the bill.
Yet it's Houston Mayor Bill White, who is running for Senate to replace Kay Bailey Hutchison, who is the top recipient of oil and gas money in the current election cycle. White is a former deputy secretary of energy in the Clinton administration who is well liked by Houston's business community (a group dominated by energy interests). So where does White stand on the climate bill that passed the House in May? His Web site's Issues section doesn't mention it.
From the Dallas Morning News:
This morning's Politico carries a special section on climate change legislation that mentions the top beneficiaries of the energy industry's 2008 campaign cycle donations. The oil and gas sector -- with perhaps the most to lose from the legislation -- gave the most. Top beneficiary: Senator John Cornyn, with $667,600.
It's no surprise that Cornyn cleaned up with donations from oil and gas interests. Texas is the leading producer of both commodities among U.S. states, and the industry is famously loyal to the GOP (and vice versa). Cornyn was up for reelection last year, and was a member of the Senate GOP leadership, which fought legislation that would have pinched the industry's profits.
Cornyn could be even more important to the industry in 2010, if the controversial climate change bill finds a seam to advance through the Senate. He is chairman of the NRSC, which would pillory any climate bill as an "energy tax." He's also inclined to fight on behalf of oil and gas employers throughout Texas, most of which would oppose the bill.
Yet it's Houston Mayor Bill White, who is running for Senate to replace Kay Bailey Hutchison, who is the top recipient of oil and gas money in the current election cycle. White is a former deputy secretary of energy in the Clinton administration who is well liked by Houston's business community (a group dominated by energy interests). So where does White stand on the climate bill that passed the House in May? His Web site's Issues section doesn't mention it.
Tuesday, July 14, 2009
A Few Words on the Debt
There are increased concerns that, despite the need for spending to help get the economy out of the recession, little attention is being paid to addressing the ballooning debt once this is (hopefully) accomplished:
- Clive Crook: Looking into the Fiscal Abyss.
- Brookings Institution: Here Comes the Next Fiscal Crisis
- Brookings Institution: An Update on the Economic and Fiscal Crises.
The same point can be made about the current level of debt, and out ability to address the potential increases in the debt, made below about California. It's a product of the democratic system. We get into debt because we spend too much and tax too little, both are easy to do. The hard part is cutting the spending and raising the taxes that allow for debt to be driven down. If an elected leader would go out on a limb and propose either or both as a solution to the current fiscal crisis, would he or she be re-elected? If not, whose to blame? Is debt an excess of democracy?
- Clive Crook: Looking into the Fiscal Abyss.
- Brookings Institution: Here Comes the Next Fiscal Crisis
- Brookings Institution: An Update on the Economic and Fiscal Crises.
The same point can be made about the current level of debt, and out ability to address the potential increases in the debt, made below about California. It's a product of the democratic system. We get into debt because we spend too much and tax too little, both are easy to do. The hard part is cutting the spending and raising the taxes that allow for debt to be driven down. If an elected leader would go out on a limb and propose either or both as a solution to the current fiscal crisis, would he or she be re-elected? If not, whose to blame? Is debt an excess of democracy?
Direct Democracy and the California Budget Crisis
As my 2301's begin to discuss elections, we will ponder the pros and cons of direct v. indirect democracy. We covered this already when we discussed Federalist #10 and Madison's preference for a republic over a pure democracy. A major theme this week will be the tighter connection between the population and the government forged over the last two centuries.
One of the key driving forces behind this process was the progressive movement and their support of initiatives, referenda, and recall elections. Though Texas did not adopt these elections statewide (they are used in local elections) many states did, California most notably. As it stands, much of California's tax policy and governmental programs were established not by legislators in a deliberative body, but by the mass public through ballot initiatives as informed by campaign advertisement. Critics argue that California's current budget shortfall (over $20 billion) can be blamed on the impact of these direct elections.
The electorate rallies behind a new proposed program, but also behind efforts to not only cut taxes, but make increasing the taxes necessary to pay for these programs difficult if not impossible.
This leads to an uncomfortable -- and probably elitist -- point. Was Madison (and the bulk of the rest of the founders) right to be worried about the "excesses of democracy"? It makes complete short sighted sense for people to want to increase spending programs (meaning education, health, etc...) and also to decrease taxes in order to carry around more pocket money. We all want something for nothing. But this creates problems down the road.
So was Madison right to be skeptical of direct (pure) democracy? Does the fiscal health of a country depend on limiting the ability of the general population to have an immediate impact on public policy? Or are we the people capable of making sound, fiscally prudent decisions?
Additional readings:
- The Claremont Institute - Direct Democracy in California
- California Direct Democracy
- State of Paralysis.
- FT.com Willem Buiter's Maverecon From direct democracy to ...
One of the key driving forces behind this process was the progressive movement and their support of initiatives, referenda, and recall elections. Though Texas did not adopt these elections statewide (they are used in local elections) many states did, California most notably. As it stands, much of California's tax policy and governmental programs were established not by legislators in a deliberative body, but by the mass public through ballot initiatives as informed by campaign advertisement. Critics argue that California's current budget shortfall (over $20 billion) can be blamed on the impact of these direct elections.
The electorate rallies behind a new proposed program, but also behind efforts to not only cut taxes, but make increasing the taxes necessary to pay for these programs difficult if not impossible.
This leads to an uncomfortable -- and probably elitist -- point. Was Madison (and the bulk of the rest of the founders) right to be worried about the "excesses of democracy"? It makes complete short sighted sense for people to want to increase spending programs (meaning education, health, etc...) and also to decrease taxes in order to carry around more pocket money. We all want something for nothing. But this creates problems down the road.
So was Madison right to be skeptical of direct (pure) democracy? Does the fiscal health of a country depend on limiting the ability of the general population to have an immediate impact on public policy? Or are we the people capable of making sound, fiscally prudent decisions?
Additional readings:
- The Claremont Institute - Direct Democracy in California
- California Direct Democracy
- State of Paralysis.
- FT.com Willem Buiter's Maverecon From direct democracy to ...
Saturday, July 11, 2009
What Drives Economic Behavior? Animal Spirits or Rational Actors
The former apparently. More and more behavioral economists seem to believe that our monetary decisions are driven by illusion, not rational calculations. This overturns decades of economic theory.
Another casualty of the recession.
Another casualty of the recession.
It was going to happen sooner or later ...
Foreign Policy predicts the death of macho:
The great shift of power from males to females is likely to be dramatically accelerated by the economic crisis, as more people realize that the aggressive, risk-seeking behavior that has enabled men to entrench their power—the cult of macho—has now proven destructive and unsustainable in a globalized world.
Indeed, it’s now fair to say that the most enduring legacy of the Great Recession will not be the death of Wall Street. It will not be the death of finance. And it will not be the death of capitalism. These ideas and institutions will live on. What will not survive is macho. And the choice men will have to make, whether to accept or fight this new fact of history, will have seismic effects for all of humanity—women as well as men.
The great shift of power from males to females is likely to be dramatically accelerated by the economic crisis, as more people realize that the aggressive, risk-seeking behavior that has enabled men to entrench their power—the cult of macho—has now proven destructive and unsustainable in a globalized world.
Indeed, it’s now fair to say that the most enduring legacy of the Great Recession will not be the death of Wall Street. It will not be the death of finance. And it will not be the death of capitalism. These ideas and institutions will live on. What will not survive is macho. And the choice men will have to make, whether to accept or fight this new fact of history, will have seismic effects for all of humanity—women as well as men.
Friday, July 10, 2009
Thursday, July 9, 2009
Does this Put a Twist on the Ricci Decision?
From the chron: 2 female firefighters worried for safety
Is there a reason for minority and women firefighters to be worried about discrimination?
Is there a reason for minority and women firefighters to be worried about discrimination?
Wednesday, July 8, 2009
The State of the Economy
Its worse than anticipated, which had led some to call for a second stimulus.
- From the CBO: The State of the Economy
- Bruce Bartlett says no, give it more time.
- From Fox: States Using Stimulus Money for Short-Term Needs, Audit Shows
- WaPo: Power of Stimulus Slow to Take Hold
- WaPo: Obama not talking about second stimulus: official
- From the CBO: The State of the Economy
- Bruce Bartlett says no, give it more time.
- From Fox: States Using Stimulus Money for Short-Term Needs, Audit Shows
- WaPo: Power of Stimulus Slow to Take Hold
- WaPo: Obama not talking about second stimulus: official
"presidential post-acquittal detention power"
Glenn Grenwald, and a host of other civil libertarians are upset with Obama's maintenance of Bush's detainee policies. Obama even seems ready to expand them, arguing that president's have the power to detain people even after they have been acquitted:
Spencer Ackerman yesterday attended a Senate hearing at which the DOD's General Counsel, Jeh Johnson, testified. As Ackerman highlighted, Johnson actually said that even for those detainees to whom the Obama administration deigns to give a real trial in a real court, the President has the power to continue to imprison them indefinitely even if they are acquitted at their trial. About this assertion of "presidential post-acquittal detention power" -- an Orwellian term (and a Kafka-esque concept) that should send shivers down the spine of anyone who cares at all about the most basic liberties -- Ackerman wrote, with some understatement, that it "moved the Obama administration into new territory from a civil liberties perspective." Law professor Jonathan Turley was more blunt: "The Obama Administration continues its retention and expansion of abusive Bush policies — now clearly Obama policies on indefinite detention."
He goes on to accuse Obama of orchestrating show trials in order to pre-determine convictions of those he wants convicted. In the process he is violating centuries of established rules of due process:
Show trials are exactly what the Obama administration is planning. In its own twisted way, the Bush approach was actually more honest and transparent: they made no secret of their belief that the President could imprison anyone he wanted without any process at all. That's clearly the Obama view as well, but he's creating an elaborate, multi-layered, and purely discretionary "justice system" that accomplishes exactly the same thing while creating the false appearance that there is due process being accorded. And for those who -- to justify what Obama is doing -- make the not unreasonable point that Bush left Obama with a difficult quandary at Guantanamo, how will that excuse apply when these new detention powers are applied not only to existing Guantanamo detainees but to future (i.e., not-yet-abducted) detainees as well?
On a related note: we haven't heard much from Dick Cheney recently. Perhaps he thinks he made his point.
Spencer Ackerman yesterday attended a Senate hearing at which the DOD's General Counsel, Jeh Johnson, testified. As Ackerman highlighted, Johnson actually said that even for those detainees to whom the Obama administration deigns to give a real trial in a real court, the President has the power to continue to imprison them indefinitely even if they are acquitted at their trial. About this assertion of "presidential post-acquittal detention power" -- an Orwellian term (and a Kafka-esque concept) that should send shivers down the spine of anyone who cares at all about the most basic liberties -- Ackerman wrote, with some understatement, that it "moved the Obama administration into new territory from a civil liberties perspective." Law professor Jonathan Turley was more blunt: "The Obama Administration continues its retention and expansion of abusive Bush policies — now clearly Obama policies on indefinite detention."
He goes on to accuse Obama of orchestrating show trials in order to pre-determine convictions of those he wants convicted. In the process he is violating centuries of established rules of due process:
Show trials are exactly what the Obama administration is planning. In its own twisted way, the Bush approach was actually more honest and transparent: they made no secret of their belief that the President could imprison anyone he wanted without any process at all. That's clearly the Obama view as well, but he's creating an elaborate, multi-layered, and purely discretionary "justice system" that accomplishes exactly the same thing while creating the false appearance that there is due process being accorded. And for those who -- to justify what Obama is doing -- make the not unreasonable point that Bush left Obama with a difficult quandary at Guantanamo, how will that excuse apply when these new detention powers are applied not only to existing Guantanamo detainees but to future (i.e., not-yet-abducted) detainees as well?
On a related note: we haven't heard much from Dick Cheney recently. Perhaps he thinks he made his point.
Tuesday, July 7, 2009
National Identity and Redistribution
From The Monkey Cage comes an analysis of a newly published political science article arguing that high levels of national identity correlate with low levels of support for redistributive policies. This cuts against previous theories suggesting that the two reinforce each other. The more I identify with others, the more willing I am to support them with redistributive policies (welfare basically). The research suggests that this is not really supported by evidence:
Most people tend to assume that strong national identity and strong preferences for redistribution go hand-in-hand - the plausible intuition here is that we are more likely to give to our fellow citizens if we identify strongly with them. This intuition (I’ll get back to this in a little bit) underlies a significant chunk of political theory argument about the relationship between the nation-state and redistributive obligations. Shayo’s argument points in a very different direction - he argues that strong national identity goes together with high income inequality and low desire (among working class voters) for redistribution.
Why? The more similar someone is to other members of a group, the more likely she is to identify with the group, and the higher status the group is, the more likely an individual is to identify with it. This suggests that working class voters are less likely to identify with their class in situations of high inequality (being working class is less high status), and this has consequences for voting behaviour. When working class voters identify more strongly with their class, they are likely to push for redistribution (which will favor their class interests). When working class voters identify less with their class (perhaps because that class is ethnically heterogenous), and more with their nation, they are less likely to want redistribution. . . .
Most people tend to assume that strong national identity and strong preferences for redistribution go hand-in-hand - the plausible intuition here is that we are more likely to give to our fellow citizens if we identify strongly with them. This intuition (I’ll get back to this in a little bit) underlies a significant chunk of political theory argument about the relationship between the nation-state and redistributive obligations. Shayo’s argument points in a very different direction - he argues that strong national identity goes together with high income inequality and low desire (among working class voters) for redistribution.
Why? The more similar someone is to other members of a group, the more likely she is to identify with the group, and the higher status the group is, the more likely an individual is to identify with it. This suggests that working class voters are less likely to identify with their class in situations of high inequality (being working class is less high status), and this has consequences for voting behaviour. When working class voters identify more strongly with their class, they are likely to push for redistribution (which will favor their class interests). When working class voters identify less with their class (perhaps because that class is ethnically heterogenous), and more with their nation, they are less likely to want redistribution. . . .
Cities and Civilization
I'm ripping the post below off from Andrew Sullivan's website. My 11 week 2301 class will begin discussing federalism, which includes an analysis of the role cities play in the federal mix. In a practical, though not legal sense, cities are the oldest governmental entity in the country. Beyond that:
A new paper in Science argues that density made civilization possible. Jonah Lehrer comments:
For the first time, humans lived in dense clusters, and occasionally interacted with other clusters, which allowed their fragile innovations to persist and propagate. The end result was a positive feedback loop of new ideas. While it's very nice to have some statistical evidence for this idea...it's worth pointing out that the density explanation isn't particularly new. In The Economy of Cities, Jane Jacobs forcefully argued against the "dogma of agricultural primacy," which assumed that farmers and agricultural innovations made civilization possible. Jacobs argued that the dogma was exactly backwards, and that it was the density of urbanesque clusters which generated the innovations that made farming possible. As Jacobs writes: "It was not agriculture then, for all its importance, that was the salient invention...Rather it was the fact of sustained, interdependent, creative city economies that made possible many new kinds of work." After all, you can't learn how to grow food until you've got a system for transmitting knowledge, which is why population density is so essential.
A new paper in Science argues that density made civilization possible. Jonah Lehrer comments:
For the first time, humans lived in dense clusters, and occasionally interacted with other clusters, which allowed their fragile innovations to persist and propagate. The end result was a positive feedback loop of new ideas. While it's very nice to have some statistical evidence for this idea...it's worth pointing out that the density explanation isn't particularly new. In The Economy of Cities, Jane Jacobs forcefully argued against the "dogma of agricultural primacy," which assumed that farmers and agricultural innovations made civilization possible. Jacobs argued that the dogma was exactly backwards, and that it was the density of urbanesque clusters which generated the innovations that made farming possible. As Jacobs writes: "It was not agriculture then, for all its importance, that was the salient invention...Rather it was the fact of sustained, interdependent, creative city economies that made possible many new kinds of work." After all, you can't learn how to grow food until you've got a system for transmitting knowledge, which is why population density is so essential.
Monday, July 6, 2009
The Health Insurance Lobby Gears Up
From the WaPo:
The nation's largest insurers, hospitals and medical groups have hired more than 350 former government staff members and retired members of Congress in hopes of influencing their old bosses and colleagues, according to an analysis of lobbying disclosures and other records.
The tactic is so widespread that three of every four major health-care firms have at least one former insider on their lobbying payrolls, according to The Washington Post's analysis.
Nearly half of the insiders previously worked for the key committees and lawmakers, including Sens. Max Baucus (D-Mont.) and Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa), debating whether to adopt a public insurance option opposed by major industry groups. At least 10 others have been members of Congress, such as former House majority leaders Richard K. Armey (R-Tex.) and Richard A. Gephardt (D-Mo.), both of whom represent a New Jersey pharmaceutical firm.
The hirings are part of a record-breaking influence campaign by the health-care industry, which is spending more than $1.4 million a day on lobbying in the current fight, according to disclosure records. And even in a city where lobbying is a part of life, the scale of the effort has drawn attention. For example, the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) doubled its spending to nearly $7 million in the first quarter of 2009, followed by Pfizer, with more than $6 million.
It's bipartisan!
The nation's largest insurers, hospitals and medical groups have hired more than 350 former government staff members and retired members of Congress in hopes of influencing their old bosses and colleagues, according to an analysis of lobbying disclosures and other records.
The tactic is so widespread that three of every four major health-care firms have at least one former insider on their lobbying payrolls, according to The Washington Post's analysis.
Nearly half of the insiders previously worked for the key committees and lawmakers, including Sens. Max Baucus (D-Mont.) and Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa), debating whether to adopt a public insurance option opposed by major industry groups. At least 10 others have been members of Congress, such as former House majority leaders Richard K. Armey (R-Tex.) and Richard A. Gephardt (D-Mo.), both of whom represent a New Jersey pharmaceutical firm.
The hirings are part of a record-breaking influence campaign by the health-care industry, which is spending more than $1.4 million a day on lobbying in the current fight, according to disclosure records. And even in a city where lobbying is a part of life, the scale of the effort has drawn attention. For example, the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) doubled its spending to nearly $7 million in the first quarter of 2009, followed by Pfizer, with more than $6 million.
It's bipartisan!
Storm Chasers
The LAT reports on efforts to regulate:
... the world of "storm chasers," traveling contractors and insurance adjusters who descend on natural catastrophes, offering to help victims maximize their claims and rebuild. Regulators, fraud investigators and victims' advocates allege that many inflate damage estimates, do unnecessary repair work and take exorbitant cuts from insurance settlements -- or skip town with all of the money.
"Every disaster has them," said Dave Stuart, president of a nonprofit that helps wildfire victims. "They're literally like vultures circling."
... the world of "storm chasers," traveling contractors and insurance adjusters who descend on natural catastrophes, offering to help victims maximize their claims and rebuild. Regulators, fraud investigators and victims' advocates allege that many inflate damage estimates, do unnecessary repair work and take exorbitant cuts from insurance settlements -- or skip town with all of the money.
"Every disaster has them," said Dave Stuart, president of a nonprofit that helps wildfire victims. "They're literally like vultures circling."
Sunday, July 5, 2009
The Supreme Court Decides a Case. So What?
The Ricci case is unlikely to have an impact on Houston's Fire Department:
As with many U.S. Supreme Court rulings, the one issued last week in a reverse discrimination case brought by a group of Connecticut firefighters produced a slew of headlines but little clarity.
At first it seemed that a major victory had been achieved by the white employees of the New Haven Fire Department. The high court said it was wrong for their performances on a promotion test to be tossed out by city officials who were concerned that the test wasn’t fair, because none of their African-American firefighters were eligible for promotions after taking it.
Conservatives embraced the ruling. Liberals decried it. But lawyers who specialize in employment law are far from convinced there will be major impact anywhere. That includes the city of Houston, which is being sued by a handful of black firefighters who are complaining about the same sort of test.
“What the court did not like was that the city had set the rules and then, in the court’s view, changed them willy-nilly,” said longtime Houston employment attorney Joe Ahmad. “We don’t know what it really means.
No clarity, no impact. The Supreme Court makes a decision, but allows ways around it. Without separate powers of enforcement, the court's rulings have no impact other than perhaps a symbolic one. There was a similar story after Brown v. Board.
As with many U.S. Supreme Court rulings, the one issued last week in a reverse discrimination case brought by a group of Connecticut firefighters produced a slew of headlines but little clarity.
At first it seemed that a major victory had been achieved by the white employees of the New Haven Fire Department. The high court said it was wrong for their performances on a promotion test to be tossed out by city officials who were concerned that the test wasn’t fair, because none of their African-American firefighters were eligible for promotions after taking it.
Conservatives embraced the ruling. Liberals decried it. But lawyers who specialize in employment law are far from convinced there will be major impact anywhere. That includes the city of Houston, which is being sued by a handful of black firefighters who are complaining about the same sort of test.
“What the court did not like was that the city had set the rules and then, in the court’s view, changed them willy-nilly,” said longtime Houston employment attorney Joe Ahmad. “We don’t know what it really means.
No clarity, no impact. The Supreme Court makes a decision, but allows ways around it. Without separate powers of enforcement, the court's rulings have no impact other than perhaps a symbolic one. There was a similar story after Brown v. Board.
More Tea Parties
The second round of Tea Parties were held around the country on July 4. The Christian Science Monitor has a concise overview of the movement as it stands at the moment. The debate is now focused on how many parties were held and how many showed up. Not surprisingly, supporters claim large numbers while opponents argue the movement is running out of steam.
Movements are indeed difficult to sustain, but opposition to taxes and government in general have led to mass movements before, so we'll see how this progresses. The movement still needs some cohesive center, in my opinion, if it is going to survive. Perhaps a spokesperson. Sarah Palin is available.
Movements are indeed difficult to sustain, but opposition to taxes and government in general have led to mass movements before, so we'll see how this progresses. The movement still needs some cohesive center, in my opinion, if it is going to survive. Perhaps a spokesperson. Sarah Palin is available.
And Franken Makes 60
From the NYT, some observations about the consequences of Dems having 60 senators:
With 60 votes (including those of two independents) now most likely aligned with the Democrats, the party could avoid filibusters.
But Mr. Franken swiftly made it clear that he did not view himself as the Democrats’ No. 60. “That’s not how I see it,” he said, adding that he was “going to be the second senator from the state of Minnesota, and that’s how I’m going to do this job.”
Though Republicans expressed disappointment at the outcome, they had in recent weeks become increasingly resigned to Mr. Franken joining the Senate.
On Tuesday, they joined Mr. Coleman in acknowledging defeat and immediately sought to raise expectations for Democrats.
“With their supermajority, the era of excuses and finger-pointing is now over,” said Senator John Cornyn of Texas, who heads the National Republican Senatorial Committee. Mr. Cornyn said it was “troubling to think about what they might now accomplish with 60 votes.”
But whether Democrats can consistently rely on 60 senators being present is in question. Two veteran Democrats, Senators Robert C. Byrd of West Virginia and Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts, are ailing and have regularly been absent from the Senate. In addition, a handful of moderate to conservative Democrats have shown a willingness to break from the party, and even liberals will do so on some issues.
Democrats are known for being difficult to organize in some coherent manner, especially in the Senate. Conversely, as Republicans decrease in size, they become more cohesive and more disruptive. It will interesting to follow the dynamic between the respective parties.
With 60 votes (including those of two independents) now most likely aligned with the Democrats, the party could avoid filibusters.
But Mr. Franken swiftly made it clear that he did not view himself as the Democrats’ No. 60. “That’s not how I see it,” he said, adding that he was “going to be the second senator from the state of Minnesota, and that’s how I’m going to do this job.”
Though Republicans expressed disappointment at the outcome, they had in recent weeks become increasingly resigned to Mr. Franken joining the Senate.
On Tuesday, they joined Mr. Coleman in acknowledging defeat and immediately sought to raise expectations for Democrats.
“With their supermajority, the era of excuses and finger-pointing is now over,” said Senator John Cornyn of Texas, who heads the National Republican Senatorial Committee. Mr. Cornyn said it was “troubling to think about what they might now accomplish with 60 votes.”
But whether Democrats can consistently rely on 60 senators being present is in question. Two veteran Democrats, Senators Robert C. Byrd of West Virginia and Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts, are ailing and have regularly been absent from the Senate. In addition, a handful of moderate to conservative Democrats have shown a willingness to break from the party, and even liberals will do so on some issues.
Democrats are known for being difficult to organize in some coherent manner, especially in the Senate. Conversely, as Republicans decrease in size, they become more cohesive and more disruptive. It will interesting to follow the dynamic between the respective parties.
The Supreme Court and Civil Rights
Here's more commentary on recent shifts in the Supreme Court and what impact it might have on civil rights policy:
There's a striking progression in the attacks on civil rights. In the early 1970s, affirmative action was widely considered to be a logical extension of civil rights principles: Even President Nixon—a man not known for his enlightened racial attitudes—supported it. But by the end of the decade, affirmative action was under attack as reverse discrimination. And now we see the next step in the march against civil rights with the part of federal civil rights law—Title VII—called "disparate impact" that prohibits employers from using promotional or hiring procedures that screen out minorities unless they can prove that the procedure is closely job-related.
Until this Monday, lawyers and judges thought of disparate impact law as a logical extension of the law against intentional discrimination: The premise of the discriminatory impact prohibition is that an employment practice that unnecessarily screens underrepresented groups from the work force is, in effect, just as discriminatory as a "whites only" sign.
read on...
There's a striking progression in the attacks on civil rights. In the early 1970s, affirmative action was widely considered to be a logical extension of civil rights principles: Even President Nixon—a man not known for his enlightened racial attitudes—supported it. But by the end of the decade, affirmative action was under attack as reverse discrimination. And now we see the next step in the march against civil rights with the part of federal civil rights law—Title VII—called "disparate impact" that prohibits employers from using promotional or hiring procedures that screen out minorities unless they can prove that the procedure is closely job-related.
Until this Monday, lawyers and judges thought of disparate impact law as a logical extension of the law against intentional discrimination: The premise of the discriminatory impact prohibition is that an employment practice that unnecessarily screens underrepresented groups from the work force is, in effect, just as discriminatory as a "whites only" sign.
read on...
Property Tax Revenues Decease
As housing prices decrease, tax assessments decrease as well. More property owners are challenging their tax assessments and succeeding given the declining economy. But this raises questions about the ability of local governments to collect the revenue necessary to provide essential services like police and fire protection, road and sewer maintenance, trash collection and the other housekeeping activities local governments perform.
The tax appeals and reassessments present a new budget nightmare for governments. In a survey conducted by the National Association of Counties, 76 percent of large counties said that falling property tax revenue was significantly affecting their budgets, said Jacqueline Byers, the association’s research director.
Officials in some states say their property tax revenue is falling for the first time since World War II.
The recession has already taken a significant toll on states’ budgets, as rising joblessness, a weak business climate and a drop in consumer demand have cut sharply into receipts from taxes on sales, personal income and business earnings.
The pain at the state level is trickling down to county and local governments. To compensate, about 10 percent of large counties are raising the tax rates associated with home values to minimize the revenue loss, the county association said.
Two consequences seem to follow from this, neither good for the still declining economy. As cities cut costs they will cut workers -- or the hours they work, which contributes to the worsening unemployment rate and the accompanying drain on services that comes with it. And as tax rates increase, money that could circulate in the local economy will instead go to local government.
But the dilemma is that if services are cut, the infrastructure that allows the local economy to function efficiently will crumble, which also contributes to an increasingly declining economy. Recessions are not fun.
For informational purposes, this paragraph does a great job of outlining one of the difficulties the American federal system has in establishing a coordinated strategy for dealing with the problem. It is not a coordinated system to begin with:
Property taxes are meted out by a disparate patchwork of cities, towns, counties, and school and fire districts, all with their own rules. Because tax formulas vary widely county to county, not every decrease in assessed values automatically lowers a household’s property taxes.
The tax appeals and reassessments present a new budget nightmare for governments. In a survey conducted by the National Association of Counties, 76 percent of large counties said that falling property tax revenue was significantly affecting their budgets, said Jacqueline Byers, the association’s research director.
Officials in some states say their property tax revenue is falling for the first time since World War II.
The recession has already taken a significant toll on states’ budgets, as rising joblessness, a weak business climate and a drop in consumer demand have cut sharply into receipts from taxes on sales, personal income and business earnings.
The pain at the state level is trickling down to county and local governments. To compensate, about 10 percent of large counties are raising the tax rates associated with home values to minimize the revenue loss, the county association said.
Two consequences seem to follow from this, neither good for the still declining economy. As cities cut costs they will cut workers -- or the hours they work, which contributes to the worsening unemployment rate and the accompanying drain on services that comes with it. And as tax rates increase, money that could circulate in the local economy will instead go to local government.
But the dilemma is that if services are cut, the infrastructure that allows the local economy to function efficiently will crumble, which also contributes to an increasingly declining economy. Recessions are not fun.
For informational purposes, this paragraph does a great job of outlining one of the difficulties the American federal system has in establishing a coordinated strategy for dealing with the problem. It is not a coordinated system to begin with:
Property taxes are meted out by a disparate patchwork of cities, towns, counties, and school and fire districts, all with their own rules. Because tax formulas vary widely county to county, not every decrease in assessed values automatically lowers a household’s property taxes.
Saturday, July 4, 2009
Environmental Policy and the Supreme Court
Something for my 2302 5-week students to think about as we focus on public policy this coming week. The NYT reports on the consequences of Supreme Court decisions on environmental policy. This provides context for the overview of the direction of Supreme Court decisions covered previsously:
The Supreme Court heard five environmental law cases in the term that ended Monday, and environmental groups lost every time. It was, said Richard J. Lazarus, a director of the Supreme Court Institute at Georgetown University Law Center, “the worst term ever” for environmental interests.
The court allowed Navy exercises using sonar that threatened whales off California. It limited the liability of companies partly responsible for toxic spills. It made it harder to challenge Forest Service regulations and easier to dump mining waste into an Alaskan lake. And it allowed the Environmental Protection Agency to use cost-benefit analysis to decide how much marine life may be killed by cooling structures at power plants.
Business groups expressed measured satisfaction with the decisions.
“The court does seem to be bringing more common sense back to environmental law,” Robin S. Conrad, a lawyer with the United States Chamber of Commerce, said at a recent news briefing.
In the past 40 years or so, ever since environmental law emerged as a separate field based on major statutes enacted in the 1970s, the Supreme Court has been reasonably receptive to cases brought by environmental groups.
That seems to have changed under the court of Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr.
The Supreme Court heard five environmental law cases in the term that ended Monday, and environmental groups lost every time. It was, said Richard J. Lazarus, a director of the Supreme Court Institute at Georgetown University Law Center, “the worst term ever” for environmental interests.
The court allowed Navy exercises using sonar that threatened whales off California. It limited the liability of companies partly responsible for toxic spills. It made it harder to challenge Forest Service regulations and easier to dump mining waste into an Alaskan lake. And it allowed the Environmental Protection Agency to use cost-benefit analysis to decide how much marine life may be killed by cooling structures at power plants.
Business groups expressed measured satisfaction with the decisions.
“The court does seem to be bringing more common sense back to environmental law,” Robin S. Conrad, a lawyer with the United States Chamber of Commerce, said at a recent news briefing.
In the past 40 years or so, ever since environmental law emerged as a separate field based on major statutes enacted in the 1970s, the Supreme Court has been reasonably receptive to cases brought by environmental groups.
That seems to have changed under the court of Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr.
Thursday, July 2, 2009
The Honduran Coup
Al Giodarno explains what coups do. They remove what he calls the five basic liberties:
1. The right to protest.
2. Freedom in one's home from unwarranted search, seizure and arrest.
3. Freedom of association.
4. Guarantees of rights of due process while under arrest.
5. Freedom of transit in the country.
1. The right to protest.
2. Freedom in one's home from unwarranted search, seizure and arrest.
3. Freedom of association.
4. Guarantees of rights of due process while under arrest.
5. Freedom of transit in the country.
More on the Direction of the Supreme Court
The NYT provides essentially the same analysis of the Supreme Court that the WaPo did below. The provide statistics (which they credit to ScotusBlog. ScotusBlog also weighs in on this trend as well as what they anticipate will come of the Sotomayor nomination. A non-event they are calling it.).
They highlight the tactical nature of John Roberts who they argue has positioned the court where they are now poised to make substantive changes to a variety of previous constitutional holdings.
By the way, the increasingly accepted term for this type of behavior is "minimialism."
I anticipate spending the bulk of Monday discussing these specific findings in my Monday 2302, and Tuesday 2301.
They highlight the tactical nature of John Roberts who they argue has positioned the court where they are now poised to make substantive changes to a variety of previous constitutional holdings.
By the way, the increasingly accepted term for this type of behavior is "minimialism."
I anticipate spending the bulk of Monday discussing these specific findings in my Monday 2302, and Tuesday 2301.
Wednesday, July 1, 2009
While the Elected Branches Move Left, the Appointed Branch Moves Right
A consequence of constitutional design. From WaPo:
For the Supreme Court, it was the year of living on the verge. On the verge of declaring the key provision of the Voting Rights Act unconstitutional, but then stepping back. Looking hard at whether some protections of minorities amount to violations of the Constitution, then leaving the topic for another day. Appearing sympathetic to school officials for their decision to strip-search a 13-year-old student, but shielding them only from any liability for their actions.
The court's term avoided the blockbuster decisions that at one point seemed inevitable. But its path was clear: a patient and steady move to the right led by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., one that is likely to continue even if President Obama is successful in adding Judge Sonia Sotomayor to the high court -- and perhaps two others like her.
Both my 2301 and 2302 students should read this, and we will discuss this in my lecture class. It not only touches on the constitutionally established interplay between the branches, but the style of the Chief Justice, and the likely future of the court.
For the Supreme Court, it was the year of living on the verge. On the verge of declaring the key provision of the Voting Rights Act unconstitutional, but then stepping back. Looking hard at whether some protections of minorities amount to violations of the Constitution, then leaving the topic for another day. Appearing sympathetic to school officials for their decision to strip-search a 13-year-old student, but shielding them only from any liability for their actions.
The court's term avoided the blockbuster decisions that at one point seemed inevitable. But its path was clear: a patient and steady move to the right led by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., one that is likely to continue even if President Obama is successful in adding Judge Sonia Sotomayor to the high court -- and perhaps two others like her.
Both my 2301 and 2302 students should read this, and we will discuss this in my lecture class. It not only touches on the constitutionally established interplay between the branches, but the style of the Chief Justice, and the likely future of the court.