Here's an academic paper arguing that they would not have.
Two other academic types argue that the filibuster is actually unconstitutional.
Friday, December 31, 2010
Debating the Meaning of the Constitution ...
Ezra Klein has a post today on the ongoing dispute regarding the proper interpretation of the Constitution. It's a point we hit repeatedly in class.
Tuesday, December 21, 2010
Sunday, December 19, 2010
The Revolving Door -- Peter Orszag and Citibank
From Deal Book:
Wall Street has long stacked its ranks with Washington types.
It is the elephant in the room of White House grand bargains: after building a reputation and Rolodex in politics, the wise man moves on — or in many cases, back — to the financial industry to make a killing.
A decade ago, a former Treasury secretary, Robert E. Rubin, left the Clinton administration to become a senior adviser and board member at Citigroup — collecting a $10 million a year paycheck with no management responsibility.
On Thursday, Peter R. Orszag, President Obama’s first budget director and a protégé of Mr. Rubin, followed in his mentor’s footsteps and joined Citi’s investment banking group as a vice chairman. Mr. Orszag, 41, is the second cabinet official to join Citi this month, and his appointment comes days after the Treasury Department’s $10.5 billion stock offering helped further extricate the bailed out bank from Washington.
- Commentary from James Fallows.
- A response.
Wall Street has long stacked its ranks with Washington types.
It is the elephant in the room of White House grand bargains: after building a reputation and Rolodex in politics, the wise man moves on — or in many cases, back — to the financial industry to make a killing.
A decade ago, a former Treasury secretary, Robert E. Rubin, left the Clinton administration to become a senior adviser and board member at Citigroup — collecting a $10 million a year paycheck with no management responsibility.
On Thursday, Peter R. Orszag, President Obama’s first budget director and a protégé of Mr. Rubin, followed in his mentor’s footsteps and joined Citi’s investment banking group as a vice chairman. Mr. Orszag, 41, is the second cabinet official to join Citi this month, and his appointment comes days after the Treasury Department’s $10.5 billion stock offering helped further extricate the bailed out bank from Washington.
- Commentary from James Fallows.
- A response.
House Judiciary Committee Hearings on Wikileaks
C-Span video here. Is legislation adjusting the Espionage Act necessary to deal with the ease at which secrets can be made public?
- ReadWriteWeb.
- ReadWriteWeb.
The Future of the Commerce Clause
This is a very big deal and I'll integrate it into my discussion of federalism in 2301. It involves potential of challenges to the commerce clause and its impact on federalism. Linda Greenhouse kicked up a discussion of the consequence of the recent Virginia Court ruling on the individual mandate component of the health care law. Will it lead to the narrowing of the commerce clause that New Deal critics have been pursuing for decades?
It has been 15 years since the Rehnquist court began applying the constitutional brakes to assertions of federal power that had seemed unassailable since the New Deal. Its first target was modest, a five-year-old federal statute called the Gun-Free School Zones Act that most people had never heard of, which made it a federal crime to possess a gun within 1,000 feet of a school.
The vote in United States v. Lopez was 5 to 4. Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist wrote the court’s opinion, observing that the Constitution’s commerce clause did not confer on Congress a general police power disconnected from the regulation of economic activity. To uphold this statute, he said, would be to blur the “distinction between what is truly national and what is truly local.” For the first time since 1936, the Supreme Court struck down a federal law as exceeding Congress’s commerce power. In dissent, Justice David H. Souter warned that “it seems fair to ask whether the step taken by the court today does anything but portend a return to the untenable jurisprudence from which the court extricated itself almost 60 years ago.”
Thus began the Rehnquist court’s federalism revolution, a 5-to-4 forced march through the various sources and attributes of Congressional power. The targets included, most notably, Congress’s authority under Section 5 of the 14th Amendment to enact into law its own vision of the guarantees of equal protection and due process when that vision was broader than the court’s own. William Rehnquist had waited a judicial lifetime to assemble a majority that would follow him on such a course. Eleven federal statutes would eventually fall, in whole or part, on federalism grounds in less than a decade before the court, including the chief justice himself, began to blink and the revolution petered out.
Ever since, it has been quite easy to get a good debate going, among people who spend time thinking about such matters, about whether the federalism revolution really had amounted to much beyond the symbolic. True, the court did strike down a provision of one fairly high-profile law, the Violence Against Women Act, under which women could sue their attackers for damages. But no major federal program felt the ax. I had been an early proponent of the view that something big was happening. But in recent years, while still finding the subject of great interest, I was beginning to have my own doubts about what it all had meant.
Until now. In his opinion on Monday striking down the individual mandate of the new health care law, Judge Henry E. Hudson of federal district court in Virginia cited the Lopez case and United States v. Morrison, the Violence Against Women Act decision (also a 5-to-4 Rehnquist majority opinion), more than a dozen times. Judge Hudson deployed the two cases as the major building blocks for his argument that Congress lacked constitutional authority to require individuals either to purchase health insurance or pay a fine to the Internal Revenue Service, a provision the judge said was “neither within the letter nor the spirit of the Constitution.”
She then adds her criticism of the decision which itself has been criticized:
- Ilya Solim.
- Conor Friedersdorf.
It has been 15 years since the Rehnquist court began applying the constitutional brakes to assertions of federal power that had seemed unassailable since the New Deal. Its first target was modest, a five-year-old federal statute called the Gun-Free School Zones Act that most people had never heard of, which made it a federal crime to possess a gun within 1,000 feet of a school.
The vote in United States v. Lopez was 5 to 4. Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist wrote the court’s opinion, observing that the Constitution’s commerce clause did not confer on Congress a general police power disconnected from the regulation of economic activity. To uphold this statute, he said, would be to blur the “distinction between what is truly national and what is truly local.” For the first time since 1936, the Supreme Court struck down a federal law as exceeding Congress’s commerce power. In dissent, Justice David H. Souter warned that “it seems fair to ask whether the step taken by the court today does anything but portend a return to the untenable jurisprudence from which the court extricated itself almost 60 years ago.”
Thus began the Rehnquist court’s federalism revolution, a 5-to-4 forced march through the various sources and attributes of Congressional power. The targets included, most notably, Congress’s authority under Section 5 of the 14th Amendment to enact into law its own vision of the guarantees of equal protection and due process when that vision was broader than the court’s own. William Rehnquist had waited a judicial lifetime to assemble a majority that would follow him on such a course. Eleven federal statutes would eventually fall, in whole or part, on federalism grounds in less than a decade before the court, including the chief justice himself, began to blink and the revolution petered out.
Ever since, it has been quite easy to get a good debate going, among people who spend time thinking about such matters, about whether the federalism revolution really had amounted to much beyond the symbolic. True, the court did strike down a provision of one fairly high-profile law, the Violence Against Women Act, under which women could sue their attackers for damages. But no major federal program felt the ax. I had been an early proponent of the view that something big was happening. But in recent years, while still finding the subject of great interest, I was beginning to have my own doubts about what it all had meant.
Until now. In his opinion on Monday striking down the individual mandate of the new health care law, Judge Henry E. Hudson of federal district court in Virginia cited the Lopez case and United States v. Morrison, the Violence Against Women Act decision (also a 5-to-4 Rehnquist majority opinion), more than a dozen times. Judge Hudson deployed the two cases as the major building blocks for his argument that Congress lacked constitutional authority to require individuals either to purchase health insurance or pay a fine to the Internal Revenue Service, a provision the judge said was “neither within the letter nor the spirit of the Constitution.”
She then adds her criticism of the decision which itself has been criticized:
- Ilya Solim.
- Conor Friedersdorf.
Tuesday, December 14, 2010
On Obama's Judicial Appointees
From the Huffington Post:
As the first congressional session of Obama's presidency draws to a close, what began as a slow process of confirmation has ballooned into a full-blown judicial crisis. The Senate has overseen the slowest pace of judicial staffing in at least a generation, with a paltry 39.8 percent of Obama's judges having been confirmed, according to numbers compiled by Senate Democrats. Of the 103 district and circuit court nominees, only 41 have been confirmed.
By this time in George W. Bush's presidency, the Senate had confirmed 76 percent of his nominees. President Clinton was working at a rate of 89 percent at this point in his tenure.
More:
- Jonathan Chait.
- Jonathan Bernstein.
As the first congressional session of Obama's presidency draws to a close, what began as a slow process of confirmation has ballooned into a full-blown judicial crisis. The Senate has overseen the slowest pace of judicial staffing in at least a generation, with a paltry 39.8 percent of Obama's judges having been confirmed, according to numbers compiled by Senate Democrats. Of the 103 district and circuit court nominees, only 41 have been confirmed.
By this time in George W. Bush's presidency, the Senate had confirmed 76 percent of his nominees. President Clinton was working at a rate of 89 percent at this point in his tenure.
More:
- Jonathan Chait.
- Jonathan Bernstein.
Monday, December 13, 2010
What is Triangulation?
Nothing really, other than political bargaining. In his takedown of the phrase Jonathan Bernstein has some succinct things to say about the bill making process:
With unified government, the best course for a president is usually to pass legislation by mobilizing his party. That's pretty much what Barack Obama did during the 111th Congress. The trick is going to be, always, to keep the handful at the extreme left (for a Democrat) happy while also appealing to the 218th most liberal Member of the House and the 60th most liberal Senator. Barack Obama may have, in some sense, wanted to be bipartisan or postpartisan or whatever, but the easiest coalition for almost everything he wanted to get done was going to be highly partisan.
When there's divided government, the calculus changes. While it's still possible that there will be issues in which the easiest winning coalition is constructed beginning with the left and moving to the center, there are other potential available coalitions that involve finding things that both sides really want that the other side doesn't mind that much. That's obviously the case with the tax cut deal: liberals don't care nearly as much about tax rates for the rich as do conservatives (yes, they care a lot -- but not nearly as much). Conservatives do not, it seems likely, oppose UI extension nearly as much as liberals favor it. What this all boils down to is that in the next Congress, there are going to be things that pass with the support of both John Boehner and Barack Obama, and perhaps without the support of some Democrats. Or else, nothing is going to pass at all.
Now, what's "triangulation" in that context? Nothing. Triangulation is an advertising slogan coined by Dick Morris to advertise himself -- to give him as large a share of the credit for Bill Clinton's 1996 re-election as possible. That's all.
With unified government, the best course for a president is usually to pass legislation by mobilizing his party. That's pretty much what Barack Obama did during the 111th Congress. The trick is going to be, always, to keep the handful at the extreme left (for a Democrat) happy while also appealing to the 218th most liberal Member of the House and the 60th most liberal Senator. Barack Obama may have, in some sense, wanted to be bipartisan or postpartisan or whatever, but the easiest coalition for almost everything he wanted to get done was going to be highly partisan.
When there's divided government, the calculus changes. While it's still possible that there will be issues in which the easiest winning coalition is constructed beginning with the left and moving to the center, there are other potential available coalitions that involve finding things that both sides really want that the other side doesn't mind that much. That's obviously the case with the tax cut deal: liberals don't care nearly as much about tax rates for the rich as do conservatives (yes, they care a lot -- but not nearly as much). Conservatives do not, it seems likely, oppose UI extension nearly as much as liberals favor it. What this all boils down to is that in the next Congress, there are going to be things that pass with the support of both John Boehner and Barack Obama, and perhaps without the support of some Democrats. Or else, nothing is going to pass at all.
Now, what's "triangulation" in that context? Nothing. Triangulation is an advertising slogan coined by Dick Morris to advertise himself -- to give him as large a share of the credit for Bill Clinton's 1996 re-election as possible. That's all.
Evangelicals and Environmentalism
Slate reports on how attitudes towards the environment and global warming have created (at least a minor) rift within the evangelical movement.
Virginia Federal Judge Rules Individual Mandate Unconstitutional
From the NYT:
A federal district judge in Virginia ruled on Monday that the keystone provision in the Obama health care law is unconstitutional, becoming the first court in the country to invalidate any part of the sprawling act and ensuring that appellate courts will receive contradictory opinions from below.
Judge Henry E. Hudson, who was appointed to the bench by President George W. Bush, declined the plaintiff’s request to freeze implementation of the law pending appeal, meaning that there should be no immediate effect on the ongoing rollout of the law. But the ruling is likely to create confusion among the public and further destabilize political support for legislation that is under fierce attack from Republicans in Congress and in many statehouses.
A federal district judge in Virginia ruled on Monday that the keystone provision in the Obama health care law is unconstitutional, becoming the first court in the country to invalidate any part of the sprawling act and ensuring that appellate courts will receive contradictory opinions from below.
Judge Henry E. Hudson, who was appointed to the bench by President George W. Bush, declined the plaintiff’s request to freeze implementation of the law pending appeal, meaning that there should be no immediate effect on the ongoing rollout of the law. But the ruling is likely to create confusion among the public and further destabilize political support for legislation that is under fierce attack from Republicans in Congress and in many statehouses.
Saturday, December 11, 2010
Standing, Class Action Lawsuits and Wal-Mart v. Dukes
A case involving accusations of gender discrimination at Wal-Mart is also allowing the court to question the very practice of bringing class action lawsuits forward. Once again the court is flirting with the idea of limiting standing, the right of people to demonstrate to the court that they have a legitimate reason to take a case to the court.
- ScotusBlog: Walmart v. Dukes.
- ScotuBlog: This Week at the Court.
- Wikipedia: Walmart v. Dukes.
- ClassActionBlawg.
- Wikipedia: Class Action.
- Findlaw: Gender Discrimination
- ScotusBlog: Walmart v. Dukes.
- ScotuBlog: This Week at the Court.
- Wikipedia: Walmart v. Dukes.
- ClassActionBlawg.
- Wikipedia: Class Action.
- Findlaw: Gender Discrimination
Friday, December 10, 2010
The World Post-Wikileaks
A discussion in the NYT:
In the tempest that has followed the release of a trove of secret government files by WikiLeaks, officials and security experts are trying to figure out how to stop such a large-scale breach from happening again.
While Julian Assange, the Wikileaks founder, defended publication of the documents as a victory for openness, national security officials see a dangerous precedent.
Even if WikiLeaks itself can be controlled, have the gates opened to a flood of similar enterprises and even more damaging disclosures?
Perhaps it was inevitable that once the web was developed it would be impossible to keep secrets anymore.
- Wikileak's War on Secrecy.
In the tempest that has followed the release of a trove of secret government files by WikiLeaks, officials and security experts are trying to figure out how to stop such a large-scale breach from happening again.
While Julian Assange, the Wikileaks founder, defended publication of the documents as a victory for openness, national security officials see a dangerous precedent.
Even if WikiLeaks itself can be controlled, have the gates opened to a flood of similar enterprises and even more damaging disclosures?
Perhaps it was inevitable that once the web was developed it would be impossible to keep secrets anymore.
- Wikileak's War on Secrecy.
Tax Reform on the Horizon
A topic we will discuss next semester. According to Ezra Klein:
On Tuesday, I asked Glenn Hubbard, one of the architects of the Bush tax cuts, how he'd reform the tax code. That was the wrong question to start with, he said. "First, you need to figure out the size of government."
Easy enough
On Tuesday, I asked Glenn Hubbard, one of the architects of the Bush tax cuts, how he'd reform the tax code. That was the wrong question to start with, he said. "First, you need to figure out the size of government."
Easy enough
Thursday, December 9, 2010
Tax Bill and DADT Blocked
An example of how legislation can be stopped -- even though majorities support them -- by blocking bill form reaching the floor.
- The Senate and DADT.
- The Senate and Aid for 9/11 Workers.
- The House and the Tax Bill.
- The Senate and DADT.
- The Senate and Aid for 9/11 Workers.
- The House and the Tax Bill.
Wednesday, December 8, 2010
Will Obama's Compromise With Republicans Drive a Wedge in the Democratic Party?
Greg Sargeant thinks not:
. . . there may be a gap between what high profile liberal commentators -- the so-called "professional left" -- think of Obama, and what self-described rank-and-file liberals think of him. The impression of liberal wrath is also perhaps exaggerated by media organizations that seem eager to feed that storyline.
The question now, however, is whether GOP gains in Congress will induce the Obama team to undertake a strategy that risks genuine alienation of liberals. Obama advisers have reportedly concluded that the key to winning back independents in advance of 2012 is to demonstrate compromise with Republicans in order to recapture his post-partisan appeal.
. . . there may be a gap between what high profile liberal commentators -- the so-called "professional left" -- think of Obama, and what self-described rank-and-file liberals think of him. The impression of liberal wrath is also perhaps exaggerated by media organizations that seem eager to feed that storyline.
The question now, however, is whether GOP gains in Congress will induce the Obama team to undertake a strategy that risks genuine alienation of liberals. Obama advisers have reportedly concluded that the key to winning back independents in advance of 2012 is to demonstrate compromise with Republicans in order to recapture his post-partisan appeal.
The Tax Deal as Stimulus
From the NYT:
A year ago, President Obama and the Democrats made the mistake of assuming that an economic recovery was under way. This week’s deal to extend the Bush tax cuts shows that the White House’s top priority is avoiding the same mistake again — even if it has to upset many fellow Democrats in the process. |
Mr. Obama effectively traded tax cuts for the affluent, which Republicans were demanding, for a second stimulus bill that seemed improbable a few weeks ago. Mr. Obama yielded to Republicans on extending the high-end Bush tax cuts and on cutting the estate tax below its scheduled level. In exchange, Republicans agreed to extend unemployment benefits, cut payroll taxes and business taxes, and extend a grab bag of tax credits for college tuition and other items.
A year ago, President Obama and the Democrats made the mistake of assuming that an economic recovery was under way. This week’s deal to extend the Bush tax cuts shows that the White House’s top priority is avoiding the same mistake again — even if it has to upset many fellow Democrats in the process. |
Mr. Obama effectively traded tax cuts for the affluent, which Republicans were demanding, for a second stimulus bill that seemed improbable a few weeks ago. Mr. Obama yielded to Republicans on extending the high-end Bush tax cuts and on cutting the estate tax below its scheduled level. In exchange, Republicans agreed to extend unemployment benefits, cut payroll taxes and business taxes, and extend a grab bag of tax credits for college tuition and other items.
Posner Wants More Stimulus
From the New Republic:
The bursting of the housing bubble, which brought down the banking industry because banks were so heavily invested in financing residential real estate, had three effects that relate to the paradox of thrift, each amplified by the accompanying implosion of the stock market bubble. First, the decline in house and stock values reduced household wealth without reducing people’s debt burdens, because debt is a fixed expense rather than a percentage of the value of the assets that secure it. (That’s why so many mortgages are “under water”: the unpaid balance of the mortgage exceeds the market value of the property that secures it because the value has fallen but not the debt.) So people felt poorer and therefore more vulnerable to economic adversity, and they reacted by reducing their consumption, thus saving more.
Back and forth from the Becker - Posner Blog
What is the Paradox of Thrift?
The bursting of the housing bubble, which brought down the banking industry because banks were so heavily invested in financing residential real estate, had three effects that relate to the paradox of thrift, each amplified by the accompanying implosion of the stock market bubble. First, the decline in house and stock values reduced household wealth without reducing people’s debt burdens, because debt is a fixed expense rather than a percentage of the value of the assets that secure it. (That’s why so many mortgages are “under water”: the unpaid balance of the mortgage exceeds the market value of the property that secures it because the value has fallen but not the debt.) So people felt poorer and therefore more vulnerable to economic adversity, and they reacted by reducing their consumption, thus saving more.
Back and forth from the Becker - Posner Blog
What is the Paradox of Thrift?
An Impeachment Trial in the Senate
From the NYT:
The proceedings in the Senate on Tuesday were as remarkable as the charges that lawmakers there were asked to weigh. As tax policy debates swirled around the Capitol, the Senate on Tuesday began pondering the fate of Judge G. Thomas Porteous Jr. of Federal District Court in Louisiana, whom the House of Representatives impeached in March on four articles of “high crimes and misdemeanors” stemming from charges that he received cash and favors from those with business in his court.
This is only the 12th impeachment trial of a judge in Senate history.
Update: The Senate voted to convict.
The proceedings in the Senate on Tuesday were as remarkable as the charges that lawmakers there were asked to weigh. As tax policy debates swirled around the Capitol, the Senate on Tuesday began pondering the fate of Judge G. Thomas Porteous Jr. of Federal District Court in Louisiana, whom the House of Representatives impeached in March on four articles of “high crimes and misdemeanors” stemming from charges that he received cash and favors from those with business in his court.
This is only the 12th impeachment trial of a judge in Senate history.
Update: The Senate voted to convict.
Tuesday, December 7, 2010
This is all you need to know about what drives political decisionmaking ...
From Ezra Klein via Andrew Sullivan.
Saturday, December 4, 2010
Drawing the Line Between Free Speech and Bullying
Wendy Kaminer is not a fan of legislation introduced in the Senate that addresses bullyign on school campuses:
There's no dearth of important issues for Congress to address in the lame-duck session, but New Jersey Senator Frank Lautenberg has introduced an entirely gratuitously anti-harassment bill anyway--The Tyler Clementi Higher Education Anti-Harassment Act of 2010. (Congressman Rush Holt introduced the same bill in the House.) Federal civil rights law has long prohibited harassment in schools receiving federal funds; Tyler Clementi was not the victim of harassment or any absence of rules against it: his suicide followed a gross and apparently criminal violation of privacy--the secret taping and broadcast of his sexual encounter with another male. So, there's no need for this bill and no sense in naming it after Clementi--unless you're intent on emotionally blackmailing people into supporting it. Naming legislation after a victim cuts off debate, daring opponents to risk appearing insensitive to the sufferings of survivors.
But this bill is not simply redundant; it's repressive, proposing a subjective definition of harassment that's more restrictive of speech and more likely to be applied arbitrarily than the definition formulated by the Supreme Court some 10 years ago. You can find a concise critique of the bill at thefire.org, which stresses that "the bill removes the requirement that the (alleged harassment) be objectively offensive... The bill also fails to define what constitutes a "hostile or abusive" educational environment, leaving that determination to college administrators"--administrators who have proven themselves oblivious or hostile to free speech, as a lamentably long list of FIRE's cases show.
There's no dearth of important issues for Congress to address in the lame-duck session, but New Jersey Senator Frank Lautenberg has introduced an entirely gratuitously anti-harassment bill anyway--The Tyler Clementi Higher Education Anti-Harassment Act of 2010. (Congressman Rush Holt introduced the same bill in the House.) Federal civil rights law has long prohibited harassment in schools receiving federal funds; Tyler Clementi was not the victim of harassment or any absence of rules against it: his suicide followed a gross and apparently criminal violation of privacy--the secret taping and broadcast of his sexual encounter with another male. So, there's no need for this bill and no sense in naming it after Clementi--unless you're intent on emotionally blackmailing people into supporting it. Naming legislation after a victim cuts off debate, daring opponents to risk appearing insensitive to the sufferings of survivors.
But this bill is not simply redundant; it's repressive, proposing a subjective definition of harassment that's more restrictive of speech and more likely to be applied arbitrarily than the definition formulated by the Supreme Court some 10 years ago. You can find a concise critique of the bill at thefire.org, which stresses that "the bill removes the requirement that the (alleged harassment) be objectively offensive... The bill also fails to define what constitutes a "hostile or abusive" educational environment, leaving that determination to college administrators"--administrators who have proven themselves oblivious or hostile to free speech, as a lamentably long list of FIRE's cases show.
Starve the Beast
A few comments from Bruce Bartlett on the effectiveness of the "starve the beast" strategy towards reducing the size of the federal government.
-- The Idiocy of Starve the Beast Theory.
-- 'Starve the Beast' - Origins and Development of a Budgetary Metaphor.
-- To Starve or Not To Starve the Beast.
In Kevin Drum's comment we get an interesting observation:
If you raise taxes to pay for government programs, you're essentially making them expensive. Conversely, if you cut taxes, you're making government spending cheaper. So what does Econ 101 say happens when you reduce the price of something? Answer: demand for it goes up.
Cutting taxes makes government spending less expensive for taxpayers, which makes them want more of it. And politicians, obliging creatures that they are, are eager to give the people what they want. Result: lots of spending and lots of deficits.
If you want to reduce spending, the best way to do it is to raise taxes so that registered voters actually have to pay for the services they get. I don't have a cute name for this theory, but it's true nonetheless. Even for Republicans.
This suggests that it is rational for people to want more government programs if they do not know the true costs of those programs. If you want to cut government, raise taxes.
-- The Idiocy of Starve the Beast Theory.
-- 'Starve the Beast' - Origins and Development of a Budgetary Metaphor.
-- To Starve or Not To Starve the Beast.
In Kevin Drum's comment we get an interesting observation:
If you raise taxes to pay for government programs, you're essentially making them expensive. Conversely, if you cut taxes, you're making government spending cheaper. So what does Econ 101 say happens when you reduce the price of something? Answer: demand for it goes up.
Cutting taxes makes government spending less expensive for taxpayers, which makes them want more of it. And politicians, obliging creatures that they are, are eager to give the people what they want. Result: lots of spending and lots of deficits.
If you want to reduce spending, the best way to do it is to raise taxes so that registered voters actually have to pay for the services they get. I don't have a cute name for this theory, but it's true nonetheless. Even for Republicans.
This suggests that it is rational for people to want more government programs if they do not know the true costs of those programs. If you want to cut government, raise taxes.
Friday, December 3, 2010
Some Takes on the Vote on the Fiscal Commission Vote
From the Brookings Institution.
In class yesterday as we were reviewing the bicameral system and how it was intended to tie the House closely to the immediate preferences of the public and detach the Senate from the same I suggested that the Senate was more likely to support the plan since the longer terms of office shield them from the immediate anger (short-term) that could follow their support. This despite the fact that the proposals serve the long term needs of the country.
Well, I was right.
5 out of 6 Senators voted for it.
5 out of 6 Representatives voted against it.
In class yesterday as we were reviewing the bicameral system and how it was intended to tie the House closely to the immediate preferences of the public and detach the Senate from the same I suggested that the Senate was more likely to support the plan since the longer terms of office shield them from the immediate anger (short-term) that could follow their support. This despite the fact that the proposals serve the long term needs of the country.
Well, I was right.
5 out of 6 Senators voted for it.
5 out of 6 Representatives voted against it.
Will Ron Paul Chair the SubCommittee That Oversees the Fed?
Maybe:
One important indicator will be who is chosen to lead the House subcommittee that oversees the Fed when Republicans take control of the House of Representatives in January. First in line for the job is Representative Ron Paul of Texas, the libertarian renegade Republican, frequent presidential candidate, and outspoken critic of the Federal Reserve who wrote the best-selling polemic, "End the Fed.''
Were he to assume the chairmanship, Paul would represent an altogether different type of critic: he really means what he says. But he's no lock for the job. His views on monetary policy, and his disinclination to defer to the GOP leadership, have twice before led his own party to ignore his seniority and deny him control of this subcommittee, in 2003 and 2005. One acid test of whether the Republican Party is serious about trying to aggressively influence monetary policy and thwart QE2 is if it finally lets Paul loose on the chairmanship.
Paul expects it will. "I'm assuming that I'll get it,'' he said. "I've had no indication at all that I won't.''
Representative Barney Frank, the outgoing chairman of the Financial Services Committee, agrees. "I think the GOP is afraid to deny him that chairmanship. The Tea Party would revolt."
- The Domestic Monetary Policy and Technology Subcommittee.
One important indicator will be who is chosen to lead the House subcommittee that oversees the Fed when Republicans take control of the House of Representatives in January. First in line for the job is Representative Ron Paul of Texas, the libertarian renegade Republican, frequent presidential candidate, and outspoken critic of the Federal Reserve who wrote the best-selling polemic, "End the Fed.''
Were he to assume the chairmanship, Paul would represent an altogether different type of critic: he really means what he says. But he's no lock for the job. His views on monetary policy, and his disinclination to defer to the GOP leadership, have twice before led his own party to ignore his seniority and deny him control of this subcommittee, in 2003 and 2005. One acid test of whether the Republican Party is serious about trying to aggressively influence monetary policy and thwart QE2 is if it finally lets Paul loose on the chairmanship.
Paul expects it will. "I'm assuming that I'll get it,'' he said. "I've had no indication at all that I won't.''
Representative Barney Frank, the outgoing chairman of the Financial Services Committee, agrees. "I think the GOP is afraid to deny him that chairmanship. The Tea Party would revolt."
- The Domestic Monetary Policy and Technology Subcommittee.
Institutions Matter
This is the most clear headed comment I've yet seen about the (potential) problem posed by wikileaks and other organizations that seek to subvert established institutions:
. . . could we please pause for a moment amidst all of our technological triumphalism to reflect on the potential downside to all of this antinomian empowerment of the individual? The libertarian imagination, amply furnished with metaphors of invisible hands and spontaneously generated order, is thrilled by such technological empowerment. What could be better than giving every human being on the planet the capacity to subvert all established authorities and institutions, private or public, tyrannical or meritocratic? What would be better, I submit, is lucid self-awareness about how much our liberty depends on the existence of stable, functioning institutions to protect it against those who long to extinguish it in the name of sundry anti-liberal theological and ideological projects.
The framers of the Constitution would agree with this sentiment. It is the very point made in Federalist #10 and helps us understand, in a contemporary context, the dangers that passionate majorities angry at existing institutions, can pose to free societies. Not that stable societies always respect or maintain individual freedom -- they don't always -- or that occasional challenges to the status quo are not worthwhile -- they are in fact necessary in order for societies to evolve and for freedom to expand. But the chaos that inevitably results when stable institutions are gleefully undermined is perhaps the greatest threat to individual freedom. Madison would certainly agree with that sentiment.
That said, institutions must be subject to challenge from time to time in order to determine whether they are in fact preserving freedom or merely maintaining existing privileges. Early efforts to expand suffrage, for example, were opposed for much the same reason. It took time for the expansion of political participation to demonstrate that it would not undermine existing institutions and lead to chaos. This was demonstrated empirically, and the same will have to be demonstrated in this case. Can free societies survive the transparency and instability that unlimited information will force on its institutions? We will see.
For educators, charged with preserving the republic, the trick will be to ensure that students will be made aware of the historical role that properly designed governing institutions and systems have played in securing liberty and not make capricious choices that can undermine them.
. . . could we please pause for a moment amidst all of our technological triumphalism to reflect on the potential downside to all of this antinomian empowerment of the individual? The libertarian imagination, amply furnished with metaphors of invisible hands and spontaneously generated order, is thrilled by such technological empowerment. What could be better than giving every human being on the planet the capacity to subvert all established authorities and institutions, private or public, tyrannical or meritocratic? What would be better, I submit, is lucid self-awareness about how much our liberty depends on the existence of stable, functioning institutions to protect it against those who long to extinguish it in the name of sundry anti-liberal theological and ideological projects.
The framers of the Constitution would agree with this sentiment. It is the very point made in Federalist #10 and helps us understand, in a contemporary context, the dangers that passionate majorities angry at existing institutions, can pose to free societies. Not that stable societies always respect or maintain individual freedom -- they don't always -- or that occasional challenges to the status quo are not worthwhile -- they are in fact necessary in order for societies to evolve and for freedom to expand. But the chaos that inevitably results when stable institutions are gleefully undermined is perhaps the greatest threat to individual freedom. Madison would certainly agree with that sentiment.
That said, institutions must be subject to challenge from time to time in order to determine whether they are in fact preserving freedom or merely maintaining existing privileges. Early efforts to expand suffrage, for example, were opposed for much the same reason. It took time for the expansion of political participation to demonstrate that it would not undermine existing institutions and lead to chaos. This was demonstrated empirically, and the same will have to be demonstrated in this case. Can free societies survive the transparency and instability that unlimited information will force on its institutions? We will see.
For educators, charged with preserving the republic, the trick will be to ensure that students will be made aware of the historical role that properly designed governing institutions and systems have played in securing liberty and not make capricious choices that can undermine them.
Filibuster Reform Proposal
Oregon Senator Jeff Merkley would like to see us return to the old fashioned filibusters of yesterday, the one's that actually involved an endless floor debate.
- The Plum Line.
- The Senator's Memo.
- Congress 101.
- Kevin Drum.
- The Plum Line.
- The Senator's Memo.
- Congress 101.
- Kevin Drum.
Tuesday, November 23, 2010
Ron Paul Profile
From the Atlantic, a profile on our own Rep. Ron Paul. The comments are probably more interesting than the article.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture and Cheese
They both promote and oppose it:
Domino’s Pizza was hurting early last year. Domestic sales had fallen, and a survey of big pizza chain customers left the company tied for the worst tasting pies.
From marketing campaigns, to restaurant menus to your own dinner plate, what evidence are you seeing of more cheese in the American diet? Share your experiences.
Then help arrived from an organization called Dairy Management. It teamed up with Domino’s to develop a new line of pizzas with 40 percent more cheese, and proceeded to devise and pay for a $12 million marketing campaign.
Consumers devoured the cheesier pizza, and sales soared by double digits. “This partnership is clearly working,” Brandon Solano, the Domino’s vice president for brand innovation, said in a statement to The New York Times.
But as healthy as this pizza has been for Domino’s, one slice contains as much as two-thirds of a day’s maximum recommended amount of saturated fat, which has been linked to heart disease and is high in calories.
And Dairy Management, which has made cheese its cause, is not a private business consultant. It is a marketing creation of the United States Department of Agriculture — the same agency at the center of a federal anti-obesity drive that discourages over-consumption of some of the very foods Dairy Management is vigorously promoting ....
There are three separate links to entities that call themselves Dairy Management Inc
- www.dairyinfo.com/
- www.innovatewithdairy.com/
- www.dairycheckoff.com/
Domino’s Pizza was hurting early last year. Domestic sales had fallen, and a survey of big pizza chain customers left the company tied for the worst tasting pies.
From marketing campaigns, to restaurant menus to your own dinner plate, what evidence are you seeing of more cheese in the American diet? Share your experiences.
Then help arrived from an organization called Dairy Management. It teamed up with Domino’s to develop a new line of pizzas with 40 percent more cheese, and proceeded to devise and pay for a $12 million marketing campaign.
Consumers devoured the cheesier pizza, and sales soared by double digits. “This partnership is clearly working,” Brandon Solano, the Domino’s vice president for brand innovation, said in a statement to The New York Times.
But as healthy as this pizza has been for Domino’s, one slice contains as much as two-thirds of a day’s maximum recommended amount of saturated fat, which has been linked to heart disease and is high in calories.
And Dairy Management, which has made cheese its cause, is not a private business consultant. It is a marketing creation of the United States Department of Agriculture — the same agency at the center of a federal anti-obesity drive that discourages over-consumption of some of the very foods Dairy Management is vigorously promoting ....
There are three separate links to entities that call themselves Dairy Management Inc
- www.dairyinfo.com/
- www.innovatewithdairy.com/
- www.dairycheckoff.com/
Earmarks
Given Republican opposition to earmarks, its worth considering their actual impact on the communities that receive them. Here's a bit of background from TNR, and a map showing the distribution of earmarks from a 2005 bill:
The TSA's Pat Down Policy
Slate outlines the process by which the pat down policy was developed, announced and implemented, as well as the campaign its now waging to defend it. It creates and interesting dilemma for both the TSA and the Obama Administration. Which woudl you rather have to explain? Why travelers were groped, or why you let an explosive on a plane, especially if it goes off?
While we're at it, here's something to relax about: cavity bombs. Current technonoly cannot detect them.
While we're at it, here's something to relax about: cavity bombs. Current technonoly cannot detect them.
The Decline and Fall of the American Republic
Fitting subject matter, considering our recent class discussions. Ackerman wonders if the republic can survive the growing powers of the presidency. He isn't the first to worry about this. A review.
Scorpions
Another extra credit option. A book detailing the personalities FDR placed on the court. A review from Slate.
Monday, November 22, 2010
The Scanner Lobby
The makers of the body scanners have lobbied Congress heavily to promote their products.
The companies with multimillion-dollar contracts to supply American airports with body-scanning machines more than doubled their spending on lobbying in the last five years and hired several high-profile former government officials to advance their causes in Washington, records show.
L-3 Communications, which has sold $39.7 million worth of the machines to the federal government, spent $4.3 million to influence Congress and federal agencies during the first nine months of this year, up from $2.1 million in 2005, lobbying data compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics show. Last year, the company spent $5.5 million on lobbying.
Its lobbyists include Linda Daschle, a prominent Democratic figure in Washington, who is a former Federal Aviation Administration official.
Rapiscan Systems, meanwhile, has spent $271,500 on lobbying so far this year, compared with $80,000 five years earlier. It has faced criticism for hiring Michael Chertoff, the former Homeland Security secretary, who has been a prominent proponent of using scanners to foil terrorism. Officials with Chertoff's firm and Rapiscan say Chertoff was not paid to promote scanner technology. It spent $440,000 on lobbying in 2009.
For those unaware, Linda Daschle is the wife of ex-Senate majority leader Tom Daschle.
A visit to Rapiscan.
The companies with multimillion-dollar contracts to supply American airports with body-scanning machines more than doubled their spending on lobbying in the last five years and hired several high-profile former government officials to advance their causes in Washington, records show.
L-3 Communications, which has sold $39.7 million worth of the machines to the federal government, spent $4.3 million to influence Congress and federal agencies during the first nine months of this year, up from $2.1 million in 2005, lobbying data compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics show. Last year, the company spent $5.5 million on lobbying.
Its lobbyists include Linda Daschle, a prominent Democratic figure in Washington, who is a former Federal Aviation Administration official.
Rapiscan Systems, meanwhile, has spent $271,500 on lobbying so far this year, compared with $80,000 five years earlier. It has faced criticism for hiring Michael Chertoff, the former Homeland Security secretary, who has been a prominent proponent of using scanners to foil terrorism. Officials with Chertoff's firm and Rapiscan say Chertoff was not paid to promote scanner technology. It spent $440,000 on lobbying in 2009.
For those unaware, Linda Daschle is the wife of ex-Senate majority leader Tom Daschle.
A visit to Rapiscan.
Despite All the Fuss ....
... nearly two thirds of Americans support full body scanners at airports.
Judicial Independence Under Attack?
From USA Today:
Marsha Ternus, David Baker and Michael Streit are three of the incumbents tossed out of office Tuesday by angry voters. They aren't corrupt or incompetent. They aren't even politicians. They're state Supreme Court justices, and the circumstances of their eviction should be deeply troubling to anyone who believes in the rule of law.
The judges' sin was that they did their jobs. They read the state constitution and interpreted its meaning without regard to politics, public opinion or the passions of the moment. That reading led them to invalidate an Iowa law limiting marriage to a man and woman. ...
Marsha Ternus, David Baker and Michael Streit are three of the incumbents tossed out of office Tuesday by angry voters. They aren't corrupt or incompetent. They aren't even politicians. They're state Supreme Court justices, and the circumstances of their eviction should be deeply troubling to anyone who believes in the rule of law.
The judges' sin was that they did their jobs. They read the state constitution and interpreted its meaning without regard to politics, public opinion or the passions of the moment. That reading led them to invalidate an Iowa law limiting marriage to a man and woman. ...
Quantitative Easing
Before too much time passes, for 2302, some background on the concept of "quantitative easing" which is a technique used by the Federal Reserve Board to inject cash into the U.S. economy. The technique is being considered in part because while some argue additional stimulus is needed to continue priming the economy, Congress has no intention to do so, so the Fed has the means to do it independently. Normally the Fed would simply lower interest rates, but they are set close to zero, so that's not an option.
- Wikipedia: Quantitative Easing.
- Support from US News.
- 9 Reasons why it is bad for the economy.
- Kicking the Fed.
- Wikipedia: Quantitative Easing.
- Support from US News.
- 9 Reasons why it is bad for the economy.
- Kicking the Fed.
Friday, November 19, 2010
Is Philly’s ‘Stop and Frisk’ Racial Profiling?
From Findlaw:
Stop and frisk sounds more like a trendy dance move or a board game than a form of racial profiling. But that is exactly what some critics are claiming the real purpose behind Philly’s stop and frisk approach to law enforcement is. The Philadelphia stop and frisk policy has now become the center of a civil rights lawsuit, according to The Philadelphia Inquirer.
The suit claims that in 2009, 72% of pedestrians that were stopped under the policy were African American. “Implicitly, the message is to make as many stops as you can and hopefully you will find something,” said one attorney working on the case. The purpose behind the Philly stop and frisk policy was to decrease the rising crime rate on the streets. Although officers were trained, the suit alleges that the behavior of the force seems to ignore the training.
- Stop and Frisk: Legal Definition.
- Wikipedia: Frisking.
- Wikipedia: Racial Profiling.
Stop and frisk sounds more like a trendy dance move or a board game than a form of racial profiling. But that is exactly what some critics are claiming the real purpose behind Philly’s stop and frisk approach to law enforcement is. The Philadelphia stop and frisk policy has now become the center of a civil rights lawsuit, according to The Philadelphia Inquirer.
The suit claims that in 2009, 72% of pedestrians that were stopped under the policy were African American. “Implicitly, the message is to make as many stops as you can and hopefully you will find something,” said one attorney working on the case. The purpose behind the Philly stop and frisk policy was to decrease the rising crime rate on the streets. Although officers were trained, the suit alleges that the behavior of the force seems to ignore the training.
- Stop and Frisk: Legal Definition.
- Wikipedia: Frisking.
- Wikipedia: Racial Profiling.
The Ghailani Trial
The recent acquital on all but one count of Ahmed Khalfan Ghailani raises at least two constitutional issues for us. First, and this applies to many in the court system, given the amount of time it took for him to reach trial, was he denied his constitutional right to a speedy trial? Slate touches on this question and reminds readers something we covered in 2302, that the right dates at least back to Magna Carta: "to no one will we refuse or delay, right or justice."
. . . at no time in the last 800 years has anyone been able to quantify exactly how speedy is speedy. The American Bar Association insists that six months should be the upward limit unless there's a really good reason for extending the deadline. But no one has managed to bring a judge or state legislature around to that point of view. The Supreme Court, for its part, has offered a vague balancing test of harm against justification: That is, if a lengthy pretrial prison stay harms the defendant unjustifiably, the judge may consider dropping the indictment. In the absence of any firm rules, judges usually find a way to explain away delays, since they hate the idea of releasing dangerous criminals just because of dawdling prosecutors. The most common justification is so-called "lack of prejudice"—that is, the accused fails to show that the holdup could undermine his defense.
More seriously is the blowback against the decision to hold a trial in a civilian court -- this was argued to be a crime after all -- rather than a military tribunal. Critics of the decision to hold a trial at all seem upset that a civilian trial even allowed the possibility that a jury might determine a lack of evidence existed to convict the defendant. Legislative critics of the administration want future trials to be handled in military tribunals. Daily Kos wonders if these critics really want summary judgement and execution. Are these critics really challenging the concept of judicial independence? Perhaps they are upset that they cannot control the courts and choose to send the suspects to courts they think likely to render guilty verdicts.
This also raises an issue related to our discussion of abstract and concrete opinions. We probably all agree on the need for fair trials, but do we want them for terrorist suspects? Or is the very fact that they are accused of being terrorists enough to convince us that they are guilty.
- Guilty Until Proven Guilty?
. . . at no time in the last 800 years has anyone been able to quantify exactly how speedy is speedy. The American Bar Association insists that six months should be the upward limit unless there's a really good reason for extending the deadline. But no one has managed to bring a judge or state legislature around to that point of view. The Supreme Court, for its part, has offered a vague balancing test of harm against justification: That is, if a lengthy pretrial prison stay harms the defendant unjustifiably, the judge may consider dropping the indictment. In the absence of any firm rules, judges usually find a way to explain away delays, since they hate the idea of releasing dangerous criminals just because of dawdling prosecutors. The most common justification is so-called "lack of prejudice"—that is, the accused fails to show that the holdup could undermine his defense.
More seriously is the blowback against the decision to hold a trial in a civilian court -- this was argued to be a crime after all -- rather than a military tribunal. Critics of the decision to hold a trial at all seem upset that a civilian trial even allowed the possibility that a jury might determine a lack of evidence existed to convict the defendant. Legislative critics of the administration want future trials to be handled in military tribunals. Daily Kos wonders if these critics really want summary judgement and execution. Are these critics really challenging the concept of judicial independence? Perhaps they are upset that they cannot control the courts and choose to send the suspects to courts they think likely to render guilty verdicts.
This also raises an issue related to our discussion of abstract and concrete opinions. We probably all agree on the need for fair trials, but do we want them for terrorist suspects? Or is the very fact that they are accused of being terrorists enough to convince us that they are guilty.
- Guilty Until Proven Guilty?
New Felonies
Texas has 2,383 felonies on record -- things the legislature has decided you can be imprisoned for. Grits for Breakfast tells us the last legislative session created 59 and wonders how many more will be created this tim around.
86% of Incumbents Were Relected This Year
So much for throwing the bums out. Although the figure is generally higher -- in the upper 90s -- a high percentage of members of the House of Representatives were keep in office by their constituents. It could be, of course, that the mood was there and more should have been defeated, but incumbents were protected by representing gerrymandered districts that are so heavily skewed toward either party that incumbents can hardly ever be defeated. We discussed this in class -- see the post below -- when we noted that none of our area House members were defeated.
Do Tax Cuts Stimulate Economic Growth?
The evidence is not conclusive. The last decade had the slowest growth rate since the 1960s, and this was after the Bush tax cuts.
Potential Victims of Redistricting
The National Journal points out ten members of the House who could suffer from redistricting.
Legislative Leadership Battles 2010 - pt1
I'll begin linking to a variety of stories covering the current leadership battles in the U.S. Congress and Texas Legislature.
- Hoyer and Clyburn battle to be Minority Whip: House Dems #2.
- Senate Democrats fill leadership spots.
- Pelosi becomes minority leader, but may be weakened.
- Kucinich fights for ranking position on the House Oversight Committee.
- Hoyer and Clyburn battle to be Minority Whip: House Dems #2.
- Senate Democrats fill leadership spots.
- Pelosi becomes minority leader, but may be weakened.
- Kucinich fights for ranking position on the House Oversight Committee.
The Power of the President
In light of the midterm elections, some notable Democrats have written recommendations to Obama outlining how he can advance his agenda without Congress. Depending on one's ideology, this can be a good or bad thing, but it does highlight how the powers -- and tools -- of the office have expanded over American history.
The report mentioned the following mechanisms:
- executive orders
- rulemaking
- agency management
- convening and creating public-private relationships
- commanding the armed forces
- diplomacy
Their recommendations amount to a blueprint for action over the heads of Congress.
The report mentioned the following mechanisms:
- executive orders
- rulemaking
- agency management
- convening and creating public-private relationships
- commanding the armed forces
- diplomacy
Their recommendations amount to a blueprint for action over the heads of Congress.
Thursday, November 18, 2010
The Perils of Broadening Your Base
The GOP sees opportunity reaching out to the gay and lesbian community, but only at the risk of losing evangelicals.
The Death of Real News
Ted Koppel cares for neither Keith Olbermann nor Bill O'Reilly and sees them as symptoms of the death of "real" news. He blames the profit motive which has led to more sensational news which panders to segment of the population rather provide neutral objective information useful to everyone:
To the degree that broadcast news was a more virtuous operation 40 years ago, it was a function of both fear and innocence. Network executives were afraid that a failure to work in the "public interest, convenience and necessity," as set forth in the Radio Act of 1927, might cause the Federal Communications Commission to suspend or even revoke their licenses. The three major broadcast networks pointed to their news divisions (which operated at a loss or barely broke even) as evidence that they were fulfilling the FCC's mandate. News was, in a manner of speaking, the loss leader that permitted NBC, CBS and ABC to justify the enormous profits made by their entertainment divisions.
On the innocence side of the ledger, meanwhile, it never occurred to the network brass that news programming could be profitable.
Until, that is, CBS News unveiled its "60 Minutes" news magazine in 1968. When, after three years or so, "60 Minutes" turned a profit (something no television news program had previously achieved), a light went on, and the news divisions of all three networks came to be seen as profit centers, with all the expectations that entailed.
Divisive, pandering news sells. Objectivity doesn't.
To the degree that broadcast news was a more virtuous operation 40 years ago, it was a function of both fear and innocence. Network executives were afraid that a failure to work in the "public interest, convenience and necessity," as set forth in the Radio Act of 1927, might cause the Federal Communications Commission to suspend or even revoke their licenses. The three major broadcast networks pointed to their news divisions (which operated at a loss or barely broke even) as evidence that they were fulfilling the FCC's mandate. News was, in a manner of speaking, the loss leader that permitted NBC, CBS and ABC to justify the enormous profits made by their entertainment divisions.
On the innocence side of the ledger, meanwhile, it never occurred to the network brass that news programming could be profitable.
Until, that is, CBS News unveiled its "60 Minutes" news magazine in 1968. When, after three years or so, "60 Minutes" turned a profit (something no television news program had previously achieved), a light went on, and the news divisions of all three networks came to be seen as profit centers, with all the expectations that entailed.
Divisive, pandering news sells. Objectivity doesn't.
Although Crime Rates are Down, Most People Think it is Going Up
For 2301, and our coverage of public opinion.
From the Gallup Poll:
Two-thirds of Americans say there is more crime in the United States than there was a year ago, reflecting Americans' general tendency to perceive crime as increasing. Still, the percentage perceiving an increase in crime is below what Gallup measured in the late 1980s and early 1990s, but is higher than the levels from the late 1990s and early 2000s.
These trends, based on Gallup's annual Crime survey, come at a time when both the FBI and the Bureau of Justice Statistics recently reported drops in property and violent crime from 2008 to 2009 in separate studies, as well as documenting longer-term declines in both types of crime. Though the latest Gallup estimates, from an Oct. 7-10, 2010, survey, would reflect a more up-to-date assessment of the crime situation than those reports do, Americans were also likely to perceive crime as increasing both locally and nationally in the 2009 Gallup Crime survey.
From the Gallup Poll:
Two-thirds of Americans say there is more crime in the United States than there was a year ago, reflecting Americans' general tendency to perceive crime as increasing. Still, the percentage perceiving an increase in crime is below what Gallup measured in the late 1980s and early 1990s, but is higher than the levels from the late 1990s and early 2000s.
These trends, based on Gallup's annual Crime survey, come at a time when both the FBI and the Bureau of Justice Statistics recently reported drops in property and violent crime from 2008 to 2009 in separate studies, as well as documenting longer-term declines in both types of crime. Though the latest Gallup estimates, from an Oct. 7-10, 2010, survey, would reflect a more up-to-date assessment of the crime situation than those reports do, Americans were also likely to perceive crime as increasing both locally and nationally in the 2009 Gallup Crime survey.
2301: The Last Written Question: Flores-Villar v United States
I'm putting together the final written question for 2301, and I'd like to share it -- or the topic -- prior to posting it.
We're covering civil rights and the equal protection clause. Quite often the nature of civil rights policy comes down to whatever the Supreme Court (or more precisely its members at a given moment in time) interprets the phrase "equal protection of the laws" to mean. In what context can equal protection be mandated, and what criteria can government (the executive branch generally though not exclusively) use to treat people differently.
In that context, the Supreme Court heard arguments last week in a case which highlighted the different ways that Congress has mandated how citizen mothers as opposed to citizen fathers can transfer citizenship to any child of theirs born out of wedlock and out of the country. The bar is lower for citizen mothers than citizen fathers. The case involves a citizen father who, due to the language of the law, could never have transferred citizenship to his child. The question presented to the court was whether this violated his right to the equal protection of the laws.
I want my 2301s to read through the links below and address how the Supreme Court treats cases involving claims of unequal protection due to gender (sex/gender discrimination). What issues are raised in this case and what is the likely outcome (a decision is unlikely to be reached until next year).
- ScotusBlog: Flores-Villar v. United States.
- Immigration Prof Blog.
- NYT Story.
- Oral Argument Audio.
- Oral Argument Transcript.
We're covering civil rights and the equal protection clause. Quite often the nature of civil rights policy comes down to whatever the Supreme Court (or more precisely its members at a given moment in time) interprets the phrase "equal protection of the laws" to mean. In what context can equal protection be mandated, and what criteria can government (the executive branch generally though not exclusively) use to treat people differently.
In that context, the Supreme Court heard arguments last week in a case which highlighted the different ways that Congress has mandated how citizen mothers as opposed to citizen fathers can transfer citizenship to any child of theirs born out of wedlock and out of the country. The bar is lower for citizen mothers than citizen fathers. The case involves a citizen father who, due to the language of the law, could never have transferred citizenship to his child. The question presented to the court was whether this violated his right to the equal protection of the laws.
I want my 2301s to read through the links below and address how the Supreme Court treats cases involving claims of unequal protection due to gender (sex/gender discrimination). What issues are raised in this case and what is the likely outcome (a decision is unlikely to be reached until next year).
- ScotusBlog: Flores-Villar v. United States.
- Immigration Prof Blog.
- NYT Story.
- Oral Argument Audio.
- Oral Argument Transcript.
Tuesday, November 16, 2010
Charles Rangel and the House Ethics Committee
From the NYT:
The House ethics committee ruled on Monday that there was evidence to support 13 counts of misconduct by Representative Charles B. Rangel, and began considering whether to formally convict and recommend punishment against him.
With Mr. Rangel absent, the panel listened to its chief counsel as he methodically presented the evidence against Mr. Rangel, which was based on 549 exhibits, dozens of witness interviews and thousands of pages of financial documents. Members then met in executive session and later announced they had found the facts in the charges against Mr. Rangel to be “uncontested.”
Those charges included accusations that Mr. Rangel had accepted rent-stabilized apartments from a Manhattan developer, failed to pay income taxes on rent from a Dominican villa and solicited charitable donations from individuals with business before Congress.
- House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct.
- Wikpedia: House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct.
- Source Watch: House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct
- Time Topics: Ethics.
The House ethics committee ruled on Monday that there was evidence to support 13 counts of misconduct by Representative Charles B. Rangel, and began considering whether to formally convict and recommend punishment against him.
With Mr. Rangel absent, the panel listened to its chief counsel as he methodically presented the evidence against Mr. Rangel, which was based on 549 exhibits, dozens of witness interviews and thousands of pages of financial documents. Members then met in executive session and later announced they had found the facts in the charges against Mr. Rangel to be “uncontested.”
Those charges included accusations that Mr. Rangel had accepted rent-stabilized apartments from a Manhattan developer, failed to pay income taxes on rent from a Dominican villa and solicited charitable donations from individuals with business before Congress.
- House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct.
- Wikpedia: House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct.
- Source Watch: House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct
- Time Topics: Ethics.
Bad Jurors
From Texas Watchdog:
A list of bad jurors kept by prosecutors is not a public record, according to the state attorney general's office, a ruling that “flies in the face of open government,” according to Fort Worth Defense lawyer William Ray in the Star-Telegram.
Ray sought a list the Tarrant County District Attorney’s office keeps of jurors who have previously served and notes on why they would be unfit to serve again. Presumably, these jurors did not deliver a verdict favorable to the state.
Is this an encroachment by the executive on the independence of the judiciary?
For further reading: Juror Intimidation in Russia.
A list of bad jurors kept by prosecutors is not a public record, according to the state attorney general's office, a ruling that “flies in the face of open government,” according to Fort Worth Defense lawyer William Ray in the Star-Telegram.
Ray sought a list the Tarrant County District Attorney’s office keeps of jurors who have previously served and notes on why they would be unfit to serve again. Presumably, these jurors did not deliver a verdict favorable to the state.
Is this an encroachment by the executive on the independence of the judiciary?
For further reading: Juror Intimidation in Russia.
DeMint 1 McConnell 0
The fight to control the Republican Party in the U.S. Senate is getting testier.
From Wonkbook:
Mitch McConnell announces he will reluctantly support a Republican moratorium on earmarks: "Make no mistake. I know the good that has come from the projects I have helped support throughout my state. I don’t apologize for them. But there is simply no doubt that the abuse of this practice has caused Americans to view it as a symbol of the waste and the out-of-control spending that every Republican in Washington is determined to fight. And unless people like me show the American people that we’re willing to follow through on small or even symbolic things, we risk losing them on our broader efforts to cut spending and rein in government."
"With Republican leaders in Congress united, the attention now turns to the President. We have said we are willing to give up discretion; now we’ll see how he handles spending decisions. And if the president ends up with total discretion over spending, we will see even more clearly where his priorities lie. We already saw the administration’s priorities in a Stimulus bill that’s become synonymous with wasteful spending, that borrowed nearly $1 trillion for administration earmarks like turtle tunnels, a sidewalk that lead to a ditch, and research on voter perceptions of the bill."
- WaPo story.
- Wikipedia: Earmarks.
- SourceWatch: Earmarks.
From Wonkbook:
Mitch McConnell announces he will reluctantly support a Republican moratorium on earmarks: "Make no mistake. I know the good that has come from the projects I have helped support throughout my state. I don’t apologize for them. But there is simply no doubt that the abuse of this practice has caused Americans to view it as a symbol of the waste and the out-of-control spending that every Republican in Washington is determined to fight. And unless people like me show the American people that we’re willing to follow through on small or even symbolic things, we risk losing them on our broader efforts to cut spending and rein in government."
"With Republican leaders in Congress united, the attention now turns to the President. We have said we are willing to give up discretion; now we’ll see how he handles spending decisions. And if the president ends up with total discretion over spending, we will see even more clearly where his priorities lie. We already saw the administration’s priorities in a Stimulus bill that’s become synonymous with wasteful spending, that borrowed nearly $1 trillion for administration earmarks like turtle tunnels, a sidewalk that lead to a ditch, and research on voter perceptions of the bill."
- WaPo story.
- Wikipedia: Earmarks.
- SourceWatch: Earmarks.
Monday, November 15, 2010
Filibuster Reform
From WonkBook:
Junior Democrats in the Senate are pushing ahead with filibuster reform, reports J. Taylor Rushing: "Sen. Tom Udall said he will force a motion on the first day of the next Congress to have Vice President Joe Biden adopt new rules for the two-year session. Then, Udall said, he will seek consensus among senators from both parties to lower the 60-vote threshold for procedural motions. Only a simple majority of 51 votes would be necessary for such a move, and Udall said he expects support from some Republicans...Tom Udall is correct there will be some GOP support for the effort. Sen.-elect Dan Coats (Indiana), who knows the Senate well from his 10-year tenure from 1989 to 1999, said in a Fox News interview this month that he endorses filibuster reform."
Junior Democrats in the Senate are pushing ahead with filibuster reform, reports J. Taylor Rushing: "Sen. Tom Udall said he will force a motion on the first day of the next Congress to have Vice President Joe Biden adopt new rules for the two-year session. Then, Udall said, he will seek consensus among senators from both parties to lower the 60-vote threshold for procedural motions. Only a simple majority of 51 votes would be necessary for such a move, and Udall said he expects support from some Republicans...Tom Udall is correct there will be some GOP support for the effort. Sen.-elect Dan Coats (Indiana), who knows the Senate well from his 10-year tenure from 1989 to 1999, said in a Fox News interview this month that he endorses filibuster reform."
The CRA and the Housing Bubble
For our discussion of civil rights: Conservatives argue that Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 (and other simlar laws), which outlawed practices that discriminated against middle class and poor people who wanted to purchase homes are partially, if not wholly, responsible for the housing bubble and the resulting financial crisis. Others argue that it did not. We will discuss.
Jobs? Yes / Health Care? Yes / The Deficit? No
Only 4% of respondents to a CBS Poll want Congress to focus first on the deficit.
111th Congress' Civil Rights Scorecard
For this week's discussion on civil rights, the Leadership Conference on Civil Right's scorecard for the 111th Congress.
Sunday, November 14, 2010
The Gerrymandered Texas Senate and the Threats to the Senate's 2/3rds Rule
Rick Casey comments on what he calls the most stable job in Texas politics: Texas State Senator.
There is one Texas elected body that is so stable that it offered a safe harbor for Democrats even in the political monsoon that blew on Tuesday.
Is this good news for the Democrats? Not hardly, as we shall see. The body is the state Senate.
Consider this: While Democrats lost 21 seats in the 150-member Texas House of Representatives and most likely three veteran congressmen, the 31-member Texas Senate had 12 Democrats and 19 Republicans before the election and will have exactly the same margin after the new Legislature is sworn in next January. And only two are newcomers, one Democrat and one Republican having stepped down voluntarily.
But while Democrats are safe in body, its districts have been designed so that they underrepresent Democrats in the state -- as is the case with most other offices in the state. Republicans, who control the districting process, accomplish this feat by packing Democrats into fewer seats than they might otherwise occupy, but Democratic incumbents are hardly likely to complain because this makes their seats more secure.
Even with this small number of seats, Democrats -- and the minority party in general -- has been able to leverage this small number of seats into a type of veto power since as long as they are at least one-third of the Senate, they can block legislation from going through the floor. From the Legislative Refrence Library:
For almost half a century, blocker bills have routinely been placed at the top of the Senate's Daily Calendar, which in effect forces a suspension of the regular order of business on every bill. Blocker bills are bills that are introduced and passed out of committee as early as possible in a legislative session in order that they may occupy the first positions on the calendar. They are not intended to be worthy of serious consideration or passage. The sole purpose of a blocker bill is to ensure that at least two-thirds of the membership have an interest in debating a measure before it can come to the floor. Bills that do not enjoy substantial support cannot make it past the blocker bill.
Though it has been set aside on rare occasions, this practice -- known as the "two-thirds rule" -- has been an honored tradition in the Senate. Among other things, it is generally acknowledged that the Senate's two-thirds rule fosters civility, a willingness to compromise, and a spirit of bipartisanship.
Republican Senators have argued that this rule undermines democracy -- and certainly their agenda -- and have made efforts to remove it in the past. Similar efforts are underway currently.
- In Defense of the Two Thirds Rule.
- Bill Hobby comments on the rule.
There is one Texas elected body that is so stable that it offered a safe harbor for Democrats even in the political monsoon that blew on Tuesday.
Is this good news for the Democrats? Not hardly, as we shall see. The body is the state Senate.
Consider this: While Democrats lost 21 seats in the 150-member Texas House of Representatives and most likely three veteran congressmen, the 31-member Texas Senate had 12 Democrats and 19 Republicans before the election and will have exactly the same margin after the new Legislature is sworn in next January. And only two are newcomers, one Democrat and one Republican having stepped down voluntarily.
But while Democrats are safe in body, its districts have been designed so that they underrepresent Democrats in the state -- as is the case with most other offices in the state. Republicans, who control the districting process, accomplish this feat by packing Democrats into fewer seats than they might otherwise occupy, but Democratic incumbents are hardly likely to complain because this makes their seats more secure.
Even with this small number of seats, Democrats -- and the minority party in general -- has been able to leverage this small number of seats into a type of veto power since as long as they are at least one-third of the Senate, they can block legislation from going through the floor. From the Legislative Refrence Library:
For almost half a century, blocker bills have routinely been placed at the top of the Senate's Daily Calendar, which in effect forces a suspension of the regular order of business on every bill. Blocker bills are bills that are introduced and passed out of committee as early as possible in a legislative session in order that they may occupy the first positions on the calendar. They are not intended to be worthy of serious consideration or passage. The sole purpose of a blocker bill is to ensure that at least two-thirds of the membership have an interest in debating a measure before it can come to the floor. Bills that do not enjoy substantial support cannot make it past the blocker bill.
Though it has been set aside on rare occasions, this practice -- known as the "two-thirds rule" -- has been an honored tradition in the Senate. Among other things, it is generally acknowledged that the Senate's two-thirds rule fosters civility, a willingness to compromise, and a spirit of bipartisanship.
Republican Senators have argued that this rule undermines democracy -- and certainly their agenda -- and have made efforts to remove it in the past. Similar efforts are underway currently.
- In Defense of the Two Thirds Rule.
- Bill Hobby comments on the rule.
One and Done by Design?
Again from Slatest, this time a story from the Washington Post, should Obama declare that he will not run for reelection and instead focus on the economy:
For the good of the country, Barack Obama should declare himself a one-term president , argue Carter- and Clinton-era presidential advisers Patrick Caddell and Douglas Schoen in the Washington Post. That act of political suppuku would disarm Republicans, the pair assert, allowing them to support Obama without worrying about bolstering his re-election bid. "Quite simply, given our political divisions and economic problems, governing and campaigning have become incompatible," the pair write. "If he is to bring Democrats and Republicans together, the president cannot be seen as an advocate of a particular party." The proposals met with a skeptical response from both sides of the aisle, with liberal bloggers dismissing the pair as "pretend Democrats" and conservatives questioning the proposal's practicality. "The symbolism of Obama's withdrawal from the race to focus on fiscal solvency would, admittedly, be huge in communicating the gravity of the challenge," writes one conservative blogger . "But that doesn't mean Congress would act on it."
- The Opinion Piece itself.
- Pretend Democrats ...
- Hot Air.
For the good of the country, Barack Obama should declare himself a one-term president , argue Carter- and Clinton-era presidential advisers Patrick Caddell and Douglas Schoen in the Washington Post. That act of political suppuku would disarm Republicans, the pair assert, allowing them to support Obama without worrying about bolstering his re-election bid. "Quite simply, given our political divisions and economic problems, governing and campaigning have become incompatible," the pair write. "If he is to bring Democrats and Republicans together, the president cannot be seen as an advocate of a particular party." The proposals met with a skeptical response from both sides of the aisle, with liberal bloggers dismissing the pair as "pretend Democrats" and conservatives questioning the proposal's practicality. "The symbolism of Obama's withdrawal from the race to focus on fiscal solvency would, admittedly, be huge in communicating the gravity of the challenge," writes one conservative blogger . "But that doesn't mean Congress would act on it."
- The Opinion Piece itself.
- Pretend Democrats ...
- Hot Air.
Party Cohesion
From Politico, via Slatest, an example of a key point we cover separately in 2301 and 2302. Our two large decentralized parties have to becoem cohesive in order to have any chance to pursue an agenda -- or stop the agenda of the opposition:
South Carolina Rep. Jim Clyburn will serve as "assistant leader," the No. 3 spot among the Democratic Party's minority leadership in the next Congress. Outgoing Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi created the position to avoid internal party conflict that would have resulted from the pending contest between Clyburn and current House Majority Leader Rep. Steny Hoyer, D-Md., for the minority whip position. In a letter to her colleagues on Saturday, Pelosi announced her plans to create the position and appoint Clyburn to it if elected House Democratic leader. Politico sees the Democrats as keeping peace among their ranks by maintaining the status quo in a leadership lineup that mirrors the current majority leadership of Speaker Pelosi, Majority Leader Hoyer, and Majority Whip Clyburn.
Meanwhile, Tea Partiers are trying to resolve dueling internal orientation agendas for the Republican Party's incoming freshman Congress members, who will be learning their way around Washington this week. After the Tea Party Patriots and conservative California think tank the Claremont Institute scheduled dueling orientation events for new members of Congress, Tea Partiers began bombarding their new representatives with phone calls to express their disapproval. In an e-mail on Thursday, the Tea Party Patriots warned against the think tank's actions: "They are apparently trying to make sure that instead of sitting with grass-roots tea party leaders from around the country, the lobbyists and consultants can sink their claws into the freshmen, and begin to 'teach them' the ways of D.C." The deluge of phone calls that resulted prompted a second e-mail the next day, asking members to lay off the new Congress members for the moment. The Claremont Institute said it was merely hosting an event the freshman members had planned for themselves.
For further reading:
- The Democrat's New Change.
- Right Wing Groups Scuffle Over Freshmen.
- Freshmen Arrive in Washington With Many Questions.
South Carolina Rep. Jim Clyburn will serve as "assistant leader," the No. 3 spot among the Democratic Party's minority leadership in the next Congress. Outgoing Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi created the position to avoid internal party conflict that would have resulted from the pending contest between Clyburn and current House Majority Leader Rep. Steny Hoyer, D-Md., for the minority whip position. In a letter to her colleagues on Saturday, Pelosi announced her plans to create the position and appoint Clyburn to it if elected House Democratic leader. Politico sees the Democrats as keeping peace among their ranks by maintaining the status quo in a leadership lineup that mirrors the current majority leadership of Speaker Pelosi, Majority Leader Hoyer, and Majority Whip Clyburn.
Meanwhile, Tea Partiers are trying to resolve dueling internal orientation agendas for the Republican Party's incoming freshman Congress members, who will be learning their way around Washington this week. After the Tea Party Patriots and conservative California think tank the Claremont Institute scheduled dueling orientation events for new members of Congress, Tea Partiers began bombarding their new representatives with phone calls to express their disapproval. In an e-mail on Thursday, the Tea Party Patriots warned against the think tank's actions: "They are apparently trying to make sure that instead of sitting with grass-roots tea party leaders from around the country, the lobbyists and consultants can sink their claws into the freshmen, and begin to 'teach them' the ways of D.C." The deluge of phone calls that resulted prompted a second e-mail the next day, asking members to lay off the new Congress members for the moment. The Claremont Institute said it was merely hosting an event the freshman members had planned for themselves.
For further reading:
- The Democrat's New Change.
- Right Wing Groups Scuffle Over Freshmen.
- Freshmen Arrive in Washington With Many Questions.
Governor Perry will Head the Republican Governor's Association
From Politico:
Texas Gov. Rick Perry will be tapped as the new chairman of the Republican Governors Association when the organization meets next week in San Diego, GOP sources tell POLITICO.
Perry recently released a book taking aim at the federal government and both the subject of the tome, “Fed Up!,” and his promotion of it have fueled speculation that he is eyeing a presidential bid.
But his appointment to helm the RGA heading into 2011 — when three states will hold governors’ races — amounts to the first concrete evidence that the Texan is serious when he says he has no interest in pursuing the White House. It would be nearly impossible to raise money for the committee and help direct the gubernatorial contests in Louisiana, Mississippi and Kentucky while running for president.
- Wikipedia: Republican Governors' Association.
Texas Gov. Rick Perry will be tapped as the new chairman of the Republican Governors Association when the organization meets next week in San Diego, GOP sources tell POLITICO.
Perry recently released a book taking aim at the federal government and both the subject of the tome, “Fed Up!,” and his promotion of it have fueled speculation that he is eyeing a presidential bid.
But his appointment to helm the RGA heading into 2011 — when three states will hold governors’ races — amounts to the first concrete evidence that the Texan is serious when he says he has no interest in pursuing the White House. It would be nearly impossible to raise money for the committee and help direct the gubernatorial contests in Louisiana, Mississippi and Kentucky while running for president.
- Wikipedia: Republican Governors' Association.
Debt Commission Spending Cut Recommendations
Click here for the actual recommendations made by the Debt Commission. These are only the expenditures. They propose $100 billion each in defense and non-defense spending.
Also worth reading:
- Disappointment in the reactions to the plan.
- Warts and all, it may be the best we can do.
A nice line, and a word of warning, from one of the links above: There is no magic pot of money out there that does not come attached to some angry interest group.
Also worth reading:
- Disappointment in the reactions to the plan.
- Warts and all, it may be the best we can do.
A nice line, and a word of warning, from one of the links above: There is no magic pot of money out there that does not come attached to some angry interest group.
Presidential Commissions
The "Debt Commission" report issued this week, points out a deficiency in my notes. I have little about presidential commissions, which are created from time to time to focus on certain issues not otherwise dealt with by Congress or other existing institutions. From Wikipedia:
In the United States, a Presidential Commission is a special task force ordained by the President to complete some special research or investigation. They are often used politically in one of two ways: either to draw attention to a problem (the publication of a report by a commission can generally be counted on to draw attention from the media, depending on how its release is handled); or, on the other hand, to delay action on an issue (if the President wants to avoid taking action but still look concerned about an issue, he can convene a commission and then let it slip into obscurity). However, there have been cases (the Tower, Rogers and Warren Commissions) where the commission has created reports that have been used as evidence in later criminal proceedings.
Here's a list of -- according to The Week -- the seven most controversial U.S. presidential commissions.
In the United States, a Presidential Commission is a special task force ordained by the President to complete some special research or investigation. They are often used politically in one of two ways: either to draw attention to a problem (the publication of a report by a commission can generally be counted on to draw attention from the media, depending on how its release is handled); or, on the other hand, to delay action on an issue (if the President wants to avoid taking action but still look concerned about an issue, he can convene a commission and then let it slip into obscurity). However, there have been cases (the Tower, Rogers and Warren Commissions) where the commission has created reports that have been used as evidence in later criminal proceedings.
Here's a list of -- according to The Week -- the seven most controversial U.S. presidential commissions.
Saturday, November 13, 2010
Bogus Trends and the Newsweek/Daily Beast Merger
As we begin, in 2301, to look at the media, it might be fun to look over Jack Shafer's ongoing coverage of "bogus-trend stories." These are stories that pop up suddenly in the media and highlight some sudden crazy thing some nutty crazy people are doing. Often these prove to be little more than hooks to get people to read the paper.
In a related media story, Slate comments on the recent merger between Newsweek and the website the Daily Beast and especially the new outfits' flamboyant editor Tina Brown.
In a related media story, Slate comments on the recent merger between Newsweek and the website the Daily Beast and especially the new outfits' flamboyant editor Tina Brown.
Illegal Immigration In Texas
A large number of the bills introduced into the legislature during early filing address illegal immigration in the state. Texas Tribune has a run down.
City and County Lobbying in Texas
As we begin to discuss the right to petition in 2301, here's information about the amount of money Texas cities and counties spent on lobbying over the past five years.
Republican Shows / Democratic Shows
The range of entertainment options made available to the general public has seemingly led to another factor which maker party identifiers different: the shows each watches:
Friday, November 12, 2010
The Report From The National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform
This week, the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform unveiled a preliminary version of their proposal to reduce the deficit over the next few years. It has yet to be approved by the entire commission, and once approved (if it is approved) it has no effect unless approved by Congress. The commission was created by an executive order by Obama.
- Ezra Klein's analysis.
- Proposed spending cuts can be found here.
- NYT Story.
- Times Topics: National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform.
- Ezra Klein's analysis.
- Proposed spending cuts can be found here.
- NYT Story.
- Times Topics: National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform.
Will Texas Opt Out of Medicaid
From the NYT:
A week after newly emboldened Republicans in the Texas Legislature floated a radical cost-saving proposal — opting out of the federal Medicaid program — health care experts, economists and think tanks are trying to determine just how serious they are, and if it would even be possible.
Update: More detail from the Texas Tribune. Republicans are arguing that cutting Medicaid is saves the state money, but others argue that it doesn't since the feds pick up most of the tab for Medicaid and if the policy is limited costs may be sent down to counties where property taxes and insurance premiums will pick up the tab.
A week after newly emboldened Republicans in the Texas Legislature floated a radical cost-saving proposal — opting out of the federal Medicaid program — health care experts, economists and think tanks are trying to determine just how serious they are, and if it would even be possible.
Update: More detail from the Texas Tribune. Republicans are arguing that cutting Medicaid is saves the state money, but others argue that it doesn't since the feds pick up most of the tab for Medicaid and if the policy is limited costs may be sent down to counties where property taxes and insurance premiums will pick up the tab.
Texas Bill Filing Begins
This Monday -- Nov 8th -- was the first day members of the upcoming Texas Legislature -- the 82nd -- could file bills. The Texas Tribune notes that there have been a large number of bill introduced, many from the newly energized Republican House majority -- they won 22 new seats in last week's election.
We can follow the daily introduction of bills in the Reports page of the Texas Legislature Online. Go to the bottom where it says "bill filing by date" and click on the date you wish. Here are a few pages:
November 8.
November 9.
November 10.
We can follow the daily introduction of bills in the Reports page of the Texas Legislature Online. Go to the bottom where it says "bill filing by date" and click on the date you wish. Here are a few pages:
November 8.
November 9.
November 10.
Thursday, November 11, 2010
Wall Street Lobbyists Eye Financial Regulations
Over 700 firms hired almost 3000 lobbyists to address financial regulations passed last year.
2010 Election Spending
Here's a link to the Center for Responsive Politics page detailing total spending on the 2010 midterm elections.
Their history page puts this year's spending in perspective.
In case you are wondering what that money is spent on, read this: Call it the midterm stimulus program. The record-breaking campaign showered billions of dollars on a broad array of companies, including broadcast conglomerates, polling firms and small-town restaurants, according to a Washington Post analysis of expenditure reports. Candidates spent at least $50 million on catering and liquor, $3.2 million at country clubs and golf courses, and $500,000 on pizza, coffee and doughnuts, the records show.
Their history page puts this year's spending in perspective.
In case you are wondering what that money is spent on, read this: Call it the midterm stimulus program. The record-breaking campaign showered billions of dollars on a broad array of companies, including broadcast conglomerates, polling firms and small-town restaurants, according to a Washington Post analysis of expenditure reports. Candidates spent at least $50 million on catering and liquor, $3.2 million at country clubs and golf courses, and $500,000 on pizza, coffee and doughnuts, the records show.
2010 Election Results
Here are a few links with last week's election results.
It's worth noting that despite the fact that Republicans did so well in U.S. House races, all area representatives were comfortably reelected. The 2003 gerrymandering seems to have been well done. Republicans did make significant gains in the Texas House though.
From the Houston Chronicle:
- Houston area representatives and state senators.
- Statewide races.
- Harris County results.
- Brazoria County results.
- Galveston County results.
Results from the Texas Secretary of State's office.
From The Hill
- New Members Guide.
It's worth noting that despite the fact that Republicans did so well in U.S. House races, all area representatives were comfortably reelected. The 2003 gerrymandering seems to have been well done. Republicans did make significant gains in the Texas House though.
From the Houston Chronicle:
- Houston area representatives and state senators.
- Statewide races.
- Harris County results.
- Brazoria County results.
- Galveston County results.
Results from the Texas Secretary of State's office.
From The Hill
- New Members Guide.
Friday, November 5, 2010
Did Roll Call Votes Matter?
More analysis of the 2010 vote from the Monkey Cage:
Did votes on the controversial bills (stimulus, cap and trade, TRAP and heath care) the past two years make a real difference in the elections? Overall, the answer is no, but for those Democrats who were defeated (many of whome were in districts that did not vote for Obama in 2008), the answer seems to be yes. There's the outside (very outside) chance that had these Democrats all voed against these bills that Democrats woudl stil be in the majority.
What does this model tell us about roll call votes on these four bills? Simple answer: they mattered. A lot. A Democratic incumbent in the average district represented by Democratic incumbents actually lost about 2/3 of a percentage point for every yes vote. That doesn't sound like a lot, but that's for incumbents in districts that voted 63% for Obama.
For Democrats in the least Democratic districts (Chet Edwards of TX or Gene Taylor of MS), the model suggests a loss of about 4% for every yes vote. Does that mean poor Chet lost 16 points on roll call votes alone? No, because he wasn't a big supporter of Obama's agenda. But he did vote for both TARP and the stimulus. In fact, virtually every Democratic incumbent on the ballot yesterday supported at least one of these four bills. That support was costly.
Again, this suggests that what really matters more than votes, is the way that districts are drawn. Had each district been more balanced, not gerrymandered one way or the other, the election would have turned out differently. What does this tell us about democracy?
Did votes on the controversial bills (stimulus, cap and trade, TRAP and heath care) the past two years make a real difference in the elections? Overall, the answer is no, but for those Democrats who were defeated (many of whome were in districts that did not vote for Obama in 2008), the answer seems to be yes. There's the outside (very outside) chance that had these Democrats all voed against these bills that Democrats woudl stil be in the majority.
What does this model tell us about roll call votes on these four bills? Simple answer: they mattered. A lot. A Democratic incumbent in the average district represented by Democratic incumbents actually lost about 2/3 of a percentage point for every yes vote. That doesn't sound like a lot, but that's for incumbents in districts that voted 63% for Obama.
For Democrats in the least Democratic districts (Chet Edwards of TX or Gene Taylor of MS), the model suggests a loss of about 4% for every yes vote. Does that mean poor Chet lost 16 points on roll call votes alone? No, because he wasn't a big supporter of Obama's agenda. But he did vote for both TARP and the stimulus. In fact, virtually every Democratic incumbent on the ballot yesterday supported at least one of these four bills. That support was costly.
Again, this suggests that what really matters more than votes, is the way that districts are drawn. Had each district been more balanced, not gerrymandered one way or the other, the election would have turned out differently. What does this tell us about democracy?
Thursday, November 4, 2010
2010 Exit Polls
For my 2301s as they continue their readings about political party identification at this moment in time.
A Simple Explanation of the 2010 Vote
According to the Monkey Cage, its the 2008 vote:
If you had one thing, and one thing only, to predict which Democratic House incumbents would lose their seats in 2010, what would you take? The amount of money they raised? Their TARP vote? Their health care vote? Whether they had a Tea Party opponent? A Nazi reenactor opponent?
The best predictor by far is none of those. It is simply how Democratic their district is. ... In all 402 contested House elections, the 2008 presidential vote in that district would explain 83% of the variation in the Democratic House candidate's vote share. Nothing else in our dataset comes close.
Focusing on the Democratic incumbents who lost shows how crucial the partisanship of their district was
Campaigns seem to matter much less than how districts are drawn. A comment on this story pointed out how many districts had more than 75% Democrats, and how few had more that 75% Republicans. This seems to indicate successful gerrymandering on the part of Republicans.
If you had one thing, and one thing only, to predict which Democratic House incumbents would lose their seats in 2010, what would you take? The amount of money they raised? Their TARP vote? Their health care vote? Whether they had a Tea Party opponent? A Nazi reenactor opponent?
The best predictor by far is none of those. It is simply how Democratic their district is. ... In all 402 contested House elections, the 2008 presidential vote in that district would explain 83% of the variation in the Democratic House candidate's vote share. Nothing else in our dataset comes close.
Focusing on the Democratic incumbents who lost shows how crucial the partisanship of their district was
Campaigns seem to matter much less than how districts are drawn. A comment on this story pointed out how many districts had more than 75% Democrats, and how few had more that 75% Republicans. This seems to indicate successful gerrymandering on the part of Republicans.
An Early Sign of Tension
Tea Party House members are making demands on the Republican leadership, but are apparently concerned about what they see is some backsliding by the leadership already. Is this an early indication of future dissension within the Republican Conference?
In his Tuesday press conference, Boehner dropped only one line that could worry the Tea Party. Asked whether Republicans would support raising the debt ceiling, Boehner would only say that it was being discussed. A real Tea Partier would have said no, possibly with an expletive prefacing it.
"How can they raise it?" asked Robin Stublen, a Tea Party leader in Florida, where the GOP did very well Tuesday. "The debt is the first thing we talk about. Raising the debt limit is like increasing the limit on a credit card that's already been maxed out."
But it's what parties in power sometimes have to do. Obama spent some of his first State of the Union pointing out that he "hated" the bailout that he voted for and implemented. He, and other Democrats, spent much of 2010 apologizing or explaining why they'd failed to deliver on what the party wanted—cap-and-trade legislation, an end to the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy, immigration reform. Some elements of their base were more forgiving (Hispanic voters, who carried Harry Reid to victory in Nevada) and some less (gay voters, who voted less Democratic than usual).
So Republicans need to do a combination of education and sleight-of-hand to convince Tea Partiers that, no, seriously, they are doing everything they can to dismantle the state.
In his Tuesday press conference, Boehner dropped only one line that could worry the Tea Party. Asked whether Republicans would support raising the debt ceiling, Boehner would only say that it was being discussed. A real Tea Partier would have said no, possibly with an expletive prefacing it.
"How can they raise it?" asked Robin Stublen, a Tea Party leader in Florida, where the GOP did very well Tuesday. "The debt is the first thing we talk about. Raising the debt limit is like increasing the limit on a credit card that's already been maxed out."
But it's what parties in power sometimes have to do. Obama spent some of his first State of the Union pointing out that he "hated" the bailout that he voted for and implemented. He, and other Democrats, spent much of 2010 apologizing or explaining why they'd failed to deliver on what the party wanted—cap-and-trade legislation, an end to the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy, immigration reform. Some elements of their base were more forgiving (Hispanic voters, who carried Harry Reid to victory in Nevada) and some less (gay voters, who voted less Democratic than usual).
So Republicans need to do a combination of education and sleight-of-hand to convince Tea Partiers that, no, seriously, they are doing everything they can to dismantle the state.
Don't Join Committees
Senate Tea Party leader Jim DeMint is advising newly incoming Tea Party Senators to not join committees:
"I never heard the avoid-committee advice before," the Brookings Institution's Thomas Mann, who's forgotten more about the U.S. Congress than I'll ever know, informed me by e-mail. "Committees are less important in the Senate than in the House," Mann agreed, "but still essential for getting into the guts of legislation and learning something about the substance of programs and their implementation."
"Perhaps," Mann mused, DeMint "is afraid that his new minions will go native on committees and dilute their role in the revolutionary vanguard." Action equals corruption. Mere knowledge equals corruption. Ignorance is strength.
So perhaps the advise is meant to ensure that DeMint can control these new senators. We will soon know if they follow his advise.
"I never heard the avoid-committee advice before," the Brookings Institution's Thomas Mann, who's forgotten more about the U.S. Congress than I'll ever know, informed me by e-mail. "Committees are less important in the Senate than in the House," Mann agreed, "but still essential for getting into the guts of legislation and learning something about the substance of programs and their implementation."
"Perhaps," Mann mused, DeMint "is afraid that his new minions will go native on committees and dilute their role in the revolutionary vanguard." Action equals corruption. Mere knowledge equals corruption. Ignorance is strength.
So perhaps the advise is meant to ensure that DeMint can control these new senators. We will soon know if they follow his advise.
How They Did It
Here are two stories outlining how Republicans organized after the 2008 elections to win the House in 2010.
The Young, the Old, and the Election of 2010
This chart may say all you need to know about what happened between 2008 and 2010:
This is what exit polls tell us was the age breakdown among those who voted in the past two elections. Obama supporters didn't show up -- the young returned to form. They tend not to vote in midterm elections, and didn't once again. The get out the vote drives did not work.
It might also tell us why, despite what people are saying about reducing the size of government, Medicare, Social Security and defense spending (the big three) are all off the table. The old support them all. Also, assuming the young show up to vote in 2012 in comparable numbers to 2008, how stable is the Republican majority?
This is what exit polls tell us was the age breakdown among those who voted in the past two elections. Obama supporters didn't show up -- the young returned to form. They tend not to vote in midterm elections, and didn't once again. The get out the vote drives did not work.
It might also tell us why, despite what people are saying about reducing the size of government, Medicare, Social Security and defense spending (the big three) are all off the table. The old support them all. Also, assuming the young show up to vote in 2012 in comparable numbers to 2008, how stable is the Republican majority?
Did Sharron Angle Rally the Latino Vote?
There's evidence that her harsh tome towards Latinos drove them to the polls, and to vote against her.
The Return of the Liberal Republican?
Caught up in Tuesday's wave may have been moderates and liberals running as Republicans. What does this mean for (1) the ability of the party to retain its cohesiveness within the House and (2) the chance that Democrats may be able to field competitive challengers to them in 2012?
On to Redistricting
As we've discussed in class, the biggest factor in this election was control of state houses following the census and reapportionment. Republicans peaked at the right time. They are in a position to draw district that will expand their influence far beyond their actual numbers in the electorate.
Will Republicans Repeal Health Care Legislation?
In short, they can't since they will not control the Senate, and cannot override a presidential veto. Here's an argument that they lack any incentive to do it either.
This is a great (and perhaps cynical) statement on the difference between campaigning an governing:
There’s a big difference between campaigning and legislating. In the campaign, Republican candidates appealed to their base, which was worked up about health reform without much understanding of what it does and how it works (this lack of understanding is broadly held, it’s not just a Republican base thing). The Republican base hates health reform because it’s a symbol of Obama. They think it’s a product of the far left, when in fact it’s chock full of Republican ideas.
But that thinking is of principal relevance to the campaign, not to governing. When the new Republican House majority starts legislating on health care, they will be more concerned with what the relevant interest groups want. The insurance industry, hospitals, and drug companies want looser regulation and lower taxes. That is, the big players want what they always want–more control over implementation and establishment of favorable regulations–even if it’s at the expense of a more efficient health system for the rest of us. But they also want the mandate, which can’t work without the subsidies and insurance reforms.
It's the Tea Party vs. the insurance companies. The safe bet is the latter wins.
This is a great (and perhaps cynical) statement on the difference between campaigning an governing:
There’s a big difference between campaigning and legislating. In the campaign, Republican candidates appealed to their base, which was worked up about health reform without much understanding of what it does and how it works (this lack of understanding is broadly held, it’s not just a Republican base thing). The Republican base hates health reform because it’s a symbol of Obama. They think it’s a product of the far left, when in fact it’s chock full of Republican ideas.
But that thinking is of principal relevance to the campaign, not to governing. When the new Republican House majority starts legislating on health care, they will be more concerned with what the relevant interest groups want. The insurance industry, hospitals, and drug companies want looser regulation and lower taxes. That is, the big players want what they always want–more control over implementation and establishment of favorable regulations–even if it’s at the expense of a more efficient health system for the rest of us. But they also want the mandate, which can’t work without the subsidies and insurance reforms.
It's the Tea Party vs. the insurance companies. The safe bet is the latter wins.
2010 California Propositions
Here's a list of what passed and what didn't in Tuesday's election.
Aside from the defeat of Prop 19 -- which would have legalized and taxes marijuana -- the most interesting result might be Prop 20, which establishes a committee (the California Citizens Redistricting Commission) that will design congressional districts rather than the state legislature.
Should Texas do something similar?
Aside from the defeat of Prop 19 -- which would have legalized and taxes marijuana -- the most interesting result might be Prop 20, which establishes a committee (the California Citizens Redistricting Commission) that will design congressional districts rather than the state legislature.
Should Texas do something similar?
Wednesday, November 3, 2010
60
Republicans picked up 60 seats in yesterday's election, but now have to turn to governing the House, and here things might get tricky. For the past two years they have enjoyed a lean and cohesive coalition, while the Democrats have had people in their caucus representing districts that lean Republican. This created internal divisions. Those are the people that were defeated in yesterday's election meaning that the Democrats have the more cohesive caucus and Republicans have to deal with what this author calls Republicrats.
Tuesday, November 2, 2010
Democrats Can Blame the Young
As expected, the old are voting more than the young, and this has benefitted the Republican Party more than the Democrats.
A More Humble Republican Party?
David Brooks thinks this Republican Party will be more reserved than they were in 1994, when their arrogance led to clumsy mistakes and Clinton's re-election.
What About the Democratic Realignment?
After the 2008 election, some predicted a political realignment where Democrats would dominate politics for the next generation. Here's commentary on the state of that realignment.
2301s: Keep this in mind as we review party eras.
2301s: Keep this in mind as we review party eras.
Are Violent Video Games Protected by the First Amendment?
Here's proof that the Supreme Court could care less about elections. They are scheduled to hear oral arguments in another case involving online -- or at least digital -- speech. Did the California violate the First Amendment by restricting the ability of minors to but violent video games?
Is gaming speech protected by the First Amendment?
- Schwarzenegger v. Entertainment Merchants Association
Is gaming speech protected by the First Amendment?
- Schwarzenegger v. Entertainment Merchants Association
Do Democrats Have a Stronger Party Organization Than Republicans?
Here's an argument that they do, and that this helps explain why they aren't doing worse than they could have:
As bad a night as Democrats are going to have, it could have been much worse. Heck, it still might be much worse. We don't really know yet. For a while, I've been trying to get final data on the Democratic National Committee's persuasion and targeting efforts to see just how many seats Democrats could have lost without the help of a strong part, a party that is, in essence, an organizational reformation of an historic presidential campaign. Republicans do NOT have a strong party structure. The bulk of targeting efforts in several states is being conducted by outside groups.
The DNC's Organizing For America arm was never able to mobilize enough voters to match the relentless pulse of Republican enthusiasm, but it turns out that, in the past six months, they did a heck of a lot. President Obama's recent engagement with the election is one reason why Democratic enthusiasm has increased, but without the party to harness it, it would likely have dissipated. Make no mistake: if Democrats win Senate races in Pennsylvania, Colorado, and Nevada, the party gets some credit.
It's a plausible argument. Republican success has been driven by the Tea Party movement and other organizations outside the party structure. The Republican National Committee has had its work done for it by other groups.
As bad a night as Democrats are going to have, it could have been much worse. Heck, it still might be much worse. We don't really know yet. For a while, I've been trying to get final data on the Democratic National Committee's persuasion and targeting efforts to see just how many seats Democrats could have lost without the help of a strong part, a party that is, in essence, an organizational reformation of an historic presidential campaign. Republicans do NOT have a strong party structure. The bulk of targeting efforts in several states is being conducted by outside groups.
The DNC's Organizing For America arm was never able to mobilize enough voters to match the relentless pulse of Republican enthusiasm, but it turns out that, in the past six months, they did a heck of a lot. President Obama's recent engagement with the election is one reason why Democratic enthusiasm has increased, but without the party to harness it, it would likely have dissipated. Make no mistake: if Democrats win Senate races in Pennsylvania, Colorado, and Nevada, the party gets some credit.
It's a plausible argument. Republican success has been driven by the Tea Party movement and other organizations outside the party structure. The Republican National Committee has had its work done for it by other groups.
62 + .62*256 -1.4*7.4 + 0.1*9.7 = 211.33 Democratic seats
That's the formula one polisci guy uses to predict the number of seats Democrats are likely to have in the House after the election is over. The argument is that much of the results of midterm elections are structural, that is, based on circumstances apart from any attitude one has about the president. The model predicts that given the nature of the last election and the current economic condition, Democrats should expect to lose 45 seats. Any less means they did well, any more means they did poorly.
Math is fun.
Math is fun.
Some History
The President's party, with exceptions in 1998 and 2002, tends to lose seats -- both in the U.S. and State Houses, in midterm elections. Here's proof. The rationale is that the party out of power is more mobilized than the one in power.
Might the Polls Get it Wrong?
The consensus is that Republicans are poised for big gains today -- and that still seems likely -- but Nate Silver toys with the possibility that the polls might get it wrong. Whether he's right or wrong, his analysis does a good job of detailing problems the current state of polling has to deal with -- including the difficulty of polling cell phone user. Democratic voters (such as the young) are more likely to use cell phones, and some polls don't attempt to dial them up.
We will see if this matter at all soon enough.
We will see if this matter at all soon enough.
Monday, November 1, 2010
Do Americans Really Want Smaller Government?
Andrew Sullivan thinks not:
What to make of the findings of the latest NYT poll? I have to say it makes me scratch my head. It portends a big Republican wave election, buoyed by a new conviction that people want smaller government that does less rather (55 percent) than a bigger one with more services (36 percent). At the same time, 71 percent oppose reducing social security benefits for future retirees; 54 percent oppose raising the retirement age (42 percent support it); 57 percent oppose not giving social security recipients a raise in benefits this year; and a small majority 45 - 41 do not want the health insurance reform bill repealed.
So Americans - surprise! - want smaller government in theory, but when forced to make any hard choices on spending, balk. Taxes? Surprise! They don't want them raised either - except for those earning over $250,000 a year, but even then only by 48 - 43 margin. They also prefer the Democratic party to the Republicans - the GOP's unfavorability gap was 11, the Dems was 2 - but are going to give us the most hardline conservative House in living memory. So go figure. A bunch of adolescent whiners? More grist for the Kinsley meme that they are just "big babies"? Or just completely confused and disgruntled and lashing out?
What to make of the findings of the latest NYT poll? I have to say it makes me scratch my head. It portends a big Republican wave election, buoyed by a new conviction that people want smaller government that does less rather (55 percent) than a bigger one with more services (36 percent). At the same time, 71 percent oppose reducing social security benefits for future retirees; 54 percent oppose raising the retirement age (42 percent support it); 57 percent oppose not giving social security recipients a raise in benefits this year; and a small majority 45 - 41 do not want the health insurance reform bill repealed.
So Americans - surprise! - want smaller government in theory, but when forced to make any hard choices on spending, balk. Taxes? Surprise! They don't want them raised either - except for those earning over $250,000 a year, but even then only by 48 - 43 margin. They also prefer the Democratic party to the Republicans - the GOP's unfavorability gap was 11, the Dems was 2 - but are going to give us the most hardline conservative House in living memory. So go figure. A bunch of adolescent whiners? More grist for the Kinsley meme that they are just "big babies"? Or just completely confused and disgruntled and lashing out?
Sunday, October 31, 2010
Truman's Pardon of the Duke of Duvall County
Another post from Grits for Breakfast. Archie Parr was a party boss in South Texas and key to Lyndon Johnson's electoral success.
And a great blog I'm adding to the Executive Links: Pardon Power.
And a great blog I'm adding to the Executive Links: Pardon Power.
Saturday, October 30, 2010
Should we Elected District Attorneys?
Here's an argument that we shouldn't:
There are some things we shouldn't put to a vote. The majority can't vote to enslave a minority, or to confer fewer rights on some groups than others. The power to imprison is one of the more awesome powers we grant the government, and democracy is too crude an instrument to protect our rights in the face of that power.
But even here, the alternative isn't optimal. Voters are too easily manipulated by crime fearmongering and tend to reward, not punish, overly aggressive prosecutors, as well as punish judges who show the slightest hint of balance, mercy, or a better-than-narrow view of due process. But I've also written in the past about how rarely prosecutors are punished by courts, the state bar, or the state attorney general for even egregious violations, even in cases that result in wrongful conviction. Given what we already know about accountability in civil service jobs—that is, that there's very little of it—I don't know that there's any reason to think it would be much different for prosecutors. Still, making DAs civil servants would least insulate them from the need to justify their job to voters by racking up convictions, which in turn might eventually attract more people to the position whose concept of justice is a bit more nuanced than filling up the prisons with bad guys.
Another perfect example of the conflict between democracy and individual liberty. What about this idea? Should due process be subject to majoritarian control?
There are some things we shouldn't put to a vote. The majority can't vote to enslave a minority, or to confer fewer rights on some groups than others. The power to imprison is one of the more awesome powers we grant the government, and democracy is too crude an instrument to protect our rights in the face of that power.
But even here, the alternative isn't optimal. Voters are too easily manipulated by crime fearmongering and tend to reward, not punish, overly aggressive prosecutors, as well as punish judges who show the slightest hint of balance, mercy, or a better-than-narrow view of due process. But I've also written in the past about how rarely prosecutors are punished by courts, the state bar, or the state attorney general for even egregious violations, even in cases that result in wrongful conviction. Given what we already know about accountability in civil service jobs—that is, that there's very little of it—I don't know that there's any reason to think it would be much different for prosecutors. Still, making DAs civil servants would least insulate them from the need to justify their job to voters by racking up convictions, which in turn might eventually attract more people to the position whose concept of justice is a bit more nuanced than filling up the prisons with bad guys.
Another perfect example of the conflict between democracy and individual liberty. What about this idea? Should due process be subject to majoritarian control?
Thursday, October 28, 2010
Texas Sunset Advisory Commission 2011
Every several years, the Texas Legislature reviews the performance of state agencies to determine if they should be maintained. Here's a link to the legislative agency in charge, and agencies under review this year.
*Capital Metropolitan Transportation Authority
Coastal Coordination Council
*Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT)
Electronic Government Program Management Office of the Department of Information Resources
Emergency Communications, Commission on State
Environmental Quality, Texas Commission on
*Equine Research Account Advisory Committee
Forest Service, Texas
Hearing Instruments, State Committee of Examiners in the Fitting and Dispensing of
Housing and Community Affairs, Texas Department of
*Housing Corporation, Texas State Affordable
Information Resources, Department of
Injured Employee Counsel, Office of
*Insurance Counsel, Office of Public
*Insurance, Texas Department of
*Juvenile Probation Commission, Texas
On-site Wastewater Treatment Research Council
Public Finance Authority, Texas
Public Utility Commission of Texas
Public Utility Counsel, Office of
*Racing Commission, Texas
Railroad Commission of Texas
Soil and Water Conservation Board, State
Speech-Language Pathology and Audiology, State Board of Examiners for
*Transportation, Texas Department of
Water Development Board, Texas
Workers' Compensation, Texas Department of Insurance Division of
*Youth Commission, Texas
*Subject to a focused, limited scope, or special purpose review
- Wikipedia: Sunset Advisory Commission.
*Capital Metropolitan Transportation Authority
Coastal Coordination Council
*Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT)
Electronic Government Program Management Office of the Department of Information Resources
Emergency Communications, Commission on State
Environmental Quality, Texas Commission on
*Equine Research Account Advisory Committee
Forest Service, Texas
Hearing Instruments, State Committee of Examiners in the Fitting and Dispensing of
Housing and Community Affairs, Texas Department of
*Housing Corporation, Texas State Affordable
Information Resources, Department of
Injured Employee Counsel, Office of
*Insurance Counsel, Office of Public
*Insurance, Texas Department of
*Juvenile Probation Commission, Texas
On-site Wastewater Treatment Research Council
Public Finance Authority, Texas
Public Utility Commission of Texas
Public Utility Counsel, Office of
*Racing Commission, Texas
Railroad Commission of Texas
Soil and Water Conservation Board, State
Speech-Language Pathology and Audiology, State Board of Examiners for
*Transportation, Texas Department of
Water Development Board, Texas
Workers' Compensation, Texas Department of Insurance Division of
*Youth Commission, Texas
*Subject to a focused, limited scope, or special purpose review
- Wikipedia: Sunset Advisory Commission.