Several stories cover (Freshman Democratic Representative of Connecticutt's 2nd District) Joe Courtney's ability to quickly figure out how to get things done in Congress. He's stoking fears of China and using it to support further production of nuclear powered submarines, which happen to be made in his district. 6,000 jobs are on the line.
Since Courtney is a freshman, and won by only 83 votes, he's vulnerable. Demorats are pumping as much money in his district as possible to ward off a challenger. So what if it leads to an arms race? It's just pork.
Read up on this here: Matt Yglesias, Brad Plumer, and the Washington Post.
Showing posts with label 2302-1. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 2302-1. Show all posts
Thursday, June 21, 2007
Sunday, June 17, 2007
Immigration in the House and Senate
I'll catch up shortly with the immigration saga as it winds through the Congress, but this National Public Radio story points out conflict between Georgia's two senators (Chambliss and Isakson) and the candidates for the open seat for district 10, which is just east of Atlanta.
The candidates, at least the Republicans, seem unanimously upset at the two (Republican) senators because of their support of efforts to clear the way for illegal aliens to become citizens. Does the conflict reflect the preferences of the calm, stable trustee versus those of the unstable delegate who must reflect the passions of the district in order to get elected? Perhaps this issue illustrates the idea that the Senate is the "saucer that cools the tea." Or are senators reflecting the interests of the business community (their true constituents) over those of the common people whose champions are in the House?
The candidates, at least the Republicans, seem unanimously upset at the two (Republican) senators because of their support of efforts to clear the way for illegal aliens to become citizens. Does the conflict reflect the preferences of the calm, stable trustee versus those of the unstable delegate who must reflect the passions of the district in order to get elected? Perhaps this issue illustrates the idea that the Senate is the "saucer that cools the tea." Or are senators reflecting the interests of the business community (their true constituents) over those of the common people whose champions are in the House?
Friday, June 8, 2007
Herding Cats While in the Minority
The New Republic has a story--which I can't link to at the moment--about House Minority Leader John Boehner's success in retaining cohesion among Republicans in the House despite their disillusion following the election of 2006.
Republicans in the House are noted for their ability to be cohesive, to vote together. It explains their success in passing legislation though they never enjoyed huge leads over Democrats while in the majority from 1994 - 2006. The election tested this unity since they could no longer dominate the legislative process. Some suggested that each individual Republican had to fend for themselves, act as free agents. Early votes showed that solid handfuls of Republicans were voting with the Democrats, which raised the possibility that a veto proof coalition could emerge and shut down any chance that President Bush could remain relevant.
Enter John Boehner.
He rallied the party prior to the vote earlier this year on the nonbinding resolution opposing the surge in Iraq, which gradually built up the party's confidence. He has encouraged party members to take a confrontational stance with Democrats and turned conference meetings into pep rallies. This sets back any chance that Democrats could take control of the public policy process.
Whether this helps House Republicans in the 2008 elections remains to be seen. They could end up further tying themselves to policies that could continue to be unpopular, but the camaraderie can't hurt.
Republicans in the House are noted for their ability to be cohesive, to vote together. It explains their success in passing legislation though they never enjoyed huge leads over Democrats while in the majority from 1994 - 2006. The election tested this unity since they could no longer dominate the legislative process. Some suggested that each individual Republican had to fend for themselves, act as free agents. Early votes showed that solid handfuls of Republicans were voting with the Democrats, which raised the possibility that a veto proof coalition could emerge and shut down any chance that President Bush could remain relevant.
Enter John Boehner.
He rallied the party prior to the vote earlier this year on the nonbinding resolution opposing the surge in Iraq, which gradually built up the party's confidence. He has encouraged party members to take a confrontational stance with Democrats and turned conference meetings into pep rallies. This sets back any chance that Democrats could take control of the public policy process.
Whether this helps House Republicans in the 2008 elections remains to be seen. They could end up further tying themselves to policies that could continue to be unpopular, but the camaraderie can't hurt.
Tuesday, May 22, 2007
Toast?
Speaker Craddick's leadership style is now being blamed for the legislature's stagnancy. Says the Chron: "Midnight tonight [5/22] is the deadline for House approval of all nonlocal Senate bills on second reading. Some 202 bills had been set for review on Monday and today, but only a handful had been acted on by Monday evening."
Reports suggest that he's now spending more time trolling the house floor for support against an expected insurgency than pushing for legislation.
Here are related articles:
- Craddick called to step down: GOP committee chair urges him to avoid '18 months of hell' in Legislature.
- Craddick challenge in House widens. Member calls for speaker to quit post after second candidate files.
- Craddick a velvet fist in an iron glove: Foes try to reconcile speaker's soft-spoken demeanor with his win-at-all costs style.
-
Reports suggest that he's now spending more time trolling the house floor for support against an expected insurgency than pushing for legislation.
Here are related articles:
- Craddick called to step down: GOP committee chair urges him to avoid '18 months of hell' in Legislature.
- Craddick challenge in House widens. Member calls for speaker to quit post after second candidate files.
- Craddick a velvet fist in an iron glove: Foes try to reconcile speaker's soft-spoken demeanor with his win-at-all costs style.
-
Sunday, May 20, 2007
Texas Legislative Update
The Texas legislature will end on the 28th with, apparently, not much to show for their efforts.
The session has been dominated by problems at Texas Southern University, the Texas Youth Commission, and the governor's executive order on the HPV vaccine.
Aside from the fact that the system of separated powers is designed to thwart individual agendas, the chron suggests:
- the assumption that Lieutenant Governor Dewhurst is planning to run for governor in 2010. This has led him to focus more on short term issues that can increase his vote--especially among conservative Republicans who do in fact vote--at the expense of long terms issues that may be immediately unpopular.
- the attempt to depse Speaker Tom Craddick earlier this session, which weakened his ability to lead the chamber. He might be kinder and gentler, but that doesn't help one herd chickens.
The session has been dominated by problems at Texas Southern University, the Texas Youth Commission, and the governor's executive order on the HPV vaccine.
Aside from the fact that the system of separated powers is designed to thwart individual agendas, the chron suggests:
- the assumption that Lieutenant Governor Dewhurst is planning to run for governor in 2010. This has led him to focus more on short term issues that can increase his vote--especially among conservative Republicans who do in fact vote--at the expense of long terms issues that may be immediately unpopular.
- the attempt to depse Speaker Tom Craddick earlier this session, which weakened his ability to lead the chamber. He might be kinder and gentler, but that doesn't help one herd chickens.
Thursday, May 17, 2007
Cat Fight!
This is not how senators are supposed to act.
Feisty by nature, Dan Patrick has not abided by the traditional deference freshman senators are supposed to pay to their seniors. This seems to have gotten him into a bit of trouble. He may not mind but some wonder if this attitude limits his effectiveness.
More comments on Patrick.
Feisty by nature, Dan Patrick has not abided by the traditional deference freshman senators are supposed to pay to their seniors. This seems to have gotten him into a bit of trouble. He may not mind but some wonder if this attitude limits his effectiveness.
More comments on Patrick.
Monday, May 7, 2007
About Those Illegal Immigrants
Apparently the Texas Legislature is not anxious to wade deeply into illegal immigration, much to the chagrin of Rep. Leo Berman, who has authored several anti-illegal immigration bills, including a controversial proposal to effectively deny recognition of the citizenship of the native born children of illegals.
Berman's chief nemesis seems to be Rep. David Swinford, the chair of the State Affairs Committee who has the power to table bills in his committee and prevent them from reaching the House floor.
Berman's chief nemesis seems to be Rep. David Swinford, the chair of the State Affairs Committee who has the power to table bills in his committee and prevent them from reaching the House floor.
Senate Bill 1317
The unique nature of air, and the problems it poses for policymakers seeking to clean it, is on display at the state capital.
Senate Bill 1317, authored by ACC's Senator Mike Jackson, was passed last week and has been sent to the House were it was referred to Rep Bonnen's Committee on Environmental Regulation. The bill, though deliberately vague in its wording, is generally assumed to be a response to the efforts of Houston to regulate air pollution within city limits. The multiple sources of pollution have created several "hotspots" in the city where cancer rates are argued to be higher than normal and traceable to the pollutants. Houston's mayor argues that these pollutants, and the perception that it is a polluted city, make it difficult for Houston to attract the next generation of skilled workers.
The problem is that the source of much of this pollution lies outside of Houston's city limits. Air apparently does not recognize political boundaries. For Houston to limit pollution, it would have to negatively impact the economy of neighboring cities, including those represented by Senator Jackson.
As he explains it, cities can currently "define and prohibit any nuisance within the limits of the municipality and within 5,000 feet outside those limits." As I understand it, his bill simply redefines the word "nuisance" to not include air pollution. If passed and signed into law, neither Houston nor any other city in Texas would be able to prohibit air pollution produced by a source just next to the city.
Senator Jackson calls this a sovereignty issue. A city next to Houston that wishes to allow pollutants to be produced should not have to be subject to its will. Opponents aren't buying it and are calling it an anti-clean air bill.
There's much more to this issue than this brief overview. Here's background reading:
- Opposition by the Sierra Club.
- More on the Senate's Anti Clean Air Bill.
- Houston Gets Slapped.
Senate Bill 1317, authored by ACC's Senator Mike Jackson, was passed last week and has been sent to the House were it was referred to Rep Bonnen's Committee on Environmental Regulation. The bill, though deliberately vague in its wording, is generally assumed to be a response to the efforts of Houston to regulate air pollution within city limits. The multiple sources of pollution have created several "hotspots" in the city where cancer rates are argued to be higher than normal and traceable to the pollutants. Houston's mayor argues that these pollutants, and the perception that it is a polluted city, make it difficult for Houston to attract the next generation of skilled workers.
The problem is that the source of much of this pollution lies outside of Houston's city limits. Air apparently does not recognize political boundaries. For Houston to limit pollution, it would have to negatively impact the economy of neighboring cities, including those represented by Senator Jackson.
As he explains it, cities can currently "define and prohibit any nuisance within the limits of the municipality and within 5,000 feet outside those limits." As I understand it, his bill simply redefines the word "nuisance" to not include air pollution. If passed and signed into law, neither Houston nor any other city in Texas would be able to prohibit air pollution produced by a source just next to the city.
Senator Jackson calls this a sovereignty issue. A city next to Houston that wishes to allow pollutants to be produced should not have to be subject to its will. Opponents aren't buying it and are calling it an anti-clean air bill.
There's much more to this issue than this brief overview. Here's background reading:
- Opposition by the Sierra Club.
- More on the Senate's Anti Clean Air Bill.
- Houston Gets Slapped.
It's Good to be in the Majority
In today's Chron: Houston companies are now sending PAC money to the re-election efforts of the chairs of the congressional committees that have control over legislation that affects their businesses. All Democrats.
Friday, May 4, 2007
On Committees in Texas
The Texas Observer paints an unflattering portrait of Dennis Bonnen who represented the ACC campus until 2003's redistricting, but still represents southern portions of our district.
Unflaterring if you consider yourself an environmentalist, not so if your priority is protecting the local petro-chemical industry.
His eleven years in the House put Mr. Bonnen in a position to chair the House Committee on Environmental Regulation, which he apparently uses to stop legislation which proponents argue would clean the environment and opponents claim would harm industry.
Unflaterring if you consider yourself an environmentalist, not so if your priority is protecting the local petro-chemical industry.
His eleven years in the House put Mr. Bonnen in a position to chair the House Committee on Environmental Regulation, which he apparently uses to stop legislation which proponents argue would clean the environment and opponents claim would harm industry.
Saturday, April 7, 2007
Is this really a good idea?
Let me begin by saying that I support the right of people to hunt, and I also believe that we, as a society, should do all we can to enable those with disabilities to enjoy as full a life as those of us without disabilities (allegedly) do.
With that out of the way, do we want the blind to be able to hunt?
Here's a link to the bill in question and the bill's sponsor.
With that out of the way, do we want the blind to be able to hunt?
Here's a link to the bill in question and the bill's sponsor.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)