From the New York Times: Tim Huelskamp, Anti-Establishment House Republican, Loses Primary in Kansas

Committee membership and constituency service still seems to matter, even in the age of the Tea Party.

- Click here for the article.

Representative Tim Huelskamp, a member of the hard-line conservativeFreedom Caucus, lost to a political newcomer on Tuesday in the Republican primary for his Kansas district.

Mr. Huelskamp, who was elected to Congress in 2010 and quickly earned a reputation for frustrating Republican leaders, was defeated byRoger Marshall, an obstetrician from Great Bend, in the primary for the First Congressional District, which covers western Kansas and much of the state’s center.

Mr. Marshall won with the support of business groups and the agriculture lobby, which had turned its back on Mr. Huelskamp after Speaker John A. Boehner had him removed from the Agriculture Committee in 2012, a crucial position for a legislator from a farm state. Mr. Huelskamp was a frequent critic of Mr. Boehner, who resigned last year amid strife with the Republican Party’s right wing.

“Getting kicked off the Agriculture Committee is a crime that can’t be forgiven,” Brian Scheideman, a 52-year-old driver’s education instructor, said after voting for Mr. Marshall in Wamego, The Associated Press reported. “I don’t mind the independent voice, but you’ve got to figure out how to work with people.”

Mr. Marshall had the support of the Kansas Farm Bureau, the Kansas Livestock Association, the National Association of Wheat Growers and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, according to The A.P. Mr. Huelskamp had the backing of the billionaire Koch brothers’ political network, the Club for Growth and conservative colleagues who visited the state to campaign for him.

From the Monkey Cage: Politicians Like Constituents Like Them

Some studies suggest that politicians are more likely to respond to constituents that share their ethnicity than those that don't. This is a bit disturbing I think. Does this suggest a need to have a diverse legislature in order to reflect the interests of a diverse population?

We can consider this in both 2301 and 2302. Does this present a civil rights issue - equal protection? And for 2302 what does this tell us about the ability of legislatures to in fact fulfill its role as a representative institution? Are certain interests more likely to be represented than others? There is plenty of evidence to suggest that this is indeed the case, but these studies help us understand how that occurs, and suggests a remedy.

It might be appropriate to consider these argument when we discuss - in both classes - racial gerrymandering.

Cost-Cutters, Except When the Spending Is Back Home

Here's another story that's commonly repeated:

Freshman House Republicans who rode a wave of voter discontent into office last year vowed to stop out-of-control spending, but that has not stopped several of them from quietly trying to funnel millions of federal dollars into projects back home.

They have pushed for dozens of projects in their districts, including military programs opposed by the president, replenishing beach sand lost to erosion, a $700 million bridge in Minnesota and a harbor dredging project in Charleston, S.C. Some of their projects were once earmarks, political shorthand for pet projects penciled into spending bills, which Republicans banned when they took over the House.
They do this because they have to. While we like the idea of spending cuts, we like them better if they only impose costs on other people in other districts. We reward our members of congress who keep spending in our districts. It's one of the reasons spending is so difficult to cut. Once it shifts from being an abstract consideration to something concrete and recognizable, we tend to like it.

2302's especially should take note of this story since it helps explain the decisions of members of congress and their relationships with their constituents. 2301s should also take note, it helps us understand voter behavior and the screwy nature of democracy.

The Texas House Agriculture and Livestock Committee

In 2302 we discussed how the Texas Speaker can use committee assignments to reward and punish legislators, here's proof, sort of, involving Houston Rep Borris Miles.

View from the Gallery:

House Agriculture & Livestock is a very important committee for rural Texas. Speakers also use it as a rural penalty box for urban members who they want to put in "time out." I first observed this in 2003 when Rep. Lon Burnam was the only member to vote against Speaker Tom Craddick, and on to Agriculture & Livestock he went. In the penalty box this year: Rep. Charlie Howard (R - Sugar Land) UPDATE: I previously listed Rep. Boris Miles in the penalty box. That was incorrect: Rep. Miles requested appointment to Agriculture & Livestock.
House Urban Affairs is an important committee for urban Texas. However, it is often referred to as the "Houston" Affairs Committee because of the many intramural City of Houston fights it is asked to referee. For a rural or suburban member, it can be tedious work -- and an urban penalty box. Only 15 of the 150 members of the Texas House (10%) voted against the election of Speaker Straus. Four of the 9 members (44%) of Urban Affairs votes against the Speaker. Into the urban penalty box: Rep. Phil King (R-Weatherford); Rep. Tan Parker (R-Flower Mound); Rep. Ken Paxton (R-McKinney); and Rep. David Simpson (R-Longview).

A tale of two committees.
From a separate report, Miles apparently requested the committee assignment to pursue an urban farming initiative.

But to recap, urban members who vote against the Speaker go to the Agriculture and Livestock Committee, while rural members who vote against the Speaker go to the Urban Affairs Committee. Sweet.

Are Congressmen Missing Earmarks Already?

From the NYT:

Gone for now are the likes of the taxpayer-financed teapot museum, or studies on the mating habits of crabs. But also shelved are a project to help consolidate information about warrants in Brazos County, Tex., and staffing for two new shelters for abused women and children in Salt Lake City. A rural Wisconsin county will not be able to upgrade its communication system, and a road in Kentucky will not be widened next year.

Across the country, local governments, nonprofit groups and scores of farmers, to name but a few, are waking up to the fact that when Congress stamped out earmarks last week, it was talking about their projects, too.

Tensions are particularly acute in districts where new conservative lawmakers, many of whom criticized throughout their campaigns the practice of quietly inserting earmarks into spending bills, are coming face to face with local governments and interest groups who were counting on federal dollars to help shore up their own collapsing budgets.

Senator Ron Paul?

Paul Burka comments on the possibility he might make a run, and offers this ominous comment:

The problem with having Ron Paul represent Texas in the United States Senate is that Paul doesn’t chase after federal money. It’s against his principles. Forget money for NASA, for highways, for universities, for military bases. He will cost Texas hundreds of millions of dollars in foregone federal aid. Paul will have none of it. He is a unique type of politician. He represents principles rather than people. If he chooses to run, he will be very difficult to defeat. And Texas will never get back a dime of the money its taxpayers send to Washington.

This is all you need to know about what drives political decisionmaking ...

From Ezra Klein via Andrew Sullivan.

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.

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.

People Like Pork

So says the National Journal:

Despite being fed a steady diet of political vitriol about the evils of earmarking, Americans are more likely to vote for a congressional candidate who brings home the bacon, according to the latest Society for Human Resource Management/National Journal Congressional Connection Poll, conducted with the Pew Research Center.
In addition, the public is nonplussed about partisan standard-bearers. More respondents by far said it makes no difference to their vote if a candidate is affiliated with President Obama, former Republican Gov. Sarah Palin of Alaska, or the tea party movement.


Funneling money back to the folks back home was the only factor that would indicate support for a congressional candidate.

This applies to both 2301 and 2302.

In 2301 we over elections and the factors which lead voters to choose one candidate or party over the other. While people like to talk about principles, we tend to be driven by pocketbook considerations. Who in fact is going to provide us with the material needs we need to live our lives?

It's a similar point in 2302 when we cover the legislature. We say we don't like earmarks, but we punish members of Congress who don't provide them for us. Member of Congress know this, and it helps explain why they seldom give serious thought to deficit cutting. Again, we like it when they say they want to cut the deficit, but we punish them when they do, especially when it means that we must lose a local spending project.

This brings us to another point from 2301: The quality of public opinion. Are we truly rational? Do our individual preferences make sense in the aggregate? 

CQ Update on Congress 6-8-10

Something to chew on today. Congressional Quarterly provides daily updates on major activity in Congress. This gives us some context for class discussion. You can sign up for these as well if you go to their site.

Today in Washington

The House considers minor bills and resolutions under suspension of the rules.

The Senate begins debate on a package extending various tax breaks and unemployment benefits, along with other expired programs.

The President meets with advisers; visits a Wheaton, Md., senior citizens’ center to tout improved Medicare drug benefits in a tele-town hall session with groups around the country; meets with Sen. Byron L. Dorgan, D-N.D.; hosts congressional picnic dinner at the White House.

In Washington, the Global Business Coalition on HIV/AIDS, Malaria and Tuberculosis holds its conference and awards dinner, with appearances by Annie Lennox; Ashley Judd, Board of Directors, PSI; Michel Sidibe, Executive Director, UNAIDS. Keynote address by Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius. 7 p.m., Renaissance Washington Hotel, 999 9th St. NW.

---------------------------------

Top Stories

White House Orders Agencies To Pinpoint Least Important Programs The White House on Tuesday instructed federal agencies to compile a list of their least important programs that add up to at least five percent of their budgets as the administration begins preparing next year's budget. [Read More]

House Chairman Defends Unwanted Jet Engine as Job Creator The chairman of the House Armed Services Committee upped the ante Tuesday in the debate over an alternate engine for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter by tying the program to the need to create more jobs. [Read More]
Feinstein Calls for Inquiry Into Israeli Raid on Aid Flotilla In a significant departure from most colleagues, Sen. Dianne Feinstein called Tuesday for an "impartial inquiry" into the Israeli commando raid on a humanitarian flotilla carrying aid to the Gaza Strip that left nine activists dead, including one American. [Read More]

Health Science Experts Urge Stronger Food Safety Regulation The Food and Drug Administration needs more resources and a more focused, risk-based approach to safeguarding the nation's food supply, according to a report released Tuesday. [Read More]

Senate Democrats Seek To Restore Medicaid Funds, Hit Oil Industry Harder Senate Democrats unveiled their proposed changes to a tax and benefits bill on Tuesday and urged quick passage of the measure, which now carries a price tag of about $140.2 billion and would add about $77.5 billion to the federal deficit. [Read More]

John Murtha

This might not be the kindest obituary, but the recently deceased John Murtha is heralded as having been a master of pork-barrel politics. As we begin discussing just what that means in my 2302s, this gives us something to talk about.

Update:

Apparently Murtha died due to medical error:

Mr. Murtha was first hospitalized with gallbladder problems in December. He had surgery Jan. 28 at the National Naval Hospital in Bethesda, Md. He went home, but was hospitalized two days later when complications developed. According to a source close to Mr. Murtha -- confirming a report in Politico -- doctors inadvertently cut Mr. Murtha's intestine during the laparoscopic surgery, causing an infection.

Al Green's Appropriations Request

For discussion this week, an item from Rep. Al Green's website, his appropriations requests. A useful example of constituent service.

Area Congressional Staffs

Here's a useful item from KPRC. It tells us how much each member of the local delegation has been allocated to spend on their office (around $1.3-4 million each) and how much they do in fact spend.

It fits with our upcoming discussion of constituency service.

Who Knows Defense Best?

Congress or the Secretary of Defense?

Gates Releases Defense Budget

And members of Congress are not happy about it. He proposes terminating weapons systems he deems unnecessary. The problem is that some of these systems are made in the districts of powerful members of Congress whose political careers are perhaps dependent on preserving the jobs associated with them:

In unveiling his new priorities for the Pentagon, Gates acknowledged that he would probably face opposition from lawmakers eager to protect jobs in their districts. "My hope is that members of Congress will rise above parochial interests and consider what is in the best interest of the nation as a whole," he said.

Gates demanded unprecedented secrecy when developing the budget over the past six weeks. Senior generals throughout the department were required to sign non-disclosure agreements. In order to prevent leaks, Gates won special permission from the president to withhold his decisions from the White House's Office of Management and Budget until after the budget proposal was formally announced. "We wanted to ensure that the changes were presented in full context," a senior Pentagon official said.

The initial response on Capitol Hill was restrained, reflecting Gates's credibility among Republicans, the president's popularity and the fact that the midterm congressional elections are still 18 months away. House Armed Services Committee Chairman Ike Skelton (D-Mo.) called the Gates plan "a good-faith effort." But he also asserted Congress's authority over how defense money is spent. "The buck stops with Congress," Skelton said in a statement.

The cuts will undoubtedly be painful for communities such as Marietta, Ga., where about 2,000 Lockheed Martin workers assemble the F-22. The program employs about 25,000 people around the country, said Rep. Tom Price (R), whose Georgia district includes the Lockheed Martin plant. "This decision will not only cost thousands of jobs at a critical time, it is detrimental to the country's national defense capabilities," Price said. "The president's priorities are deeply flawed."

Similarly, Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (I-Conn.) bemoaned the decision to stop building F-22s. "This would result in the loss of thousands of jobs in Connecticut," he said.

Culberson and NASA

John Culberson, who represents U.S. House District 7, has harsh words for NASA:

"We need revolutionary change, a complete restructuring," Culberson told the Houston Chronicle. "NASA needs complete freedom to hire and fire based on performance, it needs to be driven by the scientists and the engineers, and it needs to be free of politics as much as possible."

The fourth-term lawmaker said he was "kicking around" a proposal designed to make NASA more like the National Science Foundation, an independent federal agency led by a director and a 24-member board appointed by the president.

Culberson, a member of the House Appropriations Committee, said that despite spending $156.5 billion over the past decade, NASA had surrendered "a 40-year advantage" in space exploration. He said the agency continues to rely on liquid-fueled rockets with technology dating back to "Robert Goddard-era rockets" in the 1920s.

"I have always been a zealous advocate for the space program," said Culberson, who dates his interest in the subject to a childhood telescope. "But the setbacks are inexcusable and maddening — all because the magnificent men and women scientists and engineers have been frustrated by the bureaucracy, waste and duplication at headquarters."

Nick Lampson, whose district contains NASA, came to its defense, as did a supporter who pointed back at Congress:

John M. Logsdon, director of the Space Policy Institute at George Washington University, challenged Culberson's claim that the nation had little to show for NASA's efforts over the past 50 years, adding that NASA had fulfilled what the White House and Congress requested and financed for decades.

"It's easy to beat up on them because they're at the end of the shuttle program and they've been given inadequate funding by the administration and Congress to move forward with the new program for manned space flight," Logsdon said.

Culberson's comments apparently were inspired by previous statements by Newt Gingrich such as the following:

I am for a dramatic increase in our efforts to reach out into space, but I am for doing virtually all of it outside of NASA through prizes and tax incentives. NASA is an aging, unimaginative, bureaucracy committed to over-engineering and risk-avoidance which is actually diverting resources from the achievements we need and stifling the entrepreneurial and risk-taking spirit necessary to lead in space exploration.

My hunch is that both Culberson and Lampson are buttering up separate constituencies. Lampson's is the existing bureaucratic constituency across I-45 in Clear Lake (and a total of 20,000 related workers in the Houston area), Culberson's is a potential private sector constituency who could take advantage of funding that would be redirected to the private sector. Typical ideological politics, nothing new to see.

The Chron story concludes with a statement that attests to NASA's ability to broaden its appeal across Congress:

Culberson emphasized that his proposal to revamp NASA's structure had not been drafted into legislation and that he had not yet solicited co-sponsors.

But prospects for passage of such a measure would difficult, given wide bipartisan support in Congress for NASA and a jam-packed election year congressional calendar.

Local Pork

The Sunday Chron ran an overview of our senators and House reps and the local funding they provide their constituents. Here's what they say about Kay Bailey: "A member of the Senate Appropriations Committee, Hutchison has been the go-to person in Congress for government officials and private groups in Texas who seek federal money but often are unable to secure it through the traditional method of applying to federal agencies."

Now we know.