From OffCite: Hazardous: The Redlining of Houston Neighborhoods

For our look at civil rights - and equal protection - in 2305, as well as municipal governments in 2306.

- Redlining "is the practice of denying services, either directly or through selectively raising prices, to residents of certain areas based on the racial or ethnic makeups of those areas."

The process has been argued to be the central reason racially segregated housing patterns persist in the United States - which also maintains de facto racial segregation in public schools despite Brown v Board.

- Click here for the article.

Why are we so compelled to define neighborhoods as “good” or “bad”? Is there one definition of a “good” neighborhood — is it universal? Can a low-income neighborhood be a “good” neighborhood? I often wonder, and frequently challenge, whether these labels accurately depict a place and its people or whether they are self-fulfilling prophecy that makes it easy to invest or divest. The question comes more clearly into focus by understanding the history of neighborhood classification, of “good” and “bad” labels, and why they are too often directly associated with income and ethnicity.

A great deal has been written about “redlining,” which was the practice of denying loans to certain areas of cities based, in part, on race. Not surprisingly, areas that were redlined declined, property values slumped, and for many, the only option was to move. The practice of redlining was institutionalized with the Home Owners’ Loan Corporation (HOLC) Residential Security Maps, though many scholars argue that the maps simply reflected the predominant lending practices of the time — and projected them into the future. Regardless, it is very clear that the maps tell us one part of the story of what went wrong, and how.

From the New Republic: The Birth of Conservative Media as We Know It

For 2305 - this fits with our coverage of conservatism in a previous section, as well as our upcoming look at the media.

- Click here for the article.

Henry Regnery flipped through his notes a final time as he waited for the rest of the group to arrive. In a few minutes Room 2233 in New York City’s Lincoln Building would be packed with some of the brightest lights of the conservative movement, gathered together at his request. Writers, publishers, and editors made up most of the guest list, including William F. Buckley Jr., the enfant terrible of the right; Frank Hanighen, cofounder of Human Events; Raymond Moley, Newsweek columnist and author of the anti–New Deal book After Seven Years (1939); and John Chamberlain, former editor of the Freeman and an editorial writer for the Wall Street Journal.

When everyone was settled, Regnery explained why he had called the meeting. As 1953 came to a close, he observed the men in Room 2233 were unquestionably on the losing side of politics. And that puzzled him. “The side we represent controls most of the wealth in this country,” he told those gathered. “The ideas and traditions we believe in are those which most Americans instinctively believe in also.” Why then was liberalism ascendant and conservatism relegated to the fringes? Because, Regnery argued, the left controlled institutions: the media, the universities, the foreign policy establishment. Until the right had a “counterintelligence unit” that could fight back, conservatives would remain a group of elites raging against a system that by all rights they should control.

- Click here for the magazine they produced: Human Events.

From the New Republic: Inside the Libertarian Movement to Take Over the Legal System

We look at Libertarianism in GOVT 2305 along with many of the other "isms" along the left right political continuum. Here's a definition: "a political philosophy that upholds liberty as its principal objective. Libertarians seek to maximize autonomy and freedom of choice, emphasizing political freedom, voluntary association and the primacy of individual judgment."

Sounds fine, but the movement is opposed to many of the policies put in place to protect workers: the 40 hour work week, overtime pay, child labor laws and the like. Freedom of the business owner takes precedence over governmental laws meant to protect workers. Capital trumps labor.

Here's an argument that a handful of libertarian legal scholars are working to undo the legal rationale that underlies the New Deal. This includes revisiting a controversial case from  1905 Lochner v New York. I'll post something that separately, but this article tells us a few things about how change on the Supreme Court can be accomplished.

It focuses primarily on one of the leading figures of this movement, Randy Barnett, and his efforts to redefine conservatism on the court from being restrained to activist.

- Click here for it.

Eventually, Barnett clawed his way to Boston University, and then to Georgetown, where he joined the faculty in 2006. (“I love the situation here,” he said of his current digs. “I don’t need to be on the outs.”) But even as his career took off, his legal views remained decidedly anti-establishment. Barnett believes the Constitution exists to secure inalienable property and contract rights for individuals. This may sound like a bland and inconsequential opinion, but if widely adopted by our courts and political systems it would prohibit or call into question basic governmental protections—minimum wages, food-safety regulations, child-labor laws—that most of us take for granted. For nearly a century now, a legal counterculture has insisted that the whole New Deal project was a big, unconstitutional error, and Barnett is a big part of that movement today.

The NLRB issues a rule redefining what it means to be an employee

This is a major story that applies to a variety of topics in 2305 - and a few in 2306 as well. It involves a controversy stemming from the actions of a company based in Houston - Browning-Ferris Industries.

Here's the issue put simply: Is Browning-Ferris responsible for the treatment of contracted employees? The decision by the NLRB was yes, but by only a 3-2 vote. This means that all employees of companies contracted by another (like temporary workers), have the same legal rights and protections as those employed by that company.

- Click here for the decision.

- Click here for background from The Hill:

The Obama administration is redefining what it means to be an employer. The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) on Thursday handed down one of its biggest decisions of President Obama’s tenure, ruling that companies can be held responsible for labor violations committed by their contractors.

While the ruling from the independent agency specifically deals with the waste management firm Browning-Ferris, the so-called “joint employer” decision could have broad repercussions for the business world, particularly for franchise companies. Opponents of the action warn the ruling could hurt businesses as diverse as restaurants, retailers, manufacturers and construction firms, as well as hotels, cleaning services and staffing agencies.

. . . The NLRB ruling is a sharp departure from previous decisions that stated companies were only responsible for employees who were under their direct control. Without the power to set hours, wages or job responsibilities, the earlier rulings held, companies could not be held responsible for the labor practices of the contractors.

But the National Labor Relations Board charted a new course Thursday, saying the old standard is “increasingly out of step with changing economic circumstances.”

One argument made in favor of the decision is that current employment trends suggest more and more people will be temporary workers or contractors in the future. Uber drivers are an example. This decision is meant to guarantee they have the same rights - such as collective bargaining - as regular employees.

For further background:

- NYT: Labor Board Ruling Eases Way for Fast-Food Unions’ Efforts.
- NPR: NLRB Ruling Could Pave The Way For Fast-Food Unions.
- Forbes: Controversial NLRB Ruling Could End Contract Employment As We Know It.

Here's where this story applies to class topics: The National Labor Relations Board was not only created during the New Deal, it was found constitutional in a highly consequential case which redefined "commerce" as including manufacturing and labor. Otherwise the national government has no ability to pass and implement such a law. The NLRB has since been hugely controversial in an ideological sense because conservative business owners tend to oppose its efforts to strengthen workers rights, while liberals support it. The agency is a constant lightning rod and a repeated focus of political dispute. Conservatives - members of the Republican Party - would be happy in getting rid of it - but that has proven tough to do. Instead they've tried to weaken it. They've had better success there.

More on this soon - I think this story might be with us a while.

Where did the proposal to increase overtime pay come from?

According to the New York Times, it came from an economist - Jared Bernstein - who had worked in the White House as the Chief Economist and Economic Adviser to Vice President Joseph Biden.

Upon leaving wrote a report describing the benefits of increasing the number of people who qualify for overtime pay. His idea was to set the level to where it as in 1975 and inflation-adjust it to today, and keep it set at the level of inflation. They also allow white collar workers - executives - to be eligible for overtime.

- Click here for the report.

Increasing overtime pay fits within the overall goals of increasing middle class incomes.

Liberal interest groups have been pushing this proposal for some time. Their arguments can be sumarized here:

- fixoverime.org.
- What the New Proposed Overtime Rules Mean for Workers.

For more:

- Obama's new overtime rules: How they'd work and who they'd affect.
- One Industry That Will Hate Obama’s New Overtime Rules: The Media.
- Republicans will hate Obama’s new overtime rule, but they can’t do anything about it.

And what authorizes the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938? The Commerce Clause of course

That was the unanimous ruling by the Supreme Court in the 1940 case of United States v. Darby.

For detail:

- Oyez: United States v. Darby.
- Wikipedia: United States v. Darby.

The facts of the case from Wikipedia:

The issue was whether Congress had overstepped its constitutional authority in creating the Fair Labor Standards Act. An American lumber company in Georgia that did not meet these standards was charged with violating the law, but had won an appeal, where the appellate judge found that the federal government is barred by the 10th Amendment from interfering in matters that are strictly local, that is, within state boundaries. The Act also required the keeping of records to verify compliance; the appellee argued that this violated his 5th Amendment right protecting him from self-incrimination.

The Court reversed the appellate court decision. It affirmed the constitutional power of Congress to regulate interstate commerce, which power "can neither be enlarged nor diminished by the exercise or non-exercise of state power." FindLaw. The Court held that the purpose of the Act was to prevent states from using substandard labor practices to their own economic advantage through interstate commerce. In the Dagenhart case, the Court had made the distinction between manufacturing and interstate commerce, so that a business could argue it was engaging in the former, but had not intended the latter. Twenty-two years later, the Court found that earlier argument facile, explaining that Congress was well aware that businesses produce their goods without thought to where they will go; product is pulled and shipped to meet the orders of the day. The Court also found that the requirement of record keeping was entirely appropriate as a matter of enforcing the Act.

What Authorizes the President to issue an Executive Order expanding overtime Pay? The Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938

Franklin Roosevelt called it the most important piece of New Deal legislation following the Social Security Act.

In addition to establishing overtime pay, it also established the minimum wage, the 8 hour day and the 40 hour work week. It also placed age limits on work, thereby ensuring that kids under 16 went to school primarily - not a job site.

For more detail:

- United States Department of Labor: Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938: Maximum Struggle for a Minimum Wage.
- US History: Fair Labor Standards Act.
- Legislative History of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
- Wikipedia: Fair Labor Standards Act.
- US Code: Fair Labor Standards Act.

Interesting Trivia: The law was originally written by Hugo Black when he was a Senator from Alabama. He would later be appointed to the Supreme Court in 1937 and would serve until 1971.

From the New Republic: Rand Paul Will Break Libertarian Hearts, Just Like Reagan Did

In our discussion of the winner take all system, we've been talking about the compromise that libertarians and others have to make between the urge to be pure that the desire to have an actual practical impact on politics.

This article walks through the tension that libertarians have with the Republican Party.

- Click here for it.

For Senator Rand Paul, winning the Republican presidential nomination will involve a delicate balancing act of keeping faith with his libertarian roots while also appealing to the broader conservative base of the party. On issues like the war on drugs and government surveillance, Paul has articulated strongly anti-statist positions that are rarely heard from either party. Yet to be a plausible Republican presidential candidate, Paul, to the disappointment of many of his more orthodox libertarian followers, is increasingly sounding like a typical conservative, especially on foreign policy.

Paul’s conundrum shouldn’t surprise us: Libertarians have always been an uneasy fit within the broader Republican coalition. Libertarians claim to have roots in classical liberalism of the early modern era, but only emerged as a salient and self-conscious political movement in the 1930s, as a reaction to the expansion of the welfare state initiated by Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal. That didn’t make libertarians comfortable Republicans, though. As purist counter-revolutionaries who wanted to roll back FDR’s achievements, libertarians all too often found Republicans to be cowardly and unreliable allies.

Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938

The minimum wage was established - along with a variety of other rules related to labor - in the Fair Labor Standards Act, a piece of New Deal legislation passed in 1938.

The proposal . . . adopted an eight-hour day and a forty-hour workweek and allowed workers to earn wage for an extra four hours of overtime as well. According to the act, workers must be paid minimum wage and overtime pay must be one-and-a-half times regular pay. Children under eighteen cannot do certain dangerous jobs, and children under the age of sixteen cannot work during school hours.

If I'm not mistaken, the bill was responsible for creating what we now know as a weekend.

Some history of the farm bill and US agriculture policy

Hopefully the links below provide some context for the current controversy over the farm bill. Agriculture policy of some sort has been a major component of national public policy since the early years of the republic - manifest destiny was in many ways an effort to provide farm land for the property-less folks out east who would also help settle the new territory.

Farm policy took a new form during the Great Depression beginning with the passage of the Agriculture Adjustment Act of 1933, but codified in related legislation in 1938 which contained a requirement that the bill be updated every five years. It also contained a provision that allowed for the creation of a nutrition program, which would later become food stamps - then SNAP.

What this means is that the farm bill contains two separate, though related items: subsidies for farmers, and food for the poor. This has created broad support for the bill over time, but has led to the current conflict. Republicans have pushed for limits on food stamps and removing them from the farm bill while retaining the subsidies. So the farm bill can be though of in the broader context of the New Deal, and the battle against it - or at least the part that created nutrition programs.

Here are some links with further historical information:

- Wikipedia: Agriculture policy of the United States, and History of Agriculture in the United States.

- Wikipedia: United States Farm Bill. This provides a good, brief look at the history of these bills and a list of the major agriculture legislation passed since the late 19th Century.

- Infographic might provide the most efficient way to get an idea of the history of the farm bill.

- For - what seems to me to be - the most comprehensive list of farm bills and supporting information related to them dating back to 1935, click on the National Agriculture Law Center here.

- Snap to Health has FAQ's about the farm bill. 

- NPR: The Farm Bill: From Charitable Start to Prime Budget Target. This provides a good look at the impact the farm bill has on agriculture policy in the US. Click here for similar detail.

- USDA National Agriculture Library: Farm Bill.

"the last of the New Deal liberals"

Aside from being one of the last WWII veterans, Lautenberg has also been called one of the "the last of the New Deal liberals."

Since we covered ideology and federalism recently and will start looking at political parties soon enough, this gives us an opportunity to discuss this transitional period in history. With his death, we are sloso given the chance to speculate further on what factors lead to changes in public policy. Often it has less to do with people changing opinions on certain matter, but instead generations with shared opinions replacing generations with others.

Some related readings - If you are inclined:

- Frank Lautenber, the last of the New Deal Liberals.
- Wikipedia: Liberalism in the United States.
- Wikipedia: New Deal

I'd recommend this one especially:

- How classical liberalism morphed into New Deal liberalism.

I like its introductory paragraph. 2305s should especially recognize the point the author is making here: 

Classical liberalism is synonymous with a faith in reason, which had arisen out of the Enlightenment as a reaction to claims of divine rule by the clergy and royalty of the late Middle Ages. It found expression in the thoughts of many writers across Europe and the British Isles, including John Stuart Mill, John Locke, Baron de Montesquieu, Voltaire, David Hume, and Immanuel Kant, as well as in the political arguments of America’s founders, particularly Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Paine, and James Madison. Liberal freedoms were primarily freedoms of the mind: freedom of thought, of expression, of religion, and of self-invention without regard to the customs of caste, creed, or crown. Above all, liberalism implied both an ability and a responsibility of people to think for themselves, to create their own destinies, and to follow their own consciences. Examining the evolution of liberal belief since its founding, the liberal theologian Reinhold Niebuhr observed in an article published on July 4, 1955, in The New Republic, that liberalism in the broadest sense was characterized by a commitment “to free the individual from the traditional restraints of a society, to endow the ‘governed’ with the power of the franchise, to establish the principle of the ‘consent of the governed’ as the basis of political society; to challenge all hereditary privileges and traditional restraints upon human initiative.”

Redefining American Government

A Washington Post writer argues that the Supreme Court is using Obamacare and other current cases to redefine American government in much the same way as was done during the New Deal:

President Franklin Roosevelt’s alphabet soup of federal programs ran counter to established doctrine denying the constitutionality of economic and social legislation, state or federal. Steeped in that tradition, many legal experts recoiled in horror at FDR’s plans.

Amid a Great Depression, and under tremendous pressure from a popular president and his huge congressional majority, however, this expert consensus gave way. The Supreme Court abandoned its laissez faire understanding of the Constitution’s Commerce Clause (among other provisions) so as to permit New Deal programs.

I don’t think this history proves that “politics, money, party and party loyalty” crassly determined the decisions of the 1930s. If that were true, why accord them precedential weight today?

Rather, what it shows is that the United States periodically redefines the role of the federal government in society, in a process that is both political and legal — and, sometimes, more revolutionary than evolutionary. In that sense, we do have a “living Constitution.”

In the 1930s, expanding federal power was innovative, promising. By blessing it, the court aligned itself with the wave of the future, in this country and globally. Ditto for the 1960s. Much of the legislation that resulted — from Social Security to the Voting Rights Act — was indeed progressive.

Today, however, there is nothing new about federal intervention — and much evidence from the past 70 years that big programs produce inefficiencies and unintended consequences.

The Constitution in Exile Movement

Jeffrey Rosen of the New Republic thinks that a recent opinion written by Janice Rogers Brown indicates that the Constitution in Exile Movement - the group of conservative legal scholars and judges who are intent on rolling back New Deal policies - is about to make waves and take a more active role in making decision on economic regulation.

He predicts that we will soon be seeing more conservative judicial activism. I strongly suggest a read.

From the Washington Post: The Supreme Court vs. the Commerce Clause

As we discuss at various points in both 2301 and 2302, some conservatives have been trying to roll back the scale of the national government to what existed prior to the New Deal, and the argument presented in heath care reform cases might allow them the opportunity to do so, the question is whether they really want to go that far and create the disruptions such a decision would inevitably lead to.

Here's a suggestion that the activity / inactivity distinction might allow the court to make a statement regarding the outside limits of governmental actions without undermining the policies (Social Security, Medicare etc. . . ) that have been built up over the past few decades.

What the New Deal Accomplished

Since we hit on the New Deal from time to time, this excerpt from a book defending it is worth a read. Some argue that the current economy could benefit from a similar jolt:

The New Deal physically reshaped the country. To this day, Americans still rely on its works for transportation, electricity, flood control, housing, and community amenities. The output of one agency alone, the Works Progress Administration, represents a magnificent bequest to later generations. The WPA produced, among many other projects, 1,000 miles of new and rebuilt airport runways, 651,000 miles of highway, 124,000 bridges, 8,000 parks, and 18,000 playgrounds and athletic fields; some 84,000 miles of drainage pipes, 69,000 highway light standards, and 125,000 public buildings built, rebuilt, or expanded. Among the latter were 41,300 schools.

The Battle Over the Natiohal Labor Relations Board

From the NYT:

Barring a last-minute settlement, lawyers for the National Labor Relations Board will begin arguing before a Seattle judge on Tuesday that Boeing broke the law by building a new, nonunion production line in South Carolina instead of expanding its unionized operations in Washington State.

Boeing, the N.L.R.B. and the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers local that initiated the case all still say they would like to find a way to settle. Appeals could grind on for years, clouding the future of Boeing’s $750 million Dreamliner assembly plant scheduled to start production in July in North Charleston, S.C. Negotiators and outside analysts said that any deal would most likely require Boeing to commit to adding some level of new production lines to its Puget Sound manufacturing hub in exchange for certain union concessions, like a no-strike pledge.

The labor board’s top lawyer says Boeing’s decision to move the operation to South Carolina constituted illegal retaliation against Boeing’s unionized workers in Washington for engaging in their legally protected right to strike, including a 58-day walkout in 2008.

Republicans Vote to Defund the NLRB

Which would undermine collective bargaining in general.

Scorpions

Another extra credit option. A book detailing the personalities FDR placed on the court. A review from Slate.

100 Days

Here are a variety of stories evaluating Obama's first 100 days in office:

- Wired Magazine likes his decisions on science, but not on privacy and copyright policy.

- WaPo highlights where Obama differs from Bush. They also speculate on the near future.

- U.S. News and World Report outlines how Obama has attempted to reconcile religious conservatives and secular liberals.

- The Huffington Post likes his ambitious agenda.

- The UPI reminds us that the economy is still untamed after 100 days.

- FoxNews sees life in the economy, but wonders if it is really due to the stimulus.

- CBS News likes his social policy, not necessarily policy on Afghanistan.

- The New Republic contrasts Obama with FDR (see a chronology of FDR's first 100 days here).

There's much more, send me links to whatever you've been reading.

What is Stimulus For? Why Should Government Get Involved in the Market Place?

Someone, thankfully, in one of my classes fessed up to not knowing what the stimulus bill was about and how government could stimulate the economy. I'm sure he or she was not the only one unsure about this (this is why we tell you that there are no dumb questions, we need to know the level of knowledge you have in order to effectively communicate ideas to you).

With that in mind here is a brief overview of what the issue is about. Bear in mind that I am not an economist, but even economists disagree about all of this.

During the Great Depression, policymakers struggled with what to do. How does a government get itself out of a depression? Should the economy be left alone -- to the peril of the general population -- or should it intervene, and if so how?

Prior to the Great Depression laissez-faire ruled. Little if anything, was done to address a slumping economy, but with the 1932 election -- which followed the onset of the depression -- ideas (particularly those developed by John Maynard Keynes) emerged that held that a focus on stimulating demand would help the economy rebound. This meant government spending more than it took in, but focusing spending projects that would put money in people's pockets. Generally these are public works projects, but they could be all sorts of things. This was, in a sense, what the New Deal was all about.

The idea was that when government funds a project -- no matter how trivial -- the people involved in that project would not only earn money, but would spend that money in the local economy. Government may pay me to dig a ditch, and I use that money to pay my mortgage, buy groceries and clothes, and maybe see a movie. So the money I earned helps out the bank, the grocer, the shop I bought my clothes and the owner of the movie theater. They can then stay in business -- spend their money as they choose -- and continue to hire or retain workers who can then spend their money in the local economy.

So when government spends money to stimulate the economy, it intends to inject money in the economy that will circulate in the community. The theory is that this stimulus will help the economy, and the general population, survive until the economic system picks itself up and can begin to create its own jobs.

There are arguments against this theory, and nuances that are worth further discussion, including suggestions that these policies create more problems than they solve and that other governmental activities are more effective in helping the economy, but I'll hold them off to another day. Again this is a very simple explanation of what a stimulus package is supposed to do. Corrections and comments are welcomed of course.

Here are further links which should be helpful:

- Encyclopedia of Economics: Keynesian Economics.
- Wikipedia: Keynesian Economics.