Friday, January 29, 2010
The Supreme Court and Public Opinion
While the United States Supreme Court is designed to not respond to public opinion, it matters and is often taken into consideration when the court considers the timing of its decisions. This Slate article wonders whether their timing was off on Citizens United and whether their public support might suffer for it.
Congressional Budget Office Report Not Good
The Congressional Budget Office has issued a report that predicts the economy will not turn around anytime soon.
William Galston spells out the obvious.
Wikipedia: Congressional Budget Office.
William Galston spells out the obvious.
Wikipedia: Congressional Budget Office.
The State of the Union Speech Annotated
You might find James Fallows comments on the wording and imagery of this week's speech interesting.
Wednesday, January 27, 2010
About Pollsters ...
This is a bit of a hit job on Frank Luntz -- the man who worked out the wording of the Contract with America -- but it touches on the dark side of polling, so it's worth a read.
Oversight: Treasury Secretary Faces Congress
From the Washington Post:
Nearly a year after Geithner was confirmed, his actions to rescue the financial system -- first as president of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York and then as Obama's initial Treasury secretary -- have made him a lightning rod for discontent with the Obama administration.
Geithner will come under fire again Wednesday when he faces questions at a hearing on Capitol Hill about his role in bailing out the insurer American International Group while he was New York Fed president. The grilling comes as lawmakers from both parties are becoming more aggressive in challenging Obama over federal rescue efforts, which have helped bring huge profits to Wall Street but have failed to significantly trim the ranks of the jobless.
With populist fervor putting Democrats in electoral jeopardy, lawmakers took aim in recent days at Federal Reserve Chairman Ben S. Bernanke, another key figure behind the bailout,
This applies to our discussions of both checks and balances (in 2301) and congressional oversight authority (in 2302).
Nearly a year after Geithner was confirmed, his actions to rescue the financial system -- first as president of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York and then as Obama's initial Treasury secretary -- have made him a lightning rod for discontent with the Obama administration.
Geithner will come under fire again Wednesday when he faces questions at a hearing on Capitol Hill about his role in bailing out the insurer American International Group while he was New York Fed president. The grilling comes as lawmakers from both parties are becoming more aggressive in challenging Obama over federal rescue efforts, which have helped bring huge profits to Wall Street but have failed to significantly trim the ranks of the jobless.
With populist fervor putting Democrats in electoral jeopardy, lawmakers took aim in recent days at Federal Reserve Chairman Ben S. Bernanke, another key figure behind the bailout,
This applies to our discussions of both checks and balances (in 2301) and congressional oversight authority (in 2302).
Obama Asserts Himself as Party Leader
From the NYT:
President Obama is reconstituting the team that helped him win the White House to counter Republican challenges in the midterm elections and recalibrate after political setbacks that have narrowed his legislative ambitions.
Mr. Obama has asked his former campaign manager, David Plouffe, to oversee House, Senate and governor’s races to stave off a hemorrhage of seats in the fall. The president ordered a review of the Democratic political operation — from the White House to party committees — after last week’s Republican victory in the Massachusetts Senate race, aides said.
This is useful for 2301 since it touches on party leadership and 2302 because it addresses one of the unofficial roles president's play: party leader.
President Obama is reconstituting the team that helped him win the White House to counter Republican challenges in the midterm elections and recalibrate after political setbacks that have narrowed his legislative ambitions.
Mr. Obama has asked his former campaign manager, David Plouffe, to oversee House, Senate and governor’s races to stave off a hemorrhage of seats in the fall. The president ordered a review of the Democratic political operation — from the White House to party committees — after last week’s Republican victory in the Massachusetts Senate race, aides said.
This is useful for 2301 since it touches on party leadership and 2302 because it addresses one of the unofficial roles president's play: party leader.
Tuesday, January 26, 2010
Top Political Contributors in Texas
From the Texas Tribune, a list of the top twenty political contributors in Texas this electoral cycle thus far.
WIll Republicans Become Overconfident?
Ed Kilgore counsels the party against overinterpreting the results of last week's special election.
Monday, January 25, 2010
Golden-Rule Federalism
With apologies to National Journal I've copied a subscription only article that describes recent changes in federalism driven by the recession, and the pressures placed on state revenues by diminishing tax bases, and the federal funds made available by the recent stimulus bill. The term golden rule federalism refers to the old maxim: he who has the gold makes the rules. Are poorer states falling more under federal mandates due to their need for federal money?
----
Education Secretary Arne Duncan had some harsh words for Wisconsin's education laws during a November visit to Madison. He complained that the state's policies, particularly its cap on charter schools and its refusal to use test data in evaluating teachers, were antiquated, unacceptable, and even "ridiculous."
Rather than take offense, his hosts acted quickly to appease him.
The very next day, Wisconsin's Assembly and Senate passed a package of four bills designed to bring the state in line with Duncan's vision. In so doing, Wisconsin became the 10th state in 2009 to alter its education laws to please the Education secretary.
The reason is money. Last year's economic stimulus law provided Duncan with $4.35 billion to give to states that pursue innovations in education. The so-called Race to the Top fund is competitive: All the states want a share of the money, and the Education secretary can give out the aid largely as he sees fit, without having to rely on any set formula.
But there is not enough money to go around, which is why the states are doing everything they can to satisfy Duncan. No other Education secretary has ever had that much cash at his disposal. "There's no question those of us in Wisconsin want to have as strong an application as we can to get at the $4.35 billion," said John Lehman, who chairs the state Senate Education Committee. "It is true that there is a big carrot that got people thinking."
The Obama administration has been using a lot of carrots to elicit support for its policy goals, from forcing states to accept new Medicaid recipients to cracking down on distracted drivers. With states facing their worst financial outlook in decades, they are becoming increasingly reliant on money from Washington. "It wouldn't surprise me if federal funding ends up being 40 percent of state budgets" during the current fiscal year, said Marcia Howard, executive director of Federal Funds Information for States, which on behalf of state legislators and governors tracks federal grant money. Federal dollars -- dominated by Medicaid funds -- made up just over 25 percent of state spending as recently as 2008 before jumping to 30 percent for the fiscal year that ended in most states last June.
With so much money being transferred from Washington to state capitals, the administration is practicing what might be called golden-rule federalism: Whoever has the gold makes the rules.
"The fact that states are so broke offers unprecedented opportunities for the federal government to intrude into areas that were strictly the purview of states," said Sujit CanagaRetna, a senior fiscal analyst with the Council of State Governments.
President Obama thus presents a paradox when it comes to federalism. Barely five years out of the Illinois Legislature, he has expressed more genuine interest in collaborating with the lower levels of government than perhaps any other president since Jimmy Carter. Several Cabinet secretaries have been working together to craft joint programs to find a more coherent approach to matching federal efforts with local programs. Obama's Office of Management and Budget and the newly created White House Office of Urban Affairs are pushing all federal departments and agencies to do likewise.
"We've absolutely come to some sort of turning point, where the sheer amounts of money now are much more decisive.'' -- Matt Spalding, Heritage Foundation
But at the same time, Obama is clearly presiding over a greater centralization of power and policy-making in Washington. It was inevitable that states would have to cede ground that they had been able to hold for themselves in recent years, given a president determined to set his own mark in a swath of domestic policy areas, such as education and health care. But the states' growing dependence on Washington for aid has greatly accelerated the shift.
And their ability to set their own courses as independent actors is diminishing. "This is an administration that doesn't take the states and locals as it finds them -- it has an agenda," says Paul Posner, a federalism expert at George Mason University. "The agenda they have is not framed in terms of helping state and local governments with their problems, but in pushing their own goals."
Innovation On Uncle Sam's Dime
In July 2007, California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg appeared together on the cover of Time magazine under the headline "Who Needs Washington?" State and local governments were then passing dozens of laws in areas where Washington was paralyzed, including immigration, climate change, and expansion of health coverage. States had also taken the lead in regulatory areas where Washington appeared moribund, such as financial services and tobacco. There was a feeling among governors and mayors that Washington was so partisan and so distracted by the Iraq war that more and more domestic policy-making would fall on their shoulders.
"You had a period of rapid state innovation right across the board," said Ray Scheppach, executive director of the National Governors Association. "That's stopped mostly because of the budget impact, so the pendulum has clearly swung toward Washington."
States have collectively had to cover more than $250 billion in budget shortfalls over the past two years. In 2009, their revenue collections dropped by double digits in every quarter -- the worst performance in at least 50 years. States were able to use stimulus dollars to close approximately 40 percent of their deficits last year, but a recent Rockefeller Institute of Government study suggests that they have lost twice as much money to falling tax collections as they have gained in federal largesse.
Even as the economy begins to grow, tax collections will lag. "Our data show at that at the state level, [revenue] growth over the next five to 10 years will be roughly half what we've seen over the last 30," said Scott Pattison, executive director of the National Association of State Budget Officers. Three percent annual revenue growth is "the new normal for states" if they're lucky.
If states during the Bush years were moving forward on issues where Washington was stuck, the reality is that they were able to push ahead on the cheap. Although some states spent a few billion dollars on stem-cell research, other policies cost them next to nothing. Twenty-nine states have adopted renewable-energy standards, putting forward such goals as requiring utilities to generate 20 percent of their power from renewable sources by 2020. But switching to wind and solar power is going to cost the utility companies -- not state governments -- money. And regional cap-and-trade systems, such as the Northeastern states' Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, bring in revenue from energy users.
In recent years, states from Vermont to Washington have undertaken ambitious expansions of health coverage, particularly for children. Although driven by individual states, these efforts were largely financed by the federal government through Medicaid and the State Children's Health Insurance Program. Massachusetts' much-discussed 2006 health reform law, which mandated that most individuals had to purchase insurance, was primarily spurred by a desire among state lawmakers to preserve a $385 million pot of federal health dollars. In 2008, Massachusetts received an additional federal waiver that allowed the state to spend another $1.4 billion in federal dollars annually on its health insurance plan.
In other words, state health coverage experiments -- much like the changes in welfare that were pioneered by Wisconsin and other states before becoming enshrined in federal law in 1996 -- have been conducted largely on the federal dime. That's unlikely to be the model going forward. Instead of coming up with new programs, many states are now engaged in serious debates about what core services they can afford to provide.
States also are going to be much busier trying to meet federal goals than pioneering new approaches of their own. "I don't see this administration supporting a federalism where we provide more money for governors and mayors to focus on their plans and initiatives," Posner said. "The focus will be on national goals. I can see this administration pursuing additional ways to put money down in the state and local sector but tying it to strong national goals. It's going to have to be a twofer."
Block Grants And State Sovereignty
It has always been the case that when states and local governments cut spending, they try to spare federal programs. After all, if the federal government is paying 50 percent of a program's cost, they would have to cut $2 in spending just to save $1 for their own treasury. Not surprisingly, state budgets have long been subject to federal whims, both through the creation of programs that impose new mandates and the simple expansion of the federal government.
The modern state budget was born, in fact, during the Great Depression. States expanded their budgets and operations to handle new responsibilities, including doling out federal funds to the unemployed. And because states were either in or near default during the Depression, they adopted income and sales taxes, which had originated among local authorities. "Revenue raised from state sources increased 250 percent from 1927 to 1940 because of the widespread adoption of taxes that had been insignificant or nonexistent before 1930," according to a March report from National Conference of State Legislatures.
If state spending tended to increase during federal expansions under Democratic administrations, Republican presidents took a different tack. Under the Nixon and Reagan models, block grants meant offering states less money but more flexibility. Their proposals had the dual purpose of reining in spending and giving states more authority.
It's the opposite of Obama's approach, which is more in line with Lyndon Johnson's during the Great Society -- finding innovative ways to use grants to get states and localities to pursue federal policy goals. "In the absence of reauthorization of some of the grant programs, the Obama administration is using regulations to impose their agenda," said Marcia Howard of Federal Funds Information for States, a joint project of the NCSL and the governors association. "You could call it a heavy federal hand, but it's more inducements, using more carrots than sticks to get states to do what they'd like them to do."
In response, many state officials complain that federal priorities are starting to crowd out their own. This may sound a little ungrateful. The influx of federal dollars may be edging out other parts of state budgets on a percentage basis, but it's not as if their absence would allow states to spend more in areas such as corrections or parks. As things now stand, states would simply have less to spend.
Some states have heatedly invoked the 10th Amendment in stressing supposed limits on federal policy-making. Legislative chambers in Texas and North Dakota approved resolutions last year proclaiming state sovereignty and demanding an immediate end to federal mandates not enumerated in the U.S. Constitution.
But it looks increasingly as if the Republican governors who opposed the stimulus -- and appeared at the time merely to be seeking to score partisan points -- had a valid argument. South Carolina's Mark Sanford, Mississippi's Haley Barbour, and others noted that it would be a mistake to accept federal money that obligates them to continue the spending when the federal pipeline runs dry a year or two later. As that time draws nearer on such programs as unemployment insurance and energy-efficiency block grants, more of their colleagues are worried about what they'll do when the funding drops off.
And federal money, even as it continues, is far from cost-free. "We've absolutely come to some sort of turning point, where the sheer amounts of money now are much more decisive, which means political control is much more decisive," said Matt Spalding, director of American studies at the Heritage Foundation. "The default policy response more and more is toward central Washington control, because at the end of the day, what really drives policy when you have the federal government putting all the money into the pot is that the decisions are all being made by federal regulators."
Even with the influx, states are still raising the majority of their own money, and they can certainly set their own course on state-level programs such as prisons and parks. But with federal dollars making up a much larger share of state revenues, it is true that the pipers out of Washington are going to be calling the tune much more often than they have in the recent past.
The Sheriff Has His Priorities
Obama's instincts are not those of a centralizer. Nearly every state and local government lobbying group readily concedes that outreach and access are much improved on his watch. They say that his administration attempts to take a collaborative approach whenever it can, with a special interest in reshaping the interaction between the federal government and metropolitan regions. The Office of Management and Budget has sent guidance to all federal agencies instructing them to find ways to work together on joint programs affecting regions. The White House regularly convenes working groups that attract top-level agency officials to address these questions, while also looking for ways to encourage more cooperation among often-squabbling local jurisdictions within regions. For instance, the Housing and Urban Development Department has been sharing its expertise in working with local governments with departments such as Energy and Transportation, as well as agencies such as the Environmental Protection Agency.
"You do want the federal government to say, 'These are the goals,' but not to dictate the specifics," said MarySue Barrett, president of Chicago's Metropolitan Planning Council. She summarizes the White House position this way: "We're going to set the standards, and here's some help to meet those standards, but we're not going to tell you how to do it."
Obama went so far in May as to issue a memorandum directing federal agencies not to pre-empt state and local laws when they didn't have to (although he certainly didn't diminish their authority to do so). His administration has deferred to lower levels of government in areas where it was conducive to constituency politics. In October, the Justice Department announced that it would (in most cases) not prosecute suppliers of medical marijuana who were in compliance with state laws. Four months earlier, EPA signed off on a waiver long sought by California and 13 other states to regulate greenhouse-gas emissions from vehicles.
"This is an administration that doesn't take the states and locals as it finds them -- it has an agenda." -- Paul Posner, George Mason University
Like every administration -- and more quickly than most -- Obama's White House may have recognized that it needs state and local governments to carry out much of its program. But despite its care in consulting with them and in seeking ways to foster regional economic growth, this administration mostly treats state and local governments in just that way -- as a means for carrying out its own agenda.
State grant proposals are receiving an unprecedented level of dollar-by-dollar scrutiny not only from the operating agencies to which they apply but also from OMB and the Office of the Vice President. (Obama called Joe Biden the "sheriff" of stimulus spending.) States and localities are now required to supply much more information about how they are spending federal dollars. The stimulus law contained $250 million for enforcement, and the Government Accountability Office has sent auditors into 16 states to watch over their stimulus spending. It's a level of accountability that the administration clearly intends to keep up long after the stimulus runs out.
"This is a secretary and a president who believe strongly in evidence-based policy-making," said Erika Poethig, a deputy assistant secretary at HUD for policy development and research. "Part of that means evaluation, but it also means coming up with clarity around what the purpose of the program is. There's a high degree of commitment to that."
This approach may be most evident when it comes to education. The administration is spending record amounts on education, and it clearly expects states to get with its program when it comes to ideas such as lifting caps on the number of charter schools and using stand-ardized test data in evaluating teachers. "States were complain-ing under [George W.] Bush because they had all these education mandates with no funding," said David Wyss, chief economist for Standard & Poor's. "At least with Obama they're getting the funding to match the mandates, but the mandates are increasing."
In certain ways, education-reform activists are glad that Duncan is showing states a firm hand. Recent experience, they note, suggests that the federal government can require states to do certain things -- but it can't make states do them well. Bush's 2002 No Child Left Behind law required states to use standardized tests to ensure that a rising share of their student populations were proficient in language arts and math. But the law left it up to the states to determine what "proficiency" meant, and it's clear that many of them have gamed the system to guarantee that more of their students can pass.
The question remains whether education -- a classic example of a state and local responsibility that the federal government has been involved in for only 50 years -- is best run by an agenda driven out of Washington. "It's absolutely the case that the administration is taking enormous liberties with its ability to use emergency funds, especially the stimulus, to push states into policy adoption," said Frederick Hess, director of education policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute.
"If one believes that there's sufficient expertise and farsightedness in Washington, that the key is to cudgel these recalcitrant states into behaving, then I'm sure this is encouraging," Hess said.
"It so happens that I actually like what they're pushing states to do, but my concern is that this model of federal leadership is problematic. The question of federalism depends on whether one actually believes there is value in the checks and balances, and the states as the laboratories of democracy."
Alan Greenblatt, a freelance writer, covered state and local government issues at Governing magazine for nine years.
----
Education Secretary Arne Duncan had some harsh words for Wisconsin's education laws during a November visit to Madison. He complained that the state's policies, particularly its cap on charter schools and its refusal to use test data in evaluating teachers, were antiquated, unacceptable, and even "ridiculous."
Rather than take offense, his hosts acted quickly to appease him.
The very next day, Wisconsin's Assembly and Senate passed a package of four bills designed to bring the state in line with Duncan's vision. In so doing, Wisconsin became the 10th state in 2009 to alter its education laws to please the Education secretary.
The reason is money. Last year's economic stimulus law provided Duncan with $4.35 billion to give to states that pursue innovations in education. The so-called Race to the Top fund is competitive: All the states want a share of the money, and the Education secretary can give out the aid largely as he sees fit, without having to rely on any set formula.
But there is not enough money to go around, which is why the states are doing everything they can to satisfy Duncan. No other Education secretary has ever had that much cash at his disposal. "There's no question those of us in Wisconsin want to have as strong an application as we can to get at the $4.35 billion," said John Lehman, who chairs the state Senate Education Committee. "It is true that there is a big carrot that got people thinking."
The Obama administration has been using a lot of carrots to elicit support for its policy goals, from forcing states to accept new Medicaid recipients to cracking down on distracted drivers. With states facing their worst financial outlook in decades, they are becoming increasingly reliant on money from Washington. "It wouldn't surprise me if federal funding ends up being 40 percent of state budgets" during the current fiscal year, said Marcia Howard, executive director of Federal Funds Information for States, which on behalf of state legislators and governors tracks federal grant money. Federal dollars -- dominated by Medicaid funds -- made up just over 25 percent of state spending as recently as 2008 before jumping to 30 percent for the fiscal year that ended in most states last June.
With so much money being transferred from Washington to state capitals, the administration is practicing what might be called golden-rule federalism: Whoever has the gold makes the rules.
"The fact that states are so broke offers unprecedented opportunities for the federal government to intrude into areas that were strictly the purview of states," said Sujit CanagaRetna, a senior fiscal analyst with the Council of State Governments.
President Obama thus presents a paradox when it comes to federalism. Barely five years out of the Illinois Legislature, he has expressed more genuine interest in collaborating with the lower levels of government than perhaps any other president since Jimmy Carter. Several Cabinet secretaries have been working together to craft joint programs to find a more coherent approach to matching federal efforts with local programs. Obama's Office of Management and Budget and the newly created White House Office of Urban Affairs are pushing all federal departments and agencies to do likewise.
"We've absolutely come to some sort of turning point, where the sheer amounts of money now are much more decisive.'' -- Matt Spalding, Heritage Foundation
But at the same time, Obama is clearly presiding over a greater centralization of power and policy-making in Washington. It was inevitable that states would have to cede ground that they had been able to hold for themselves in recent years, given a president determined to set his own mark in a swath of domestic policy areas, such as education and health care. But the states' growing dependence on Washington for aid has greatly accelerated the shift.
And their ability to set their own courses as independent actors is diminishing. "This is an administration that doesn't take the states and locals as it finds them -- it has an agenda," says Paul Posner, a federalism expert at George Mason University. "The agenda they have is not framed in terms of helping state and local governments with their problems, but in pushing their own goals."
Innovation On Uncle Sam's Dime
In July 2007, California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg appeared together on the cover of Time magazine under the headline "Who Needs Washington?" State and local governments were then passing dozens of laws in areas where Washington was paralyzed, including immigration, climate change, and expansion of health coverage. States had also taken the lead in regulatory areas where Washington appeared moribund, such as financial services and tobacco. There was a feeling among governors and mayors that Washington was so partisan and so distracted by the Iraq war that more and more domestic policy-making would fall on their shoulders.
"You had a period of rapid state innovation right across the board," said Ray Scheppach, executive director of the National Governors Association. "That's stopped mostly because of the budget impact, so the pendulum has clearly swung toward Washington."
States have collectively had to cover more than $250 billion in budget shortfalls over the past two years. In 2009, their revenue collections dropped by double digits in every quarter -- the worst performance in at least 50 years. States were able to use stimulus dollars to close approximately 40 percent of their deficits last year, but a recent Rockefeller Institute of Government study suggests that they have lost twice as much money to falling tax collections as they have gained in federal largesse.
Even as the economy begins to grow, tax collections will lag. "Our data show at that at the state level, [revenue] growth over the next five to 10 years will be roughly half what we've seen over the last 30," said Scott Pattison, executive director of the National Association of State Budget Officers. Three percent annual revenue growth is "the new normal for states" if they're lucky.
If states during the Bush years were moving forward on issues where Washington was stuck, the reality is that they were able to push ahead on the cheap. Although some states spent a few billion dollars on stem-cell research, other policies cost them next to nothing. Twenty-nine states have adopted renewable-energy standards, putting forward such goals as requiring utilities to generate 20 percent of their power from renewable sources by 2020. But switching to wind and solar power is going to cost the utility companies -- not state governments -- money. And regional cap-and-trade systems, such as the Northeastern states' Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, bring in revenue from energy users.
In recent years, states from Vermont to Washington have undertaken ambitious expansions of health coverage, particularly for children. Although driven by individual states, these efforts were largely financed by the federal government through Medicaid and the State Children's Health Insurance Program. Massachusetts' much-discussed 2006 health reform law, which mandated that most individuals had to purchase insurance, was primarily spurred by a desire among state lawmakers to preserve a $385 million pot of federal health dollars. In 2008, Massachusetts received an additional federal waiver that allowed the state to spend another $1.4 billion in federal dollars annually on its health insurance plan.
In other words, state health coverage experiments -- much like the changes in welfare that were pioneered by Wisconsin and other states before becoming enshrined in federal law in 1996 -- have been conducted largely on the federal dime. That's unlikely to be the model going forward. Instead of coming up with new programs, many states are now engaged in serious debates about what core services they can afford to provide.
States also are going to be much busier trying to meet federal goals than pioneering new approaches of their own. "I don't see this administration supporting a federalism where we provide more money for governors and mayors to focus on their plans and initiatives," Posner said. "The focus will be on national goals. I can see this administration pursuing additional ways to put money down in the state and local sector but tying it to strong national goals. It's going to have to be a twofer."
Block Grants And State Sovereignty
It has always been the case that when states and local governments cut spending, they try to spare federal programs. After all, if the federal government is paying 50 percent of a program's cost, they would have to cut $2 in spending just to save $1 for their own treasury. Not surprisingly, state budgets have long been subject to federal whims, both through the creation of programs that impose new mandates and the simple expansion of the federal government.
The modern state budget was born, in fact, during the Great Depression. States expanded their budgets and operations to handle new responsibilities, including doling out federal funds to the unemployed. And because states were either in or near default during the Depression, they adopted income and sales taxes, which had originated among local authorities. "Revenue raised from state sources increased 250 percent from 1927 to 1940 because of the widespread adoption of taxes that had been insignificant or nonexistent before 1930," according to a March report from National Conference of State Legislatures.
If state spending tended to increase during federal expansions under Democratic administrations, Republican presidents took a different tack. Under the Nixon and Reagan models, block grants meant offering states less money but more flexibility. Their proposals had the dual purpose of reining in spending and giving states more authority.
It's the opposite of Obama's approach, which is more in line with Lyndon Johnson's during the Great Society -- finding innovative ways to use grants to get states and localities to pursue federal policy goals. "In the absence of reauthorization of some of the grant programs, the Obama administration is using regulations to impose their agenda," said Marcia Howard of Federal Funds Information for States, a joint project of the NCSL and the governors association. "You could call it a heavy federal hand, but it's more inducements, using more carrots than sticks to get states to do what they'd like them to do."
In response, many state officials complain that federal priorities are starting to crowd out their own. This may sound a little ungrateful. The influx of federal dollars may be edging out other parts of state budgets on a percentage basis, but it's not as if their absence would allow states to spend more in areas such as corrections or parks. As things now stand, states would simply have less to spend.
Some states have heatedly invoked the 10th Amendment in stressing supposed limits on federal policy-making. Legislative chambers in Texas and North Dakota approved resolutions last year proclaiming state sovereignty and demanding an immediate end to federal mandates not enumerated in the U.S. Constitution.
But it looks increasingly as if the Republican governors who opposed the stimulus -- and appeared at the time merely to be seeking to score partisan points -- had a valid argument. South Carolina's Mark Sanford, Mississippi's Haley Barbour, and others noted that it would be a mistake to accept federal money that obligates them to continue the spending when the federal pipeline runs dry a year or two later. As that time draws nearer on such programs as unemployment insurance and energy-efficiency block grants, more of their colleagues are worried about what they'll do when the funding drops off.
And federal money, even as it continues, is far from cost-free. "We've absolutely come to some sort of turning point, where the sheer amounts of money now are much more decisive, which means political control is much more decisive," said Matt Spalding, director of American studies at the Heritage Foundation. "The default policy response more and more is toward central Washington control, because at the end of the day, what really drives policy when you have the federal government putting all the money into the pot is that the decisions are all being made by federal regulators."
Even with the influx, states are still raising the majority of their own money, and they can certainly set their own course on state-level programs such as prisons and parks. But with federal dollars making up a much larger share of state revenues, it is true that the pipers out of Washington are going to be calling the tune much more often than they have in the recent past.
The Sheriff Has His Priorities
Obama's instincts are not those of a centralizer. Nearly every state and local government lobbying group readily concedes that outreach and access are much improved on his watch. They say that his administration attempts to take a collaborative approach whenever it can, with a special interest in reshaping the interaction between the federal government and metropolitan regions. The Office of Management and Budget has sent guidance to all federal agencies instructing them to find ways to work together on joint programs affecting regions. The White House regularly convenes working groups that attract top-level agency officials to address these questions, while also looking for ways to encourage more cooperation among often-squabbling local jurisdictions within regions. For instance, the Housing and Urban Development Department has been sharing its expertise in working with local governments with departments such as Energy and Transportation, as well as agencies such as the Environmental Protection Agency.
"You do want the federal government to say, 'These are the goals,' but not to dictate the specifics," said MarySue Barrett, president of Chicago's Metropolitan Planning Council. She summarizes the White House position this way: "We're going to set the standards, and here's some help to meet those standards, but we're not going to tell you how to do it."
Obama went so far in May as to issue a memorandum directing federal agencies not to pre-empt state and local laws when they didn't have to (although he certainly didn't diminish their authority to do so). His administration has deferred to lower levels of government in areas where it was conducive to constituency politics. In October, the Justice Department announced that it would (in most cases) not prosecute suppliers of medical marijuana who were in compliance with state laws. Four months earlier, EPA signed off on a waiver long sought by California and 13 other states to regulate greenhouse-gas emissions from vehicles.
"This is an administration that doesn't take the states and locals as it finds them -- it has an agenda." -- Paul Posner, George Mason University
Like every administration -- and more quickly than most -- Obama's White House may have recognized that it needs state and local governments to carry out much of its program. But despite its care in consulting with them and in seeking ways to foster regional economic growth, this administration mostly treats state and local governments in just that way -- as a means for carrying out its own agenda.
State grant proposals are receiving an unprecedented level of dollar-by-dollar scrutiny not only from the operating agencies to which they apply but also from OMB and the Office of the Vice President. (Obama called Joe Biden the "sheriff" of stimulus spending.) States and localities are now required to supply much more information about how they are spending federal dollars. The stimulus law contained $250 million for enforcement, and the Government Accountability Office has sent auditors into 16 states to watch over their stimulus spending. It's a level of accountability that the administration clearly intends to keep up long after the stimulus runs out.
"This is a secretary and a president who believe strongly in evidence-based policy-making," said Erika Poethig, a deputy assistant secretary at HUD for policy development and research. "Part of that means evaluation, but it also means coming up with clarity around what the purpose of the program is. There's a high degree of commitment to that."
This approach may be most evident when it comes to education. The administration is spending record amounts on education, and it clearly expects states to get with its program when it comes to ideas such as lifting caps on the number of charter schools and using stand-ardized test data in evaluating teachers. "States were complain-ing under [George W.] Bush because they had all these education mandates with no funding," said David Wyss, chief economist for Standard & Poor's. "At least with Obama they're getting the funding to match the mandates, but the mandates are increasing."
In certain ways, education-reform activists are glad that Duncan is showing states a firm hand. Recent experience, they note, suggests that the federal government can require states to do certain things -- but it can't make states do them well. Bush's 2002 No Child Left Behind law required states to use standardized tests to ensure that a rising share of their student populations were proficient in language arts and math. But the law left it up to the states to determine what "proficiency" meant, and it's clear that many of them have gamed the system to guarantee that more of their students can pass.
The question remains whether education -- a classic example of a state and local responsibility that the federal government has been involved in for only 50 years -- is best run by an agenda driven out of Washington. "It's absolutely the case that the administration is taking enormous liberties with its ability to use emergency funds, especially the stimulus, to push states into policy adoption," said Frederick Hess, director of education policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute.
"If one believes that there's sufficient expertise and farsightedness in Washington, that the key is to cudgel these recalcitrant states into behaving, then I'm sure this is encouraging," Hess said.
"It so happens that I actually like what they're pushing states to do, but my concern is that this model of federal leadership is problematic. The question of federalism depends on whether one actually believes there is value in the checks and balances, and the states as the laboratories of democracy."
Alan Greenblatt, a freelance writer, covered state and local government issues at Governing magazine for nine years.
Saturday, January 23, 2010
Friday, January 22, 2010
More Evidence of Capriciousness?
First the Massachusetts election, now evidence from gubernatorial races across the country. The public wants to mad at whoever is in charge right now.
mad mad mad
mad mad mad
The Dubai Monarchy
Dubai's recent financial troubles have caused some to look critically at its monarchic structure. This is a perfect illustration of the autocratic systems we discussed in 2301 and their tendency toward arbitrary rule:
The financial crisis and now two criminal cases that have generated critical headlines in other countries have demonstrated that the emirates remain an absolute monarchy, where institutions are far less important than royalty and where the law is particularly capricious — applied differently based on social standing, religion and nationality, political experts and human rights advocates said.
“I think what we learned here the last four months is that the government, at least on a political level, is still very undeveloped,” said a financial analyst based in Dubai who asked not to be identified to avoid compromising his ability to work in the emirates. “It’s very difficult to read or interpret or understand what is going on. The institutions have not shaped up to people’s expectations.”
The most recent of the criminal cases occurred Dec. 31, when a British tourist, a Muslim, reported to the police that she was raped in a public bathroom of a luxury hotel in Dubai. Instead of being consoled, she and her fiancé, who had gone with her to report the attack, were arrested and charged with having illegal sex because they were not yet married, and with drinking alcohol in an unauthorized location.
Conservative Judicial Activism
An immediate consequence of yesterday's Citizens United decision is the accusation that conservatives are now the activists on the court. Stuart Taylor writes:
For decades conservatives have accused liberal Supreme Court majorities of judicial activism, by which I mean sweeping aside democratically adopted laws and deeply rooted societal traditions to impose their own policy preferences based on highly debatable interpretations of the Constitution's language and established meaning.On Thursday, the five more conservative justices -- and in particular Chief Justice John Roberts and Samuel Alito, who went well beyond anything they've said before -- forfeited whatever high ground they once held in the judicial activism debate.
Also from the National Journal, analysis of the political ramifications of the decision. Will it benefit business interests and the GOP?
- What Now For Reformers?
- GOP, Chamber Are Big Winners
- Will Corporations Rush In?
- EXPERT BLOG: In The Long Run
For decades conservatives have accused liberal Supreme Court majorities of judicial activism, by which I mean sweeping aside democratically adopted laws and deeply rooted societal traditions to impose their own policy preferences based on highly debatable interpretations of the Constitution's language and established meaning.On Thursday, the five more conservative justices -- and in particular Chief Justice John Roberts and Samuel Alito, who went well beyond anything they've said before -- forfeited whatever high ground they once held in the judicial activism debate.
Also from the National Journal, analysis of the political ramifications of the decision. Will it benefit business interests and the GOP?
- What Now For Reformers?
- GOP, Chamber Are Big Winners
- Will Corporations Rush In?
- EXPERT BLOG: In The Long Run
Thursday, January 21, 2010
Corporate Spending Limits Overturned
This is huge.
The Supreme Court narrowly (5-4) overturned a centuries old ban limiting spending by corporations, which presumably now have the same status as persons. Everyone expects money to flood into the political system now.
Here's text and links from from ScotusBlog: The Citizens United opinion is linkedhere. The judgment of the D.C. Circuit is reversed, in an opinion of the Court written by Justice Kennedy. Justice Stevens filed a partial dissent, which was read from the bench, joined by Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, and Sotomayor. Justice Thomas dissents in part and concurs in part.
I'm interested in whether there is any fall out from this. I also assume that this means the 5 person conservative majority sees no reason to restrain itself from overturning aggressively any law, no matter how old, which they disagree with.
The Supreme Court narrowly (5-4) overturned a centuries old ban limiting spending by corporations, which presumably now have the same status as persons. Everyone expects money to flood into the political system now.
Here's text and links from from ScotusBlog: The Citizens United opinion is linkedhere. The judgment of the D.C. Circuit is reversed, in an opinion of the Court written by Justice Kennedy. Justice Stevens filed a partial dissent, which was read from the bench, joined by Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, and Sotomayor. Justice Thomas dissents in part and concurs in part.
I'm interested in whether there is any fall out from this. I also assume that this means the 5 person conservative majority sees no reason to restrain itself from overturning aggressively any law, no matter how old, which they disagree with.
Is the American Public Rational?
So a little over a year after an angry electorate vote Democrat, they vote Republican. Is the public incoherent? Does this vindicate the indirect democracy created by the founders?
Wednesday, January 20, 2010
Jobs not Health Care
Charlie Cook wonders whether Obama erred in focusing on health care rather than job creation during his first year in office:
Honorable and intelligent people can disagree over the substance and details of what President Obama and congressional Democrats are trying to do on health care reform and climate change. But nearly a year after Obama's inauguration, judging by where the Democrats stand today, it's clear that they have made a colossal miscalculation.
The latest unemployment and housing numbers underscore the folly of their decision to pay so much attention to health care and climate change instead of focusing on the economy "like a laser beam," as President Clinton pledged to do during his 1992 campaign. Although no one can fairly accuse Obama and his party's leaders of ignoring the economy, they certainly haven't focused on it like a laser beam.
He continues by pointing out that economic forecasts do not look good and may impact Democrats chances in 2010, and perhaps even 2012.
Honorable and intelligent people can disagree over the substance and details of what President Obama and congressional Democrats are trying to do on health care reform and climate change. But nearly a year after Obama's inauguration, judging by where the Democrats stand today, it's clear that they have made a colossal miscalculation.
The latest unemployment and housing numbers underscore the folly of their decision to pay so much attention to health care and climate change instead of focusing on the economy "like a laser beam," as President Clinton pledged to do during his 1992 campaign. Although no one can fairly accuse Obama and his party's leaders of ignoring the economy, they certainly haven't focused on it like a laser beam.
He continues by pointing out that economic forecasts do not look good and may impact Democrats chances in 2010, and perhaps even 2012.
Tuesday, January 19, 2010
How the Press Covers Politics
An important election is being held in Massachsetts today that many in the media think could spell defeat for Obama's agenda and the Democrats hope for long term dominance in Congress. A New Republic article challenges this idea, but more importantly makes some pointed comments about how the media covers politics.
The perception has formed, perhaps indelibly, that the reason Democrats will get hammered in the 2010 elections is that the party moved too far left in general and tried to reform health care in particular.
This perception owes itself, above all, to the habit that political analysts in the media and other outposts of mainstream thought have of ignoring structural factors. Any political scientist can tell you that external factors hold enormous sway over public opinion. Economic conditions tend to matter the most, but scandals, wars, personality, and other factors come into play. While the Democrats may have committed sundry mistakes, the reason for their diminished popularity that towers above all others is 10 percent unemployment.
But political analysts are more like drama critics. They follow the ins and outs of the tactical maneuverings of the players, and when the results come in, their job is to explain how the one led to the other. If you suggested to them that they should instead explain the public mood as a predictable consequence of economic conditions, rather than the outcome of one party’s strategic choices, they would look at you like you were crazy. They spend their time following every utterance and gesture of powerful politicians. Naturally, it must be those things that have the decisive effect.
This will be useful to chew over as my 2301 classes begin studying civil liberties, the First Amendment, freedom of the press and the media in general. What drives the media? And whatever that might be, is it healthy for democracy?
The perception has formed, perhaps indelibly, that the reason Democrats will get hammered in the 2010 elections is that the party moved too far left in general and tried to reform health care in particular.
This perception owes itself, above all, to the habit that political analysts in the media and other outposts of mainstream thought have of ignoring structural factors. Any political scientist can tell you that external factors hold enormous sway over public opinion. Economic conditions tend to matter the most, but scandals, wars, personality, and other factors come into play. While the Democrats may have committed sundry mistakes, the reason for their diminished popularity that towers above all others is 10 percent unemployment.
But political analysts are more like drama critics. They follow the ins and outs of the tactical maneuverings of the players, and when the results come in, their job is to explain how the one led to the other. If you suggested to them that they should instead explain the public mood as a predictable consequence of economic conditions, rather than the outcome of one party’s strategic choices, they would look at you like you were crazy. They spend their time following every utterance and gesture of powerful politicians. Naturally, it must be those things that have the decisive effect.
This will be useful to chew over as my 2301 classes begin studying civil liberties, the First Amendment, freedom of the press and the media in general. What drives the media? And whatever that might be, is it healthy for democracy?
Google v. China
As we cover types of governmental systems in 2301, the recent stories about Google's problems in China are worth considering. Google has been criticized in the past for its willingness to comply with China's need to censor the news its citizens get. Recent evidence that China has been hacking into Google's accounts has led the company to pull out of the country.
Totalitarian countries, ideally, eliminate any independent source of information their people have access to in order to control -- or attempt to control -- their thoughts. As countries prosper, as China has recently, this becomes more difficult. This is especially true when the country strikes bargains with outside companies in order to provide more creature comforts for their people. This conflict may be indicative of future internal conflicts the country faces.
For now it illustrates for us the need for repressive countries to censor information.
- Google - China Showdown may Alter Tech Game.
- China's totalitarian games - The Boston Globe.
- China Internet Censorship Explained CHINAYOUREN.
- The Golden Shield Project.
- Race to the Bottom.
- The Great Firewall of China.
Totalitarian countries, ideally, eliminate any independent source of information their people have access to in order to control -- or attempt to control -- their thoughts. As countries prosper, as China has recently, this becomes more difficult. This is especially true when the country strikes bargains with outside companies in order to provide more creature comforts for their people. This conflict may be indicative of future internal conflicts the country faces.
For now it illustrates for us the need for repressive countries to censor information.
- Google - China Showdown may Alter Tech Game.
- China's totalitarian games - The Boston Globe.
- China Internet Censorship Explained CHINAYOUREN.
- The Golden Shield Project.
- Race to the Bottom.
- The Great Firewall of China.
Friday, January 15, 2010
Forecast for 2010 National Elections
This should help my 2301 students with their second paper assignment.
The Cook Political Report's forecast of the 2010 Congressional Election.
The Cook Political Report's forecast of the 2010 Congressional Election.
The Tea Party Movement Set to Takeover the Republican Party
For 2301 mostly:
Here's a terrific story about how members of the tea party movement are working from the ground up to takeover the Republican Party, which they see as too "establishment" and "liberal" and ensure that it only promotes candidates they find acceptable.
It begins with taking over precinct chairs an works its way up from there. The only potential strategic problem is that they may, as has been observed before, pull the party so far to the right that it becomes less competitive in general elections. But perhaps the general population is more conservative than thought. It'll be interesting to watch.
Commentators often equate the tea partiers with populist movements, fueled by anger at elites (any elite). American history is peppered with such movements. A key question is going to be how long the movement can survive. All movements have life cycles. The establishment can be very patient.
Here's a terrific story about how members of the tea party movement are working from the ground up to takeover the Republican Party, which they see as too "establishment" and "liberal" and ensure that it only promotes candidates they find acceptable.
It begins with taking over precinct chairs an works its way up from there. The only potential strategic problem is that they may, as has been observed before, pull the party so far to the right that it becomes less competitive in general elections. But perhaps the general population is more conservative than thought. It'll be interesting to watch.
Commentators often equate the tea partiers with populist movements, fueled by anger at elites (any elite). American history is peppered with such movements. A key question is going to be how long the movement can survive. All movements have life cycles. The establishment can be very patient.
Thursday, January 14, 2010
Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission
The Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission, which was established last year by Congress to investigate the causes of the financial collapse, meet yesterday and grilled the usual suspects.
- Times Topics: Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission.
- Wikipedia: Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission.
- Times Topics: Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission.
- Wikipedia: Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission.
Wednesday, January 13, 2010
Presidential Speeches
George W. Bush's speechwriter is unimpressed with Obama's recent speeches. He calls them uninspiring.
Committee Hearings on Financial Compensation
This topic can apply to both 2301 and 2302.
The U.S. House Committee on Financial Services is scheduled to hold hearings on the level of financial compensation banks offer their employees. This has become topical since banks, large ones especially, got themselves in trouble due to risky behavior. This has been argued to be a key cause of the recent financial crisis.
For 2301, this illustrates questions about the extent of governmental power. Is this an appropriate use of governmental power? Arguments can be made for or against this.
For 2302, this applies to one of the functions of the legislature, oversight, and its delegation to a standing committee. We will hit both topics within two to three weeks.
- Website: The House Committee on Financial Services.
- Wikipedia: The House Committee on Financial Services.
The U.S. House Committee on Financial Services is scheduled to hold hearings on the level of financial compensation banks offer their employees. This has become topical since banks, large ones especially, got themselves in trouble due to risky behavior. This has been argued to be a key cause of the recent financial crisis.
For 2301, this illustrates questions about the extent of governmental power. Is this an appropriate use of governmental power? Arguments can be made for or against this.
For 2302, this applies to one of the functions of the legislature, oversight, and its delegation to a standing committee. We will hit both topics within two to three weeks.
- Website: The House Committee on Financial Services.
- Wikipedia: The House Committee on Financial Services.
Tuesday, January 12, 2010
A Brewing Test Case
A federal trial in San Francisco may end up forcing the Supreme Court to rule on whether the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment makes laws against gay marriage unconstitutional.
- New Battle on California Ban
- Gay Marriage: The Case from the Left
- Oral arguments, prior convictions
- Children no requirement for marriage, trial told
- New Battle on California Ban
- Gay Marriage: The Case from the Left
- Oral arguments, prior convictions
- Children no requirement for marriage, trial told
Obama's Winning Percentage with Congress
The Congressional Quarterly finds that Obama has the best track record with Congress than any president in the past 60 years. Congress has voted with him on bills he has taken a position on about 95% of the time.
Here are some qualifiers from the Washington Post.
Here are some qualifiers from the Washington Post.
Monday, January 11, 2010
Is Politics Inherently Corrupt?
A good question by Jonathan Rauch:
On the Supreme Court's desk at the moment, ripe for a decision any day now, is a case you may have heard about. In Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the Court may decide whether to open the floodgates to unlimited political spending by business corporations. Both sides are bracing for a potential blockbuster.
Meanwhile, another case, eclipsed by Citizens United but also important, is scheduled to be heard this month by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. SpeechNow.org v. Federal Election Commission is not a headline-grabber, but it confronts the courts and campaign finance regulators with a critical question they would prefer to avoid. Is political gratitude a form of corruption?
read on....
On the Supreme Court's desk at the moment, ripe for a decision any day now, is a case you may have heard about. In Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the Court may decide whether to open the floodgates to unlimited political spending by business corporations. Both sides are bracing for a potential blockbuster.
Meanwhile, another case, eclipsed by Citizens United but also important, is scheduled to be heard this month by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. SpeechNow.org v. Federal Election Commission is not a headline-grabber, but it confronts the courts and campaign finance regulators with a critical question they would prefer to avoid. Is political gratitude a form of corruption?
read on....
Is the Filibuster Unconstitutional?
Thomas Geoghegan makes a good case that they are:
. . . the Senate, as it now operates, really has become unconstitutional: as we saw during the recent health care debacle, a 60-vote majority is required to overcome a filibuster and pass any contested bill. The founders, though, were dead set against supermajorities as a general rule, and the ever-present filibuster threat has made the Senate a more extreme check on the popular will than they ever intended.
This change to the Constitution was not the result of, say, a formal amendment, but a procedural rule adopted in 1975: a revision of Senate Rule 22, which was the old cloture rule. Before 1975, it took two-thirds of the Senate to end a filibuster, but it was the “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington” filibuster: if senators wanted to stop a vote, they had to bring in the cots and the coffee and read from Grandma’s recipe for chicken soup until, unshaven, they keeled over from their own rhetorical exhaust.
For the record, nothing like Senate Rule 22 appears in the Constitution, nor was there unlimited debate until Vice President Aaron Burr presided over the Senate in the early 180os. In 1917, after a century of chaos, the Senate put in the old Rule 22 to stop unlimited filibusters. Because it was about stopping real, often distressing, floor debate, one might have been able to defend that rule under Article I, Section 5 of the Constitution, which says, “Each house may determine the rule of its proceedings.”
As revised in 1975, Senate Rule 22 seemed to be an improvement: it required 60 senators, not 67, to stop floor debate. But there also came a significant change in de facto Senate practice: to maintain a filibuster, senators no longer had to keep talking. Nowadays, they don’t even have to start; they just say they will, and that’s enough. Senators need not be on the floor at all. They can be at home watching Jimmy Stewart on cable. Senate Rule 22 now exists to cut off what are ghost filibusters, disembodied debates.
As a result, the supermajority vote no longer deserves any protection under Article I, Section 5 — if it ever did at all. It is instead a revision of Article I itself: not used to cut off debate, but to decide in effect whether to enact a law. The filibuster votes, which once occurred perhaps seven or eight times a whole Congressional session, now happen more than 100 times a term. But this routine use of supermajority voting is, at worst, unconstitutional and, at best, at odds with the founders’ intent.
Here's more on Senate Rule 22:
- Senate.gov: Cloture.
- Wikipedia.
. . . the Senate, as it now operates, really has become unconstitutional: as we saw during the recent health care debacle, a 60-vote majority is required to overcome a filibuster and pass any contested bill. The founders, though, were dead set against supermajorities as a general rule, and the ever-present filibuster threat has made the Senate a more extreme check on the popular will than they ever intended.
This change to the Constitution was not the result of, say, a formal amendment, but a procedural rule adopted in 1975: a revision of Senate Rule 22, which was the old cloture rule. Before 1975, it took two-thirds of the Senate to end a filibuster, but it was the “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington” filibuster: if senators wanted to stop a vote, they had to bring in the cots and the coffee and read from Grandma’s recipe for chicken soup until, unshaven, they keeled over from their own rhetorical exhaust.
For the record, nothing like Senate Rule 22 appears in the Constitution, nor was there unlimited debate until Vice President Aaron Burr presided over the Senate in the early 180os. In 1917, after a century of chaos, the Senate put in the old Rule 22 to stop unlimited filibusters. Because it was about stopping real, often distressing, floor debate, one might have been able to defend that rule under Article I, Section 5 of the Constitution, which says, “Each house may determine the rule of its proceedings.”
As revised in 1975, Senate Rule 22 seemed to be an improvement: it required 60 senators, not 67, to stop floor debate. But there also came a significant change in de facto Senate practice: to maintain a filibuster, senators no longer had to keep talking. Nowadays, they don’t even have to start; they just say they will, and that’s enough. Senators need not be on the floor at all. They can be at home watching Jimmy Stewart on cable. Senate Rule 22 now exists to cut off what are ghost filibusters, disembodied debates.
As a result, the supermajority vote no longer deserves any protection under Article I, Section 5 — if it ever did at all. It is instead a revision of Article I itself: not used to cut off debate, but to decide in effect whether to enact a law. The filibuster votes, which once occurred perhaps seven or eight times a whole Congressional session, now happen more than 100 times a term. But this routine use of supermajority voting is, at worst, unconstitutional and, at best, at odds with the founders’ intent.
Here's more on Senate Rule 22:
- Senate.gov: Cloture.
- Wikipedia.
Sunday, January 10, 2010
2010 Texas Elections Are Now Officially Undeway
Last Monday -- January 4, 2010 -- was the last day to file to run in an election in Texas. This means that we know who all the candidates will be for public office. My 2301 students are to write about these elections and make rational predictions about what the likely results of the election could be.
I will be providing regular posts about these elections and link to a variety of stories that emerge about them. These should help with the paper assignment as well as answer any specific question you might have about these elections.
- Story in the Texas Tribune.
- The Elections Division in the Texas Secretary of State Office.
I will be providing regular posts about these elections and link to a variety of stories that emerge about them. These should help with the paper assignment as well as answer any specific question you might have about these elections.
- Story in the Texas Tribune.
- The Elections Division in the Texas Secretary of State Office.
Will the Health Care Bill be Constitutional
Opponents to the health care bill that is still being worked out in Congress appear to have shifted their tactics against it. It seems certain that something will be passed and signed into law, but whatever is passed seems certain to be challenged in the courts.
The following opinion piece argues that opponents are likely to argue that provisions in the bill violate the founder's intent regarding, federalism, that is the proper relationship between the national and state governments.
As we will see in 2301, it all boils down to how the Supreme Court defines the commerce clause, which has been the elastic part of the Constitution which has allowed for expansions of national power since the New Deal.
We will dig deeply into this question this semester.
The following opinion piece argues that opponents are likely to argue that provisions in the bill violate the founder's intent regarding, federalism, that is the proper relationship between the national and state governments.
As we will see in 2301, it all boils down to how the Supreme Court defines the commerce clause, which has been the elastic part of the Constitution which has allowed for expansions of national power since the New Deal.
We will dig deeply into this question this semester.
Voter Initiatives in California
A huge subject in 2301 will be the nature of the American democratic system. The founder's deliberately avoided creating a pure, or direct, democracy and opted instead for a representative system, or republic. One reason was to ensure that the anger and fluctuations common to mass public opinion would not have an immediate impact on public policy. The intent was that slow rational deliberations would win out over heated superficial ones.
Nevertheless, more direct democratic mechanisms have been instituted over American history, notably the Progressive movements' push for recall, initiative and referendum elections a century back. Perhaps no state has used them more than California, but it is commonly argued that many of the budgetary problems the state faces stem from this process. Anger from the left and right have, respectively, increased social spending and limited the ability of the state to pay for those services. In addition, the ability of legislators to effectively manage crises has been also been limited.
The following NYT story suggests that these woes will continue.
As we discuss the nature of democracy and our views about the appropriate relationship between the government and the governed, it is worth considering how close the relationship ought to be. A major lesson we will learn from discussing the constitutional structure will be how the entire constitutional system structures that relationship. Without an understanding of that relationship, the the entire purpose of the governing system is a mystery.
Nevertheless, more direct democratic mechanisms have been instituted over American history, notably the Progressive movements' push for recall, initiative and referendum elections a century back. Perhaps no state has used them more than California, but it is commonly argued that many of the budgetary problems the state faces stem from this process. Anger from the left and right have, respectively, increased social spending and limited the ability of the state to pay for those services. In addition, the ability of legislators to effectively manage crises has been also been limited.
The following NYT story suggests that these woes will continue.
As we discuss the nature of democracy and our views about the appropriate relationship between the government and the governed, it is worth considering how close the relationship ought to be. A major lesson we will learn from discussing the constitutional structure will be how the entire constitutional system structures that relationship. Without an understanding of that relationship, the the entire purpose of the governing system is a mystery.
Spring 2010
The spring semester starts tomorrow and I'll begin posting stories later today that we ought to discuss. If you are a new student, be sure to subscribe to this blog by entering you email address in the box on the right hand column. Occasionally I'll ask questions about items posted here, or give you hints about what will be on upcoming quizzes, so it'll be worth your while to peruse these items.
Friday, December 18, 2009
Secession
This might be worth chewing over next semester when we discuss federalism. Secession continues to be on the minds of some.
From Edward Tenner:
. . . Breaking up is on the minds of some Americans, too, and not only the Alaskans we read about during the 2008 campaign. The Chronicle of Higher Education has just spotlighted a less familiar society of academic Southern traditionalists. The 64-member Abbeville Institute, founded in 2003 by the Emory University philosophy professor Donald W. Livingston and named for the original home of the statesman and political theorist John C. Calhoun, is about to hold a public conference on two of Calhoun's own themes, secession and nullification. And the speaker list leaves little doubt about what side they're on.
Among the speakers are the professed neo-Luddite Kirkpatrick Sale and the emeritus economics professor Thomas Naylor, advocates of the Second Vermont Republic, a movement admiring the New England secessionism of the early nineteenth century.
The Vermont separatists don't tell the full story of New England intellectuals and secession. Take Yale President Timothy Dwight, John C. Calhoun's mentor. The Web site Yale, Slavery & Abolition quotes him on separation (and justifying slavery):
The evils of disunion would be so great, that nothing like an advantage which appears to be promised by it, is worthy of a moment's regard. Dissolution would involve so many calamities, that it would be childish to weigh it against a few questions of local interest, which are as nothing when put in contrast to it.
And Abbeville's hero, Calhoun himself, began his political life as a nationalist, and turned to nullification and secession ideas only beginning in the late 1820s.The Abbeville conference still is a good thing, because it focuses attention on a growing and--on balance--disturbing trend. But the issue is a complex one involving environment and security issues as well as political theory; look especially at the map on the Georgia-South Ossetia conflict. Secession is too important a subject to be left to the secessionists.
From Edward Tenner:
. . . Breaking up is on the minds of some Americans, too, and not only the Alaskans we read about during the 2008 campaign. The Chronicle of Higher Education has just spotlighted a less familiar society of academic Southern traditionalists. The 64-member Abbeville Institute, founded in 2003 by the Emory University philosophy professor Donald W. Livingston and named for the original home of the statesman and political theorist John C. Calhoun, is about to hold a public conference on two of Calhoun's own themes, secession and nullification. And the speaker list leaves little doubt about what side they're on.
Among the speakers are the professed neo-Luddite Kirkpatrick Sale and the emeritus economics professor Thomas Naylor, advocates of the Second Vermont Republic, a movement admiring the New England secessionism of the early nineteenth century.
The Vermont separatists don't tell the full story of New England intellectuals and secession. Take Yale President Timothy Dwight, John C. Calhoun's mentor. The Web site Yale, Slavery & Abolition quotes him on separation (and justifying slavery):
The evils of disunion would be so great, that nothing like an advantage which appears to be promised by it, is worthy of a moment's regard. Dissolution would involve so many calamities, that it would be childish to weigh it against a few questions of local interest, which are as nothing when put in contrast to it.
And Abbeville's hero, Calhoun himself, began his political life as a nationalist, and turned to nullification and secession ideas only beginning in the late 1820s.The Abbeville conference still is a good thing, because it focuses attention on a growing and--on balance--disturbing trend. But the issue is a complex one involving environment and security issues as well as political theory; look especially at the map on the Georgia-South Ossetia conflict. Secession is too important a subject to be left to the secessionists.
Update -- 12/18/09
I didn't mean to take a month off, but I did anyway. The end of the semester always gets hectic and I unfortunately let the blog slip.
I plan on making minor modifications to the site prior to the start of the spring semester, and I want to integrate it a bit better with the material on the class wiki.
I've let a few major events slip by without comment or an effort to tie it into our subject matter. I'll step back and correct both.
Comments and helpful suggestions are always welcome.
I plan on making minor modifications to the site prior to the start of the spring semester, and I want to integrate it a bit better with the material on the class wiki.
I've let a few major events slip by without comment or an effort to tie it into our subject matter. I'll step back and correct both.
Comments and helpful suggestions are always welcome.
Tuesday, November 17, 2009
McDonald v. Chicago
According to ScotusBlog, a challenge to Chicago's gun control laws (McDonald v Chicago) will focus on the Fourteenth Amendment's Privileges and Immunities Clause and ask the court to reconsider a decision it made in 1873 -- The Slaughter House Cases.
- Petitioner's Brief.
- Findlaw: Fourteenth Amendment's Privileges and Immunities Clause.
- Petitioner's Brief.
- Findlaw: Fourteenth Amendment's Privileges and Immunities Clause.
What's a Liberal Justice Now?
A useful read for my 2302's from Jeffrey Rosen in the NYT.
When talking about the Supreme Court, Barack Obama has resisted the familiar ideological categories that have defined our judicial battles for the past several decades. He has made clear that despite his progressive inclinations, he is not a 1960s-style, Warren Court liberal — someone who believes that the justices should boldly define constitutional rights in an effort to bring about social change. It’s true that Obama has cited Chief Justice Earl Warren as a judicial ideal, emphasizing that Warren, a former governor of California, had a sensitive understanding of the real-world effects of Supreme Court decisions. But at the same time, Obama has suggested that liberals in the Warren Court mold may have placed too much trust in the courts and not enough in political activism.
....
When talking about the Supreme Court, Barack Obama has resisted the familiar ideological categories that have defined our judicial battles for the past several decades. He has made clear that despite his progressive inclinations, he is not a 1960s-style, Warren Court liberal — someone who believes that the justices should boldly define constitutional rights in an effort to bring about social change. It’s true that Obama has cited Chief Justice Earl Warren as a judicial ideal, emphasizing that Warren, a former governor of California, had a sensitive understanding of the real-world effects of Supreme Court decisions. But at the same time, Obama has suggested that liberals in the Warren Court mold may have placed too much trust in the courts and not enough in political activism.
....
Monday, November 16, 2009
Public Opinion on Government
From the New Republic, an overview of the contradictory stances Americans tend to have about government. Though majorities often support the types of things government either does, or proposes to do, similar majorities tend to oppose the idea of government:
A Pew Poll released on October 8 found “steady support” for specific elements of the health care plan, including the public alternative to private insurance, the employer mandate, and the requirement that everyone have insurance. Nonetheless, popular support for the plan itself was declining, with 34 percent “generally [in] favor” and 47 percent “generally opposed.”
What accounts for this disparity?
....
In a Washington Post poll last month, a plurality worried that the health care plan “creates too much government involvement.” In a poll taken October 9–13 by Public Strategies in conjunction with Politico, 52 percent of respondents feared that Congress would go “too far in increasing the government’s role in health care.” In a Harris poll in early October, 65 percent agreed, and only 22 percent disagreed, with the “criticism” that “the proposed reform would result in a government-run health care system.” In other words, Americans are looking to the government for help, but they still don’t like the government.
A Pew Poll released on October 8 found “steady support” for specific elements of the health care plan, including the public alternative to private insurance, the employer mandate, and the requirement that everyone have insurance. Nonetheless, popular support for the plan itself was declining, with 34 percent “generally [in] favor” and 47 percent “generally opposed.”
What accounts for this disparity?
....
In a Washington Post poll last month, a plurality worried that the health care plan “creates too much government involvement.” In a poll taken October 9–13 by Public Strategies in conjunction with Politico, 52 percent of respondents feared that Congress would go “too far in increasing the government’s role in health care.” In a Harris poll in early October, 65 percent agreed, and only 22 percent disagreed, with the “criticism” that “the proposed reform would result in a government-run health care system.” In other words, Americans are looking to the government for help, but they still don’t like the government.
William Wayne Justice
Justice died recently at the age of 89. He was a Texas born federal court judge responsible for some of the more consequential court cases in recent history, including school desegregation, and prison reform. He was loved or hated depending on one's ideological leanings.
- Judge William Wayne Justice Dies - Obituary (Obit) - NYTimes.com
- William Wayne Justice - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- Judge Justice dies at 89
- Grits for Breakfast: Judge William Wayne Justice, RIP 1920-2009
- William Wayne Justice Center for Public Interest Law – About Judge ...
- Essay: Bill Moyers on Justice Justice
- Judge William Wayne Justice Dies - Obituary (Obit) - NYTimes.com
- William Wayne Justice - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- Judge Justice dies at 89
- Grits for Breakfast: Judge William Wayne Justice, RIP 1920-2009
- William Wayne Justice Center for Public Interest Law – About Judge ...
- Essay: Bill Moyers on Justice Justice
Obama's Limited Influence on the Judiciary
From the NYT:
President Obama has sent the Senate far fewer judicial nominations than former President George W. Bush did in his first 10 months in office, deflating the hopes of liberals that the White House would move quickly to reshape the federal judiciary after eight years of Republican appointments.
Mr. Bush, who made it an early goal to push conservatives into the judicial pipeline and left a strong stamp on the courts, had already nominated 28 appellate and 36 district candidates at a comparable point in his tenure. By contrast, Mr. Obama has offered 12 nominations to appeals courts and 14 to district courts.
President Obama has sent the Senate far fewer judicial nominations than former President George W. Bush did in his first 10 months in office, deflating the hopes of liberals that the White House would move quickly to reshape the federal judiciary after eight years of Republican appointments.
Mr. Bush, who made it an early goal to push conservatives into the judicial pipeline and left a strong stamp on the courts, had already nominated 28 appellate and 36 district candidates at a comparable point in his tenure. By contrast, Mr. Obama has offered 12 nominations to appeals courts and 14 to district courts.
Thursday, November 12, 2009
Religious Freedom, Fingerprinting, Public Safety, and The Mark of the Beast
A Texas school teacher risks losing her job for not allowing herself to be fingerprinted because she believes it is the Mark of the Beast, as referred to in the Book of Revelations:
From the Lufkin Daily News:
McLaurin, a devout Christian, firmly believes that the digitization of her fingerprint is the biblical equivalent to the "Mark of the Beast" as mentioned in the book of Revelation — Specifically, Revelation 13:16 - 17 and 14:9 - 11, which states, "He causes all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and slave, to receive a mark on their right hand and on their foreheads, and that no one may buy or sell except one who has the mark or the name of the beast, or the number of his name... Then a third angel followed them saying with a loud voice, if anyone worships the beast and his image and receives his mark on his forehead or on his hand he himself shall also drink of the wine of the wrath of God... He shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels and in the presence of the lamb."
She does not believe that it is just coincidence that Revelation speaks about only those with the "mark on his forehead or finger" will be able to buy or sell, since only those teachers that comply with the fingerprinting requirements will maintain their jobs, Skelton said.
Related stories:
- ACS Blog Texas Public School Teacher Sees 'Mark of Beast' in ...
- Costly fingerprinting required for Texas public school workers ...
- Fighting the Biblical Beast in Texas: Evangelical Kindergarten ...
From the Lufkin Daily News:
McLaurin, a devout Christian, firmly believes that the digitization of her fingerprint is the biblical equivalent to the "Mark of the Beast" as mentioned in the book of Revelation — Specifically, Revelation 13:16 - 17 and 14:9 - 11, which states, "He causes all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and slave, to receive a mark on their right hand and on their foreheads, and that no one may buy or sell except one who has the mark or the name of the beast, or the number of his name... Then a third angel followed them saying with a loud voice, if anyone worships the beast and his image and receives his mark on his forehead or on his hand he himself shall also drink of the wine of the wrath of God... He shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels and in the presence of the lamb."
She does not believe that it is just coincidence that Revelation speaks about only those with the "mark on his forehead or finger" will be able to buy or sell, since only those teachers that comply with the fingerprinting requirements will maintain their jobs, Skelton said.
Related stories:
- ACS Blog Texas Public School Teacher Sees 'Mark of Beast' in ...
- Costly fingerprinting required for Texas public school workers ...
- Fighting the Biblical Beast in Texas: Evangelical Kindergarten ...
Does the Westboro Baptist Church Push the Limits of Peaceable Assembly?
We're covering participatory rights this week in 2301, including the right to peaceably assemble. The, let's say unique, protests of the Westboro Baptist Church (wikipedia entry) have pushed the limits of what is and is not peaceable.
The New Republic reports on their attempts to expand their protests to New York.
The New Republic reports on their attempts to expand their protests to New York.
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
Scalia, Brown, and Originalism
Just in time for our discussion of judicial review in 2302 comes a terrific article about a face-of between Breyer and Scalia that included questions about how an originalist might have voted in Brown v. Board of Education.
To Scozzafava
A new verb has been created. From the Urban Dictionary.
Scozzafava
verb -- 1) to incite internal opposition against and undermine a moderate member of a political party, usually by right wing forces. 2) to ideologically purify an organization by eliminating members who don't adhere to orthodoxy.
Story in the WaPo.
Scozzafava
verb -- 1) to incite internal opposition against and undermine a moderate member of a political party, usually by right wing forces. 2) to ideologically purify an organization by eliminating members who don't adhere to orthodoxy.
Story in the WaPo.
Party Switch
Last week Democratic State Representative Chuck Hopson became Republican State Representative Chuck Hopson, in a move he states was a reflection of the increasing anti-Obama sentiment in his district.
In short, he wants to keep his seat.
Add on: Republicans are trying to convince more Democrats to switch.
In short, he wants to keep his seat.
Add on: Republicans are trying to convince more Democrats to switch.
Is it Illegal for a Prosecutor to Present False Evidence in Court?
Maybe, Maybe not. The Supreme Court will decide.
The case is Pottawattamie County v. McGhee.
Commentary and links from Grits for Breakfast. (Transcript of oral arguments)
The case is Pottawattamie County v. McGhee.
Commentary and links from Grits for Breakfast. (Transcript of oral arguments)
What Drove the 2009 Election Results?
Was it really a referendum on Obama, or was it simply due to turnout? The anti-Obama crowd is more likely to vote than the pro-Obama crowd. Perhaps this suggests that attitudes today are more or less where they were in November 2008.
Here are some stories that weigh in on this:
- Two Trends on Election Night
- The Obama Realignment: Too Soon to Tell [Ramesh Ponnuru]
- Tuesday's election results
- MSNBC INTERVIEW WITH VIRGINIA GOVERNOR TIM KAINE (D)
Here are some stories that weigh in on this:
- Two Trends on Election Night
- The Obama Realignment: Too Soon to Tell [Ramesh Ponnuru]
- Tuesday's election results
- MSNBC INTERVIEW WITH VIRGINIA GOVERNOR TIM KAINE (D)
New Link: Lobby Data
I added a link to my "Lobbyists" section below. Lobby Data is a pay service for people who want info on lobbyists, but there are some free links which you might find useful.
Sunset Committee Set
From the Texas Tribune.
Texas Speaker Joe Straus has named members of the Texas Sunset Committee for 2010.
Texas Sunset Commission.
Texas Speaker Joe Straus has named members of the Texas Sunset Committee for 2010.
Texas Sunset Commission.
Health Care Reform and the Art of The Possible
Critics argue that the health care bill passed by the house will not accomplish some of its goals, like cutting the cost of health care, but changes might cost the support of critical groups like doctors and hospitals who stand to lose funding if those changes are made.
Story in the NYT.
Will the perfect become the enemy of the good? Reminds me of the definition of politics as being the art of the possible.
Story in the NYT.
Will the perfect become the enemy of the good? Reminds me of the definition of politics as being the art of the possible.
Monday, November 9, 2009
Two Cases Narrowing Standing
We discussed standing in 2302 today and how the recent Supreme Court has used it to make it easier to not have to make decisions in certain cases. Here are two examples I ran across today:
- Hein v the Freedom From Religion Foundation: A case which challenged President Bush's Faith Based Initiatives on the grounds that they violated the Establishment Clause. The court rules that since the program was an executive action funded by general revenues, the organization which brought the suit lacked standing.
- Salazar v. Buono: An ongoing case, again involving the Establishment Clause, regarding the constitutionality of a cross erected on government land -- which was quickly sold to a private party -- and the refusal to allow a Buddhist group to build a similar monument. ScotusBlog suggests that this case may also be decided by denying the plaintiff standing.
- Hein v the Freedom From Religion Foundation: A case which challenged President Bush's Faith Based Initiatives on the grounds that they violated the Establishment Clause. The court rules that since the program was an executive action funded by general revenues, the organization which brought the suit lacked standing.
- Salazar v. Buono: An ongoing case, again involving the Establishment Clause, regarding the constitutionality of a cross erected on government land -- which was quickly sold to a private party -- and the refusal to allow a Buddhist group to build a similar monument. ScotusBlog suggests that this case may also be decided by denying the plaintiff standing.
Cruel and Unusual Punishment, and Patents
Those are the subjects of two Supreme Court cases we covered in 2302 today:
- Supreme Court Ruling May Transform Tech Industry
- Supreme Court To Hear Arguments On Life Sentences For Juveniles
- Supreme Court Ruling May Transform Tech Industry
- Supreme Court To Hear Arguments On Life Sentences For Juveniles
Sunday, November 8, 2009
Past Divisions in the Texas Democratic Party
From the Texas Tribune: A Brief History of Fraticide.
Few things are uglier that intraparty conflict.
Few things are uglier that intraparty conflict.
Republican Primary Battle for SBOE #9
The contest between conservatives and moderates within the Texas Republican Party will play out in a primary battle for the State Board of Education's Ninth District.
Internal Divisions within the Democrats
The Democrats have their own issues attempting to restrain activists. Democrats who want to aggressively push abortion rights and civil rights for gays and lesbians are growing impatient with centrists and party leaders concerned with the electoral implications of those positions for their party in 2010.
Thursday, November 5, 2009
Wednesday, November 4, 2009
Centrists Win, Conservatives Lose
Yesterday's elections seem to prove the importance of running centrist campaigns if a party wishes to actually win elections to office, and underscore the problems when extreme candidates, or at least candidates that veer far to one side of the political spectrum represent the party.
Republicans won the two governors races (in New Jersey and Virginia) where the candidates largely refrained from excessive anti-Obama rhetoric in an apparent attempt to lure independents that voted for the president (and could do so again) to vote Republican. It was a big tent strategy that worked.
In New York's District 23rd however, where a more extreme conservative ran under the Conservative Party Label, the Republican vote was split. Some moderate Republicans -- possibly turned off by the conservative positions of the candidate -- voted for the Democrat. The Democrat won a seat the party had not held in over a century.
Now it will be interesting to see whether the national party will be able to encourage candidates to adopt the more centrist, inclusive strategy, or whether the conservative movement will continue to attempt to pull the party to the right and purge it of moderates.
Republicans won the two governors races (in New Jersey and Virginia) where the candidates largely refrained from excessive anti-Obama rhetoric in an apparent attempt to lure independents that voted for the president (and could do so again) to vote Republican. It was a big tent strategy that worked.
In New York's District 23rd however, where a more extreme conservative ran under the Conservative Party Label, the Republican vote was split. Some moderate Republicans -- possibly turned off by the conservative positions of the candidate -- voted for the Democrat. The Democrat won a seat the party had not held in over a century.
Now it will be interesting to see whether the national party will be able to encourage candidates to adopt the more centrist, inclusive strategy, or whether the conservative movement will continue to attempt to pull the party to the right and purge it of moderates.
Tuesday, November 3, 2009
Conservatives v. Republicans
From Politico:
In what could be a nightmare scenario for Republican Party officials, conservative activists are gearing up to challenge leading GOP candidates in more than a dozen key House and Senate races in 2010.
Conservatives and tea party activists had already set their sights on some of the GOP’s top Senate recruits — a list that includes Gov. Charlie Crist in Florida, former Rep. Rob Simmons in Connecticut and Rep. Mark Kirk in Illinois, among others.
But their success in Tuesday’s upstate New York special election, where grass-roots efforts pushed GOP nominee Dede Scozzafava to drop out of the race and helped Conservative Party nominee Doug Hoffman surge into the lead on the eve of Election Day, has generated more money and enthusiasm than organizers ever imagined.
Activists predict a wave that could roll from California to Kentucky to New Hampshire and that could leave even some GOP incumbents — Utah Sen. Bob Bennett is one — facing unexpectedly fierce challenges from their right flank.
“I would say it’s the tip of the spear,” said Dick Armey, the former GOP House majority leader who now serves as chairman of FreedomWorks, an organization that has been closely aligned with the tea party movement. “We are the biggest source of energy in American politics today.”
....
In what could be a nightmare scenario for Republican Party officials, conservative activists are gearing up to challenge leading GOP candidates in more than a dozen key House and Senate races in 2010.
Conservatives and tea party activists had already set their sights on some of the GOP’s top Senate recruits — a list that includes Gov. Charlie Crist in Florida, former Rep. Rob Simmons in Connecticut and Rep. Mark Kirk in Illinois, among others.
But their success in Tuesday’s upstate New York special election, where grass-roots efforts pushed GOP nominee Dede Scozzafava to drop out of the race and helped Conservative Party nominee Doug Hoffman surge into the lead on the eve of Election Day, has generated more money and enthusiasm than organizers ever imagined.
Activists predict a wave that could roll from California to Kentucky to New Hampshire and that could leave even some GOP incumbents — Utah Sen. Bob Bennett is one — facing unexpectedly fierce challenges from their right flank.
“I would say it’s the tip of the spear,” said Dick Armey, the former GOP House majority leader who now serves as chairman of FreedomWorks, an organization that has been closely aligned with the tea party movement. “We are the biggest source of energy in American politics today.”
....
Monday, November 2, 2009
Want to Investigate Governmental Agencies?
From Texas Watchdog, an invitation to learn how to investigate quasi-governmental agencies, what we call single purpose local governments:
Hope you can join us for the next Trent TV, a free monthly webinar for journalists, bloggers, citizen-journalists and activists. We’ll be discussing how to look into hospital authorities, sports authorities, and other agencies that are not 100% government like a public works department, but definitely not private corporations. We’ll talk about the types of records these agencies keep and how to peel back the layers of bureaucracy and get a closer look at how they spend taxpayer money.
Join us at 11:30 a.m. CST Tuesday, Nov. 10, at newmediatv.org.
Given the state of journalism, this might be how we find things out in the future.
Hope you can join us for the next Trent TV, a free monthly webinar for journalists, bloggers, citizen-journalists and activists. We’ll be discussing how to look into hospital authorities, sports authorities, and other agencies that are not 100% government like a public works department, but definitely not private corporations. We’ll talk about the types of records these agencies keep and how to peel back the layers of bureaucracy and get a closer look at how they spend taxpayer money.
Join us at 11:30 a.m. CST Tuesday, Nov. 10, at newmediatv.org.
Given the state of journalism, this might be how we find things out in the future.
What Do Local Candidates Spend Money On Anyway?
Here's a rundown on the expenditures on recent city council races in Houston.
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
Where Will Independents Line Up?
From the National Journal:
Can the conservative base of the Republican Party peacefully coexist with independents and enable the GOP to return to power? That is a question that Democratic pollsters Stan Greenberg and Karl Agne posed in a recent Democracy Corps study of conservative Republicans in the South and independent voters in the North.
Greenberg and Agne organized two focus groups in the Atlanta area with middle-aged white voters who identified themselves as strong Republicans and who cast ballots for both GOP presidential nominee John McCain and a Republican congressional candidate in 2008. Based on those discussions, the pollsters concluded that conservative GOP base voters do not oppose Obama because of race but because they are deeply suspicious and fearful that he intends to impose a socialist government on the country. This view is compounded by "an almost siege-like mentality," Greenberg and Agne said, against the mainstream media and popular culture. By contrast, when Agne interviewed white, middle-aged, non-college-educated swing voters in Cleveland, he found that although they were still skeptical of Obama, they nonetheless hoped he might be able to achieve some of his goals.
. . .
Republican pollster Whit Ayres said he read the Democracy Corps study and thought it "very interesting," but he discounted it, including its suggestion that the anxious Right on display in the Atlanta focus groups is the dominant faction in the GOP. "They tend to be the loudest and most intense Republicans," he said, "but they're not the largest group of Republicans, just like Democratic activists in the blogosphere are not the largest group of Democrats."
Ayres said that his polling with Resurgent Republic, a GOP research group that seeks to shape the public debate just as Democracy Corps does, has found that on a range of issues from the economy to terrorist investigations to health care, independents hold views that are more Republican than Democratic.
Can the conservative base of the Republican Party peacefully coexist with independents and enable the GOP to return to power? That is a question that Democratic pollsters Stan Greenberg and Karl Agne posed in a recent Democracy Corps study of conservative Republicans in the South and independent voters in the North.
Greenberg and Agne organized two focus groups in the Atlanta area with middle-aged white voters who identified themselves as strong Republicans and who cast ballots for both GOP presidential nominee John McCain and a Republican congressional candidate in 2008. Based on those discussions, the pollsters concluded that conservative GOP base voters do not oppose Obama because of race but because they are deeply suspicious and fearful that he intends to impose a socialist government on the country. This view is compounded by "an almost siege-like mentality," Greenberg and Agne said, against the mainstream media and popular culture. By contrast, when Agne interviewed white, middle-aged, non-college-educated swing voters in Cleveland, he found that although they were still skeptical of Obama, they nonetheless hoped he might be able to achieve some of his goals.
. . .
Republican pollster Whit Ayres said he read the Democracy Corps study and thought it "very interesting," but he discounted it, including its suggestion that the anxious Right on display in the Atlanta focus groups is the dominant faction in the GOP. "They tend to be the loudest and most intense Republicans," he said, "but they're not the largest group of Republicans, just like Democratic activists in the blogosphere are not the largest group of Democrats."
Ayres said that his polling with Resurgent Republic, a GOP research group that seeks to shape the public debate just as Democracy Corps does, has found that on a range of issues from the economy to terrorist investigations to health care, independents hold views that are more Republican than Democratic.
Party ID: 10/27/09
The latest compilation from pollster.com:
All U.S. Adults
Independents: 37.9%
Democrats: 33.7%
Republicans: 21.4%
All U.S. Adults
Independents: 37.9%
Democrats: 33.7%
Republicans: 21.4%
The Treasury Department and Goldman-Sachs Continued
The latest in an ongoing story, from Bloomberg:
Some of Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner’s closest aides, none of whom faced Senate confirmation, earned millions of dollars a year working for Goldman Sachs Group Inc., Citigroup Inc. and other Wall Street firms, according to financial disclosure forms.
....
As part of Geithner’s kitchen cabinet, Sperling and Sachs wield influence behind the scenes at the Treasury Department, where they help oversee the $700 billion banking rescue and craft executive pay rules and the revamp of financial regulations. Yet they haven’t faced the public scrutiny given to Senate-confirmed appointees, nor are they compelled to testify in Congress to defend or explain the Treasury’s policies.
“These people are incredibly smart, they’re incredibly talented and they bring knowledge,” said Bill Brown, a visiting professor at Duke University School of Law and former managing director at Morgan Stanley. “The risk is they will further exacerbate the problem of our regulators identifying with Wall Street.”
Some of Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner’s closest aides, none of whom faced Senate confirmation, earned millions of dollars a year working for Goldman Sachs Group Inc., Citigroup Inc. and other Wall Street firms, according to financial disclosure forms.
....
As part of Geithner’s kitchen cabinet, Sperling and Sachs wield influence behind the scenes at the Treasury Department, where they help oversee the $700 billion banking rescue and craft executive pay rules and the revamp of financial regulations. Yet they haven’t faced the public scrutiny given to Senate-confirmed appointees, nor are they compelled to testify in Congress to defend or explain the Treasury’s policies.
“These people are incredibly smart, they’re incredibly talented and they bring knowledge,” said Bill Brown, a visiting professor at Duke University School of Law and former managing director at Morgan Stanley. “The risk is they will further exacerbate the problem of our regulators identifying with Wall Street.”
Health Care Reform Update: 10/27/09
From The National Journal:
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., announced today that the full Senate health care bill will include a public option with an opt-out provision for individual states. Reid said he was only one or two votes shy of the 60 needed to block a filibuster.
"The public option with an opt-out is the one that's fair," Reid said at an afternoon press conference.
The announcement comes after two weeks of deliberation to combine the bills passed by the Finance and Health, Education, Labor and Pensions committees.
Reid said that while he still did not have 60 votes, he was optimistic that support would come. Some moderate Democrats, among them Ben Nelson of Nebraska, have not warmed to the idea.
"I believe that as soon as we get the bill back from the [Congressional Budget Office] and people have a chance to look at it, I believe we will clearly have the support of my caucus to move forward with it," Reid said.
Reid also rejected the "trigger" option floated by Republican Olympia Snowe of Maine, who is the only Republican to vote for a health care bill so far. However, Reid did say the final bill would include a co-op from the Finance bill.
The Senate Bills:
- S1679: Affordable Health Choices Act
- S1796: America's Healthy Future Act
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., announced today that the full Senate health care bill will include a public option with an opt-out provision for individual states. Reid said he was only one or two votes shy of the 60 needed to block a filibuster.
"The public option with an opt-out is the one that's fair," Reid said at an afternoon press conference.
The announcement comes after two weeks of deliberation to combine the bills passed by the Finance and Health, Education, Labor and Pensions committees.
Reid said that while he still did not have 60 votes, he was optimistic that support would come. Some moderate Democrats, among them Ben Nelson of Nebraska, have not warmed to the idea.
"I believe that as soon as we get the bill back from the [Congressional Budget Office] and people have a chance to look at it, I believe we will clearly have the support of my caucus to move forward with it," Reid said.
Reid also rejected the "trigger" option floated by Republican Olympia Snowe of Maine, who is the only Republican to vote for a health care bill so far. However, Reid did say the final bill would include a co-op from the Finance bill.
The Senate Bills:
- S1679: Affordable Health Choices Act
- S1796: America's Healthy Future Act
Free Speech and Suicide
Testing the limits of free speech:
A Faribault nurse who authorities say visited Internet suicide chat rooms and encouraging depressed people to kill themselves is under investigation in at least two deaths and could face criminal charges that could test the limits of the First Amendment.
Investigators said William Melchert-Dinkel, 47, feigned compassion for those he chatted with, while offering step-by-step instructions on how to take their lives.
“Most important is the placement of the noose on the neck ... Knot behind the left ear and rope across the carotid is very important for instant unconciousness and death,” he allegedly wrote in one Web chat.
He is under investigation in the suicides of Mark Drybrough, 32, who hanged himself at his home in Coventry, England, in 2005, and Nadia Kajouji, an 18-year-old from Brampton, Ontario, who drowned in 2008 in a river in Ottawa, where she was studying at Carleton University.
- Analysis from the First Amendment Center.
A Faribault nurse who authorities say visited Internet suicide chat rooms and encouraging depressed people to kill themselves is under investigation in at least two deaths and could face criminal charges that could test the limits of the First Amendment.
Investigators said William Melchert-Dinkel, 47, feigned compassion for those he chatted with, while offering step-by-step instructions on how to take their lives.
“Most important is the placement of the noose on the neck ... Knot behind the left ear and rope across the carotid is very important for instant unconciousness and death,” he allegedly wrote in one Web chat.
He is under investigation in the suicides of Mark Drybrough, 32, who hanged himself at his home in Coventry, England, in 2005, and Nadia Kajouji, an 18-year-old from Brampton, Ontario, who drowned in 2008 in a river in Ottawa, where she was studying at Carleton University.
- Analysis from the First Amendment Center.
The Harris County-Houston Sports Authority Needs Funds
For 2301.
File this under single purpose local government financing:
Harris County taxpayers may have to inject up to $7 million a year into the Harris County-Houston Sports Authority for the next two years due to a financial crisis sparked by the souring of bonds used to build Minute Maid Park, Reliant Stadium and the Toyota Center.
Facing balloon payments on $117 million in variable-rate bonds, the authority now is obliged to pay off the debt in five years instead of 23 years. That would require $24 million a year — a figure that, together with more than $30 million in additional obligations, would push the authority to the brink of insolvency.
This appears to be a further consequence of the recent financial crisis.
For further info about the HCHSA, and related news and history:
- Official website.
- Sports authority ties could get sticky for Houston mayoral candidate Gene Locke
- Make Way for McLane
- Sports Afield
- "I Didn't Create This Mess ..."
File this under single purpose local government financing:
Harris County taxpayers may have to inject up to $7 million a year into the Harris County-Houston Sports Authority for the next two years due to a financial crisis sparked by the souring of bonds used to build Minute Maid Park, Reliant Stadium and the Toyota Center.
Facing balloon payments on $117 million in variable-rate bonds, the authority now is obliged to pay off the debt in five years instead of 23 years. That would require $24 million a year — a figure that, together with more than $30 million in additional obligations, would push the authority to the brink of insolvency.
This appears to be a further consequence of the recent financial crisis.
For further info about the HCHSA, and related news and history:
- Official website.
- Sports authority ties could get sticky for Houston mayoral candidate Gene Locke
- Make Way for McLane
- Sports Afield
- "I Didn't Create This Mess ..."
Monday, October 26, 2009
The First Amendment v. Campaign Regulations
The Supreme Court has been veering towards eliminating most restrictions on campaign finance. This illustrates a variety of subjects we've covered in both 2301 and 2302.
From the National Journal:
For years, First Amendment champions have argued that all campaign finance rules tread on free speech and that American elections should be completely deregulated.
It's a sweeping premise that Congress has long rejected in favor of ever-tighter political money limits. But thanks to a sharp right turn in the judiciary, from the Supreme Court on down, those who favor a world without rules may be about to get their wish.
The Supreme Court appears poised to reverse a century-old ban on direct campaign expenditures by corporations large and small. A federal appeals court has rejected Federal Election Commission rules that restrict spending by non-party political groups, such as so-called 527 organizations -- a move that the FEC is prepared to let stand. And two other cases challenging the existing limits on soft (unregulated) money and on independent campaign expenditures are wending their way up to the Supreme Court . . .
Relevant topics include:
- Checks and Balances - the Supreme Court seems set to over turn legislation dating back 100 years (The Tillman Act of 1970)
- Civil Liberties - how do we define free speech? do corporations have free speech rights?
- Interest group influence on the democratic process - can democracy survive a public sector dominated by corporate interests
- Judicial Activism - is the Supreme Court acting within its proper boundaries or is it aggressively imposing its view of proper public policy on the other institutions.
From the National Journal:
For years, First Amendment champions have argued that all campaign finance rules tread on free speech and that American elections should be completely deregulated.
It's a sweeping premise that Congress has long rejected in favor of ever-tighter political money limits. But thanks to a sharp right turn in the judiciary, from the Supreme Court on down, those who favor a world without rules may be about to get their wish.
The Supreme Court appears poised to reverse a century-old ban on direct campaign expenditures by corporations large and small. A federal appeals court has rejected Federal Election Commission rules that restrict spending by non-party political groups, such as so-called 527 organizations -- a move that the FEC is prepared to let stand. And two other cases challenging the existing limits on soft (unregulated) money and on independent campaign expenditures are wending their way up to the Supreme Court . . .
Relevant topics include:
- Checks and Balances - the Supreme Court seems set to over turn legislation dating back 100 years (The Tillman Act of 1970)
- Civil Liberties - how do we define free speech? do corporations have free speech rights?
- Interest group influence on the democratic process - can democracy survive a public sector dominated by corporate interests
- Judicial Activism - is the Supreme Court acting within its proper boundaries or is it aggressively imposing its view of proper public policy on the other institutions.
Wednesday, October 21, 2009
The Health Insurance Industry Has Antitrust Protection
I had no idea.
The exemption was established in 1945 in the McCarran-Ferguson Act, which "gives states the authority to regulate the 'business of insurance' without interference from federal regulation, unless federal law specifically provides otherwise." The act, interestingly enough, was a response to a Supreme Court ruling that held that insurance is not "commerce."
A bill has been introduced to remove this exception: H.R.3596: Health Insurance Industry Antitrust Enforcement Act of 2009.
More Info:
- Pelosi pushing forward with robust public option -- House Dems may ...
- House Panel Approves Bill Curbing Insurers' Antitrust Exemption
- BIG “I” SAYS INSURANCE ANTITRUST EXEMPTION IMPORTANT TO POLICYHOLDERS
The exemption was established in 1945 in the McCarran-Ferguson Act, which "gives states the authority to regulate the 'business of insurance' without interference from federal regulation, unless federal law specifically provides otherwise." The act, interestingly enough, was a response to a Supreme Court ruling that held that insurance is not "commerce."
A bill has been introduced to remove this exception: H.R.3596: Health Insurance Industry Antitrust Enforcement Act of 2009.
More Info:
- Pelosi pushing forward with robust public option -- House Dems may ...
- House Panel Approves Bill Curbing Insurers' Antitrust Exemption
- BIG “I” SAYS INSURANCE ANTITRUST EXEMPTION IMPORTANT TO POLICYHOLDERS
White House Counsel in Trouble?
A member of the White House Staff, White House Counsel Gregory Craig, may have to prove his loyalty to the president and fall on his sword.
From the NYT:
As President Obama’s top lawyer, Mr. Craig has been at the center of thorny decisions on closing the prison at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, and revising interrogation and detention policies, problems that have bedeviled the new administration and generated fierce battles inside and outside the White House. And for months now, he has endured a spate of speculation in print and around the White House about whether he is on the way out.
. . .
It is a classic and not particularly savory Washington story. When an administration stumbles, whispers begin and fingers point in search of someone to blame. At a certain point, assumptions can become self-fulfilling, and an official in the cross hairs finds it harder to do the job. In Mr. Craig’s case, friends said he was unfairly being made a scapegoat for decisions supported across the administration.
- Wikipedia: White House Counsel.
Responsibilities: The Office of Counsel to the President was created in 1943, and is responsible for advising on all legal aspects of policy questions, legal issues arising in connection with the President's decision to sign or veto legislation, ethical questions, financial disclosures, and conflicts of interest during employment and post employment. The Counsel's Office also helps define the line between official and political activities, oversees executive appointments and judicial selection, handles Presidential pardons, reviews legislation and Presidential statements, and handles lawsuits against the President in his role as President, as well as serving as the White House contact for the Department of Justice.
From the NYT:
As President Obama’s top lawyer, Mr. Craig has been at the center of thorny decisions on closing the prison at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, and revising interrogation and detention policies, problems that have bedeviled the new administration and generated fierce battles inside and outside the White House. And for months now, he has endured a spate of speculation in print and around the White House about whether he is on the way out.
. . .
It is a classic and not particularly savory Washington story. When an administration stumbles, whispers begin and fingers point in search of someone to blame. At a certain point, assumptions can become self-fulfilling, and an official in the cross hairs finds it harder to do the job. In Mr. Craig’s case, friends said he was unfairly being made a scapegoat for decisions supported across the administration.
- Wikipedia: White House Counsel.
Responsibilities: The Office of Counsel to the President was created in 1943, and is responsible for advising on all legal aspects of policy questions, legal issues arising in connection with the President's decision to sign or veto legislation, ethical questions, financial disclosures, and conflicts of interest during employment and post employment. The Counsel's Office also helps define the line between official and political activities, oversees executive appointments and judicial selection, handles Presidential pardons, reviews legislation and Presidential statements, and handles lawsuits against the President in his role as President, as well as serving as the White House contact for the Department of Justice.
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
Monday, October 19, 2009
The Press' Tradition of Independence
Obama's Office of Communication made a tactical decision to take on Fox News. Whether this is a good idea or not I don't know, but in a brief piece supporting the decision Jacob Weisberg makes an interesting point about the uniqueness of the American press:
What's most distinctive about the American press is not its freedom but its tradition of independence—that it serves the public interest rather than those of parties, persuasions, or pressure groups. Media independence is a 20th-century innovation that has never fully taken root in Europe or many other countries that do have free press. The Australian-British-continental model of politicized media that Murdoch has implemented at Fox is un-American, so much so that he has little choice but go on denying what he's doing as he does it. For Murdoch, Ailes, and company, "fair and balanced" is a necessary lie. To admit that their coverage is slanted by design would violate the American understanding of the media's role in democracy and our idea of what constitutes journalistic fair play. But it's a demonstrable deceit that no longer deserves equal time.
We'll discuss this more in 2301 when we cover the media.
What's most distinctive about the American press is not its freedom but its tradition of independence—that it serves the public interest rather than those of parties, persuasions, or pressure groups. Media independence is a 20th-century innovation that has never fully taken root in Europe or many other countries that do have free press. The Australian-British-continental model of politicized media that Murdoch has implemented at Fox is un-American, so much so that he has little choice but go on denying what he's doing as he does it. For Murdoch, Ailes, and company, "fair and balanced" is a necessary lie. To admit that their coverage is slanted by design would violate the American understanding of the media's role in democracy and our idea of what constitutes journalistic fair play. But it's a demonstrable deceit that no longer deserves equal time.
We'll discuss this more in 2301 when we cover the media.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)