Monday, March 7, 2011
Ministers' report sees race bias in bond policies
From the Chron, a story that combines civil rights and civil liberties (procedural rights):
More than 15,000 people were collared in Harris County for misdemeanors in the final months of 2010, but 70 percent of white inmates were released on bond before trial, compared to 50 percent or less of Hispanics and African-Americans, a new report critical of detention practices shows.
White criminal defendants also generally had to pay lower bonds for their freedom, according to a report released by the Houston Ministers Against Crime. The group of politically connected pastors claims aggressively locking up those who have been accused - but not yet convicted - for crimes like fighting and trespassing costs taxpayers big bucks and harms poor communities "struggling under the ongoing financial crisis."
I can't find a website for Houston Ministers Against Crime, but they're a local interest group actively involved in policing issues. Here's a 2006 story about their support for a public defender's office.
More than 15,000 people were collared in Harris County for misdemeanors in the final months of 2010, but 70 percent of white inmates were released on bond before trial, compared to 50 percent or less of Hispanics and African-Americans, a new report critical of detention practices shows.
White criminal defendants also generally had to pay lower bonds for their freedom, according to a report released by the Houston Ministers Against Crime. The group of politically connected pastors claims aggressively locking up those who have been accused - but not yet convicted - for crimes like fighting and trespassing costs taxpayers big bucks and harms poor communities "struggling under the ongoing financial crisis."
I can't find a website for Houston Ministers Against Crime, but they're a local interest group actively involved in policing issues. Here's a 2006 story about their support for a public defender's office.
Sunday, March 6, 2011
Sheila Jackson-Lee: Boss From Hell
This really isn't news. She's been know to be very difficult to work for since she was first elected, but this story lays it all out. Warning: she cusses.
Labor on the Rise? Tea Party Cooling Off?
From the NYT, a relatively common story. A group out of power feels put upon by a group in power and uses it to mobilize support. Two years ago it was the tea party; now its the unions. The question is whether unions will be able to ride this anger to the polls in 2012.
Organized labor has been on a long decline, but the recent attacks against it in Wisconsin and elsewhere have had a surprising result — they have energized the nation’s unions. Instead of just playing defense to protect benefits and bargaining rights, labor leaders are plotting some offense, with several saying Mr. Walker may have unwittingly nurtured a comeback by unions.
As the Wisconsin showdown has unfolded, several recent national opinion polls have shown strong public backing for unions. And labor leaders say public awareness, especially among younger people, of what unions do has clearly increased.
“The challenge for us is to take this moment and turn it into a movement,” said Randi Weingarten, president of the American Federation of Teachers. She acknowledged that she was not sure whether labor could accomplish that, but union leaders are quietly forging strategies to propel labor’s cause beyond the immediate statehouse battles.
By the way, we've discussed the calming effect elections are supposed to have on the angry. Charles Blow makes the same point:
A poll released Thursday by the Pew Research Center found that anger at the government among Tea Party supporters fell by 40 percent from September 2010 to this month. Furthermore, anger among Republicans fell by more than half, and anger among whites, the elderly and independents fell by 40 percent or more.
On the other hand, the percentage of Tea Party supporters who said that they trusted the government always or most of the time doubled from last March to this March, and the percentage of Republicans saying so nearly doubled. In fact, the percent of both Republicans and independents saying so is now higher than it has been since January 2007.
Less anger? More trust? What happened? The midterms happened, that’s what.
Elections have a way of cooling passions, especially when voters get what they want.
But this combined with increased anger on the left sets us up for another wave (counter-wave?) election in 2012.
Organized labor has been on a long decline, but the recent attacks against it in Wisconsin and elsewhere have had a surprising result — they have energized the nation’s unions. Instead of just playing defense to protect benefits and bargaining rights, labor leaders are plotting some offense, with several saying Mr. Walker may have unwittingly nurtured a comeback by unions.
As the Wisconsin showdown has unfolded, several recent national opinion polls have shown strong public backing for unions. And labor leaders say public awareness, especially among younger people, of what unions do has clearly increased.
“The challenge for us is to take this moment and turn it into a movement,” said Randi Weingarten, president of the American Federation of Teachers. She acknowledged that she was not sure whether labor could accomplish that, but union leaders are quietly forging strategies to propel labor’s cause beyond the immediate statehouse battles.
By the way, we've discussed the calming effect elections are supposed to have on the angry. Charles Blow makes the same point:
A poll released Thursday by the Pew Research Center found that anger at the government among Tea Party supporters fell by 40 percent from September 2010 to this month. Furthermore, anger among Republicans fell by more than half, and anger among whites, the elderly and independents fell by 40 percent or more.
On the other hand, the percentage of Tea Party supporters who said that they trusted the government always or most of the time doubled from last March to this March, and the percentage of Republicans saying so nearly doubled. In fact, the percent of both Republicans and independents saying so is now higher than it has been since January 2007.
Less anger? More trust? What happened? The midterms happened, that’s what.
Elections have a way of cooling passions, especially when voters get what they want.
But this combined with increased anger on the left sets us up for another wave (counter-wave?) election in 2012.
Federalism and the Loughner Indictments
Today's NYT has information about additional federal charges against Tucson shooter Jared Loughner. The story touches on controversies regarding which level of government has jurisdiction over which offenses he violated. As we know from 2301s discussion of federalism, nothing he did violates a law that the federal government has a delegated power over. The Constitution does state that the federal government can pass any law within federal lands, but Tucson is not in federal land. What's novel about these indictments is that prosecutors are claiming that Loughner can be prosecuted for killing constituents waiting to see their member of Congress.
Laws have been passed federalizing the murder of federal officials (see here for example) many driven after Kennedy's assassination when it turned out the federal government had no jurisdiction over the crime (murder - falls under the reserved powers).
From the Story:
Prosecutors filed 49 federal charges Friday against Jared L. Loughner, the suspect in the Tucson shooting rampage, accusing him of murdering and attempting to murder five federal officials; killing four constituents of Representative Gabrielle Giffords who were attending a public event she sponsored; and injuring 10 others waiting in line to talk to her.
“You have a right to meet with your member of Congress openly and freely and peacefully,” said Dennis K. Burke, the United States attorney for Arizona, indicating he was confident that the novel legal theory the prosecutors were using — including charges involving victims who were not federal officials but merely attending a “federally provided activity” — would be upheld in court.
Outside legal experts, however, said the charges would give an opening for Mr. Loughner’s defense team, led by Judy Clarke, to challenge their validity.
The raft of new charges, some of which could carry the death penalty, go far beyond the previous indictment against Mr. Loughner, a troubled 22-year-old who is accused of opening fire outside a Tucson-area supermarket on Jan. 8 with a Glock semiautomatic pistol in an effort to kill Ms. Giffords.
Background
- Why is there a separate federal statute for attempted murder of a member of Congress?
- Wikipedia: Federal Crime in the United States.
- Wikipedia: Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act.
Laws have been passed federalizing the murder of federal officials (see here for example) many driven after Kennedy's assassination when it turned out the federal government had no jurisdiction over the crime (murder - falls under the reserved powers).
From the Story:
Prosecutors filed 49 federal charges Friday against Jared L. Loughner, the suspect in the Tucson shooting rampage, accusing him of murdering and attempting to murder five federal officials; killing four constituents of Representative Gabrielle Giffords who were attending a public event she sponsored; and injuring 10 others waiting in line to talk to her.
“You have a right to meet with your member of Congress openly and freely and peacefully,” said Dennis K. Burke, the United States attorney for Arizona, indicating he was confident that the novel legal theory the prosecutors were using — including charges involving victims who were not federal officials but merely attending a “federally provided activity” — would be upheld in court.
Outside legal experts, however, said the charges would give an opening for Mr. Loughner’s defense team, led by Judy Clarke, to challenge their validity.
The raft of new charges, some of which could carry the death penalty, go far beyond the previous indictment against Mr. Loughner, a troubled 22-year-old who is accused of opening fire outside a Tucson-area supermarket on Jan. 8 with a Glock semiautomatic pistol in an effort to kill Ms. Giffords.
Background
- Why is there a separate federal statute for attempted murder of a member of Congress?
- Wikipedia: Federal Crime in the United States.
- Wikipedia: Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act.
Friday, March 4, 2011
New Study: More Than 130 Top Congressional Staffers Are Former Lobbyists - OpenSecrets Blog | OpenSecrets
New Study: More Than 130 Top Congressional Staffers Are Former Lobbyists - OpenSecrets Blog OpenSecrets
This is quite the finding. No surprise really except for the extent of the influence. So you might want to contact your member of Congress, but the person you will really talk to - the staffer - might have worked for the interest you may have issues with.
This is quite the finding. No surprise really except for the extent of the influence. So you might want to contact your member of Congress, but the person you will really talk to - the staffer - might have worked for the interest you may have issues with.
How to Sue the State of Texas
In 2301, in several lectures - notable federalism and civil rights, we discussed state sovereign immunity and the concept that a state has to allow itself to be sued in order for that to be allowed as a remedy. Here's an example from Burka Blog:
The former Texas Teach coach has retained Capital Alliance, formerly known as the Eppstein Group, to oversee the filing and passage of a bill giving Leach permission to sue the state. Bryan Eppstein confirmed the facts to me in an interview earlier today.The suit is the result of what Leach has contended is a wrongful termination of his contract by Texas Tech following his suspension and subequent firing in December 2010.
Burka's post goes on to point out the part of the Texas Code that details the procedure for such bills.
FYI in case you ever need it.
The former Texas Teach coach has retained Capital Alliance, formerly known as the Eppstein Group, to oversee the filing and passage of a bill giving Leach permission to sue the state. Bryan Eppstein confirmed the facts to me in an interview earlier today.The suit is the result of what Leach has contended is a wrongful termination of his contract by Texas Tech following his suspension and subequent firing in December 2010.
Burka's post goes on to point out the part of the Texas Code that details the procedure for such bills.
FYI in case you ever need it.
One of the Roots of Gender Discrimination?
I was hoping I'd be able to work Charlie Sheen into a post, here's my chance.
Anne Holmes wonders if the comparatively light treatment Sheen is, and has been, getting over his abusive towards women is indicative of a general contempt that exists in the broader society. Perhaps this adds to this week's civil rights discussion of civil rights. Perhaps we condone certain behaviors or treatments because they fit certain assumptions we have about groups:
These assumptions — about women, about powerful men, about bad behavior — have roots that go way back but find endorsement in today’s unscripted TV culture. Indeed, it’s difficult for many to discern any difference between Mr. Sheen’s real-life, round-the-clock, recorded outbursts and the sexist narratives devised by reality television producers, in which women are routinely portrayed as backstabbing floozies, and dreadful behavior by males is explained away as a side effect of unbridled passion or too much pilsner.
Anne Holmes wonders if the comparatively light treatment Sheen is, and has been, getting over his abusive towards women is indicative of a general contempt that exists in the broader society. Perhaps this adds to this week's civil rights discussion of civil rights. Perhaps we condone certain behaviors or treatments because they fit certain assumptions we have about groups:
These assumptions — about women, about powerful men, about bad behavior — have roots that go way back but find endorsement in today’s unscripted TV culture. Indeed, it’s difficult for many to discern any difference between Mr. Sheen’s real-life, round-the-clock, recorded outbursts and the sexist narratives devised by reality television producers, in which women are routinely portrayed as backstabbing floozies, and dreadful behavior by males is explained away as a side effect of unbridled passion or too much pilsner.
Thursday, March 3, 2011
Growing Support for Gay Marriage
From Andrew Sullivan's site, evidence from the General Social Survey that, over time, support for Gay Marriage has increased substantively among the general population.
Question (from what I can tell): Gay marriage should be legal. Agree or Disagree?
Question (from what I can tell): Gay marriage should be legal. Agree or Disagree?
Women in America
This story fits with both 2301 and 2302 this week. The Obama Administration has released a report called : Women in America: Indicators of Social and Economic Well-Being. From the White House website:
In support of the Council on Women and Girls, the Office of Management and Budget and the Economics and Statistics Administration within the Department of Commerce worked together to create the Women in America (pdf) report which, for the first time in recent history, pulls together information from across the Federal statistical agencies to compile baseline information on how women are faring in the United States today and how these trends have changed over time.
It is apparently the first such survey since one commissioned by the Kennedy Administration. Gail Collins reports on the survey, which the Atlantic summarizes here:
Collins runs down some interesting highlight while looking back at how far from the last survey, when Eleanor Roosevelt prepared a similar report for John F. Kennedy. At that time, only a little more than half of all federal civil service jobs were open to women for example, and "it was perfectly legal to refuse to hire a woman for a job because of her failure to be a man." The median age for marriage for a woman was 20, Collins says. While women currently still make on average 20 cents less on the dollar than men in comparable positions, men and women are increasingly sharing the role of supporting the family economically, and that's where the potential for progress on unequal pay lies: a turning point came on "the unknown day when the average American couple started planning their futures with the presumption that there would be two paychecks."
Note the item in bold above:
At the time, there were 454 federal civil service job categories for college graduates, and more than 200 were restricted to male applicants. It was perfectly legal to refuse to hire a woman for a job because of her failure to be a man, or to refuse her credit unless she had a husband to co-sign her loan. The median age for marriage for a woman was 20, and the only job open to most women that involved a chance to travel was flight attendant.
I found this part of Collins' story also telling:
We’re a long way from the Eleanor Roosevelt Commission on the Status of Women, which was formed when there were no women on the White House staff doing anything more impressive than typing or cake decoration. “Men have to be reminded that women exist,” Mrs. Roosevelt tartly told reporters when the all-male list of top Kennedy administration appointees was released.
One of the justifications for affirmative action is that they very fact that members of an excluded group are placed in a particular position creates openings for others.
In support of the Council on Women and Girls, the Office of Management and Budget and the Economics and Statistics Administration within the Department of Commerce worked together to create the Women in America (pdf) report which, for the first time in recent history, pulls together information from across the Federal statistical agencies to compile baseline information on how women are faring in the United States today and how these trends have changed over time.
It is apparently the first such survey since one commissioned by the Kennedy Administration. Gail Collins reports on the survey, which the Atlantic summarizes here:
Collins runs down some interesting highlight while looking back at how far from the last survey, when Eleanor Roosevelt prepared a similar report for John F. Kennedy. At that time, only a little more than half of all federal civil service jobs were open to women for example, and "it was perfectly legal to refuse to hire a woman for a job because of her failure to be a man." The median age for marriage for a woman was 20, Collins says. While women currently still make on average 20 cents less on the dollar than men in comparable positions, men and women are increasingly sharing the role of supporting the family economically, and that's where the potential for progress on unequal pay lies: a turning point came on "the unknown day when the average American couple started planning their futures with the presumption that there would be two paychecks."
Note the item in bold above:
At the time, there were 454 federal civil service job categories for college graduates, and more than 200 were restricted to male applicants. It was perfectly legal to refuse to hire a woman for a job because of her failure to be a man, or to refuse her credit unless she had a husband to co-sign her loan. The median age for marriage for a woman was 20, and the only job open to most women that involved a chance to travel was flight attendant.
I found this part of Collins' story also telling:
We’re a long way from the Eleanor Roosevelt Commission on the Status of Women, which was formed when there were no women on the White House staff doing anything more impressive than typing or cake decoration. “Men have to be reminded that women exist,” Mrs. Roosevelt tartly told reporters when the all-male list of top Kennedy administration appointees was released.
One of the justifications for affirmative action is that they very fact that members of an excluded group are placed in a particular position creates openings for others.
Public v Private Compensation
Here's a link to a study comparing public sector pay vs. private sector pay across the states. Texas is at the bottom of the list in benefits for public employees.
Limiting the EPA
The NYT reports on efforts to curtail the regulatory activities of the EPA. While agency scientists have argued that some drilling techniques pollute waterways and the watertable, congressional and executive efforts have successfully limited their ability to implement limitations.
Here's the difficult question. Since they are not elected, are these limitations, even if they do lead to increased water pollution, democratic?
Here's the difficult question. Since they are not elected, are these limitations, even if they do lead to increased water pollution, democratic?
Wednesday, March 2, 2011
Two Week Stopgap Spending Measure Signed In to Law - COnflict Between House and Senate Escalates.
From the NYT:
President Obama called on Wednesday for high-level negotiations to bridge major budgetary differences between Congressional Republicans and Democrats after the Senate passed a measure to buy at least two more weeks for talks.
After the Senate’s bipartisan 91-to-9 vote in a favor of a bill that keeps federal agencies open through March 18 while enacting $4 billion in new spending cuts, Mr. Obama urged House and Senate leaders to meet with Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. and two top aides to work out a longer-term budget agreement. . . .
The two-week measure approved Wednesday includes a down payment on those cuts by slicing $4 billion from spending by rescinding nearly $2.8 billion that would have been spent on local projects through earmarks that both parties have banned. Another $1.2 billion is saved by eliminating eight programs both Republicans and Democrats have agreed to cut in the past.
Those cuts include $75 million in election grants; $29 million to help rural communities develop broadband networks; $30 million in unneeded Smithsonian renovation money; $250 million for a reading program;, and $650 million in added highway spending.
From the Hill, background on the increased contention between the two chambers.
President Obama called on Wednesday for high-level negotiations to bridge major budgetary differences between Congressional Republicans and Democrats after the Senate passed a measure to buy at least two more weeks for talks.
After the Senate’s bipartisan 91-to-9 vote in a favor of a bill that keeps federal agencies open through March 18 while enacting $4 billion in new spending cuts, Mr. Obama urged House and Senate leaders to meet with Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. and two top aides to work out a longer-term budget agreement. . . .
The two-week measure approved Wednesday includes a down payment on those cuts by slicing $4 billion from spending by rescinding nearly $2.8 billion that would have been spent on local projects through earmarks that both parties have banned. Another $1.2 billion is saved by eliminating eight programs both Republicans and Democrats have agreed to cut in the past.
Those cuts include $75 million in election grants; $29 million to help rural communities develop broadband networks; $30 million in unneeded Smithsonian renovation money; $250 million for a reading program;, and $650 million in added highway spending.
From the Hill, background on the increased contention between the two chambers.
Corporations are not Persons After All
From the NYT:
In a lively decision that relied as much on dictionaries, grammar and usage as it did on legal analysis, the Supreme Court on Tuesday ruled unanimously that corporations have no personal privacy rights for purposes of the Freedom of Information Act.
AT&T, the plaintiff in the case, had sought to block the release of documents it had provided to the government. It argued that the documents should be withheld under an exemption to the law that applied to records that “could reasonably be expected to constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.”
- Full info from ScotusBlog: Federal Communications Commission v. AT&T, Inc.
- Slate thinks John Roberts might be our funniest justice yet.
In a lively decision that relied as much on dictionaries, grammar and usage as it did on legal analysis, the Supreme Court on Tuesday ruled unanimously that corporations have no personal privacy rights for purposes of the Freedom of Information Act.
AT&T, the plaintiff in the case, had sought to block the release of documents it had provided to the government. It argued that the documents should be withheld under an exemption to the law that applied to records that “could reasonably be expected to constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.”
- Full info from ScotusBlog: Federal Communications Commission v. AT&T, Inc.
- Slate thinks John Roberts might be our funniest justice yet.
Westboro Baptist Church Wins
This is not a surprise. Here's the story from the NYT:
The First Amendment protects hateful protests at military funerals, the Supreme Court ruled on Wednesday in an 8-to-1 decision.
“Speech is powerful,” Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. wrote for the majority. “It can stir people to action, move them to tears of both joy and sorrow, and — as it did here — inflict great pain.”
But under the First Amendment, he went on, “we cannot react to that pain by punishing the speaker.” Instead, the national commitment to free speech, he said, requires protection of “even hurtful speech on public issues to ensure that we do not stifle public debate.”
The decision, from which Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. dissented, was the latest in a series of muscular First Amendment rulings from the Roberts court. Last year, the court struck down laws limiting speech about politics and making it a crime to distribute depictions of cruelty to animals.
Reaction from ScotusBlog:
The Court concluded that the protests in this case met the public interest standard. “The ‘content’ of Westboro’s signs plainly relates to broad issues of interest to society at large, rather than matters of ‘purely private concern.’ The placards read ‘God Hates the USA/Thank God for 9/11,’ ‘America is Doomed,’ ‘Don’t Pray for the USA,’ … While those messages may fall short of refined social or political commentary, the issues they highlight—the political and moral conduct of the United States and its citizens, the fate of our Nation, homosexuality in the military, and scandals involving the Catholic Clergy—are matters of public import.”
The fact that the protesters appear at a funeral and refer to a particular individual – such as the service member for whom the funeral is being held – does not convert the protest into a discussion of a private matter unprotected by the First Amendment. ...
The Court left undecided two important issues that it concluded were not squarely presented. First, it recognized that the government may regulate the “time, place, and manner” of speech and that the State of Maryland (where this protest was held) subsequently enacted a statute governing the circumstances in which funeral protests may be held. The Court did not decide the constitutionality of that statute or other similar federal and state laws. The Court may have been motivated to grant review in the case and still affirm in order to issue an opinion that, unlike the arguable implications of the court of appeals’ decision, did not call such statutes into question.
Second, the Court acknowledged that the plaintiffs had also brought suit on the basis of statements made by the defendants on a website. But it concluded that the issue had been waived by not preserving it in the petition for certiorari and only briefly mentioning it in the merits briefing. The Court was therefore able to limit its decision strictly to the context of funeral protests.
The First Amendment protects hateful protests at military funerals, the Supreme Court ruled on Wednesday in an 8-to-1 decision.
“Speech is powerful,” Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. wrote for the majority. “It can stir people to action, move them to tears of both joy and sorrow, and — as it did here — inflict great pain.”
But under the First Amendment, he went on, “we cannot react to that pain by punishing the speaker.” Instead, the national commitment to free speech, he said, requires protection of “even hurtful speech on public issues to ensure that we do not stifle public debate.”
The decision, from which Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. dissented, was the latest in a series of muscular First Amendment rulings from the Roberts court. Last year, the court struck down laws limiting speech about politics and making it a crime to distribute depictions of cruelty to animals.
Reaction from ScotusBlog:
The Court concluded that the protests in this case met the public interest standard. “The ‘content’ of Westboro’s signs plainly relates to broad issues of interest to society at large, rather than matters of ‘purely private concern.’ The placards read ‘God Hates the USA/Thank God for 9/11,’ ‘America is Doomed,’ ‘Don’t Pray for the USA,’ … While those messages may fall short of refined social or political commentary, the issues they highlight—the political and moral conduct of the United States and its citizens, the fate of our Nation, homosexuality in the military, and scandals involving the Catholic Clergy—are matters of public import.”
The fact that the protesters appear at a funeral and refer to a particular individual – such as the service member for whom the funeral is being held – does not convert the protest into a discussion of a private matter unprotected by the First Amendment. ...
The Court left undecided two important issues that it concluded were not squarely presented. First, it recognized that the government may regulate the “time, place, and manner” of speech and that the State of Maryland (where this protest was held) subsequently enacted a statute governing the circumstances in which funeral protests may be held. The Court did not decide the constitutionality of that statute or other similar federal and state laws. The Court may have been motivated to grant review in the case and still affirm in order to issue an opinion that, unlike the arguable implications of the court of appeals’ decision, did not call such statutes into question.
Second, the Court acknowledged that the plaintiffs had also brought suit on the basis of statements made by the defendants on a website. But it concluded that the issue had been waived by not preserving it in the petition for certiorari and only briefly mentioning it in the merits briefing. The Court was therefore able to limit its decision strictly to the context of funeral protests.
Still Unsure About the Selective Incorporation of the Bill of Rights?
For my 2301's, in case you are still confused about the selective incorporation of the Bill of Rights to the states, or any issue associated with how the 14th Amendment has made the Bill of Rights applicable to state governments, I strongly suggest listening to Justice Alito's reading of the majority decision in McDonald v. Chicago.
Ashcroft v. al-Kidd
The Supreme Court will hear arguments on a case involving both the material witness statute and whether the Attorney General can be sued.
The case is Ashcroft v. al-Kidd.
- ScotusBlog. Argument preview: An old law in new guises?
- ScotusBlog: Ashcroft v al-Kidd.
- Wikipedia: Material Witness Statute.
- Wikipedia: Qualified Immunity Doctrine.
The case is Ashcroft v. al-Kidd.
- ScotusBlog. Argument preview: An old law in new guises?
- ScotusBlog: Ashcroft v al-Kidd.
- Wikipedia: Material Witness Statute.
- Wikipedia: Qualified Immunity Doctrine.
Tuesday, March 1, 2011
Regarding the Right to File Class Action Lawsuits
From Business Wire:
The United Food and Commercial Workers International Union (UFCW), AFL-CIO, and Change to Win have filed a joint amicus brief to the U.S. Supreme Court supporting the plaintiffs in the Dukes v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., sex discrimination case. A joint statement follows:
“For more than 45 years, American workers have sought protection from the courts for equal treatment in the workplace. Workers have joined together to remedy widespread discriminatory workplace practices through class action proceedings and by applying the nation’s civil rights standards to their workplaces. Today, Walmart is attempting to undo that standard by claiming its female associates have no right to appeal for justice as a class.
In our amicus brief to the U.S. Supreme Court, we ask the court to uphold the fundamental pillar of the Civil Rights Act and to ensure that the class action process remains open to workers in all industries.
It continues...
- For more information on the Dukes v. Walmart Stores case, visit www.walmartclass.com
The United Food and Commercial Workers International Union (UFCW), AFL-CIO, and Change to Win have filed a joint amicus brief to the U.S. Supreme Court supporting the plaintiffs in the Dukes v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., sex discrimination case. A joint statement follows:
“For more than 45 years, American workers have sought protection from the courts for equal treatment in the workplace. Workers have joined together to remedy widespread discriminatory workplace practices through class action proceedings and by applying the nation’s civil rights standards to their workplaces. Today, Walmart is attempting to undo that standard by claiming its female associates have no right to appeal for justice as a class.
In our amicus brief to the U.S. Supreme Court, we ask the court to uphold the fundamental pillar of the Civil Rights Act and to ensure that the class action process remains open to workers in all industries.
It continues...
- For more information on the Dukes v. Walmart Stores case, visit www.walmartclass.com
The ACLU Defends The Ten Commandments In School
Via the Daily Dish: As long as they're posted by students exercising free speech:
The ACLU of Virginia has come to the defense of a group of Christian athletes in Floyd County.
In an e-mail sent Friday afternoon, the civil liberties group said it had e-mailed the principal of Floyd Co. High School (FHS), and urged him to allow students to post their personal views, including copies of the Ten Commandments, on the lockers.
The e-mail comes one day after WSLS first reported that members of the Fellowship of Christian Athletes at FHS claims school leaders took down the copies of the Ten Commandments on their lockers.
School leaders would not confirm or deny the incident to WSLS. They would only state school policy that messages other than those such as 'happy birthday,' or 'go team,' were allowed to be posted on lockers without school administration permission.
The e-mail from ACLU of Virginia legal director Rebecca K. Glenberg drew a distinction between "school imposed religious expression," and "the personal religion expressions of students." The ACLU distinguishes the situation at FHS, from the Ten Commandments controversy in the Giles County Schools system.
"Schools have the authority to ban all displays on school property," said ACLU of Virginia Executive Director Kent Willis, in a news release. "But if a school allows students to post some kinds of personal messages on their lockers, it must also allow other kinds of messages, including those that have religious content The removal of the Ten Commandments from student lockers at Floyd County High School appears to violate the First Amendment rights of students by discriminating against religious expression," added Willis in the release.
The ACLU of Virginia has come to the defense of a group of Christian athletes in Floyd County.
In an e-mail sent Friday afternoon, the civil liberties group said it had e-mailed the principal of Floyd Co. High School (FHS), and urged him to allow students to post their personal views, including copies of the Ten Commandments, on the lockers.
The e-mail comes one day after WSLS first reported that members of the Fellowship of Christian Athletes at FHS claims school leaders took down the copies of the Ten Commandments on their lockers.
School leaders would not confirm or deny the incident to WSLS. They would only state school policy that messages other than those such as 'happy birthday,' or 'go team,' were allowed to be posted on lockers without school administration permission.
The e-mail from ACLU of Virginia legal director Rebecca K. Glenberg drew a distinction between "school imposed religious expression," and "the personal religion expressions of students." The ACLU distinguishes the situation at FHS, from the Ten Commandments controversy in the Giles County Schools system.
"Schools have the authority to ban all displays on school property," said ACLU of Virginia Executive Director Kent Willis, in a news release. "But if a school allows students to post some kinds of personal messages on their lockers, it must also allow other kinds of messages, including those that have religious content The removal of the Ten Commandments from student lockers at Floyd County High School appears to violate the First Amendment rights of students by discriminating against religious expression," added Willis in the release.
Government is not a Business
So there:
Matt Yglesias and Steve Greene both hit on an important theme today: the rather perverse notion that government should be run like a business. As Steve notes, school administrators who follow this logic end up seeking to remove special needs kids from schools because they're too costly to educate. Matt takes the argument to its logical conclusion: people over the age of 70 are unproductive and harmful to the bottom line, and should therefore be terminated and harvested for their organs.
There's nothing wrong with the idea that governments should be run more efficiently or with better customer service, and if that's what people mean, they should say that. But to say that governments should be run like businesses is to reveal ignorance about what either governments or businesses -- or both -- are. Businesses exist to turn a profit. They provide goods and services to others only insofar as it is profitable to do so, and they will set prices in a way that ends up prohibiting a significant sector of the population from obtaining those goods and services. And that, of course, is fine, because they're businesses. Governments, conversely, provide public goods and services -- things that we have determined are people's right to possess. This is inherently an unprofitable enterprise. Apple would not last long if it had to provide every American with an iPad.
Matt Yglesias and Steve Greene both hit on an important theme today: the rather perverse notion that government should be run like a business. As Steve notes, school administrators who follow this logic end up seeking to remove special needs kids from schools because they're too costly to educate. Matt takes the argument to its logical conclusion: people over the age of 70 are unproductive and harmful to the bottom line, and should therefore be terminated and harvested for their organs.
There's nothing wrong with the idea that governments should be run more efficiently or with better customer service, and if that's what people mean, they should say that. But to say that governments should be run like businesses is to reveal ignorance about what either governments or businesses -- or both -- are. Businesses exist to turn a profit. They provide goods and services to others only insofar as it is profitable to do so, and they will set prices in a way that ends up prohibiting a significant sector of the population from obtaining those goods and services. And that, of course, is fine, because they're businesses. Governments, conversely, provide public goods and services -- things that we have determined are people's right to possess. This is inherently an unprofitable enterprise. Apple would not last long if it had to provide every American with an iPad.
The Latest From the CBO
The CBO director gave a recent address about the outlook for the economy and the budget complete with slides I plan to steal for future lectures.
Old v Young: The future has no union.
In class I mentioned that, in my opinion, the budget cutting process would indicate which interests are powerful and which are not. Of course recent history reminds us that the interests of the old are better served than those of the young, and David Brooks sees this playing out in budget battles across the nation. He's worried that this outs future prosperity at risk:
A second austerity principle is this: Trim from the old to invest in the young. We should adjust pension promises and reduce the amount of money spent on health care during the last months of life so we can preserve programs for those who are growing and learning the most.
So far, this principle is being trampled. Seniors vote. Taxpayers revolt. Public employees occupy capitol buildings to protect their bargaining power for future benefits negotiations. As a result, seniors are being protected while children are getting pummeled. If you look across the country, you see education financing getting sliced — often in the most thoughtless and destructive ways. The future has no union.
Clive Crook adds to the sentiment and points out that part of the current dispute with labor unons is that in the past they traded low wages for high future benefits. This shifted the costs to future taxpayers.
Paul Krugman wonders if Texas is neglecting our next generation of children.
A second austerity principle is this: Trim from the old to invest in the young. We should adjust pension promises and reduce the amount of money spent on health care during the last months of life so we can preserve programs for those who are growing and learning the most.
So far, this principle is being trampled. Seniors vote. Taxpayers revolt. Public employees occupy capitol buildings to protect their bargaining power for future benefits negotiations. As a result, seniors are being protected while children are getting pummeled. If you look across the country, you see education financing getting sliced — often in the most thoughtless and destructive ways. The future has no union.
Clive Crook adds to the sentiment and points out that part of the current dispute with labor unons is that in the past they traded low wages for high future benefits. This shifted the costs to future taxpayers.
Paul Krugman wonders if Texas is neglecting our next generation of children.
Saturday, February 26, 2011
Why is creating new felonies the solution to every social problem?
Grits for Breakfast asks a very interesting question:
Talk about cognitive dissonance: AP reports, "Bill would make hiring illegal workers a felony," while the Texas Tribune adds, "But maids are OK."
As if for a second there's remotely enough extra space in Texas prisons or jails to create a new class of "criminal" businesses and entrepreneurs! It's absurd to even imagine. But still, this and other similarly draconian measures are being debated seriously at the same time as $584-$786 million cuts are being demanded at TDCJ.
Are there better remedies available? Or is there something uniquely Texan about throwing everyone in jail?
Talk about cognitive dissonance: AP reports, "Bill would make hiring illegal workers a felony," while the Texas Tribune adds, "But maids are OK."
As if for a second there's remotely enough extra space in Texas prisons or jails to create a new class of "criminal" businesses and entrepreneurs! It's absurd to even imagine. But still, this and other similarly draconian measures are being debated seriously at the same time as $584-$786 million cuts are being demanded at TDCJ.
Are there better remedies available? Or is there something uniquely Texan about throwing everyone in jail?
Was James Buchanan our Worst President?
There are many who argued that Buchanan's actions as president made the Civil War inevitable. As we continue discussing the presidency in 2302, and soon discuss what makes for good and great presidents, we should also try to figure out what makes for bad ones.
From the NYT:
The question remains why such an experienced and intelligent president failed so miserably. Americans lavish attention on their successful presidents; yet there is much to be learned from our presidential failures. Buchanan did not suffer from feebleness or age or the insufficient powers of 19th century executives. Rather, he failed because he used that power with such partiality as an activist, ideologically driven executive. He had chosen sides in the great crisis and did not listen.
Negligent about slavery, but greatly attached to the values of white southerners, he went beyond political custom by castigating Republicans as disloyal. Yet his vision for the future of the United States was at odds with most Americans, whose definition of freedom did not include a slave republic dominated by a minority of slave owners. In one of the essential ingredients of successful leadership, Buchanan had failed to interpret his nation. Tragically, his administration served to encourage the future enemies of the republic as he gave the Confederate States of America precious time and support to organize for war.
From the NYT:
The question remains why such an experienced and intelligent president failed so miserably. Americans lavish attention on their successful presidents; yet there is much to be learned from our presidential failures. Buchanan did not suffer from feebleness or age or the insufficient powers of 19th century executives. Rather, he failed because he used that power with such partiality as an activist, ideologically driven executive. He had chosen sides in the great crisis and did not listen.
Negligent about slavery, but greatly attached to the values of white southerners, he went beyond political custom by castigating Republicans as disloyal. Yet his vision for the future of the United States was at odds with most Americans, whose definition of freedom did not include a slave republic dominated by a minority of slave owners. In one of the essential ingredients of successful leadership, Buchanan had failed to interpret his nation. Tragically, his administration served to encourage the future enemies of the republic as he gave the Confederate States of America precious time and support to organize for war.
Weakening Unions
Howard Finemann adds to the idea that the Wisconsin attempts to minimize the collective bargaining rights of public sector unions is part of a broader attempt to weaken a key supporter of the Democratic Party prior to the 2012 election. This is especially urgent since unions have the same expanded ability to engage in political activities following the Citizens United decision which rules they have the same free speech rights as people. He also reports that Republicans had expected to do far better in the 2010 elections than they did.
The real political math in Wisconsin isn't about the state budget or the collective-bargaining rights of public employees there. It is about which party controls governorships and, with them, the balance of power on the ground in the 2012 elections.
For all of the valid concern about reining in state spending -- a concern shared by politicians and voters of all labels -- the underlying strategic Wisconsin story is this: Gov. Scott Walker, a Tea Party-tinged Republican, is the advance guard of a new GOP push to dismantle public-sector unions as an electoral force.
Last fall, GOP operatives hoped and expected to take away as many as 20 governorships from the Democrats. They ended up nabbing 12.
What happened? Well, according to postgame analysis by GOP strategists and Gov. Haley Barbour of Mississippi -- who chaired the Republican Governors Association in 2010 -- the power and money of public-employee unions was the reason.
"We are never going to win most of these states until we can do something about those unions," one key operative said at a Washington dinner in November. "They have so much incentive to work hard politically because they are, in effect, electing their own bosses -- the Democrats who are going to pay them better and give them more benefits. And the Democrats have the incentive to be generous."
The real political math in Wisconsin isn't about the state budget or the collective-bargaining rights of public employees there. It is about which party controls governorships and, with them, the balance of power on the ground in the 2012 elections.
For all of the valid concern about reining in state spending -- a concern shared by politicians and voters of all labels -- the underlying strategic Wisconsin story is this: Gov. Scott Walker, a Tea Party-tinged Republican, is the advance guard of a new GOP push to dismantle public-sector unions as an electoral force.
Last fall, GOP operatives hoped and expected to take away as many as 20 governorships from the Democrats. They ended up nabbing 12.
What happened? Well, according to postgame analysis by GOP strategists and Gov. Haley Barbour of Mississippi -- who chaired the Republican Governors Association in 2010 -- the power and money of public-employee unions was the reason.
"We are never going to win most of these states until we can do something about those unions," one key operative said at a Washington dinner in November. "They have so much incentive to work hard politically because they are, in effect, electing their own bosses -- the Democrats who are going to pay them better and give them more benefits. And the Democrats have the incentive to be generous."
The Expansive Powers of the President
Eric Posner reviews two books about the expansive powers of the president and the federal executive in general. His reviews illustrate some of the problems with executive power that we will cover this week.
The first is The Discretionary President: The Promise and Peril of Executive Power, which attempts to determine when and under what conditions a president may be able to justifiably exceed the limits placed on his powers by the constitution:
He argues that the president needs the discretionary power to disregard the law during emergencies, but also that actions taken pursuant to this power should not be regarded as within his legal power. The president may use his “extra-constitutional” authority to take such actions if they are necessary to protect the nation; the actions must be taken during “extraordinary” rather than ordinary times, and they must not reflect the president’s personal views about what is morally important or politically expedient. If the president does not satisfy these conditions, the public must pressure Congress to impeach him. If he does satisfy them, his actions undergo a kind of constitutional baptism that washes away the taint of illegality.
For all the talk we have offered regarding how the presidents is not allowed prerogative powers, this isn't an absolute restriction. It must be accepted that on occasion a president will have go beyond constitutional limitations, but when that happens, other restrictions must kick in gear:
Hobbes, Locke, Hamilton, Madison, Jefferson, and Lincoln march splendidly across its pages, dispensing wisdom in extraordinary prose. The Americans in that group of authorities all agreed that the president of the United States must have the discretionary authority to disregard laws where necessary to address an emergency. They disagreed about whether the president enjoys implicit constitutional authority to take these actions or must act outside the Constitution. This distinction mattered to the founders and to Lincoln because they had to explain how their visions of limited government left the executive the discretionary powers it needs to protect the nation. But history settled the debate. Executive prerogative has been institutionalized. The only remedy for abusive behavior by presidents is political: in impeachment or at the polls.
The second book is The Decline and Fall of the American Republic which details the problems associated with the expansion of executive power that we will cover this week. The book's author outlines remedies Posner finds unrealistic and in his conclusion has this to say about the factors leading to the increase of presidential power:
The executive has evolved to its present state because it is the one political institution that can address modern problems. The clumsy, many-headed Congress is hampered by its over-elaborate structure and its senatorial half, where the threshold for action is so high and senators from small states have excessive power. The courts are too weak, passive, and decentralized. State governments are too small. The military lacks people’s trust, at least as far as civilian governance is concerned, because it is not a democratic institution. Precisely because the Founders created an executive office with ill-defined powers, this office could rise to meet modern challenges. James Madison’s vision of checks and balances has given way to a system of executive primacy, but rather than leading to tyranny, as he feared, democratic politics has-so far—kept the American president, sometimes for better and sometimes for worse, under control.
The increased power of the executive may have been inevitable.
The first is The Discretionary President: The Promise and Peril of Executive Power, which attempts to determine when and under what conditions a president may be able to justifiably exceed the limits placed on his powers by the constitution:
He argues that the president needs the discretionary power to disregard the law during emergencies, but also that actions taken pursuant to this power should not be regarded as within his legal power. The president may use his “extra-constitutional” authority to take such actions if they are necessary to protect the nation; the actions must be taken during “extraordinary” rather than ordinary times, and they must not reflect the president’s personal views about what is morally important or politically expedient. If the president does not satisfy these conditions, the public must pressure Congress to impeach him. If he does satisfy them, his actions undergo a kind of constitutional baptism that washes away the taint of illegality.
For all the talk we have offered regarding how the presidents is not allowed prerogative powers, this isn't an absolute restriction. It must be accepted that on occasion a president will have go beyond constitutional limitations, but when that happens, other restrictions must kick in gear:
Hobbes, Locke, Hamilton, Madison, Jefferson, and Lincoln march splendidly across its pages, dispensing wisdom in extraordinary prose. The Americans in that group of authorities all agreed that the president of the United States must have the discretionary authority to disregard laws where necessary to address an emergency. They disagreed about whether the president enjoys implicit constitutional authority to take these actions or must act outside the Constitution. This distinction mattered to the founders and to Lincoln because they had to explain how their visions of limited government left the executive the discretionary powers it needs to protect the nation. But history settled the debate. Executive prerogative has been institutionalized. The only remedy for abusive behavior by presidents is political: in impeachment or at the polls.
The second book is The Decline and Fall of the American Republic which details the problems associated with the expansion of executive power that we will cover this week. The book's author outlines remedies Posner finds unrealistic and in his conclusion has this to say about the factors leading to the increase of presidential power:
The executive has evolved to its present state because it is the one political institution that can address modern problems. The clumsy, many-headed Congress is hampered by its over-elaborate structure and its senatorial half, where the threshold for action is so high and senators from small states have excessive power. The courts are too weak, passive, and decentralized. State governments are too small. The military lacks people’s trust, at least as far as civilian governance is concerned, because it is not a democratic institution. Precisely because the Founders created an executive office with ill-defined powers, this office could rise to meet modern challenges. James Madison’s vision of checks and balances has given way to a system of executive primacy, but rather than leading to tyranny, as he feared, democratic politics has-so far—kept the American president, sometimes for better and sometimes for worse, under control.
The increased power of the executive may have been inevitable.
The Trouble With Open Floor Procedures
For 2302, a reminder of our discussion of floor procedures and the power of the Speaker. Jonathan Bernstein argues that Boehner's otherwise laudatory allowance of unlimited amendments on the floor of the House during the recent debate about spending on the 2011 budget has led to an inevitable budget showdown:
When Republicans brought the funding bill to the House floor, Boehner allowed for the introduction of hundreds of amendments, instead of following the usual procedure of having the House Rules Committee screen out most amendments. For Republican members of the House, it was a great opportunity to fulfill campaign promises by authoring amendments, many of which were approved, on all sorts of policy issues. Indeed, instead of just raising or lowering spending levels for federal agencies, these amendments prohibit the government from using any funds to carry out laws that House Republicans don’t like. So, for example, the funding bill now tells the EPA that it cannot regulate greenhouse gases; it tells the FCC that it may not implement net- neutrality regulations; it cuts funding from Planned Parenthood; and, perhaps most critically, it blocks money needed to carry out health care reform.
This means that, instead of sending the Senate a bill carefully tailored for a major budget fight, the House has delivered one containing a hodgepodge of policy fights. Consequently, it will be much harder to find common ground before time runs out to prevent a shutdown.
So the budget bill is not only about the budget. Due to the amendments that have been added to it, it is also about numerous other policy issues as well. Policy conflicts, Bernstein suggests, will lead to an inevitable stalemate and shut down.
When Republicans brought the funding bill to the House floor, Boehner allowed for the introduction of hundreds of amendments, instead of following the usual procedure of having the House Rules Committee screen out most amendments. For Republican members of the House, it was a great opportunity to fulfill campaign promises by authoring amendments, many of which were approved, on all sorts of policy issues. Indeed, instead of just raising or lowering spending levels for federal agencies, these amendments prohibit the government from using any funds to carry out laws that House Republicans don’t like. So, for example, the funding bill now tells the EPA that it cannot regulate greenhouse gases; it tells the FCC that it may not implement net- neutrality regulations; it cuts funding from Planned Parenthood; and, perhaps most critically, it blocks money needed to carry out health care reform.
This means that, instead of sending the Senate a bill carefully tailored for a major budget fight, the House has delivered one containing a hodgepodge of policy fights. Consequently, it will be much harder to find common ground before time runs out to prevent a shutdown.
So the budget bill is not only about the budget. Due to the amendments that have been added to it, it is also about numerous other policy issues as well. Policy conflicts, Bernstein suggests, will lead to an inevitable stalemate and shut down.
Friday, February 25, 2011
Invoking 'State Secrets': Still the Status Quo?
From Talking Points Memo:
Earlier this week, we flagged an interesting piece in the New York Times about the U.S. government invoking the state secrets privilege to block evidence in lawsuits against a contractor who had duped the U.S. government into spending millions on what many now consider to be fake counterterrorism technology.
According to another recent report, the U.S. invoked state secrets to block a personal injury lawsuit by a CIA employee who alleged that environmental contamination in his home made his family sick. That got us wondering about what else the U.S. has invoked state secrets for--particularly under the Obama administration, which had pledged to end abuses of the privilege.
"Numbers aside, there is a great deal of continuity between the Bush and Obama administrations," Steven Aftergood, a government secrecy expert with the Federation of American Scientists, told us. "And there is no case where the Obama administration has rescinded a claim of state secrets privilege that was advanced by the Bush [administration]."
Earlier this week, we flagged an interesting piece in the New York Times about the U.S. government invoking the state secrets privilege to block evidence in lawsuits against a contractor who had duped the U.S. government into spending millions on what many now consider to be fake counterterrorism technology.
According to another recent report, the U.S. invoked state secrets to block a personal injury lawsuit by a CIA employee who alleged that environmental contamination in his home made his family sick. That got us wondering about what else the U.S. has invoked state secrets for--particularly under the Obama administration, which had pledged to end abuses of the privilege.
"Numbers aside, there is a great deal of continuity between the Bush and Obama administrations," Steven Aftergood, a government secrecy expert with the Federation of American Scientists, told us. "And there is no case where the Obama administration has rescinded a claim of state secrets privilege that was advanced by the Bush [administration]."
Obama Administration Will not Defend DOMA
From the NYT:
President Obama, in a striking legal and political shift, has determined that the Defense of Marriage Act — the 1996 law that bars federal recognition of same-sex marriages — is unconstitutional, and has directed the Justice Department to stop defending the law in court, the administration said Wednesday.
Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. announced the decision in a letter to members of Congress. In it, he said the administration was taking the extraordinary step of refusing to defend the law, despite having done so during Mr. Obama’s first two years in the White House. - Letter from Justice Department.
Commentary:
- Is this an Executive Power Grab?
- Does the President Have a Duty to Defend Laws Passed by Congress?
President Obama, in a striking legal and political shift, has determined that the Defense of Marriage Act — the 1996 law that bars federal recognition of same-sex marriages — is unconstitutional, and has directed the Justice Department to stop defending the law in court, the administration said Wednesday.
Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. announced the decision in a letter to members of Congress. In it, he said the administration was taking the extraordinary step of refusing to defend the law, despite having done so during Mr. Obama’s first two years in the White House. - Letter from Justice Department.
Commentary:
- Is this an Executive Power Grab?
- Does the President Have a Duty to Defend Laws Passed by Congress?
FCC Chairman Defends "Net Neutrality" | C-SPAN
FCC Chairman Defends "Net Neutrality" C-SPAN
For 2302's discussion of the evolving executive branch next week.
For 2302's discussion of the evolving executive branch next week.
Shouting "Shoot Obama" in Georgia
Since we discussed limits to free speech in 2301, how about the elderly man who asked "who is going to shoot Obama?" in a town hall meeting.
Is this a constitutionally protected question? a veiled threat? an invitation?
Plum Line discusses the Secret Services response: one group who took this seriously is the Secret Service. According to Ed Donovan, a Secret Service spokesman, the situation has been looked into.
"We're aware of the incident and the appropriate steps were taken," Donovan told me. "At this point it's a closed matter."
A law enforcement source confirmed that the Secret Service interviewed the constituent and determined that he or she was an "elderly person" who now regrets making a bad joke.
"In this case this was poor taste," the source says. "The person realized that."
The Atlantic Maganize recently ran an interesting article looking inside the Secret Service.
Here's a related court case from C-Span:
Ardith McPherson was a deputy constable and clerical employee serving in Harris County, Texas. Upon hearing about the assassination attempt on President Ronald Reagan on March 30, 1981, she told a coworker, "If they go for him again, I hope they get him." Another co-worker overheard the comment and reported it to Constable Walter Rankin, who then fired McPherson.
Is this a constitutionally protected question? a veiled threat? an invitation?
Plum Line discusses the Secret Services response: one group who took this seriously is the Secret Service. According to Ed Donovan, a Secret Service spokesman, the situation has been looked into.
"We're aware of the incident and the appropriate steps were taken," Donovan told me. "At this point it's a closed matter."
A law enforcement source confirmed that the Secret Service interviewed the constituent and determined that he or she was an "elderly person" who now regrets making a bad joke.
"In this case this was poor taste," the source says. "The person realized that."
The Atlantic Maganize recently ran an interesting article looking inside the Secret Service.
Here's a related court case from C-Span:
Ardith McPherson was a deputy constable and clerical employee serving in Harris County, Texas. Upon hearing about the assassination attempt on President Ronald Reagan on March 30, 1981, she told a coworker, "If they go for him again, I hope they get him." Another co-worker overheard the comment and reported it to Constable Walter Rankin, who then fired McPherson.
Paul Burka on Texas' Structural Deficit
From Burka Blog, a neat summary of how Texas got into the current deficit mess. It's more complicated than you think.
Standard and Poor's Comments on the Texas Budget Shortfall
From the Austin American Statesman:
Texas’ cuts-only approach to its budget shortfall won’t solve the state’s long-term fiscal problems, according to Standard & Poor’s, a major bond rating agency.
“We believe that a balanced approach that includes both revenue enhancements and expenditure cuts has a higher potential of success in preserving the state’s long-term structural budget balance than a strategy that relies solely on expenditure cutbacks,” wrote S&P credit analyst Horacio Aldrete-Sanchez in a report released last week.
Though S&P is not likely to join the Texas Forward coalition, the analyst’s language mirrors that of the education groups, health and human service advocates and faith leaders that have decried the deep budget cuts.
Aldrete-Sanchez also emphasized that the state’s budget hole is not a one-time problem that will go away as the economy improves.
“In our view, the state’s budget imbalance is likely to reappear or persist beyond the upcoming biennium unless other sources of revenue or additional budgetary flexibility are identified to fill this growing funding gap,” the analysis continues.
As we discussed in 2302, Texas is a "pay as you go" state so it cannot run deficits, but recent amendments to our constitution have allowed for bonds to be sold to fund certain items like prisons. While Standard and Poor's still rates Texas bonds at a high level, this could change.
- Relevant state agency: Texas Bond Review Board.
- Commentary from Paul Burka:
The refusal of Texas’s leaders to raise revenue is imperiling the state’s fiscal stability. We raise money only by the most expensive means–borrowing. Our revenue and tax structure is untenable. We have a nonperforming business tax that has created a permanent structural budget deficit, and our state leaders, who have known about this since 2006, when they paid no heed to the comptroller’s fiscal note, continue to pretend that it doesn’t exist.
Texas’ cuts-only approach to its budget shortfall won’t solve the state’s long-term fiscal problems, according to Standard & Poor’s, a major bond rating agency.
“We believe that a balanced approach that includes both revenue enhancements and expenditure cuts has a higher potential of success in preserving the state’s long-term structural budget balance than a strategy that relies solely on expenditure cutbacks,” wrote S&P credit analyst Horacio Aldrete-Sanchez in a report released last week.
Though S&P is not likely to join the Texas Forward coalition, the analyst’s language mirrors that of the education groups, health and human service advocates and faith leaders that have decried the deep budget cuts.
Aldrete-Sanchez also emphasized that the state’s budget hole is not a one-time problem that will go away as the economy improves.
“In our view, the state’s budget imbalance is likely to reappear or persist beyond the upcoming biennium unless other sources of revenue or additional budgetary flexibility are identified to fill this growing funding gap,” the analysis continues.
As we discussed in 2302, Texas is a "pay as you go" state so it cannot run deficits, but recent amendments to our constitution have allowed for bonds to be sold to fund certain items like prisons. While Standard and Poor's still rates Texas bonds at a high level, this could change.
- Relevant state agency: Texas Bond Review Board.
- Commentary from Paul Burka:
The refusal of Texas’s leaders to raise revenue is imperiling the state’s fiscal stability. We raise money only by the most expensive means–borrowing. Our revenue and tax structure is untenable. We have a nonperforming business tax that has created a permanent structural budget deficit, and our state leaders, who have known about this since 2006, when they paid no heed to the comptroller’s fiscal note, continue to pretend that it doesn’t exist.
Councilwoman Jones draws scrutiny over handout
From the Chron, a story highlighting controversies over citizen's rights:
The city's Office of Inspector General is looking into a card distributed at a recent forum on police brutality in which City Councilwoman Jolanda Jones advises people never to speak with police.
"I would absolutely be concerned about anyone who would do anything to discourage citizens from speaking to police officers," Mayor Annise Parker said after Wednesday's City Council meeting. "That would be certain members of council who have put out written statements saying that citizens should never talk to police officers under any circumstances."
The card's advice for encounters with police at home includes the directive: "NEVER speak with the police. You have a 5th Amendment right to remain silent. Use it! Ask for & contact your lawyer." In another section, the card states: "If it is meant for you to speak with the police, do so ONLY after you speak with your lawyer and he/she gives you permission." . . .
Jones, a criminal defense lawyer, said the card is a quick legal reference to remind people of their Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination, not a call to refuse to cooperate with police. She said she has passed out a version of the card for years, even before her election to the council in 2007.
"Are they saying that they're disappointed that I'm telling people their constitutional rights?" Jones asked. "It's a public service. Me being on the council does not trump the Constitution."
The city's Office of Inspector General is looking into a card distributed at a recent forum on police brutality in which City Councilwoman Jolanda Jones advises people never to speak with police.
"I would absolutely be concerned about anyone who would do anything to discourage citizens from speaking to police officers," Mayor Annise Parker said after Wednesday's City Council meeting. "That would be certain members of council who have put out written statements saying that citizens should never talk to police officers under any circumstances."
The card's advice for encounters with police at home includes the directive: "NEVER speak with the police. You have a 5th Amendment right to remain silent. Use it! Ask for & contact your lawyer." In another section, the card states: "If it is meant for you to speak with the police, do so ONLY after you speak with your lawyer and he/she gives you permission." . . .
Jones, a criminal defense lawyer, said the card is a quick legal reference to remind people of their Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination, not a call to refuse to cooperate with police. She said she has passed out a version of the card for years, even before her election to the council in 2007.
"Are they saying that they're disappointed that I'm telling people their constitutional rights?" Jones asked. "It's a public service. Me being on the council does not trump the Constitution."
Wednesday, February 23, 2011
How to Read a Budget
Bruce Bartlett walks through the budget. He makes the following observation about tax revenues:
According to the historical tables, federal revenues will only consume 14.4 percent of GDP this year – the lowest percentage since 1950. The postwar average is about 18.5 percent and there were many very prosperous years when revenues were considerably higher. In the late 1990s, they averaged more than 20 percent of GDP, which was a key reason why we ran budget surpluses.
The budget somewhat implausibly assumes that the ineffective Bush tax cuts will finally be allowed to expire at the end of 2012, as they are scheduled to do under current law. This causes revenues to raise to 17.9 percent of GDP in 2013, 18.7 percent in 2014, 19.1 percent in 2016, and 19.3 percent in 2016. In the long run, the budget assumes that revenues will remain at about 20 percent of GDP, even though total government spending will continue to rise to more than a third of GDP by 2080.
According to the historical tables, federal revenues will only consume 14.4 percent of GDP this year – the lowest percentage since 1950. The postwar average is about 18.5 percent and there were many very prosperous years when revenues were considerably higher. In the late 1990s, they averaged more than 20 percent of GDP, which was a key reason why we ran budget surpluses.
The budget somewhat implausibly assumes that the ineffective Bush tax cuts will finally be allowed to expire at the end of 2012, as they are scheduled to do under current law. This causes revenues to raise to 17.9 percent of GDP in 2013, 18.7 percent in 2014, 19.1 percent in 2016, and 19.3 percent in 2016. In the long run, the budget assumes that revenues will remain at about 20 percent of GDP, even though total government spending will continue to rise to more than a third of GDP by 2080.
Innocence Legislation in Texas
Grits for Breakfast has an overview of various laws being considered in the Texas legislature regarding the actual innocence of defendants.
Are Drug Sniffing Dogs Reliable?
Maybe Not. From Reason:
For the first few years I had her, I was impressed by my late dog Harper's uncanny ability to assess people's character. She hated every crappy landlord and bad roommate. Barked at them. Snarled at them. Wouldn't go near them. But if I brought home a date I liked, Harper, a Shar Pei/Labrador mix, would curl up right next to the woman and turn on the charm. It took me several years to figure out that my dog wasn't a good judge of character; she was just good at reading me. She liked the people I liked and disliked the people who rubbed me the wrong way. For dogs descended from lines bred for protection and companionship, this talent makes sense. A dog adept at distinguishing friend from foe was likely to be kept around and bred, and one very good way to tell friend from foe is to read your master's body language.
My confusion about what was going on in Harper's head reflects a common misconception that is also apparent in the ways dogs are used in criminal investigations. When we think dogs are using their well-honed noses to sniff out drugs or criminal suspects, they may actually be displaying a more recently evolved trait: an urgent desire to please their masters, coupled with the ability to read their cues.
Several studies and tests have shown that drug-sniffing dogs, scent hounds, and even explosive-detecting dogs are not nearly as accurate as they have been portrayed in court.
For the first few years I had her, I was impressed by my late dog Harper's uncanny ability to assess people's character. She hated every crappy landlord and bad roommate. Barked at them. Snarled at them. Wouldn't go near them. But if I brought home a date I liked, Harper, a Shar Pei/Labrador mix, would curl up right next to the woman and turn on the charm. It took me several years to figure out that my dog wasn't a good judge of character; she was just good at reading me. She liked the people I liked and disliked the people who rubbed me the wrong way. For dogs descended from lines bred for protection and companionship, this talent makes sense. A dog adept at distinguishing friend from foe was likely to be kept around and bred, and one very good way to tell friend from foe is to read your master's body language.
My confusion about what was going on in Harper's head reflects a common misconception that is also apparent in the ways dogs are used in criminal investigations. When we think dogs are using their well-honed noses to sniff out drugs or criminal suspects, they may actually be displaying a more recently evolved trait: an urgent desire to please their masters, coupled with the ability to read their cues.
Several studies and tests have shown that drug-sniffing dogs, scent hounds, and even explosive-detecting dogs are not nearly as accurate as they have been portrayed in court.
Tuesday, February 22, 2011
This Week's Assessments
2301
- be able to define "civil liberties" and explain how they are secured in the Bill of Rights.
- what political circumstances led to the addition of the Bill of Rights to the Constitution and what were the arguments against its inclusion? What documents preceded it?
- what impact does the Supreme Court have on the civil liberties?
- what are the substantive and procedural freedoms and how are they established in the Bill of Rights? Be able to define the liberties listed in each amendment.
- what are the similarities and differences between the U.S. and Texas Bills of Rights?
- what impact has the 14th Amendment had on civil liberties in the U.S.?
2302
- be able to explain the rational behind the basic design features of the U.S. and Texas executive branches.
- what powers does the president have? what limitations do other institutions have on the office?
- what are the duties and responsibilities established for the president in the Constitution? what powers does the president have over the bureaucracy?
- what does the constitution state about presidential elections?
- what controversies exist about the power of commander in chief? chief executive? chief of state?
- what factors make the president independent from other branches?
- what arguments did the anti-federalists make about the office of the presidency?
- be able to define "civil liberties" and explain how they are secured in the Bill of Rights.
- what political circumstances led to the addition of the Bill of Rights to the Constitution and what were the arguments against its inclusion? What documents preceded it?
- what impact does the Supreme Court have on the civil liberties?
- what are the substantive and procedural freedoms and how are they established in the Bill of Rights? Be able to define the liberties listed in each amendment.
- what are the similarities and differences between the U.S. and Texas Bills of Rights?
- what impact has the 14th Amendment had on civil liberties in the U.S.?
2302
- be able to explain the rational behind the basic design features of the U.S. and Texas executive branches.
- what powers does the president have? what limitations do other institutions have on the office?
- what are the duties and responsibilities established for the president in the Constitution? what powers does the president have over the bureaucracy?
- what does the constitution state about presidential elections?
- what controversies exist about the power of commander in chief? chief executive? chief of state?
- what factors make the president independent from other branches?
- what arguments did the anti-federalists make about the office of the presidency?
Electoral Rules Matter
Here's a warning that despite the early success of the revolutions in Tunisia and Egypt, the hard part will be surviving the initial elections. Whoever designs the elections can control the outcome:
it serves us well to recall two instances when Arab regimes under duress used the guise of electoral reform to maintain control.
As Christopher Alexander briefly described, Tunisia's autocracy faced its most serious challenge at the end of the 1980s but survived, in part, through electoral manipulation. After taking power in the wake of a political crisis, Ben Ali rewrote the electoral code in advance of legislative elections in 1989. The new system split the Islamist opposition over whether to participate and enticed elements of the secular opposition to compete in single party lists that were built around the ruling party's patronage networks. These so-called reforms helped Ben Ali to control the parliament over the next two decades.
In the case of Jordan, the monarchy regrouped after a series of economic crises in the late 1980s and neutered an assertive parliament by instituting the single non-transferable vote system before elections in 1993. The new law, which was issued by royal decree outside of the political process, dramatically curtailed the ability of Islamists and opposition parties to garner votes in a society dominated by kinship and personal relationships. The "one vote" provision has helped ensure pliant parliaments ever since, most notably after last November's elections when a new "sub-district" system was introduced.
it serves us well to recall two instances when Arab regimes under duress used the guise of electoral reform to maintain control.
As Christopher Alexander briefly described, Tunisia's autocracy faced its most serious challenge at the end of the 1980s but survived, in part, through electoral manipulation. After taking power in the wake of a political crisis, Ben Ali rewrote the electoral code in advance of legislative elections in 1989. The new system split the Islamist opposition over whether to participate and enticed elements of the secular opposition to compete in single party lists that were built around the ruling party's patronage networks. These so-called reforms helped Ben Ali to control the parliament over the next two decades.
In the case of Jordan, the monarchy regrouped after a series of economic crises in the late 1980s and neutered an assertive parliament by instituting the single non-transferable vote system before elections in 1993. The new law, which was issued by royal decree outside of the political process, dramatically curtailed the ability of Islamists and opposition parties to garner votes in a society dominated by kinship and personal relationships. The "one vote" provision has helped ensure pliant parliaments ever since, most notably after last November's elections when a new "sub-district" system was introduced.
Wall Street, the SEC and the Justice Department
Matt Taibbi continues to expose the relationship between Wall Street, the SEC, and the Justice Department. He explores why no one went to jail for any of the fraud that was rampant for years and finds that the revolving door between Wall Street and the federal regulatory agencies protects those responsible for the abuse. The one exception, Bernie Madoff, made the mistake of bilking the wealthy. Had he stuck to simple, nameless homeowners we would have never heard of him.
Kids for Cash
Here's a follow up to a story a while back about a PA judge convicted of conspiring to sent kids to a detention facility without allowing them adequate opportunities to defend themselves in court. The men who ran the private facility financially supported the judge which makes this a great example of the corruption and petty tyranny that can result when governing institutions stop checking and balancing each other.
- Wikipedia: Kids for Cash Scandal.
- Story in ABA Journal.
- Wikipedia: Kids for Cash Scandal.
- Story in ABA Journal.
The Patent Office
From the NYT, a story describing the patent office (an executive agency - one of the first) and efforts to modernize it.
- Wikipedia.
- USPTO.
- Wikipedia.
- USPTO.
Strikes in Wisconsin, Democracy in America
The war on collective bargaining is already several decades old and is now being waged against public sector unions. The Republican Governor of Wisconsin wants to eliminate the ability of public sector unions to engage in collective bargaining. Paul Krugman thinks this effort will mark America's transition back to oligarchy:
Why bust the unions? As I said, it has nothing to do with helping Wisconsin deal with its current fiscal crisis. Nor is it likely to help the state’s budget prospects even in the long run: contrary to what you may have heard, public-sector workers in Wisconsin and elsewhere are paid somewhat less than private-sector workers with comparable qualifications, so there’s not much room for further pay squeezes.
So it’s not about the budget; it’s about the power.
In principle, every American citizen has an equal say in our political process. In practice, of course, some of us are more equal than others. Billionaires can field armies of lobbyists; they can finance think tanks that put the desired spin on policy issues; they can funnel cash to politicians with sympathetic views (as the Koch brothers did in the case of Mr. Walker). On paper, we’re a one-person-one-vote nation; in reality, we’re more than a bit of an oligarchy, in which a handful of wealthy people dominate.
Given this reality, it’s important to have institutions that can act as counterweights to the power of big money. And unions are among the most important of these institutions.
Andrew Sullivan has a nice series of links to stories illustrating various aspects of the issue.
Why bust the unions? As I said, it has nothing to do with helping Wisconsin deal with its current fiscal crisis. Nor is it likely to help the state’s budget prospects even in the long run: contrary to what you may have heard, public-sector workers in Wisconsin and elsewhere are paid somewhat less than private-sector workers with comparable qualifications, so there’s not much room for further pay squeezes.
So it’s not about the budget; it’s about the power.
In principle, every American citizen has an equal say in our political process. In practice, of course, some of us are more equal than others. Billionaires can field armies of lobbyists; they can finance think tanks that put the desired spin on policy issues; they can funnel cash to politicians with sympathetic views (as the Koch brothers did in the case of Mr. Walker). On paper, we’re a one-person-one-vote nation; in reality, we’re more than a bit of an oligarchy, in which a handful of wealthy people dominate.
Given this reality, it’s important to have institutions that can act as counterweights to the power of big money. And unions are among the most important of these institutions.
Andrew Sullivan has a nice series of links to stories illustrating various aspects of the issue.
Mixed Signals on Solutions to Texas Budget Shortfall
From the Texas Tribune:
By a margin of more than 2 to 1, Texas voters believe that lawmakers should solve the state's massive shortfall by cutting the budget, according to the latest University of Texas/Texas Tribune poll, but their enthusiasm dissipates when asked if they support specific cuts.
"We really want to slash the budget, but not anything in it," says pollster Daron Shaw, a professor of government at UT.
Considering our conversations in class, this is not news.
By a margin of more than 2 to 1, Texas voters believe that lawmakers should solve the state's massive shortfall by cutting the budget, according to the latest University of Texas/Texas Tribune poll, but their enthusiasm dissipates when asked if they support specific cuts.
"We really want to slash the budget, but not anything in it," says pollster Daron Shaw, a professor of government at UT.
Considering our conversations in class, this is not news.
Friday, February 18, 2011
Texas Agency Chief Defend Spending
From the Texas Tribune:
They’re surely facing the worst state budget cycle any of them have experienced. Yet in hours upon hours of testimony before lawmakers — flanked by the school children and people with disabilities who will be hit hardest by the proposed cuts to close the state's $15 billion to $27 billion shortfall — the commissioners of Texas’ social services and education agencies have appeared largely unruffled.
It’s not because they are unconcerned. There are hints of conflicted emotions, and the occasional unscripted outburst — like when Health and Human Services Commissioner Tom Suehs insisted last week that reporters were understating the impact of the proposed cuts, just days after the governor who appointed him accused the "mainstream media" of creating a climate of unjustified fear.
They’re surely facing the worst state budget cycle any of them have experienced. Yet in hours upon hours of testimony before lawmakers — flanked by the school children and people with disabilities who will be hit hardest by the proposed cuts to close the state's $15 billion to $27 billion shortfall — the commissioners of Texas’ social services and education agencies have appeared largely unruffled.
It’s not because they are unconcerned. There are hints of conflicted emotions, and the occasional unscripted outburst — like when Health and Human Services Commissioner Tom Suehs insisted last week that reporters were understating the impact of the proposed cuts, just days after the governor who appointed him accused the "mainstream media" of creating a climate of unjustified fear.
Texas to seek Waivers on Medicaid
From Texas Tribune:
Just a few months ago, Gov. Rick Perry led a group of Texas lawmakers who were threatening to drop out of Medicaid, the state-federal health care program for the poor. A state analysis showing that Texas would lose billions of dollars in financing put an end to talk of opting out.
Now, the debate has shifted, as Texas and other struggling states ask Washington for permission to operate the program as they see fit. Their approach — finding savings by curbing mandatory benefits or limiting eligibility among Medicaid populations — is unlikely to be approved by the Obama administration, which is intent on expanding Medicaid, not shrinking it.
- The Medicaid Withdrawal Myth.
- Some States To Get Hit Twice With Medicaid Funding Cuts In 2011.
Just a few months ago, Gov. Rick Perry led a group of Texas lawmakers who were threatening to drop out of Medicaid, the state-federal health care program for the poor. A state analysis showing that Texas would lose billions of dollars in financing put an end to talk of opting out.
Now, the debate has shifted, as Texas and other struggling states ask Washington for permission to operate the program as they see fit. Their approach — finding savings by curbing mandatory benefits or limiting eligibility among Medicaid populations — is unlikely to be approved by the Obama administration, which is intent on expanding Medicaid, not shrinking it.
- The Medicaid Withdrawal Myth.
- Some States To Get Hit Twice With Medicaid Funding Cuts In 2011.
Dems like openness in GOP House - TheHill.com
Dems like openness in GOP House - TheHill.com
So does the WSJ:
The 112th House of Representatives spent the week debating how to fund the rest of fiscal 2011. In sharp contrast to his recent predecessors, Speaker John Boehner is sticking to his vow to make the chamber more open and accountable. His committee chairmen having presented a base spending bill, Mr. Boehner threw open the floor for full discussion. Some 600 amendments came pouring in.
"Chaos," "a headache," "turmoil," "craziness," "confused," "wild," "uncontrolled" are just a few of the words the Washington press corps has used to describe the ensuing late-night debates. There's a far better word for what happened: democracy. It has been eons since the nation's elected representatives have had to study harder, debate with such earnestness, or commit themselves so publicly. Yes, it is messy. Yes, it is unpredictable. But as this Presidents Day approaches, it's a fabulous thing to behold.
And about time. The Democrats' style of management—on ObamaCare, cap and trade, financial regulation, stimulus—was to secretly craft bills and ram through a vote, denying members a chance to read, to debate, to amend. They learned this from former Majority Leader Tom DeLay, who infamously micro- managed his GOP majority from 2003-2005. The House had become a place where the leadership called all the shots and the majority saluted.
But this week the country witnessed the House coming together to argue over and exercise its foremost responsibility: power over the purse. And from the look of the amendments, both sides were eager to use that funding authority to put the Obama policy machine on notice.
So does the WSJ:
The 112th House of Representatives spent the week debating how to fund the rest of fiscal 2011. In sharp contrast to his recent predecessors, Speaker John Boehner is sticking to his vow to make the chamber more open and accountable. His committee chairmen having presented a base spending bill, Mr. Boehner threw open the floor for full discussion. Some 600 amendments came pouring in.
"Chaos," "a headache," "turmoil," "craziness," "confused," "wild," "uncontrolled" are just a few of the words the Washington press corps has used to describe the ensuing late-night debates. There's a far better word for what happened: democracy. It has been eons since the nation's elected representatives have had to study harder, debate with such earnestness, or commit themselves so publicly. Yes, it is messy. Yes, it is unpredictable. But as this Presidents Day approaches, it's a fabulous thing to behold.
And about time. The Democrats' style of management—on ObamaCare, cap and trade, financial regulation, stimulus—was to secretly craft bills and ram through a vote, denying members a chance to read, to debate, to amend. They learned this from former Majority Leader Tom DeLay, who infamously micro- managed his GOP majority from 2003-2005. The House had become a place where the leadership called all the shots and the majority saluted.
But this week the country witnessed the House coming together to argue over and exercise its foremost responsibility: power over the purse. And from the look of the amendments, both sides were eager to use that funding authority to put the Obama policy machine on notice.
Stalemate on Continuing Resolutions in Congress
Even while the 2012 budget has been introduced and debated, issues associated with the 2011 budget still rage. Recall that money cannot be actually spent - drawn from the treasury, despite the fact that it has been budgetted, unless it is appropriated. As we know in 2302, Appropriations Committees exist in the House and Senate to oversee the process. But the process also allows for opponents of spending an additional chance to alter - after the fact - the budget. Impasses over spending are common, so appropriations bills are often not passed by the time the fiscal year starts. Continuing resolutions are then required to fund governmental operations. But these need to be voted on repeatedy, meaning opponents of pending always have a chance to block spending they are opposed to.
Republicans want to trim back spending on last year's budget, but have differed over how much. The Tea Party members want far more cuts than their leadership originally wanted, but appear to have won the day. Republicans now want to slice $100 billion from the 2011 budget, but they only control the House, not the Senate. Senate Democrats are unlikely to vote for the budget cuts the House Republicans support. If this dispute is not resolved, and a continuing resolution is not passed when the current one expires - March 4 -- funding for government ceases and it all shuts down.
Related stories:
- Boehner says spending must be cut, but Senate Democrats won’t budge.
- Hill braces for shutdown showdown.
- House's cuts will test Senate.
From CQ Roll Call regarding the current state of the bill: THE HOUSE: Convened at 9 and appears on course for final passage of the $1 trillion, seven-month spending package sometime tonight. Talk of a Saturday session has been fading, even though all sides agreed late last night to allow up to 23 more hours of debate on as many as 129 more amendments.
Republicans want to trim back spending on last year's budget, but have differed over how much. The Tea Party members want far more cuts than their leadership originally wanted, but appear to have won the day. Republicans now want to slice $100 billion from the 2011 budget, but they only control the House, not the Senate. Senate Democrats are unlikely to vote for the budget cuts the House Republicans support. If this dispute is not resolved, and a continuing resolution is not passed when the current one expires - March 4 -- funding for government ceases and it all shuts down.
Related stories:
- Boehner says spending must be cut, but Senate Democrats won’t budge.
- Hill braces for shutdown showdown.
- House's cuts will test Senate.
From CQ Roll Call regarding the current state of the bill: THE HOUSE: Convened at 9 and appears on course for final passage of the $1 trillion, seven-month spending package sometime tonight. Talk of a Saturday session has been fading, even though all sides agreed late last night to allow up to 23 more hours of debate on as many as 129 more amendments.
Three amendments are getting the lion’s share of attention. One would cut all federal family planning aid. Another would prohibit any spending to implement last year’s health care overhaul. The last would impose an additional $20 billion in cuts from current levels (on top of the $61 billion in the legislation), which the conservative Republican Study Committee says would accomplish its goal of bringing non-security spending down to 2008 levels.
Wednesday, February 16, 2011
Stopping the Tsunami
Middle Eastern leaders are doing what they can to prevent the unrest which deposed leaders in Tunisia and Egypt from affecting them. It involves limiting expression and assembly of course.
To quell the noisy street displays of democratic fervor, many governments have relied on their rusty toolbox of repression. Yemeni security forces unleashed busloads of recruited counter-demonstrators armed with clubs and rocks to confront around 1,000 people marching to celebrate Hosni Mubarak's downfall, and then sent in riot police with their water cannons and tear gas. In the West Bank, the Palestinian Authority could not stomach demonstrations whose focus was not the Israeli occupation, but a demand for unity and fair elections in their own quasi-administration. There too we saw the stale repertoire of violent attacks, arrests, beatings, and torture of peaceful protesters demanding serious political change.
Syria and Libya acted preemptively, arresting activists likely to organize any street protests, saturating public places with security forces. In these countries, even a rally of a dozen people is treated like a threat to the status quo. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran combined rank hypocrisy with his trademark brutality, congratulating "the justice-seeking movement in Egypt" while silencing Iranian protest leaders and dismissing their planned solidarity march as "divisive."
To quell the noisy street displays of democratic fervor, many governments have relied on their rusty toolbox of repression. Yemeni security forces unleashed busloads of recruited counter-demonstrators armed with clubs and rocks to confront around 1,000 people marching to celebrate Hosni Mubarak's downfall, and then sent in riot police with their water cannons and tear gas. In the West Bank, the Palestinian Authority could not stomach demonstrations whose focus was not the Israeli occupation, but a demand for unity and fair elections in their own quasi-administration. There too we saw the stale repertoire of violent attacks, arrests, beatings, and torture of peaceful protesters demanding serious political change.
Syria and Libya acted preemptively, arresting activists likely to organize any street protests, saturating public places with security forces. In these countries, even a rally of a dozen people is treated like a threat to the status quo. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran combined rank hypocrisy with his trademark brutality, congratulating "the justice-seeking movement in Egypt" while silencing Iranian protest leaders and dismissing their planned solidarity march as "divisive."
Guidance for Week 6 2302 Assessment Questions
Sorry I couldn't make it to class today. I have a sick child. 2301 study questions are further below, these should help my 2302s:
- Be able to states what the executive branch does and what its basic design is on the national and state levels.
- Be able to describe the impact the Magna Carta and the British Bill of Rights have had on the power of the executive.
- What factors enabled the British monarchs to increase their power between the Magna Carta and the British Bill of Rights -- I'm referring specifically to the rise of the administrative apparatus over the Britain.
- Be able to describe the nature of the conflict between the Stuart Monarchs and Parliament.
- What were the grievances against the British Monarch listed in the Declaration of Independence? Why do these matter?
- What type of executive branch was designed in the Articles of Confederation?
- Who was Cincinattus? Why was Washington compared to him?
- Be able to states what the executive branch does and what its basic design is on the national and state levels.
- Be able to describe the impact the Magna Carta and the British Bill of Rights have had on the power of the executive.
- What factors enabled the British monarchs to increase their power between the Magna Carta and the British Bill of Rights -- I'm referring specifically to the rise of the administrative apparatus over the Britain.
- Be able to describe the nature of the conflict between the Stuart Monarchs and Parliament.
- What were the grievances against the British Monarch listed in the Declaration of Independence? Why do these matter?
- What type of executive branch was designed in the Articles of Confederation?
- Who was Cincinattus? Why was Washington compared to him?
Tuesday, February 15, 2011
The Tea Party's Lucky, Things Could Have Turned Out Much Worse
A day after the most significant street protests in Iran since the end of the 2009 uprising there, members of the Iranian Parliament called on Tuesday for the two most prominent opposition leaders to be prosecuted and sentenced to death for stirring unrest.
read on....
read on....
Texas on the Brink
A liberal leaning caucus in the Texas House (not much to pick from there) has released a report - Texas on the Brink - detailing Texas' rankings on several social factors. The findings are neither positive, nor surprising. Among our rankings:
- Percent of Population Uninsured - 1st
- Percent of Uninsured Children - 1st
- Tax Revenue Raised per Capita - 46th- Percent of Population 25 and Older with a High School Diploma - 50th
- Amount of Recognized Cancer-‐Causing Carcinogens Released into Air - 1st
There's much more, and the report is especially useful for digging up sources for this data. The Legislative Study Group is composed primarily - if not wholly - of Democrats, so its iffy if they will be able to find support to address these problems in the current political and budgetary environment.
- Percent of Population Uninsured - 1st
- Percent of Uninsured Children - 1st
- Tax Revenue Raised per Capita - 46th- Percent of Population 25 and Older with a High School Diploma - 50th
- Amount of Recognized Cancer-‐Causing Carcinogens Released into Air - 1st
There's much more, and the report is especially useful for digging up sources for this data. The Legislative Study Group is composed primarily - if not wholly - of Democrats, so its iffy if they will be able to find support to address these problems in the current political and budgetary environment.
Shaping the Budget Fight
From the NYT:
Republicans and Democrats in Washington took to the airwaves and flooded social media networks in a furious attempt to spin the year’s fight over the 2012 budget proposal released by President Obama Monday morning.
Read on for an overview of the positions each side is taking as this goes forward.
Republicans and Democrats in Washington took to the airwaves and flooded social media networks in a furious attempt to spin the year’s fight over the 2012 budget proposal released by President Obama Monday morning.
Read on for an overview of the positions each side is taking as this goes forward.
Week 6 Assessment Preview 2301
Some guidance for the next quiz on federalism:
- what is dual sovereignty?
- what are unitary and confederal systems?
- the nature of local government in the US (cities, counties, etc...)
- what impact did the 14th Amendment and the New Deal have on national and state relations>?
- what are the delegated, implied, reserved, and inherent powers?
- what are "police powers?"
- how has the commerce clause been interpreted and reinterpreted over American history? what is the current state of the controversy?
- what conflicts exist over the proper meaning of the phrase "necessary and proper?"
- how is the distinction between national and state power made in Federalist #45
- what is dual sovereignty?
- what are unitary and confederal systems?
- the nature of local government in the US (cities, counties, etc...)
- what impact did the 14th Amendment and the New Deal have on national and state relations>?
- what are the delegated, implied, reserved, and inherent powers?
- what are "police powers?"
- how has the commerce clause been interpreted and reinterpreted over American history? what is the current state of the controversy?
- what conflicts exist over the proper meaning of the phrase "necessary and proper?"
- how is the distinction between national and state power made in Federalist #45
Is There a New "Normal" Unemployment Rate?
For my 2302s to think about after we covers indicators of the state of the economy last week.
From Calculated Risk:
. . . in the wake of the most recent recession, many economists are concerned that developments such as mismatches in the skills of workers and jobs, extended unemployment benefits, and a rise in long-term joblessness may have raised the “normal” or “natural” rate of unemployment above the 5% level that was thought to be typical before the downturn. Indeed, a few economists have gone so far as to argue that the rise in the unemployment rate to its current level of 9% primarily reflects an increase in the natural rate, implying there is little slack in labor markets and therefore little downward pressure on inflation.
From Calculated Risk:
. . . in the wake of the most recent recession, many economists are concerned that developments such as mismatches in the skills of workers and jobs, extended unemployment benefits, and a rise in long-term joblessness may have raised the “normal” or “natural” rate of unemployment above the 5% level that was thought to be typical before the downturn. Indeed, a few economists have gone so far as to argue that the rise in the unemployment rate to its current level of 9% primarily reflects an increase in the natural rate, implying there is little slack in labor markets and therefore little downward pressure on inflation.
Obama calls for ending breaks in oil, gas and coal
From the Chron:
Obama is calling for the elimination of a dozen tax breaks for oil, gas and coal companies to raise $46 billion over 10 years. These funds would be diverted to help pay for putting 1 million electric vehicles on the road by 2025, doubling the share of electricity from clean energy by 2035 and increasing the efficiency of energy use in buildings by 20 percent.
- More from the Hill.
- And of course the oil industry isn't happy about it.
Obama is calling for the elimination of a dozen tax breaks for oil, gas and coal companies to raise $46 billion over 10 years. These funds would be diverted to help pay for putting 1 million electric vehicles on the road by 2025, doubling the share of electricity from clean energy by 2035 and increasing the efficiency of energy use in buildings by 20 percent.
- More from the Hill.
- And of course the oil industry isn't happy about it.
Some Random Posts Commenting on Obama's Proposed Budget
A few comments seem universal. 1 - The cuts aren't deep enough to impact the deficit meaningfully. 2 - The cuts are drawn mostly from the small percentage of the budget that is non-defense discretionary spending. 3 - This is the first step of a political process that will involve a great deal of bargaining and posturing. No one wants to stake a position now that will prove politically problematic next November.
- Stress Testing the Budget.
- Andrew Sullivan is unimpressed here, and here. But he isn't sure Republicans will take advantage of an opportunity.
- David Brooks.
They'll be much more to come.
- Stress Testing the Budget.
- Andrew Sullivan is unimpressed here, and here. But he isn't sure Republicans will take advantage of an opportunity.
- David Brooks.
They'll be much more to come.
The Battle over Texas School Districts
For 2301, a good example of federalism, in this case the ongoing battle between the federal state and local governments over education. The 2012 budget presented yesterday contains language that would allow Texas school districts to bypass the states and apply directly to the federal government for funding. Expect pushback from the governor.
President Obama's budget includes a provision aimed at Texas Gov. Rick Perry and state Education Commissioner Robert Scott.
The budget would set aside $900 million to award school districts who win a new Race to the Top competition and expand it to include early childhood and higher education competitive grant programs. The Early Childhood Learning Program would be created using $350 million and $150 million for a post-secondary program.
Perry refused to apply in 2010 for Race to the Top funding, much to the chagrin of many school districts. Race to the Top aims to raise education standards and align them across states. However, Perry and Scott maintain that would be hazardous to the education system already in place in Texas and the initiatives currently under way. If Perry opts Texas out of competitive grants again, the state has few options for federal funding.
In related news, Governor Perry is asking House Republicans to roll back requirements that Texas comply with federal education standards.
President Obama's budget includes a provision aimed at Texas Gov. Rick Perry and state Education Commissioner Robert Scott.
The budget would set aside $900 million to award school districts who win a new Race to the Top competition and expand it to include early childhood and higher education competitive grant programs. The Early Childhood Learning Program would be created using $350 million and $150 million for a post-secondary program.
Perry refused to apply in 2010 for Race to the Top funding, much to the chagrin of many school districts. Race to the Top aims to raise education standards and align them across states. However, Perry and Scott maintain that would be hazardous to the education system already in place in Texas and the initiatives currently under way. If Perry opts Texas out of competitive grants again, the state has few options for federal funding.
In related news, Governor Perry is asking House Republicans to roll back requirements that Texas comply with federal education standards.
Egyptian Military Dissolves Parliament and Suspends Constitution
Normally this is very bad news. From the NYT:
The Egyptian military consolidated its control on Sunday over what it has called a democratic transition from nearly three decades of President Hosni Mubarak’s authoritarian rule, dissolving the feeble Parliament, suspending the Constitution and calling for elections in six months in sweeping steps that echoed protesters’ demands.
The Egyptian military consolidated its control on Sunday over what it has called a democratic transition from nearly three decades of President Hosni Mubarak’s authoritarian rule, dissolving the feeble Parliament, suspending the Constitution and calling for elections in six months in sweeping steps that echoed protesters’ demands.
Is Social Media the Next Big Bubble? | The Atlantic Wire
Is Social Media the Next Big Bubble? The Atlantic Wire
My 2302's should tie this into last week's discussion of the economy and macroeconomic policy. The last two recessions were triggered by the bursting of bubbles in the economy (internet and housing respectively). Might social media companies now be similarly overvalued? But how can we tell, and how can the bubble be dealt with proactively before it bursts? Is this a function of the government?
My 2302's should tie this into last week's discussion of the economy and macroeconomic policy. The last two recessions were triggered by the bursting of bubbles in the economy (internet and housing respectively). Might social media companies now be similarly overvalued? But how can we tell, and how can the bubble be dealt with proactively before it bursts? Is this a function of the government?
Monday, February 14, 2011
Bill Stone explores the world's deepest caves | Video on TED.com
Bill Stone explores the world's deepest caves Video on TED.com
Here's a fun video that give us an idea about where policy ideas come from. He has an interesting take on risk. Are we willing to send people out on Lewis and Clark type expeditions anymore?
Here's a fun video that give us an idea about where policy ideas come from. He has an interesting take on risk. Are we willing to send people out on Lewis and Clark type expeditions anymore?
Friday, February 11, 2011
Fannie and Freddie
In 2302 we glossed through many aspect of the budget, and the institutions budgetary money is allocated to. I'll fill in details over the rest of the semester when relevant stories appear.
Here is one from the NYT. Obama is proposing a gradual abolishment of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, two government sponsored enterprises that backup the mortgage industry.
The Obama administration released a broad outline on Friday for the future of housing finance in the United States, calling for a substantial reduction in government support for the mortgage market but providing few concrete details about how it should be accomplished.
In a 31-page report, the administration proposed that the two mortgage lending giants, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, should be gradually abolished within 10 years at most, and it gave Congress three options for reducing the government’s role in supporting homeownership. It did not recommend an option; instead, the document was intended to set parameters for what is certain to be a heated and protracted debate.
The story is also covered in Politico.
Here is the administration's report to Congress with the proposal.
CBO Budgetary Treatment of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
Here is one from the NYT. Obama is proposing a gradual abolishment of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, two government sponsored enterprises that backup the mortgage industry.
The Obama administration released a broad outline on Friday for the future of housing finance in the United States, calling for a substantial reduction in government support for the mortgage market but providing few concrete details about how it should be accomplished.
In a 31-page report, the administration proposed that the two mortgage lending giants, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, should be gradually abolished within 10 years at most, and it gave Congress three options for reducing the government’s role in supporting homeownership. It did not recommend an option; instead, the document was intended to set parameters for what is certain to be a heated and protracted debate.
The story is also covered in Politico.
Here is the administration's report to Congress with the proposal.
CBO Budgetary Treatment of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
Looking ahead at Redistricting
From the Fix:
After a historic 63-seat pickup in the 2010 midterm election, House Republicans would be expected to be on defense in the 2012 cycle -- doing everything they can to minimize their losses and keep their 48-seat majority.
And, to a large extent, they are. A look at the map shows Republicans have plenty of seats to hold on to. They hold 61 districts that President Obama carried in 2008, while Democrats hold just 12 districts that Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) carried.
But, Republicans have something going for them that they haven't had, well, ever. And that is a major advantage in redistricting.
Many of the most vulnerable Republicans elected in 2012 will be running in districts that are being redrawn by their own party. For instance, control of the line-drawing process could help as many as five or six vulnerable Republicans in both Pennsylvania and Ohio alone -- members that otherwise would have been seriously endangered.
Democrats don't get much help from redistricting. The party controls the process in only one state where it could draw a map that endangers multiple Republicans: Illinois. Republicans, meanwhile, get to shore up their members and create new opportunities for themselves in many states, including most of the big ones.
He then goes on to list ten House members he considers most vulnerable. Politics is brutal.
After a historic 63-seat pickup in the 2010 midterm election, House Republicans would be expected to be on defense in the 2012 cycle -- doing everything they can to minimize their losses and keep their 48-seat majority.
And, to a large extent, they are. A look at the map shows Republicans have plenty of seats to hold on to. They hold 61 districts that President Obama carried in 2008, while Democrats hold just 12 districts that Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) carried.
But, Republicans have something going for them that they haven't had, well, ever. And that is a major advantage in redistricting.
Many of the most vulnerable Republicans elected in 2012 will be running in districts that are being redrawn by their own party. For instance, control of the line-drawing process could help as many as five or six vulnerable Republicans in both Pennsylvania and Ohio alone -- members that otherwise would have been seriously endangered.
Democrats don't get much help from redistricting. The party controls the process in only one state where it could draw a map that endangers multiple Republicans: Illinois. Republicans, meanwhile, get to shore up their members and create new opportunities for themselves in many states, including most of the big ones.
He then goes on to list ten House members he considers most vulnerable. Politics is brutal.
Texas' Top Lobbyists
Every year Capitol Inside releases a list of the top 50 lobbyists in the state. It's for subscribers, but I found this related PDF from the firm Locke, Liddell and Sapp touting their placement on the list and describing how they got there. Its an illuminating read.
The Texas House Agriculture and Livestock Committee
In 2302 we discussed how the Texas Speaker can use committee assignments to reward and punish legislators, here's proof, sort of, involving Houston Rep Borris Miles.
View from the Gallery:
House Agriculture & Livestock is a very important committee for rural Texas. Speakers also use it as a rural penalty box for urban members who they want to put in "time out." I first observed this in 2003 when Rep. Lon Burnam was the only member to vote against Speaker Tom Craddick, and on to Agriculture & Livestock he went. In the penalty box this year: Rep. Charlie Howard (R - Sugar Land) UPDATE: I previously listed Rep. Boris Miles in the penalty box. That was incorrect: Rep. Miles requested appointment to Agriculture & Livestock.
House Urban Affairs is an important committee for urban Texas. However, it is often referred to as the "Houston" Affairs Committee because of the many intramural City of Houston fights it is asked to referee. For a rural or suburban member, it can be tedious work -- and an urban penalty box. Only 15 of the 150 members of the Texas House (10%) voted against the election of Speaker Straus. Four of the 9 members (44%) of Urban Affairs votes against the Speaker. Into the urban penalty box: Rep. Phil King (R-Weatherford); Rep. Tan Parker (R-Flower Mound); Rep. Ken Paxton (R-McKinney); and Rep. David Simpson (R-Longview).
A tale of two committees.
From a separate report, Miles apparently requested the committee assignment to pursue an urban farming initiative.
But to recap, urban members who vote against the Speaker go to the Agriculture and Livestock Committee, while rural members who vote against the Speaker go to the Urban Affairs Committee. Sweet.
View from the Gallery:
House Agriculture & Livestock is a very important committee for rural Texas. Speakers also use it as a rural penalty box for urban members who they want to put in "time out." I first observed this in 2003 when Rep. Lon Burnam was the only member to vote against Speaker Tom Craddick, and on to Agriculture & Livestock he went. In the penalty box this year: Rep. Charlie Howard (R - Sugar Land) UPDATE: I previously listed Rep. Boris Miles in the penalty box. That was incorrect: Rep. Miles requested appointment to Agriculture & Livestock.
House Urban Affairs is an important committee for urban Texas. However, it is often referred to as the "Houston" Affairs Committee because of the many intramural City of Houston fights it is asked to referee. For a rural or suburban member, it can be tedious work -- and an urban penalty box. Only 15 of the 150 members of the Texas House (10%) voted against the election of Speaker Straus. Four of the 9 members (44%) of Urban Affairs votes against the Speaker. Into the urban penalty box: Rep. Phil King (R-Weatherford); Rep. Tan Parker (R-Flower Mound); Rep. Ken Paxton (R-McKinney); and Rep. David Simpson (R-Longview).
A tale of two committees.
From a separate report, Miles apparently requested the committee assignment to pursue an urban farming initiative.
But to recap, urban members who vote against the Speaker go to the Agriculture and Livestock Committee, while rural members who vote against the Speaker go to the Urban Affairs Committee. Sweet.
CPAC Meets
CPAC - the Conservative Political Action Conference, which was established by the American Conservative Union - is meeting this weekend. It generally proves to be a barometer of the current state of conservatism and provides Republican candidates one of the first opportunities to demonstrate their level of support when the group hold its straw poll for president.
This year's meeting may demonstrate the re-emergence of a split within the movement between libertarians and the religious right. The meeting organizers decided to allow a gay Republican group - GOPride - to paricipate, and several religious groups opted then not to go. Some comments:
The Huffington Post: The majority of Tea Party members do not consider themselves a part of the religious right and less than a quarter of the Christian right identifies as being in the Tea Party. Add to that the fact that the majority of Tea Party members hold positions Christian conservatives consider "pro-gay and pro-choice," and it shouldn't be hard to see why these tensions that have been simmering just under the surface since the time of Reagan are now coming to a head on the Hill and most prominently this past week at CPAC.
Christian Science Monitor: Romney gives a speech, blasts Obama, and avoids discussing health care.
CNN Politics: Cheney and Romney get mixed reception.
This year's meeting may demonstrate the re-emergence of a split within the movement between libertarians and the religious right. The meeting organizers decided to allow a gay Republican group - GOPride - to paricipate, and several religious groups opted then not to go. Some comments:
The Huffington Post: The majority of Tea Party members do not consider themselves a part of the religious right and less than a quarter of the Christian right identifies as being in the Tea Party. Add to that the fact that the majority of Tea Party members hold positions Christian conservatives consider "pro-gay and pro-choice," and it shouldn't be hard to see why these tensions that have been simmering just under the surface since the time of Reagan are now coming to a head on the Hill and most prominently this past week at CPAC.
Christian Science Monitor: Romney gives a speech, blasts Obama, and avoids discussing health care.
CNN Politics: Cheney and Romney get mixed reception.
Supreme Council of the Armed Forces
This is the organization now in charge of Egypt until elections are held later this year. It is supposed to maintain stability in the country and provide for the development of a new system of government. These things tend not to follow revolution. People rarely voluntarily give up power. This will be worth following.
Predictive Models for Presidential Re-Elections
Good news for Obama, though there's never a guarantee. From Alan Abramowitz:
The 2012 presidential election is still more than 20 months away. While the early maneuvering for the Republican presidential nomination is already underway, the identity of President Obama’s GOP challenger won’t be known for more than a year. Economic trends will have a major impact on the President’s reelection chances and unpredictable events, such as the recent political turmoil in Egypt, could also affect the public’s evaluation of the President’s performance.
But even without knowing what condition the economy will be in, whether a major international crisis will erupt, or who will win the Republican nomination, one crucial determinant of the outcome of the 2012 presidential election is already known. Barack Obama will be seeking reelection as a first term incumbent and first term incumbents rarely lose.
The 2012 presidential election is still more than 20 months away. While the early maneuvering for the Republican presidential nomination is already underway, the identity of President Obama’s GOP challenger won’t be known for more than a year. Economic trends will have a major impact on the President’s reelection chances and unpredictable events, such as the recent political turmoil in Egypt, could also affect the public’s evaluation of the President’s performance.
But even without knowing what condition the economy will be in, whether a major international crisis will erupt, or who will win the Republican nomination, one crucial determinant of the outcome of the 2012 presidential election is already known. Barack Obama will be seeking reelection as a first term incumbent and first term incumbents rarely lose.
Texas HHS Commissioner Warns of Budget Cut Consequences
From the Texas Tribune:
Health and Human Services Commissioner Tom Suehs pulled no punches when he warned Senate lawmakers today what proposed budget cuts will mean: either cutting the number of people served, or the money paid to those who care for them.
Federal health care reform "provides no flexibility for reducing caseload eligibility,” he said. “I want to be perfectly clear: There are not many options."
Meanwhile, members of the Senate Finance Committee questioned budgetary plans to expand the state's Medicaid managed care program to generate cost savings.
Sen. Bob Deuell, R-Greenville, said his experience as a doctor prompted him to question whether the expansion of managed care would allow the state to maintain the current level of services to underprivileged patients — a federal requirement. Medicaid reimbursements are already woefully low, leading doctors to opt out of the program and making it tough for Medicaid patients to get access to care. These doctors are even less likely to participate in managed care, he said.
Health and Human Services Commissioner Tom Suehs pulled no punches when he warned Senate lawmakers today what proposed budget cuts will mean: either cutting the number of people served, or the money paid to those who care for them.
Federal health care reform "provides no flexibility for reducing caseload eligibility,” he said. “I want to be perfectly clear: There are not many options."
Meanwhile, members of the Senate Finance Committee questioned budgetary plans to expand the state's Medicaid managed care program to generate cost savings.
Sen. Bob Deuell, R-Greenville, said his experience as a doctor prompted him to question whether the expansion of managed care would allow the state to maintain the current level of services to underprivileged patients — a federal requirement. Medicaid reimbursements are already woefully low, leading doctors to opt out of the program and making it tough for Medicaid patients to get access to care. These doctors are even less likely to participate in managed care, he said.
The Koch Brothers prepared to spend $88 Million in 2012
And compete with Karl Rove to define what the party stands for. From Politico:
In an expansion of their political footprint, the billionaire Koch brothers plan to contribute and steer a total of $88 million to conservative causes during the 2012 election cycle, according to sources, funding a new voter micro-targeting initiative, grassroots organizing efforts and television advertising campaigns.
In fact, as the annual Conservative Political Action Conference meets this week in Washington and conservatives assess the state of their movement, the Kochs’ network of non-profit groups, once centered around sleepy free-enterprise think tanks, seems to some to be emerging as a more ideological counterweight to the independent Republican political machine conceived by Bush-era GOP operatives Karl Rove and Ed Gillespie before the 2010 midterm elections.
The aggressive embrace of political activism by the Koch brothers, Charles and David, has cheered fiscal conservatives, who hope they will reorient the conservative political apparatus around free-market, small government principles and candidates, and away from the electability-over-principles approach they see Rove and Gillespie as embodying.
In an expansion of their political footprint, the billionaire Koch brothers plan to contribute and steer a total of $88 million to conservative causes during the 2012 election cycle, according to sources, funding a new voter micro-targeting initiative, grassroots organizing efforts and television advertising campaigns.
In fact, as the annual Conservative Political Action Conference meets this week in Washington and conservatives assess the state of their movement, the Kochs’ network of non-profit groups, once centered around sleepy free-enterprise think tanks, seems to some to be emerging as a more ideological counterweight to the independent Republican political machine conceived by Bush-era GOP operatives Karl Rove and Ed Gillespie before the 2010 midterm elections.
The aggressive embrace of political activism by the Koch brothers, Charles and David, has cheered fiscal conservatives, who hope they will reorient the conservative political apparatus around free-market, small government principles and candidates, and away from the electability-over-principles approach they see Rove and Gillespie as embodying.
Thursday, February 10, 2011
Texas Speaker Makes Committee Assignments
As my 2302s know, this is one of the major powers the Texas Speaker has.
- Here's the list by committee.
- Press Release from Straus.
- Story in the Texas Tribune.
- Straus gives GOP members the plums, Democrats the crumbs with Texas House committee assignments
- Straus favors GOP in reshuffling of House leaders
- Commentary from Paul Burka:
The Joe Straus who put together these committee assignments was a different Joe Straus from the one who made the appointments in 2009. Straus 2.0 is a much more skilled politician. For those who had labeled him a RINO, he spiked that attack by appointing 27 Republican chairs to only 11 Democrats, a ratio well in excess of the Republican majority of 101 to 49. His enemies had focused on Straus’s appointment of Democrat Rene Oliveira as chairman of Ways & Means as evidence that he was too cozy with Democrats. Straus removed Oliveira as chairman but gave him another chairmanship (Land and Resource Management).
... I don’t see much for Straus’s critics to harp on. He has loaded up on Republican chairs, strengthened the Appropriations committee, and banished his enemies to the dark corners of the Capitol. This guy knows what he is doing.
- Here's the list by committee.
- Press Release from Straus.
- Story in the Texas Tribune.
- Straus gives GOP members the plums, Democrats the crumbs with Texas House committee assignments
- Straus favors GOP in reshuffling of House leaders
- Commentary from Paul Burka:
The Joe Straus who put together these committee assignments was a different Joe Straus from the one who made the appointments in 2009. Straus 2.0 is a much more skilled politician. For those who had labeled him a RINO, he spiked that attack by appointing 27 Republican chairs to only 11 Democrats, a ratio well in excess of the Republican majority of 101 to 49. His enemies had focused on Straus’s appointment of Democrat Rene Oliveira as chairman of Ways & Means as evidence that he was too cozy with Democrats. Straus removed Oliveira as chairman but gave him another chairmanship (Land and Resource Management).
... I don’t see much for Straus’s critics to harp on. He has loaded up on Republican chairs, strengthened the Appropriations committee, and banished his enemies to the dark corners of the Capitol. This guy knows what he is doing.
Week 5 Assessments
Sorry this is so late,
2301
- There will be several questions on the rationale for the separation of powers.
- Be able to explain how it is that each governing institution is made autonomous. Know how the members of each are elected to office as well as term lengths. this applies to the US and Texas.
- Be prepared for several questions on the specific checks and balances. How does each institution "resist the encroachments" of the others?
- As with the previous week, be able to answer questions about Federalist #51. Know key sentences and phrases and how Madison deals with human nature.
2302
Refer to Blackboard for specifics about this week's assessment.
2301
- There will be several questions on the rationale for the separation of powers.
- Be able to explain how it is that each governing institution is made autonomous. Know how the members of each are elected to office as well as term lengths. this applies to the US and Texas.
- Be prepared for several questions on the specific checks and balances. How does each institution "resist the encroachments" of the others?
- As with the previous week, be able to answer questions about Federalist #51. Know key sentences and phrases and how Madison deals with human nature.
2302
Refer to Blackboard for specifics about this week's assessment.
House Tea Party Flexes its Muscle, Forces Republican Leadership to Cut More From the Budget.
From Politico:
Faced with a revolt on the right, House Republicans scrambled Wednesday to adjust their budget strategy and come up with tens of billions of dollars in additional savings — including a possible across-the-board cut — to appease tea party supporters.
The day began with the once-proud House Appropriations Committee previewing what it saw as an unprecedented package of more than $40 billion in reductions from current domestic and foreign aid funding. But even as the numbers were released, conservatives at a morning caucus demanded twice the reductions. And by late in the day, the committee’s cardinals were closeted away in the Capitol, fending off talk of across-the-board cuts but also admitting they will most likely need days more to come up with an alternative.
More than any single event in the new Congress, the standoff captured what’s become a rhetorical nightmare for GOP leaders — having pledged to cut $100 billion from spending this year but then single-mindedly targeting just one narrow segment of the budget covering domestic programs and foreign aid.
Faced with a revolt on the right, House Republicans scrambled Wednesday to adjust their budget strategy and come up with tens of billions of dollars in additional savings — including a possible across-the-board cut — to appease tea party supporters.
The day began with the once-proud House Appropriations Committee previewing what it saw as an unprecedented package of more than $40 billion in reductions from current domestic and foreign aid funding. But even as the numbers were released, conservatives at a morning caucus demanded twice the reductions. And by late in the day, the committee’s cardinals were closeted away in the Capitol, fending off talk of across-the-board cuts but also admitting they will most likely need days more to come up with an alternative.
More than any single event in the new Congress, the standoff captured what’s become a rhetorical nightmare for GOP leaders — having pledged to cut $100 billion from spending this year but then single-mindedly targeting just one narrow segment of the budget covering domestic programs and foreign aid.
What if we Called Taxes Bunnies?
Then we wouldn't have such a problem raising them. Its all in how you articulate a policy proposal.
Thanks to my 2302-03 for bringing this up, this is why I teach.
In all seriousness though, this comment hits on the importance of framing issues. Those who can frame the terms of a debate often win that debate.
Thanks to my 2302-03 for bringing this up, this is why I teach.
In all seriousness though, this comment hits on the importance of framing issues. Those who can frame the terms of a debate often win that debate.
Wednesday, February 9, 2011
Tea Party Split on Civil Liberties?
House Republicans lose a vote on extending provisions of the Patriot Act when several conservatives join Democrats in votign against the bill.
- Story in NYT.
- Story in C-Span.
Glenn Greewald sees this as an important potential alliance:
It's long been clear that the best (and perhaps only) political hope for civil liberties in the U.S. is an alliance that transcends the standard Democrat v. GOP or left v. right dichotomies. Last night's surprising (and temporary) failure of the House to extend some of the most controversial powers of the Patriot Act -- an extension jointly championed by the House GOP leadership and the Obama White House -- perfectly illustrates why this is true.
read on...
- Story in NYT.
- Story in C-Span.
Glenn Greewald sees this as an important potential alliance:
It's long been clear that the best (and perhaps only) political hope for civil liberties in the U.S. is an alliance that transcends the standard Democrat v. GOP or left v. right dichotomies. Last night's surprising (and temporary) failure of the House to extend some of the most controversial powers of the Patriot Act -- an extension jointly championed by the House GOP leadership and the Obama White House -- perfectly illustrates why this is true.
read on...
Are Congressmen Missing Earmarks Already?
From the NYT:
Gone for now are the likes of the taxpayer-financed teapot museum, or studies on the mating habits of crabs. But also shelved are a project to help consolidate information about warrants in Brazos County, Tex., and staffing for two new shelters for abused women and children in Salt Lake City. A rural Wisconsin county will not be able to upgrade its communication system, and a road in Kentucky will not be widened next year.
Across the country, local governments, nonprofit groups and scores of farmers, to name but a few, are waking up to the fact that when Congress stamped out earmarks last week, it was talking about their projects, too.
Tensions are particularly acute in districts where new conservative lawmakers, many of whom criticized throughout their campaigns the practice of quietly inserting earmarks into spending bills, are coming face to face with local governments and interest groups who were counting on federal dollars to help shore up their own collapsing budgets.
Gone for now are the likes of the taxpayer-financed teapot museum, or studies on the mating habits of crabs. But also shelved are a project to help consolidate information about warrants in Brazos County, Tex., and staffing for two new shelters for abused women and children in Salt Lake City. A rural Wisconsin county will not be able to upgrade its communication system, and a road in Kentucky will not be widened next year.
Across the country, local governments, nonprofit groups and scores of farmers, to name but a few, are waking up to the fact that when Congress stamped out earmarks last week, it was talking about their projects, too.
Tensions are particularly acute in districts where new conservative lawmakers, many of whom criticized throughout their campaigns the practice of quietly inserting earmarks into spending bills, are coming face to face with local governments and interest groups who were counting on federal dollars to help shore up their own collapsing budgets.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)