Tuesday, October 4, 2011
Five Chiefs
Recently retired Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens has written a book about his experiences.
Fed Chair Warns Against Future Spending Cuts
From NPR:
Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke is reiterating that Congress should not cut spending sharply while the economy is weak.
Bernanke told the Joint Economic Committee that lawmakers face a delicate challenge: They must avoid making deep spending cuts that could impede the recovery. But he says they must also eventually cut spending more deeply than the $1.5 trillion in deficit cuts being sought by a special panel.
Bernanke said that the U.S. economy is growing more slowly than the Fed had expected and that the biggest factor depressing consumer confidence is poor job growth.
His warning to Congress not to pursue deep spending cuts in the short run comes at a time of sharp disagreement within the Fed and Congress about how to invigorate the economy.
Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke is reiterating that Congress should not cut spending sharply while the economy is weak.
Bernanke told the Joint Economic Committee that lawmakers face a delicate challenge: They must avoid making deep spending cuts that could impede the recovery. But he says they must also eventually cut spending more deeply than the $1.5 trillion in deficit cuts being sought by a special panel.
Bernanke said that the U.S. economy is growing more slowly than the Fed had expected and that the biggest factor depressing consumer confidence is poor job growth.
His warning to Congress not to pursue deep spending cuts in the short run comes at a time of sharp disagreement within the Fed and Congress about how to invigorate the economy.
Why did American Manufacturing lose out to China?
Here's one man's take. It was inevitable. The author suggests a way forward.
China is not the reason that manufacturing began to decline in the United States in the second half of the 20th century. The United States was an uncontested manufacturing powerhouse in the 1950s in no small part because Germany and Japan had been bombed to smithereens, along with much of the rest of the civilized world, while potential global competitors in much of Europe, Latin America, and Asia were suffocating under socialism in various forms. That is no longer the case.
The United States is a country with an average household money income of some $50,000 — we are not going to be the world’s leader in low-margin injected-plastic manufacturing. That is not going to happen, and we should not be eager for it to happen. . . .
Here is something that is not a mystery: China will soon be the world’s second-largest consumer market, and India will be fourth or fifth in a decade or so. We Americans excel at making high-end stuff: Technology, aircraft, industrial machinery, etc. It’s easier to sell high-end stuff to rich people than to poor people. China’s trade imbalances with the world at large are well on their way toward being sorted out, and have been for some time, and the fact that the United States continues to have a large trade deficit vis-à-vis China is at least as much a reflection of policy decisions in Washington as of those in Beijing. (And it is worth remembering that about half of our trade deficit with the world at large is from a single product: oil.)
The only thing that will raise wages in the United States is real long-term investment in productive capital. That’s it. Romney is better placed than most to appreciate that — I think. I’m skeptical of the cult of the businessman, whether your businessman is Romney, Herman Cain, Donald Trump, or Ross Perot. The United States of America is not Bain Capital, and it is not a pizza chain.
China is not the reason that manufacturing began to decline in the United States in the second half of the 20th century. The United States was an uncontested manufacturing powerhouse in the 1950s in no small part because Germany and Japan had been bombed to smithereens, along with much of the rest of the civilized world, while potential global competitors in much of Europe, Latin America, and Asia were suffocating under socialism in various forms. That is no longer the case.
The United States is a country with an average household money income of some $50,000 — we are not going to be the world’s leader in low-margin injected-plastic manufacturing. That is not going to happen, and we should not be eager for it to happen. . . .
Here is something that is not a mystery: China will soon be the world’s second-largest consumer market, and India will be fourth or fifth in a decade or so. We Americans excel at making high-end stuff: Technology, aircraft, industrial machinery, etc. It’s easier to sell high-end stuff to rich people than to poor people. China’s trade imbalances with the world at large are well on their way toward being sorted out, and have been for some time, and the fact that the United States continues to have a large trade deficit vis-à-vis China is at least as much a reflection of policy decisions in Washington as of those in Beijing. (And it is worth remembering that about half of our trade deficit with the world at large is from a single product: oil.)
The only thing that will raise wages in the United States is real long-term investment in productive capital. That’s it. Romney is better placed than most to appreciate that — I think. I’m skeptical of the cult of the businessman, whether your businessman is Romney, Herman Cain, Donald Trump, or Ross Perot. The United States of America is not Bain Capital, and it is not a pizza chain.
From Slate: Will Robots Steal Your Job
Slate runs a series of articles on the further consequences of an automated workforce. You may want to rethink your goals:
Artificial intelligence machines are getting so good, so quickly, that they're poised to replace humans across a wide range of industries. In the next decade, we'll see machines barge into areas of the economy that we'd never suspected possible—they'll be diagnosing your diseases, dispensing your medicine, handling your lawsuits, making fundamental scientific discoveries, and even writing stories just like this one. Economic theory holds that as these industries are revolutionized by technology, prices for their services will decline, and society as a whole will benefit. As I conducted my research, I found this argument convincing—robotic lawyers, for instance, will bring cheap legal services to the masses who can't afford lawyers today. But there's a dark side, too: Imagine you've spent three years in law school, two more years clerking, and the last decade trying to make partner—and now here comes a machine that can do much of your $400-per-hour job faster, and for a fraction of the cost. What do you do now?
Ezra Klein thinks we will adjust.
Worth pondering: our governing systems was set up from the start to allow for innovation, but innovation creates disruptions in society which can create problems for segments of society that are unable to adjust - or lack the resources to do so well. Do we owe those people those resources?
Artificial intelligence machines are getting so good, so quickly, that they're poised to replace humans across a wide range of industries. In the next decade, we'll see machines barge into areas of the economy that we'd never suspected possible—they'll be diagnosing your diseases, dispensing your medicine, handling your lawsuits, making fundamental scientific discoveries, and even writing stories just like this one. Economic theory holds that as these industries are revolutionized by technology, prices for their services will decline, and society as a whole will benefit. As I conducted my research, I found this argument convincing—robotic lawyers, for instance, will bring cheap legal services to the masses who can't afford lawyers today. But there's a dark side, too: Imagine you've spent three years in law school, two more years clerking, and the last decade trying to make partner—and now here comes a machine that can do much of your $400-per-hour job faster, and for a fraction of the cost. What do you do now?
Ezra Klein thinks we will adjust.
Worth pondering: our governing systems was set up from the start to allow for innovation, but innovation creates disruptions in society which can create problems for segments of society that are unable to adjust - or lack the resources to do so well. Do we owe those people those resources?
Florida changes date of its primary
Traditionally - and only because its always been done this way, Iowa has the first presidential caucus and New Hampshire has the first presidential primary. Florida - along with other states - have tried to nudge ahead of them though. Florida has made it official for 2012, and other states (South Carolina and Nevada) may change their primary dates as a result.
Some argue that they should. Neither Iowa nor New Hampshire has a population that mirrors that of the United States so there is no guarantee that the winner of those primaries will go on to be the winner of the general election.
Some argue that they should. Neither Iowa nor New Hampshire has a population that mirrors that of the United States so there is no guarantee that the winner of those primaries will go on to be the winner of the general election.
Perry support slips, Cain's rises
From the Washington Post:
After a quick rise in the race for the Republican presidential nomination, Texas Gov. Rick Perry has experienced an almost equally dramatic decline, losing about half of his support over the past month, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll.
Perry’s slide, which comes after several uneven performances in candidate debates, has allowed former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney to resurface atop the GOP field. But the most direct beneficiary of the disenchantment with Perry is businessman Herman Cain, who is now tied for second place.
Andrew Sullivan wonders if Perry is over.
After a quick rise in the race for the Republican presidential nomination, Texas Gov. Rick Perry has experienced an almost equally dramatic decline, losing about half of his support over the past month, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll.
Perry’s slide, which comes after several uneven performances in candidate debates, has allowed former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney to resurface atop the GOP field. But the most direct beneficiary of the disenchantment with Perry is businessman Herman Cain, who is now tied for second place.
Andrew Sullivan wonders if Perry is over.
Monday, October 3, 2011
Written Assignments
Here are the written assignments for next week
2301:
This week we tackle federalism, and as it turns out, a major federalism case will be heard by the newly reconvened Supreme Court. The case is called Toby Douglas vs. The Independent Living Center of the United States. The subject is reimbursement rates for Medicaid, but more specifically "Whether Medicaid recipients and providers may maintain a cause of action under the Supremacy Clause to enforce [the law] by asserting that the provision preempts a state law reducing reimbursement rates? Obviously this case touches on how the current Supreme Court interprets cases that touch on the relationship between the states and the national government, and will hinge on how the court interprets the Supremacy Clause.
I want you to become familiar with the case and the arguments made on either side of it. I also want you to become familiar with the various issues associated with the Supremacy Clause. Now pretend that you have to explain this case in class and make a reasonable prediction about how the court will rule on this case. Write it up and send it to me.
Part of the point behind this exercise is to also get you familiar with court procedures. As we are hopefully finding out, process is at least as important as substance in the American system.
Here are some links that can help you work through this assignment:
- ScotusBlog: Toby Douglas vs. The Independent Living Center of the United States.
- Wikipedia: Supremacy Clause.
- Oral Argument Transcript.
2302:
One of the themes I'll try to hit as we proceed in this section is that the Anti-Federalists were very concerned that a singular executive with commander in chief powers - in addition to control of tax collection - would turn into a military king.
This was the title of one of the Anti-Federalist Papers.
So my question is, given the size of the military and the ease at which presidents can use military power (think Libya etc ...) has the presidency turned into a military king? Or if not quite that explicit, has the president's military powers grown to the point where we should be concerned?
Why or why not?
2301:
This week we tackle federalism, and as it turns out, a major federalism case will be heard by the newly reconvened Supreme Court. The case is called Toby Douglas vs. The Independent Living Center of the United States. The subject is reimbursement rates for Medicaid, but more specifically "Whether Medicaid recipients and providers may maintain a cause of action under the Supremacy Clause to enforce [the law] by asserting that the provision preempts a state law reducing reimbursement rates? Obviously this case touches on how the current Supreme Court interprets cases that touch on the relationship between the states and the national government, and will hinge on how the court interprets the Supremacy Clause.
I want you to become familiar with the case and the arguments made on either side of it. I also want you to become familiar with the various issues associated with the Supremacy Clause. Now pretend that you have to explain this case in class and make a reasonable prediction about how the court will rule on this case. Write it up and send it to me.
Part of the point behind this exercise is to also get you familiar with court procedures. As we are hopefully finding out, process is at least as important as substance in the American system.
Here are some links that can help you work through this assignment:
- ScotusBlog: Toby Douglas vs. The Independent Living Center of the United States.
- Wikipedia: Supremacy Clause.
- Oral Argument Transcript.
2302:
One of the themes I'll try to hit as we proceed in this section is that the Anti-Federalists were very concerned that a singular executive with commander in chief powers - in addition to control of tax collection - would turn into a military king.
This was the title of one of the Anti-Federalist Papers.
So my question is, given the size of the military and the ease at which presidents can use military power (think Libya etc ...) has the presidency turned into a military king? Or if not quite that explicit, has the president's military powers grown to the point where we should be concerned?
Why or why not?
Do we want a President or a Messiah?
Probably the latter.
America is desperate for a messiah. Christie Fever would seem a little more remarkable, for instance, if conservatives hadn’t already contracted Bachmania, Donalditis, and Restless Perry Syndrome, then cast aside each of their would-be saviors as soon as he or she showed the slightest earthly imperfection. Meanwhile, on the left, and in the center, the very voters who fueled President Obama’s landslide 2008 victory are now awarding him the lowest job-approval ratings of his career. Christie summed up popular sentiment in his speech. “If you’re looking for leadership in America,” he said, “you’re not going to find it in the Oval Office.” Never mind that the administration just assassinated yet another Al Qaeda kingpin, Anwar al-Awlaki, out-Bushing Bush and further discrediting the old canard that Democrats can’t protect America. The belief that there’s someone better out there—someone who can lead us not into recession, but deliver us from unemployment—now extends to both sides of the aisle.
Do we suffer from a crisis of leadership, or unrealistic expectations from the electorate?
America is desperate for a messiah. Christie Fever would seem a little more remarkable, for instance, if conservatives hadn’t already contracted Bachmania, Donalditis, and Restless Perry Syndrome, then cast aside each of their would-be saviors as soon as he or she showed the slightest earthly imperfection. Meanwhile, on the left, and in the center, the very voters who fueled President Obama’s landslide 2008 victory are now awarding him the lowest job-approval ratings of his career. Christie summed up popular sentiment in his speech. “If you’re looking for leadership in America,” he said, “you’re not going to find it in the Oval Office.” Never mind that the administration just assassinated yet another Al Qaeda kingpin, Anwar al-Awlaki, out-Bushing Bush and further discrediting the old canard that Democrats can’t protect America. The belief that there’s someone better out there—someone who can lead us not into recession, but deliver us from unemployment—now extends to both sides of the aisle.
Do we suffer from a crisis of leadership, or unrealistic expectations from the electorate?
Will Republican Primary Battles Produce an Unelectable Candidate
While its still premature to make predictions, the state of the economy, and the looming possibility of a second recession make Obama's re-election unlikely, that is unless the Republican Party nominates someone too extreme for the general electorate.
Albert Hunt sees this as a possibility. From the Atlantic Five:
"One of the few political pleasures for President Barack Obama's re-election team these days is watching the Republican primary fight," writes Albert Hunt in Bloomberg View. Republican presidential candidates must appeal to conservatives further to the right on issues from Medicare to immigration, threatening to alienate independent voters in a general election.
"President Richard Nixon used to say that the key to U.S. politics was to appeal to the base in the primaries and move to the center in the general elections. That's difficult if the nomination contests swing too far," Hunt says. In debates, Rick Perry, seen as the "leading conservative," has been attacked for moderate positions on immigration, even while he leads conservative attacks on social security. Romney's greatest liability is "enacting a health-care plan when he was governor that most analysts say has improved care in Massachusetts."
"Primary battles can be beneficial. Obama's standing and skills as the Democratic nominee last time were honed by his intense battle for the nomination against Hillary Clinton. An exceptionally tough and protracted battle, it never became ideologically toxic." Reagan was a better candidate in 1980 having defeated his primary rivals. But primary fights have "caricatured" a party beyond general electability as with Barry Goldwater or George McGovern, Hunt says. If Chris Christie gets into the race, he can expect to have his more moderate positions on guns and immigration attacked on the right, increasing the likelihood of another Goldwater-esque candidacy in the general election.
Albert Hunt sees this as a possibility. From the Atlantic Five:
"One of the few political pleasures for President Barack Obama's re-election team these days is watching the Republican primary fight," writes Albert Hunt in Bloomberg View. Republican presidential candidates must appeal to conservatives further to the right on issues from Medicare to immigration, threatening to alienate independent voters in a general election.
"President Richard Nixon used to say that the key to U.S. politics was to appeal to the base in the primaries and move to the center in the general elections. That's difficult if the nomination contests swing too far," Hunt says. In debates, Rick Perry, seen as the "leading conservative," has been attacked for moderate positions on immigration, even while he leads conservative attacks on social security. Romney's greatest liability is "enacting a health-care plan when he was governor that most analysts say has improved care in Massachusetts."
"Primary battles can be beneficial. Obama's standing and skills as the Democratic nominee last time were honed by his intense battle for the nomination against Hillary Clinton. An exceptionally tough and protracted battle, it never became ideologically toxic." Reagan was a better candidate in 1980 having defeated his primary rivals. But primary fights have "caricatured" a party beyond general electability as with Barry Goldwater or George McGovern, Hunt says. If Chris Christie gets into the race, he can expect to have his more moderate positions on guns and immigration attacked on the right, increasing the likelihood of another Goldwater-esque candidacy in the general election.
Keeping the Republic
Buried within Glen Greenwald's text below is an important question regarding civil liberties and the factors that lead them to become minimized:
What’s most amazing is that its citizens will not merely refrain from objecting, but will stand and cheer the U.S. Government’s new power to assassinate their fellow citizens, far from any battlefield, literally without a shred of due process from the U.S. Government. Many will celebrate the strong, decisive, Tough President’s ability to eradicate the life of Anwar al-Awlaki — including many who just so righteously condemned those Republican audience members as so terribly barbaric and crass for cheering Governor Perry’s execution of scores of serial murderers and rapists: criminals who were at least given a trial and appeals and the other trappings of due process before being killed.
From an authoritarian perspective, that’s the genius of America’s political culture. It not only finds ways to obliterate the most basic individual liberties designed to safeguard citizens from consummate abuses of power (such as extinguishing the lives of citizens without due process). It actually gets its citizens to stand up and clap and even celebrate the destruction of those safeguards.
One might object and state that these limits are necessary in order to provide security, but that is probably his larger point - and one we have discussed as we have talked about the tendency of people to give up liberty in the pursuit of freedom. Its an old story.
What’s most amazing is that its citizens will not merely refrain from objecting, but will stand and cheer the U.S. Government’s new power to assassinate their fellow citizens, far from any battlefield, literally without a shred of due process from the U.S. Government. Many will celebrate the strong, decisive, Tough President’s ability to eradicate the life of Anwar al-Awlaki — including many who just so righteously condemned those Republican audience members as so terribly barbaric and crass for cheering Governor Perry’s execution of scores of serial murderers and rapists: criminals who were at least given a trial and appeals and the other trappings of due process before being killed.
From an authoritarian perspective, that’s the genius of America’s political culture. It not only finds ways to obliterate the most basic individual liberties designed to safeguard citizens from consummate abuses of power (such as extinguishing the lives of citizens without due process). It actually gets its citizens to stand up and clap and even celebrate the destruction of those safeguards.
One might object and state that these limits are necessary in order to provide security, but that is probably his larger point - and one we have discussed as we have talked about the tendency of people to give up liberty in the pursuit of freedom. Its an old story.
From Good Is: Watch Your Mouth: Can You Patent a Sandwich?
As we discuss the delegated powers, questions persist about the extent of the patent clause. Is private ownership going too far?
Was the killing of Anwar al-Awlaki an unconstitutional violation of a citizen's due process rights?
By all accounts Anwar al-Awlaki was a bad guy - at least for those on our side - but was his (apparent) killing illegal? Is the United States now free to assassinate its own citizens if a presidential administration deems it acceptable? Critics argue that this action violated the Fifth Amendment's Due Process clause. Even more so, some wonder if an American citizen been killed for the content of his speech.
Former Bush legal adviser John Yoo thinks the killing was justified. Here's a summary of an editorial:
A U.S. drone strike Friday killed Anwar al-Awlaki, a Yemeni-American linked to the shootings at Fort Hood, Texas and the attempted bombing of a Northwest flight. It was a victory, writes John Yoo in The Wall Street Journal, yet "even as details of the operation leaked out, critics claimed that our government had 'assassinated' an American citizen without due process."
The ACLU has represented Awlaki's father, arguing "the Constitution forbids the government from trying to kill an American citizen for allegedly joining the enemy." The U.N. has suggested drone strikes deny due process. Last December, a court threw out the ACLU claim, saying "Awlaki always had the option of returning home to prove his innocence." American officials have defined an assassination as "an act of murder for political purposes," something which Awlaki's killing was not. "American citizens who join the enemy do not enjoy a roving legal force-field that immunizes them from military reprisal."
Abraham Lincoln knew early on that the government had the right to "treat its own citizens as enemies when they take up arms in rebellion. Supreme Court opinions have upheld Lincoln's principle." The shape of the war on terror, with a stateless enemy that recruits fighters from any country makes Lincoln's idea more important, and in 2001, the Supreme Court reaffirmed the idea that someone could be at once a citizen and an enemy combatant.
The Obama administration should be certain a citizen is a member of al Qaeda, and it should emphasize capturing not killing enemies, but as they face a drawdown, "the U.S. may be left with no opportunities for capture, and precious few chances to kill."
Former Bush legal adviser John Yoo thinks the killing was justified. Here's a summary of an editorial:
A U.S. drone strike Friday killed Anwar al-Awlaki, a Yemeni-American linked to the shootings at Fort Hood, Texas and the attempted bombing of a Northwest flight. It was a victory, writes John Yoo in The Wall Street Journal, yet "even as details of the operation leaked out, critics claimed that our government had 'assassinated' an American citizen without due process."
The ACLU has represented Awlaki's father, arguing "the Constitution forbids the government from trying to kill an American citizen for allegedly joining the enemy." The U.N. has suggested drone strikes deny due process. Last December, a court threw out the ACLU claim, saying "Awlaki always had the option of returning home to prove his innocence." American officials have defined an assassination as "an act of murder for political purposes," something which Awlaki's killing was not. "American citizens who join the enemy do not enjoy a roving legal force-field that immunizes them from military reprisal."
Abraham Lincoln knew early on that the government had the right to "treat its own citizens as enemies when they take up arms in rebellion. Supreme Court opinions have upheld Lincoln's principle." The shape of the war on terror, with a stateless enemy that recruits fighters from any country makes Lincoln's idea more important, and in 2001, the Supreme Court reaffirmed the idea that someone could be at once a citizen and an enemy combatant.
The Obama administration should be certain a citizen is a member of al Qaeda, and it should emphasize capturing not killing enemies, but as they face a drawdown, "the U.S. may be left with no opportunities for capture, and precious few chances to kill."
Supreme Court Approval Rating Dips to 46%
Supreme Court Approval Rating Dips to 46%
All institutions seem to be taking hits, now the Supreme Court is no different - but its opinion is still higher than that of Congress or the presidency.
From the Atlantic Five: Ex-Solicitor General Kenneth Starr wonders if it is time for the Supreme Court to allow its proceedings to be televised:
"Cameras in the courtroom of the United States Supreme Court are long overdue," writes Kenneth Starr in The New York Times. Citizens and school groups constantly line up outside the court for hours to see it in action. "Many who stand in these lines and endure all-night waits will be disappointed: space in the magnificent courtroom is very tight." Most Americans will never even try to see it. "
'Equal justice under law' is the inscription on the face of the court building. It is time that we the people had equal access to the process by which that justice is meted out." Improved transparency would advance our nation's democratic goals of allowing the people to see how the government works. "Year after year, the court issues decisions that profoundly affect the nation," and opening up public viewing would only help the decline in civic literacy.
"Justice Anthony M. Kennedy's fear is that televising the oral arguments would introduce 'the insidious temptation to think that one of my colleagues is trying to get a sound bite for the television.'" But sound recordings are already available. New forms of media from newspapers to radios have long been feared "for demagogic potential" before being accepted into the mainstream. "The idea that cameras would transform the court into 'Judge Judy' is ludicrous," Starr says. Thankfully, the "old guard" is losing the battle.
The newest justice, Elena Kagan, recently said, "If everybody could see this, it would make people feel so good about this branch of government and how it's operating." "Just so," says Starr. "If the justices won't open the courtroom doors to cameras -- proxies for the public eye -- of their own accord, then Congress has the capacity and the duty to take action.
All institutions seem to be taking hits, now the Supreme Court is no different - but its opinion is still higher than that of Congress or the presidency.
From the Atlantic Five: Ex-Solicitor General Kenneth Starr wonders if it is time for the Supreme Court to allow its proceedings to be televised:
"Cameras in the courtroom of the United States Supreme Court are long overdue," writes Kenneth Starr in The New York Times. Citizens and school groups constantly line up outside the court for hours to see it in action. "Many who stand in these lines and endure all-night waits will be disappointed: space in the magnificent courtroom is very tight." Most Americans will never even try to see it. "
'Equal justice under law' is the inscription on the face of the court building. It is time that we the people had equal access to the process by which that justice is meted out." Improved transparency would advance our nation's democratic goals of allowing the people to see how the government works. "Year after year, the court issues decisions that profoundly affect the nation," and opening up public viewing would only help the decline in civic literacy.
"Justice Anthony M. Kennedy's fear is that televising the oral arguments would introduce 'the insidious temptation to think that one of my colleagues is trying to get a sound bite for the television.'" But sound recordings are already available. New forms of media from newspapers to radios have long been feared "for demagogic potential" before being accepted into the mainstream. "The idea that cameras would transform the court into 'Judge Judy' is ludicrous," Starr says. Thankfully, the "old guard" is losing the battle.
The newest justice, Elena Kagan, recently said, "If everybody could see this, it would make people feel so good about this branch of government and how it's operating." "Just so," says Starr. "If the justices won't open the courtroom doors to cameras -- proxies for the public eye -- of their own accord, then Congress has the capacity and the duty to take action.
The Supreme Court is Back in Session
The Supreme Court reconvenes every first Monday in October, here's detail on what to expect the year ahead:
- Washington Post:
The dominant theme is the one that has divided the country and fueled the debate between tea party Republicans and President Obama since the 2010 election: the extent of the federal government’s power.
The justices are being asked to decide the constitutionality of the landmark health-care act, the ability of states to enforce strict immigration laws and whether the government can continue to monitor the airwaves for indecency.
The court could also reopen the question of affirmative action in college admissions, rule on the rights of gay adoptive parents and decide whether the blindingly fast pace of modern technology has reshaped Americans’ notion of privacy.
- ScotusBlog:
Today, the Court officially begins the October Term 2011, which is widely expected to be one of the most exciting and important Terms in recent memory. Bloomberg, the San Francisco Chronicle, Forbes, the Associated Press, the New York Times, Reuters, the Wall Street Journal (video), the Christian Science Monitor, NPR, the National Review Online, the National Law Journal, CNN, the Los Angeles Times, the Washington Post, the Washington Post’s PostPartisan blog, and Wired all preview the Term ahead. At the Atlantic, Andrew Cohen has compiled a list of the “Top 10” Supreme Court previews, while Garrett Epps offers a “constitutional law nerd’s take on upcoming Supreme Court cases.” The New York Times briefly reviews the questions presented in eight of the higher-profile cases on the docket so far, while the editorial board of the Los Angeles Times looks ahead to argue that this Term offers the Court an “opportunity to play a role it often has embraced in its history: reining in the overweening power of the state.”
- Washington Post:
The dominant theme is the one that has divided the country and fueled the debate between tea party Republicans and President Obama since the 2010 election: the extent of the federal government’s power.
The justices are being asked to decide the constitutionality of the landmark health-care act, the ability of states to enforce strict immigration laws and whether the government can continue to monitor the airwaves for indecency.
The court could also reopen the question of affirmative action in college admissions, rule on the rights of gay adoptive parents and decide whether the blindingly fast pace of modern technology has reshaped Americans’ notion of privacy.
- ScotusBlog:
Today, the Court officially begins the October Term 2011, which is widely expected to be one of the most exciting and important Terms in recent memory. Bloomberg, the San Francisco Chronicle, Forbes, the Associated Press, the New York Times, Reuters, the Wall Street Journal (video), the Christian Science Monitor, NPR, the National Review Online, the National Law Journal, CNN, the Los Angeles Times, the Washington Post, the Washington Post’s PostPartisan blog, and Wired all preview the Term ahead. At the Atlantic, Andrew Cohen has compiled a list of the “Top 10” Supreme Court previews, while Garrett Epps offers a “constitutional law nerd’s take on upcoming Supreme Court cases.” The New York Times briefly reviews the questions presented in eight of the higher-profile cases on the docket so far, while the editorial board of the Los Angeles Times looks ahead to argue that this Term offers the Court an “opportunity to play a role it often has embraced in its history: reining in the overweening power of the state.”
Friday, September 30, 2011
From the Washington Post: House Republicans jockey to influence the next budget
As we mentioned in 2302, budget battles often become attempts to change public policy. The next round of appropriations bills prove the point:
Congress has avoided a shutdown over the budget for now. But a small faction of House Republicans is already tussling over how to position the party for the next round. House GOP appropriations leaders have released a draft bill to fund labor, health, and education for the 2012 fiscal year. While it’s still just a piece of the overall budget, it’s already making some battle lines clear. In fact, the bill’s biggest obstacle so far has come from within the House GOP itself.
Authored by Rep. Denny Rehberg (R-Mont.), the bill contains some major spending cuts that would set up a big showdown with Democrats should the GOP as a whole get behind it. It zeroes out funds for Obama’s “Race to the Top” education program and Title X family planning; cuts funds for the National Labor Relations Board by 17 percent; tightens Pell Grant eligibility; and slashes $8.6 billion in an effort to block the implementation of health-care reform. It also brings back recently contentious fights, eliminating all federal funding for NPR and Americorps and trying to reinstate the so-called “Stupak amendment” that nearly derailed the Affordable Care Act.
- Wikipedia: Denny Rehberg.
- House Page: Denny Rehberg
- House Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services and Education.
Congress has avoided a shutdown over the budget for now. But a small faction of House Republicans is already tussling over how to position the party for the next round. House GOP appropriations leaders have released a draft bill to fund labor, health, and education for the 2012 fiscal year. While it’s still just a piece of the overall budget, it’s already making some battle lines clear. In fact, the bill’s biggest obstacle so far has come from within the House GOP itself.
Authored by Rep. Denny Rehberg (R-Mont.), the bill contains some major spending cuts that would set up a big showdown with Democrats should the GOP as a whole get behind it. It zeroes out funds for Obama’s “Race to the Top” education program and Title X family planning; cuts funds for the National Labor Relations Board by 17 percent; tightens Pell Grant eligibility; and slashes $8.6 billion in an effort to block the implementation of health-care reform. It also brings back recently contentious fights, eliminating all federal funding for NPR and Americorps and trying to reinstate the so-called “Stupak amendment” that nearly derailed the Affordable Care Act.
- Wikipedia: Denny Rehberg.
- House Page: Denny Rehberg
- House Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services and Education.
Is a Double Dip Recession Inevitable?
Maybe: Early last week, ECRI notified clients that the U.S. economy is indeed
tipping into a new recession. And there’s nothing that policy makers can
do to head it off.
Does Regulatory Uncertainty Harm Job Creation?
Republican leaders commonly argue that they do, but a recent paper suggests otherwise.
The Consequences of a Weak Labor Market
The fact that there are multiple applications for any available job gives the advantage to the hirer, not the applicant. This has turned Amazon into the pea farms in the Grapes of Wrath.
Are Suspect Sketches Worthless?
A link from Andrew Sullivan which continues our look at the reliability of eyewitness testimony.
Thursday, September 29, 2011
What can be done about jobs?
A comment on whether Obama's jobs bill is likely to work, and a discussion of the proposal.
Senate Majority whip does not think the votes are there to pass the bill.
Senate Majority whip does not think the votes are there to pass the bill.
Global Adaption Index
Some countries are better able to adapt to change than others. Is the governing system responsible?
The Michael Jackson Trial
I tend to avoid celebrity trials - but since they are topical examples of judicial activity, I shouldn't. We should follow developments in the Michael Jackson trial in order illustrate key points in both 2301 and 2302.
- Here's a list of past sensational trials. It might tbe proper for us to wonder about why these trials become such media events.
- Here's a list of past sensational trials. It might tbe proper for us to wonder about why these trials become such media events.
Should you act as your own lawyer?
You can, the Constitution has interpreted the right of representation to allow for it, but it is almost never a good idea. As much as we like to tease lawyers, they tend to be good at what they do - or at least better than we are at it.
Do we have too much democracy?
A neat little back and forth:
- Yes: Too Much of a Good Thing.
- No, or not really: In (partial) defense of less democracy.
- Yes: Too Much of a Good Thing.
- No, or not really: In (partial) defense of less democracy.
Democrats Dispirited About Voting in 2012
Democrats Dispirited About Voting in 2012
This is the lates in a series of gallup polls I'll be posting - it'll prime 2301's for future discussions of public opinions and polling technologies. This also will help when we discuss elections. As we will note - support for a candidate is fine, but the crucial point is whether party supporters show up and vote. Whichever party is more enthusiastic tend to be more likely to do so. Consequently poll results which show evidence provide an early indication of which side is more enthused are a big deal. By a 2 to 1 margin, Republicans are more enthusiastic about the election.
This is the lates in a series of gallup polls I'll be posting - it'll prime 2301's for future discussions of public opinions and polling technologies. This also will help when we discuss elections. As we will note - support for a candidate is fine, but the crucial point is whether party supporters show up and vote. Whichever party is more enthusiastic tend to be more likely to do so. Consequently poll results which show evidence provide an early indication of which side is more enthused are a big deal. By a 2 to 1 margin, Republicans are more enthusiastic about the election.
Wednesday, September 28, 2011
FEMA Funding
IN today's 2302 we covered budgeting and specifically the recent conflict over FEMA funding, as well as the role the budgeting process has begun to play in setting public policy. If you can;t terminate a program you do not like (like Amtrak) you can just cut its funds. This has the same effect.
After discussing the nature and age of the agency - mentioning also the disaster relief has a long history in the US - we pointed out that a big problem with funding FEMA is that we never know ahead of time how much has to be spent on disaster relief. We don't know what disasters will happen until they happen. I guess that's why the are called disasters. Global warming models suggest that rising world temperatures make climate related disasters more frequent ans costly. The Washington Post has a graphic that seems to support his:
After discussing the nature and age of the agency - mentioning also the disaster relief has a long history in the US - we pointed out that a big problem with funding FEMA is that we never know ahead of time how much has to be spent on disaster relief. We don't know what disasters will happen until they happen. I guess that's why the are called disasters. Global warming models suggest that rising world temperatures make climate related disasters more frequent ans costly. The Washington Post has a graphic that seems to support his:
The White House Wants the Supreme Court to Rule on Health Care the Term
That's the claim made in these articles:
- Health reform lawsuit appears headed for Supreme Court.
- Unappealing.
- Three reasons the White House is taking health reform straight to the Supreme Court.
- Key health case moves on faster track.
- Health reform lawsuit appears headed for Supreme Court.
- Unappealing.
- Three reasons the White House is taking health reform straight to the Supreme Court.
- Key health case moves on faster track.
Roger Ailes
The chair of Fox news has been the subject of a variety of news articles, many touching on his apparent role as "kingmaker" within the Republican Party - he once worked on Richard Nixon's campaigns. Reading through these - and noting the deference presidential aspirants give him - makes one wonder where power lies.
- The Elephant in the Green Room.
- Roger's Reality Show.
- The Top Five Signs Roger Ailes is Still in Charge of the GOP.
- The Elephant in the Green Room.
- Roger's Reality Show.
- The Top Five Signs Roger Ailes is Still in Charge of the GOP.
Tuesday, September 27, 2011
Yasheng Huang: Does democracy stifle economic growth?
A talk with a counter-intuitive message, at least for our purposes.
Is China outpacing India because India is democratic and China is autocratic? This seems to argue against the point made by Niall Ferguson below. Perhaops an intrepid student could write up a comparison between the two.
Is China outpacing India because India is democratic and China is autocratic? This seems to argue against the point made by Niall Ferguson below. Perhaops an intrepid student could write up a comparison between the two.
The GOP’s Purity Test
The Daily Beast's Howard Kutz points out the power of the Tea Party to ensure that Republican candidates toe the party line:
If you assembled a Republican primary candidate in a laboratory, it would be hard to build a more breathtakingly conservative specimen than Rick Perry.
Social Security is unconstitutional? Check. Evolution is suspect? Check. Being gay is a choice, like being an alcoholic? Check.
But wait—bzzt! There’s one malfunction here. Perry opposes illegal immigration, to be sure, but believes the children of such immigrants—often brought here at a young age—ought to get in-state tuition breaks so they can go to college and not be a burden on society.
And with that, he has flunked the Purity Test.
It is a test being imposed on everyone who wants the GOP nomination, and it has never been more stringent or located farther to the right—a sign of the stranglehold the Tea Party has on the process.
Never mind that a position was perfectly acceptable for a Republican in 2008; if it fails the Purity Test now, it must be explained away, preferably with an apology. George W. Bush and John McCain would be laughed off the stage these days for the positions they took on immigration.
If you assembled a Republican primary candidate in a laboratory, it would be hard to build a more breathtakingly conservative specimen than Rick Perry.
Social Security is unconstitutional? Check. Evolution is suspect? Check. Being gay is a choice, like being an alcoholic? Check.
But wait—bzzt! There’s one malfunction here. Perry opposes illegal immigration, to be sure, but believes the children of such immigrants—often brought here at a young age—ought to get in-state tuition breaks so they can go to college and not be a burden on society.
And with that, he has flunked the Purity Test.
It is a test being imposed on everyone who wants the GOP nomination, and it has never been more stringent or located farther to the right—a sign of the stranglehold the Tea Party has on the process.
Never mind that a position was perfectly acceptable for a Republican in 2008; if it fails the Purity Test now, it must be explained away, preferably with an apology. George W. Bush and John McCain would be laughed off the stage these days for the positions they took on immigration.
A turning point on the death penalty?
It is not uncommon for policies to change suddenly due to certain, critical, well timed events that allow for changes in opinion to crystalize and drive change forward. This author wonders if the recent execution of Trpy Davis - who some argue may have been innocent of the crime he was executed for - might be such an event.
More Autocracy for Russia?
The Washington Post reports on Putin's return to the country's presidency:
Looking ahead to an era of uncertainty and economic troubles, Prime Minister Vladimir Putin and President Dmitry Medvedev told Russia on Saturday that they intend to swap jobs, putting the country on an authoritarian path for years to come.
In theory, the switch requires voters’ approval next March, but in practice not much stands in the way, with opposition parties hobbled and Putin’s party dominant.
The move will put Putin back in the presidency after a four-year absence. The two six-year terms he would be allowed under the constitution would take him to 2024, when he will turn 72. Always the stronger of the two, Putin saw the weak Medvedev he nurtured as not up to the job of guiding Russia through a difficult stretch.
. . . Putin sees himself as the indispensable man, but his return to the presidency will be unlikely to change Russia’s essential approach here or abroad — because he has always been in charge. It may send a signal to bureaucrats across the country that the liberal niceties no longer need to be given notice. But more than anything, it is a commitment to preserving as much of the status quo — corrupt, crony politics — as possible.
Putin’s return was widely expected, though it deeply disappointed those who have hoped against hope for a more democratic Russia.
Looking ahead to an era of uncertainty and economic troubles, Prime Minister Vladimir Putin and President Dmitry Medvedev told Russia on Saturday that they intend to swap jobs, putting the country on an authoritarian path for years to come.
In theory, the switch requires voters’ approval next March, but in practice not much stands in the way, with opposition parties hobbled and Putin’s party dominant.
The move will put Putin back in the presidency after a four-year absence. The two six-year terms he would be allowed under the constitution would take him to 2024, when he will turn 72. Always the stronger of the two, Putin saw the weak Medvedev he nurtured as not up to the job of guiding Russia through a difficult stretch.
. . . Putin sees himself as the indispensable man, but his return to the presidency will be unlikely to change Russia’s essential approach here or abroad — because he has always been in charge. It may send a signal to bureaucrats across the country that the liberal niceties no longer need to be given notice. But more than anything, it is a commitment to preserving as much of the status quo — corrupt, crony politics — as possible.
Putin’s return was widely expected, though it deeply disappointed those who have hoped against hope for a more democratic Russia.
From the New Republic: Left Behind: How Democrats Are Losing the Political Center
The author argues that Democrats are losing the support of independents.
If you don’t think ideological perceptions matter in American politics, you need read no further. If you do and you’re a Democrat, there’s something to worry about. Even as the terms of the political debate in Washington, in the eyes of many Democrats, have moved steadily to the right, the electorate is increasingly likely to see itself as ideologically closer to the Republican Party than to Democrats. Unless Obama and Democrats can find a solution to this riddle—and find one fast—they will be contesting the 2012 election on forbidding terrain.
In mid-2005, as disaffection with the Bush administration and the Republican Party was gathering momentum, the Pew Research Center asked American to place themselves and the political parties on a standard left-right ideological continuum. At that time, average voters saw themselves as just right of center and equidistant from the two political parties. Independents considered themselves twice as far away from the Republican Party as from the Democrats, presaging their sharp shift toward the Democrats in the 2006 mid-term election.
In August of this year, Pew posed a very similar question (note to survey wonks: Pew used a five-point scale, versus six in 2005), but the results were very different. Although average voters continue to see themselves as just right of center, they now place themselves twice as far away from the Democratic Party as from the Republicans. In addition, Independents now see themselves as significantly closer to the Republican Party, reversing their perceptions of six years ago.
If you don’t think ideological perceptions matter in American politics, you need read no further. If you do and you’re a Democrat, there’s something to worry about. Even as the terms of the political debate in Washington, in the eyes of many Democrats, have moved steadily to the right, the electorate is increasingly likely to see itself as ideologically closer to the Republican Party than to Democrats. Unless Obama and Democrats can find a solution to this riddle—and find one fast—they will be contesting the 2012 election on forbidding terrain.
In mid-2005, as disaffection with the Bush administration and the Republican Party was gathering momentum, the Pew Research Center asked American to place themselves and the political parties on a standard left-right ideological continuum. At that time, average voters saw themselves as just right of center and equidistant from the two political parties. Independents considered themselves twice as far away from the Republican Party as from the Democrats, presaging their sharp shift toward the Democrats in the 2006 mid-term election.
In August of this year, Pew posed a very similar question (note to survey wonks: Pew used a five-point scale, versus six in 2005), but the results were very different. Although average voters continue to see themselves as just right of center, they now place themselves twice as far away from the Democratic Party as from the Republicans. In addition, Independents now see themselves as significantly closer to the Republican Party, reversing their perceptions of six years ago.
Another Shutdown Averted
From the Washington Post:
Senate leaders agreed to a deal Monday evening that is almost certain to avert a federal government shutdown, a prospect that had unexpectedly arisen when congressional leaders deadlocked over disaster relief funding.
After days of brinkmanship reminiscent of the budget battles that have consumed Washington this year, key senators clinched a compromise that would provide less money for disaster relief than Democrats sought but would also strip away spending cuts that Republicans demanded. The pact, which the Senate approved 79 to 12 and the House is expected to ratify next week, is expected to keep federal agencies open until Nov. 18.
Senate leaders agreed to a deal Monday evening that is almost certain to avert a federal government shutdown, a prospect that had unexpectedly arisen when congressional leaders deadlocked over disaster relief funding.
After days of brinkmanship reminiscent of the budget battles that have consumed Washington this year, key senators clinched a compromise that would provide less money for disaster relief than Democrats sought but would also strip away spending cuts that Republicans demanded. The pact, which the Senate approved 79 to 12 and the House is expected to ratify next week, is expected to keep federal agencies open until Nov. 18.
Monday, September 26, 2011
From the NYT: Why Is the U.S. Losing the Green Race?
A conversation about whether the government can promote the development of an alternative energy industry.
From the Daily Beast: Obama Plays to the Base
In preparation for his re-election bid, Obama tries to reconnect with the Democratic Party base. The winner of presidential elections tends to be the person able to both hold onto his base (which includes getting them to the polls) and get the majority of independents to support them.
From Balkinization: Charlie Savage on Bush and Obama Administrations
For our upcoming discussion of executive power, an analysis of the Bush and Obama Administration's views and uses of executive power.
From Balkinization: The Whole Constitution Pledge
Progressives are trying to counter Tea Party efforts - refered to below - to influence how people read the Constitution:
Tea Party activists claim to love the Constitution, except for all the parts of our nation’s foundational document that they would prefer to ignore or repeal outright. Dismissing the full story of our Constitution, including the 27 Amendments ratified by the American people over the last 220 years, these self-professed “constitutional conservatives” have distorted the Constitution beyond all recognition, cherrypicking the parts of the document they like, and jettisoning the rest. To take back America’s charter from the Tea Party, Constitutional Progressives – an initiative launched by the Constitutional Accountability Center and supported by numerous other organizations concerned with protecting the constitutional rights of all Americans – have urged all Americans to pledge to support the whole Constitution.
it continues . . .
Tea Party activists claim to love the Constitution, except for all the parts of our nation’s foundational document that they would prefer to ignore or repeal outright. Dismissing the full story of our Constitution, including the 27 Amendments ratified by the American people over the last 220 years, these self-professed “constitutional conservatives” have distorted the Constitution beyond all recognition, cherrypicking the parts of the document they like, and jettisoning the rest. To take back America’s charter from the Tea Party, Constitutional Progressives – an initiative launched by the Constitutional Accountability Center and supported by numerous other organizations concerned with protecting the constitutional rights of all Americans – have urged all Americans to pledge to support the whole Constitution.
it continues . . .
Week Five Written Assignments
For 2301 and 2302, here are the writing assignments for this week - I'll have them on blackboard soon.
2301: The topic this week is the separated powers, which also includes discussion of the checks and balances which are designed to maintain the separation. As we will see when we read through Federalist #51. Madison argues that the checks and balances work by ensuring that "ambition counteracts ambition." Everyone in a position of authority is ambitious, and can be assumed to want to expand their position of power, but each has to face similarly ambitious people who will limit what they can do. The assumption is that this is an ongoing process. I want you to go through current news items and find examples of each institution (one legislative, one executive, and one judicial) checking the power of another. Comment.
2302: This week we will look at contemporary issues in the legislature, and no issue seems to be more dominant at the moment than the deficit and the increasing national debt. Some have argued that the size of the debt requires that a balanced budget amendment be added to the Constitution in order to restrain spending, while other argue that such an amendment will prevent the nation from dealing effectively with crises. Read up on the various proposals being made and give the arguments in favor and against the amendment. Also comment on whether you think such an amendment is likely to be passed and ratified by the states.
2301: The topic this week is the separated powers, which also includes discussion of the checks and balances which are designed to maintain the separation. As we will see when we read through Federalist #51. Madison argues that the checks and balances work by ensuring that "ambition counteracts ambition." Everyone in a position of authority is ambitious, and can be assumed to want to expand their position of power, but each has to face similarly ambitious people who will limit what they can do. The assumption is that this is an ongoing process. I want you to go through current news items and find examples of each institution (one legislative, one executive, and one judicial) checking the power of another. Comment.
2302: This week we will look at contemporary issues in the legislature, and no issue seems to be more dominant at the moment than the deficit and the increasing national debt. Some have argued that the size of the debt requires that a balanced budget amendment be added to the Constitution in order to restrain spending, while other argue that such an amendment will prevent the nation from dealing effectively with crises. Read up on the various proposals being made and give the arguments in favor and against the amendment. Also comment on whether you think such an amendment is likely to be passed and ratified by the states.
Sunday, September 25, 2011
Laws and Rules Invented by Reason
A great video from Niall Ferguson hits some of the material we covered in 2301, what makes western societies different - and prosperous is the ideas and institutions that they are based on.
H.R. 2608 - Continuing Appropriations Act, 2012
My 2302 students - especially - need to read up on the current impasse over the Continuing Appropriations Act of 2012 (Continuing Resolution and FEMA funding). It's the latest conflict over spending, and one that is timed to impact the avaliability of funds for the continued operations of government.
Consider this reading mandatory:
- Government Shutdown Looms As Gridlock Over Federal Budget Grips Capitol Hill.
- The Continuing Saga of the CR: Choking on Offsets.
- Reid says Senate will add FEMA funds to CR, send back to House.
What is a continuing resolution?
"A continuing resolution is a type of appropriations legislation used by the United States Congress to fund government agencies if a formal appropriations bill has not been signed into law by the end of the Congressional fiscal year. The legislation takes the form of a joint resolution, and provides funding for existing federal programs at current or reduced levels."
Consider this reading mandatory:
- Government Shutdown Looms As Gridlock Over Federal Budget Grips Capitol Hill.
- The Continuing Saga of the CR: Choking on Offsets.
- Reid says Senate will add FEMA funds to CR, send back to House.
What is a continuing resolution?
"A continuing resolution is a type of appropriations legislation used by the United States Congress to fund government agencies if a formal appropriations bill has not been signed into law by the end of the Congressional fiscal year. The legislation takes the form of a joint resolution, and provides funding for existing federal programs at current or reduced levels."
Saturday, September 24, 2011
A few random stories touching on the economy and what can and cannot be dome about it
These are intended to prepare 2302 students for this week's discussion of budgeting and the management of the economy. We'll put these in context soon enough.
- Inflation and Debt. This is a bit heavy
- Re-Targeting the Fed. This one also
- Chicago Economics on Trial.
- Hayek, Keynes and How to Prevent Economic Crises: Sylvia Nasar.
- How to Make Business Want to Invest Again.
- The Second Great Contraction.
I'll post a few more - make of them what you will. Warning for 2302s: this will include subject matter fraught with debate. Heated opinions exist regarding the proper role of legislative and executive action in the economy, how taxes are nest collected and at what level, what factors led the recent economic collapse and what ought to be done to get out of it.
The best we will be able to do is come to terms with the nature of these disputes.
- Inflation and Debt. This is a bit heavy
- Re-Targeting the Fed. This one also
- Chicago Economics on Trial.
- Hayek, Keynes and How to Prevent Economic Crises: Sylvia Nasar.
- How to Make Business Want to Invest Again.
- The Second Great Contraction.
I'll post a few more - make of them what you will. Warning for 2302s: this will include subject matter fraught with debate. Heated opinions exist regarding the proper role of legislative and executive action in the economy, how taxes are nest collected and at what level, what factors led the recent economic collapse and what ought to be done to get out of it.
The best we will be able to do is come to terms with the nature of these disputes.
Friday, September 23, 2011
From CNN: Can the Federal Reserve get banks lending?
For discussions about what government can and cannot do:
The Federal Reserve wants consumers to apply for more mortgages and businesses to take out more loans, in order to boost the sluggish U.S. economy.
At least, that's the thinking behind Operation Twist, a policy announced by the Fed Wednesday that's meant to drive down long-term interest rates, thereby making it cheaper to borrow.
But will it really work? Industry experts have their reservations.
"Interest rates will come down, but the effect won't be what the Fed has envisioned," said Mike Fratantoni, vice president of research for the Mortgage Bankers Association.
The Federal Reserve wants consumers to apply for more mortgages and businesses to take out more loans, in order to boost the sluggish U.S. economy.
At least, that's the thinking behind Operation Twist, a policy announced by the Fed Wednesday that's meant to drive down long-term interest rates, thereby making it cheaper to borrow.
But will it really work? Industry experts have their reservations.
"Interest rates will come down, but the effect won't be what the Fed has envisioned," said Mike Fratantoni, vice president of research for the Mortgage Bankers Association.
The Great Recession Generation
Just like the Great Depression - the Great Recession is likely to have a significant impact on the generation that is coming of age right now. In 2301 we will discuss the concept of a political generation, the experiences of this group will impact politics and government throughout the 21st century.
-Recession changes the American way of life:
Lingering bad times may alter expectations and lifestyles for years to come, some demographers say.
"It's
going to have a long-term impact and to say it's going to end is
optimistic," says Cheryl Russell, former editor in chief of American Demographics,
now editorial director of New Strategist Publications, publisher of
reference tools. "I'm more pessimistic that this is the new normal.-Recession changes the American way of life:
Lingering bad times may alter expectations and lifestyles for years to come, some demographers say.
- It Wasn't a Good Decade to be Young or in New York, Says the Census.
"Many young adults are essentially postponing adulthood and all of the family responsibilities and extra costs that go along with it," Mark Mather, analyst at the Population Reference Bureau, told the AP. Sure, without young people delaying those traditional markers of adulthood, we wouldn't have network sitcoms or trend pieces or Williamsburg (not to mention trend pieces involving network sitcoms set in Williamsburg). But twenty- and thirtysomethings are supposed to get to cling to immaturity by choice! It's depressing, and even more so when you consider it's only one early set of data connecting the economic impact of the downturn with the cultural impact — we're not done getting these numbers, and not all of the impact is going to be quantifiable.
A couple stories on splits within the Republican Party
Both of these are from Frum Forum:
- Boehner Can't Control his Caucus:
At some point, Speaker John Boehner was going to have to show the most conservative members of his caucus that he would get work done in the House without them.
Yesterday revealed that day has not yet come. The ramifications of the failure to pass the Continuing Resolution (CR) for FY12 in the House will be far-reaching. It’s true that Democrats took advantage of the Tea Party defections from the GOP leadership and aided in killing the CR. But this was the second embarrassment on a critical vote for the House Republican leadership this year.
Rep. Eric Cantor had predicted that the votes were there to pass the CR. “All is well.” It wasn’t.
. . . A quick survey of very experienced former senior members of House and Senate staff showed unanimity this morning– none of them could recall such a public humiliation for any Speaker of the House in the past four decades.
- Who Controls the GOP?
John Boehner’s continuing inability to manage his right flank in Congress points to the larger frustration of a generation of Republican leadership. They struggle to grasp what drives the Tea Party, evangelicals, and the candidacy of Rick Perry. To begin to understand where these people came from and how they acquired so much influence relative to their numbers, perhaps we should look more closely at ‘The Stockman Effect.’
read on . . .
- Boehner Can't Control his Caucus:
At some point, Speaker John Boehner was going to have to show the most conservative members of his caucus that he would get work done in the House without them.
Yesterday revealed that day has not yet come. The ramifications of the failure to pass the Continuing Resolution (CR) for FY12 in the House will be far-reaching. It’s true that Democrats took advantage of the Tea Party defections from the GOP leadership and aided in killing the CR. But this was the second embarrassment on a critical vote for the House Republican leadership this year.
Rep. Eric Cantor had predicted that the votes were there to pass the CR. “All is well.” It wasn’t.
. . . A quick survey of very experienced former senior members of House and Senate staff showed unanimity this morning– none of them could recall such a public humiliation for any Speaker of the House in the past four decades.
- Who Controls the GOP?
John Boehner’s continuing inability to manage his right flank in Congress points to the larger frustration of a generation of Republican leadership. They struggle to grasp what drives the Tea Party, evangelicals, and the candidacy of Rick Perry. To begin to understand where these people came from and how they acquired so much influence relative to their numbers, perhaps we should look more closely at ‘The Stockman Effect.’
read on . . .
From the Washongton Post: What the tea party is — and isn’t
The story:
The tea party movement came into public consciousness sometime in the early months of President Obama’s tenure in the White House. Ever since, it has been an object of fascination, fear, scorn and admiration.
It has also been the object of misunderstanding. The tea party was described as the new kid on the block of American politics, when in fact it was the extension of forces long at work in the political system. . . .
read on
The tea party movement came into public consciousness sometime in the early months of President Obama’s tenure in the White House. Ever since, it has been an object of fascination, fear, scorn and admiration.
It has also been the object of misunderstanding. The tea party was described as the new kid on the block of American politics, when in fact it was the extension of forces long at work in the political system. . . .
read on
Thursday, September 22, 2011
$16 Muffins?
In one class today a student brought up a recent story about seemingly exorbitant spending on food and drinks at by the Justice Department at law enforcement conferences. Here are links about the story.
- No more $16 muffins for you! The author points out the discovery was made by the Inspector General and the Office of Management and Budget (both executive offices) has told all federal agencies to review conference costs.
- The Great $16 Muffin Myth. This author thinks the story has been misrepresented and overblown.
- $16 muffins? No, says Hilton. The hotel says they didn't charge that much.
Good media story though.
- No more $16 muffins for you! The author points out the discovery was made by the Inspector General and the Office of Management and Budget (both executive offices) has told all federal agencies to review conference costs.
- The Great $16 Muffin Myth. This author thinks the story has been misrepresented and overblown.
- $16 muffins? No, says Hilton. The hotel says they didn't charge that much.
Good media story though.
Republican House Leaders in Trouble?
That's one author's take on the recent failure of a budget bill:
This may have been the worst defeat and biggest rebuke ever for House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) and Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA). A number of House members told me after the vote that both leaders had worked the vote hard but couldn’t convince enough (some thought “any” was more correct) to vote for the legislation. Two members even told me that Boehner had gone to the congressional leadership equivalent of DEFCON 1 by moving way beyond twisting arms to threatening GOP members with losing their committee assignments — almost the ultimate congressional punishment — if they didn’t vote for the bill. Even that didn’t work.
. . . no matter how they try to spin it today as being the Democrats’ fault, this in fact was a huge slap in the face of the GOP leadership by the tea party. It’s not the first time the tea partiers have voted against the GOP leadership, but it is the most visible and painful.
This may have been the worst defeat and biggest rebuke ever for House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) and Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA). A number of House members told me after the vote that both leaders had worked the vote hard but couldn’t convince enough (some thought “any” was more correct) to vote for the legislation. Two members even told me that Boehner had gone to the congressional leadership equivalent of DEFCON 1 by moving way beyond twisting arms to threatening GOP members with losing their committee assignments — almost the ultimate congressional punishment — if they didn’t vote for the bill. Even that didn’t work.
. . . no matter how they try to spin it today as being the Democrats’ fault, this in fact was a huge slap in the face of the GOP leadership by the tea party. It’s not the first time the tea partiers have voted against the GOP leadership, but it is the most visible and painful.
From Nate Silver: Views of Perry Turn More Negative Since First Debate
He is also trailing Obama in head to head match-ups.
The Presidential Line of Succession
From a conversation today - why is the line of succession to the presidency that way it is?
I really have no idea - it seem to follow the formation of institutions in the Constitution then the age of executive departments.
I really have no idea - it seem to follow the formation of institutions in the Constitution then the age of executive departments.
From Slate: Republicans may not like it, but the law says the Federal Reserve can do whatever it wants
The author provides a reminder that the Fed is designed to be immune from political pressures. Congress designed it that way.
This applies to both 2301 and 2302.
The Federal Reserve Act of 1913, as amended by both parties, created an independent central bank that could operate outside of politics—i.e., it could do things frowned upon by Congress and the public. The act, as amended in 1977, commands the Fed to promote "the goals of maximum employment, stable prices, and moderate long-term interest rates." The message going out from Mitch McConnell, John Boehner, Jon Kyl, and Eric Cantor was: Don't do as you're told.
"You don't want to turn over monetary policy to the whims of political and maybe even populist views of the time," says Tony Fratto, a spokesman for the Treasury Department in the George W. Bush administration. "This criticism from Republicans is way off-base. I think it's evidence of some misunderstanding of the Fed's statutory mandate."
This applies to both 2301 and 2302.
The Federal Reserve Act of 1913, as amended by both parties, created an independent central bank that could operate outside of politics—i.e., it could do things frowned upon by Congress and the public. The act, as amended in 1977, commands the Fed to promote "the goals of maximum employment, stable prices, and moderate long-term interest rates." The message going out from Mitch McConnell, John Boehner, Jon Kyl, and Eric Cantor was: Don't do as you're told.
"You don't want to turn over monetary policy to the whims of political and maybe even populist views of the time," says Tony Fratto, a spokesman for the Treasury Department in the George W. Bush administration. "This criticism from Republicans is way off-base. I think it's evidence of some misunderstanding of the Fed's statutory mandate."
From the WP: GOP House leaders rebuked on spending
In 2302 we are discussing institutions in Congress, including political parties. One of the topics within that subject is the relationship that exists between party leaders and the rank and file. Generally party leaders are able to determine how the rank and file will vote on certain issues - but if the rank and file contains a large and motivated freshman class - like the current Tea Party Republicans - then they may not be able to.
That may be what we are witnessing in the recent defeat of a recent spending bill driven by Democrats opposed to cutting fuel efficiency programs to pay for disaster relief, and conservative Republicans who think the entire spending bill was too large. Another government shut-down looms.
The story also points out the importance of solidarity within a majority party. Republicans split on the vote - Democrats stayed united (always unusual):
The surprise defeat in the House Wednesday of a special funding measure to keep the federal government functioning past Sept. 30 was a sharp rebuke of the GOP leadership that controls the chamber and a testament to the fragility of the majority itself.
The rejection of the measure resurrected the specter of a government shutdown at the end of the month and suggested that the heated confrontations that dominated Washington in the spring and early summer are likely to return this fall.
While it is widely expected that the parties will eventually reach a compromise to avoid a shutdown, Wednesday’s 230-to-195 vote showed what can happen when the GOP majority operates with no more than minimal Democratic support.
The failure of the bill was the result of a new solidarity among Democrats on funding issues and old divisions among Republicans on spending reductions.
The job of party leaders is to maintain the cohesiveness of the party. This large freshman class has made that difficult.
That may be what we are witnessing in the recent defeat of a recent spending bill driven by Democrats opposed to cutting fuel efficiency programs to pay for disaster relief, and conservative Republicans who think the entire spending bill was too large. Another government shut-down looms.
The story also points out the importance of solidarity within a majority party. Republicans split on the vote - Democrats stayed united (always unusual):
The surprise defeat in the House Wednesday of a special funding measure to keep the federal government functioning past Sept. 30 was a sharp rebuke of the GOP leadership that controls the chamber and a testament to the fragility of the majority itself.
The rejection of the measure resurrected the specter of a government shutdown at the end of the month and suggested that the heated confrontations that dominated Washington in the spring and early summer are likely to return this fall.
While it is widely expected that the parties will eventually reach a compromise to avoid a shutdown, Wednesday’s 230-to-195 vote showed what can happen when the GOP majority operates with no more than minimal Democratic support.
The failure of the bill was the result of a new solidarity among Democrats on funding issues and old divisions among Republicans on spending reductions.
The job of party leaders is to maintain the cohesiveness of the party. This large freshman class has made that difficult.
From the NYT: Split Decision and Barbed Comments Show a Court Deeply Divided on Wiretapping
A nasty split decsision from an appelate court on how to strike a balance between security and privacy:
An appellate court decision on Wednesday revealed deep and lingering divisions among a dozen judges over the government’s wiretapping powers and the courts’ ability to regulate them.
Deadlocked by a 6-to-6 vote, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit cleared the way for a lower court to hear a challenge to the constitutionality of broadened wiretapping powers that Congress approved in 2008 at the urging of the George W. Bush administration. . . .
As significant as the decision itself were the sometimes barbed comments of the appellate judges, as they clashed over whether Amnesty International, the American Civil Liberties Union and other groups should be allowed to challenge the constitutionality of the wiretapping powers.
In an unusual turn, 5 of the 12 judges issued separate written opinions on the question of whether the plaintiffs had legal grounds to sue the government.
Judge Gerard E. Lynch, explaining why the lawsuit should move ahead, wrote that the case represented an important test of the balance between the government’s ability to detect national security threats and the plaintiffs’ claims to privacy under the Fourth Amendment.
“The Constitution sets limits on the powers even of Congress,” Judge Lynch wrote. “It is the glory of our system that even our elected leaders must defend the legality of their conduct when challenged.”
Chief Judge Dennis G. Jacobs was equally forceful in arguing that the lawsuit should not proceed. He called the suit “frivolous” and likened it to a “plaintiff’s allegation that the C.I.A. is controlling him through a radio embedded in his molar.”
In a related story, Senators in a recent hearing take the Justice Department to task on how the surveillance is beign carrid out.
An appellate court decision on Wednesday revealed deep and lingering divisions among a dozen judges over the government’s wiretapping powers and the courts’ ability to regulate them.
Deadlocked by a 6-to-6 vote, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit cleared the way for a lower court to hear a challenge to the constitutionality of broadened wiretapping powers that Congress approved in 2008 at the urging of the George W. Bush administration. . . .
As significant as the decision itself were the sometimes barbed comments of the appellate judges, as they clashed over whether Amnesty International, the American Civil Liberties Union and other groups should be allowed to challenge the constitutionality of the wiretapping powers.
In an unusual turn, 5 of the 12 judges issued separate written opinions on the question of whether the plaintiffs had legal grounds to sue the government.
Judge Gerard E. Lynch, explaining why the lawsuit should move ahead, wrote that the case represented an important test of the balance between the government’s ability to detect national security threats and the plaintiffs’ claims to privacy under the Fourth Amendment.
“The Constitution sets limits on the powers even of Congress,” Judge Lynch wrote. “It is the glory of our system that even our elected leaders must defend the legality of their conduct when challenged.”
Chief Judge Dennis G. Jacobs was equally forceful in arguing that the lawsuit should not proceed. He called the suit “frivolous” and likened it to a “plaintiff’s allegation that the C.I.A. is controlling him through a radio embedded in his molar.”
In a related story, Senators in a recent hearing take the Justice Department to task on how the surveillance is beign carrid out.
Wednesday, September 21, 2011
From the NYT: How Dick Cheney Reined in Presidential Power
This is a counterintuitive argument. Its generally held that Cheney - along with President Bush - increased presidential powers considerably during their tenure in office. The author - who was a member of the administration actually argues that their actions led to pushback from other institutions which actually weakened the presidency:
Unilateralism in secret is sometimes necessary at the height of a crisis, and Cheneyism was effective in the short run. But it is disastrous over the medium and long term. The president cannot accomplish much over time without the assistance of his bureaucracy and the other institutions of government. And he cannot garner that assistance through mere commands. He must instead convince these institutions that his policies are good and lawful ones that they should support.
Cheney’s book expresses contempt for such soft power. He complains about pesky government lawyers, a weak-kneed Congress, activist justices and a treasonous press that exposed, rejected or changed nearly all of the Bush counterterrorism policies. What he does not say is that his insistence on circumventing these institutions was often responsible for their blowback. The surveillance confrontation resulted when Justice Department lawyers discovered that prior legal opinions were filled with factual and legal errors caused by an absence of deliberation about the complicated program. And damaging leaks about the surveillance program resulted from the perception of illegitimacy inside the government caused by Cheney’s corner-cutting unilateralism.
More broadly, the unilateralism of the early Bush years led Congress to claim ownership over military prerogatives that in previous wars were the president’s. It also led courts to reject claims of presidential wartime authority in decisions that constrained military and intelligence operations. “Looking back,” says Rumsfeld, the unilateral approach “may have contributed to an outcome the administration hoped to avoid: encroachment on the president’s powers.”
Commentary here and here.
Unilateralism in secret is sometimes necessary at the height of a crisis, and Cheneyism was effective in the short run. But it is disastrous over the medium and long term. The president cannot accomplish much over time without the assistance of his bureaucracy and the other institutions of government. And he cannot garner that assistance through mere commands. He must instead convince these institutions that his policies are good and lawful ones that they should support.
Cheney’s book expresses contempt for such soft power. He complains about pesky government lawyers, a weak-kneed Congress, activist justices and a treasonous press that exposed, rejected or changed nearly all of the Bush counterterrorism policies. What he does not say is that his insistence on circumventing these institutions was often responsible for their blowback. The surveillance confrontation resulted when Justice Department lawyers discovered that prior legal opinions were filled with factual and legal errors caused by an absence of deliberation about the complicated program. And damaging leaks about the surveillance program resulted from the perception of illegitimacy inside the government caused by Cheney’s corner-cutting unilateralism.
More broadly, the unilateralism of the early Bush years led Congress to claim ownership over military prerogatives that in previous wars were the president’s. It also led courts to reject claims of presidential wartime authority in decisions that constrained military and intelligence operations. “Looking back,” says Rumsfeld, the unilateral approach “may have contributed to an outcome the administration hoped to avoid: encroachment on the president’s powers.”
Commentary here and here.
Some Random Posts on Recent Activity in Congress
- A short term spending measure was rejected in the House today.
- Republicans on the House Oversight Committee call Obama's push for green jobs "propaganda."
- The Fed pursues additional stimulus over the objections of Republicans congressional leaders.
- Appropriations to the Legislative branch likely to be cut, which will lead to layoffs.
- Obama to meet with Asian Pacific Caucus.
- Republicans on the House Oversight Committee call Obama's push for green jobs "propaganda."
- The Fed pursues additional stimulus over the objections of Republicans congressional leaders.
- Appropriations to the Legislative branch likely to be cut, which will lead to layoffs.
- Obama to meet with Asian Pacific Caucus.
From the Agitator: Your Right To Record
Do you have the right to record police officers?
Several people have asked me to post a state-by-state rundown of laws pertaining to citizens’ right to record on-duty police officers. There’s been a lot of bad reporting on this issue, which I think is the source of much of the confusion. (This PC World outline of the various legal issues involved is very good.)
It boils down to this: In every state but Illinois and Massachusetts, you are perfectly within your legal rights to record or photograph an on-duty police officer, so long as you don’t physically interfere with him. In Massachusetts, you’re free to record so long as you do so openly, though this month’s First Circuit ruling suggests that even the prohibition on secret recording in public spaces may soon be overturned. In Illinois, it’s still illegal to record on-duty cops without their permission. The law is currently being challenged, and was recently found to be unconstitutional by one state judge but that decision only applied to the case before him.
Here’s the catch: Even though it’s perfectly legal to record and photograph cops in all 48 other states plus the District of Columbia, the police can still arrest you for doing so. They can also still threaten you, then can still take away your camera, they can still destroy your photos or video, and they can still destroy your camera. All of these things are illegal. They aren’t supposed to do them. But they still do.
Several people have asked me to post a state-by-state rundown of laws pertaining to citizens’ right to record on-duty police officers. There’s been a lot of bad reporting on this issue, which I think is the source of much of the confusion. (This PC World outline of the various legal issues involved is very good.)
It boils down to this: In every state but Illinois and Massachusetts, you are perfectly within your legal rights to record or photograph an on-duty police officer, so long as you don’t physically interfere with him. In Massachusetts, you’re free to record so long as you do so openly, though this month’s First Circuit ruling suggests that even the prohibition on secret recording in public spaces may soon be overturned. In Illinois, it’s still illegal to record on-duty cops without their permission. The law is currently being challenged, and was recently found to be unconstitutional by one state judge but that decision only applied to the case before him.
Here’s the catch: Even though it’s perfectly legal to record and photograph cops in all 48 other states plus the District of Columbia, the police can still arrest you for doing so. They can also still threaten you, then can still take away your camera, they can still destroy your photos or video, and they can still destroy your camera. All of these things are illegal. They aren’t supposed to do them. But they still do.
From the NYT: Our Hidden Government Benefits
The author wonders if attitudes about government would change if people were aware of the "hidden benefits" it offers:
DON’T take at face value the claims that Americans dislike government. Sure, a recent ABC News/Washington Post poll found that 56 percent of Americans said they wanted smaller government and fewer services. Tea Party activists, the most vocal citizens of our time, powerfully amplify those demands. Yet the reality is that the vast majority of Americans have at some point relied on government programs — and valued them — even though they often fail to recognize that government is the source of the assistance.
A 2008 poll of 1,400 Americans by the Cornell Survey Research Institute found that when people were asked whether they had “ever used a government social program,” 57 percent said they had not. Respondents were then asked whether they had availed themselves of any of 21 different federal policies, including Social Security, unemployment insurance, the home-mortgage-interest deduction and student loans. It turned out that 94 percent of those who had denied using programs had benefited from at least one; the average respondent had used four.
Americans often fail to recognize government’s role in society, even if they have experienced it in their own lives. That is because so much of what government does today is largely invisible.
DON’T take at face value the claims that Americans dislike government. Sure, a recent ABC News/Washington Post poll found that 56 percent of Americans said they wanted smaller government and fewer services. Tea Party activists, the most vocal citizens of our time, powerfully amplify those demands. Yet the reality is that the vast majority of Americans have at some point relied on government programs — and valued them — even though they often fail to recognize that government is the source of the assistance.
A 2008 poll of 1,400 Americans by the Cornell Survey Research Institute found that when people were asked whether they had “ever used a government social program,” 57 percent said they had not. Respondents were then asked whether they had availed themselves of any of 21 different federal policies, including Social Security, unemployment insurance, the home-mortgage-interest deduction and student loans. It turned out that 94 percent of those who had denied using programs had benefited from at least one; the average respondent had used four.
Americans often fail to recognize government’s role in society, even if they have experienced it in their own lives. That is because so much of what government does today is largely invisible.
Tuesday, September 20, 2011
Because of Proportional Representation ...
. . . 15 members of the Pirate Party were elected in Berlin.
From Forbes: America's Illegal Pioneers
For 2301, as we discuss the factors that lead to the initial expansion of participation to non-property owners as they spread westward, a reminder that much of their activity was illegal:
Everyone knows that America was settled by immigrants. But few realize how much of this settlement was done illegally. Shortly after winning independence, Congress enacted legislation that called for newly acquired western lands to be divided into large 640-acre plots and sold for a dollar an acre.
This scheme proved proved impractical. As economist Hernando de Soto has written, few settlers had either $640 or the legal expertise to navigate America’s cumbersome property laws. And so thousands of migrants simply ignored the law and settled illegally on vacant land.
Offended by their disrespect for the law and worried about lost revenue, the federal government responded harshly. The US Army began evicting illegal squatters and destroying their homes. In 1807, Congress increased the penalties for squatting and beefed up the federal government’s enforcement powers.
These crackdowns failed. As migrants continued to pour west, it became obvious that the federal and state governments lacked the resources to evict more than a fraction of the lawbreakers. Around the same time, states began to eliminate property qualifications for voting. Politicians who had viewed squatters merely as common criminals began to see an opportunity to curry favor with these new constituents.
Everyone knows that America was settled by immigrants. But few realize how much of this settlement was done illegally. Shortly after winning independence, Congress enacted legislation that called for newly acquired western lands to be divided into large 640-acre plots and sold for a dollar an acre.
This scheme proved proved impractical. As economist Hernando de Soto has written, few settlers had either $640 or the legal expertise to navigate America’s cumbersome property laws. And so thousands of migrants simply ignored the law and settled illegally on vacant land.
Offended by their disrespect for the law and worried about lost revenue, the federal government responded harshly. The US Army began evicting illegal squatters and destroying their homes. In 1807, Congress increased the penalties for squatting and beefed up the federal government’s enforcement powers.
These crackdowns failed. As migrants continued to pour west, it became obvious that the federal and state governments lacked the resources to evict more than a fraction of the lawbreakers. Around the same time, states began to eliminate property qualifications for voting. Politicians who had viewed squatters merely as common criminals began to see an opportunity to curry favor with these new constituents.
From Reason: Does Disease Cause Autocracy?
New studies say reducing infection rates promotes liberalization:
Greater wealth strongly correlates with property rights, the rule of law, education, the liberation of women, a free press, and social tolerance. The enduring puzzle for political scientists is how the social processes that produce freedom and wealth get started in the first place.
Many political theorists have linked liberal democracy to the rise of wealth and the establishment of a large middle class. “Growing resources are conducive to the rise of emancipative values that emphasize self-expression,” write political scientists Ronald Inglehart of the University of Michigan and Christian Welzel of Jacobs University in their contribution to the 2009 book Democratization, “and these values are conducive to the collective actions that lead to democratization.”
That same year, a group of researchers led by the Harvard economist Jeffrey Sachs noted in the Proceedings of the Royal Society B that a billion people live on less than a dollar per day and “are roughly as poor today as their ancestors were thousands of years ago.” Sachs and his colleagues suggest that heavy disease burdens create persistent poverty traps from which poor people cannot extricate themselves. High disease rates lower their economic productivity so they can’t afford to improve sanitation and medical care, which in turn leaves them vulnerable to more disease.
In a 2008 article for Biological Reviews, two University of New Mexico biologists buttressed the disease thesis with their “parasite hypothesis of democratization.” The researchers, Randy Thornhill and Corey Fincher, argue that disease not only keeps people poor but makes them illiberal. Thornhill and Fincher tested this hypothesis “using publicly available data measuring democratization, collectivism, individualism, gender egalitarianism, property rights, sexual restrictiveness, and parasite prevalence across many countries of the world.” The lower the disease burden, they found, the more likely a society is to be liberal.
Greater wealth strongly correlates with property rights, the rule of law, education, the liberation of women, a free press, and social tolerance. The enduring puzzle for political scientists is how the social processes that produce freedom and wealth get started in the first place.
Many political theorists have linked liberal democracy to the rise of wealth and the establishment of a large middle class. “Growing resources are conducive to the rise of emancipative values that emphasize self-expression,” write political scientists Ronald Inglehart of the University of Michigan and Christian Welzel of Jacobs University in their contribution to the 2009 book Democratization, “and these values are conducive to the collective actions that lead to democratization.”
That same year, a group of researchers led by the Harvard economist Jeffrey Sachs noted in the Proceedings of the Royal Society B that a billion people live on less than a dollar per day and “are roughly as poor today as their ancestors were thousands of years ago.” Sachs and his colleagues suggest that heavy disease burdens create persistent poverty traps from which poor people cannot extricate themselves. High disease rates lower their economic productivity so they can’t afford to improve sanitation and medical care, which in turn leaves them vulnerable to more disease.
In a 2008 article for Biological Reviews, two University of New Mexico biologists buttressed the disease thesis with their “parasite hypothesis of democratization.” The researchers, Randy Thornhill and Corey Fincher, argue that disease not only keeps people poor but makes them illiberal. Thornhill and Fincher tested this hypothesis “using publicly available data measuring democratization, collectivism, individualism, gender egalitarianism, property rights, sexual restrictiveness, and parasite prevalence across many countries of the world.” The lower the disease burden, they found, the more likely a society is to be liberal.
From Time: How Super PACs Could Eclipse Official Campaigns in 2012
The story:
Presidential campaigns are so 2008, like boyfriend jeans or Tila Tequila. If you want to win the White House these days, “Super PACs” are the thing to have. And all the Republican hopefuls know it. If current trends continue, the splashiest ads and most aggressive ground campaigns will come from groups officially unaffiliated with any candidate.
Just last week, Jon Huntsman’s ad man, Fred Davis, left the campaign to work for a pro-Huntsman Super PAC, where the lack of limits on campaign contributions will presumably give Davis far more money to work with. This summer, Steve Roche, a top fundraiser for Mitt Romney’s campaign, jumped ship to a pro-Romney Super PAC, Restore our Future, which was founded by Romney’s 2008 campaign treasurer, Charles Spies, and political director, Carl Forti. As Rick Perry prepared his race, his former Chief of Staff, Mike Toomey, set up a pro-Perry Super PAC called Make Us Great Again, with the stated goal of raising $55 million.
All three of the groups are easily capable of raising and spending more money than their official presidential campaign counterparts because they do not have to abide by the $2,500 individual campaign donation limit imposed by Congress. But in look, taste and feel, voters are unlikely to notice the difference between the official campaigns and the outside groups. The strategies will be the same. The messaging will jell. It will all seem like an old story, even though it is anything but.
Presidential campaigns are so 2008, like boyfriend jeans or Tila Tequila. If you want to win the White House these days, “Super PACs” are the thing to have. And all the Republican hopefuls know it. If current trends continue, the splashiest ads and most aggressive ground campaigns will come from groups officially unaffiliated with any candidate.
Just last week, Jon Huntsman’s ad man, Fred Davis, left the campaign to work for a pro-Huntsman Super PAC, where the lack of limits on campaign contributions will presumably give Davis far more money to work with. This summer, Steve Roche, a top fundraiser for Mitt Romney’s campaign, jumped ship to a pro-Romney Super PAC, Restore our Future, which was founded by Romney’s 2008 campaign treasurer, Charles Spies, and political director, Carl Forti. As Rick Perry prepared his race, his former Chief of Staff, Mike Toomey, set up a pro-Perry Super PAC called Make Us Great Again, with the stated goal of raising $55 million.
All three of the groups are easily capable of raising and spending more money than their official presidential campaign counterparts because they do not have to abide by the $2,500 individual campaign donation limit imposed by Congress. But in look, taste and feel, voters are unlikely to notice the difference between the official campaigns and the outside groups. The strategies will be the same. The messaging will jell. It will all seem like an old story, even though it is anything but.
Justice Department does not clear Texas' redistricting proposal
From the Texas Tribune:
The new political maps for the Texas House and the state's congressional delegation don't protect the electoral power of the state's minority populations as required by the federal Voting Rights Act, the U.S. Department of Justice said in legal briefs filed in federal court Monday.
The map for the state Senate does comply with Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, DOJ's lawyers said. The Justice Department didn't offer an opinion on the legality of the new State Board of Education map, saying instead that "the court will have to make its own determination" about that plan.
Here's a copy of the DOJ document.
- What DOJ Tossing Texas' Redistricting Plan Means for Rick Perry.
- Texas' Choice of the DC Courts over the DOJ.
Texas is one of a handful of states that, due to a history of voter suppression aimed at minority groups, has to have its districts pre-cleared (Section 5 Preclearance) by either the Justice Department or a panel of Federal Judges. The state has to prove that the new lines will not negatively impact minority voting strength. Recently attempts have been made to challenge the constitutionality of the requirement.
Below are some links that go further in depth on the issue.
- Wikipedia: Section 5 Preclearance.
- Do We Still Need §5 Preclearance?
- Who draws the lines?
- The Continuing Need for Section 5 Pre-Clearance.
- Arizona Challenges Constitutionality of VRA Section 5 Preclearance Requirement
- Brennan Center: Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District No. 1 (NAMUDNO) v. Holder
- ScotusBlog: Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District No. 1 (NAMUDNO) v. Holder
The new political maps for the Texas House and the state's congressional delegation don't protect the electoral power of the state's minority populations as required by the federal Voting Rights Act, the U.S. Department of Justice said in legal briefs filed in federal court Monday.
The map for the state Senate does comply with Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, DOJ's lawyers said. The Justice Department didn't offer an opinion on the legality of the new State Board of Education map, saying instead that "the court will have to make its own determination" about that plan.
Here's a copy of the DOJ document.
- What DOJ Tossing Texas' Redistricting Plan Means for Rick Perry.
- Texas' Choice of the DC Courts over the DOJ.
Texas is one of a handful of states that, due to a history of voter suppression aimed at minority groups, has to have its districts pre-cleared (Section 5 Preclearance) by either the Justice Department or a panel of Federal Judges. The state has to prove that the new lines will not negatively impact minority voting strength. Recently attempts have been made to challenge the constitutionality of the requirement.
Below are some links that go further in depth on the issue.
- Wikipedia: Section 5 Preclearance.
- Do We Still Need §5 Preclearance?
- Who draws the lines?
- The Continuing Need for Section 5 Pre-Clearance.
- Arizona Challenges Constitutionality of VRA Section 5 Preclearance Requirement
- Brennan Center: Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District No. 1 (NAMUDNO) v. Holder
- ScotusBlog: Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District No. 1 (NAMUDNO) v. Holder
Monday, September 19, 2011
No written assignments this week
For 2301 and 2302, take a break this week, no written work on either 2301: republicanism or 2302: the contemporary legislature - but there will still be an assessment at the appointed time.
Sunday, September 18, 2011
Recent Legislative Activity
For discussion this week, a few recent bills working their way through the legislative process:
H R 2587 - Protecting Jobs From Government Interference Act.
- Status from Thomas.
- Background from OpenCongress.
H R 2867 - To reauthorize the International Religious Freedom Act of 1998
- Status from Thomas.
- Background from OpenCongress.
- Wikipedia - The International Religious Freedom Act of 1998
H R 2218 - Empowering Parents through Quality Charter Schools Act
- Status from Thomas
- Background from OpenCongress.
H R 2832 - to extend the Generalized System of Preferences Act.
- Status from Thomas.
- Background from OpenCongress.
Click here for a list of laws passed by Congress this term so far.
H R 2587 - Protecting Jobs From Government Interference Act.
- Status from Thomas.
- Background from OpenCongress.
H R 2867 - To reauthorize the International Religious Freedom Act of 1998
- Status from Thomas.
- Background from OpenCongress.
- Wikipedia - The International Religious Freedom Act of 1998
H R 2218 - Empowering Parents through Quality Charter Schools Act
- Status from Thomas
- Background from OpenCongress.
H R 2832 - to extend the Generalized System of Preferences Act.
- Status from Thomas.
- Background from OpenCongress.
Click here for a list of laws passed by Congress this term so far.
Saturday, September 17, 2011
Religious Liberty v. Civil Rights
From the National Law Journal, another looming Supreme Court case, and a great illustration of the conflict between civil liberties and civil rights:
On Oct. 5, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments in a very significant case that pits a Lutheran parochial school's assertion of First Amendment rights against the claims of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and a fired teacher, Cheryl Perich, of violations of the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA). The high profile of this suit, Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. EEOC, is reflected in interest by third parties — 31 amicus briefs have been filed — and by the church's retention of Professor Douglas Laycock of the University of Virginia School of Law, a leading authority on religious liberty, to represent it. . . .
- From Scotus Blog: Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. EEOC.
On Oct. 5, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments in a very significant case that pits a Lutheran parochial school's assertion of First Amendment rights against the claims of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and a fired teacher, Cheryl Perich, of violations of the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA). The high profile of this suit, Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. EEOC, is reflected in interest by third parties — 31 amicus briefs have been filed — and by the church's retention of Professor Douglas Laycock of the University of Virginia School of Law, a leading authority on religious liberty, to represent it. . . .
- From Scotus Blog: Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. EEOC.
How stable is Israel's democracy?
Not very according to this commentator:
Laws have been passed curtailing civil liberties:
In the last two years the Knesset has proposed and passed laws that seriously endanger Israel’s identity as a liberal democracy.
It began with a law forbidding public commemoration of the Palestinian refugee crisis of 1948, known as the Nakba; it continued with the demand for all new Israeli citizens to swear a loyalty oath to a Jewish and democratic country, and recently culminated in a bill outlawing calls to boycott any Israeli group or product — including those from the occupied territories.
And some members of the ruling coalition explicitly would like ot see a theocracy replace the democracy:
The national-religious parties in the governing coalition, meanwhile, are based on the belief that the Jewish people have a God-given right to what they call the Greater Land of Israel. In the long run, they want Israel to be a theocracy based on biblical law. Their participation in the democratic game is based on the prediction that Israel’s demography will inevitably lead to an Orthodox Jewish majority, and that they simply need to make sure that Israel doesn’t give up the West Bank before they rule the country.
The ultra-Orthodox parties, Shas and Yahadut Hatorah, also want Israel to become a theocracy in the long run. Until a decade ago, they did not necessarily claim that Israel should hold on to the occupied territories, but they realized that their electorate is right-leaning, and they need space for the rapidly expanding families of their constituency. They see liberal elites as their primary enemies.
Underlying this shift is an ongoing fear of terrorist violence, and as we've covered in class, people are willing to give up civil liberties - which leads to more authoritarian government - in order to be secure. Democracies - correctly or incorrectly - have been judges to be too weak to provide security.
Laws have been passed curtailing civil liberties:
In the last two years the Knesset has proposed and passed laws that seriously endanger Israel’s identity as a liberal democracy.
It began with a law forbidding public commemoration of the Palestinian refugee crisis of 1948, known as the Nakba; it continued with the demand for all new Israeli citizens to swear a loyalty oath to a Jewish and democratic country, and recently culminated in a bill outlawing calls to boycott any Israeli group or product — including those from the occupied territories.
And some members of the ruling coalition explicitly would like ot see a theocracy replace the democracy:
The national-religious parties in the governing coalition, meanwhile, are based on the belief that the Jewish people have a God-given right to what they call the Greater Land of Israel. In the long run, they want Israel to be a theocracy based on biblical law. Their participation in the democratic game is based on the prediction that Israel’s demography will inevitably lead to an Orthodox Jewish majority, and that they simply need to make sure that Israel doesn’t give up the West Bank before they rule the country.
The ultra-Orthodox parties, Shas and Yahadut Hatorah, also want Israel to become a theocracy in the long run. Until a decade ago, they did not necessarily claim that Israel should hold on to the occupied territories, but they realized that their electorate is right-leaning, and they need space for the rapidly expanding families of their constituency. They see liberal elites as their primary enemies.
Underlying this shift is an ongoing fear of terrorist violence, and as we've covered in class, people are willing to give up civil liberties - which leads to more authoritarian government - in order to be secure. Democracies - correctly or incorrectly - have been judges to be too weak to provide security.
Here's why regulations happen
From the NYT: Investigators Due to Arrive at Air Crash Site in Nevada.
From the Daily Beast: Reno’s Reckless Air Tragedy.
From the Daily Beast: Reno’s Reckless Air Tragedy.
From the NYT: On Day Devoted to Constitution, a Fight Over It
This is an appropriate opinion piece for 2301 - and is applicable to 2302 - considering our focus on Constitutional meaning. There is a current battle underway between Tea Party members and others about how the document should be interpreted.
From Will Wilkinson: The indeterminacy of political philosophy
Here's a provocative piece that illustrates some of the concepts covered in introductory lectures, especially our ongoing attention to the question "what justifies authority?" After the author wrestles with how libertarians approach the question - what justifies limit on self-rule - he wonders whether we even approach the issue in a dispassionate, philosophical manner. He concludes that we don't.
It seems to me that most of our high-level political concepts like "freedom" or "equality" are tailored and tweaked to justify the kind of political regime we already tend to favor. If you are offended by taxation, you'll settle on a conception of liberty according to which taxation is a violation. If you think a relatively high level of taxation is necessary to give people what you think they ought to get, you'll settle on a conception of liberty according to which taxation is not a violation, but not giving people what you think they ought to get is. That's why abstract political philosophy is so often futile. It's probably more useful to start out arguing over regime types in the first place, since mostly what we do is choose our favorite regime type and then reason backwards to conceptions of liberty, equality, and so forth that justify our pick.
Notice the mention of freedom and equality. In 2301 we will soon read through Federalist #10, and Madison would understand what the author is saying. We are at root self interested, and our opinions are based on what best serves those interests. This includes whatever we adopt as a guiding philosophical vision.
It seems to me that most of our high-level political concepts like "freedom" or "equality" are tailored and tweaked to justify the kind of political regime we already tend to favor. If you are offended by taxation, you'll settle on a conception of liberty according to which taxation is a violation. If you think a relatively high level of taxation is necessary to give people what you think they ought to get, you'll settle on a conception of liberty according to which taxation is not a violation, but not giving people what you think they ought to get is. That's why abstract political philosophy is so often futile. It's probably more useful to start out arguing over regime types in the first place, since mostly what we do is choose our favorite regime type and then reason backwards to conceptions of liberty, equality, and so forth that justify our pick.
Notice the mention of freedom and equality. In 2301 we will soon read through Federalist #10, and Madison would understand what the author is saying. We are at root self interested, and our opinions are based on what best serves those interests. This includes whatever we adopt as a guiding philosophical vision.
Friday, September 16, 2011
Let's Get Real On Constitutional Amendments And Stop Promising Them
Let's Get Real On Constitutional Amendments and Stop Promising Them.
The author of this post challenges the idea that constitutional amendment are the prefered means for dealing with various problems. Why not simple legislation?
The author of this post challenges the idea that constitutional amendment are the prefered means for dealing with various problems. Why not simple legislation?
From Brendan Nylan: Will Solyndra be the first major Obama scandal?
The president has been free from scandal thus far, but Republicans have been searching for anything to pin on him. Might the recent implosion of a solar cell company be it?
S.1549
The American Jobs Act of 2011 has been given a title. No real action yet.
Texas Rep Louis Golmert introduced a bill with the same title in the House.
Texas Rep Louis Golmert introduced a bill with the same title in the House.
From the Texas Tribune: Supreme Court Grants Stay of Duane Buck Execution
Some checks and balances in the news, coupled with due process and civil rights claims:
Buck's guilt is not in doubt, but his lawyers and supporters argue he deserves a new sentencting trial because race was a factor during his original sentencing in 1997. Dr. Walter Quijano, a psychologist the defense called as a witness, said that Buck would not likely be a future danger to society. But during cross-examination, prosecutors asked Quijano whether he believed the fact that Buck was black increased his potential threat to society. Quijano said yes. The jury sentenced Buck to death.
Here's a complicating factor: The defense called the witness.
Buck's guilt is not in doubt, but his lawyers and supporters argue he deserves a new sentencting trial because race was a factor during his original sentencing in 1997. Dr. Walter Quijano, a psychologist the defense called as a witness, said that Buck would not likely be a future danger to society. But during cross-examination, prosecutors asked Quijano whether he believed the fact that Buck was black increased his potential threat to society. Quijano said yes. The jury sentenced Buck to death.
Here's a complicating factor: The defense called the witness.
On Measuring Poverty
Andrew Sullivan points to a handful of posts questioning how we measure poverty. These were in response to the recent Census report showing increases in the poverty rate:
- How To Measure Poverty
- Coming in October: How Much Poverty Is There Really?
- Officially impoverished
- How To Measure Poverty
- Coming in October: How Much Poverty Is There Really?
- Officially impoverished
Thursday, September 15, 2011
Is health care reform working?
The author wonders:
People up to 26 can stay on their parents insurance - that might explain the change in the chart.
People up to 26 can stay on their parents insurance - that might explain the change in the chart.
From the Washington Post: The budding alliance between greens and libertarians
An unusual alliance seems to be evolving on environmental policy:
After a climate bill fizzled out in the Senate last year and Republicans won big in the midterms, many observers wondered how the environmental movement could reinvent itself. Would it shift to playing defense on the EPA? Try to build a broader grass-roots movement? But few could have predicted the trend we’re seeing now: Amid calls for austerity, some green groups are aligning with conservative think tanks to push for cuts to environmentally harmful programs.
The odd alliance kicked off last month when Friends of the Earth and Public Citizen teamed up with Taxpayers for Common Sense and the conservative Heartland Institute for their “Green Scissors” report, focusing on cuts to everything from ethanol and oil tax credits to timber subsidies. And this month? The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) is teaming up with the libertarian Reason Foundation and Taxpayers for Common Sense to attack the Essential Air Service program, which has been a small but controversial part of the ongoing fight over FAA funding in Congress.
- Can big budget cuts be environmentally friendly?
After a climate bill fizzled out in the Senate last year and Republicans won big in the midterms, many observers wondered how the environmental movement could reinvent itself. Would it shift to playing defense on the EPA? Try to build a broader grass-roots movement? But few could have predicted the trend we’re seeing now: Amid calls for austerity, some green groups are aligning with conservative think tanks to push for cuts to environmentally harmful programs.
The odd alliance kicked off last month when Friends of the Earth and Public Citizen teamed up with Taxpayers for Common Sense and the conservative Heartland Institute for their “Green Scissors” report, focusing on cuts to everything from ethanol and oil tax credits to timber subsidies. And this month? The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) is teaming up with the libertarian Reason Foundation and Taxpayers for Common Sense to attack the Essential Air Service program, which has been a small but controversial part of the ongoing fight over FAA funding in Congress.
- Can big budget cuts be environmentally friendly?
From CNN: Republicans reborn: The rise of Rick Perry
The Republican "establishment" may not matter anymore.
We may be witnessing a very important shift in the character of the Republican Party. For decades now, it has tended to nominate very established names for president. The party nominated Richard Nixon to its presidential ticket five times in 30 years. Over the last 20 years, there has been a Bush or a Dole on the ticket for all but this last presidential election. The Republican presidential nominee is almost always the front-runner, the established candidate, the guy who’s waited his turn: McCain, Dole, Bush Sr., Nixon.
The Democratic Party, by contrast, tends to nominate the outsider: Obama, Clinton, Carter and Kennedy. If history is the guide, this means the Republican Party will nominate Mitt Romney for president. He is the establishment candidate; he has run before; he is the most mainstream figure in the party. But I get the sense that the Republican Party is changing.
More long these lines:
- Beware of the Republican Establishment.
- The GOP establishment’s Rick Perry problem.
We may be witnessing a very important shift in the character of the Republican Party. For decades now, it has tended to nominate very established names for president. The party nominated Richard Nixon to its presidential ticket five times in 30 years. Over the last 20 years, there has been a Bush or a Dole on the ticket for all but this last presidential election. The Republican presidential nominee is almost always the front-runner, the established candidate, the guy who’s waited his turn: McCain, Dole, Bush Sr., Nixon.
The Democratic Party, by contrast, tends to nominate the outsider: Obama, Clinton, Carter and Kennedy. If history is the guide, this means the Republican Party will nominate Mitt Romney for president. He is the establishment candidate; he has run before; he is the most mainstream figure in the party. But I get the sense that the Republican Party is changing.
More long these lines:
- Beware of the Republican Establishment.
- The GOP establishment’s Rick Perry problem.
From the NYT: Seeing Ripple in Jewish Vote
The Jewish Vote has been predictably Democratic for years. Do the results in the recent New York special elections suggest this might change?
Should the uninsured be left to die?
The cheers that erupted in the last Republican debate when it was suggested that the uninsured should be left to die if there was no guarantee that they could pay their bills has led to some soul searching, as well as interesting questions posed about the responsibilities we, collectively, have to each other - or whether any such responsibilities exist.
From Ezra Klein: Why libertarianism fails in health care.
It’s all well and good to say personal responsibility is the bedrock of liberty, but even the hardest of libertarians has always understood that there are places where your person ends and mine begins. Generally, we think of this in terms of violent intrusion or property transgressions. But in health care, it has to do with compassion.
We are a decent society, and we do not want to look in people’s pockets for an insurance card when they fall to the floor with chest pains. If we’re not going to look in their pockets, however, we need some answer for who pays when they wake up — or, God forbid, after they stop breathing — in the hospital. And though it sounds nice to say that charities will pick up the slack, any hospital system in America will tell you that even with Medicare and Medicaid assuming much of the burden for the most intractable and expensive cases, charities are not capable of or interested in fully compensating the medical system for the services needed by the un- or underinsured.
From Andrew Sullivan: Indecent.
From Ezra Klein: Why libertarianism fails in health care.
It’s all well and good to say personal responsibility is the bedrock of liberty, but even the hardest of libertarians has always understood that there are places where your person ends and mine begins. Generally, we think of this in terms of violent intrusion or property transgressions. But in health care, it has to do with compassion.
We are a decent society, and we do not want to look in people’s pockets for an insurance card when they fall to the floor with chest pains. If we’re not going to look in their pockets, however, we need some answer for who pays when they wake up — or, God forbid, after they stop breathing — in the hospital. And though it sounds nice to say that charities will pick up the slack, any hospital system in America will tell you that even with Medicare and Medicaid assuming much of the burden for the most intractable and expensive cases, charities are not capable of or interested in fully compensating the medical system for the services needed by the un- or underinsured.
From Andrew Sullivan: Indecent.
Israel, Russia, and Democracy
Here a couple stories touching on Russia's continued difficulty in transforming to democracy, and problems Israel faces in continuing its own.
Regarding Russia: Journalists, notably those who try to dig into allegation of corruption, are being killed and the justice system is not allowing their killers to be prosecuted successfully. The story touches on the killing of one such journalist: "At the time of her murder, Vladimir Putin, who is now the prime minister but was the president then, dismissed her journalism as “insignificant” and said that nobody “currently in office” could possibly have organized a crime that, he said, was committed “to create a wave of anti-Russian feeling.” To many Russians, that sounded like orders from the top that police or judges or prosecutors should take care not to accuse anyone in power."
Regarding Israel: The author wonders if Israel's multiple transformations since its founding are making it less democratic.
More than 50 years ago, Israel’s leaders, headed by David Ben-Gurion, believed and hoped that they were creating a social democracy, with all the requisite egalitarian accoutrements (socialized national health care, progressive income tax, child benefits, subsidized cheap housing). Ben-Gurion, who owned almost nothing and retired to a primitive hut in the Negev Desert, typified the austere lifestyle, and greatness, of the state’s founders.
This is no longer Israel. A profound, internal, existential crisis has arrived. It stems in part from the changing nature of the country, more right wing, more restrictive, far less liberal, and far less egalitarian. Many moderate Israelis fear the country is heading for ruin. Indeed, the country’s ruling class, including Benjamin Netanyahu and his predecessors Ehud Olmert (now on trial for corruption) and Ehud Barak (a former head of the Labor Party and current defense minister), live in opulence, and the feeling is that they are out of touch with reality. In Tel Aviv, where some 350,000 gathered in protest, a widespread chant, set to a popular children’s ditty, was “Bibi has three apartments, which is why we have none.
Regarding Russia: Journalists, notably those who try to dig into allegation of corruption, are being killed and the justice system is not allowing their killers to be prosecuted successfully. The story touches on the killing of one such journalist: "At the time of her murder, Vladimir Putin, who is now the prime minister but was the president then, dismissed her journalism as “insignificant” and said that nobody “currently in office” could possibly have organized a crime that, he said, was committed “to create a wave of anti-Russian feeling.” To many Russians, that sounded like orders from the top that police or judges or prosecutors should take care not to accuse anyone in power."
Regarding Israel: The author wonders if Israel's multiple transformations since its founding are making it less democratic.
More than 50 years ago, Israel’s leaders, headed by David Ben-Gurion, believed and hoped that they were creating a social democracy, with all the requisite egalitarian accoutrements (socialized national health care, progressive income tax, child benefits, subsidized cheap housing). Ben-Gurion, who owned almost nothing and retired to a primitive hut in the Negev Desert, typified the austere lifestyle, and greatness, of the state’s founders.
This is no longer Israel. A profound, internal, existential crisis has arrived. It stems in part from the changing nature of the country, more right wing, more restrictive, far less liberal, and far less egalitarian. Many moderate Israelis fear the country is heading for ruin. Indeed, the country’s ruling class, including Benjamin Netanyahu and his predecessors Ehud Olmert (now on trial for corruption) and Ehud Barak (a former head of the Labor Party and current defense minister), live in opulence, and the feeling is that they are out of touch with reality. In Tel Aviv, where some 350,000 gathered in protest, a widespread chant, set to a popular children’s ditty, was “Bibi has three apartments, which is why we have none.
Wednesday, September 14, 2011
Regarding the special elections and some preliminary poll numbers
Democrats lost two special elections to House seats yesterday - one they were expected to lose, one they weren't. Does this foreshadow 2012? Nate Silver says it might.
But Obama seems to be polling well against Romney and Perry. So what gives?
But Obama seems to be polling well against Romney and Perry. So what gives?
Benefits and Contributions From Social Security and Medicare
Here's a great chart detailing both, here's the study it comes from:
The story is pulled from Andrew Sullivan's site, who points out how marriage is subsidized by both policies. It sucks to be single.
The story is pulled from Andrew Sullivan's site, who points out how marriage is subsidized by both policies. It sucks to be single.
Presidential Trivia: Oaths and Affirmation
We've been covering the Constitution in most classes recently and in 2301 read through the part in Article 6 that mandates that officials be "bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution." I used this to comment on what an oath is as opposed to an affirmation.
Just now I stumbled across mention of Franklin Pierce's inauguration, which took place soon after his young son was killed in a train accident. According to the story he refused to swear an oath on the Bible at the ceremony and is the only president who affirmed rather than swore his loyalty to the Constitution.
Just now I stumbled across mention of Franklin Pierce's inauguration, which took place soon after his young son was killed in a train accident. According to the story he refused to swear an oath on the Bible at the ceremony and is the only president who affirmed rather than swore his loyalty to the Constitution.
Tuesday, September 13, 2011
Rick Perry, Merck, Gardasil, and How Lobbying Works
Rick Perry, Merck, Gardasil, and How Lobbying Works: pOne of the funniest moments in last night’s debate was when Rick Perry denied that he’d been bribed into issuing an executive order mandating the use of HPV vaccines by arguing “If you’re saying that I can be bought for $5,000, I’m offended.” Everyone knows that it takes at least $50,000 to bribe the governor [...]/p
From the NYT: Protect Our Right to Anonymity
This promises to be a hugely consequential Supreme Court case:
IN November, the Supreme Court will hear arguments in a case that could redefine the scope of privacy in an age of increasingly ubiquitous surveillance technologies like GPS devices and face-recognition software.
The case, United States v. Jones, concerns a GPS device that the police, without a valid warrant, placed on the car of a suspected drug dealer in Washington, D.C. The police then tracked his movements for a month and used the information to convict him of conspiracy to sell cocaine. The question before the court is whether this violated the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution, which prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures of our “persons, houses, papers, and effects.”
- The cases' docket, from ScotusBlog.
IN November, the Supreme Court will hear arguments in a case that could redefine the scope of privacy in an age of increasingly ubiquitous surveillance technologies like GPS devices and face-recognition software.
The case, United States v. Jones, concerns a GPS device that the police, without a valid warrant, placed on the car of a suspected drug dealer in Washington, D.C. The police then tracked his movements for a month and used the information to convict him of conspiracy to sell cocaine. The question before the court is whether this violated the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution, which prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures of our “persons, houses, papers, and effects.”
- The cases' docket, from ScotusBlog.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)