From the Chron:
Texans could find themselves digging deeper for traffic fines, child-support payments processed by the state attorney general’s office and millions of dollars in other fees under the no-new-taxes budget proposal released by House leaders this week.
According to Legislative Budget Board figures, revenue increases from fees in the starting-point budget draft total some $131 million. That includes proposals such as the raising the state traffic fine from $30 to $45, which would require separate legislation.
That total does not include every potential new out-of-pocket expense in the two-year budget draft, such as a proposed $30 monthly health-insurance surcharge for state government employees and retirees who use tobacco.
The budget measure, which is a starting point for discussion, includes only a slim part of a $1.2 billion menu of savings and money-raising options prepared by the Legislative Budget Board under the heading of "government effectiveness and efficiency," in case lawmakers find the bare-bones approach indigestible.
Friday, January 21, 2011
About Texas' Rainy Day Fund
Given the $31 billion cut proposed in the Texas budget, some have wondered why the state shouldn't tap into the $9 billion in Texas' Rainy Day Fund. The links below explain what the Rainy Day and is, and whether it is appropriate to tap into it.
- info from Texas Politics (includes information about the Texas Enterprise Fund).
- constitutional text creating the Economic Stabilization Fund (the official name of the rainy day fund).
- Texas Tribune: The Rainy Day Fund.
- TPPF Guide to the fund and commentary on its use.
- One legislator says its raining.
- info from Texas Politics (includes information about the Texas Enterprise Fund).
- constitutional text creating the Economic Stabilization Fund (the official name of the rainy day fund).
- Texas Tribune: The Rainy Day Fund.
- TPPF Guide to the fund and commentary on its use.
- One legislator says its raining.
What is "Emergency" Legislation in Texas?
So far, Governor Perry has declared a handful of issues to be "emergencies." These include bills relating to Voter ID, Sanctuary Cities, a balanced budget amendment for the U.S.Constitution, and eminent domain. The bill making process in the legislature does not allow for bills to be voted on until after 60 days have passed int he session - the first 60 days are reserved for the introduction of legislation and its consideration in committee.
The 60 day rule is waived if the governor has put the bill on his list of emergency bills. The assumption is that these are urgent matters that need expediting, for whatever reason.
- An explanation in the Texas Tribune.
- TLI: Introducing a bill.
The 60 day rule is waived if the governor has put the bill on his list of emergency bills. The assumption is that these are urgent matters that need expediting, for whatever reason.
- An explanation in the Texas Tribune.
- TLI: Introducing a bill.
Was the Repeal a Wise Move?
A couple of commentaries suggesting maybe not:
- David Frum.
- Eugene Robinson.
Frum makes a great point regarding polling on the issue, something we will dig into in 2301 when we discuss the pitfalls of polls:
If I were working for a 2012 Republican presidential aspirant, I’d be preparing now for this debate question: “Governor/Senator: Do you believe that the federal government should ensure that all Americans can buy an affordable health-insurance policy?”
It’s a tough question. If you answer “no” — well you are putting yourself pretty clearly on the wrong side of public opinion.
Americans may be divided on the Democrats’ recent health reform. They don’t like taking money out of Medicare; they don’t like the idea of the government making health decisions for them. (I know those two positions sound inconsistent, but hey: I’m reporting, not judging.)
But on the specific question I just asked, the American public expresses itself more than 70 percent in favor, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation. In a survey conducted during the George W. Bush years, The New York Times tested Americans’ generosity. What if helping the less advantaged increased the cost of your own health insurance? Forty-eight percent were still in favor of a government plan; only 38 percent said they were not. What if the plan added $500 to your tax bill? Forty-nine percent were in favor, 44 percent said “no,” with independents polling slightly higher in the direction of “yes.”
Notice that he is pointing out that despite some polls that find majorities that oppose last year's health care law, you find majority support when you reframe the question. So what credence ought we give polls?
On a related point. In a response to criticism that Republicans are offering no alternatives to the existing law, they are holding various committee hearings to develop those alternatives.
- David Frum.
- Eugene Robinson.
Frum makes a great point regarding polling on the issue, something we will dig into in 2301 when we discuss the pitfalls of polls:
If I were working for a 2012 Republican presidential aspirant, I’d be preparing now for this debate question: “Governor/Senator: Do you believe that the federal government should ensure that all Americans can buy an affordable health-insurance policy?”
It’s a tough question. If you answer “no” — well you are putting yourself pretty clearly on the wrong side of public opinion.
Americans may be divided on the Democrats’ recent health reform. They don’t like taking money out of Medicare; they don’t like the idea of the government making health decisions for them. (I know those two positions sound inconsistent, but hey: I’m reporting, not judging.)
But on the specific question I just asked, the American public expresses itself more than 70 percent in favor, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation. In a survey conducted during the George W. Bush years, The New York Times tested Americans’ generosity. What if helping the less advantaged increased the cost of your own health insurance? Forty-eight percent were still in favor of a government plan; only 38 percent said they were not. What if the plan added $500 to your tax bill? Forty-nine percent were in favor, 44 percent said “no,” with independents polling slightly higher in the direction of “yes.”
Notice that he is pointing out that despite some polls that find majorities that oppose last year's health care law, you find majority support when you reframe the question. So what credence ought we give polls?
On a related point. In a response to criticism that Republicans are offering no alternatives to the existing law, they are holding various committee hearings to develop those alternatives.
What Really Happened to 15 Million Jobs?
From The Atlantic. Economists still don't really know why we lost so many jobs. It wasn't just the recession.
- and if that's not enough ...
- and if that's not enough ...
The Texas Senate Retains the 2/3rds Rule
From the Texas Tribune:
In a party-line vote, the Texas Senate adopted its rules today without making any changes to the rule that requires the consent of two-thirds of the body in order to bring an issue to the floor. Of course, no change means that controversial legislation on voter ID — as it was last session — is exempt.
This has been controversial because though Republicans have a comfortable majority in the Senate, they don't have a 2/3rds majority. Democrats still have the ability to stop legislation, except now for Voter ID legislation.
In a party-line vote, the Texas Senate adopted its rules today without making any changes to the rule that requires the consent of two-thirds of the body in order to bring an issue to the floor. Of course, no change means that controversial legislation on voter ID — as it was last session — is exempt.
This has been controversial because though Republicans have a comfortable majority in the Senate, they don't have a 2/3rds majority. Democrats still have the ability to stop legislation, except now for Voter ID legislation.
Herding Cats - 2011
I've mentioned in class that one of the items I plan to follow is how well Speaker Boehner - who leads the Republican Party in the House - can keep the Republicans (the Republican Conference) cohesive. Perhaps these stories are premature, but they suggest that its been tough already. The more conservative members of the party want to push for far more drastic cuts than Boehner has proposed.
- NYT.
- TPM Muckraker: Boehner may be "squeamish" on budget cuts.
Boehner may be concerned that if the electorate (more accurately moderates) finds out what exactly Republicans want to cut (NASA, highways, etc...) , they may decide that they like those things and turn on the party in 2012. It's one thing to think of budget cuts and smaller government in the abstract, its another to think of it in terms of losing an actual program that provides a tangible benefit.
We're already dealing with a negative response to the proposed budget in Texas. It turns out people like spending on education and health services. We'll see how much as the session proceeds.
- NYT.
- TPM Muckraker: Boehner may be "squeamish" on budget cuts.
Boehner may be concerned that if the electorate (more accurately moderates) finds out what exactly Republicans want to cut (NASA, highways, etc...) , they may decide that they like those things and turn on the party in 2012. It's one thing to think of budget cuts and smaller government in the abstract, its another to think of it in terms of losing an actual program that provides a tangible benefit.
We're already dealing with a negative response to the proposed budget in Texas. It turns out people like spending on education and health services. We'll see how much as the session proceeds.
It Could Happen, and Still be Constitutional.
Here's a list of eight crazy things that could happen and be perfectly constitutional. One is electing a non-member Speaker of the House. Again, enjoy.
Neat things to consider for both 2301 and 2302.
Neat things to consider for both 2301 and 2302.
Does Growing Income and Wealth Inequality Threaten the Republic?
Yes and no according to this author:
Here's the argument that it does not:
In terms of immediate political stability, there is less to the income inequality issue than meets the eye. Most analyses of income inequality neglect two major points. First, the inequality of personal well-being is sharply down over the past hundred years and perhaps over the past twenty years as well. Bill Gates is much, much richer than I am, yet it is not obvious that he is much happier if, indeed, he is happier at all. I have access to penicillin, air travel, good cheap food, the Internet and virtually all of the technical innovations that Gates does. Like the vast majority of Americans, I have access to some important new pharmaceuticals, such as statins to protect against heart disease. To be sure, Gates receives the very best care from the world’s top doctors, but our health outcomes are in the same ballpark. I don’t have a private jet or take luxury vacations, and—I think it is fair to say—my house is much smaller than his. I can’t meet with the world’s elite on demand. Still, by broad historical standards, what I share with Bill Gates is far more significant than what I don’t share with him.
Compare these circumstances to those of 1911, a century ago. Even in the wealthier countries, the average person had little formal education, worked six days a week or more, often at hard physical labor, never took vacations, and could not access most of the world’s culture. The living standards of Carnegie and Rockefeller towered above those of typical Americans, not just in terms of money but also in terms of comfort.
Here's the argument that it does:
If we are looking for objectionable problems in the top 1 percent of income earners, much of it boils down to finance and activities related to financial markets. And to be sure, the high incomes in finance should give us all pause.
The first factor driving high returns is sometimes called by practitioners “going short on volatility.” Sometimes it is called “negative skewness.” In plain English, this means that some investors opt for a strategy of betting against big, unexpected moves in market prices. Most of the time investors will do well by this strategy, since big, unexpected moves are outliers by definition. Traders will earn above-average returns in good times. In bad times they won’t suffer fully when catastrophic returns come in, as sooner or later is bound to happen, because the downside of these bets is partly socialized onto the Treasury, the Federal Reserve and, of course, the taxpayers and the unemployed.
In short, the financial sector has increased its political power over the past decades and is using this to pursue policies that advantage them at the expense of financial stability. Their interests lie in taking advantage of instability.
It's worth a close read.
Here's the argument that it does not:
In terms of immediate political stability, there is less to the income inequality issue than meets the eye. Most analyses of income inequality neglect two major points. First, the inequality of personal well-being is sharply down over the past hundred years and perhaps over the past twenty years as well. Bill Gates is much, much richer than I am, yet it is not obvious that he is much happier if, indeed, he is happier at all. I have access to penicillin, air travel, good cheap food, the Internet and virtually all of the technical innovations that Gates does. Like the vast majority of Americans, I have access to some important new pharmaceuticals, such as statins to protect against heart disease. To be sure, Gates receives the very best care from the world’s top doctors, but our health outcomes are in the same ballpark. I don’t have a private jet or take luxury vacations, and—I think it is fair to say—my house is much smaller than his. I can’t meet with the world’s elite on demand. Still, by broad historical standards, what I share with Bill Gates is far more significant than what I don’t share with him.
Compare these circumstances to those of 1911, a century ago. Even in the wealthier countries, the average person had little formal education, worked six days a week or more, often at hard physical labor, never took vacations, and could not access most of the world’s culture. The living standards of Carnegie and Rockefeller towered above those of typical Americans, not just in terms of money but also in terms of comfort.
Here's the argument that it does:
If we are looking for objectionable problems in the top 1 percent of income earners, much of it boils down to finance and activities related to financial markets. And to be sure, the high incomes in finance should give us all pause.
The first factor driving high returns is sometimes called by practitioners “going short on volatility.” Sometimes it is called “negative skewness.” In plain English, this means that some investors opt for a strategy of betting against big, unexpected moves in market prices. Most of the time investors will do well by this strategy, since big, unexpected moves are outliers by definition. Traders will earn above-average returns in good times. In bad times they won’t suffer fully when catastrophic returns come in, as sooner or later is bound to happen, because the downside of these bets is partly socialized onto the Treasury, the Federal Reserve and, of course, the taxpayers and the unemployed.
In short, the financial sector has increased its political power over the past decades and is using this to pursue policies that advantage them at the expense of financial stability. Their interests lie in taking advantage of instability.
It's worth a close read.
Will States be Allowed to go Bankrupt?
Something for 2301s especially to chew on, especially as we begin to discuss the Constitution. This is a consequence of both the recent economic downturn and the bloated pension plans some states have designed for state workers. The question now is how states can deal with the position this has placed them in. It raises interesting constitutional questions.
From the NYT:
Policy makers are working behind the scenes to come up with a way to let states declare bankruptcy and get out from under crushing debts, including the pensions they have promised to retired public workers.
Unlike cities, the states are barred from seeking protection in federal bankruptcy court. Any effort to change that status would have to clear high constitutional hurdles because the states are considered sovereign.
But proponents say some states are so burdened that the only feasible way out may be bankruptcy, giving Illinois, for example, the opportunity to do what General Motors did with the federal government’s aid.
From the NYT:
Policy makers are working behind the scenes to come up with a way to let states declare bankruptcy and get out from under crushing debts, including the pensions they have promised to retired public workers.
Unlike cities, the states are barred from seeking protection in federal bankruptcy court. Any effort to change that status would have to clear high constitutional hurdles because the states are considered sovereign.
But proponents say some states are so burdened that the only feasible way out may be bankruptcy, giving Illinois, for example, the opportunity to do what General Motors did with the federal government’s aid.
Thursday, January 20, 2011
Obama's Numbers Rise
This isn't a big surprise. Presidential poll numbers tend to increase after a tragedy, especially one that requires a presidential address. One of the unofficial functions of presidents is to be mourner-in-chief.
Might this have an impact on the next two years?
Might this have an impact on the next two years?
Revolving Door: Former Members of the 111th Congress
From OpenSecrets.Org, a page devoted to determining what careers former members of the 111th Congress are pursuing. It's worth looking at those who are now working with organizations whose interests they developed expertise on while in Congress.
The President as Head of State
Obama performs a constitutional diplomatic duty.
Who's in and who's out at the official state dinner for China.
Who's in and who's out at the official state dinner for China.
Gearing for the 2012 Presidential Race
The NYT reports that Obama is setting up his campaign operation:
President Obama will close the office of political affairs at the White House, aides said,restructuring his organization to prepare for his re-election campaign, which is to start building a fund-raising and grassroots operation based in Chicago by late March.
Mr. Obama has signed off on the plan to set up his campaign headquarters away from Washington, a first for a modern-day presidential re-election campaign. To avoid turf battles, chaotic communications and duplicated efforts, aides said, a significant realignment is underway in the West Wing, with the duties of the political office being taken up by the Democratic National Committee.
The president intends to formally declare his candidacy in about two months by filing papers with the Federal Election Commission, aides said. That step would allow him to start raising money and hiring a team of advisers, whose job it would be to make him the second Democrat since Franklin Delano Roosevelt to be elected twice to the White House.
The New Republic reports that Republican candidates are late getting started, and better get moving:
The Republican Party—and indeed much of the media establishment—is living in a fantasy world when it comes to 2012. To hear most of the pundits and soothsayers tell it, the presidential nominating contest is still a long way off. The GOP heavies we’ve been talking about since 2008, such as Mitt Romney, Mike Huckabee, Newt Gingrich, Sarah Palin, and Tim Pawlenty, are all terribly flawed: Mitt’s got his RomneyCare; Newt has been a national pariah; Huck has money problems; Palin is toxic outside her base; and T-Paw induces narcolepsy. But the entire presidential field will change, we are told, when a white knight (possibly handsome, possibly not), comes riding in to save the day. Everything will be different when Mitch Daniels enters the race, the argument goes. You’ll stop scoffing when Mike Pence gets here!
To which I say, look at the calendar. The truth is that if the Republicans’ Galahad is going to save the day, he needs to announce before midnight, and midnight is fast approaching. As Dave Weigel recently pointed out, at this point four years ago, 15 would-be presidents (eight Republicans, seven Democrats) had launched exploratory committees or announced candidacies. And eight years ago, by this time, five Democrats—all of the major candidates other than Wesley Clark—had at least formed exploratory committees, and two had formally announced. Today, in contrast, only the radio talk-show host Herman Cain has launched an exploratory committee. All of the other potential candidacies remain notional and virtual, built around leadership PACs, buzz-generating book tours, and flashy travel announcements.
President Obama will close the office of political affairs at the White House, aides said,restructuring his organization to prepare for his re-election campaign, which is to start building a fund-raising and grassroots operation based in Chicago by late March.
Mr. Obama has signed off on the plan to set up his campaign headquarters away from Washington, a first for a modern-day presidential re-election campaign. To avoid turf battles, chaotic communications and duplicated efforts, aides said, a significant realignment is underway in the West Wing, with the duties of the political office being taken up by the Democratic National Committee.
The president intends to formally declare his candidacy in about two months by filing papers with the Federal Election Commission, aides said. That step would allow him to start raising money and hiring a team of advisers, whose job it would be to make him the second Democrat since Franklin Delano Roosevelt to be elected twice to the White House.
The New Republic reports that Republican candidates are late getting started, and better get moving:
The Republican Party—and indeed much of the media establishment—is living in a fantasy world when it comes to 2012. To hear most of the pundits and soothsayers tell it, the presidential nominating contest is still a long way off. The GOP heavies we’ve been talking about since 2008, such as Mitt Romney, Mike Huckabee, Newt Gingrich, Sarah Palin, and Tim Pawlenty, are all terribly flawed: Mitt’s got his RomneyCare; Newt has been a national pariah; Huck has money problems; Palin is toxic outside her base; and T-Paw induces narcolepsy. But the entire presidential field will change, we are told, when a white knight (possibly handsome, possibly not), comes riding in to save the day. Everything will be different when Mitch Daniels enters the race, the argument goes. You’ll stop scoffing when Mike Pence gets here!
To which I say, look at the calendar. The truth is that if the Republicans’ Galahad is going to save the day, he needs to announce before midnight, and midnight is fast approaching. As Dave Weigel recently pointed out, at this point four years ago, 15 would-be presidents (eight Republicans, seven Democrats) had launched exploratory committees or announced candidacies. And eight years ago, by this time, five Democrats—all of the major candidates other than Wesley Clark—had at least formed exploratory committees, and two had formally announced. Today, in contrast, only the radio talk-show host Herman Cain has launched an exploratory committee. All of the other potential candidacies remain notional and virtual, built around leadership PACs, buzz-generating book tours, and flashy travel announcements.
Community College's Fight Back, Part 2
Just to confuse you, community college's themselves are represented by the Texas Association of Community Colleges, TACC. Think of TCCTA as a bunch of cc instructors and TACC as a bunch of CC presidents. Their interests don't always complement each other. In this case they do. The TACC has also issued a statement on the budget.
The question will be whether their response will be coordinated with TCCTA's and other institutions, or whether internal conflicts will weaken the response. To give you an idea of how conflicts can weaken group responses, consider this. Isn't it, in a sense, good news for ACC if Brazosport College is not longer funded and potentially closed? Their students will most likely come here. It improves our numbers. Just sayin' ....
(Austin, Texas) Today the Texas House of Representatives released HB1 and it is evident that community colleges were sacrificed to the state’s budget deficit. At a time of historic student enrollment growth the total cut to community colleges exceeds $767 million. This amount is comprised of $142 million in formula funding cuts from the last budget cycle, $342 million in student enrollment growth not funded, and $283 million reduction in employee group health insurance. These reductions will seriously impact the state’s ability to grow its economy as fewer Texans receive training and educational opportunities at community colleges across the state.
HB1 would close four community colleges. Brazosport College, Frank Phillips College, Ranger College, and Odessa College would all suffer the complete removal of state support. This will effectively end these colleges as viable institutions in their communities. The outcome of this action would be the end of educational opportunities for the more than 12,000 students served by these colleges. The closing of these colleges will mean no dual credit courses for high school juniors and seniors, the closing of workforce programs to educate and train students for industry, and the end of arts and community outreach programs.
TACC Chair, Dr. Richard Rhodes said, “This budget makes it clear that there is no longer a state policy when it comes to community colleges. If a college grows and educates more students the state does not live up to its commitment by funding growth. However, if a college is perceived by state bureaucrats as somehow growing too slowly, the state will cut all of an institution’s funding.” He added, “Community colleges are the future of Texas but this budget proposal seriously reduces our ability to meet the needs of our local communities.”
Community colleges in Texas are drivers of the state’s economy accounting for $1.6 billion of the state’s economy each year. “With this level of formula funding cuts, the creation of a $283 million unfunded employee health insurance cost, and the closure of four colleges, Texas will suffer.” said Dr. Rey Garcia, TACC President. “Communities across Texas will face smaller colleges, offering fewer courses, with fewer support services, to fewer students” he continued.
Community colleges are the largest sector of higher education in Texas enrolling over 735,000 students this past fall. Over the past five years enrollment in community colleges has increased 34% or 187,000 students. Over 70% of all freshman in Texas are enrolled at a community college.
The question will be whether their response will be coordinated with TCCTA's and other institutions, or whether internal conflicts will weaken the response. To give you an idea of how conflicts can weaken group responses, consider this. Isn't it, in a sense, good news for ACC if Brazosport College is not longer funded and potentially closed? Their students will most likely come here. It improves our numbers. Just sayin' ....
(Austin, Texas) Today the Texas House of Representatives released HB1 and it is evident that community colleges were sacrificed to the state’s budget deficit. At a time of historic student enrollment growth the total cut to community colleges exceeds $767 million. This amount is comprised of $142 million in formula funding cuts from the last budget cycle, $342 million in student enrollment growth not funded, and $283 million reduction in employee group health insurance. These reductions will seriously impact the state’s ability to grow its economy as fewer Texans receive training and educational opportunities at community colleges across the state.
HB1 would close four community colleges. Brazosport College, Frank Phillips College, Ranger College, and Odessa College would all suffer the complete removal of state support. This will effectively end these colleges as viable institutions in their communities. The outcome of this action would be the end of educational opportunities for the more than 12,000 students served by these colleges. The closing of these colleges will mean no dual credit courses for high school juniors and seniors, the closing of workforce programs to educate and train students for industry, and the end of arts and community outreach programs.
TACC Chair, Dr. Richard Rhodes said, “This budget makes it clear that there is no longer a state policy when it comes to community colleges. If a college grows and educates more students the state does not live up to its commitment by funding growth. However, if a college is perceived by state bureaucrats as somehow growing too slowly, the state will cut all of an institution’s funding.” He added, “Community colleges are the future of Texas but this budget proposal seriously reduces our ability to meet the needs of our local communities.”
Community colleges in Texas are drivers of the state’s economy accounting for $1.6 billion of the state’s economy each year. “With this level of formula funding cuts, the creation of a $283 million unfunded employee health insurance cost, and the closure of four colleges, Texas will suffer.” said Dr. Rey Garcia, TACC President. “Communities across Texas will face smaller colleges, offering fewer courses, with fewer support services, to fewer students” he continued.
Community colleges are the largest sector of higher education in Texas enrolling over 735,000 students this past fall. Over the past five years enrollment in community colleges has increased 34% or 187,000 students. Over 70% of all freshman in Texas are enrolled at a community college.
Community College's Fight Back
It might be a useful exercise to follow how community colleges' react to the Legislative Budget Board's proposed budget -- remember that this is not a final budget. The legislature will haggle over this all spring and probably over the summer. CHanges in the budget will tell alot about which groups in Texas are powerful and which are not.
Community college instructors are represented by a professional organization (which we have the option to join) called the the Texas Community College Teacher's Association, TCCTA. The organizations legislative affairs are overseen by a lobbysist named Beamon Floyd, who also represents the insurance industry in the state. I've heard him speak and he is an articulate defender of the lobbying profession and reminds audiences of its constitutional roots.
Here is the full text of TCCTA's response to the proposed budget:
Dear Colleague,
The preliminary budget for the next biennium was filed in the House of Representatives today (Wednesday), with severe cuts to the state's community colleges. The proposed budget includes a seven percent cut in formula funding, as well as a 25 percent funding cut in the "hold harmless" for small schools.
The budget also proposes the shuttering of four community colleges—Brazosport College, Frank Phillips College, Odessa College, and Ranger College. Rep. Jim Pitts, the chair of the House Committee on Appropriations, explained this morning (Wednesday) that these institutions were chosen on the basis of enrollment growth, compared to other two-year colleges around the state.
Another significant element of the proposed budget is an 82 percent decrease in funding for community college health benefits, which will push the burden for these services to the colleges, themselves.
In all, funding cuts for community colleges under this proposal total approximately $266 million.
During discussion in the House chamber, it was emphasized repeatedly that this budget is a preliminary document and will see significant changes before a final budget is adopted. Indeed, we have already observed bipartisan questioning of its provisions and "push back" from members of both parties.
It will be very important in the coming days that legislators hear from their constituents so they can understand the full impact these cuts would have on their communities. TCCTA members are urged to engage in this process, by talking with peers about these developments, and reading the TCCTA Blog to keep updated.
Members who contact their representatives should be polite but firm and clear about how this issue will affect them, their students, and their institutions ( see the TCCTA Guide to Political Participation). It is our belief that the proposed cuts, while having a serious impact on our ability to educate our students, will do very little to solve the budget crisis the state finds itself in. The imbalance between the serious consequences of the cuts, measured against any possible savings, should be pointed out to legislators.
In the several conversations we have had with legislators, it is clear that they perceive this only as a starting point, and that they are open to discussing other options. TCCTA is working diligently to learn more about the intentions of budget planners and make clear to them the concerns of our members.
We will continue to update members as information becomes available. Members are encouraged to watch the TCCTA blog closely, and attend the Legislative Update Session at the TCCTA convention in San Antonio next week, featuring the Association's lobbyist, Beaman Floyd.
To aid you in your communication, the TCCTA Legislative Program, Talking Points and Bill Tracking are available on our Web site, at http://www.tccta.org/legis/
Fred Newbury, TCCTA President
Richard Moore, Executive Director
Other organizations are certainly doing the same. I'll post links to their activities. This is a perfect demonstration of lobbying - the right to petition - in action. I'll try to make the most of it.
- TCCTA: Proposed Budget Cuts Detailed.
Community college instructors are represented by a professional organization (which we have the option to join) called the the Texas Community College Teacher's Association, TCCTA. The organizations legislative affairs are overseen by a lobbysist named Beamon Floyd, who also represents the insurance industry in the state. I've heard him speak and he is an articulate defender of the lobbying profession and reminds audiences of its constitutional roots.
Here is the full text of TCCTA's response to the proposed budget:
Dear Colleague,
The preliminary budget for the next biennium was filed in the House of Representatives today (Wednesday), with severe cuts to the state's community colleges. The proposed budget includes a seven percent cut in formula funding, as well as a 25 percent funding cut in the "hold harmless" for small schools.
The budget also proposes the shuttering of four community colleges—Brazosport College, Frank Phillips College, Odessa College, and Ranger College. Rep. Jim Pitts, the chair of the House Committee on Appropriations, explained this morning (Wednesday) that these institutions were chosen on the basis of enrollment growth, compared to other two-year colleges around the state.
Another significant element of the proposed budget is an 82 percent decrease in funding for community college health benefits, which will push the burden for these services to the colleges, themselves.
In all, funding cuts for community colleges under this proposal total approximately $266 million.
During discussion in the House chamber, it was emphasized repeatedly that this budget is a preliminary document and will see significant changes before a final budget is adopted. Indeed, we have already observed bipartisan questioning of its provisions and "push back" from members of both parties.
It will be very important in the coming days that legislators hear from their constituents so they can understand the full impact these cuts would have on their communities. TCCTA members are urged to engage in this process, by talking with peers about these developments, and reading the TCCTA Blog to keep updated.
Members who contact their representatives should be polite but firm and clear about how this issue will affect them, their students, and their institutions ( see the TCCTA Guide to Political Participation). It is our belief that the proposed cuts, while having a serious impact on our ability to educate our students, will do very little to solve the budget crisis the state finds itself in. The imbalance between the serious consequences of the cuts, measured against any possible savings, should be pointed out to legislators.
In the several conversations we have had with legislators, it is clear that they perceive this only as a starting point, and that they are open to discussing other options. TCCTA is working diligently to learn more about the intentions of budget planners and make clear to them the concerns of our members.
We will continue to update members as information becomes available. Members are encouraged to watch the TCCTA blog closely, and attend the Legislative Update Session at the TCCTA convention in San Antonio next week, featuring the Association's lobbyist, Beaman Floyd.
To aid you in your communication, the TCCTA Legislative Program, Talking Points and Bill Tracking are available on our Web site, at http://www.tccta.org/legis/
Fred Newbury, TCCTA President
Richard Moore, Executive Director
Other organizations are certainly doing the same. I'll post links to their activities. This is a perfect demonstration of lobbying - the right to petition - in action. I'll try to make the most of it.
- TCCTA: Proposed Budget Cuts Detailed.
Wednesday, January 19, 2011
Are Corporations Persons? ctd...
From the NYT:
The claim that corporations have personal privacy rights met with widespread skepticism on Wednesday during a lively Supreme Court argument.
A year ago, the court ruled in the Citizens United decision that corporations and unions had a First Amendment right to spend money in candidate elections. But that decision, which involved a question of constitutional law, did not come up at the argument on Wednesday, which considered the quite different issue of what Congress meant when it exempted some files from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act.
The exemption at issue in the case, Federal Communications Commission v. AT&T Inc., No. 09-1279, protects information that “could reasonably be expected to constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.”
AT&T invoked the exemption in seeking to block the release of documents it had provided to the F.C.C., which conducted an investigation into claims of overcharges by the company in a program to provide equipment and services to schools. The documents were sought by a trade association representing some of the company’s competitors.
The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, in Philadelphia, had ruled for the company, relying in part on a definition of “person” in the law that included corporations.
But several justices said it was too much of a leap to go from saying that corporations might be “persons” for some purposes to saying that their “personal privacy” could be invaded.
.....
The claim that corporations have personal privacy rights met with widespread skepticism on Wednesday during a lively Supreme Court argument.
A year ago, the court ruled in the Citizens United decision that corporations and unions had a First Amendment right to spend money in candidate elections. But that decision, which involved a question of constitutional law, did not come up at the argument on Wednesday, which considered the quite different issue of what Congress meant when it exempted some files from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act.
The exemption at issue in the case, Federal Communications Commission v. AT&T Inc., No. 09-1279, protects information that “could reasonably be expected to constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.”
AT&T invoked the exemption in seeking to block the release of documents it had provided to the F.C.C., which conducted an investigation into claims of overcharges by the company in a program to provide equipment and services to schools. The documents were sought by a trade association representing some of the company’s competitors.
The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, in Philadelphia, had ruled for the company, relying in part on a definition of “person” in the law that included corporations.
But several justices said it was too much of a leap to go from saying that corporations might be “persons” for some purposes to saying that their “personal privacy” could be invaded.
.....
Legislative Budget Board Submits Proposed Budget
It's $13 billion smaller than the previous budget and includes significant cuts to public education in state. It proposes no longer funding four community colleges including Brazosport College.
- The LBB proposal.
- HB 1.
- The LBB proposal.
- HB 1.
Obama Asks for Review of Rules Stifling Jobs
From the NYT:
President Obama on Tuesday ordered “a governmentwide review” of federal regulations to root out those “that stifle job creation and make our economy less competitive,” but he exempted many agencies that most vex corporate America. The immediate effect is likely to be more political than substantive.
The action was the latest in a series by Mr. Obama to claim the ideological center, and in particular to signal to businesses that he wants to work more closely with them on policies that could help create jobs.
Mr. Obama’s executive order would not apply to federal agencies created to be largely independent of the White House and Congress. That includes those, like the Securities and Exchange Commission and Federal Reserve, which currently are writing new rules for banks and other institutions that are mandated by the new law aimed at preventing another financial crisis. And it includes others like the Federal Communications Commission that have sway over large sectors of the economy.
President Obama on Tuesday ordered “a governmentwide review” of federal regulations to root out those “that stifle job creation and make our economy less competitive,” but he exempted many agencies that most vex corporate America. The immediate effect is likely to be more political than substantive.
The action was the latest in a series by Mr. Obama to claim the ideological center, and in particular to signal to businesses that he wants to work more closely with them on policies that could help create jobs.
Mr. Obama’s executive order would not apply to federal agencies created to be largely independent of the White House and Congress. That includes those, like the Securities and Exchange Commission and Federal Reserve, which currently are writing new rules for banks and other institutions that are mandated by the new law aimed at preventing another financial crisis. And it includes others like the Federal Communications Commission that have sway over large sectors of the economy.
Are Weak Unions the Reason that So Many Jobs Have Been Lost and Are Slow to Return?
In 2301, we will be discussing Federalist #10 soon enough along with the ongoing conflict between factions in society. Each interest in society, it is assumed, forms a groups - a faction - to fight for its interests. But some are more able to do this effectively than other a case in point recently has been labor unions.
Here's an argument that the decreasing power of labor in the US helps explain why unemployment is higher in the United States than in other countries. Here's a qualifier.
And for good measure, is American Exceptionalism a myth?
Here's an argument that the decreasing power of labor in the US helps explain why unemployment is higher in the United States than in other countries. Here's a qualifier.
And for good measure, is American Exceptionalism a myth?
A Majority, If They Can Keep It
This is quite a long article, but it's an interesting take on the ideological nature of the American public. The author -- who is affiliated with the conservative think tank The American Enterprise Institute -- says that Americans (in the aggregate I suppose) are not conservative, but they are "anti-liberal." This is the same as saying that the public -- as opposed to political leaders - -does not fall neatly into little ideological camps.
Recent shifts in electoral results are driven by the changing affiliations of the white, non-college educated, working class. Here's an extended clip that will help us in 2301 when we look at political parties:
. . . working-class voters do not fit neatly into the left-right divide that characterizes debates between party elites: These voters favor low taxes and balanced budgets, but support government welfare-state programs like public education and state-sponsored retirement benefits. They are economically populist, and suspicious of free trade and high finance. They are culturally orthodox but morally moderate, meaning that, while they often hold conservative views regarding social issues, they do not think that debates about social issues will affect their own lives very much. They are patriotic and supportive of the military, but are as suspicious of "big military" as they are of "big government" and "big business."
This last point, the fear of "big" anything, gets to the heart of the working-class identity. Working-class voters are very aware of their position in national economic and social life. Muttart notes that they do not aspire to be "Type A business owners"; they want to spend time with their families, go to work, and do what is asked of them. They value structure and stability. They are hopeful for their economic future, but fearful it could all be lost. They value programs that can protect them against losing everything they have, and also those that can help their children achieve more than they ever had.
They also crave respect. In the 1930s — when members of the working class were frequently laid off or forced to work in unhealthy settings — they felt business owners did not value them as human beings; they therefore turned to labor unions and government for help. Today, the working class continues to fear that management does not respect them. But they believe that intellectuals, public elites, and government bureaucrats disdain them and their aspirations, too.
The working class's ambiguous political status becomes easier to understand once we compare these beliefs and views to those of the two party bases. White working-class voters do not like modern liberal Democrats, whose tax-and-spend policies hamper their ability to prosper. Indeed, polls of American white working-class voters show that, by nearly a two-to-one margin, they believe in the free market and think more government intervention in the economy is not in their interest. They also think liberals show disrespect for their beliefs and priorities and focus on issues of more concern to educated elites — such as cap-and-trade — than on issues closer to the hearts of the working class.
But white working-class voters also have problems with what they take to be conservative ideas. They do not want to see entitlements and education cut for the sake of being cut; they do not believe these programs are inconsistent with modern American freedom. Nor do they trust that conservatives understand the working class's precarious economic perch. They fear the consequences of an untrammeled market and wonder, as they have since the Great Depression, if conservatives really have their best interests at heart. To put it simply: Working-class voters believe in capitalism, but they also believe in the importance of a social safety net.
...
Recent shifts in electoral results are driven by the changing affiliations of the white, non-college educated, working class. Here's an extended clip that will help us in 2301 when we look at political parties:
. . . working-class voters do not fit neatly into the left-right divide that characterizes debates between party elites: These voters favor low taxes and balanced budgets, but support government welfare-state programs like public education and state-sponsored retirement benefits. They are economically populist, and suspicious of free trade and high finance. They are culturally orthodox but morally moderate, meaning that, while they often hold conservative views regarding social issues, they do not think that debates about social issues will affect their own lives very much. They are patriotic and supportive of the military, but are as suspicious of "big military" as they are of "big government" and "big business."
This last point, the fear of "big" anything, gets to the heart of the working-class identity. Working-class voters are very aware of their position in national economic and social life. Muttart notes that they do not aspire to be "Type A business owners"; they want to spend time with their families, go to work, and do what is asked of them. They value structure and stability. They are hopeful for their economic future, but fearful it could all be lost. They value programs that can protect them against losing everything they have, and also those that can help their children achieve more than they ever had.
They also crave respect. In the 1930s — when members of the working class were frequently laid off or forced to work in unhealthy settings — they felt business owners did not value them as human beings; they therefore turned to labor unions and government for help. Today, the working class continues to fear that management does not respect them. But they believe that intellectuals, public elites, and government bureaucrats disdain them and their aspirations, too.
The working class's ambiguous political status becomes easier to understand once we compare these beliefs and views to those of the two party bases. White working-class voters do not like modern liberal Democrats, whose tax-and-spend policies hamper their ability to prosper. Indeed, polls of American white working-class voters show that, by nearly a two-to-one margin, they believe in the free market and think more government intervention in the economy is not in their interest. They also think liberals show disrespect for their beliefs and priorities and focus on issues of more concern to educated elites — such as cap-and-trade — than on issues closer to the hearts of the working class.
But white working-class voters also have problems with what they take to be conservative ideas. They do not want to see entitlements and education cut for the sake of being cut; they do not believe these programs are inconsistent with modern American freedom. Nor do they trust that conservatives understand the working class's precarious economic perch. They fear the consequences of an untrammeled market and wonder, as they have since the Great Depression, if conservatives really have their best interests at heart. To put it simply: Working-class voters believe in capitalism, but they also believe in the importance of a social safety net.
...
Regarding Roger Ailes
Esquire Magazine has published a profile of Fox News President Roger Ailes. Click here for links to it and the various takes on the profile itself.
Senile Judges . . .
. . . an unforeseen consequence of lifetime tenure on the judiciary. How do you persuade a senile federal judge to retire?
Life tenure, intended to foster judicial independence, has been a unique feature of the federal bench since the Constitution was ratified in 1789. Back then, the average American lived to be about 40 and the framers didn't express much worry about senile judges. "A superannuated bench," Alexander Hamilton said, is an "imaginary danger."
No longer. Today, aging and dementia are the flip side of life tenure, with more and more judges staying on the bench into extreme old age. About 12 percent of the nation's 1,200 sitting federal district and circuit judges are 80 years or older, according to a 2010 survey conducted by ProPublica. Eleven federal judges over the age of 90 are hearing cases—compared with four just 20 years ago. (One judge, a Kansan appointed by President John F. Kennedy, is over 100.) The share of octogenarians and nonagenarians on the federal bench has doubled in the past 20 years. The demographics of the federal bench have no analogue on the state courts, where judges mostly occupy their office for a term of fixed years and generally have mandatory retirement ages, often in their 60s or 70s.
Life tenure, intended to foster judicial independence, has been a unique feature of the federal bench since the Constitution was ratified in 1789. Back then, the average American lived to be about 40 and the framers didn't express much worry about senile judges. "A superannuated bench," Alexander Hamilton said, is an "imaginary danger."
No longer. Today, aging and dementia are the flip side of life tenure, with more and more judges staying on the bench into extreme old age. About 12 percent of the nation's 1,200 sitting federal district and circuit judges are 80 years or older, according to a 2010 survey conducted by ProPublica. Eleven federal judges over the age of 90 are hearing cases—compared with four just 20 years ago. (One judge, a Kansan appointed by President John F. Kennedy, is over 100.) The share of octogenarians and nonagenarians on the federal bench has doubled in the past 20 years. The demographics of the federal bench have no analogue on the state courts, where judges mostly occupy their office for a term of fixed years and generally have mandatory retirement ages, often in their 60s or 70s.
TV News Trust Poll
From Public Policy Polling:
PPP's annual look at the public's trust in various TV news outlets finds that Fox News' credibility is on the decline, that the traditional networks are seeing an up tick in their numbers, and that PBS is at the top of the heap.
Here's how they stack up from highest net trust to worst:
Outlet - Trust/Distrust
PBS - 50/30
NBC - 41/41
CNN - 40/43
Fox News - 42/46
CBS - 36/43
ABC - 35/43
PPP's annual look at the public's trust in various TV news outlets finds that Fox News' credibility is on the decline, that the traditional networks are seeing an up tick in their numbers, and that PBS is at the top of the heap.
Here's how they stack up from highest net trust to worst:
Outlet - Trust/Distrust
PBS - 50/30
NBC - 41/41
CNN - 40/43
Fox News - 42/46
CBS - 36/43
ABC - 35/43
Enthusiasm Gap Shifts
It's not too early to begin discussing the 2012 elections -- which is disappointing news for sane people. An early poll points outs a predictable shift in levels of enthusiasm based on partisanship. I say predictable because now that Republicans control the House, and are safe bets to take over the Senate in 2012, Democrats who sat out the midterms, see a reason to participate now.
From Public Policy Polling:
If I had to name the two biggest factors that cost Democrats the 2010 election cycle it would be 2 e's- economy and enthusiasm. A huge part of the party's problem was the bad economy, which drove independent voters strongly toward GOP candidates. But just as important was the enthusiasm gap and the fact that Republicans turned out at a much higher rate than Democrats in almost every state in the country.
I don't know where the economy's going to be 22 months from now but our newest weekly national survey for Daily Kos finds that the enthusiasm problem for Democrats is likely to be quickly a thing of the past.
85% of Democrats in the country are either 'very excited' or 'somewhat excited' about voting in the Presidential election next year, actually slightly higher than the 82% of Republicans. There are more Republicans who are 'very excited'- 62% to the Democrats' 57%, but 'somewhat excited' voters are going to come out the vast majority of the time. The ones you need to worry about are the 'not excited' voters- and 18% of Republicans and 16% of Democrats fall into that category, virtually indistinguishable.
One danger the Republican Party could fall into is if they ignore the Tea Party members to the point that see no reason to continue to identify with the party, and possibly punish the party by running an independent candidate.
From Public Policy Polling:
If I had to name the two biggest factors that cost Democrats the 2010 election cycle it would be 2 e's- economy and enthusiasm. A huge part of the party's problem was the bad economy, which drove independent voters strongly toward GOP candidates. But just as important was the enthusiasm gap and the fact that Republicans turned out at a much higher rate than Democrats in almost every state in the country.
I don't know where the economy's going to be 22 months from now but our newest weekly national survey for Daily Kos finds that the enthusiasm problem for Democrats is likely to be quickly a thing of the past.
85% of Democrats in the country are either 'very excited' or 'somewhat excited' about voting in the Presidential election next year, actually slightly higher than the 82% of Republicans. There are more Republicans who are 'very excited'- 62% to the Democrats' 57%, but 'somewhat excited' voters are going to come out the vast majority of the time. The ones you need to worry about are the 'not excited' voters- and 18% of Republicans and 16% of Democrats fall into that category, virtually indistinguishable.
One danger the Republican Party could fall into is if they ignore the Tea Party members to the point that see no reason to continue to identify with the party, and possibly punish the party by running an independent candidate.
Repeal of Health Care Bill Passes House
Details here. The vote - almost all party line - was 236 - 181.
Here are some random posts on the general topic:
- Story in the Washington Post.
- Poll results seem to vary depending on how questions are posed.
- Opinion tend to be nuanced.
- Debate still lingers on what exactly is in the bill.
Here are some random posts on the general topic:
- Story in the Washington Post.
- Poll results seem to vary depending on how questions are posed.
- Opinion tend to be nuanced.
- Debate still lingers on what exactly is in the bill.
The Debt Ceiling
We need to catch up on the looming controversy concerning whether Congress should raise the nation's debt ceiling, and what the consequences would be if it is not raised.
To begin, here's analysis of what our options are if the ceiling is not raised.
To begin, here's analysis of what our options are if the ceiling is not raised.
Tuesday, January 18, 2011
If Tunisia Becomes a Democracy, Will Other Arab Countries Follow?
Here's an argument that they will not, and it touches on what factors cause countries to become democratic:
How to explain the Tunisian revolution? By consulting Samuel Huntington—not the Huntington of Clash of Civilizations fame, but the author of The Third Wave: Democratization in the Late Twentieth Century, published in 1991. His model is too complex to be laid out here in all of its subtleties. But the basic message, to borrow from Bill Clinton’s 1992 campaign, is: “It’s the economy, stupid!” We should also add education, urbanization, and globalization—all those items that go into the tale “The Making of a Middle Class.” Tunisia has it all, and that is why it now sticks out like a bloody thumb from the rest of the Arab world, that vast arc from Rabat to Damascus where politics remains frozen, where the birth rate keeps dwarfing economic growth, and where King or Colonel is despotism’s name.
The Tunisian revolt fits Huntington’s model to a T. Looking at the third wave of democratization between 1974 and 1989, he found that rising wealth spells falling tyrants. How much money did it take? A per-capita income between $1,000 and $3,000, which would now be adjusted for inflation. Of the non-democracies which moved into that range in the 1970s and 1980s, three-quarters got rid of their overlords.
. . . why are the other Arab and Maghreb African countries—police states all—proving so immune to regime change (unless there is a little help from the U.S. military, as in Iraq)? Because they don’t make Huntington’s cut.
Not counting the petro-potentates (more about them later) and strife-torn Lebanon, Tunisia is the richest of them all. Its per-capita income is almost twice as high as neighboring Morocco, and it is ahead of Egypt, Jordan, and Syria by similar margins. The country is more urbanized (67 percent of the populace) than either Morocco (56 percent) or Egypt, (43 percent). Tunisia is also more educated: Its literacy is a bit higher than Egypt’s and a lot higher than Morocco’s, and it spends much more on education—7.2 percent of GDP, while Egypt devotes about half as much, and Morocco comes in at just 5.7 percent.
. . . If you are poor, you have neither the time nor the energy to engage in politics. If you are not educated, you lack the cultural skills to articulate your demands—to agitate and organize. And, if you are poor, uneducated, and thus isolated, as much of the Arab world is, then you have no benchmark against which to measure your misery. Sociologists call this the “demonstration effect.”
So don’t count on a Tunisian “demonstration effect” to set the rest of the Arab world aflame.
How to explain the Tunisian revolution? By consulting Samuel Huntington—not the Huntington of Clash of Civilizations fame, but the author of The Third Wave: Democratization in the Late Twentieth Century, published in 1991. His model is too complex to be laid out here in all of its subtleties. But the basic message, to borrow from Bill Clinton’s 1992 campaign, is: “It’s the economy, stupid!” We should also add education, urbanization, and globalization—all those items that go into the tale “The Making of a Middle Class.” Tunisia has it all, and that is why it now sticks out like a bloody thumb from the rest of the Arab world, that vast arc from Rabat to Damascus where politics remains frozen, where the birth rate keeps dwarfing economic growth, and where King or Colonel is despotism’s name.
The Tunisian revolt fits Huntington’s model to a T. Looking at the third wave of democratization between 1974 and 1989, he found that rising wealth spells falling tyrants. How much money did it take? A per-capita income between $1,000 and $3,000, which would now be adjusted for inflation. Of the non-democracies which moved into that range in the 1970s and 1980s, three-quarters got rid of their overlords.
. . . why are the other Arab and Maghreb African countries—police states all—proving so immune to regime change (unless there is a little help from the U.S. military, as in Iraq)? Because they don’t make Huntington’s cut.
Not counting the petro-potentates (more about them later) and strife-torn Lebanon, Tunisia is the richest of them all. Its per-capita income is almost twice as high as neighboring Morocco, and it is ahead of Egypt, Jordan, and Syria by similar margins. The country is more urbanized (67 percent of the populace) than either Morocco (56 percent) or Egypt, (43 percent). Tunisia is also more educated: Its literacy is a bit higher than Egypt’s and a lot higher than Morocco’s, and it spends much more on education—7.2 percent of GDP, while Egypt devotes about half as much, and Morocco comes in at just 5.7 percent.
. . . If you are poor, you have neither the time nor the energy to engage in politics. If you are not educated, you lack the cultural skills to articulate your demands—to agitate and organize. And, if you are poor, uneducated, and thus isolated, as much of the Arab world is, then you have no benchmark against which to measure your misery. Sociologists call this the “demonstration effect.”
So don’t count on a Tunisian “demonstration effect” to set the rest of the Arab world aflame.
Monday, January 17, 2011
A Dictator Returns to Haiti
From the NYT:
Haiti’s political crisis took a stunning turn on Sunday when Jean-Claude Duvalier, the dictator known as Baby Doc who was overthrown in 1986, arrived unexpectedly in the capital from exile in France.
Here's more. In 2301 we mentioned that populations sometimes support autocratic rule when the alternative is chaos -- as seems to be the case since the earthquake. Perhaps that's what's going on here. Click here for an idea of the violence they used to maintain power.
Haiti’s political crisis took a stunning turn on Sunday when Jean-Claude Duvalier, the dictator known as Baby Doc who was overthrown in 1986, arrived unexpectedly in the capital from exile in France.
Here's more. In 2301 we mentioned that populations sometimes support autocratic rule when the alternative is chaos -- as seems to be the case since the earthquake. Perhaps that's what's going on here. Click here for an idea of the violence they used to maintain power.
The Constitution, the House and Gifford's Seat
If Gifford is incapacitated for a prolonged period of time, can she be removed from office and replaced? The Constitution does not allow for this, but Arizona has a law stating that it can.
Abolitionists: The Lunatics of the 1850s
Maybe we shouldn't sell nutbags short. And maybe compromise is overrated.
An Emerging Class War?
As we approach Federalist #10, and a discussion of the conflict between various interests in society, its worth looking at comments regarding the increasing gap between the haves and have-nots in American society. The middle class seems to be losing out the most. Will we see increased conflicxt as time progresses?
The U.S.-based CEO of one of the world’s largest hedge funds told me that his firm’s investment committee often discusses the question of who wins and who loses in today’s economy. In a recent internal debate, he said, one of his senior colleagues had argued that the hollowing-out of the American middle class didn’t really matter. . . . (emphasis added)
I heard a similar sentiment from the Taiwanese-born, 30-something CFO of a U.S. Internet company. A gentle, unpretentious man who went from public school to Harvard, he’s nonetheless not terribly sympathetic to the complaints of the American middle class. “We demand a higher paycheck than the rest of the world,” he told me. “So if you’re going to demand 10 times the paycheck, you need to deliver 10 times the value. It sounds harsh, but maybe people in the middle class need to decide to take a pay cut.”
The U.S.-based CEO of one of the world’s largest hedge funds told me that his firm’s investment committee often discusses the question of who wins and who loses in today’s economy. In a recent internal debate, he said, one of his senior colleagues had argued that the hollowing-out of the American middle class didn’t really matter. . . . (emphasis added)
I heard a similar sentiment from the Taiwanese-born, 30-something CFO of a U.S. Internet company. A gentle, unpretentious man who went from public school to Harvard, he’s nonetheless not terribly sympathetic to the complaints of the American middle class. “We demand a higher paycheck than the rest of the world,” he told me. “So if you’re going to demand 10 times the paycheck, you need to deliver 10 times the value. It sounds harsh, but maybe people in the middle class need to decide to take a pay cut.”
States' Rights and Slavery
Here's a fun read regarding some of the myths regarding the Civil War. As we know, some argue that it was all about states' rights. But the author differs:
South Carolina was further upset that New York no longer allowed "slavery transit." In the past, if Charleston gentry wanted to spend August in the Hamptons, they could bring their cook along. No longer -- and South Carolina's delegates were outraged. In addition, they objected that New England states let black men vote and tolerated abolitionist societies. According to South Carolina, states should not have the right to let their citizens assemble and speak freely when what they said threatened slavery.
Other seceding states echoed South Carolina. "Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery -- the greatest material interest of the world," proclaimed Mississippi in its own secession declaration, passed Jan. 9, 1861. "Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of the commerce of the earth. . . . A blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization."
The South's opposition to states' rights is not surprising. Until the Civil War, Southern presidents and lawmakers had dominated the federal government. The people in power in Washington always oppose states' rights. Doing so preserves their own.
Apparently states rights only mattered if a state supported slavery, not if it opposed it.
South Carolina was further upset that New York no longer allowed "slavery transit." In the past, if Charleston gentry wanted to spend August in the Hamptons, they could bring their cook along. No longer -- and South Carolina's delegates were outraged. In addition, they objected that New England states let black men vote and tolerated abolitionist societies. According to South Carolina, states should not have the right to let their citizens assemble and speak freely when what they said threatened slavery.
Other seceding states echoed South Carolina. "Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery -- the greatest material interest of the world," proclaimed Mississippi in its own secession declaration, passed Jan. 9, 1861. "Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of the commerce of the earth. . . . A blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization."
The South's opposition to states' rights is not surprising. Until the Civil War, Southern presidents and lawmakers had dominated the federal government. The people in power in Washington always oppose states' rights. Doing so preserves their own.
Apparently states rights only mattered if a state supported slavery, not if it opposed it.
Does the Constitution Shield Members of Congress From Criminal Investigations?
According to the Washington Post, that may be the consequence of recent readings of the clause in the Constituton that states that members cannot be questioned in other places for things they say on the floor of Congress and are privileged from arrest when going to and from Congress.
Looking Ahead -- Week Two's Assessment
Tips for the second week's assessments:
2301
- I have five questions about different aspects of the Declaration of Independence, so be very familiar with the argument it makes.
- Understand the arguments for and against divine right. Understand the argument in favor of natural rights, and John Locke's theories about government.
- There are four questions about the English Bill of Rights. Know what it is, what it contains, and what impact it had on the American governing system.
- There will be four questions on Magna Carta. As with the English Bill of Rights. Know what it is, what it contains, and what impact it had on the American governing system.
- I have one question on the Stuarts, and one question on Thomas Hobbes.
2302
- What content in the Declaration of Independence related to legislative power? Why?
- What was the Petition of Right? What was it intended to do? What were the consequences of it?
- What was the design of the Congress under the Articles of Confederation?
- What impact did the Magna Carta have on the development of legislative power in Britain?
- What impact did the English (British) Bill of Rights have on the development of legislative power in Britain? What specific limitations did it place on the monarch?
- What attitude did the Stuarts have about legislative power?
- Expect ten or so questions about the basic terminology and design of legislative institutions in the U.S. and Texas.
2301
- I have five questions about different aspects of the Declaration of Independence, so be very familiar with the argument it makes.
- Understand the arguments for and against divine right. Understand the argument in favor of natural rights, and John Locke's theories about government.
- There are four questions about the English Bill of Rights. Know what it is, what it contains, and what impact it had on the American governing system.
- There will be four questions on Magna Carta. As with the English Bill of Rights. Know what it is, what it contains, and what impact it had on the American governing system.
- I have one question on the Stuarts, and one question on Thomas Hobbes.
2302
- What content in the Declaration of Independence related to legislative power? Why?
- What was the Petition of Right? What was it intended to do? What were the consequences of it?
- What was the design of the Congress under the Articles of Confederation?
- What impact did the Magna Carta have on the development of legislative power in Britain?
- What impact did the English (British) Bill of Rights have on the development of legislative power in Britain? What specific limitations did it place on the monarch?
- What attitude did the Stuarts have about legislative power?
- Expect ten or so questions about the basic terminology and design of legislative institutions in the U.S. and Texas.
Sanctuary Cities
In his address last week before the legislature, Governor Perry called out "sanctuary cities" and stated that he will work to abolish them. In essence, he is suggesting the local law enforcement officers enforce national immigration laws, in addition to local and state legislation. This obviously adds to their workload, and in a budget cutting environment, this may prove unpopular.
An intrepid student hunted down this LA Times piece detailing the problems associated with the proposal. This is a perfect topic for 2301s upcoming discussion of federalism.
Thanks CR!
An intrepid student hunted down this LA Times piece detailing the problems associated with the proposal. This is a perfect topic for 2301s upcoming discussion of federalism.
Thanks CR!
Saturday, January 15, 2011
The "Wikipedia Revolution" in Tunisia
Democracy may or may not be breaking out in Tunisia, a north African Arab nation judged across the board to be among the world's most repressive, but riots have forced the existing president to resign and flee the country. The president had been in power for over twenty years and was re-elected regularly by very high nargins -- never a sign of a truly competitive system (in 1994 and 1999 he received 99% of the vote). One source has dubbed this the "wikileaks revolution" because:
US diplomatic cables released by Wikileaks described Tunisia as a "police state" riddled with corruption, and claimed President Zine El Abidine Ben Ali had lost touch with his people.
It described the president and his siblings as "The Family" - comparing them to a Mafia crime organisation.
Wikileaks also revealed that Ben Ali's wife, Leila, had made huge profits out of building an exclusive school.
One cable was banned in Tunisia, although its contents became widely known.
In it, US ambassador Robert Godec wrote: "Corruption in the inner circle is growing. Even average Tunisians are keenly aware of it, and the chorus of complaints is rising. Tunisians intensely dislike, even hate, first lady Leila Trabelsi and her family. In private, regime opponents mock her."
Social network websites such as Facebook helped spread the comments, to the delight of Tunisians.
For general information about measurements of freedom in countries across the world check these out:
- Freedom House: Freedom in the World 2011.
- Democracy Index.
- Press Freedom Index.
Whether the revolution leads to the establishment of a legitimate democracy or simply another authoritarian regime, or whether it causes other leaders in the region to topple is an open question at this point.
US diplomatic cables released by Wikileaks described Tunisia as a "police state" riddled with corruption, and claimed President Zine El Abidine Ben Ali had lost touch with his people.
It described the president and his siblings as "The Family" - comparing them to a Mafia crime organisation.
Wikileaks also revealed that Ben Ali's wife, Leila, had made huge profits out of building an exclusive school.
One cable was banned in Tunisia, although its contents became widely known.
In it, US ambassador Robert Godec wrote: "Corruption in the inner circle is growing. Even average Tunisians are keenly aware of it, and the chorus of complaints is rising. Tunisians intensely dislike, even hate, first lady Leila Trabelsi and her family. In private, regime opponents mock her."
Social network websites such as Facebook helped spread the comments, to the delight of Tunisians.
For general information about measurements of freedom in countries across the world check these out:
- Freedom House: Freedom in the World 2011.
- Democracy Index.
- Press Freedom Index.
Whether the revolution leads to the establishment of a legitimate democracy or simply another authoritarian regime, or whether it causes other leaders in the region to topple is an open question at this point.
Friday, January 14, 2011
What Constituency do Members of Congress Serve?
This part of David Frum's opinion piece below is worth discussing in class -- both 2301 and 2302. He is discussing the various changes in the political environment which may have lead to the rhetoric that may have led to the Tucson shooting:
More and more of our politicians are self-motivated political entrepreneurs, who raise their money through national networks — and are held to account by those networks. It becomes less important to keep everybody in your district happy than to keep happy the national ideological lobbies that pull members to the left or right.
Note the part I put in bold. Our representatives are apparently no longer "our" representatives, but represent instead broad national ideological movements. We simply vote them into office, we don't influence them.
More and more of our politicians are self-motivated political entrepreneurs, who raise their money through national networks — and are held to account by those networks. It becomes less important to keep everybody in your district happy than to keep happy the national ideological lobbies that pull members to the left or right.
Note the part I put in bold. Our representatives are apparently no longer "our" representatives, but represent instead broad national ideological movements. We simply vote them into office, we don't influence them.
Is Violent Rhetoric a Threat to the Republic?
An appropriate question considering our 2301 topic this week.
David Frum (former W Bush speechwriter) wonders:
The problem is, rather, the construction of paranoid narratives that might justify violence to a violent-minded person. When scruffy protesters drew swastikas on photographs of President George W. Bush, that was obnoxious. It was not likely to incite anyone. But when eminent persons argued on the public airwaves that the United States had been lied into a frustrating war in Iraq by a cabal of Jewish conspirators? That’s a very different matter.
Likewise, it's grossly ill mannered for a member of the House to shout "You lie!" at a president during a State of the Union address. Yet the republic staggered on somehow. What does do damage to the fabric of democracy is the charge made by prominent conservative broadcasters that the president is deliberately wrecking the U.S. economy to advance his scheme to overthrow the constitution and transform the nation into a Marxist or Leninist or even Maoist tyranny.
Its the opinion leaders more than the general population he suggests, among other things.
David Frum (former W Bush speechwriter) wonders:
The problem is, rather, the construction of paranoid narratives that might justify violence to a violent-minded person. When scruffy protesters drew swastikas on photographs of President George W. Bush, that was obnoxious. It was not likely to incite anyone. But when eminent persons argued on the public airwaves that the United States had been lied into a frustrating war in Iraq by a cabal of Jewish conspirators? That’s a very different matter.
Likewise, it's grossly ill mannered for a member of the House to shout "You lie!" at a president during a State of the Union address. Yet the republic staggered on somehow. What does do damage to the fabric of democracy is the charge made by prominent conservative broadcasters that the president is deliberately wrecking the U.S. economy to advance his scheme to overthrow the constitution and transform the nation into a Marxist or Leninist or even Maoist tyranny.
Its the opinion leaders more than the general population he suggests, among other things.
Kay Bailey Hutchison will not seek Re-Election
From WaPo:
Texas Republican Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison announced today she will not seek a fourth term, the first incumbent up for reelection in 2012 to retire.
"I am announcing today that I will not be a candidate for re-election in 2012," Hutchison said in a statement released this afternoon. "That should give the people of Texas ample time to consider who my successor will be."
Current Lieutenant Governor David Dewhurst, along with Ron Paul and a few others are rumored to be considering a run at the position. This will shuffle the deck for all the positions they will then vacate.
Texas Republican Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison announced today she will not seek a fourth term, the first incumbent up for reelection in 2012 to retire.
"I am announcing today that I will not be a candidate for re-election in 2012," Hutchison said in a statement released this afternoon. "That should give the people of Texas ample time to consider who my successor will be."
Current Lieutenant Governor David Dewhurst, along with Ron Paul and a few others are rumored to be considering a run at the position. This will shuffle the deck for all the positions they will then vacate.
Republican National Committee Selects New Chair
From the NYT:
The Republican National Committee selected a new chairman on Friday, with Reince Priebus of Wisconsin surviving seven contentious rounds of balloting to succeed Michael Steele, who dropped out after the fourth round, as party officials expressed a desire for new leadership to prepare for the 2012 presidential election.
The committee is argued to be in disarray despite the sucess of party candidates in the 2010 election. Their success has been argued to be largely the consequence of outsider groups and the past chairman was argued to have poorly managed the committee's affairs.
While readign the story, I'd like you to focus on how they conducted the election. Repeated ballots until someone got a majority. Little changed until a couple of candidates -- including the ex-chair -- dropped out. As we will see when we discuss elections, different types of elections often produce different winners.
- Wikipedia: Republican National Committee.
- Michael Steele's Ten Biggest Gaffes.
The Republican National Committee selected a new chairman on Friday, with Reince Priebus of Wisconsin surviving seven contentious rounds of balloting to succeed Michael Steele, who dropped out after the fourth round, as party officials expressed a desire for new leadership to prepare for the 2012 presidential election.
The committee is argued to be in disarray despite the sucess of party candidates in the 2010 election. Their success has been argued to be largely the consequence of outsider groups and the past chairman was argued to have poorly managed the committee's affairs.
While readign the story, I'd like you to focus on how they conducted the election. Repeated ballots until someone got a majority. Little changed until a couple of candidates -- including the ex-chair -- dropped out. As we will see when we discuss elections, different types of elections often produce different winners.
- Wikipedia: Republican National Committee.
- Michael Steele's Ten Biggest Gaffes.
The Limits of National Supremacy
A note on the selective enforcement of prohibition. A certain consequence of our federal design.
The Constitution Protects Incendiary Speech
So says the ACLU:
Banning crosshairs and other imagery in political literature would violate free-speech rights, an ACLU official said Thursday.
The comments from a senior official with the American Civil Liberties Union came in response to a proposal from a Democratic lawmaker to make it illegal to publish literature like the ‘crosshairs’ map Sarah Palin’s PAC published for the 2010 election.
. . . “Under the First Amendment I don't see how you can prevent people from using advertising allusions,” said Macleod-Ball, referring to the use of a bull’s-eyes or crosshair for campaign purposes. “I do not see how you could draw up a statute that would restrict the use of a riflescope or a bull's-eye in a publication.“
Rep. Robert Brady (D-Pa.) told Fox News on Sunday that he will introduce a law that will make it a federal crime to publish images like the ‘crosshairs’ map. Brady made the comments after six people were gunned down in a shooting in Arizona that targeted Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-Ariz.).
Harris County Commissioner Eversole Accused of Taking Bribes
From the Chron, background on charges brought against a Harris County Commissioner:
Harris County Precinct 4 Commissioner Jerry Eversole pleaded not guilty in federal court Tuesday to felony charges of bribery and filing false income tax returns, denying accusations he had steered lucrative county contracts to a developer who had given him more than $100,000 in cash and gifts over the years.
Here's a question: Where do we draw the line between a bribe and a contribution?
Harris County Precinct 4 Commissioner Jerry Eversole pleaded not guilty in federal court Tuesday to felony charges of bribery and filing false income tax returns, denying accusations he had steered lucrative county contracts to a developer who had given him more than $100,000 in cash and gifts over the years.
... The indictment documents what it describes as a series of gifts from Surface to Eversole, including:
· A $63,000 cashier's check that Eversole used to buy land for a new home;
· Nearly $17,000 to pay for landscaping at Eversole's new home;
· A tailored suit that cost more than $1,000;
· Several antique firearms that cost more than $23,000, plus $10,000 to have ivory grips installed on several of Eversole's guns.
· Travel expenses for trips to Las Vegas, Arizona, New Mexico, Colorado, Wyoming, Montana, South Dakota, South Carolina and a Texas golf resort.
· $25,000 in collateral for a bank loan Eversole obtained.
According to the indictment, the two men discussed a plan in 2003 whereby Eversole would resign his seat and secure the appointment of Surface as his replacement so he could run as an incumbent in the next election.
Companies in which Surface had an interest have received several contracts to provide county facilities this decade. The indictment alleges that in June 2006, Eversole moved for consideration and voted to approve spending $4.9 million on a building in which Surface had an interest, despite requests by county staff to take the matter off the agenda if funding had not been authorized.
Here's a question: Where do we draw the line between a bribe and a contribution?
Thursday, January 13, 2011
Regulatory Agencies in The News
From the NYT:
The Environmental Protection Agency revoked the permit for one of the nation’s largest mountaintop-removal coal mining projects on Thursday, saying the mine would have done unacceptable damage to rivers, wildlife and communities in West Virginia. It was the first time the agency had rescinded a valid clean water permit for a coal mine.
Arch Coal’s proposed Spruce No. 1 Mine in Logan County, which would have buried miles of Appalachian streams under millions of tons of residue, has been the subject of controversy and litigation since the first application was filed more than a decade ago. Opposition intensified after the Bush administration approved the mine’s construction in 2007, issuing a permit required under the Clean Water Act.
The boldness of the E.P.A.’s action was striking at a time when the agency faces an increasingly hostile Congress and well-financed business lobbies seeking to limit its regulatory reach. Agency officials said that the coal company was welcome to resubmit a less damaging mining plan, but that law and science demanded the veto of the existing plan.
And, again, from the NYT:
The Securities and Exchange Commission has begun examining the interactions between U.S. financial firms and sovereign wealth funds and whether they may have violated bribery laws, people briefed on the matter said on Thursday.
The S.E.C. is looking into whether these institutions, including banks and private equity firms, violated the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act in their efforts to secure investments from foreign governments’ investment funds.
The S.E.C. sent out letters to several firms recently, though the agency is only in the early stages of its inquiry, these people said, speaking on condition of anonymity because the investigation is confidential. The letters asked the firms to preserve documents.
A spokesman for the S.E.C. declined to comment.
At the heart of the inquiry are the huge investments made by sovereign wealth
funds into American financial firms in recent years, many struckjust as a financial crisis began to snowball. Citigroup, Morgan Stanley and Merrill Lynch all sought capital injections from these government investment funds, raising billions of dollars in capital to shore up their balance sheets.
The Environmental Protection Agency revoked the permit for one of the nation’s largest mountaintop-removal coal mining projects on Thursday, saying the mine would have done unacceptable damage to rivers, wildlife and communities in West Virginia. It was the first time the agency had rescinded a valid clean water permit for a coal mine.
Arch Coal’s proposed Spruce No. 1 Mine in Logan County, which would have buried miles of Appalachian streams under millions of tons of residue, has been the subject of controversy and litigation since the first application was filed more than a decade ago. Opposition intensified after the Bush administration approved the mine’s construction in 2007, issuing a permit required under the Clean Water Act.
The boldness of the E.P.A.’s action was striking at a time when the agency faces an increasingly hostile Congress and well-financed business lobbies seeking to limit its regulatory reach. Agency officials said that the coal company was welcome to resubmit a less damaging mining plan, but that law and science demanded the veto of the existing plan.
And, again, from the NYT:
The Securities and Exchange Commission has begun examining the interactions between U.S. financial firms and sovereign wealth funds and whether they may have violated bribery laws, people briefed on the matter said on Thursday.
The S.E.C. is looking into whether these institutions, including banks and private equity firms, violated the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act in their efforts to secure investments from foreign governments’ investment funds.
The S.E.C. sent out letters to several firms recently, though the agency is only in the early stages of its inquiry, these people said, speaking on condition of anonymity because the investigation is confidential. The letters asked the firms to preserve documents.
A spokesman for the S.E.C. declined to comment.
At the heart of the inquiry are the huge investments made by sovereign wealth
funds into American financial firms in recent years, many struckjust as a financial crisis began to snowball. Citigroup, Morgan Stanley and Merrill Lynch all sought capital injections from these government investment funds, raising billions of dollars in capital to shore up their balance sheets.
Sunset Review -- 82nd Legislature
Once every twelve years, each executive agency in the state is reviewed in order to determine whether the agency's functions are still necessary.
This year the following 28 agencies are to be reviewed:
*Capital Metropolitan Transportation Authority
Coastal Coordination Council
*Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT)
Electronic Government Program Management Office of the Department of Information Resources
Emergency Communications, Commission on State
Environmental Quality, Texas Commission on
*Equine Research Account Advisory Committee
Forest Service, Texas
Hearing Instruments, State Committee of Examiners in the Fitting and Dispensing of
Housing and Community Affairs, Texas Department of
*Housing Corporation, Texas State Affordable
Information Resources, Department of
Injured Employee Counsel, Office of
*Insurance Counsel, Office of Public
*Insurance, Texas Department of
*Juvenile Probation Commission, Texas
On-site Wastewater Treatment Research Council
Public Finance Authority, Texas
Public Utility Commission of Texas
Public Utility Counsel, Office of
*Racing Commission, Texas
Railroad Commission of Texas
Soil and Water Conservation Board, State
Speech-Language Pathology and Audiology, State Board of Examiners for
*Transportation, Texas Department of
Water Development Board, Texas
Workers' Compensation, Texas Department of Insurance Division of
*Youth Commission, Texas
*Subject to a focused, limited scope, or special purpose review
- Sunset Advisory Commission
- Guide to the Sunset Process.
This year the following 28 agencies are to be reviewed:
*Capital Metropolitan Transportation Authority
Coastal Coordination Council
*Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT)
Electronic Government Program Management Office of the Department of Information Resources
Emergency Communications, Commission on State
Environmental Quality, Texas Commission on
*Equine Research Account Advisory Committee
Forest Service, Texas
Hearing Instruments, State Committee of Examiners in the Fitting and Dispensing of
Housing and Community Affairs, Texas Department of
*Housing Corporation, Texas State Affordable
Information Resources, Department of
Injured Employee Counsel, Office of
*Insurance Counsel, Office of Public
*Insurance, Texas Department of
*Juvenile Probation Commission, Texas
On-site Wastewater Treatment Research Council
Public Finance Authority, Texas
Public Utility Commission of Texas
Public Utility Counsel, Office of
*Racing Commission, Texas
Railroad Commission of Texas
Soil and Water Conservation Board, State
Speech-Language Pathology and Audiology, State Board of Examiners for
*Transportation, Texas Department of
Water Development Board, Texas
Workers' Compensation, Texas Department of Insurance Division of
*Youth Commission, Texas
*Subject to a focused, limited scope, or special purpose review
- Sunset Advisory Commission
- Guide to the Sunset Process.
Chubbing and Sunset Bills
Again from Burka Blog, background on two rules changes members of the Texas House are looking to change
Oil Spill Commission Issues Report
From the NYT:
The presidential panel investigating the 2010 oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico recommended on Tuesday that Congress approve substantial new spending and sweeping new regulations for offshore oil operations at a time when the appetite for both is low.
Releasing its final report, the commission found that the Deepwater Horizon explosion and subsequent oil spill arose from a preventable series of corporate and regulatory failures. It warned that unless industry practices and government regulation improved, another such accident was inevitable.
“If dramatic steps are not taken,” said Bob Graham, a former Democratic senator from Florida and a co-chairman of the commission, “I’m afraid at some point in the coming years another failure will occur, and we will wonder why did the Congress, why did the administration, why did the industry allow this to happen again.”
- Wikipedia: Oil Commission
- The Report
The presidential panel investigating the 2010 oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico recommended on Tuesday that Congress approve substantial new spending and sweeping new regulations for offshore oil operations at a time when the appetite for both is low.
Releasing its final report, the commission found that the Deepwater Horizon explosion and subsequent oil spill arose from a preventable series of corporate and regulatory failures. It warned that unless industry practices and government regulation improved, another such accident was inevitable.
“If dramatic steps are not taken,” said Bob Graham, a former Democratic senator from Florida and a co-chairman of the commission, “I’m afraid at some point in the coming years another failure will occur, and we will wonder why did the Congress, why did the administration, why did the industry allow this to happen again.”
- Wikipedia: Oil Commission
- The Report
Notes on the Texas Speaker's Race
From Burka Blog, some background on Joe Straus' Reelection as Texas Speaker. Straus faced a fierce Tea Party inspired challenge, but held on. This is being taken by some that the Tea Party Caucus' influence in the legislature may not be quite as strong as once predicted.
Congressional Legitimacy
In 2301 we discussed the concept of legitimacy and how the legislative branch -- specifically the House of Representatives -- is designed to lend legitimacy to government. Recent low approval ratings can be attributed partly to the fact that Republicans were in the minority and therefore didn't approve of much of what Democrats were doing in the institution. I suggested that perhaps attitudes would change now that the Republicans are in charge, and that one of the positive consequences of periodic elections is that it allows those not in power to increase their influence, and perhaps their assessments of the institution.
Here's proof, albeit limited, from the Gallup Poll. Republican approval ratings of Congress have increased from 7% to 22% since the election. Still low, but it suggests an obvious connection between elections and attitudes about the institution.
Here's proof, albeit limited, from the Gallup Poll. Republican approval ratings of Congress have increased from 7% to 22% since the election. Still low, but it suggests an obvious connection between elections and attitudes about the institution.
Very Conservatives vs. Everyone Else
The Gallup Poll discovers that self identified "very conservatives" prefer members of Congress vote belief over compromise, while everyone else prefers the opposite.
Gun Control is Back on the Agenda
Who could have predicted this? The issue seemed dead and buried, but the Tucson shooters mental state seem to have caused some to wonder whether we make it too easy for the mentally disturbed to purchase guns.
- Commentary in the NYT.
- Shooting Sets Own Agenda.
- Republican Congressman Introduces Gun Control Legislation.
- Commentary in the NYT.
- Shooting Sets Own Agenda.
- Republican Congressman Introduces Gun Control Legislation.
Regarding Originalism
The NYT has a terrific piece on the various issues associated with originalism and highlights Antonin Scalia's pragmatic approach to using the doctrine in deciding how to rule on cases before him. Best quote: "I am an originalist. I am a textualist. I am not a nut.”
In both 2301 and 2302 we will dig into controversies associated with how the constitution ought to be interpreted. Consider this required reading.
Update: Linda Greehouse adds to the discussion.
In both 2301 and 2302 we will dig into controversies associated with how the constitution ought to be interpreted. Consider this required reading.
Update: Linda Greehouse adds to the discussion.
Tuesday, January 11, 2011
Ogden V Perry
Paul Burka summarizes the opening day speeches in the Legislature:
Today’s Senate session cast in stark relief two different leadership styles: those of Governor Rick Perry and of Senator Steve Ogden, who was elected Senate president pro tempore today. Perry expressed his belief that the Legislature could produce a balanced budget with no additional revenues, noting that the public had spoken loudly on Election Day in favor of a conservative budget. “I am confident we are going to heed their message.” Then, he announced he was giving emergency designation to two items of legislation, one regarding eminent domain and one abolishing sanctuary cities in Texas. The latter earned Perry applause from the Senate gallery.
Then, Ogden, chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, laid out in direct and unvarnished terms the perilous condition of the state’s fiscal house. Medicaid, the program for providing health care to the poor, will cost the state billions more this biennium because the federal match will drop from 70/30 to 60/40. In real dollars, that will bring in $4.5 billion fewer dollars than the more generous previous match. He decried the complicated formulas used by the federal government for reimbursing hospitals for various procedures and said that a managed care system could save the state $4 billion. “Our first job is to figure out how to save Medicaid. We have got to reform it,” he said.
Today’s Senate session cast in stark relief two different leadership styles: those of Governor Rick Perry and of Senator Steve Ogden, who was elected Senate president pro tempore today. Perry expressed his belief that the Legislature could produce a balanced budget with no additional revenues, noting that the public had spoken loudly on Election Day in favor of a conservative budget. “I am confident we are going to heed their message.” Then, he announced he was giving emergency designation to two items of legislation, one regarding eminent domain and one abolishing sanctuary cities in Texas. The latter earned Perry applause from the Senate gallery.
Then, Ogden, chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, laid out in direct and unvarnished terms the perilous condition of the state’s fiscal house. Medicaid, the program for providing health care to the poor, will cost the state billions more this biennium because the federal match will drop from 70/30 to 60/40. In real dollars, that will bring in $4.5 billion fewer dollars than the more generous previous match. He decried the complicated formulas used by the federal government for reimbursing hospitals for various procedures and said that a managed care system could save the state $4 billion. “Our first job is to figure out how to save Medicaid. We have got to reform it,” he said.
A Hungarian Tyranny?
We've discussed separated powers in some of our introductory lecture and mentioned that a major concern of the framers of the constitution was that these separated powers would become concentrated, generally at the hands of an ambitious office holder. The internal design of each institution is, according to Madison, designed to ensure that the ambitions in one institution would be checked by those in another.
Apparently Hungary lacks such a design. The current government has embarked on a series of institutional changes that grant it control over all governing institutions, in addition to the media. Critics see this as a step towards autocratic rule.
Apparently Hungary lacks such a design. The current government has embarked on a series of institutional changes that grant it control over all governing institutions, in addition to the media. Critics see this as a step towards autocratic rule.
The Budget's Impact in Higher Education
From a recent article in the Austin American Statesmen:
The state's higher education agency, the governor's office and business-oriented groups are sending an increasingly clear message to faculty members at public colleges and universities in Texas: Step it up.
The state Legislature is expected to consider various suggestions intended to increase faculty teaching loads, raise graduation and course completion rates, and otherwise boost the productivity of the academic enterprise.
Many of these changes are driven by the Higher Education Coordinating Board, which over sees higher education policy in the state. Since Governor Perry has been in office so long, he has been able to appoint all of the members of the board.
The state's higher education agency, the governor's office and business-oriented groups are sending an increasingly clear message to faculty members at public colleges and universities in Texas: Step it up.
The state Legislature is expected to consider various suggestions intended to increase faculty teaching loads, raise graduation and course completion rates, and otherwise boost the productivity of the academic enterprise.
Many of these changes are driven by the Higher Education Coordinating Board, which over sees higher education policy in the state. Since Governor Perry has been in office so long, he has been able to appoint all of the members of the board.
On Political Violence and Violent Speech
The Tucson shooting has kicked up a firestorm over incendiary political speech -- especially speech with violent undertones (if not overtones) -- and whether it is responsible for pushing the Arizona shooter over the edge. If so, is there culpability on the part of the speakers, or are they shielded by the First Amendment to say whatever they choose.
This is not a new controversy, just the latest iteration. It almost always lies at the heart of the speech disputes that wind their way up to the Supreme Court. Fall 2010 students studied the Westboro Baptist Church case (they are very pleased with the shooting by the way) as an example. We should be prepared to discuss whether there ought to be limits to political speech, but also if there are to be limits, how one determines what they are and how they are to implemented in a way that does not make the solution worse than the disease.
Here's some worthwhile debate on the subject.
Should we blame technology?
This is not a new controversy, just the latest iteration. It almost always lies at the heart of the speech disputes that wind their way up to the Supreme Court. Fall 2010 students studied the Westboro Baptist Church case (they are very pleased with the shooting by the way) as an example. We should be prepared to discuss whether there ought to be limits to political speech, but also if there are to be limits, how one determines what they are and how they are to implemented in a way that does not make the solution worse than the disease.
Here's some worthwhile debate on the subject.
Should we blame technology?
Has the Tucson Shooting Derailed the Republican Agenda?
Aside from post-poning the planned vote on the bill to repeal health care, the Tucson shooting has focused attention again on gun control - or at least the sale of extended gun clips - and the quality of mental health services.
The vote for repeal will certainly get back on track, but the national agenda will certainly be impacted by this for more than a little while. It's not inconceivable that it can have an impact on the 2012 election, though that is still far in the future. It will be the Republican leadership's job to make sure this doesn't happen. We will track what they do to make sure this doesn't happen. As with everything else in politics, the question will be how independent voters process these events, and how it affects their opinions of the two parties.
- Public opinion background, Gallup.
The vote for repeal will certainly get back on track, but the national agenda will certainly be impacted by this for more than a little while. It's not inconceivable that it can have an impact on the 2012 election, though that is still far in the future. It will be the Republican leadership's job to make sure this doesn't happen. We will track what they do to make sure this doesn't happen. As with everything else in politics, the question will be how independent voters process these events, and how it affects their opinions of the two parties.
- Public opinion background, Gallup.
Monday, January 10, 2011
$15 Billion? $27 Billion?
State Comptroller Susan Combs, as required, released the Biennial Revenue estimate, but there's confusion over how much the shortfall actually is, and what the consequences of the short fall will be.
- Story in the Chron.
Update 1/11/11
Grits for Breakfast has a good summary of how we get to the two separate figures:
Comptroller Susan Combs issued her proclamation today regarding how much money Texas legislators have to spend in the next biennial budget: $72.2 billion, down from $87 billion in the last budget. But the real budget gap is bigger than the $14.8 billion difference between those numbers, because population growth and inflation means the state must spend more to provide services - particularly for education and healthcare. Also, smoke-and-mirrors tricks from past budgets eventually must be paid for (e.g., the $61 million owed to UTMB for prison healthcare services already provided). Bottom line, according to those who estimate such things, if Texas continued spending at current levels, adjusted upward to pay for those (not really optional) services, the budget would reach $99 billion.
So we're basically $15 billion short (with a big, fat, capital "B") if you consider the baseline what was spent in the last budget; $27 billion short if you account for population growth and inflation. (Ross Ramsey at the Texas Tribune walks through all this in more detail, for those interested.)
The $15 billion figure refers to the shortfall between what revenue was projected by the Comptroller in 2009 to be generated by the Texas Economy in 2010 and 2011, and they are projecting will be generated in 2012 and 2013. The $27 billion figure refers to what woudl be necessary to maintain the existing level of services, especially considering that the state has grown considerably in the past few years, and demands on public services have increased as well. You can take you pick for whichever figure serves your purpose.
- Commentary from the liberal leaning Center for Public Policy Priorities.
- Commentary from the conservative leaning Texas Public Policy Foundation.
- Story in the Texas Tribune.
- Story in the Chron.
Update 1/11/11
Grits for Breakfast has a good summary of how we get to the two separate figures:
Comptroller Susan Combs issued her proclamation today regarding how much money Texas legislators have to spend in the next biennial budget: $72.2 billion, down from $87 billion in the last budget. But the real budget gap is bigger than the $14.8 billion difference between those numbers, because population growth and inflation means the state must spend more to provide services - particularly for education and healthcare. Also, smoke-and-mirrors tricks from past budgets eventually must be paid for (e.g., the $61 million owed to UTMB for prison healthcare services already provided). Bottom line, according to those who estimate such things, if Texas continued spending at current levels, adjusted upward to pay for those (not really optional) services, the budget would reach $99 billion.
So we're basically $15 billion short (with a big, fat, capital "B") if you consider the baseline what was spent in the last budget; $27 billion short if you account for population growth and inflation. (Ross Ramsey at the Texas Tribune walks through all this in more detail, for those interested.)
The $15 billion figure refers to the shortfall between what revenue was projected by the Comptroller in 2009 to be generated by the Texas Economy in 2010 and 2011, and they are projecting will be generated in 2012 and 2013. The $27 billion figure refers to what woudl be necessary to maintain the existing level of services, especially considering that the state has grown considerably in the past few years, and demands on public services have increased as well. You can take you pick for whichever figure serves your purpose.
- Commentary from the liberal leaning Center for Public Policy Priorities.
- Commentary from the conservative leaning Texas Public Policy Foundation.
- Story in the Texas Tribune.
Looking Ahead
For 2301 and 2302, Here’s a preview of some of the points you will be asked about in the upcoming assessment for week one:
2301
- sovereignty
- keeping the republic / self government
- popular sovereignty
- coercion and consent
- definitions of “government” and “politics.”
- functions of government
- ideology
- definition of conservatism, liberalism
- autocracy, oligarchy, democracy
- tyranny
- totalitarian, authoritarian, Constitutional
- components of democracy
2302
- checks and balances
- implied/reserved/delegated powers
- federalism
- the Bill of Rights
- the 14th Amendment
- the First Amendment
- definition of “constitution,” “government,” “politics.”
- the argument in Declaration of Independence
- democracy, definition, problems
- natural rights
- political parties
- sedition
- tyranny
- autocracy, oligarchy, democracy
- ideology
2301
- sovereignty
- keeping the republic / self government
- popular sovereignty
- coercion and consent
- definitions of “government” and “politics.”
- functions of government
- ideology
- definition of conservatism, liberalism
- autocracy, oligarchy, democracy
- tyranny
- totalitarian, authoritarian, Constitutional
- components of democracy
2302
- checks and balances
- implied/reserved/delegated powers
- federalism
- the Bill of Rights
- the 14th Amendment
- the First Amendment
- definition of “constitution,” “government,” “politics.”
- the argument in Declaration of Independence
- democracy, definition, problems
- natural rights
- political parties
- sedition
- tyranny
- autocracy, oligarchy, democracy
- ideology
Saturday, January 8, 2011
Anchor Babies and the 14th Amendment
From Slate, an argument that addressing the problem will require a constitutional amendment:
"Anchor babies" are back in the news: Be prepared for another round of railing against the granting of automatic citizenship to the children of illegal immigrants. There was a burst of this last summer, when Sen. Lindsey Graham rumbled about pregnant Mexican women crossing the border to give birth and win American citizenship for their babies—which he inelegantly called "drop and leave"—and how it was necessary to change the Constitution to stop them. Now Rep. Steve King of Iowa promises to end automatic birthright citizenship through legislation, and conservative legislators from five states are talking about excluding kids from a new thing called state citizenship, and also creating distinct (second-class) birth certificates for these kids.
Legally speaking, this is all pretty confusing.
"Anchor babies" are back in the news: Be prepared for another round of railing against the granting of automatic citizenship to the children of illegal immigrants. There was a burst of this last summer, when Sen. Lindsey Graham rumbled about pregnant Mexican women crossing the border to give birth and win American citizenship for their babies—which he inelegantly called "drop and leave"—and how it was necessary to change the Constitution to stop them. Now Rep. Steve King of Iowa promises to end automatic birthright citizenship through legislation, and conservative legislators from five states are talking about excluding kids from a new thing called state citizenship, and also creating distinct (second-class) birth certificates for these kids.
Legally speaking, this is all pretty confusing.
Jobs Wont be Coming Back Any Time Soon
Here's cheery news for college students. Given the vast number of jobs lost in the last 3 years, and the relatively slow rate of jobs created in the 1990s and 2000s, we may not be able to expect a full recovery from the recession for a decade or more.
Not to worry. A "new global elite" is doing just fine.
Update: 1/11/11
Those jobs may never come back.
From Foreign Policy:
As time passes, it is harder to avoid the notion that a lot of those old jobs simply weren't adding much to the economy. Except for the height of the housing boom -- October 2007 through June 2008 -- real GDP is now higher than it has been in the entirety of U.S. history. The fact that the United States has pre-crisis levels of output with fewer workers raises doubts as to whether those additional workers were producing very much in the first place. If a business owner fires 10 people and a year later output is almost back to normal, it's pretty hard to make the argument that they were doing much in the first place.
The story runs as follows. Before the financial crash, there were lots of not-so-useful workers holding not-so-useful jobs. Employers didn't so much bother to figure out who they were. Demand was high and revenue was booming, so rooting out the less productive workers would have involved a lot of time and trouble -- plus it would have involved some morale costs with the more productive workers, who don't like being measured and spied on. So firms simply let the problem lie.
Then came the 2008 recession, and it was no longer possible to keep so many people on payroll. A lot of businesses were then forced to face the music: Bosses had to make tough calls about who could be let go and who was worth saving. (Note that unemployment is low for workers with a college degree, only 5 percent compared with 16 percent for less educated workers with no high school degree. This is consistent with the reality that less-productive individuals, who tend to have less education, have been laid off.)
In essence, we have seen the rise of a large class of "zero marginal product workers," to coin a term.
Not to worry. A "new global elite" is doing just fine.
Update: 1/11/11
Those jobs may never come back.
From Foreign Policy:
As time passes, it is harder to avoid the notion that a lot of those old jobs simply weren't adding much to the economy. Except for the height of the housing boom -- October 2007 through June 2008 -- real GDP is now higher than it has been in the entirety of U.S. history. The fact that the United States has pre-crisis levels of output with fewer workers raises doubts as to whether those additional workers were producing very much in the first place. If a business owner fires 10 people and a year later output is almost back to normal, it's pretty hard to make the argument that they were doing much in the first place.
The story runs as follows. Before the financial crash, there were lots of not-so-useful workers holding not-so-useful jobs. Employers didn't so much bother to figure out who they were. Demand was high and revenue was booming, so rooting out the less productive workers would have involved a lot of time and trouble -- plus it would have involved some morale costs with the more productive workers, who don't like being measured and spied on. So firms simply let the problem lie.
Then came the 2008 recession, and it was no longer possible to keep so many people on payroll. A lot of businesses were then forced to face the music: Bosses had to make tough calls about who could be let go and who was worth saving. (Note that unemployment is low for workers with a college degree, only 5 percent compared with 16 percent for less educated workers with no high school degree. This is consistent with the reality that less-productive individuals, who tend to have less education, have been laid off.)
In essence, we have seen the rise of a large class of "zero marginal product workers," to coin a term.
Debating Texas' Budget
Paul Krugman kicked up a storm in an editorial pointing out Texas' upcoming deficit shortfall (one of the reason's you can expect to pay higher tuition) which led to backlash. It's proving to be a test of conservative theories on budgetting.
Catch it all here.
Catch it all here.
Assassination Attempt in Arizona
Details from the NYT.
Summary of commentary from Andrew Sullivan.
Arizona Tea Party members are worried fingers will be pointed at them. A federal judge and a nine year old child were killed in the attack.
Summary of commentary from Andrew Sullivan.
Arizona Tea Party members are worried fingers will be pointed at them. A federal judge and a nine year old child were killed in the attack.
Friday, January 7, 2011
Whites Realign From the Democrats to the Republicans
From the Atlantic:
Fully 60 percent of whites nationwide backed Republican candidates for the House of Representatives; only 37 percent supported Democrats, according to the National Election Poll exit poll conducted by Edison Research. Not even in Republicans' 1994 congressional landslide did they win that high a percentage of the white vote.
Moreover, those results may understate the extent of the white flight from the Democratic Party, according to a National Journal analysis of previously unpublished exit-poll data provided by Edison Research.
The new data show that white voters not only strongly preferred Republican House and Senate candidates but also registered deep disappointment with President Obama's performance, hostility toward the cornerstones of the current Democratic agenda, and widespread skepticism about the expansive role for Washington embedded in the party's priorities. On each of those questions, minority voters expressed almost exactly the opposite view from whites.
Fully 60 percent of whites nationwide backed Republican candidates for the House of Representatives; only 37 percent supported Democrats, according to the National Election Poll exit poll conducted by Edison Research. Not even in Republicans' 1994 congressional landslide did they win that high a percentage of the white vote.
Moreover, those results may understate the extent of the white flight from the Democratic Party, according to a National Journal analysis of previously unpublished exit-poll data provided by Edison Research.
The new data show that white voters not only strongly preferred Republican House and Senate candidates but also registered deep disappointment with President Obama's performance, hostility toward the cornerstones of the current Democratic agenda, and widespread skepticism about the expansive role for Washington embedded in the party's priorities. On each of those questions, minority voters expressed almost exactly the opposite view from whites.
Warrantless Cell Phone Searches OK'ed in California
From Law and Disorder:
The contents of your cell phone can reveal a lot more about you than the naked eye can: who your friends are, what you've been saying and when, which websites you've visited, and more. There has long been debate over user privacy when it comes to various data found on a cell phone, but according to the California Supreme Court, police don't need a warrant to start digging through your phone's contents.
The ruling comes as a result of the conviction of one Gregory Diaz, who was arrested for trying to sell ecstasy to a police informant in 2007 and had his phone confiscated when he arrived at the police station. The police eventually went through Diaz's text message folder and found one that read "6 4 80." Such a message means nothing to most of us, but it was apparently enough to be used as evidence against Diaz (for those curious, it means six pills will cost $80).
The contents of your cell phone can reveal a lot more about you than the naked eye can: who your friends are, what you've been saying and when, which websites you've visited, and more. There has long been debate over user privacy when it comes to various data found on a cell phone, but according to the California Supreme Court, police don't need a warrant to start digging through your phone's contents.
The ruling comes as a result of the conviction of one Gregory Diaz, who was arrested for trying to sell ecstasy to a police informant in 2007 and had his phone confiscated when he arrived at the police station. The police eventually went through Diaz's text message folder and found one that read "6 4 80." Such a message means nothing to most of us, but it was apparently enough to be used as evidence against Diaz (for those curious, it means six pills will cost $80).
Obama's New Chief of Staff
Meet William Daley. One of many new members of Obama's Administration that had extensive experience in the Clinton Administration, and helped him get reelected after his party lost control of Congress during his first term. Sounds familiar.
Liberals think the administration is tacking too far to the middle.
Liberals think the administration is tacking too far to the middle.
Health Care Repeal and the CBO
The House moved towards a mostly symbolic vote in favor of repealing health care. The real dispute seems to be about the costs of repeal and whether House Republicans want to accept -- which they don't -- the Congressional Budget Offices' analysis that repeal will increase the deficit.
Bruce Bartlett warns against undermining the CBO.
Bruce Bartlett warns against undermining the CBO.
The Constitution Read on the Floor of the House
From the NYT. Apparently there was a dispute regarding whether the original text should have been read -- including its references to slavery:
In consultation with the Congressional Research Service and others, the leaders of the House had decided to read a version of the Constitution that was edited to exclude those portions superseded by amendments — including amendments themselves — preventing lawmakers from having to make references to slaves, referred to in Article I, Section 2 as “three fifths of all other Persons” or to failed experiments like Prohibition. Members were not provided with the version before the reading began.
Representative Jesse L. Jackson Jr., Democrat of Illinois, registered a complaint he expanded on later in a prepared statement, essentially arguing that the House was whitewashing history and ignoring the blood, sweat and tears paid to achieve the amendments.
The wrangling over parliamentary procedure went on for several minutes with the arguments of Democrats and Republicans perhaps presaging future partisan battles over the meaning, purpose and application of the Constitution.
The NYT has an annotated Constitution complete with liberal/conservative battle lines.
In consultation with the Congressional Research Service and others, the leaders of the House had decided to read a version of the Constitution that was edited to exclude those portions superseded by amendments — including amendments themselves — preventing lawmakers from having to make references to slaves, referred to in Article I, Section 2 as “three fifths of all other Persons” or to failed experiments like Prohibition. Members were not provided with the version before the reading began.
Representative Jesse L. Jackson Jr., Democrat of Illinois, registered a complaint he expanded on later in a prepared statement, essentially arguing that the House was whitewashing history and ignoring the blood, sweat and tears paid to achieve the amendments.
The wrangling over parliamentary procedure went on for several minutes with the arguments of Democrats and Republicans perhaps presaging future partisan battles over the meaning, purpose and application of the Constitution.
The NYT has an annotated Constitution complete with liberal/conservative battle lines.
The U.S. House Convenes with Republican Majority
And begin by setting House rules, as they are charged to do in the Constitution.
From the NYT:
Jubilant Republicans took control of the House on Wednesday and installed Representative John A. Boehner of Ohio as the new speaker before pushing through an overhaul of House rules intended to expedite their drive to dismantle the new health care law, cut federal spending and provide the tax cuts they see as a way to jump-start the economy. ...
Here's a link to the bill with the proposed changes, which we will detail later this semester. Here you can find detail regarding the process and the vote.
From the NYT:
Jubilant Republicans took control of the House on Wednesday and installed Representative John A. Boehner of Ohio as the new speaker before pushing through an overhaul of House rules intended to expedite their drive to dismantle the new health care law, cut federal spending and provide the tax cuts they see as a way to jump-start the economy. ...
Here's a link to the bill with the proposed changes, which we will detail later this semester. Here you can find detail regarding the process and the vote.
Friday, December 31, 2010
Would the Constitution's Framers have Supported the Filibuster?
Here's an academic paper arguing that they would not have.
Two other academic types argue that the filibuster is actually unconstitutional.
Two other academic types argue that the filibuster is actually unconstitutional.
Debating the Meaning of the Constitution ...
Ezra Klein has a post today on the ongoing dispute regarding the proper interpretation of the Constitution. It's a point we hit repeatedly in class.
Tuesday, December 21, 2010
Sunday, December 19, 2010
The Revolving Door -- Peter Orszag and Citibank
From Deal Book:
Wall Street has long stacked its ranks with Washington types.
It is the elephant in the room of White House grand bargains: after building a reputation and Rolodex in politics, the wise man moves on — or in many cases, back — to the financial industry to make a killing.
A decade ago, a former Treasury secretary, Robert E. Rubin, left the Clinton administration to become a senior adviser and board member at Citigroup — collecting a $10 million a year paycheck with no management responsibility.
On Thursday, Peter R. Orszag, President Obama’s first budget director and a protégé of Mr. Rubin, followed in his mentor’s footsteps and joined Citi’s investment banking group as a vice chairman. Mr. Orszag, 41, is the second cabinet official to join Citi this month, and his appointment comes days after the Treasury Department’s $10.5 billion stock offering helped further extricate the bailed out bank from Washington.
- Commentary from James Fallows.
- A response.
Wall Street has long stacked its ranks with Washington types.
It is the elephant in the room of White House grand bargains: after building a reputation and Rolodex in politics, the wise man moves on — or in many cases, back — to the financial industry to make a killing.
A decade ago, a former Treasury secretary, Robert E. Rubin, left the Clinton administration to become a senior adviser and board member at Citigroup — collecting a $10 million a year paycheck with no management responsibility.
On Thursday, Peter R. Orszag, President Obama’s first budget director and a protégé of Mr. Rubin, followed in his mentor’s footsteps and joined Citi’s investment banking group as a vice chairman. Mr. Orszag, 41, is the second cabinet official to join Citi this month, and his appointment comes days after the Treasury Department’s $10.5 billion stock offering helped further extricate the bailed out bank from Washington.
- Commentary from James Fallows.
- A response.
House Judiciary Committee Hearings on Wikileaks
C-Span video here. Is legislation adjusting the Espionage Act necessary to deal with the ease at which secrets can be made public?
- ReadWriteWeb.
- ReadWriteWeb.
The Future of the Commerce Clause
This is a very big deal and I'll integrate it into my discussion of federalism in 2301. It involves potential of challenges to the commerce clause and its impact on federalism. Linda Greenhouse kicked up a discussion of the consequence of the recent Virginia Court ruling on the individual mandate component of the health care law. Will it lead to the narrowing of the commerce clause that New Deal critics have been pursuing for decades?
It has been 15 years since the Rehnquist court began applying the constitutional brakes to assertions of federal power that had seemed unassailable since the New Deal. Its first target was modest, a five-year-old federal statute called the Gun-Free School Zones Act that most people had never heard of, which made it a federal crime to possess a gun within 1,000 feet of a school.
The vote in United States v. Lopez was 5 to 4. Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist wrote the court’s opinion, observing that the Constitution’s commerce clause did not confer on Congress a general police power disconnected from the regulation of economic activity. To uphold this statute, he said, would be to blur the “distinction between what is truly national and what is truly local.” For the first time since 1936, the Supreme Court struck down a federal law as exceeding Congress’s commerce power. In dissent, Justice David H. Souter warned that “it seems fair to ask whether the step taken by the court today does anything but portend a return to the untenable jurisprudence from which the court extricated itself almost 60 years ago.”
Thus began the Rehnquist court’s federalism revolution, a 5-to-4 forced march through the various sources and attributes of Congressional power. The targets included, most notably, Congress’s authority under Section 5 of the 14th Amendment to enact into law its own vision of the guarantees of equal protection and due process when that vision was broader than the court’s own. William Rehnquist had waited a judicial lifetime to assemble a majority that would follow him on such a course. Eleven federal statutes would eventually fall, in whole or part, on federalism grounds in less than a decade before the court, including the chief justice himself, began to blink and the revolution petered out.
Ever since, it has been quite easy to get a good debate going, among people who spend time thinking about such matters, about whether the federalism revolution really had amounted to much beyond the symbolic. True, the court did strike down a provision of one fairly high-profile law, the Violence Against Women Act, under which women could sue their attackers for damages. But no major federal program felt the ax. I had been an early proponent of the view that something big was happening. But in recent years, while still finding the subject of great interest, I was beginning to have my own doubts about what it all had meant.
Until now. In his opinion on Monday striking down the individual mandate of the new health care law, Judge Henry E. Hudson of federal district court in Virginia cited the Lopez case and United States v. Morrison, the Violence Against Women Act decision (also a 5-to-4 Rehnquist majority opinion), more than a dozen times. Judge Hudson deployed the two cases as the major building blocks for his argument that Congress lacked constitutional authority to require individuals either to purchase health insurance or pay a fine to the Internal Revenue Service, a provision the judge said was “neither within the letter nor the spirit of the Constitution.”
She then adds her criticism of the decision which itself has been criticized:
- Ilya Solim.
- Conor Friedersdorf.
It has been 15 years since the Rehnquist court began applying the constitutional brakes to assertions of federal power that had seemed unassailable since the New Deal. Its first target was modest, a five-year-old federal statute called the Gun-Free School Zones Act that most people had never heard of, which made it a federal crime to possess a gun within 1,000 feet of a school.
The vote in United States v. Lopez was 5 to 4. Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist wrote the court’s opinion, observing that the Constitution’s commerce clause did not confer on Congress a general police power disconnected from the regulation of economic activity. To uphold this statute, he said, would be to blur the “distinction between what is truly national and what is truly local.” For the first time since 1936, the Supreme Court struck down a federal law as exceeding Congress’s commerce power. In dissent, Justice David H. Souter warned that “it seems fair to ask whether the step taken by the court today does anything but portend a return to the untenable jurisprudence from which the court extricated itself almost 60 years ago.”
Thus began the Rehnquist court’s federalism revolution, a 5-to-4 forced march through the various sources and attributes of Congressional power. The targets included, most notably, Congress’s authority under Section 5 of the 14th Amendment to enact into law its own vision of the guarantees of equal protection and due process when that vision was broader than the court’s own. William Rehnquist had waited a judicial lifetime to assemble a majority that would follow him on such a course. Eleven federal statutes would eventually fall, in whole or part, on federalism grounds in less than a decade before the court, including the chief justice himself, began to blink and the revolution petered out.
Ever since, it has been quite easy to get a good debate going, among people who spend time thinking about such matters, about whether the federalism revolution really had amounted to much beyond the symbolic. True, the court did strike down a provision of one fairly high-profile law, the Violence Against Women Act, under which women could sue their attackers for damages. But no major federal program felt the ax. I had been an early proponent of the view that something big was happening. But in recent years, while still finding the subject of great interest, I was beginning to have my own doubts about what it all had meant.
Until now. In his opinion on Monday striking down the individual mandate of the new health care law, Judge Henry E. Hudson of federal district court in Virginia cited the Lopez case and United States v. Morrison, the Violence Against Women Act decision (also a 5-to-4 Rehnquist majority opinion), more than a dozen times. Judge Hudson deployed the two cases as the major building blocks for his argument that Congress lacked constitutional authority to require individuals either to purchase health insurance or pay a fine to the Internal Revenue Service, a provision the judge said was “neither within the letter nor the spirit of the Constitution.”
She then adds her criticism of the decision which itself has been criticized:
- Ilya Solim.
- Conor Friedersdorf.
Tuesday, December 14, 2010
On Obama's Judicial Appointees
From the Huffington Post:
As the first congressional session of Obama's presidency draws to a close, what began as a slow process of confirmation has ballooned into a full-blown judicial crisis. The Senate has overseen the slowest pace of judicial staffing in at least a generation, with a paltry 39.8 percent of Obama's judges having been confirmed, according to numbers compiled by Senate Democrats. Of the 103 district and circuit court nominees, only 41 have been confirmed.
By this time in George W. Bush's presidency, the Senate had confirmed 76 percent of his nominees. President Clinton was working at a rate of 89 percent at this point in his tenure.
More:
- Jonathan Chait.
- Jonathan Bernstein.
As the first congressional session of Obama's presidency draws to a close, what began as a slow process of confirmation has ballooned into a full-blown judicial crisis. The Senate has overseen the slowest pace of judicial staffing in at least a generation, with a paltry 39.8 percent of Obama's judges having been confirmed, according to numbers compiled by Senate Democrats. Of the 103 district and circuit court nominees, only 41 have been confirmed.
By this time in George W. Bush's presidency, the Senate had confirmed 76 percent of his nominees. President Clinton was working at a rate of 89 percent at this point in his tenure.
More:
- Jonathan Chait.
- Jonathan Bernstein.
Monday, December 13, 2010
What is Triangulation?
Nothing really, other than political bargaining. In his takedown of the phrase Jonathan Bernstein has some succinct things to say about the bill making process:
With unified government, the best course for a president is usually to pass legislation by mobilizing his party. That's pretty much what Barack Obama did during the 111th Congress. The trick is going to be, always, to keep the handful at the extreme left (for a Democrat) happy while also appealing to the 218th most liberal Member of the House and the 60th most liberal Senator. Barack Obama may have, in some sense, wanted to be bipartisan or postpartisan or whatever, but the easiest coalition for almost everything he wanted to get done was going to be highly partisan.
When there's divided government, the calculus changes. While it's still possible that there will be issues in which the easiest winning coalition is constructed beginning with the left and moving to the center, there are other potential available coalitions that involve finding things that both sides really want that the other side doesn't mind that much. That's obviously the case with the tax cut deal: liberals don't care nearly as much about tax rates for the rich as do conservatives (yes, they care a lot -- but not nearly as much). Conservatives do not, it seems likely, oppose UI extension nearly as much as liberals favor it. What this all boils down to is that in the next Congress, there are going to be things that pass with the support of both John Boehner and Barack Obama, and perhaps without the support of some Democrats. Or else, nothing is going to pass at all.
Now, what's "triangulation" in that context? Nothing. Triangulation is an advertising slogan coined by Dick Morris to advertise himself -- to give him as large a share of the credit for Bill Clinton's 1996 re-election as possible. That's all.
With unified government, the best course for a president is usually to pass legislation by mobilizing his party. That's pretty much what Barack Obama did during the 111th Congress. The trick is going to be, always, to keep the handful at the extreme left (for a Democrat) happy while also appealing to the 218th most liberal Member of the House and the 60th most liberal Senator. Barack Obama may have, in some sense, wanted to be bipartisan or postpartisan or whatever, but the easiest coalition for almost everything he wanted to get done was going to be highly partisan.
When there's divided government, the calculus changes. While it's still possible that there will be issues in which the easiest winning coalition is constructed beginning with the left and moving to the center, there are other potential available coalitions that involve finding things that both sides really want that the other side doesn't mind that much. That's obviously the case with the tax cut deal: liberals don't care nearly as much about tax rates for the rich as do conservatives (yes, they care a lot -- but not nearly as much). Conservatives do not, it seems likely, oppose UI extension nearly as much as liberals favor it. What this all boils down to is that in the next Congress, there are going to be things that pass with the support of both John Boehner and Barack Obama, and perhaps without the support of some Democrats. Or else, nothing is going to pass at all.
Now, what's "triangulation" in that context? Nothing. Triangulation is an advertising slogan coined by Dick Morris to advertise himself -- to give him as large a share of the credit for Bill Clinton's 1996 re-election as possible. That's all.
Evangelicals and Environmentalism
Slate reports on how attitudes towards the environment and global warming have created (at least a minor) rift within the evangelical movement.
Virginia Federal Judge Rules Individual Mandate Unconstitutional
From the NYT:
A federal district judge in Virginia ruled on Monday that the keystone provision in the Obama health care law is unconstitutional, becoming the first court in the country to invalidate any part of the sprawling act and ensuring that appellate courts will receive contradictory opinions from below.
Judge Henry E. Hudson, who was appointed to the bench by President George W. Bush, declined the plaintiff’s request to freeze implementation of the law pending appeal, meaning that there should be no immediate effect on the ongoing rollout of the law. But the ruling is likely to create confusion among the public and further destabilize political support for legislation that is under fierce attack from Republicans in Congress and in many statehouses.
A federal district judge in Virginia ruled on Monday that the keystone provision in the Obama health care law is unconstitutional, becoming the first court in the country to invalidate any part of the sprawling act and ensuring that appellate courts will receive contradictory opinions from below.
Judge Henry E. Hudson, who was appointed to the bench by President George W. Bush, declined the plaintiff’s request to freeze implementation of the law pending appeal, meaning that there should be no immediate effect on the ongoing rollout of the law. But the ruling is likely to create confusion among the public and further destabilize political support for legislation that is under fierce attack from Republicans in Congress and in many statehouses.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)