From the Washington Post:
The U.S. government will hit the $16.4 trillion
federal debt limit on Monday and turn to “extraordinary measures” to continue
borrowing, the Treasury Department said Wednesday, beginning a countdown until
Congress either passes legislation to allow for more borrowing or the government
defaults on its debt.
Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner said in a letter to senior lawmakers
that the Treasury would begin to undertake “extraordinary measures” in order to
forestall default. Geithner said the measures could create about $200 billion in
additional funding available to the government – giving Congress two months
before it must raise the debt limit.
More from The Hill:
Under normal conditions, that would buy policymakers about two months to haggle over the debt limit before an increase would be required, Geithner said. The last time the government reached its debt limit, in May 2011, Treasury’s measures delayed the need for a debt-ceiling increase until August.
But the uncertain fate of the nation's tax and spending policies in the talks over the fiscal cliff has clouded Treasury’s calculations, Geithner said.
If policymakers do not strike a deal and the U.S. goes over the fiscal cliff, the combination of tax hikes and spending cuts is expected to push the U.S. economy into a recession.
Going over the cliff would actually buy Congress more time to strike a debt-limit deal, since the increased revenue and reduced spending would reduce the need for the government to borrow funds, Geithner said.
Lawmakers will get a more precise timeline on the debt limit once the policy outlook clears, Geithner said.
Click here for some Q and A about the debt ceiling, which is defined as the: statutory limit on the amount of U.S federal debt held by the public and the government's own accounts. The debt ceiling became law with the Second Liberty Bond Act of 1917, which helped finance the United States' entry into World War I.
The Congressional Research Service provides a nice history of the debt ceiling - a shorter one can be found here. Click here for the Wikipedia page about the most recent debt ceiling crisis in 2011.
In recent years, fights over spending in general have been waged over the level of the debt ceiling. It has been seen by some as another tool for restraining spending. Others argue that not raising the debt ceiling undermines the ability of the federal government to meet obligations that it has already committed itself to when it adopts a budget.
This has led to an argument that the the debt ceiling is unconstitutional because it violates the 14th Amendment's requirement that the credit of the US be maintained. The Obama Administration reportedly does not buy this argument.
Wednesday, December 26, 2012
Saturday, December 22, 2012
Breaking Down the Factions in the 113th Congress
Nate Silver looks at the numbers in upcoming Congress and sees reason to expect repeated turmoil. Here's the reason: While there will be 233 Republicans and 200 Democrats, they will be broken down as follows:
The principle problem for Republicans is that the 182 establishment Republicans are not large enough to pass legislation on their own, and if the Tea Party wing does not support a bill - like the recent Plan B - there are not enough conservative Democrats - the Blue Dogs - to make up the difference. Since Liberal Democrats are unlikely to support anything substantive offered by Republicans, the Tea Party has enough leverage to control Congress' agenda.
Here's Silver's take:
Perhaps cooler heads will prevail in these negotiations. But a majority of the incoming House – 237 of 433 members – will be either Tea Party Republicans or liberal Democrats, leaving only 196 members who are either Establishment Republicans or Blue Dog Democrats and who might form a functional center-right coalition.
Moreover, the House is likely to engage in repeated battles over fiscal policy during the next two years: not just the over the fiscal cliff, but also over the debt ceiling, annual budgeting plans and whatever stabilization measures might be proposed in the event of another economic downturn.
If Mr. Boehner is having as much trouble whipping votes as he did on Thursday night, reducing the pool from which he might be able to draw together a compromise, this arithmetic problem could turn out to be intractable at some point.
The lesson: Don't expect much from the 113th Congress.
The principle problem for Republicans is that the 182 establishment Republicans are not large enough to pass legislation on their own, and if the Tea Party wing does not support a bill - like the recent Plan B - there are not enough conservative Democrats - the Blue Dogs - to make up the difference. Since Liberal Democrats are unlikely to support anything substantive offered by Republicans, the Tea Party has enough leverage to control Congress' agenda.
Here's Silver's take:
Perhaps cooler heads will prevail in these negotiations. But a majority of the incoming House – 237 of 433 members – will be either Tea Party Republicans or liberal Democrats, leaving only 196 members who are either Establishment Republicans or Blue Dog Democrats and who might form a functional center-right coalition.
Moreover, the House is likely to engage in repeated battles over fiscal policy during the next two years: not just the over the fiscal cliff, but also over the debt ceiling, annual budgeting plans and whatever stabilization measures might be proposed in the event of another economic downturn.
If Mr. Boehner is having as much trouble whipping votes as he did on Thursday night, reducing the pool from which he might be able to draw together a compromise, this arithmetic problem could turn out to be intractable at some point.
The lesson: Don't expect much from the 113th Congress.
Friday, December 21, 2012
Are Tea Party Republicans getting tired of Rick Perry?
Maybe. His pull in this legislative session might pale compared to previous sessions.
Texas Gun Culture
We love our guns in Texas. The Texas Tribune has a special feature on the state of the gun in Texas. Its as healthy as its ever been. If any legislation is passed, its likely that it will enhance, not restrict, access to gun. We tend to like self defense, and but into the idea that one person's possession of a weapon is a deterrence to crime. Expect to see bills introduced expanding - not limiting access to all types of weaponry.
Click here for some back and forth about whether greater access to guns reduces crime.
Click here for some back and forth about whether greater access to guns reduces crime.
From the Texas Tribune: Texas Lawmakers Prepare to Take On Water Projects
With the drought in Texas continuing, the legislature is expected to highlight water projects in the upcoming session.
Governor Perry Pardons 14
This is a year end tradition which has historical roots. Its also a central check that the executive has over the judiciary. Those selected tend to be non-controversial. As few as the governor pardons, President Obama has pardoned even fewer - 22 over the course of his presidency.
If - for whatever reason - you'd like info on how to obtain lemency, click here.
Financial information for the Texas House Delegation
Here's an interactive feature from the Texas Tribune that shows how much miney was collected and spent in the recent election by members of the Texas US House Delegation, as well as their opponents.
Historical info - plus an idea about where the money came from - can be found here on Open Secret's website.
Historical info - plus an idea about where the money came from - can be found here on Open Secret's website.
The Hack List
At the end of each year, a Salon writer lists the major media hacks, a hack defined as someone who produces low quality, high volume material intended to boost sales and to express a client's political opinions.
He's in the process of building this year's list (click here for his entry on MSNBC - number 8 on the list), and provides links to recent efforts. Here's 2010 and 2011.
Number one is Politico (click here for its website).
He's in the process of building this year's list (click here for his entry on MSNBC - number 8 on the list), and provides links to recent efforts. Here's 2010 and 2011.
Number one is Politico (click here for its website).
The State of the Fiscal Cliff Talks in One Picture
The guy on the left could use one of those stress puppies we had on campus finals week.
The NRA Speaks
More guns are necessary - armed guards in every school for a start - in order to curb gun violence. Violent movies are a problem also.
Here are the specific proposals the NRA suggests:
- Stop promoting gun free school zones
- Stop giving so much media coverage to school shooting
- Consider a national database for the mentally ill
- More scrutiny for violent video games
- Bring in armed guard for schools
- Stop debating legislation
The NRA is argued to have a stranglehold on a significant number of members of Congress - enough to stop most gun control legislation cold. Open Secrets has a good description of the NRA's political influence.
Here are the specific proposals the NRA suggests:
- Stop promoting gun free school zones
- Stop giving so much media coverage to school shooting
- Consider a national database for the mentally ill
- More scrutiny for violent video games
- Bring in armed guard for schools
- Stop debating legislation
The NRA is argued to have a stranglehold on a significant number of members of Congress - enough to stop most gun control legislation cold. Open Secrets has a good description of the NRA's political influence.
Comparing Fiscal Cliff Plans
The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget lays out the various offers made to avoid going off the cliff. The Washington Post lays them out in a nice chart.
Houston's Metro Chief to Step Down
Culture Map reports on George Greanias' decision to resign as CEO.
Greanias was brought on board to help guide Metro's development of light rail. The recent approval of a referendum that diverted some funding to other transit projects is believed to have led to his decision, even to his being possibly pushed out of the office.
With our renewed attention to local politics in class I'll be building up information about Metro, as well as the overall issues about how to handle transportation issues in the greater Houston area. This is an especially difficult issue because while we all share a need for efficient and effective transportation, there is little agreement over what that entails. Even more difficult is the fact that the greater metro are is composed of small autonomous governing units that can make their own decisions about transportation - and there is little reason why these decisions make work together in a rational way.
Self government is seldom efficient government.
Some useful links:
- METRO.
- Wikipedia: METROrail.
- Support Houston Transit.
Greanias was brought on board to help guide Metro's development of light rail. The recent approval of a referendum that diverted some funding to other transit projects is believed to have led to his decision, even to his being possibly pushed out of the office.
With our renewed attention to local politics in class I'll be building up information about Metro, as well as the overall issues about how to handle transportation issues in the greater Houston area. This is an especially difficult issue because while we all share a need for efficient and effective transportation, there is little agreement over what that entails. Even more difficult is the fact that the greater metro are is composed of small autonomous governing units that can make their own decisions about transportation - and there is little reason why these decisions make work together in a rational way.
Self government is seldom efficient government.
Some useful links:
- METRO.
- Wikipedia: METROrail.
- Support Houston Transit.
Plan B Fails
Commentators are reading a lot into the failure last night of Speaker Boehner to convince the Republican Conference in the House - the group he is alleged to lead - to vote for an alternate tax plan that would avoid the fiscal cliff. The bill contained an allowance for taxes to rise for incomes past $1 million. The conservative and Tea Party wing of the party refuses to let that happen, so no deal.
Congress will adjourn for Christmas and presumably return prior to the New Year to try again.
This is seen as a test of Boehner's speakership.
Some related items:
- The Plum Line.
- Washington Post.
- Summary of reactions from The Dish
Congress will adjourn for Christmas and presumably return prior to the New Year to try again.
This is seen as a test of Boehner's speakership.
Some related items:
- The Plum Line.
- Washington Post.
- Summary of reactions from The Dish
Thursday, December 20, 2012
Robert Bork, RIP
Judge Bork's failed nomination to the Supreme Court is held by many political commentators to mark a change in the political landscape in Washington. Bork was already a controversial figure - as a member of the Nixon Administration he fired the man appointed to investigate Watergate - when he was nominated to the court by President Reagan. He was an unusually vociferous conservative nominee. Most previous nominees has been less so, they may have leaned to the left or right, but the pursuit of an ideological vision was not their primary objective.
But his overt criticism of the liberal direction of the court over the previous decades - and the decisions in cases like Brown and Griswold - galvanized liberal opposition to him and led to his defeat. The term "borking" was coined to refer to this process. This process has become more common since then. So his defeat has been argued to be a factor leading to the ideological polarization we see today.
So despite the fact that his nomination was defeated, he's a key figure in recent political history - perhaps because he was defeated. Here are a few stories about the man:
- Washington Post announcement of his death.
- The Atlantic: The Sad Legacy of Robert Bork.
- WSJ: The Wisdom of Robert Bork.
- US News: Robert Bork's Legacy.
- WP Blog: Bork's influence on antitrust law.
- Balkinization: Bork and the Contingencies of History.
But his overt criticism of the liberal direction of the court over the previous decades - and the decisions in cases like Brown and Griswold - galvanized liberal opposition to him and led to his defeat. The term "borking" was coined to refer to this process. This process has become more common since then. So his defeat has been argued to be a factor leading to the ideological polarization we see today.
So despite the fact that his nomination was defeated, he's a key figure in recent political history - perhaps because he was defeated. Here are a few stories about the man:
- Washington Post announcement of his death.
- The Atlantic: The Sad Legacy of Robert Bork.
- WSJ: The Wisdom of Robert Bork.
- US News: Robert Bork's Legacy.
- WP Blog: Bork's influence on antitrust law.
- Balkinization: Bork and the Contingencies of History.
Debt Reckoning
The NYT unveiled a page devoted to the ongoing fiscal cliff negotiations: Debt Reckoning. Click on it for the latest details. We will pull out detail from time to time.
Texas School Reform Plans Introduced
State Senator Dan Patrick and Lt. Gov David Dewhurst outlined a variety of proposals they will make to transform K-12 education in the state. The proposals will make it easier for students to go to private schools:
Patrick, a Houston Republican who chairs the Senate Education Committee, said he would carry legislation that would increase the options for public school students through lifting the state's cap on charter schools, fostering open enrollment within and across school districts, and creating a private school scholarship fund through offering a state business tax savings credit to corporations. When asked for further information about how such a scholarship program would operate, Patrick said the plan was still in its formative stages, and earlier, Dewhurst indicated that it may begin through a smaller-scale pilot program.
Patrick also said he would revamp the accountability system by reducing the number of required state tests and increasing the pathways to graduation for high school students interested in technology. A new system would also evaluate school districts with letter grades instead of the current ratings of acceptable or unacceptable.
Though the set of reforms the two men described at the news conference did not contain a plan for what are often called private school vouchers, which allow parents to use public funding to send their children to private schools, Patrick said afterward that the legislation was still evolving. He indicated that it could include a measure that would be along the lines of "what some people might call vouchers."
- Here's detail on Patrick's focus on education.
Patrick, a Houston Republican who chairs the Senate Education Committee, said he would carry legislation that would increase the options for public school students through lifting the state's cap on charter schools, fostering open enrollment within and across school districts, and creating a private school scholarship fund through offering a state business tax savings credit to corporations. When asked for further information about how such a scholarship program would operate, Patrick said the plan was still in its formative stages, and earlier, Dewhurst indicated that it may begin through a smaller-scale pilot program.
Patrick also said he would revamp the accountability system by reducing the number of required state tests and increasing the pathways to graduation for high school students interested in technology. A new system would also evaluate school districts with letter grades instead of the current ratings of acceptable or unacceptable.
Though the set of reforms the two men described at the news conference did not contain a plan for what are often called private school vouchers, which allow parents to use public funding to send their children to private schools, Patrick said afterward that the legislation was still evolving. He indicated that it could include a measure that would be along the lines of "what some people might call vouchers."
- Here's detail on Patrick's focus on education.
Gun Control Back on the Agenda
Last week's elementary school shooting has not only placed gun control back on the public agenda (which no one had expected - which shows you how unpredictable the political environment can be) but allows us multiple opportunities to tie class material into an ongoing event.
While support for gun control has waned in recent years, some are arguing that this time its different since kids were involved. Public policy scholar claim that policies are more likely to be passed if a window of opportunity opens up to allow it. Perhaps we've just seen one open up. The Obama Administration is planning to introduce legislation to Congress soon and is now formulating its proposal.
Potential opponents - specially the NRA - seem to be lying low for a bit, probably waiting for the dust to settle before making moves. And they will certainly have to be careful about what they do and how. Many gun rights groups have attempted to head off gun control proposals by defining the problem as being about access to mental health, not guns. Perhaps elements of that will be in Obama's proposal - but that has yet to be seen.
I'll add more in subsequent posts, but here are links to info related to gun policy. This might provide us some focus for the 2305 mini that began yesterday.
- GunPolicy.org.
- Center for Gun Policy and Research.
- Wikipedia: Gun Politics.
- Wikipedia: Gun Politics in the US.
- Gun Control Policy.
While support for gun control has waned in recent years, some are arguing that this time its different since kids were involved. Public policy scholar claim that policies are more likely to be passed if a window of opportunity opens up to allow it. Perhaps we've just seen one open up. The Obama Administration is planning to introduce legislation to Congress soon and is now formulating its proposal.
Potential opponents - specially the NRA - seem to be lying low for a bit, probably waiting for the dust to settle before making moves. And they will certainly have to be careful about what they do and how. Many gun rights groups have attempted to head off gun control proposals by defining the problem as being about access to mental health, not guns. Perhaps elements of that will be in Obama's proposal - but that has yet to be seen.
I'll add more in subsequent posts, but here are links to info related to gun policy. This might provide us some focus for the 2305 mini that began yesterday.
- GunPolicy.org.
- Center for Gun Policy and Research.
- Wikipedia: Gun Politics.
- Wikipedia: Gun Politics in the US.
- Gun Control Policy.
Wednesday, December 12, 2012
Who do we send to jail and who do we not?
A couple recent stories point out the great discrepancies in who gets sent to jail in the US and who does not.
1 - The NYT reports on second thoughts (a bit too late for some) about harsh sentencing policies for non-violent drug crimes.
2 - The New Republic tells us a bank that was involved in drug transactions - as well as with terrorist organization - will pay a hefty fine, but the official involved will not be subject to criminal charges.
It worth speculating on why that discrepancy exists.
1 - The NYT reports on second thoughts (a bit too late for some) about harsh sentencing policies for non-violent drug crimes.
2 - The New Republic tells us a bank that was involved in drug transactions - as well as with terrorist organization - will pay a hefty fine, but the official involved will not be subject to criminal charges.
It worth speculating on why that discrepancy exists.
The Federal Reserve to Hold Interest Rates Down Until the Unemployment Rate Goes below 6.5%
Story in the NYT and Washington Post.
This marks a significant shift for the Fed. It will no longer focus strictly on inflation. It will also now take unemployment into account. This was part of its original mandate.
This marks a significant shift for the Fed. It will no longer focus strictly on inflation. It will also now take unemployment into account. This was part of its original mandate.
US Births and Deaths in real time
That's what this website claims to show anyway. A bit gripping - and creepy.
Story in Atlantic Cities.
Story in Atlantic Cities.
Abortion bills to be introduced in the 83rd Session
The AAS reports that abortion opponents have an "ambitious wish list" for the upcoming session:
. . . including a measure that would ban the procedure beginning in the 20th week of pregnancy.
That bill, which is still being written, would declare that a fetus can feel pain in the 20th week, an assertion many abortion rights supporters dispute.
Other legislation — some filed, most still in the planning stages — would further regulate the use of abortion-inducing drugs, seek to cut off Planned Parenthood from any remaining Medicaid money and set up a system of stricter state inspections and audits of abortion clinics.
“We’re looking at a big pro-life majority in the House and in the Senate, so we ought to expect some big pro-life accomplishments,” said state Rep. Bryan Hughes, R-Mineola, a leading abortion opponent in the Legislature who is campaigning to replace Speaker Joe Straus, R-San Antonio, as leader of the House.
The Houston Chronicle reports on Governor Perry's news conference where he announced his support for legislation which would prohibit abortions after 20 weeks. A related bill has yet to be filed - no word on whether the governor will declare this emergency legislation. The governor implies that he is unwilling to take on Roe v Wade and claims that the decision allows for states to impose restrictions on abortion if there is a compelling state interest in doing so. Preventing pain is the compelling state interest:
"Let me be clear, my goal - and the goal of many of those joining me here today - is to make abortion at any stage a thing of the past," Perry said. "But while Roe versus Wade prohibits us from taking that step, it does allow us, the states, to do some things to protect life if they can show there is a compelling state interest. I don't think there's any issue that better fits the definition of a compelling state interest than preventing the suffering of our state's unborn."
So the constitutionality of this legislation - should it be passed and challenged - hinges on whether a 20 week old fetus can feel pain. Here are a few sources that weigh in on this question:
- Doctors on Fetal Pain.
- The Flawed Basis Behind Fetal-Pain Abortion Laws.
- Behind the Right's Fetal-Pain Push.
- ABA Journal.
- Do Fetuses Feel Pain?
- Abortion Rights Groups Absent on Fetal Pain Laws.
. . . including a measure that would ban the procedure beginning in the 20th week of pregnancy.
That bill, which is still being written, would declare that a fetus can feel pain in the 20th week, an assertion many abortion rights supporters dispute.
Other legislation — some filed, most still in the planning stages — would further regulate the use of abortion-inducing drugs, seek to cut off Planned Parenthood from any remaining Medicaid money and set up a system of stricter state inspections and audits of abortion clinics.
“We’re looking at a big pro-life majority in the House and in the Senate, so we ought to expect some big pro-life accomplishments,” said state Rep. Bryan Hughes, R-Mineola, a leading abortion opponent in the Legislature who is campaigning to replace Speaker Joe Straus, R-San Antonio, as leader of the House.
The Houston Chronicle reports on Governor Perry's news conference where he announced his support for legislation which would prohibit abortions after 20 weeks. A related bill has yet to be filed - no word on whether the governor will declare this emergency legislation. The governor implies that he is unwilling to take on Roe v Wade and claims that the decision allows for states to impose restrictions on abortion if there is a compelling state interest in doing so. Preventing pain is the compelling state interest:
"Let me be clear, my goal - and the goal of many of those joining me here today - is to make abortion at any stage a thing of the past," Perry said. "But while Roe versus Wade prohibits us from taking that step, it does allow us, the states, to do some things to protect life if they can show there is a compelling state interest. I don't think there's any issue that better fits the definition of a compelling state interest than preventing the suffering of our state's unborn."
So the constitutionality of this legislation - should it be passed and challenged - hinges on whether a 20 week old fetus can feel pain. Here are a few sources that weigh in on this question:
- Doctors on Fetal Pain.
- The Flawed Basis Behind Fetal-Pain Abortion Laws.
- Behind the Right's Fetal-Pain Push.
- ABA Journal.
- Do Fetuses Feel Pain?
- Abortion Rights Groups Absent on Fetal Pain Laws.
Tuesday, December 11, 2012
Recent stories involving Twitter
We finished 2305 with a quick look at the media and some attention to the general impact of social media. Here are three quick stories about Twitter:
- Death Wish: A Writer Finds Twitter Turning Toxic. A journalist explains why she terminated her Twitter account. The nature of the interchange it sets up doesn't appear to breed civil discourse: What is it about Twitter that brings out the worst in some people and makes it acceptable—almost mandatory—to be small-minded jerks? Those 140 characters don’t leave a lot of room for context. It’s almost as if brevity breeds idiocy. Even powerful business executives have fallen prey to reckless comments.
- White House #My2K Twitter hashtag enters "fiscal cliff" debate. The Obama White House is promoting discussions about the fiscal cliff on Twitter by promoting a hashtag to frame the debate. They also held a Town Hall on Twitter.
- Israel and Gaza Battle Twitter War Over Rocket Attacks. The recent conflict between Israel and Hamas in Gaza didn't just involve rockets. Salvos were fired back and forth online.
- Death Wish: A Writer Finds Twitter Turning Toxic. A journalist explains why she terminated her Twitter account. The nature of the interchange it sets up doesn't appear to breed civil discourse: What is it about Twitter that brings out the worst in some people and makes it acceptable—almost mandatory—to be small-minded jerks? Those 140 characters don’t leave a lot of room for context. It’s almost as if brevity breeds idiocy. Even powerful business executives have fallen prey to reckless comments.
- White House #My2K Twitter hashtag enters "fiscal cliff" debate. The Obama White House is promoting discussions about the fiscal cliff on Twitter by promoting a hashtag to frame the debate. They also held a Town Hall on Twitter.
- Israel and Gaza Battle Twitter War Over Rocket Attacks. The recent conflict between Israel and Hamas in Gaza didn't just involve rockets. Salvos were fired back and forth online.
Monday, December 10, 2012
Becker and Posner on the Paradox of Voting
A couple rational guys try to figure out why people do something apparently irrational: Vote in an election that there is little or no chance they will be able to sway. One person's vote out of 100 million will not change results, but ...
Posner sees a similarity to clapping:
Some people vote because the political campaigns make it costly for them not to vote—one technique in “get out the vote” drives is pestering people to vote so that they will feel uncomfortable not voting. Some vote because they think that it will encourage others to do so. Some vote because they consider it a civic duty. Some voting is purely expressive—a way of expressing strong feelings pro or con a candidate (or pro one and con his opponent); certainly anger played a role in votes against Romney by members of groups that he or his party seemed to disrespect, and anger at Obama played a role in the large number of votes that Romney received. In this respect voting is like booing or cheering at an athletic event or other entertainment. One person’s applause at a concert is inaudible to the performers, yet people applaud, and not mainly I think because others in the audience would look askance at them if they did not. And finally people interested in politics like to vote to convince themselves and others that their interest is serious—they are willing to put their money (not money exactly, but the cost in time and bother of voting) where their mouth is.
No one thinks that applauding is irrational, even though like voting it has no instrumental value, and has some, though very slight, cost.
Becker is concerned that the fact that we know our vote does not matter makes it unlikely we will learn about the candidates we are voting for:
Since the great majority of voters presumably do not expect to influence election outcomes, who they support is influenced disproportionately by campaign rhetoric, debates among candidates that have little intellectual content, and by other methods of persuasion that are not very informative about the candidates. I like to say that consumers put more time and effort into deciding which cereal to buy and into other small consumer choices than in gathering information on economic and other issues about presidential candidates.
But I am not claiming that voters are less “rational” than consumers of everyday products. Individuals pay more attention to what they buy than whom they vote for because what they buy has a direct and tangible effect on their wellbeing. Since the incentives to become well informed are radically different, “rational” voting implies very different kinds of behavior than does rational choice of cereals or peanut butter.
Posner sees a similarity to clapping:
Some people vote because the political campaigns make it costly for them not to vote—one technique in “get out the vote” drives is pestering people to vote so that they will feel uncomfortable not voting. Some vote because they think that it will encourage others to do so. Some vote because they consider it a civic duty. Some voting is purely expressive—a way of expressing strong feelings pro or con a candidate (or pro one and con his opponent); certainly anger played a role in votes against Romney by members of groups that he or his party seemed to disrespect, and anger at Obama played a role in the large number of votes that Romney received. In this respect voting is like booing or cheering at an athletic event or other entertainment. One person’s applause at a concert is inaudible to the performers, yet people applaud, and not mainly I think because others in the audience would look askance at them if they did not. And finally people interested in politics like to vote to convince themselves and others that their interest is serious—they are willing to put their money (not money exactly, but the cost in time and bother of voting) where their mouth is.
No one thinks that applauding is irrational, even though like voting it has no instrumental value, and has some, though very slight, cost.
Becker is concerned that the fact that we know our vote does not matter makes it unlikely we will learn about the candidates we are voting for:
Since the great majority of voters presumably do not expect to influence election outcomes, who they support is influenced disproportionately by campaign rhetoric, debates among candidates that have little intellectual content, and by other methods of persuasion that are not very informative about the candidates. I like to say that consumers put more time and effort into deciding which cereal to buy and into other small consumer choices than in gathering information on economic and other issues about presidential candidates.
But I am not claiming that voters are less “rational” than consumers of everyday products. Individuals pay more attention to what they buy than whom they vote for because what they buy has a direct and tangible effect on their wellbeing. Since the incentives to become well informed are radically different, “rational” voting implies very different kinds of behavior than does rational choice of cereals or peanut butter.
The Millennial Generation Speaks
Andrew Sullivan compiles a handful of comments form millennial voters about the recent election, and life in general. These are the people born from the early 1980s to the early 2000s.
- Click Here.
This is a great portrait of an emerging factor in American politics. Some other links:
- Wikipedia: Generation Y.
- Pew Research Center: Millennial.
- About Mentoring Millennial.
- Click Here.
This is a great portrait of an emerging factor in American politics. Some other links:
- Wikipedia: Generation Y.
- Pew Research Center: Millennial.
- About Mentoring Millennial.
Sunday, December 9, 2012
The Ruins of Detroit
While we focus attention on local cities - and efforts to keep Houston vibrant - its worth looking at cities that have lost their vitality and suffer the consequences. Detroit is one of the classic examples, and is often used as a cautionary tale.
Detroit seems to have been too tied into the automobile industry and suffered heavily from white flight to the suburbs. Houston's aggressive annexation policies have largely curtailed white flight - there's just so far people are willing to fly. But we will have to see whether Houston's close connection with the energy sector hurts it down the road.
Detroit's decay is being documented heavily by photographers - example above. Its lead to a category of photography called ruin porn. Like the real thing there are questions about whether its a healthy obsession.
Rick Perry's influence on the bureaucracy
According to the Texas Tribune, it is considerable - which shouldn't be too surprising given his longevity in office.
Republicans 2012 = Democrats 1984?
Are the Republicans today in the same situation Democrats were in 1984 after Reagan's landslide and the loss of their fourth election in five tries (which woudl be 5 out of 6 after 1988)?
A Daily Beast writer thinks they are, and argues that the national party needs to undergo the same type of fundamental transformation the Democrats went through in the mid 1980s. Democrats began to marginalize the strong liberals who had defined the party since the 1930s and started moderating their policies. Central to this effort was the establishment of the Democratic Leadership Council which set the stateg for the election of Clinton in 1992 and 1996 and set the stage for Obama in 2008 and 2012.
But marginalizing Democrats was difficult to do - as will be marginalizing conservatives now. The Tea Party has no intention of going anywhere and will continue to dominate which candidates win primaries in the Republican Party. The transformation may take time:
Back in 1984 and ’85, when the Democrats were similarly wandering in the wilderness, a good-sized chunk of Democrats said, “Enough. We’re tired of losing, and we need some updating.” I don’t by a long shot agree with every position the Democratic Leadership Council took, but I certainly know that it was on the whole a good and necessary thing; the Democratic Party obviously had to reexamine some of its positions. Change didn’t come easy, and it took one more wipeout of an election, but along came Bill Clinton, and the party drank its tonic and embraced (sort of; enough so that voters noticed the change) welfare reform and free trade.
Republicans aren’t anywhere near to exposing themselves to the kind of self-examination and intra-party debate the Democrats undertook after Reagan’s second win. Despite upholstering their speeches with ample liberal rhetoric, and in Rubio’s case those aforementioned quasi-proposals, Rubio and Ryan both stuck hard to current-day GOP gospel. Raising tax rates isn’t an option. Relying on government isn’t the answer, and all the rest. When I read the Ryan remarks I quoted above, as I first started reading those words, I thought to myself, “Ah, might I encounter here an actual nugget of self-criticism?” It came. But it was only about messaging. The substance of their positions, to them, is fine and dandy.
A Daily Beast writer thinks they are, and argues that the national party needs to undergo the same type of fundamental transformation the Democrats went through in the mid 1980s. Democrats began to marginalize the strong liberals who had defined the party since the 1930s and started moderating their policies. Central to this effort was the establishment of the Democratic Leadership Council which set the stateg for the election of Clinton in 1992 and 1996 and set the stage for Obama in 2008 and 2012.
But marginalizing Democrats was difficult to do - as will be marginalizing conservatives now. The Tea Party has no intention of going anywhere and will continue to dominate which candidates win primaries in the Republican Party. The transformation may take time:
Back in 1984 and ’85, when the Democrats were similarly wandering in the wilderness, a good-sized chunk of Democrats said, “Enough. We’re tired of losing, and we need some updating.” I don’t by a long shot agree with every position the Democratic Leadership Council took, but I certainly know that it was on the whole a good and necessary thing; the Democratic Party obviously had to reexamine some of its positions. Change didn’t come easy, and it took one more wipeout of an election, but along came Bill Clinton, and the party drank its tonic and embraced (sort of; enough so that voters noticed the change) welfare reform and free trade.
Republicans aren’t anywhere near to exposing themselves to the kind of self-examination and intra-party debate the Democrats undertook after Reagan’s second win. Despite upholstering their speeches with ample liberal rhetoric, and in Rubio’s case those aforementioned quasi-proposals, Rubio and Ryan both stuck hard to current-day GOP gospel. Raising tax rates isn’t an option. Relying on government isn’t the answer, and all the rest. When I read the Ryan remarks I quoted above, as I first started reading those words, I thought to myself, “Ah, might I encounter here an actual nugget of self-criticism?” It came. But it was only about messaging. The substance of their positions, to them, is fine and dandy.
Is the debt ceiling unconstitutional?
As we come close - again - to the debt ceiling, questions are being raised - again - about whether the debt ceiling is constitutional. Can Congress - after it has authorized spending - refuse to provide those funds?
Here's an argument that they cannot, and that doing so violates the 14th Amendment, but the issue gets complicated:
Section 4 of the Fourteenth Amendment provides that "the validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned." Its purpose was to prevent Southern Congressmen and Senators from trying to hold payment of the nation's debts hostage in order to get their way on Reconstruction policies. The point of Section 4 was to put this sort of hostage-taking beyond ordinary politics. The framers of the 14th amendment did not want future politicians to threaten to destroy the country's finances by refusing to pay the country's debts in order to win political concessions from their opponents. After all, once politicians did so successfully, they would try it over and over again and it would become a normal feature of politics. That is precisely what we are seeing now.
If Congressional Republicans are threatening to let the nation to default on its debts if Obama doesn't agree to their demands, they are violating the Constitution. And the president should call them out for such an outrageous demand. But does that mean that the president can raise the debt ceiling himself to remedy the violation?
Not so fast. Article I, section 8 of the Constitution gives Congress, not the president, the authority to borrow on the credit of the United States. Even so, under section 4 of the Fourteenth Amendment the president has an independent constitutional obligation not to allow the validity of the debt of the United States to be put into question. That means, at the very least, that the president must make sure that interest payments continue on existing federal bonds and similar obligations. He must assure bondholders that they will continue to get paid even after the debt ceiling is reached.
If the president follows his constitutional obligations, then some government operations will not get funded because payments to the bondholders must come first. That means a partial government shutdown, with more and more of the government closed as the president continues to pay the bondholders.
Here's an argument that they cannot, and that doing so violates the 14th Amendment, but the issue gets complicated:
Section 4 of the Fourteenth Amendment provides that "the validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned." Its purpose was to prevent Southern Congressmen and Senators from trying to hold payment of the nation's debts hostage in order to get their way on Reconstruction policies. The point of Section 4 was to put this sort of hostage-taking beyond ordinary politics. The framers of the 14th amendment did not want future politicians to threaten to destroy the country's finances by refusing to pay the country's debts in order to win political concessions from their opponents. After all, once politicians did so successfully, they would try it over and over again and it would become a normal feature of politics. That is precisely what we are seeing now.
If Congressional Republicans are threatening to let the nation to default on its debts if Obama doesn't agree to their demands, they are violating the Constitution. And the president should call them out for such an outrageous demand. But does that mean that the president can raise the debt ceiling himself to remedy the violation?
Not so fast. Article I, section 8 of the Constitution gives Congress, not the president, the authority to borrow on the credit of the United States. Even so, under section 4 of the Fourteenth Amendment the president has an independent constitutional obligation not to allow the validity of the debt of the United States to be put into question. That means, at the very least, that the president must make sure that interest payments continue on existing federal bonds and similar obligations. He must assure bondholders that they will continue to get paid even after the debt ceiling is reached.
If the president follows his constitutional obligations, then some government operations will not get funded because payments to the bondholders must come first. That means a partial government shutdown, with more and more of the government closed as the president continues to pay the bondholders.
Background on the Fiscal Cliff
I'll have my upcoming 3 week mini students focus on the Fiscal Cliff. By the end of the class we'll know whether we jumped off it or not - but here are some resources to help us figure out what the issue's all about.
Related written assignments will be forthcoming:
- NYT: Debt Reckoning.
- WP: Fiscal Cliff.
- The Daily Beast: Fiscal Cliff Countdown.
- Wikipedia: United States fiscal cliff.
- US Chamber of Commerce: Fiscal Cliff.
- You Tube: Fiscal Cliff Background.
Related written assignments will be forthcoming:
- NYT: Debt Reckoning.
- WP: Fiscal Cliff.
- The Daily Beast: Fiscal Cliff Countdown.
- Wikipedia: United States fiscal cliff.
- US Chamber of Commerce: Fiscal Cliff.
- You Tube: Fiscal Cliff Background.
Friday, December 7, 2012
Spending growth in Texas capped at 10.71%
That's what the Texas Tribune reports that the Texas Legislative Budget Board accepted as the probable growth in the Texas economy during 2014-15. This places a limit on growth in the Texas budget - we are a pay as you go state as far as undedicated funds go. That allows for a $7.5 billion increase, which some Republicans argue is too much and want to see a different standard used to set the cap on spending. At the moment, it set to increases in the economy. Their goal is to index it to inflation, which would slow it further.
Such a proposal will likely be introduced in the legislature and presented to the voters as a constitutional amendment next year.
Relevant Links:
- State Leaders Adopt Spending Cap.
- Battle Over Budget Cap Looms.
- Billions of Dedicated Funds Unspent.
Such a proposal will likely be introduced in the legislature and presented to the voters as a constitutional amendment next year.
Relevant Links:
- State Leaders Adopt Spending Cap.
- Battle Over Budget Cap Looms.
- Billions of Dedicated Funds Unspent.
As Fort Worth goes, Texas goes
The Texas Tribune reports that the presidential vote in Fort Worth mirrors the presidential vote across the state more than any other metropolitan area. In fact, Fort Worth was the only one of the largest metropolitan areas in the state to vote for Romney.
One reason is that Fort Worth is less racially diverse than other urban areas. 538 points out however that despite the hopes of Democrats that a larger Hispanic population would make them more competitive in the state, low voter turnout by Hispanics has reduced their competitiveness. The story contains great graphics. This one shows where people live in the state:
One reason is that Fort Worth is less racially diverse than other urban areas. 538 points out however that despite the hopes of Democrats that a larger Hispanic population would make them more competitive in the state, low voter turnout by Hispanics has reduced their competitiveness. The story contains great graphics. This one shows where people live in the state:
How to address highway serial murder?
The Texas Observer reports on the difficulty in investigating crimes committed on interstate highways. Some serial murderers who commit crimes nationwide are truckers. They take advantage of the lack of communication across jurisdictions - municipal, county, state and federal. Texas has the highest number of unsolved highway homicides in the nation.
A possible flaw in a decentralized governing system.
A possible flaw in a decentralized governing system.
From Slate: How Jim DeMint Changed the Senate
South Carolina Senator Jim DeMint is stepping down from the US Senate to head the Heritage Foundation. Slate Magazine discusses how he changed the Senate in the brief period of time he was in office. The Senate has grown increasingly combatative over the years, and DeMint has played a role in this. Case in point: His support for Tea Party candidates whose mission has been to inhibit the Senate's tradition role in making long term decisions:
He now sees a greater fit for his skill set pressuring the Senate from the outside - plus, he'll make a lot more money doing so.
He now sees a greater fit for his skill set pressuring the Senate from the outside - plus, he'll make a lot more money doing so.
Feds consider what to do about state marijuana initiatives
Something to add to the material on federalism:
The NYT reports on the Obama Administration's continuing struggles with how to respond to the Colorado and Washington marijuana initiatives. This isn't the first conflict between state and federal governments over marijuana - and whether states can circumvent the Controlled Substances Act. We cover Gonzalez v. Raich in our section on federalism. The federal government won that round, but state are not backing down.
This story points out a new wrinkle in the conflict. Voter for marijuana initiatives were Obama supporters. Does he risk alienating them?
Public opinion has swung behind supporting legalization in recent years. 58% support legalization according to this story - support is stronger among the young than the old.
To fit this story in the broader framework of drug policy click on these:
- Marijuana Policy Project.
- Marijuana Policy: Stop the Drug War.
- Drug Policy: Wikipedia.
The NYT reports on the Obama Administration's continuing struggles with how to respond to the Colorado and Washington marijuana initiatives. This isn't the first conflict between state and federal governments over marijuana - and whether states can circumvent the Controlled Substances Act. We cover Gonzalez v. Raich in our section on federalism. The federal government won that round, but state are not backing down.
This story points out a new wrinkle in the conflict. Voter for marijuana initiatives were Obama supporters. Does he risk alienating them?
Public opinion has swung behind supporting legalization in recent years. 58% support legalization according to this story - support is stronger among the young than the old.
To fit this story in the broader framework of drug policy click on these:
- Marijuana Policy Project.
- Marijuana Policy: Stop the Drug War.
- Drug Policy: Wikipedia.
Monday, December 3, 2012
Saturday, December 1, 2012
I see toll roads in your future
Lot's of them apparently.
The Texas Tribune reports that transporation policy in Texas is continuing to shift from publicly built and financed roads to privately built roads. Is this a good idea?
In the view of many critics, tolling in Texas has shifted from an if-we-absolutely-must option to the default approach for major road projects.
“The day will surely come when, if you want to get from point A to point B, you’re not going to have a choice but to get on a toll road,” state Sen. John Carona, R-Dallas, warned at a panel discussion at The Texas Tribune Festival in September on transportation financing. “Well then, suddenly, a toll is just another tax. Let’s not kid one another.”
Fueling the current tolling boom is the transportation financing system in Texas, which falls far short of the state’s needs. Federal and state gas taxes are the primary revenue source for road construction and maintenance. Despite rising construction costs and the improving fuel efficiency of cars, Texans pay the same 38.4 cents in federal and state taxes per gallon of gas as they did nearly 20 years ago. In recent years, the Texas Department of Transportation has borrowed billions of dollars to finance transportation projects.
A 2009 report by an advisory committee said Texas should invest about $4 billion more per year on its current road system just to prevent congestion from worsening. As proposals to raise more transportation revenue have failed to draw sufficient political support, charging a toll is now seen as one of the few viable paths to developing major routes.
- Click here for an interactive map of toll roads in the state.
- Click here to learn more about the Texas transportation financing system.
- Click here for a 2009 report estimating Texas' transportation needs.
The Texas Tribune reports that transporation policy in Texas is continuing to shift from publicly built and financed roads to privately built roads. Is this a good idea?
In the view of many critics, tolling in Texas has shifted from an if-we-absolutely-must option to the default approach for major road projects.
“The day will surely come when, if you want to get from point A to point B, you’re not going to have a choice but to get on a toll road,” state Sen. John Carona, R-Dallas, warned at a panel discussion at The Texas Tribune Festival in September on transportation financing. “Well then, suddenly, a toll is just another tax. Let’s not kid one another.”
Fueling the current tolling boom is the transportation financing system in Texas, which falls far short of the state’s needs. Federal and state gas taxes are the primary revenue source for road construction and maintenance. Despite rising construction costs and the improving fuel efficiency of cars, Texans pay the same 38.4 cents in federal and state taxes per gallon of gas as they did nearly 20 years ago. In recent years, the Texas Department of Transportation has borrowed billions of dollars to finance transportation projects.
A 2009 report by an advisory committee said Texas should invest about $4 billion more per year on its current road system just to prevent congestion from worsening. As proposals to raise more transportation revenue have failed to draw sufficient political support, charging a toll is now seen as one of the few viable paths to developing major routes.
- Click here for an interactive map of toll roads in the state.
- Click here to learn more about the Texas transportation financing system.
- Click here for a 2009 report estimating Texas' transportation needs.
Washington ain't Austin
The Texas Tribune describes how the newly elected members of Congress from Texas are acclimating to their new positions and points out that polarization begins early:
In Austin this week, new legislators-elect were doing the same thing their Washington counterparts were doing. The freshmen were getting their offices, getting oriented, hiring for the session, finding furniture, getting ready for the show.
Here’s a difference: some tables in the room where the Texas legislators met had Republicans at them — and Democrats.
Washington is a different culture, with firmly drawn partisan lines. One new lawmaker tells a story of getting in line for security passes this week and finding that photographs were being taken of Democrats in one line and Republicans in the other.
The tribes are strong in Austin, too, but not like that.
In Austin this week, new legislators-elect were doing the same thing their Washington counterparts were doing. The freshmen were getting their offices, getting oriented, hiring for the session, finding furniture, getting ready for the show.
Here’s a difference: some tables in the room where the Texas legislators met had Republicans at them — and Democrats.
Washington is a different culture, with firmly drawn partisan lines. One new lawmaker tells a story of getting in line for security passes this week and finding that photographs were being taken of Democrats in one line and Republicans in the other.
The tribes are strong in Austin, too, but not like that.
Friday, November 30, 2012
Who should appoint commissioners to the Port of Houston Authority?
At the moment, the Port of Houston Authority ( a single purpose governing entity that controls the Port of Houston) is headed by a seven person board appointed by different governing entities in Harris County:
The City of Houston and the Harris County Commissioners Court each appoint two commissioners. These two governmental entities jointly appoint the chairman of the Port Commission. The Harris County Mayors & Councils Association and the city of Pasadena each appoint one commissioner.
But the port has undergone the Sunset review process and the Sunset Commission recommends that the governor appoint the commissioners, in addition to a variety of other changes. This is part of a general effort to coordinate the activities of all ports in the state, as well as the belief that the port is poorly managed and that management is not transparent. It is difficult for the general population to know what the port is up to.
Click here for links to the report from the Sunset Commission's site as well as the Port of Houston's.
Both the City of Houston and the Harris County Commissioners' Court are opposed to the proposal that the governor appoint board members. Both argue that it compromises local control.
- Story from KUHF. Is this another power grab by the governor?
- The Chronicle reports that the Commisioners' Court would like to appoint all board members on the grounds that the county holds the port's debt.
- Houston Business Journal points out that the port is reorganizing as a response to the Sunset Review report.
- KUHF reports that State Senator John Whitmire of Houston recommended the change, and that County Judge Ed Emmett agrees that a statewide port authority would be a good idea in order to coordinate port activity across the state.
The City of Houston and the Harris County Commissioners Court each appoint two commissioners. These two governmental entities jointly appoint the chairman of the Port Commission. The Harris County Mayors & Councils Association and the city of Pasadena each appoint one commissioner.
But the port has undergone the Sunset review process and the Sunset Commission recommends that the governor appoint the commissioners, in addition to a variety of other changes. This is part of a general effort to coordinate the activities of all ports in the state, as well as the belief that the port is poorly managed and that management is not transparent. It is difficult for the general population to know what the port is up to.
Click here for links to the report from the Sunset Commission's site as well as the Port of Houston's.
Both the City of Houston and the Harris County Commissioners' Court are opposed to the proposal that the governor appoint board members. Both argue that it compromises local control.
- Story from KUHF. Is this another power grab by the governor?
- The Chronicle reports that the Commisioners' Court would like to appoint all board members on the grounds that the county holds the port's debt.
- Houston Business Journal points out that the port is reorganizing as a response to the Sunset Review report.
- KUHF reports that State Senator John Whitmire of Houston recommended the change, and that County Judge Ed Emmett agrees that a statewide port authority would be a good idea in order to coordinate port activity across the state.
Consensual police encounters
Slate writes up a story involving a search that began when a policeman approached a man on a bicycle to initiate a conversation. After noticing the man fidget, he was searched and a small amount of crack cocaine was found, which then led to a five year prison sentence.
The search was judged legal because it was consensual. Either party could have walked away from it - but is this in fact true? Would you feel comfortable walking away from a police officer who wanted to have a casual conversation with you? Might doing so give the officer the impression that you have something to hide? Is this a lose / lose situation?
. . . what interests me about this case is the way the appeals court characterized the initial contact between June and Young as a “consensual encounter.” The Florida Supreme Court classifies police encounters into three distinct levels: consensual, investigatory, and arrest. A consensual encounter is one into which each party enters willingly—a beat cop and a storekeeper exchanging greetings, for instance. It can be terminated by either party at any time with no consequences. You can’t initiate a search during a consensual encounter, and you can’t initiate an investigatory encounter without “a well-founded, articulable suspicion of criminal activity.”
The idea of a consensual encounter is a nice one, conjuring an image of lovers sneaking away for some mutually fulfilling afternoon delight. But, in reality, a police officer who pursues a “consensual” conversation is often just looking to screw you. As Janice Nadler and J.D. Trout note in their fascinating paper “The Language of Consent in Police Encounters,” many consensual engagements are pretexts for less-consensual behavior. “The police officer’s main purpose is to get information about what the person is doing, and get permission to do something else, like search their person, house, car, bags, etc.,” they write.
Police officers don’t just initiate conversations because they’re bored and want to talk sports with a stranger. (That’s what call-in shows are for.) They stop you because they can generally tell if you’re suspicious or “up to something,” and because they know the average person doesn’t feel they’re in a position to decline a conversation with a cop. Although courts tend to interpret consensuality based on surface-level cues—whether the police officer was polite, for instance—there’s always more going on. The unspoken power dynamics in a police/civilian encounter will generally favor the police, unless the civilian is a local sports hero, the mayor, or a giant who is impervious to bullets.
The search was judged legal because it was consensual. Either party could have walked away from it - but is this in fact true? Would you feel comfortable walking away from a police officer who wanted to have a casual conversation with you? Might doing so give the officer the impression that you have something to hide? Is this a lose / lose situation?
. . . what interests me about this case is the way the appeals court characterized the initial contact between June and Young as a “consensual encounter.” The Florida Supreme Court classifies police encounters into three distinct levels: consensual, investigatory, and arrest. A consensual encounter is one into which each party enters willingly—a beat cop and a storekeeper exchanging greetings, for instance. It can be terminated by either party at any time with no consequences. You can’t initiate a search during a consensual encounter, and you can’t initiate an investigatory encounter without “a well-founded, articulable suspicion of criminal activity.”
The idea of a consensual encounter is a nice one, conjuring an image of lovers sneaking away for some mutually fulfilling afternoon delight. But, in reality, a police officer who pursues a “consensual” conversation is often just looking to screw you. As Janice Nadler and J.D. Trout note in their fascinating paper “The Language of Consent in Police Encounters,” many consensual engagements are pretexts for less-consensual behavior. “The police officer’s main purpose is to get information about what the person is doing, and get permission to do something else, like search their person, house, car, bags, etc.,” they write.
Police officers don’t just initiate conversations because they’re bored and want to talk sports with a stranger. (That’s what call-in shows are for.) They stop you because they can generally tell if you’re suspicious or “up to something,” and because they know the average person doesn’t feel they’re in a position to decline a conversation with a cop. Although courts tend to interpret consensuality based on surface-level cues—whether the police officer was polite, for instance—there’s always more going on. The unspoken power dynamics in a police/civilian encounter will generally favor the police, unless the civilian is a local sports hero, the mayor, or a giant who is impervious to bullets.
Thursday, November 29, 2012
Governor Perry apoints his Chief of Staff to the Texas Supreme Court
The Texas Tribune provides details:
Jeff Boyd, chief of staff to Gov. Rick Perry, is the governor’s choice for an open spot on the Texas Supreme Court.
He’ll replace Dale Wainwright, who resigned from the state's highest civil court earlier this year. The appointment is subject to Senate confirmation.
“Jeff is a highly-respected attorney who has consistently excelled throughout his years of private practice, his terms of public service, and his leadership of important charitable organizations. His addition to the court will continue to protect the rule of law and further the tradition of defending the freedoms that Texans so vigorously uphold,” Perry said in a news release.
The Tribune provides additional context here, including the observation that Perry has now appointed seven of the nine members of the court.
Does this mean that Perry has been able to control the court through his appointment powers? Here's a story that builds on a point we make when we cover the Texas Judiciary. While they are elected to office, it is customary for judges and justices to step down early so that the governor can fill vacancies with people of their choosing, and since judicial races are generally non-competitive and people know little about the candidates, those appointees tend to be easily elected to full terms.
This raises a provocative question: Does the Texas governor fully control the judicial branch? Do we have a functioning system of separated powers in the state?
Jeff Boyd, chief of staff to Gov. Rick Perry, is the governor’s choice for an open spot on the Texas Supreme Court.
He’ll replace Dale Wainwright, who resigned from the state's highest civil court earlier this year. The appointment is subject to Senate confirmation.
“Jeff is a highly-respected attorney who has consistently excelled throughout his years of private practice, his terms of public service, and his leadership of important charitable organizations. His addition to the court will continue to protect the rule of law and further the tradition of defending the freedoms that Texans so vigorously uphold,” Perry said in a news release.
The Tribune provides additional context here, including the observation that Perry has now appointed seven of the nine members of the court.
Does this mean that Perry has been able to control the court through his appointment powers? Here's a story that builds on a point we make when we cover the Texas Judiciary. While they are elected to office, it is customary for judges and justices to step down early so that the governor can fill vacancies with people of their choosing, and since judicial races are generally non-competitive and people know little about the candidates, those appointees tend to be easily elected to full terms.
This raises a provocative question: Does the Texas governor fully control the judicial branch? Do we have a functioning system of separated powers in the state?
Monday, November 19, 2012
Houston is the fifth most productive city in the United States
This is based on the Metro Productivity Index, which "compares the level of economic output per person for metros to the gross domestic product (GDP) per person for the nation as a whole."
The author claims that cities create the environments that fuel productivity, but not all cities do an adequate job. Those that do will fuel future economic growth.
Productivity at the national level has stalled since the Great Recession and even before. Productivity growth was 1.9 percent in the third quarter and just 1.5 percent for the past year. A number of leading economists, led by George Mason University's Tyler Cowen, argue that the United States has in fact entered into a period of prolonged stagnation, having exhausted its capacity for innovation and productivity improvement.
A very different picture emerges when we consider the United States not just as a single national economy but as a collection of city and metro economies. Some have dramatic productivity growth, while others are stagnating.
The author claims that cities create the environments that fuel productivity, but not all cities do an adequate job. Those that do will fuel future economic growth.
Productivity at the national level has stalled since the Great Recession and even before. Productivity growth was 1.9 percent in the third quarter and just 1.5 percent for the past year. A number of leading economists, led by George Mason University's Tyler Cowen, argue that the United States has in fact entered into a period of prolonged stagnation, having exhausted its capacity for innovation and productivity improvement.
A very different picture emerges when we consider the United States not just as a single national economy but as a collection of city and metro economies. Some have dramatic productivity growth, while others are stagnating.
From the Atlantic: The U.S. Recovery Has Been Spectacular*
This builds on the point made in a post below. The caveat here is that the US recovery only looks good compared to the recovery of other nations.
American policymakers have simply done less harm than their counterparts abroad. Not that our policy has been perfect. Austerity at the state and local level and not aggressive enough monetary policy have put too low a speed limit on our recovery. But at least we've avoided British-style austerity and Japanese-style tight money -- or both, like Europe.
If you want to feel even better about our subpar recovery, just look at how it compares to other recoveries from financial recoveries. As Ken Rogoff and Carmen Reinhart have famously demonstrated with eight centuries of data, these recoveries are almost always frustratingly slow. The chart below, from my colleague Derek Thompson, shows just how much better we're doing this time around compared to the other big crises of the past century.
American policymakers have simply done less harm than their counterparts abroad. Not that our policy has been perfect. Austerity at the state and local level and not aggressive enough monetary policy have put too low a speed limit on our recovery. But at least we've avoided British-style austerity and Japanese-style tight money -- or both, like Europe.
If you want to feel even better about our subpar recovery, just look at how it compares to other recoveries from financial recoveries. As Ken Rogoff and Carmen Reinhart have famously demonstrated with eight centuries of data, these recoveries are almost always frustratingly slow. The chart below, from my colleague Derek Thompson, shows just how much better we're doing this time around compared to the other big crises of the past century.
From FT: The dollar’s days as reserve currency are numbered
One of the factors helping the US economy is its position as the reserve currency for much of the world - it has been the de-facto global currency, but this may not last:
The Recovery in the US beats that in Europe.
The Dish and Paul Krugman point out that the economy in the US has outpaced Europe's since the recession. They use this to argue against austerity. They offer some graphs to back up their points. Unemployment and GDP are better in the US than elsewhere:
Regarding Wealth Inequality
This fits out subject matter in 2305 today.
An NYT Op-Ed argues that disparities in wealth creates a variety of problems in society and that wealth - not income - ought to be taxed:
When economists try to measure inequality, they typically focus on income, because the data are most readily accessible. But income is not always a good gauge of economic power. Consider a group of people who all have high incomes but differ widely in their wealth. Who’s going to get into the country club? Who’s going to have the money to finance a new venture? Moreover, income data may not reveal the true economic power of people who are retired, or who receive their pay in securities like stocks and options or use complex strategies to avoid taxes.
An NYT Op-Ed argues that disparities in wealth creates a variety of problems in society and that wealth - not income - ought to be taxed:
When economists try to measure inequality, they typically focus on income, because the data are most readily accessible. But income is not always a good gauge of economic power. Consider a group of people who all have high incomes but differ widely in their wealth. Who’s going to get into the country club? Who’s going to have the money to finance a new venture? Moreover, income data may not reveal the true economic power of people who are retired, or who receive their pay in securities like stocks and options or use complex strategies to avoid taxes.
Trends in the distribution of wealth can look very different from trends
in incomes, because wealth is a measure of accumulated assets, not a
flow over time. High earners add much more to their wealth every year
than low earners. Over time, wealth inequality rises even as income
inequality stays the same, and wealth inequality eventually becomes much
more severe.
This is exactly what happened in the United States. Paul Krugman looks at the increased acceptance of economic inequality.
Sunday, November 18, 2012
The Supreme Being Clause
Something to consider as we begin looking at the Texas Bill of Rights. Within the 4 sections regarding religious freedom is the Supreme Being Clause:
No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office, or public trust, in this State; nor shall any one be excluded from holding office on account of his religious sentiments, provided he acknowledge the existence of a Supreme Being.
Despite not being enforced, it is still on the books and is potentially enforceable.
The Texas Tribune reports on a group that wants to change that arguing that interferes with the right of atheists to run for public office in the state:
There are different opinions about how much the clause affects candidates’ applications for state office. Mattox agreed on behalf of the state not to enforce it, but it has never been removed from the Texas Constitution.
Forms filed by candidates seeking election do not require them to confirm a belief in a higher power, nor does the Texas Election Code, said Republican Party of Texas spokesman Christopher Elam. Some party officials have never even encountered it before. “This is the first time I’ve heard of it,” said Rebecca Acuña, a spokeswoman for the Texas Democratic Party.
Randall “Buck” Wood, an Austin elections attorney, insists that such a law could never be enforced. “If it were, it would be declared unconstitutional. We’ve had so many statutes in the Texas Constitution declared unconstitutional, but they’re still there. As long as nobody’s being injured by these, nobody brings a lawsuit, and they just sit there.”
No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office, or public trust, in this State; nor shall any one be excluded from holding office on account of his religious sentiments, provided he acknowledge the existence of a Supreme Being.
Despite not being enforced, it is still on the books and is potentially enforceable.
The Texas Tribune reports on a group that wants to change that arguing that interferes with the right of atheists to run for public office in the state:
There are different opinions about how much the clause affects candidates’ applications for state office. Mattox agreed on behalf of the state not to enforce it, but it has never been removed from the Texas Constitution.
Forms filed by candidates seeking election do not require them to confirm a belief in a higher power, nor does the Texas Election Code, said Republican Party of Texas spokesman Christopher Elam. Some party officials have never even encountered it before. “This is the first time I’ve heard of it,” said Rebecca Acuña, a spokeswoman for the Texas Democratic Party.
Randall “Buck” Wood, an Austin elections attorney, insists that such a law could never be enforced. “If it were, it would be declared unconstitutional. We’ve had so many statutes in the Texas Constitution declared unconstitutional, but they’re still there. As long as nobody’s being injured by these, nobody brings a lawsuit, and they just sit there.”
Saturday, November 17, 2012
From the Texas Tribune: State College Funding Turns on Definition of "Provide"
Here's a story that combines our look (in GOVT 2306) at both the Texas Constitution and the education in the state.
The Texas Constitution says the state will “provide for the maintenance, support and direction of a University of the first class.”
In 1984, that meant about half of every dollar in higher education came out of the state budget. Today, it’s closer to 13 percent at the University of Texas at Austin and 22 percent at Texas A&M University in College Station.
So, at that level, is the state really providing for the sort of education championed in its founding document?
The relevant part of the Constitution is Section 10 in Article 7.
Here's the text:
The legislature shall as soon as practicable establish, organize and provide for the maintenance, support and direction of a University of the first class, to be located by a vote of the people of this State, . . .
The question seems to be: Does "provide" mean state funding? Despite all the clarifying language elsewhere in the Texas Constitution, this part is up for debate.
The Texas Constitution says the state will “provide for the maintenance, support and direction of a University of the first class.”
In 1984, that meant about half of every dollar in higher education came out of the state budget. Today, it’s closer to 13 percent at the University of Texas at Austin and 22 percent at Texas A&M University in College Station.
So, at that level, is the state really providing for the sort of education championed in its founding document?
The relevant part of the Constitution is Section 10 in Article 7.
Here's the text:
The legislature shall as soon as practicable establish, organize and provide for the maintenance, support and direction of a University of the first class, to be located by a vote of the people of this State, . . .
The question seems to be: Does "provide" mean state funding? Despite all the clarifying language elsewhere in the Texas Constitution, this part is up for debate.
From OUPblog: The two-term era
When I began teaching in 1994, the standard question we asked when we covered the presidency was why presidents were unlikely to be reelected, and why Republican presidents were more likely to be reelected than Democrats.
At that time, only Eisenhower, Nixon (who was unable to finish his term) and Reagan were elected to two full terms of office. Many other had been defeated. Now with Obama's reelection, we've had three president in a row who've won second terms.
Here's a look at why that might be the case.
I find this part most compelling:
Several factors may be at work, but one stands out. Most recent incumbent presidents have enjoyed the advantage of early, unified support from their own party.
Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and Barack Obama faced no challenge when they decided to seek renomination. Certainly they had their critics within their own party, especially the Democratic incumbents. Both Clinton and Obama faced murmurings of liberal discontent. But it did not suffice to propel a challenger to enter the fray.
On the other side, George H.W. Bush encountered sharp conservative opposition from Pat Buchanan. Although Buchanan never represented a serious threat for the nomination, he did pressure Bush 41 from the right. Bush’s situation paralleled that of Johnson, Ford, and Carter, each of whom did battle with a popular rival in his own party (Eugene McCarthy, Ronald Reagan, and Ted Kennedy).
With no competition for the nomination, a sitting president does not have to engage in one of the familiar exercises of American electoral politics in the modern era — repositioning himself between the primary season and the general election campaign. Mitt Romney’s attempt to redefine himself in the final months of the campaign, to shake the “etch-a-sketch” once he sewed up the nomination, is a necessary move given the sharp difference between the primary and general electorates.
We touched on similar thoughts in class, but note that this supports the idea that political parties have transformed the constitutional system.
At that time, only Eisenhower, Nixon (who was unable to finish his term) and Reagan were elected to two full terms of office. Many other had been defeated. Now with Obama's reelection, we've had three president in a row who've won second terms.
Here's a look at why that might be the case.
I find this part most compelling:
Several factors may be at work, but one stands out. Most recent incumbent presidents have enjoyed the advantage of early, unified support from their own party.
Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and Barack Obama faced no challenge when they decided to seek renomination. Certainly they had their critics within their own party, especially the Democratic incumbents. Both Clinton and Obama faced murmurings of liberal discontent. But it did not suffice to propel a challenger to enter the fray.
On the other side, George H.W. Bush encountered sharp conservative opposition from Pat Buchanan. Although Buchanan never represented a serious threat for the nomination, he did pressure Bush 41 from the right. Bush’s situation paralleled that of Johnson, Ford, and Carter, each of whom did battle with a popular rival in his own party (Eugene McCarthy, Ronald Reagan, and Ted Kennedy).
With no competition for the nomination, a sitting president does not have to engage in one of the familiar exercises of American electoral politics in the modern era — repositioning himself between the primary season and the general election campaign. Mitt Romney’s attempt to redefine himself in the final months of the campaign, to shake the “etch-a-sketch” once he sewed up the nomination, is a necessary move given the sharp difference between the primary and general electorates.
We touched on similar thoughts in class, but note that this supports the idea that political parties have transformed the constitutional system.
From the National Journal: Blue Dogs Are Dwindling
Here's more evidence that we should expect continued gridlock in the 113th Congress. The progressive (liberal) wing of the Democratic Party has grown in strength and pushed out the more moderate and conservative members of the party who once held seats in Congress.
Here's a link to the story.
Two years ago there were 54 Blue Dog Democrats, now there are 14.
Thus far, researchers have argued that polarization in Congress has been driven primarily by conservative activists in the Republican Party who have driven out the moderate and liberal Republicans from office. That no longer appears to be the sole driver of polarization - so we can safely expect greater conflict in the next two years.
The big winner in the Congressional election appears to be the Progressive Change Campaign Committee which has pushed for the election of ideologically committed progressives.
Here's a link to the story.
Two years ago there were 54 Blue Dog Democrats, now there are 14.
Thus far, researchers have argued that polarization in Congress has been driven primarily by conservative activists in the Republican Party who have driven out the moderate and liberal Republicans from office. That no longer appears to be the sole driver of polarization - so we can safely expect greater conflict in the next two years.
The big winner in the Congressional election appears to be the Progressive Change Campaign Committee which has pushed for the election of ideologically committed progressives.
Friday, November 16, 2012
Who leads the Republican Party?
This is a question we asked of both parties when we covered the subject, but when your party looses an election - especially the second in a row - the question is especially important.
Here's one man's attempt to answer the question.
Here's one man's attempt to answer the question.
Gerrymandering Mattered
Total votes for US House races show that Democrats got more votes than Republicans, but Republicans hold more seats than Democrats. This suggests that gerrymandering following the 2010 election (the Tea Party wave where Republicans won a majority in the majority of state legislatures) worked, and may continue to work for the rest of the decade.
But there's an argument that Republicans have an advantage over Democrats regardless because Democrats are packed into fewer districts than Republicans. Democrats would have to win the House by over 52% of the total vote in order to break even with Republicans.
See How Significant was the Gerrymandering?
Here's an argument that the number of gerrymandered seats - those that lead to safe Republican and Democratic seats - will continue to make governing difficult. Only 89 out of 435 seats are competitive, defined as being where the candidates receive between 46% and 54% of the total vote.
Here's a map of the House districts with the gray districts being the competitive ones.
But there's an argument that Republicans have an advantage over Democrats regardless because Democrats are packed into fewer districts than Republicans. Democrats would have to win the House by over 52% of the total vote in order to break even with Republicans.
See How Significant was the Gerrymandering?
Here's an argument that the number of gerrymandered seats - those that lead to safe Republican and Democratic seats - will continue to make governing difficult. Only 89 out of 435 seats are competitive, defined as being where the candidates receive between 46% and 54% of the total vote.
Here's a map of the House districts with the gray districts being the competitive ones.
The Obama and Romney Vote in a Graph
From The Dish:
Unless the Republican Party begins to gain the support of non-whites, they are projected to become an increasingly minor party.
Unless the Republican Party begins to gain the support of non-whites, they are projected to become an increasingly minor party.
Texas will not set up an insurance exchange
No surprise here. Story in the Houston Chronicle:
A day before a Friday deadline, Gov. Rick Perry announced Texas would not set up a key component of the Affordable Care Act, a health-insurance exchange that would allow individuals and small businesses to find coverage online at the most favorable price.
The governor reiterated his opposition in a letter released Thursday to U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius.
"As long as the federal government has the ability to force unknown mandates and costs upon our citizens, while retaining the sole power in approving what an exchange looks like, the notion of a state exchange is merely an illusion," Perry said in the letter. "It would not be fiscally responsible to put hard-working Texans on the financial hook for an unknown amount of money to operate a system under rules that have not even been written."
The health insurance exchanges are the primary means for individuals to purchase health insurance under the ACA (Obamacare). each state is allowed to establish its own exchange if it chooses, but has to have this done soon - the deadline has been adjusted recently. These have to operational by January 1, 2014. If a states chooses not to do so, the federal government can step in to set it up.
A day before a Friday deadline, Gov. Rick Perry announced Texas would not set up a key component of the Affordable Care Act, a health-insurance exchange that would allow individuals and small businesses to find coverage online at the most favorable price.
The governor reiterated his opposition in a letter released Thursday to U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius.
"As long as the federal government has the ability to force unknown mandates and costs upon our citizens, while retaining the sole power in approving what an exchange looks like, the notion of a state exchange is merely an illusion," Perry said in the letter. "It would not be fiscally responsible to put hard-working Texans on the financial hook for an unknown amount of money to operate a system under rules that have not even been written."
The health insurance exchanges are the primary means for individuals to purchase health insurance under the ACA (Obamacare). each state is allowed to establish its own exchange if it chooses, but has to have this done soon - the deadline has been adjusted recently. These have to operational by January 1, 2014. If a states chooses not to do so, the federal government can step in to set it up.
The Legislative Budget Board sets spending limit for Texas' 2014-1015 budget
From the Houston Chronicle:
The Texas Legislative Budget Board set a $77.9 billion cap on state spending Thursday for the 2014-15 budget year, a 10 percent increase above the current discretionary spending limit.
But Republican leaders said the actual state budget likely will be less. Gov. Rick Perry and his allies have said they want to limit spending increases to population growth plus inflation. Ursula Parks, the budget board's director, told lawmakers that experts estimate that rate will be 9.85 percent in 2014-15.
The spending cap is based on the economic forecasts of state revenues over the next two years. The final cap, though, will be set by State Comptroller Susan Combs in January when she issues an official revenue estimate for 2014-15.
Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst, who presides over the Senate, said his chamber will produce an appropriations bill where spending increases are limited to that rate, and bragged that Texas ranks 49th in the nation in terms of per capita state spending.
Democratic state Rep. Sylvester Turner, vice chairman of the House finance committee, objected to making commitments before the 2013 legislative session even begins.
From Quorum Report:
The Legislative Budget Board adopted a constitutional spending limit of $77.9 billion for the coming two-year budget period, anticipating a growth in state personal income of 10.7 percent.
That’s up from the $70.4 billion in spending for the current biennium from tax revenue not constitutionally dedicated.
The LBB adopts a constitutional spending limit based on a forecast of the rate of growth in personal income in Texas over the coming fiscal biennium (FY 2014-15). It relies on five different estimates of what that rate of growth will be – some of them by private sector analysts and some in the public sector.
Those forecasts range from a low of 8.7 percent from the University of North Texas Center for Economic Development & Research to a high of 12.2 percent from Moody’s Analytics. This relatively robust growth in personal income reflects an economy in recovery helped along by high energy prices.
In the end, though, the LBB, comprised of the chambers’ leaders, budget writers and other senior leaders, sided with the estimate of 10.7 percent growth calculated by the Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts.
The Texas Legislative Budget Board set a $77.9 billion cap on state spending Thursday for the 2014-15 budget year, a 10 percent increase above the current discretionary spending limit.
But Republican leaders said the actual state budget likely will be less. Gov. Rick Perry and his allies have said they want to limit spending increases to population growth plus inflation. Ursula Parks, the budget board's director, told lawmakers that experts estimate that rate will be 9.85 percent in 2014-15.
The spending cap is based on the economic forecasts of state revenues over the next two years. The final cap, though, will be set by State Comptroller Susan Combs in January when she issues an official revenue estimate for 2014-15.
Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst, who presides over the Senate, said his chamber will produce an appropriations bill where spending increases are limited to that rate, and bragged that Texas ranks 49th in the nation in terms of per capita state spending.
Democratic state Rep. Sylvester Turner, vice chairman of the House finance committee, objected to making commitments before the 2013 legislative session even begins.
From Quorum Report:
The Legislative Budget Board adopted a constitutional spending limit of $77.9 billion for the coming two-year budget period, anticipating a growth in state personal income of 10.7 percent.
That’s up from the $70.4 billion in spending for the current biennium from tax revenue not constitutionally dedicated.
The LBB adopts a constitutional spending limit based on a forecast of the rate of growth in personal income in Texas over the coming fiscal biennium (FY 2014-15). It relies on five different estimates of what that rate of growth will be – some of them by private sector analysts and some in the public sector.
Those forecasts range from a low of 8.7 percent from the University of North Texas Center for Economic Development & Research to a high of 12.2 percent from Moody’s Analytics. This relatively robust growth in personal income reflects an economy in recovery helped along by high energy prices.
In the end, though, the LBB, comprised of the chambers’ leaders, budget writers and other senior leaders, sided with the estimate of 10.7 percent growth calculated by the Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts.
Tuesday, November 13, 2012
Bill filing begins for the 83rd session of the Texas Legislature
As per Texas law, yesterday marked the first day of bill filing for the Texas Legislature's session starting in January.
The Fort Worth Star Telegram comments on what's been introduced so far.
If the Texas Legislature doesn't pass a bill next year to outlaw texting while driving, it won't be for lack of trying.
At least six bills calling for a statewide ban on driver texting were introduced Monday on the first day lawmakers could propose legislation for the regular session that begins Jan. 8.
The first day of "pre-filing" bills traditionally is one when legislators seek to draw attention to pet projects, many of which have been tried unsuccessfully in previous sessions. It's also a day when Texans get a look at some of the major issues of the coming session.
There's much more, we'll start compiling a list of what to except soon.
The Fort Worth Star Telegram comments on what's been introduced so far.
If the Texas Legislature doesn't pass a bill next year to outlaw texting while driving, it won't be for lack of trying.
At least six bills calling for a statewide ban on driver texting were introduced Monday on the first day lawmakers could propose legislation for the regular session that begins Jan. 8.
The first day of "pre-filing" bills traditionally is one when legislators seek to draw attention to pet projects, many of which have been tried unsuccessfully in previous sessions. It's also a day when Texans get a look at some of the major issues of the coming session.
There's much more, we'll start compiling a list of what to except soon.
Monday, November 12, 2012
Week Twelve Writing Assignment
For my 16 week students, this will be your last written assignment. Give me a first draft of your 1000 word report. I'll give you two weeks to do it.
Turn it in by Monday November 26.
Turn it in by Monday November 26.
Saturday, November 10, 2012
Could pre-clearance be on the chopping block?
The Supreme Court has agreed to hear a case involving the Voting Rights Act.
From the NYT:
The Supreme Court announced on Friday that it would take a fresh look at the constitutionality of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, one of the signature legacies of the civil rights movement.
Three years ago, the court signaled that part of the law may no longer be needed, and the law’s challengers said the re-election of the nation’s first black president is proof that the nation has moved beyond the racial divisions that gave rise to efforts to protect the integrity of elections in the South.
The law “is stuck in a Jim Crow-era time warp,” said Edward P. Blum, director of the Project on Fair Representation, a small legal foundation that helped organize the suit.
Civil rights leaders, on the other hand, pointed to the role the law played in the recent election, with courts relying on it to block voter identification requirements and cutbacks on early voting.
“In the midst of the recent assault on voter access, the Voting Rights Act is playing a pivotal role beating back discriminatory voting measures,” said Debo P. Adegbile, the acting president of the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund.
The Supreme Court’s ruling on the law, expected by June, could reshape how elections are conducted.
From the NYT:
The Supreme Court announced on Friday that it would take a fresh look at the constitutionality of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, one of the signature legacies of the civil rights movement.
Three years ago, the court signaled that part of the law may no longer be needed, and the law’s challengers said the re-election of the nation’s first black president is proof that the nation has moved beyond the racial divisions that gave rise to efforts to protect the integrity of elections in the South.
The law “is stuck in a Jim Crow-era time warp,” said Edward P. Blum, director of the Project on Fair Representation, a small legal foundation that helped organize the suit.
Civil rights leaders, on the other hand, pointed to the role the law played in the recent election, with courts relying on it to block voter identification requirements and cutbacks on early voting.
“In the midst of the recent assault on voter access, the Voting Rights Act is playing a pivotal role beating back discriminatory voting measures,” said Debo P. Adegbile, the acting president of the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund.
The Supreme Court’s ruling on the law, expected by June, could reshape how elections are conducted.
Is the power of the Christian Right fading?
From the NYT:
Christian conservatives, for more than two decades a pivotal force in American politics, are grappling with Election Day results that repudiated their influence and suggested that the cultural tide — especially on gay issues — has shifted against them.
They are reeling not only from the loss of the presidency, but from what many of them see as a rejection of their agenda. They lost fights against same-sex marriage in all four states where it was on the ballot, and saw anti-abortion-rights Senate candidates defeated and two states vote to legalize marijuana for recreational use.
It is not as though they did not put up a fight; they went all out as never before: The Rev. Billy Graham dropped any pretense of nonpartisanship and all but endorsed Mitt Romney for president. Roman Catholic bishops denounced President Obama’s policies as a threat to life, religious liberty and the traditional nuclear family. Ralph Reed’s Faith and Freedom Coalition distributed more voter guides in churches and contacted more homes by mail and phone than ever before.
“Millions of American evangelicals are absolutely shocked by not just the presidential election, but by the entire avalanche of results that came in,” R. Albert Mohler Jr., president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, in Louisville, Ky., said in an interview. “It’s not that our message — we think abortion is wrong, we think same-sex marriage is wrong — didn’t get out. It did get out.
“It’s that the entire moral landscape has changed,” he said. “An increasingly secularized America understands our positions, and has rejected them.”
Christian conservatives, for more than two decades a pivotal force in American politics, are grappling with Election Day results that repudiated their influence and suggested that the cultural tide — especially on gay issues — has shifted against them.
They are reeling not only from the loss of the presidency, but from what many of them see as a rejection of their agenda. They lost fights against same-sex marriage in all four states where it was on the ballot, and saw anti-abortion-rights Senate candidates defeated and two states vote to legalize marijuana for recreational use.
It is not as though they did not put up a fight; they went all out as never before: The Rev. Billy Graham dropped any pretense of nonpartisanship and all but endorsed Mitt Romney for president. Roman Catholic bishops denounced President Obama’s policies as a threat to life, religious liberty and the traditional nuclear family. Ralph Reed’s Faith and Freedom Coalition distributed more voter guides in churches and contacted more homes by mail and phone than ever before.
“Millions of American evangelicals are absolutely shocked by not just the presidential election, but by the entire avalanche of results that came in,” R. Albert Mohler Jr., president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, in Louisville, Ky., said in an interview. “It’s not that our message — we think abortion is wrong, we think same-sex marriage is wrong — didn’t get out. It did get out.
“It’s that the entire moral landscape has changed,” he said. “An increasingly secularized America understands our positions, and has rejected them.”
Polling aggregators are here to stay
When we cover public opinion, we commonly look at pollsters and polling organizations like the Gallup Poll. Now, based on the attention people like Nate Silver received in this election, we will also be looking at polling aggregators. These are people that take the data received by various polling firms and average them out using algorithms they develop that compensate for anything in the specific polls they find problematic.
Here is C-Net's appraisal of Nate Silver's performance.
One concern expressed by commentators is that all this attention to aggregators may detract from the importance of polling itself. If there are no polls, then there are no aggregators. Might this attention to aggregators minimize that given to polls?
Here is C-Net's appraisal of Nate Silver's performance.
One concern expressed by commentators is that all this attention to aggregators may detract from the importance of polling itself. If there are no polls, then there are no aggregators. Might this attention to aggregators minimize that given to polls?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)