From the NYT: Newt Gingrich and the Future of the Right

Thomas Edsall looks at the dilemmas facing members of the Christian Right as they try to settle on a Republican to back. He argues that the movement is still trying to adjust to the shifting opinions in the general electorate. This applies to the entire party as well:

The larger issue facing the Republican Party is how it will respond to political market forces, to the pressure of changes in public opinion. The party could open up beyond its core believers to accommodate old-school Republican moderates and hold on to its libertarians and still have decent size, strength and power.

But the country is going through a profound restructuring in moral and economic thinking and the danger for Republicans is that their current coalition might become obsolete. If the party doesn’t adapt, the alternative is that its power centers — the Christian right, anti-immigration forces, and proponents of policies that benefit the affluent at the expense of the less well-off — will refuse to adjust, in which case the party risks going the way of the Studebaker.
In 2301 we will be discussing parties soon enough and come to terms with their coalition nature - they each tend to be composed of groups that fight among each other for control.

Obama meets with House Democrats at retreat

A week after House Republicans met to start off the new session, House Democrats did the same. President Obama spoke to the group to attempt to rally them as the election season heats up. His ability to rally them in the past has been considered suspect.

Some stories regarding the meeting:

- Obama rallies House Democrats at retreat.
- House Democrats Huddle With Biden and Obama Today.

- President, Buoyed by Rising Numbers, Seeks to Rally Democrats.



The feeling seems to be that improving economic numbers combined with questions about either of his potential rivals make re-election (never a guarantee) more likely, and that an enthusiastic base would be more likely to make that happen. House Democrats are toying with the possibility that they may be able to take back the House this year, though other caution that redistricting and restrictions on voting may make this more difficult.

A year after the start of the Arab Spring, now what?

Something for 2301:

Revolutions, including the American revolution, tend to have two distinct part. The first is the fight for either independence, or to overthrow an existing regime, and it generally includes a broad coalition of groups that have a shared grievance against the existing leadership. The second is the fight over what is to replace the now defunct regime and it usually outs those coalitions that had been allies, in conflict with each other.

The first step in the American Revolution was the war of independence, and the roughly 2/3rds of the colonial population that were not loyalists cooperated more or less to achieve independence. After the Treaty of Paris was signed, the battle in the United States pitted the commercial classes against the agrarians over whose interests were going to be protected in the new republic. The ratification of the Constitution was a victory for the commercial classes.

That seems to be a useful way to frame the state of the Arab Spring. A series of nations threw off autocratic rule, but none have as yet determined exactly what will replace them. Each nation had a different history and the institutions in each are at different level of development. Some. like Libya, have to build them from scratch. Others, like Egypt, have established institutions, but there is no indication yet which forces in society will control them.

This will be monitored for years, if not decades.

The conflict over SOPA and PIPA was good for lobbyists

First, content providers spent tons of cash lobbying in favor of them, then Google and Wikipedia began spending money to fight it. And all this money may end up simply leading to a stalemate.

Congressional Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) Caucus

A telling story from Open Secrets. Four leading military contractors who stand to benefit from the development of a new fighter have contributed just over $300,000 to the campaigns of 48 House members who have joined the Congressional Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) Caucus. The bulk of the money is going to the co-chairs of the caucus. Considering the amount of money spent on the program, the contributions seem tiny. A potentially wise investment.

One of the co-chairs is Kay Granger who represents a district surrounding Fort Worth, where these fighters will very likely be built. Other members of the caucus also represent district that will receive benefits from the program, as well as jobs and something to crow about each election.

3 - Written Assignment GOVT 2301 Spring Semester

If you've been following the news, the post office is in trouble financially. Online communication has made its business model somewhat problematic. So you might ask: why do we have a federally run post office to begin with? As we will see this week as we look over the structure of the Constitution, it seems to be one of the delegated powers of the national government:

Article One, Section Eight, Clause Seven is the Postal Clause: The Congress shall have the power to "establish Post Offices and post Roads".

I want you to find out why that particular clause is in the Constitution (what was the "intent" of the founders regarding the post office), what the current debate is regarding the state of the post office and how is may be modified to deal with the current realities of 21st century communications. 

3 - Written Assignment GOVT 2302 Spring Semester

This week we will be reading through Article 1 of the US Constitution and Article 3 of the Texas Constitution which outline, respectively, the US Congress and the Texas Legislature. As we already know, they are bicameral, meaning that they are composed of two fundamentally different chambers, one which is connected somewhat tightly to the preferences of the electorate, and the other which is not. Conflict between the House and the Senate is intentional and ought to be considered to be part of the broader system of checks and balances - one that is fully internal within the legislature.

But then again, maybe this claim is unwarranted. Perhaps they rubber stamp each other's decisions.

I want you to look through the news and find examples of conflict between the House and the Senate and try to come to terms with the nature of that conflict. Does it seem to be due to the fundamental difference between the two institutions? Any recent news item will do. Do they seem to be checking each other as they were constitutionally intended to?
 

Policy Proposals in the SOTU

Ezra Klein runs through five major policy proposals in the State of the Union Address. These will give us something to chew on over the semester as we discuss public policy, the pros and cons of different proposals and whether they are politically feasible.

1 - The Buffet Tax - which loosely argues that secretaries should not be taxed at a higher rate than bosses. More specifically, people making more than $1 million a year should pay at least a 30% tax rate.

2 - A Global Minimum Tax must be established to multinational companies will not have an incentive to shelter their incomes in countries with lower tax rates than ours.

3 - An infrastructure bill where half of the savings of ending the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan will be spent building up roads, bridges, dams etc here at home.

4 - A mass refinancing plan to allow more home-owners to refinance their mortgages.

5 - An expedited process for voting up or down on nominees in the Senate.

Expect written questions on some of these subjects in the near future.

Some hearings in the House: 1/25/12

For 2302, in order to get comfortable with committees and the legislative process. These links are from the House website as of today:

- Hearing: A Legislative Hearing on H.R. 3548, the North American Energy Access Act. Committee on Energy and Commerce: Subcommittee on Energy and Power.

- Business Meeting: To consider legislation amending Title VII of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. Committee on Agriculture: Full Committee

- Hearing: H.R. 3582, H.R. 3578, H.R. 3581, H.R. 3575. Committee On The Budget: Full CommitteeThe bills listed separately:
- H.R. 3582, Pro-Growth Budgeting Act of 2011

- H.R. 3578, Baseline Reform Act of 2011
- H.R. 3581, Budget and Accounting Transparency Act of 2011
- H.R. 3575, Legally Binding Budget Act of 2011
Here are three separate hearings in the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee

- Hearing: Volt Vehicle Fire: What Did NHTSA Know And When Did They Know It? Committee on Oversight and Government Reform: Subcommittee on Regulatory Affairs.

- Hearing: Retirement Readiness: Strengthening The Federal Pension System. Committee on Oversight and Government Reform: Subcommittee on Federal Workforce

- Hearing: Solutions Needed: Improper Payments Total $115 Billion In Federal Misspending. Committee on Oversight and Government Reform: Subcommittee on Government Organization

Blueprint for Basic Tax Reform

In a link buried below, Bruce Bartlett points to a 1977 report on tax reform. Here's a link to it. This might make a good subject for a 2302 written assignment when we touch on fiscal policy.

From the Austin American Statesman: Conservative groups disagree on gambling

Last week in 2301 we introduced the topic of ideology and how it helps us understand political conflict. Liberals on one side of issues and conservatives on the other. I mentioned this is simplistic and stumbled across an article pointing out a conservative split on whether gambling - casino gambling most likely - should be permitted in the state.

On one side you have the Americans for Tax Reform and small government / anti tax guru Grover Norquist. He wrote a letter to state legislators urging them to consider expanding gambling in order to counter projected budget problems during the next session.

On the other is the Texas Public Policy, which shares some of the same small government goals, but is funded by individuals with social conservative backgrounds. They'd rather not see gambling in the state. Morally minded conservatives tend to oppose gambling. So there's your tension.

Liberals tend to also be split by gambling as well, so perhaps this is one of those issues that ideology as we know it does not help us make sense of.

Here's input from a smart guy - and the general topic of the internal and external coherence of ideology:

I remember thinking about this several years ago regarding positions on legalized gambling (casinos, state lotteries, and the like). Some commentators were liberal and pro-gambling (people should be allowed to gamble if they want, without fundamentalist bible thumpers telling them what to do), some were conservative and pro-gambling (people should be allowed to gamble if they want, without do-gooder liberals telling them what to do), and similarly on the other side. And I recall reading passionate arguments from various of these perspectives.

On aggregate, I suspect there’s a slight correlation between being a liberal or Democrat and supporting gambling (it’s a traditional morals issue, after all, William F. Bennett notwithstanding), but the correlation is surely weak if there at all

 

Tax Reform and the State of the Union Address

Romney's revelation that he paid a 13.9% effective tax rate on his recent taxes may spur attention to tax reform. Both former TX Rep. Martin Frost and Andrew Sullivan think Obama should highlight tax reform (Bruce Bartlett's suggestions are here) in his State of the Union message tonight. This article reports that it will be a major component of the speech. Frost suggests that he can argue for lower rates, while cutting back on exemptions, and end up with a system that is both more equitable and collects more revenue.

In a related post, Sullivan wonders how and why the capital gains tax rate is so low compared with rates applied to earned income. The how should be interesting to us, and might be the subject of a written assignment some time in the near future. What political forces were able to drive down the capital gains rate at the expense of other tax rates?

Neat symbolism: Obama supports the "Buffet Rule" which simply states that the tax code should not force Warren Buffett's secretary should not have to pay a higher rate than her boss. Buffett's secretary will be at the speech tonight.

Perry's departure

Before too much time passes, here's a rundown of various reactions to Perry's withdrawal from the presidential race.

Aside from comments about what makes a good campaign and what doesn't, the most interesting thought concerns what this means for Perry's future. How much pull does he still have in the state?

Montana Challenges Citizens United

The Montana Supreme Court has defied the US Supreme Court by upholding state law - the 1912 Corrupt Practices Act - which places limits on corporate contributions, the exact thing that the US Supreme Court found to violate free speech rights in the increasingly infamous Citizens United decision.

The Montana law was passed as a direct consequence of corruption instigated by corporations - copper companies primarily - doing business in the state. The state claims that this is still an issue justifying limits of corporate election financing. The case will be appealed to the Supreme Court, which has the opportunity to revisit it previous ruling.

For further info:
- Montana High Court Says 'Citizens United' Does Not Apply In Big Sky State.

- Montana State Supreme Court: Citizens United Not Welcome Here.

- The Beginning of the End of Citizens United?

In the US Senate today . . .

Just to keep up to date, from January 23rd's calendar:

4:00 p.m.: Proceed to executive session to consider the nomination of John M. Gerrard to be United States District Judge for the District of Nebraska.

The Senate Glossary defines an executive session as one where "A portion of the Senate's daily session in which it considers executive business." Wikipedia's section on the standing rules of the Senate has more, in addition to a list of the executive positions subject to advise and consent.


Here's background on John M. Gerrard. He was appointed on the recommendation of retiring Nebraska Senator Ben Nelson. This is the customary way that Federal District Judges are appointment when one of the state's US Senators are of the same party as the president. Alabama Senator Sessions has opposed Gerrard's nomination partly due to an opinion he issued challenging whether the executions by electric chair was constitutional.


If approved, Gerrard would fill a vacancy on the court (here's the Wikipedia page for the court, here's the court's website) and become its sixth judge. This is the only district court for the state of Nebraska. There are 89 such courts across the country. Each state has to have one according to the Constitution. 

What is a US District Judge you ask? The US Court's website explains (its the trial court on the federal level) here's more info from the relevant Wikipedia page.

The appointment and confirmation has become increasingly contentious. Senate rules allow a minority to prevent confirmation votes - or any vote really - from going to the floor. Reports suggest that judicial vacancies have risen during the Obama Administration. Here are numbers from the US Courts site and judicialnomination.org.

For a list of Obama's judicial nominees, click here.

The police need warrants needed to put GPS devices on cars.

This wraps up another case we first discussed in the fall.

From the Washington Post:

The Supreme Court ruled unanimously Monday that police must obtain a search warrant before using a GPS device to track criminal suspects. But the justices left for another day larger questions about how technology has altered a person’s expectation of privacy.

Justice Antonin Scalia wrote that the government needed a valid warrant before attaching a GPS device to the Jeep used by D.C. drug kingpin Antoine Jones, who was convicted in part because police tracked his movements on public roads for 28 days.

“We hold that the government’s installation of a GPS device on a target’s vehicle, and its use of that device to monitor the vehicle’s movements, constitutes a ‘search’ ” under the Fourth Amendment’s protection against unreasonable searches and seizures, Scalia wrote.

More from ScotusBlog, including links to all relevant court documents.

Some Legislative News

For this week's 2302 as we begin discussing the legislature, some random news items:

- House approves symbolic resolution disapproving of debt-ceiling raise.

- Votes scheduled for this week in the House:
- - Buffalo Soldiers in the National Parks Study Act
- - Permanent Electronic Duck Stamp Act of 2011
- - Rota Cultural and Natural Resources Study Act
- - World War II Memorial Prayer Act of 2011

- House Republicans huddle to debate 2012 tax strategy.

- Recovering Giffords Steps Down.




- House GOP Uses Retreat to Lay 2012 Plans.

One Person One Vote under fire?

Possibly. ScotusBlog outlines a recent decision by the Supreme Court wondering whether the requirements that districts redrawn every ten years be done so that each has the exact number of people in them. At various points in 2301 and 2302 we discuss Baker v Carr, which established the concept of equal representation in newly redrawn districts. This decision might represent a scaling back of that decision.

Supreme Court throws out judge drawn district map

The saga that is Texas' districting plan continues. From the Washington Post:

The Supreme Court on Friday set aside court-drawn redistricting plans for Texas that were favored by minorities and Democrats, saying the lower court “exceeded its mission” by not deferring to maps drawn by the state legislature.

In an unsigned opinion that drew no dissents, the justices said a legislature’s reapportionment plan should be the “starting point” for judges who are called upon to draw maps when there are constitutional challenges. . .

. . . The Supreme Court’s opinion was the first round in a series of looming challenges in which the justices are likely to be asked to referee battles over redistricting, the application of the Voting Rights Act of 1964 and the Obama administration’s vow to police voter law changes enacted by Republican-dominated state legislatures.


The Supreme Court decision can be found here. The San Antonio court has to redraw the map, which means that it is likely that Texas' primary - which has already been postponed until April - will be postponed further until June. Commentators point out that Clarence Thomas authored a concurring opinion arguing that the requirement that Texas' district maps be pre-cleared - based in the Voting Rights Act - is unconstitutional. No one else signed along.

2 - Written Assignment GOVT 2302 Spring Semester

As we've mentioned in class - and as I've posted on below - President Obama's recent resess appointments have raised an important two fold question that the courts will likely have to weigh in on soon. First, what is a session of Congress - and does a pro-forma session qualify as a real session? And second, who gets to make this decision?

I want you to research and review the argumwents on either side of the issue and speculate on what decision is likely to be made ultimately.

150 words at a minimum, remember to submit this in blackboard.

Here are past posts on recess appointments.

2 - Written Assignment GOVT 2301 Spring Semester

As I suggested below, this week I want my 2301s to weigh in on the possible implications of a bit of loose language in the Declaration of Independence - which is the subject of this week's class.

The sentence itself is quite famous: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." The word "among" suggests that there are more than three listed, but how are we to figure out what those additional rights might be? And what does this tell about conflicts about the meaning of fundamental documents?

In 150 words weigh in on this question: Are there unalienable rights that exist beyond the three listed in the Declaration of Independence? If so, how can we tell what they night be? That last part might be the tricky part.

This will set us up for a further exploration of conflicts over the meaning of language within the Constitution.

Who represents future generations?

Here's a provocative read that relates to both 2301 and 2302. We are a representative democracy under the theory that people ought to be able to consent to the rules that will impact us, but many decisions made today really only have an impact - good or bad - on future generations.

How are their interests best represented?

Five Public Policy Priorities

Here's one person's list of 5 trends calling for attention by government leaders. We can file this away for a  future 2302 discussion of public policy.

In reverse order:

5. The U.S.’s Strategic Pivot Toward the Pacific

4. Technological Changes Empowering Small Groups and Non-State Actors

3. Political Dysfunction

2. Natural Resource Scarcity

1. America’s National Debt

The Magna Carta in the news

I'm preparing material for next week's 2301 and 2302, both of which will include discussions of the Magna Carta and its role in the establishment of the foundation for our Constitution and our governing institutions.

Here are a couple stories where the document has been recently cited.

First, three freshmen members of the New Hampshire legislature have introduced legislation - HB 1580 - that will require legislation to find its origins in the Magna Carta.

From the bill: "All members of the general court proposing bills and resolutions addressing individual rights or liberties shall include a direct quote from the Magna Carta which sets forth the article from which the individual right or liberty is derived," is the bill's one sentence.

Commentators wonder whether this is in fact feasible. Plus there are some problmatic parts of the charter dealing with religious minorities. The authors of the bill have admitted to not actually having read much of the document.

Second, the Supreme Court - in a unanimous decision - ruled that religious organizations are exempt from following laws limiting unequal treatment for the disabled because doing so would allow government to wade into the issue of who is and is not a minister. The decision introduces logic dating back to language in the Magna Carta (see section one) stating that the "church shall be free." Here's quote from the decision:

Controversy between church and state over religious offices is hardly new. In 1215, the issue was addressed in the very first clause of Magna Carta. There, King John agreed that "the English church shall be free, and shall have its rights undiminished and its liberties unimpaired." [*7] The King in particular accepted the "freedom of elections," a right "thought to be of the greatest necessity and importance to the English church." J. Holt, Magna Carta App. IV, p. 317, cl. 1 (1965).
The ministerial exception - where laws applying to you and I may not necessarily apply to ministers - builds off this statement. It continues to discuss the evolving nature of the separation between church and state after this episode. I suggest you try reading through it.

- The entire case from ScotusBlog.

Thinking about next week's written assignments

I haven;t finalized these yet, but for 2301 I'll probably ask something very loose about how were might determine what unalienable rights might exist "among" those written in the Declaration of Independence. For 2302, a more specific question regarding the question raised by Obama's recent recess appointments. What is a session of Congress? What isn't? And perhaps more importantly, who gets to decide.

I'll have them up - probably - Sunday.

Do Wifi Scum Have First Amendment Rights?

This is a bit too touchy to discuss in class, but it could be worth a read. Should it - or more properly, can it - be a crime to have a racist wifi network name?

Does "stop and frisk" violate the principle of equal treatment before the law?

This story allows us to look ahead to our discussion of the 14th Amendment and the equal protection clause. Young black and Latino males tend to be stopped and searched far more than other people. Does this pose a constitutional problem?

- Wikipedia: Frisking.
- Legal Definition from the Free Dictionary.
- Comments from Legal Zoom.

What Texas money can't buy

For anyone not named Bush - it can't get you elected President. What does this tell us about the influence of money in politics? Is it overstated? Necessary but not sufficient? Maybe its just a Texas thing.

Today is the one year anniversary of the House vote to repeal health care reform

The bill was called the Repealing the Job Killing Health Care Law Act (HR 2). It failed in the Senate - which was controlled by Democrats -but the Washington Post details changes that have happened to the original bill since it was passed two years ago.

A New Crop of Lobbyists?

A lrage number of members of Congress have announced that they will be retiring after this session and lobbying firms intend to hire them. Its the revolving dorr and helsp explain how iron triangles form.

Corporate headhunters are sizing up the K Street prospects of the retiring members of the 112th Congress — and they like what they see.

Twenty-five representatives and senators so far have announced they will retire from Capitol Hill after this year’s election. Executives who work to place ex-lawmakers at law firms, lobby shops and corporate boards are monitoring the outgoing lawmakers and discussing who could go where — and how much they would earn.

“We are doing a mock draft with some of our clients,” Ivan Adler, a principal with the McCormick Group, told The Hill.
A mock draft - nice analogy.

Did the Blackout Work?

Wikipedia's decision - along with other websites - to close down Wednesday seems to have had an impact on Congress.

The Hill reports that support for the bills crumbled, with Senate Republicans leading the charge.

PC World details the following results:

-4.5 million people signed Google's anti-SOPA/PIPA petition, according to the Los Angeles Times

-25 Senators now oppose PIPA (the Senate version of SOPA), according to OpenCongress

-Twitter saw more than 2.4 million SOPA-related tweets between midnight and 4 p.m. Eastern on Wednesday

-Two SOPA co-sponsors and several others dropped support for the House bill

-More than 162 million people saw Wikipedia's protest page

-More than 8 million people used Wikipedia's search tool to look up their elected representatives' contact information

-News Corp. Chairman and CEO Rupert Murdoch accused "the blogosphere" of "terrorizing many senators and congressmen who previously committed" to SOPA and PIPA.

-Conservative publication The National Review called on Congress to dump SOPA
Here's a nice graphic showing who changed positions on the bill.

Two Stories Regarding Autocracy

For this week's 2301 introduction:

- Russia's civilization model? It's autocracy. A scholar reacts to Vladimir Putin's claim that his attempt to expand power have been beneficial to Russia. 

- Hungary's Rush Towards Autocracy. "Its right-wing nationalist government has launched an assault on its democratic system of government. Using a two-thirds majority in parliament, it has pushed through a new constitution as well as a series of fundamental laws that give the ruling party sweeping powers over the judiciary, the media, churches and the central bank. With the new charter and laws taking effect Jan. 1, the government of Prime Minister Viktor Orban now more resembles the autocratic regimes of Russia and Belarus than fellow E.U. democracies."

Obama's recess appointments might not hold up in court

Charles Fried - a former Solicitor General who has argued that health care reform is constitutional - thinks the court may be unwilling to find Obama's recent recess appointment constitutional since they probably will not want to step into the debate about what is and is not a session of Congress:

“It’s untested ground. If I were a judge, I could write out an opinion either way. There’s no clear precedent,” said Charles Fried, a constitutional expert at Harvard Law School who served as solicitor general under former President Reagan.

The Justice Department has argued that the pro forma sessions the Senate has held since Dec. 17 do not constitute genuine sessions of work and that the upper chamber has been, for all practical purposes, on vacation.

But Fried, who has sided with the Obama administration on challenges to the constitutionality of healthcare reform, said courts might not be willing to judge what qualifies as working sessions of the Senate, especially considering how much time the chamber spends on quorum calls lately.

“A court might very well say that we don’t want to start saying something the Senate calls a session is not a real session because not a lot of senators are around,” Fried said. “One might say that this whole year is one which is not a real session.”

Santorum Wins Iowa Caucus - Maybe?

From the Washington Post:

Republican front-runner Mitt Romney’s narrow lead in the Iowa caucuses disappeared when officials certified the vote count, a Republican involved in the process said Thursday, but former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum cannot be declared the winner because of irregularities in some precincts.

Regarding Romney's effective tax rate

Commentators are wondering if Romney will suffer from his admission that he pays taxes at a 15% effective rate while most other Americans pay a higher rate. The variance is due to the fact that investments are taxes at 15% while income is taxed according to a progressive marginal rate. There's debate about how this compares to everyone else's. Here a take that claims if you make $50,000 your effective rate is 16% and it goes up to almost 30% if you earn $1 million. Here's an alternative take here, with different numbers.

We should try to figure out which is correct, but regardless, it raises questions about how fairly the tax burden is spread (never mind that current tax rates do not - have generally not - paid for the costs of government. The rest is funded by selling bonds, which have to be repaid sometime down the road).

Ezra Klein has an interesting take on how Romney might be politically deal with this revelation:

Here's what we know, or think we know, about Mitt Romney's tax returns: He's paying an effective rate of 15 percent. He has millions of dollars stored in investment funds in the Cayman Islands. And though he says “I have nothing in them that suggests there’s any problem," he originally wasn't going to release them at all, and though he backed off of that position, now he won't release them until April. Why wait till April? Well, here's one theory: April is after Super Tuesday.

If the returns are released when Romney is already effectively the GOP nominee, the Republican Party will rally around him and treat the attacks on his returns as just one more partisan assault. They'll note, for instance, that if you combined John Kerry and Theresa Heinz Kerry's 2004 tax returns, the Kerrys were only paying an effective tax rate of 13 percent. They'll argue, as James Pethokoukis did yesterday, that the problem isn't that Romney managed to lower his tax bill, but that every other American hasn't been able to do the same.

But if they're released before that, and they contain other embarrassing revelations, they may lead the GOP, or at least a substantial portion of it, to conclude that Romney is not the strongest candidate to put up against President Obama in November. So the Romney campaign appears to have made a simple judgment: if the candidate's tax returns are going to pose a problem, better they pose a problem when Republicans have nowhere else to go.

That makes good strategic sense for the Romney campaign. It's not as obviously a winning strategy for the Republican Party. In an editorial published last night, the conservative National Review put it starkly. "It is critical that Romney release his tax records now, that voters might 'take a look and decide if we’ve got a flawed candidate,'" they wrote. "We know that should Romney become the nominee, he will be criticized over the sources of his wealth and will have to effectively respond. Republican primary voters deserve to see whether he can do so before they vote."

Its worth pointing out that the lower rate paid by investors almost certainly is a product of their greater influence in Congress than those who survive by earning incomes. We will note that Madison in Federalist #10 warned that powerful interests in Congress would ensure that the tax burden would fall more on those with less pull in the institution.

- Newt Gingrich says he paid 31% in 2010.
- George Romney paid a 37% tax rate.

A 22,000% return on investments

That's what Jack Abramoff claims businesses get for their investments in lobbyists (or at least those that hired him), and its far larger than what they can expect from investments in research and development. This shodul lead to a discussion of what exactly businesses (or anyone else for that matter) expect to get from Congress.

- story here.

I picked up this link from the previous story.

Innovators v Goliath

The authors of this article claim that the battle over SOPA and PIPA comes down to conflict between companies whose interests are served by innovating, and those who seek to preserve the status quo. They argue that the companies that pushing the bills are attempting to stifle the free market by muzzling innovation, and using political connections to do it:

SOPA and PIPA are prime examples of big companies trying to do everything they can to stop new competitors from innovating. They're also examples of how lobbying in the United States has become one of the most effective ways of limiting this sort of competition.

. . . If you take a look at many of the largest backers of SOPA or PIPA — the Business of Software Alliance, Comcast, Electronic Arts, Ford, L'Oreal, Scholastic, Sony, Disney — you'll see that they represent a wide range of businesses. Some are technology companies, some are content companies, some are historic innovators, and some are not. But one characteristic is the same across all of SOPA's supporters — they all have an interest in preserving the status quo. If there is meaningful innovation by startups in content creation and delivery, the supporters of SOPA and PIPA are poised to lose.

Even for those SOPA supporters that are historic innovators, their organizations focus on improving products in the pursuit of profit. They innovate to increase prices and limit production cost. Even when new models and technologies give rise to huge businesses, these incumbent firms reject meaningful innovation.

On the other side of the debate, you'll see a few the most successful companies in recent history. Wikipedia. Google. Twitter. Zynga. What these firms have in common is they have upended entire industries — and many are still in the process of doing so. Each of these businesses has roots in embracing new technologies and building models to deliver value to customers at the lowest cost. They're fighting this legislation because they're aware it will tip the finely tuned balance of creative destruction against startups and very much in favor of companies unwilling to embrace change.

So Congress is dealing with a conflict between business interests - which is what it was designed to do from the beginning. Its not uncommon for business who normally promote market competition to use their political power to place restrictions on it in order to preserve their status. The authors are concerned about what this means for future American competitiveness:

SOPA is a legislative attempt by big companies with vested interests to protect their downside. And unfortunately, these companies have conscripted Congress to help them. What's worse is that even though limiting start-up innovation might help big content in the short run, it's not going to do them in favors in the long run. Nor is going to do America any favors. In the midst of one of the worst recessions in living memory, passage of legislation like this is just going to result in innovators moving to geographies where the regulatory environment is more favorable. Start-ups will be less competitive in the United States and we'll have effectively disabled one of the few remaining growth engines of the economy.

No Wikipedia Tomorrow

To protest SOPA and other measures that strengthen intellectual property online by giving the Justice Department additional power to shut down sites with copyrighted material.

- here's how they explain their position.

The conflict pits Hollywood vs Silicon Valley (roughly). Content creators vs content distributors. Eacg has an interest and is seeking to influence Congress to address that interest. Its what Congress does.

Congress is back in session

And this guy does not seem too impressed by the fact:

The most-hated Congress on record is back in session today, as the House of Representatives reconvenes after the holiday break for some good old-fashioned election-year gridlock. (The Senate won't join them in Washington until next week.) With the entire House and one-third of the Senate up for re-election — and oh, yeah, that pesky presidential race — experts expect one of the most dysfunctional legislative bodies of all-time to accomplish even less that it did in its first go-around.


- Job approval is just 13% in one charitable poll.
- It is non-productive.
- And no one seems to expect it to get much done this year.

Direct Democracy in Wisconsin

A recall election against their governor seems to have collected enough petitions to go forward.

In the US House of Representatives this week . . .

To prep 2302 for our discussion of the legislature starting next week, here are a few items from today's schedule. We'll dig into the subject matter of each as a way to figure out what's going in the House. Other items will be considered as they become pertinent.

First some hearings in committees in the House:

- H.J. Res. 98 - Relating to the disapproval of the President's exercise of authority to increase the debt limit. Committee on Rules: Full Committee.

- Examining the Impact of the Volcker Rule on Markets,Businesses, Investors and Job Creation Committee on Financial Services: Joint Committee Hearing: Subcommittee on Capital Markets and Government Sponsored Enterprises.

- Government Mandated DNS Blocking and Search Takedowns - Will It End the Internet as We Know It Committee on Oversight and Government Reform: Full Committee.

A Review of the Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy Committee on Science, Space, and Technology: Energy Subcommittee.

And some recent votes in the House:

- 949
- H RES 501
- Passed
- Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives regarding any final measure to extend the payroll tax holiday, extend Federally funded unemployment insurance benefits, or prevent decreases in reimbursement for physicians who provide care to Medicare beneficiaries

- 948
- H R 3630 
- Failed
- On motion to go to conference - To provide incentives for the creation of jobs, and for other purposes

- 946
- H R 3630
- Passed
- On motion to instruct conferees - To provide incentives for the creation of jobs, and for other purposes

- 945
- H RES 502
- Passed

- Providing for consideration of the Senate amendments to the bill (H.R. 3630) to provide incentives for the creation of jobs; and providing for consideration of the resolution (H.Res. 501)

On this day in history - 27 BC

Well yesterday actually, Augustus Caesar becomes emperor and the era of the Roman Republic comes to an end, and the era of empire begins. We make a big deal about this in 2301. Its a transition the founding generation wished to avoid.

Shifting attitudes about Martin Luther King

John Sides highlights a year old Gallup Poll that shows how attitudes about Martin Luther King have shifted over time. Note how the favorable and unfavorable numbers have shifted.



It's worth assessing why and what this tells us about public opinion. Like many public figures of the past - meaning they've been dead for some time - MLK is no longer a flesh and blood person, but is an icon. Personal animosity has long since subsided, so people no longer evaluate him based on feelings about an actual person, rather what that person stands for.

This shift happens of course not because people changed their minds about him, but because those who formed opinions of him while he was alive - and was a more controversial public figure - are themselves dead. Or if not, getting on in years. Many who form opinions now do so based on what they learn in history books, and the lessons it contains tend to be very positive. It's tough to come out strongly against someone who stood for civil rights and was killed doing so. This is an example of generational politics - something my 2301s hit when we discuss public opinion.

The same thing happens with all sorts of public figures - people like Washington and Lincoln were far more polarizing in their day than they are now. Its worth considering what future opinions about current polarizing figures (maybe W Bush and Obama) might be in the future once those who have personal grudges against them, or affinity towards them are no longer around to answer pollster's questions.  

Might Russia become a democracy after all?

A point I briefly make in the introductory slides in 2301 is that democracies tend to develop in places where a strong middle class has evolved and pushes for political power. The Moscow Times argues that despite setbacks in recent years, including apparent attempts by Vladimir Putin to consolidate control of the nation, a Russian middle class is asserting itself.

People who study democratization often argue that economic freedom - market reforms - have to preceed political freedom. Increased per capita wealth - especially is it is spread somewhat equitably - give people the autonomy and strength to participate politically and to effectively make demands on government. The authors argues that the basis for a transformation to democracy has already been laid in Russia, but the market transformation has to be supported by the vigorous political class. Increased per-capita income seems to be allowing for the necessary political support:

While market reforms brought substantial prosperity — average annual per capita GDP at purchasing power parity is now $17,000 — a large middle class, based mostly in small and medium-sized companies and the service sector, all developed beyond the reach of the state-owned behemoths. Most of this middle class also lives in large cities, where the battle for the country's future is now taking place.

The demands of this middle class have become crucial. Its representatives understand that they must win the battle against corruption or leave the country, as they would, otherwise, have no future in Russia. That is why they have rallied around the young blogger Alexei Navalny, whose WikiLeaks-like anti-corruption campaign has brought forth evidence of billions of dollars stolen from state-owned companies, luxury limousines bought by officials and spectacular business careers by the ruling elite's "wunderkinder" sons and daughters.
[note: the need for a press to distribute information to a population ready to consume it and to work on it. This includes the ability to engage in sedition - accusing government of corruption. Legal freedoms have to be established and enforced]

The evidence of corruption produced by Navalny and the nickname he gave to Putin's political party, United Russia — "the party of crooks and thieves" — were perhaps the single most important factors behind United Russia's large losses in December's State Duma elections. Moreover, massive electoral fraud galvanized middle-class grievances, driving tens of thousands of protesters into the streets.
[note here the right to assemble]

Ironically, the wave of protests since then is consistent with the "modernization hypothesis" that Putin's government has always used to justify the rollback of democracy in Russia: Democracy is sustainable only if society is sufficiently well-off and has a solid middle class; until then, centralized rule is needed.

Now, it seems, sufficient prosperity has arrived, calling forth a middle class solid enough to demand government accountability, the rule of law and a genuine fight against corruption. Whatever happens in the March presidential election, the political mobilization of the middle class will eventually lead to democratization.

This is worth a class discussion. We might also wonder whether democracies once established can descend into a more tyrannical or autocratic form if the middle class checks out, or if freedoms to speak, assemble and use the press are curtailed.

Blue Mountain School District. v. J.S. : SCOTUSblog

Blue Mountain School District. v. J.S. : SCOTUSblog

The Supreme Court will once again weigh in on students speech - whether it is covered by the First Amendments free speech clause - and in this case whether it applies to internet speech.

Here's some background:

In March 2007, the Blue Mountain School District suspended two eighth-grade students after they created a fake MySpace profile for James McGonigle, principal of the Blue Mountain Middle School in Pennsylvania. The MySpace page did not identify McGonigle by name, but it included his picture from the school district's website and identified the person depicted as a "principal." According to court documents, the profile characterized the principal as a sex-obsessed pedophile, and it was laced with profanity and other negative comments about McGonigle and his family.

The school determined that, based on the creation of the fake profile, the two students had violated the school discipline code, which prohibits making false accusations against school staff members. It also determined that the students violated the school's computer use policy, which informs students that they cannot use copyrighted material without permission, by obtaining McGonigle's photo from the school district's website. As a result, the school suspended the two students for ten days out-of-school.

One of the students, going by the initials "J.S.", sued the school district, McMonigle, and the school district superintendent for violating her First Amendment rights. She argued, among other things, that the school could not constitutionally punish her for out-0f-school speech that did not cause a disruption of classes or school administration.

Now the fun begins. The court is set to hear arguments on the case later this spring.

First challenge on new Obama appointees : SCOTUSblog

First challenge on new Obama appointees : SCOTUSblog

Legal challenges to Obama's recess appointments have begun. Business groups are pursuing the challenge largely because the appointments allowed the National Labor Relations Board to start doign business again. Replicans had hoped to defange the board by reducing it to two people - denyign it quorum, meaning it would not be able to issue rules concerning labor unions.

Constitutional questiosn aside, that's what the fight is about:

U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson in Washington is hearing business challenges to a rule, not yet put into effect by the NLRB, that would require as many as six million employers to put up in their workplaces a permanent poster that notifies their employees of the legal rights they have under federal labor law. That requirement, the so-called “notice posting” rule, is now due to go into effect on April 30. It had been set to go into effect at the end of this month, but the Board postponed it in December at Judge Jackson’s specific request while she ponders the challenge (pending in National Association of Manufacturers, et al., v. NLRB, District Court docket 11-1629).

Although that rule was put into final form by the Board before the President early this month gave “recess appointments” to three new members, the motion filed Friday argued that those appointments are “unconstitutional, null and void,” reducing the Board to only two members, and thus the Board “no longer has authority to implement or enforce the Notice Rule on its purported effective date of April 30, 2012.” (Under the Supreme Court decision in 2010, in New Process Steel, L.P. v. NLRB, the Board cannot take action with only two of its allotted five members.)

The recess appointments were meant to provide the NLRB with the memebers necessary to constitute a quorum.

By the way, the simple constitutional questions seem to be: Is a "pro-forma session" of Congress a "session." No legislative business is condicted during these sessions, and there is no quorum to conduct business. The only purpose seems to be to deny the presient the chance to make recess appointments and to preent the exectuive branch from conducting business. Does the president not have recourse to act in that situation?

What went wrong with Huntsman's candidacy?

The consensus seems to be that he made a mistake running for the presidency as a moderate in a party that is not open to moderates at the moment.

- Andrew Sullivan.
- The Arena.

Who is Sheldon Adelson? Does it matter that we know?

He's the billionaire casino/hotel magnate that has pumped $5 million into the pro-Newt Gingrich Super PAC: Winning our Future. The organization is about a month old. Shows you what unlimited cash can do. A single check and a politician has new legs. Should people like Adelson be subject to the same amount of scrutiny as the candidates themselves?

This appears to be the future of campaigning.

- A Big Check, and Gingrich Gets a Big Lift.
- Why Sheldon Adelson's foreign ties are reason for concern.

- The struggle for Adelson's affections.

Is the end of autocracy at hand?

The UN secretary argued as much:

“The old way, the old order, is crumbling – one-man rule and the perpetuation of family dynasties ... monopolies of wealth and power ... the silencing of the media ... the deprivation of fundamental freedoms that are the birthright of every man, woman and child on this planet. To all of this, the people say: enough!”
Is this true? And if it is, what forces are driving this? Is the shift permanent? Might we see a backlash at some point and a re-emergence of autocracies in the future? For 2301, remember that we will be touching on the idea that governing systems go through cycles. Is this simply a stage in the cycle?

This Week in the 2012 Election

Some random stories to cover in class:

- Despite Romney's wealth and difficulty connecting with middle and lower class voters, blue collar whites - while they have not supported his as much as wealthier voters in the Republican primaries, or as much as other Republican candidates - still support him more than they do Obama in crucial swing states. The question is whether this is due to economic status or race.

- Maybe Romney isn't that unpopular among Republicans after all.

- Efforts continue among social conservative and Tea Party Republicans to find an alternative to Romney, who may prove weaker in the general election than hoped. 

- Ron Paul is a dangerous man.

- Even though he has increased criticism of the financial sector, Obama is still receiving large donations from Wall Street. In part this is because the sector has done well since the end of the recession. In part, the  social conservatism of the Republican candidates - opposition to abortion, immigration and gay marriage - puts them off. While they are conservative in economic matters, they remain liberal in social matters. Relaxed contribution rules (post Citizens United) have made it possible that a few cranky billionaires could have an out sized impact on the election. Obama has made pains to mollify them.

- Stephen Colbert goes for the jugular.

- At a Brenham ranch, social conservative leaders held a meeting and voted to unify behind Rick Santorum. Governor Perry came in a distant third. The ranch was owned by local leaders in the community: Paul and Nancy Pressler.

- Jon Hunstman is about to quit the race and back Romney. This may free more moderate Republicans to support Romney.