Iraq Pullback = Increasing Violence?

According to David H. Petraeus, the top military commander in Iraq, American troop pullback would lead to increasing violence and sectarian killings. He spoke at the Pentagon hours before the Senate moved to approve a plan that called for troop reductions in October at the latest. President Bush threatened to veto this measure, but the House managed to narrowly pass the plan on Wednesday.

General Petraeus cautiously tried to stay out of the political debate, saying that he has "tried to stay clear of the political mine fields of various legislation proposals," but he insisted that there would be many risks to pulling out before the end of the year. He declined to say how many U.S. troops will be needed in Iraq in the future, but he did say that the war "clearly is going to require enormous commitment and commitment over time." He added that "this effort may get harder before it gets easier."

Petraeus listed some of the successes of the war and said, "the sense of gradual progress and achievement we feel on the gound in many areas in Iraq is often eclipsed by the sensational attacks that overshadow our daily accomplishments." This brings to mind our recent readings on media and the tendency for it to play up the unfavorable (and therefore more entertaining) events and ignore everything else.

Gates Assures Israel that Arms Sale to Saudis is in their Best Interest

Defense Secretary Robert Gates traveled to Israel recently and was the first American defense secretary to do so in eight years. He discussed the American plan to sell arms to Saudi Arabia and other countries in the Persian Gulf. Israel is concerned about these countries having greater military strength; the U.S. has been selling sophisticated arms to Israel for years, but has not yet sold sophisticated arms to the Saudis. Gates assured Israeli leadership that America would continue their strong support of the Israeli military, but also told them “that they ‘needed to take into consideration the overall strategic environment’ in the Middle East and that Russia and other countries might sell arms to Persian Gulf countries if the United States did not” reported the New York Times. The negotiations with Iran to stop their nuclear proliferation would be more difficult without support from countries such as Saudi Arabia, and Americans are attempting to gain favor with them while possible.

Gates cited a concern that Israelis would “turn to its allies in Congress to block the sale,” which could lead to another power struggle over foreign policy between the executive and the legislative. Support for Israel has traditionally been bipartisan and the specific policies for supporting Israel by both the legislative and the executive branches has yielded relatively little tension, especially when both branches were run by the same party. In this case, however, the Congress and the President differ on how best to support Israel.

In contrast to Speaker Pelosi’s recent trip to Damascus, it is Congress that would be taking a harder line against the Arab world than the uncharacteristically conciliatory Bush administration. This perhaps stems from the Bush administration’s ties to Saudi oil. Much like the Reagan administration’s arms sale to Syria in the 1980s, this episode shows that defense revenues (not unconditional support for Israel) lies at the heart of U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East.

Brazil's Newest Friends: Syria and Iran?

A recent surge in foreign diplomatic relations with Syria and Iran demonstrates that some nations will abandon even an outspoken commitment to human rights when there is money to be made.

Syria and Iran, two countries often dubbed by the United States as “terrorism central”, were first placed on a diplomatic “black list” by the United States as a result of their reluctance to end a number of grave human rights violations as well as a sea of allegations of terrorist activity. Since this controversy, these two countries have felt the ramifications of a global shunning as Western pressures have led many other countries to follow suit.

As such, it was all the more surprising when two of the most important menin Brazil recently announced that they would be facilitating meetings with leaders from each respective nation. This month, shortly after Brazil's President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva announced that he would be accomodating a visit by Syrian President Bashar Assad, Brazil’s Foreign Minister announced that he would be taking a diplomatic trip to Iran.

Perhaps not surprisingly, this new, “social” foreign policy of developing relationships with whoever has the “money bags” is widely supported by many Brazilians. Many have come to speak out in favor of this controversial move that they feel Brazil is wisely making in its nation’s best fiscal interests. Many disregard the idea that Brazilians should override their own benefits in an effort to support the United States’ seemingly fruitless War on Terror.

Still, all acknowledge that these bold moves openly undermine the United States and its War on Terror and they agree that this recent development puts United States President George W. Bush in a precarious position. While Bush is still attempting to recover from a loss of support on his home front, he must now convince other increasingly skeptical nations to believe in his idealistic plans. Although one would consider the U.S. President to have great powers in foreign policy, he loses much of his influence when nations openly ignore his agenda. If the rest of the world is so tired of the United States’ dominance that it is no longer willing to support it, the President must consider what other ramifications this will have on the effectiveness of the foreign policy he attempts to advocate.


Brazil's President Silva, expecting such a reaction from the United States, publicly justified his actions directly to U.S. President George W. Bush first by acknowledging “political divergence” between Iran and other countries while attempting to position Brazil as moderate middlemen who, having no particular political divergence with the country, can justifiably work as trade partners with Iran as it is in their “national interest.” The world will look to these meetings with anticipation as we wait not only to see what affect this will have not only on Brazil, but also to find out if it will have negative implications on the future of United States foreign policy. Is this defiance the beginning of a new trend?

California Prison Deal leaves some cheering and leaves many asking for more

Last Thursday, California's legislature passed a $8.3 billion bipartisan bill in attempts to curb a prison crisis. California's prison system, which is expected to hold approximately 190,000 inmates by 2012 and is currently only designed to hold 100,000, has long been struggling to keep up with capacity and as a result, many inmates are currently assigned to temporary beds located in gyms and hallways. This overcrowding led to a lawsuit with the U.S. District Court with the plaintiff citing a complaint of cruel and unusual punishment. The court has ordered that the state of California take serious steps to rectify this situation by June of this year or risk court take-over of the entire prison system. In order to avoid such a take-over, the California legislature and Governor Schwarzenegger have put together an aggressive bill that would build new prisons, increase bed space in existing prisons and allow the Governor to temporarily send some inmates out of state.

Opposition to this bill comes primarily from the California Correctional Peace Officers Association, which sees the bill as more work for an already under-staffed prison system. It also sees it as an increased risk for current Peace Officers, as inmates who are unwilling to be transferred out-of-state will be more likely to attack the officers.

Also, many taxpayers are frustrated with yet another bill that focuses primarily on building more prison space and not enough on rehabilitation efforts.

To read more about the bill and its ramifications, see these articles:
Capitol embraces prison deal -- but will judges? - Sacramento Bee
Deal struck on California prison crowding - The San Jose Murcury News
Calif. Lawmakers Approve Prison Plan - The Washington Post
Outline of Prison Deal to be Voted on Tomorrow by California Legislature - California Progess Report

Another Policy Rat Race?

In light of the Virginia Tech shootings, along with issues regarding gun control, safety and mental health on school campuses are now being re-evaluated. Parents are calling in, students are cautious, and administrations are in frenzy. Recently, on the 27^th of April, U.S. Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings released a statement. In Spelling’s press release, she calls for a national dialogue regarding the next course of action of safety in schools. Along with email, a website has been set up in order for people to post their suggestions, concerns, opinions, etc. Next month she will be giving a report to President Bush, compiling the suggestions made from people across the nation.

Spellings states, “"Nothing is more important to American parents than the safety of their children," said Secretary Spellings. "I invite all concerned Americans—parents, educators, law enforcement officials and students—to share their ideas about school safety online at safeschools@ed.gov. Together, we can strengthen our best practices, raise awareness of warning signs and help prevent tragedies."

With this policy window that has opened due to an event, what solutions will be attached? It is clear that a discussion is in order regarding safety and mental health on school campuses, yet will this be another rat race where policy entrepreneurs run for the door at the same time?

All the War is a Stage

Last Tuesday House Democrats convened for a hearing in which Pfc. Jessica Lynch and family members of Cpl. Pat Tillman spoke about misrepresentation of their wartime experiences. Lynch was shot and captured by Iraqi soldiers and several members of her maintenance convoy were killed in 2003. Tillman was killed by friendly fire in 2004.


In the case of Private Lynch, military officials are accused of sensationalizing the circumstances surrounding her capture. Initial reports described the then 19-year-old heroically, saying she fought off Iraqis and fired her weapon until she was out of ammunition. Footage of Lynch's rescue from the hospital where she was being held was cycled on news programs around the country and a TV movie was made about her ordeal.

Private Lynch eschews the tales of her heroics, saying, "I am still confused as to why they chose to lie and tried to make me a legend when the real heroics of my fellow soldiers that day were, in fact, legendary." She maintains that she never fired a shot, and denies the “story of the little girl Rambo from the hills of West Virginia who went down fighting." "It was not true," Lynch says.

In an Op-Ed to the New York Times last Friday, Deputy Commander Michael Delong defended the military, saying it was politicians who pressed the heroic slant. He described being pressured to award Lynch a Medal of Honor before the initial reports could be confirmed.

...when the request landed on my desk, I told the politicians that we’d need to wait. I made it clear that no one would be awarded anything until all of the evidence was reviewed.

The politicians did not like this. They called repeatedly, through their Congressional liaison, and pressured us to recommend her for the medal, even before all the evidence had been analyzed. I would not relent and we had many heated discussions.

The politicians repeatedly said that a medal would be good for women in the military; I responded that the paramount issue was finding out what had really happened.

The family of Pat Tillman, the defensive back for the Arizona Cardinals who quit to join the Army Rangers, had stronger words for the hearing. Initial reports of Tillman's death described it as a result of enemy engagement, instead of friendly fire as it was later revealed to be. Tillman was awarded the Silver Star of Valor based on those initial reports.

Specialist Bryan O'Neal described being ordered to withhold information from the Tillman family:

I wanted right off the bat to let the family know what had happened, especially Kevin, because I had worked with him in the platoon, and I knew that him and the family all needed to know what had happened. I was quite appalled that when I was actually able to speak with Kevin, I was ordered not to tell him what happened.

Kevin Tillman, Pat Tillman's brother and a fellow army ranger, believes that the misrepresentation was a deliberate act meant to garner public support for the war.

To further exploit Pat's death, he was awarded the Silver Star for Valor... We believe the strategy had the intended effect. It shifted the focus from the grotesque torture at Abu Ghraib and the downward spiral of an illegal act of aggression, to a great American who died a hero's death...A terrible tragedy that might have further undermined support for the war in Iraq was transformed into an inspirational message that served instead to support the nation’s foreign policy wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Tillman's mother was similarly angered:

We have been asked over and over again, "What can we do for your family? How can we appease you?" and it makes me sick. It's not about our family... What is so outrageous is that this isn't about Pat, this is about what they did to Pat and what they did to a nation.

Links
New York Times: Panel Hears Falsehood on 2 Wartime Incidents
Huffington Post/C-SPAN: Video clips from the hearing

I Don't Care about "D.C. Madam"

Randall Tobias, director of U.S. foreign assistance and administrator for the U.S. Agency for International Development resigned Friday after his name surfaced in an investigation over whether or not “D.C. Madam” Deborah Jeane Palfrey’s escort service, Pamela Martin and Associates, was actually a prostitution ring. So far, there has been no evidence that the more than 130 women working for her actually performed sexual services. Tobias insists that he only received massages from the women and nothing else. Friday evening, the State Department put out a statement announcing that Tobias is “returning to private life for personal reasons.”

What is most disappointing to me is not the fact that Tobias used a dubious call-girl ring for massages, but that CNN.com’s top story on the “Politics” page is a story completely unrelated to any legislation, foreign policy, or agency rulemaking that affects the lives of the citizenry. Once again, reporters are focusing on personalities and spectacles instead of performing the role assigned to them: an “intermediary” institution that connects the citizens to government. If the media reported on things more pertinent to what Patterson calls in Out of Order the citizen’s “governing schema,” CNN’s John King and Brianna Keilar would have devoted that space to the irrelevant private affairs of a literally unknown state official.

We’ve Come A Long Way From Ellis Island

Immigration, Republicans and 2008

Tom Tancredo, who just entered the race for the Republican nomination, calls them "a scourge that threatens the very future of our nation”; Rudy Giuliani, roughly ten years ago, said that “the reality is that they are here, and they’re going to remain here” - they being illegal immigrants. Both of these statements are examples for how immigration has become a hot topic in the Republican run for the presidency in various ways.

Rudy Giuliani, as mayor of New York City, was known for his view that the city’s great number of immigrants was an integral part of its work force. According to the New York Times, “his aides acknowledged that most voters do not know how aggressive he was as mayor in pressing for ways to allow more immigrants into the country.” His liberal stance might come back to haunt him, as a USA Today/Gallup Poll last month showed that 29 percent of Republicans said that all illegal immigrants should be sent home. Giuliani, these days, is carefully mincing his words around the issue of immigration. His plan for immigration includes issuing identification to illegal immigrants and they should start paying full taxes. If they are serious about becoming citizens, they must “get on the back of the line”. This is an interesting example for how different kinds of audiences cause politicians to change their wording and sometimes even their stances.

One problem for Republican candidates in relation with immigration is their diverse base of core voters – “Business and industry are demanding more low-wage workers, while grass-roots conservatives are demanding that those workers be shipped home,” according to Guardian Unlimited’s Libby Quaid. While the former are likely to be satisfied with the moderate relatively moderate stances of Giuliani, Romney and McCain, this opens up the field for candidates such as Tom Tancredo, a Congressman from Colorado who has launched a long-shot campaign earlier this month. Tancredo, as quoted by the Guardian, laments the “cult of multiculturalism” and, although he himself thinks he is "too fat, too short and too bald" to be president, he has a good number of followers. A GOP aide told Newsweek that "you can't ignore him. The administration doesn't want to hear this, but a lot of Americans think he's right." Now, some Republicans have started to fear that the party is alienating yet another crucial group of voters – Latinos. Florida Sen. Mel Martinez, expresses his fears: "Republicans have made significant gains [among Latinos] and we're risking all of that by allowing ourselves to be positioned as anti-immigrant ... We are at great peril."

Passengers Seized Along with Car at Traffic Stops?

Have you ever been a passenger in a car that was pulled over by a police officer? Depending on the Supreme Court’s decision in Brendlin v. California, if this happened to you, you might have been “seized” within the meaning of the 4th Amendment.

In this case, Brendlin was a passenger in a car stopped by a police officer to investigate a possibly expired registration. The stop was later found to be improper because the same officer had already checked the registration of that exact car earlier in the day. However, when the officer stopped the car, he recognized Brendlin as a former convict wanted for parole violation and arrested him. When the officer searched the car, he found methamphetamine supplies. Brendlin later pleaded guilty to narcotics charges, but then appealed to suppress the evidence that he claimed was obtained through illegal seizure. Because he was seized as a passenger in the illegal seizure of the car, the resulting search and evidence found against him fall under the 4th Amendment protection against unwarranted search and seizure. Read more here.

Ironically, Brendlin might win his constitutional argument but still wind up being convicted. If the Court decides that passengers are seized along with the driver in a traffic stop, they might still rule that his arrest was based on a warrant for his parole violation and therefore provided justification for the search.

Veto Showdown On the Horizon

Today, the Senate passed a $95 billion war funding bill that sets a deadline for troop withdrawal from Iraq by next April. Even before the House passed its first version of the bill – which ordered all combat troops out by September 1st, 2008 – on March 23rd, Bush had threatened to veto anything but a “clean” bill. Therefore, it will hardly be a surprise, when the Democrats send the bill to the White House early next week, that Bush sticks to his word and throws it right back at Congress. Being that the bill passed with a narrow majority in both the House (218-208 on Wednesday) and Senate (51-46), it is highly unlikely that Pelosi and Reid will be able to rally the two-thirds majority in their respective houses to turn the legislation into law after Bush’s veto. Even if she launches her most ferocious whip operation, I’m skeptical that Pelosi can convince 72 house members (mostly Republicans) to vote for the bill. As for Reid, he’ll have a hard enough time bringing the two who abstained from voting - Republican Sens. John McCain of Arizona and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina - over from the dark side, let alone convince 13 additional senators who voted against the bill, which includes independent Sen. Joe Lieberman of Connecticut.

I hesitate to add that there is a slim, slim, chance that Bush may decide not to veto the emergency supplemental appropriations bill after all and instead play the blame avoidance game. Right now, Congress is essentially giving the White House a way out: the Bush Administration can simply back down, saying that money to support the troops now was of utmost importance, and that they did not want to veto the bill and risk not having the funds by May 15th (if the bill is not passed by then, the troops will be stranded in Iraq longer than necessary). In a year, if the U.S. cannot win the war by the bill’s withdrawal date, then the White House can point the finger at Congress and insist that the outcome would have been in their favor if the bill had not contained a timetable. In the end, it will all come down to if the Bush administration can realize how much of a lost cause this war really is.

The Price of Education

The current controversies over lender’s affiliations with colleges and universities have drawn national attention to what exactly the relationship should be between companies that give student loans and educational institutions. Stanford, Notre Dame, and Morehouse College have all had high ranking administration on the boards of companies that give student loans. This creates a conflict of interest, especially because these universities pass out lists of preferred lenders to all of their students.

While Margaret Spellings, the head of the Department of Education, is in the process of establishing a task force to create federal regulations, federalism has allowed state governments to immediately create codes of conduct to be enforced upon lending companies and universities.

The attorney generals of various states have already conducted investigation over the past few years, and it is largely due to their efforts that the states are able to take action so quickly against individual companies.

Attorney General Lisa Madigan of Illinois recently reached an agreement with DeVry University, where DeVry agreed to follow a code of conduct. DeVry will also return $88,122 to students, and remove Citibank from its preferred lenders list.

Ed in ’08: How to Make Your Own Policy Window

Philanthropists Eli Broad and Bill Gates recently teamed up to spend $60 million in an effort to place education onto the 2008 presidential race agenda. As one of the most expensive single-issue initiatives yet, “Ed in ’08”—as its slogan has come to be—will use TV, radio, and Internet advertising for volunteers and network operatives in the different political parties. By publicizing the need for education reform, Broad and Gates will attempt to create their own social movement to open the policy window necessary to create political change. Says Gates, “The lack of political and public will is a significant barrier to making dramatic improvements in school and student performance.” Clearly, they hope to change that by throwing in $60 million.

Though the project (called Strong American Schools) cannot endorse candidates, it will advocate broad issues such as merit pay for high quality teaching, or more uniform standards such as a national curriculum. In doing so, presidential candidates will be forced to take stands on controversial issues that may significantly effect their supporter bloc.

Spitzer to Push for Same-Sex Marriage

Governor Eliot Spitzer recently announced that he will introduce a bill securing same-sex marriage in New York. While he did not mention the bill in his State of the State address, Spitzer -- the first governor in the United States to introduce a same-sex marriage bill -- intends to ensure its swift passage, calling the legislation a "simple moral imperative".

Successfully passing the bill will require a good deal of political maneuvering on Spitzer's part. Likely, any discussion of the bill will be steeped in thick progressive moral rhetoric. More importantly, however, Spitzer will need to gain crucial support from the Democratic majority of the State Assembly, the Republican majority in the State Senate, and even liberal religious leaders.

On the surface, this may seem impossible, considering that New York has not yet passed legislation securing domestic partnership or civil union rights. However, Republican majority leader of the State Senate, Joseph Bruno, is widely known to be a pragmatist willing to compromise on issues with a good deal of momentum. Democratic majority leader of the State Assembly, Sheldon Silver, says that he will not take a stand on the issue until speaking with other Democrats in the state. However, most Democrats are vocal advocates of same-sex marriage, so it is likely that the State Assembly would pass this bill very quickly. The largest voice of opposition will inevitably come from religious leaders, particularly wealthy groups like the Catholic church and the growing Evangelical movement. However, Spitzer is quick to argue that religious groups have the right to determine who is permitted within their houses, but they cannot dictate who the state can marry.

Clearly, if Spitzer wants to pass a bill enacting same-sex marriage, then he will need to gain support from both the Republican and Democratic party leaders. These leaders will be responsible for creating the coalitions necessary for success. If Spitzer can mobilize politicians from both sides of the aisle, however, his push for same-sex marriage may well be the first of many more throughout the United States.

Boris Yeltsin: A Man of Mixed Legacy

On Sunday, April 22, Boris Yeltsin died at age 76. Yeltsin, the successor to Gorbachev, and the first president after the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991, leaves a legacy of very mixed feelings, both in the United States and in Russia. Yeltsin was once asked what his greatest goal as president was; he responded, "tranquility for Russia." Ultimately, it eluded him. He was responsible for launching a violent, nasty war in the southern breakaway region of Chechnya, and, despite the fact that he sought liberal reforms, he tolerated a lot of political corruption within the system (arguably, a system more corrupt than that which it replaced).

On the other hand, the bombastic Siberian's political reforms went above and beyond those of former leader Mikhail Gorbachev. In the early '90s, millions of Russians went abroad for the first time, voted in elections, and relied on themselves as opposed to the state.

Many paid tribute, including former president Bill Clinton, whose mostly good-natured sparring with Yeltsin earned them the title "The Boris and Bill Show." Clinton commented, "Fate gave him a tough time in which to govern, but history will be kind to him because he was courageous and steadfast on the big issues: Peace, freedom, and progress."

Duverger Meets Hillary

It's been a couple of days since this was posted, but I just found it and thought it was a good tie-in with the concepts of our course.

In this blog contribution on the Huffington Post, Russell Shaw explains why the recent Supreme Court decision to uphold the ban on partial birth abortion forces him to accept Hillary Clinton as the Democratic candidate, despite the fact that he dislikes her. In order to save Roe v. Wade from being overturned, we need a Democratic candidate to take office in January 2009 and appoint new liberal, non-originalist Supreme Court Justices. For this, Shaw says he will accept Hillary. His fear however is that far-left liberals will fall into another Gore-Nader trap, where the extremists dislike Hillary for her 2003 Iraq vote and decide to vote for the Independent candidate, thus stealing votes from Democrats and landing another Republican in office. As we learned, Duverger’s law says that America’s single-member district plurality system necessitates having just two parties, or the result could be the one described above. Thus in order to save Roe v. Wade, and subsequently saving many a woman from botched back-alley abortions, far-left liberals are going to need a lesson from Duverger.

No Breaks For the Elderly-- atleast not any time soon

The Democrats porposal to allow Medicare to negotiate lower drug prices for millions of older Americans was blocked in the Senate on Wednesday, April 18th.

Although 55 senators were on board for the new propsal, the Democrats could not muster enough support to get the 60 votes needed for the bill to pass. Six republicans did support the vote but in the end 42 senators voted against the idea. The Republican party was even prepared to filibuster the Senate bill but didn't have to.

In many ways this decisions can be chalked up to the power of the industry. The big companies have more market power being able to negotiate in the private sector than having this be something that is done at the national level. As Senator Amy Kloubuchar from Minnesota said it, "the power of big pharma is still a presence in the halls of Congress"

This goes to show how much the government is influenced by industries. In addition it shows how in the Senate in order to get a bill passed you need some major support from the minorty party representation.

One Giant Step Back

Last week, the Supreme Court upheld congress’s 2003 law “The partial birth abortion ban” act, by a 5-4 ruling. The Justice writing the decision, Anthony Kennedy, claimed that the law does not violate a woman’s right to choose. However, women’s groups, women in government and feminists everywhere are appalled by the decision. They are worried about its ramifications and what this could open the door to. As California senator, Dianne Feinstein, said “the court has taken the first major step back”.

The most troubling fact of last week’s decision was that Kennedy passed the deciding vote against abortion rights. The Supreme Court is currently in a deadlock between the four pro-choice justices (Stevens, Souter, Breyer, Ginsburg) and anti-choice justices (Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, Alito). Kennedy, who has voted liberally on social issues before, will be the crucial figure in deciding which way the court goes on future abortion cases.

If more restrictions on abortion were to be implemented, it is quite possible that abortion rights will be put into the hands of the individual state. This is what Scalia and the other pro-life justices want because they do not believe the right to an abortion is in the Constitution to begin with. That thought should be troubling for most women because it would be turning the reproductive rights clock back to the mid 1900s, and we do not want to imagine the implications of that.

A Big Imposition on Female Legislators

In 1996, the first limits on terms for state legislatures were imposed in the belief that they would make statehouses more "representative" (i.e., give women a chance in the legislature). These limits are currently in effect in about 15 states. Despite the fact that this law is supposed to increase representation, it looks as though the opposite is happening. In a Washington Post article, JoAnn Davidson, who was Ohio's first female House speaker, and now co-chair of the Republican National Committee, said that women elected after voters imposed eight-year term limits are surrendering their seats due to these rules, and, furthmore, "women are harder to recruit. They're harder to convince to run." Dianne Byrum, a former representative who lost her Michigan House seat last year, said, "I was the first woman in Michigan's history to ever lead a caucus, and not only lead that caucus but take it to its best performance in 70 years."

And, that's not all. Trends are showing that states with term limits have decreasing numbers of women in state legislature. In particular, the number of women in Michigan state legislature has dropped from 34 to 29, and in Missouri, from 45 to 38. On the other hand, in states without such term limits have been steadily increasing the number of women in state legislature. In Minnesota, women have increased their numbers from 50 to 70 since 1995, and in Maryland, the percentage of women has increased from 28.7% to 33%.

Will such state term limits squeeze perfectly competent female legislators from their seats? An angry blogger seems to think so. Although the decline of women in state legislature in states with term limits may be, as called in this blog, "an example of the law of unintended consequences," it is something to pay attention to. We need stronger female participation in state legislature; if term limits hinder this, then perhaps it's time to get rid of them.

Massachusetts: Not so universal health care

Robert Laszewski at Health Care Policy and Market Review sounds off on the recently released details of the individually mandated health care reform in Massachusetts. Laszewski believes there is too much of a rush to call the reform a success, saying "The only place there are more victories being declared than in Iraq these days is in Massachusetts."

Facing cost issues, The Commonwealth Health Insurance Connector Authority plans to exempt 20% of uninsured adults from the new state requirement to buy health insurance. Costs are simply too high to enforce a mandate for everyone. An estimated 60,000 people who are low income but do not qualify for state subsidies still will not be able to afford health insurance.

Under the program, a family of three earning $50,000 per year will have a health insurance plan available to them but it will cost about $7,000--and that plan has a $2,000 per person deductible. Before the Connector's ruling on exemptions, that was mandatory. Now, a family making $50,000 is exempted from the mandate if it can't find a plan for less than $3,840 per year. Based upon the "Connector's" health insurance rates, they won't find one.

To keep some perspective on the matter, those exempted constitute only about 1% of the state's population. The problem is, the people in that 1% are among those who need health insurance most. The Massachusetts plan is not a bad one, Laszewski concludes, but the issues coming up now show that states can't pull off universal health care alone.

The lesson is that a state cannot do it all by themselves.

In Massachusetts, the good news is that the glass is half full--a lot of people will have coverage who didn't before particularly between 100% and 200% of the federal poverty level.

The bad news is that the glass is half empty--lot's of people have been "exempted" from the new universal health care coverage mandate but still can't afford it. And on this point, Massachusetts has hit one big brick wall--and they don't have the means to go further.

That isn't trash talking. It is the reality we all need to face when trying to understand what the Massachusetts health care reform law means to the rest of us.

Links:
Laszewski: Another Victory Declared in Massachusetts--The Connector Exempts 20% of Uninsured State Residents From the Requirement to Buy a Health Plan
Boston Globe: Health plan may exempt 20% of the uninsured

Bomber Ann

In the last few days Senator McCain’s use of a Beach Boys song to clarify a question on Iran has been blown way out of proportion. When an audience member tried to ask McCain about bombing Iran, the Senator turned it into a clever little ditty, rephrasing the lyrics to the song “Barbara Ann” to say “Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb bomb Iran”. In the normal world, it’s not a terribly big deal. But in the highly focused and very public world of election politics, especially so with the speed and pervasiveness of the internet, it is a big deal. Opposition jumps on the opportunity to portray a candidate of the opposing party as insensitive, or incompetent, or downright dumb, which is exactly what the Dems over at MoveOn did. In this video they attack McCain’s new interpretation of the song, calling him “reckless”. This calls for a discussion on how much more picky we can get. At some point the public has to realize ads like this do very little for the overall defense—even Democrats must roll their eyes and think ‘Oh yes, this makes our candidates seem so much more responsible’ (Well, that’s what I said, and I am the voice of the people after all). Where are the real issues? He says nothing about his actual position on Iran in that snippet; wouldn’t that be more useful? Are the Democrats just sore from being pounced on by Republicans for years? Could this actually be a turning point for McCain’s candidacy? David Weinberger discusses this “Zero Tolerance for Humans” policy.

Tangent: who honestly knew they were singing "Barbara Ann"? Certainly not this blogger.

Some other election updates:
Hilary maintains lead amongst Dems, Giuliani slips.
Obama raised more money than Hillary.
Hillary will put her husband to work if elected (blogger's note: yay!).
Giuliani is flip-flopping on immigration.
Neither McCain nor Giuliani support gun control in the wake of VT tragedy. (Sidenote: Democrats in Congress have become more lax about gun control as well)

US Maximizes Tour Length While They Can

On April 11, 2007, Defense Secretary Robert Gates announced that the Pentagon would increase the Army tour length for active-duty soldiers in Afghanistan and Iraq from 12 to 15 months. Naturally, Democrats responded with rapid criticism to the policy shift. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi states, "Extending the tours of all active-duty Army personnel is an unacceptable price for our troops and their families to pay."

Yet despite the initial gut reaction or emotional pull one feels when they hear a loved one, or even a stranger, will be away in the war zone for three extra months, it may strategically benefit other military personnel, their families, and those pushing for the March 2008 pullout. Defense Secretary Gates notes, "Without this action, we would have had to deploy five Army active duty brigades sooner than the 12-month at home goal." Instead, troops already stationed abroad will be able to make more progress than if newly arriving men and women had to learn the ropes. Despite Democratic disapproval, if successful troop withdrawal is to come sooner rather than later, this unfortunate decision may work out better.

Fortunately, troops can look forward to an extra $1000, supposedly untaxed, per month in combat pay while abroad. Hopefully the Pentagon will have enough respect for our military in the future, however, to notify them and their families first before releasing such potentially emotional news to the public-at-large. That is a much greater insult than a job extension.

Immigration Databases

The Tennessee senate just passed a proposal to require all new employees to have documented immigration status. In a 27-2 vote, the bill would require check only for jobs that require a W-2 form.

Employers would need to look up their new employee on an electronic database provided by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security. Accessing the database would not cost the business anything. The Senate knocked out the provision that would fine the employers $1000 for companies who violate the requirement. They decided that they did not want to criminalize the employers, since it was already illegal to hire workers who were not in the country legally. The law would only last after 18 months if it is not renewed.

The bill will be heard by the House Government Operations Committee next week. Senator Jack Johnson, the man proponent for this bill hopes that the bill would directly attack the causes of illegal immigration. Employers could no longer claim that they were not aware of falsified documents since now they would need to double check it on the online database. Opponents of the bill fear that the bill places burden on the small businesses. Senator Douglas Henry felt that the state government shouldn’t make matters worse by adding to the federal government’s immigration efforts.

My guess is that the Tennessee bill would not be renewed in the next vote because there are just too many obstacles. Also, without any other immigration retrictive legislatives reforcing anti-abortion sentiments, it is possible that support would just fizzle. There has not been any word of the the immigration bill that was being discussed a couple of weeks ago. It is very likely that this legislation would not be voted up unless some major adjustments are made to suffice the liberal vote.

Tragedy at Virginia Tech: a "Fortuitous Event" for Interest Groups?

From a polisci perspective, the nation’s deadliest shooting spree at Virginia Tech on Monday is an example of a focusing event. According to Kingdon, focusing events open policy windows for related interest groups by bringing an issue – in this case, gun control – to the forefront of the political agenda. Had it not been for White House spokeswoman Dana Perino postponing the inevitable debate about changes to gun control policy until a later time by stating that, “what we need to do is focus on support[ing][...]the victims and their families and then also allow[ing] the facts of the case to unfold before we talk any more about policies," activists on both sides would have already leapt at the opportunity to couple their preferred solutions to the problem. Defenders of gun rights, presumably led by the NRA, will argue that the calamity could have been prevented or at least dampened in scale if the students and faculty had been allowed to possess guns on the Virgina Tech campus – which, by the way, is a “gun free zone” (last year, the university helped defeat a state bill that would have given college students and faculty the right to carry handguns on campus) – and stop the shooter. On the other hand, gun control advocates are claiming that that the only way to prevent such a tragedy from happening again is to tighten restrictions on gun ownership.

So who’s right in this debate? My gut is to scurry towards the pro-gun control side: the idea of everyone and their creepy neighbor owning a murdering machine is freakin' scary. However, to be fair to the other side, the second amendment of the Constitution guarantees “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms.” Also, a thought-provoking post by crashd on the NCtimes.com page reporting the Virginia Tech shooting is making me have second thoughts:

“Crime goes out of control because the criminals, who live outside the law, do not comply and turn their firearms in. Law abiding people do. Criminals can get [guns] anyway, law abiding [citizens can] not. [The] result? Unarmed sheep waiting to be slaughtered.”

In the Wake of al-Sadr and Maliki's Announcements, More Than 170 Dead

Less than a day after cabinet members loyal to Shi’ite cleric Moktada al-Sadr removed themselves from service in favor of non-partisan representatives who will work toward Iraqi independence, and after a pledge from Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki that Iraq would be in control of its own security by the end of this year, the most devastating attacks since U.S. operations began tore through Baghdad. Over 170 are dead and 200 more wounded. This attack could be seen as retaliation to the political moves by al-Sadr and Maliki, as the suicide and car bombs exploded in predominantly Shi’a districts; it could be seen as symptomatic of U.S. military failure in Iraq or just another sign of the country’s devastating and persistent instability. More than anything, this attack should be proof that something—though it’s unclear what-- in Iraq needs to change before hundreds of more lives are destroyed.

Nationalism Over Religion in Iraq?

It seems the members of the United States Congress are far from the only people seeking a timetable for U.S. troop withdrawal from Iraq. Moktada al-Sadr, the widely popular Shi’ite cleric responsible for the mass protest in Najaf last week, has been pressing Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki to create a set schedule for complete Iraqi independence. Interestingly enough, he maneuvered in the complete opposite direction of what many would expect from his strong leadership: instead of pulling religious rank and personally directing his members of the Iraqi cabinet, he has removed them from leadership entirely. Al-Sadr has also purportedly cut ties with Maliki, whose power largely depends on his support. Why does it seem al-Sadr is relinquishing his control at a high point in his influence? He is motivated by Iraqi nationalism, he says, and hopes for new cabinet members not tied to any political party or religious agenda. Though this seems an honest move to create a more stable government, al-Sadr clearly has an agenda: he wants the U.S. out of Iraq, and will do anything to see his country free from occupation. Well, almost anything: he still controls his 30 seats in Parliament.

Taxes: It's The Most Wonderful Time of the Year!

Income tax return filing season is here! With taxes on the minds of many Americans, the Center on Budget and Priorities recently analyzed where Americans’ dearly departed tax dollars go.

The federal government spent $2.7 trillion dollars this past fiscal year, which accounts for about one-fifth of the Gross Domestic Product. Most of the budget went to social security (21%), major health programs (19%), and (no surprise here) defense and security (21%). As the Center on Budget and Priorities writes, “$557 billion went to pay for defense, homeland security, and security-related international activities. While more than $100 billion went to support operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, the bulk of spending in this category reflects the underlying costs of the Department of Defense and other security-related services.”

Other points of interest: 9% (or $227 billion) went to the interest on the national debt (our lovely $8.6 trillion debt), 4% on education, and 6% on benefits for federal retirees and veterans.

The author of the study put it best:

While “government spending” is often decried, it is important to look behind the rhetoric and determine whether the actual public services that government provides are worth paying for. To the extent that such services are worth paying for, the only way to do so is with tax revenue. Consequently, when thinking about the costs that taxes impose, it is essential to balance those costs against the benefits the nation receives from public services.

Pelosi in Damascus

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi recently led a Congressional delegation to meet with political leaders in Syria. This visit was heavily criticized by the Bush administration: “‘We don't think it's a good idea,’ said the White House deputy press secretary, Dana Perino... ‘We think that someone should take a step back and think about the message that it sends,’” reported the New York Times. The Bush administration has not met with Syria, citing its support for terrorist groups such as Hamas and Hezbollah. “In our view, it is not the right time to have these sorts of high-profile visits to Syria,'” said Sean McCormack, a spokesman for the State Department.

The bipartisan Iraq study group however, specifically recommended discussions about Middle East security and stability with Syria and other Middle Eastern countries. Speaker Pelosi told reporters that “‘There is no division on policy between us and President Bush, be it on Israel, Palestine or Syria.’”

What happens to the separation of powers? Are the President and his State Department the exclusive controllers of U.S. foreign policy? Can the Speaker of the House represent the United States abroad? How (if at all) should the suggestions of the Iraq study group be implemented and who should decide?

United States: The Great Terrorist Protector?

Castro, the communist leader of Cuba, caused a stir when he released a series of articles to the Cuban media within the last three weeks. In his third article, Castro aggressively attacked U.S. President George W. Bush for allowing an anti-communist charged with orchestrating the bombing of a Venezuelan jetliner to be released from jail on a bond.

The fugitive from the Venezuelan penal system, Luis Posada Carriles, escaped from prison days after his incarceration following the attack in 1976 although has consistently denied the charges against him. To put the circumstances into perspective, it is also worth mentioning that Carriles is a longtime adversary of Castro. Carriles was charged by Cuba for several bombings in Havana Hotels in 1997. Beyond acts of communal acts terror aimed at communism, Castro went so far as to publicly accuse Carriles of various assassination attempts. Coming from a fuming Castro, this outright condemnation of the actions of the U.S. President are the first to come after months of silence when Castro ceded his powers to his brother Raul while he was said to have been recovering from intestinal surgery.

Along with Castro, distraught family members of the 73 passengers killed are in sharp opposition to this ruling which could lead to freedom. They criticized what was considered Bush’s “brutal,” decision. Espousing the United States as inappropriately condoning certain behaviors to promote democracy, one man fumed “in the United States, they are talking about good terrorism and bad terrorism and to me, “all terrorism is bad.” Although one can easily understand why the President George W. Bush would find reason to ally with such an anti-communist crusader, the moral implications still lead one to question which policy advocates one should support when the advocates are using violent tactics that are currently being criticized in other countries. Still, President Bush will be forced to respond to the charges that the United States has been protecting its own “self-confessed, active territory terrorists.”

Candidate's Approach to Gays

John Edward's campaign recently issued a news release with the names of 25 influential gay people that support him. Most of the people listed are well-respected and famous gay leaders, such as a former advisor to president Bill Clinton and David Mixner. Information on this can be found at this site. Edwards is competing with other prospective democratic presidential candidates Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, among others, for the support of the gay community. Their support is valuable in the upcoming Democratic presidential primaries. Edwards spoke against the “Don’t ask don’t tell” policy, a hot topic among gays, in February- before both Clinton and Obama made their hesitant responses to the media in late March. Hillary has had trouble with this issue because her husband, former president Bill Clinton, was in office when the Pentagon instituted the policy. Senator Clinton recently made an effort to gain support from gays- she told the Human Rights Campaign that she wants a partnership with gays if she is elected president.
Rudy Giuliani, a prospective Republican presidential candidate is also having trouble with his approach to gays. He appeared at the annual political roast 10 years ago dressed in drag, in an SNL skit dressed as a grandmother, and at one point did kicks with the Rockettes wearing fishnets. He did these things as a joke, but the pictures and footage are coming back to haunt him. Many fear that conservatives won’t appreciate his ‘liberal’ jokes. More information on this can be found at this site. A large part of Giuliani’s support comes from his post 9/11 image- tough, serious, and in control, but pictures of him dressed in white gloves and a frilly pink dress could threaten that image. They could remind voters of Giuliani's strong support for gays while he was Mayor of New York (even though the majority of cross-dressers are not gay). In Newyork, he lived with 2 gay roommates after his divorce, marched in gay pride parades, and welcomed the Olympic style gay games to the city. Although he does not support gay marriage, his alliance with the gay community will not be looked upon fondly by the conservative’s strong religious base.
On another note, same sex couples are now able to have “fairy tale weddings” at Disney World and any of the other Walt Disney Co. parks and resorts. The company just changed the policy because they want to “welcome every guest in an inclusive environment”. This wedding package can cost more than $45,000, and can exchange vows in front of Cinderella's castle, Minnie and Mickey mouse in formal wear (!), and ride in Cinderella's coach. More information on this can be found at this site

No Child Left Behind: The War on Renewal Continues

The No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act has received many responses- positive and negative. Now it is time to reconsider: Do we renew the act, or as many feel, is it time to reevaluate and overhaul the entire legislation?

The debate has been intensely growing and is not merely questioning the revised version of the act, but the entire program/legislation. While Republicans and Democrats are tending to fall on all sides of the spectrum on this issue, many Republicans are in favor of a new, watered down version of the bill. On the other side, ten Democratic senators signed a letter last month saying they want an entire overhaul of the program, deeming it “unsustainable.”

Many states, such as Virginia and Arizona, are contesting the number of standardized tests imposed by the act. Others, such as Utah, feel stipulations stating that every teacher must have at least a college degree, are unfair. As Tom Horne, a Republican and Arizona’s superintendent of public instruction, stated, “You cannot run a complex, continentwide education system through micromanagement by people living in an ivory tower at the Department of Education in Washington.”

The battle continues, will there be an entire revamp of the legislation or will a slightly renovated version of the NCLB be renewed?

Scylla and Charybdis

Why the war in Iraq is a major problem for Republican front runners

According to a Pollingreport.com poll, 66% of Americans think that President Bush is not handling the Iraq war in the right manner. One would think that that would be reason enough for someone with presidential ambitions for 2008 not to take the Bush administration’s stance on the war. However, on April 11, John McCain reiterated his support of Bush’s handling of the war once more, stating that “it is the right road. It is necessary and just.".
According to the New York Times, “both [Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani] are supportive of the war and of the recent troop increase designed to bring Baghdad under control, but have not been nearly as muscular in their defense of the policy as Mr. McCain has been.”

Why do the Republicans choose such an unpopular stance with a large portion of the population? One possibility is, of course, that this is what they firmly believe in. Another possible answer has to do with the way the US presidential election system is set up.

Before they can even dream about competing in the general election, the Republican candidates have to win the primaries. There, they have to woo the core of the Republican party – of which 64% think that things in Iraq are going well.

This puts the candidates into a precarious situation – similar to the classical Scylla and Charybdis dilemma, there seems to be no right stance for them to take when it comes to the war in Iraq, because both will lead to likely defeat. If they support the war, they will have trouble getting the necessary votes in 2008; however, if they remove themselves too far from the administration, they will never get the chance to compete in the national election.

Plan C

Conservative groups are now suing the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) over its decision--after a long controversy--to approve the emergency contraceptive "Plan B" for over-the-counter sales. Their claim? The decision was caught up in "electoral politics." Leaving aside the larger philosophical question about whether federal agencies should be immune from democratic pressure, the charge is hilarious, because as "The American Prospect" reports, it comes from the very same religious organizations who for years successfully pressured the FDA to overrule its own expert panels and block Plan B.

In the Zone

In yet another suspected suicide bombing, Baghdad's highly fortified International Zone or "Green Zone" (scroll to bottom) was penetrated and an explosion set off inside the Iraqi Parliament building today, killing eight and injuring over twenty. Perfectly timed, the suicide bomb was detonated inside a cafe right after morning session had adjourned. Only a few hours before, in sync with rush hour, a truck bomb went off on the 60-year-old Sarafiya bridge over the Tigris River, killing six and destroying the structure.

These two attacks, but especially the one occurring inside the Iraqi Parliament building, are huge blows to the security surge, especially since it is strongly supported by American forces. Instead of addressing the issue that people can enter and exit the Parliament building freely despite supposedly tight security, officials denounced the acts as cowardly. President Bush and claimed the acts showed an enemy so relentless that it was willing to attack democracy, but then, everything happening in Iraq today seems to be that way . . .

ACLU Sues to Enforce Equal Access for Gay-Straight Alliance

When Disney World is opening its doors up to gays, you know there's been a change in public consciousness.

Right down the road, gay issues came to a head at Okeechobee High School, where a recent battle was resolved by a Florida judge between the ACLU and the Okeechobee School Board. Why? Well, the ACLU was fighting another case for the formation of a gay-straight alliance.

Authorities at Okeechobee High School denied the right of its students to form a gay-straight alliance following the school's decision to disallow homosexual students from attending the prom with same-sex partners. Its grounds? That the organization of a gay-straight alliance violated the school's abstinence-only sex education policy. The ACLU sought to establish that by denying a gay-straight alliance the opportunity to form, they had violated the Federal Equal Access Act, which denies a school's authority to pick and choose which extracurricular groups can be formed on campus. The school allowed Christian, athletic, and other social outlets to organize -- discrimination against homosexual students was fairly obvious. Thus, while the school possessed a valid right to determine an abstinence-only sex education policy, a federal judge determined that they did not have the jurisdiction to presuppose the purpose of an organization and deny it existence on this basis. The judge maintained that the organization's primary purpose seemed to be the advocacy of tolerance, not to promote a promiscuous lifestyle. Upon this ruling, the lead counsel for the Okeechobee School Board seemed content to concede.

While the court can only issue an order to force the school to allow the organization the right to form, the school -- as a public institution -- relies on funding from the government in order to operate. This factor in combination with a federal court's order should be enough to ensure the existence of a gay-straight alliance. In addition, the court's ruling rests on a strong precedent of support for the formation of gay-straight alliances.

The ACLU writes:

"The order was granted primarily on the basis that the Federal Equal Access Act requires schools that allow any extracurricular club to meet on campus to allow all clubs to meet on campus. The ACLU has won other recent GSA victories across the nation, from Madera, California to White County, Georgia. This was also the first time a federal court has heard an Equal Access Act challenge in Florida."

This victory should be heralded as another step in the development of impact legislation for gay rights advocates. The building of case victories remains crucial as the court's policy of stare decisis to preserve its own legitimacy will play a large role in future decisions regarding homosexual issues.

Supreme Court Weighs in on Carbon Emissions

To the excitement of environmental activists, on April 2 the U.S. Supreme Court decided in favor of Massachusetts and the 11 other states suing the EPA for an injunction that would require the EPA to regulate carbon dioxide emissions from motor vehicles. Massachusetts and company argued that the EPA had the authority under the Clean Air Act to regulate carbon emissions. The EPA and Bush administration, however, claimed that it did not have the authority to regulate greenhouse gases, and that doing so would involve regulating fuel efficiency, which falls into the domain of the Department of Transportation. Massachusetts, et al. v. Environmental Protection Agency, et al.

The ruling that the EPA can regulate carbon emissions will most likely have several effects in the near future. There is a current dispute over California laws about air-quality and regulating emissions, and this Supreme Court victory will most likely strengthen California’s case. This decision might also push Congress to act more quickly in passing federal legislation to regulate emissions.

Mercury Emissions Standards

The naturally formed metal mercury is released in gaseous form emissions from coal-burning power plants. This air-borne mercury drifts from the mid-west states that have these power plants and is polluting northeastern states. New York and six other states are joining together in the attempt to force the federal government to step in and make some sort of regulations limiting these harmful levels of mercury contamination. From May 2nd to the 4th public hearings on the draft plan will be held in New York.

States have used this avenue before in 2005 in an attempt to have the federal government establish laws on smokestack emissions. In this case the states plan on using provisions of the federal Clean Water Act in their defense because when mercury falls on lakes and streams it has “led to health advisories limiting the consumption of sport fish taken from thousands of lakes, rivers and steams in the Northeast.”

The new commissioner of the NY Department of Environmental Conservation is quoted in the article saying that, “New York and its sister states can gang up on Washington to the force the administration’s hand to move ahead on this.” This brings up the interesting question of, how much influence do these states actually have over the federal government? Are they truly going to be able to pressure them into setting national standards? And if so what will these mid-west states have to say about it. Does the national government have the jurisdiction to set up these regulations? The emissions are crossing state borders, which imply to me that the federal government does have the grounds to set up these regulations and makes me curious as to why they have not already been set up if mercury emissions are so harmful!

Whose Georgia?

Russia and the United States have been embroiled in a dispute since yesterday over the fate of Georgia's breakaway region, Abkhazia. The debate took place at a U.N. Security Council meeting regarding the renewal of a U.N. mission in the Caucasus state. The issue came to a head mostly due to Sergei Shamba, the separatist foreign minister of Abkhazia. Shamba, who had wanted to address the Security Council's debate regarding this particular U.N. mission, was denied a visa to the United States because of his position against the pro-Western Georgian government. Though the United States claims that it is "under no obligation to grant Shamba a visa because Abkhazia separatist government is not internationally recognized," Russia interprets this decision otherwise. Russia's U.N. ambassador Vitaly Churkin called Samba's prevention of entry a "serious diplomatic and political mistake" on the United States' part. Churkin even went one step further, making a comparison with Serbia's Kosovo region: "Can you imagine, what would be the situation...if in the case of the Kosovo conflict, all those years the international community were listening only to the Serb side?" However, U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon pointed out that Russia is stirring up trouble, given that a Russian helicopter attack happened on March 11 in Georgian-controlled territory bordering Abkhazia.

Is the United States being unfair and undiplomatic by preventing Samba, whose separatist efforts are backed by Moscow, from speaking his piece in front of the U.N. Security Council? Or, is Russia creating false analogies in an aggressive attempt to undermine the United States' position on peace efforts in Abkhazia?

Hodgepodge of Election News

If Democratic candidates hope to win the White House in 2008, they are going to need to be able to portray themselves as determined and unafraid. They need to make the country believe they can handle the war and protect the nation from terrorists. So why does the name Fox have them running scared?

After Senator Edwards turned down the offer to participate in a presidential debate hosted by the Fox network and co-sponsored by the Congressional Black Caucus, fellow senators and presidential candidates Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama decided not to partake in the festivities as well, citing CNN as a better venue for the debate. We all know Fox leans a little (or a lot) to the right, but shouldn’t the candidates be able to suck it up and debate their views no matter what the setting is?

In other democratic candidate news, Senator Obama gave an amusing interview to David Letterman on the Late Show last night, explaining how he never has time to go home anymore. When asked whether he would agree to a Clinton-Obama joint ticket, he asked for clarification: “Which order are we talking about?” Could Obama put aside the man-ego and run with (but always behind) a (Wellesley) woman as her vice-presidential candidate? Some may argue that in the face of Obama’s lack of experience Clinton should have first billing, but according to some New Yorkers Obama may have more appeal than Clinton does. Ex-Clinton supporters in the big apple are going Barack.

To touch briefly on the Republican candidates, Giuliani doesn’t buy his own groceries. That is all.

The ERA is back…again

An old bill has been reintroduced into congress, again. The ERA is back! Except, now it’s called the “Women’s Equality Amendment.” It states: “Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex.” They are the same exact words contained in the ERA of the 1970s.

The WEA has been introduced by the democrats, and the amendment is seriously lacking in republican support. As the Washington Post reports, the house has only eight republican signatures, while the senate has none. Conservative groups have already assembled against women’s equality. Their big argument, exactly the same as three decades ago, is women would be subjected to the draft. Women are serving in the military right now, so why are Americans so insecure about putting women in uniform? In Israel, both men and women have to serve directly after graduating from high school.

In response to George Will’s op-ed (it will make you mad!), Ted Kennedy and Carolyn Maloney wrote a letter to the editor discrediting the notion that equality is unnecessary. Women are only paid .77 to every dollar that men make. It gets worse for minorities: black women make .67 and Hispanic women make .56 to every white male dollar! The two politicians realize that the battle for women’s equality is far from over: “A stronger effort is needed to finally meet our commitment to full equality.”

Border Control Going Out of Control

Washington recently released a draft of an upcoming immigration legislation in response to the presence of 11 million to 12 million illegal immigrants working in the country. On April 9th, President Bush spoke at the border of Mexico and Arizona about his new immigration plans. Bush comments that “illegal immigrants who have roots in our country and want to stay” would have the means to do such. He argues that with his plan “approval would not be automatic [and that] they would have to wait in line behind those who played by the rules and followed the law.”

The plan would include a proposal for “Z” visas, which are three-year work visas that are renewable but a renewal would cost $3,500 each time. These visas would give undocumented works legal status, but in order to get a green card, they would need to return to their native country, apply at the U.S. embassy or consulate and pay a $10,000 fine to re-enter the country. So basically, if an illegal immigrant wanted to stay in the U.S. with their families they would have to fork over $3,500 a year until they made enough money to pay the $10,000 fine they would need to hand over to get a green card, making it pretty damn difficult for an illegal immigrant to stay in the U.S.

Additionally the plan would increase border control by placing 370 miles of physical fencing and adding 5,000 more Border Patrol Agents at the border as well as using electronic monitoring of the southern border. The plan includes other controversial provisions such as one that prohibits temporary workers from bringing family members and another that limits visas for the immediate family of U.S. citizens in order to make green cards more available to skilled workers. So, if this legislation was adopted, some U.S. citizens would who want to sponsor their family to come to the U.S. would have to wait even longer in order to give their spots to illegal immigrant workers. It’s apparent that this new plan would hurt both illegal and prospective immigrants by pitting them against each other to scrimmage through the cracks of the closed door.

This drafts is just the beginning of the complicated procedured involved in making a bill a law. First, hearings and markups would be heard, then the committee votes and discharges the petition to the floor. There, the House and the Senate debate and amend the legislation where afterwards a Conference Committee between the House and the Senate over the final bill that will be passed. Once this is ready,the bill will be brought up to the President, and he can either veto, pocket veto or sign it.

Several immigration activists groups have already spoken up against the dangers of the plan that would severely hinder immigration efforts. Plans for reviving last year’s “Great American Boycott” are already brewing in Los Angeles as we speak.

The Left Coast of Similar Mind on Assisted Suicide

In opposition to Bush administration policies that took center stage last year during Supreme Court case Gonzales v Oregon, California may be headed toward legalizing assisted suicide.

On March 28, California Assembly Bill 374, which would legalize assisted suicide for terminally ill people with 6 months or less to live, cleared the Assembly Judiciary Committee with a 7-3 vote. It is intended as a compassionate option for terminally ill people who are suffering. This bill, should it be enacted, would be the second in the nation legalizing assisted suicide following California's neighbor to the north, Oregon.

Californians across all ethnicities, faiths, political leanings, and age groups have been (usually overwhelmingly) in favor of assisted suicide for the past thirty years according to The Field Poll. The main barrier, it seems, to the passage of this bill, and to similar legislation that preceded it, is the forceful opposition of the Roman Catholic Church in California. The Church's opposition to assisted suicide falls under the pro-life umbrella of social policy that it supports, and it has poured its resources into defeating all assisted suicide legislation attempts for about fifteen years.

Holding true to this tradition, Cardinal Roger Mohoney, leader of the nation's largest Roman Catholic archdioceses - Los Angelos, has come out against AB 374 and specifically Assembly Speaker Fabian Nuñez (a Catholic who has worshiped in Mohoney's church) for supporting it.

AB 374 is now in the Assembly Appropriations Committee awaiting a vote.

Democratic Frontrunners go Head-to-Head on Health Care

On March 27th, the Center for American Progress and the Service Employees International Union sponsored a forum on health care at the University of Nevada Las Vegas. All presidential candidates were invited to speak; Senators Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, Mike Gravel, Barack Obama, Representative Dennis Kucinich, and Governor Bill Richardson were in attendance. Candidates spoke briefly about their plans for health care, then fielded questions from moderator Karen Tumulty (TIME Magazine) and from the audience.

Hillary Clinton

Health care veteran Hillary Clinton didn't shy away from her rocky past with universal health insurance. In reference to the unsuccessful attempts of the Clinton Administration to reform health care in 1993, Clinton said the following,

Now, I am proud we tried. We may not have succeeded, but we set the groundwork in place so that now people are saying, boy, we wish we had done that back then because costs have continued to increase...I know probably better than anybody how hard this will be. Yeah, I know. I've got the scars to show for it and I've been through it, but that just makes me more determined. But it also makes me understand what we're up against...

On the issue of financing, Clinton didn't make a commitment to either employer mandates or individual mandates, but did mention the need for a complementary government-sponsored program to accompany any employer- or individual- based programs. She emphasized controlling costs by ending insurance discrimination (known more objectively amongst economists as adverse selection*) through risk pooling, by transitioning to electronic medical records, and by emphasizing preventative treatment. Clinton also mentioned increasing compatibility between record-keeping technologies around the country as well as the potential of "cafeteria" style insurance in which individuals are able to purchase only the coverage they choose.

In order to implement reform, Clinton also acknowledged the need for public and legislative political support.

We're all going to have plans, that's not in doubt. We need a movement. We need people to make this the number one voting issue in the '08 election to send a message to the Congress and the special interests, we're serious and we're going to get it done this time... But if we don't have the support to get a bill through the Congress, we can keep talking about universal health care coverage, and the number of the uninsured and the underinsured will keep going up, and we'll keeping spending more money and we won't have very much to show for it. So we don't only need candidates to talk about it, and we don't just need candidates to have a plan.

John Edwards

John Edwards' plans featured more specifics. He proposed an employer mandate "play or pay" system with government-regulated "health care markets" in which consumers can choose between government or privately provided health care. Such markets are meant to foster increased competition and thus help to lower overall costs of insurance provision. Much like Senator Clinton, Senator Edwards' other plans for cost control include mandatory preventative care as well as electronic record keeping. Although cost control is a main feature, Edwards is upfront about what it will take to fund reform. He proposes rolling back Bush Administration tax cuts in order to fund these health care markets as well as to support subsidized insurance for low and middle income families that make less than $80,000 a year.

We don't get universal health care for free. You have to cover 47 million people who don't have coverage. There's going to be a cost associated with the transition from the health care system we have today to a truly universal and more efficient health care system. So, no, I do not believe it can be achieved without finding an additional source of revenue. And the joke I always make about it is that American people have heard so many politicians for so long say, Oh, we're going to have universal health care, we're going to transform the way we use energy in America, we're going to end poverty in America, and in the process we're going to eliminate the federal deficit. They probably got a bridge in Brooklyn they want to sell you too. I don't think it could be done.

Barack Obama

Wunderkind Barack Obama offered the fewest concrete details. He explained that the relative newness of his presidential campaign at the time meant that his position on the issue was still in development.

Well, keep in mind that our campaign now is I think a little over eight weeks old. And so we will be putting a very detailed plan on our website... we have a plan that we are in the process of unveiling. What we want to do is try to set up a series of round table discussions before we actually announce it. Not just with experts, which we've already done, but rather with frontline workers, with nurses, with doctors, with consumers, which we're going to be scheduling over the next couple of months in terms of rolling it out.

The Senator assured listeners that he would carry out health care reform within his first term with some mixture of financing from employers, government, and individuals. Like Clinton, Obama did not yet have a stance on the employer or individual mandate systems but mentioned support for a complementary government system. He also spoke generally about the need for risk pooling, "front end" funding to reduce costs in the long-run, increased quality and efficiency of care, preventative care, and the "application of medical technology". Obama was a little more emphatic on the topic of political support,

...what I think is most important is we recognize that every four years we hear somebody has got a health care plan. Every four years somebody trots out a white paper, they post it on the web. But the question we have to challenge ourselves is do we have the political will and the sense of urgency to actually get it done...Now, I just have to repeat something I said earlier. And I'm absolutely convinced of this. The most important challenge for us is to build a political consensus around the need to solve this problem.

*For some economic background on adverse selection, see Akerlof, George A. "The Market for "Lemons": Quality Uncertainty and the Market Mechanism." The Quarterly Journal of Economics 84 (1970): 488-500.

Guantanamore

The Guantanamo Bay prison detainees suspected of being “enemy combatants” suffered a major legal blow last week when the Supreme Court declined to grant a writ of certiorari and hear their case. The detainees were arguing that the Military Commissions Act (MCA), enacted by Congress last year, is unconstitutional because it strips them of their habeas corpus rights. Although the detainees have won a series of victories at the Supreme Court up till now, it doesn’t seem to be helping them. As Marty Lederman explains, the Court’s decision still leaves the detainees with a chance to contest their imprisonment, but that could be a year or two down the road—and most have already been confined at Guantanamo for more than five years.

Googling Goodling

Monica Goodling, who was senior counsel to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales until she was resigned this week, has become the subject of intense journalistic scrutiny after she responded to a congressional request to testify about shenanigans in the Justice Department by claiming her 5th Amendment right against self-incrimination. Goodling, it turns out, is a wonderful personification of the Bush Administration’s approach to civil servants throughout the federal bureaucracy. Goodling is said to have forced out career attorneys, particularly in the civil rights division, in favor of lawyers more in tune with the Bush Administration--for example, former classmates at televangelist Pat Robertson's Regent University Law School, whose motto is "Christian Leadership to Change the World." As the superb Slate journalist Dahlia Lithwick argues, there's nothing wrong with the Bush Administration trying to change the direction of the Justice Department, but Goodling might want to reconsider whether the Bush agenda and a Christian agenda are synonymous.

Bush Told “Gringo, Go Home”

In an effort to smooth over North-South American relations and to highlight American aid to the regions, George W. Bush recently went on a tour of six Latin American countries.

Uprisings began when the Venezuelan President, Hugo Chavez, began shadowing the President and spurring large demonstrations. In Nicaragua on Sunday, Chavez triumphantly declared that Bush’s tour was a failure with his announcement “Latin Americans are telling you: ‘Gringo, go home!’

Although Chavez said that his parallel tour of the area was by chance, the up rise in anti-American sentiment in the area questions his true motives. Chavez clearly sees Bush as a threat to his attempts to revive socialism throughout Latin America. Throughout his speeches, he claimed that Bush, the “head of the empire himself,” was leading an attack. He incited the crowds continuing “we have resisted for a long time but no one wins a battle always staying on the defensive. This is no longer time for defense, this is time for attack, let loose the charging cavalry!”

Declaring himself as a member the anti-American bandwagon and loudly declaring anti-American sentiment could easily gain Chavez quick political points in his home country and with his socialist allies in Bolivia, Ecuador, and Argentina.

George W. Bush had no more luck in Guatemala, where Mayan priests quickly preformed a sacred ritual to eliminate the “bad spirits” Bush left on Iximxhe after he publicly visited the archeological site. Juan Tiney, director of a Mayan non-governmental organization asserted “that a person like Bush… is going to walk in our sacred lands is an offense for the Mayan people and their culture.”

Noting that anger towards U.S. policies is not aimed at the American people and instead solely aimed towards George W. Bush, journalist Jacob Hornberger wisely concludes that Bush’s trip to Latin America to “make friends” is as “doomed as his escapades in the middle east.”

Multilateral Trade Negotiations Hang in the Balance

Yesterday was the final day for Seoul and Washington D.C. to seal South Korea’s biggest trade pact ever and the United States’ biggest trade pact in over 15 years (since the 1992 North American Free Trade Agreement). Both President Bush and his South Korean counterpart, Roh Moo-hyun, were under pressure to meet the March 31^st deadline, so that they would be able to take advantage of Bush’s trade promotion authority (TPA) before it expires on June 30^th. According to the TPA - which gives the White House the power to negotiate trade deals independent of Congress - the administration must notify Congress of its intent to sign any new pacts 90 days in advance (note: March 31^st is exactly 90 days before June 30^th).

Of the various interesting facets of this situation, I find it most intriguing to observe all the demands that the White House has to balance in order to push this pact through. On one hand, the new majority in the Senate threatens to vote no if the deal does not secure greater access to heavily protected Korean goods such as rice and cars. For although the TPA does loosen the chains to Congress that weigh the Executive down (Congress cannot amend or filibuster the agreement), the White House must still bend to the Democrats’ demands in order to secure the up-down congressional vote. On the other hand, Korea is demanding that Washington loosen the environmental protections in the pact, saying that its anti-dumping laws are unfair. Finally (in a display of balancing skill that could rival Chinese plate spinning), the White House also needs to appease big businesses such as Chevron, who argue that the concessions, “could water down investment protections and leave US companies vulnerable.”

Multilateral deals like this one would be impossible without the TPA. This tool gives the executive the go-ahead to bypass the “bureaucratic quagmire,” of Congress and make trade negotiations an actual possibility. Both Neustadt and Howell would be proud, for in this situation, the president must act as a clerk and persuade foreign powers, interest groups, and the Congress that what he wants is best, but at the same time, the president has the substantial power to fast-track foreign policy through to completion.