One Step Closer to Financial Reform?

The global financial credit crisis was an epochal moment for those who have wanted to change practices within financial services. The Obama administration has made reform within the banking industry one its main goals and the passing of an extensive regulation measure in the House last Friday has drawn praise from the President. If the measure is made into a bill, a new agency would be created to protect consumers, regulate the over-the counter market for derivatives, prevent the likelihood that one bank’s failure could bring down the entire economy, and include terms for executive pay. However, this legislation has a long way to go before becoming a bill and made into law. Senate will not form its own version of the legislation until next year and not one Republican representative voted for the measure, which indicates the level of support the legislation will have from the GOP in the upper house. Though the measure is being led by the Democrats, with Barney Frank R-Mass at the forefront, 26 Democrats decided to vote against it. Many Republican representatives argued that legislation would contribute to unemployment and over extend the government powers. While the Democrats were able to pass the legislation without any Republican support or all of its party members, they will have a more difficult time in the Senate where a two-thirds majority requires bipartisan cooperation.

The difficulty and length of passing financial regulation reform, despite the undisputed need for change in the industry, speaks to the nature of American politics. Reconciling interests between parties and within party members can have detrimental effects on rate at which bills are made in to laws and can give a tremendous amount of power to individual legislators willing to vote against their party.

What's the Name of the Game? Cooperation

The separation of powers in the United States governing system creates interesting power dynamics. As a result of the separation of powers, Presidents have to rely on the Legislative Branch to cooperate with them in order to achieve their policy goals. In a way, this gives the Congressional leaders enormous power, especially in the more structured House of Representatives.

This need for cooperation between the Speaker of the House and the President is unique to American politics. In a Parliamentary system, there is no separation between the legislative and executive branches. Whatever policy the Prime Minister wants to enact will become law. In the United States, the President is not guaranteed passage of his policies.

This need for cooperation can be seen now in the Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi (CA-D) and President Barack Obama. Without Pelosi's help in garnering votes, the President's policies have little chance of making it through Congress and to his desk. At the same time, having the President's support, can be beneficial to Pelosi in getting legislation passed.

Is this need for cooperation a asset or a hindrance to American politics? I believe the need for cooperation that stems from the separation of powers is an asset to American politics. Without this need, the President could go unchecked in enacting legislation, which would make him more or less the same tyrant our Founding Fathers revolted against. While it makes difficult for legislation to be passed, it provides a greater incentive for bipartisanship (although, that was not the Founding Fathers' original intent), which could allow the needs of all citizens to be considered in negotiations.

In Texas, Republican Party Polarization Begs the Question: Are More Parties Necessary?

Two-party political systems work well in a simple political atmosphere where there are only two basic dimensions of public opinion. But in the real world, there are many issues, and many dimensions. There is a diversity of views even within parties, and this means that it isn't unusual for candidates in the same election from the same party to be very different from one another. Even with the potential confusion, Americans are much more loyal to parties than they were in the middle of the last century. As moderates and liberal Republicans leave, the GOP is becoming more and more conservative. This is why moderate Republicans like Senator Olympia Snow of Maine and Dede Scozzafava of New York are so scrutinized by their more conservative peers.

Exemplifying this conservative outrage at liberal Republicans is Rick Perry, the incumbent governor of Texas, who fights for “Texas values” and criticizes moderates’ “one-size fits all approach.” He will be running against moderate Republican Kay Baily Hutchinson, who Perry criticizes for going native by succumbing to Washington D.C. liberalism. Hutchinson, who supports embryonic stem cell research and has an ambiguous position on abortion, insists that she has been “fighting so hard” for Texan interests in the Senate. But no matter how “Texan” she might be, many still question how Republican she is compared to Perry –a good friend of Sarah Palin’s who believes that Obama is “hellbent on taking America toward a socialist country” and who hints at a second-wave attempt at succession from the union.

Ultimately the upcoming Texas gubernatorial primary begs the question: are two parties enough to represent the diversity of political interests in the United States? There is similar –albeit not as extreme- division in the Democratic party. Though, if our system is already slow to enact laws and take other forms of action, maybe adding a more complicated party structure might be the greater of the two evils.

The Supreme Court: "Something's Rotten in the State of Illinois"

On December 8, 2009, the Supreme Court annulled the decision of the Illinois Court of Appeals and further instructed the same court to dismiss the case of Alvarez v. Smith on the grounds that it was moot. The State of Illinois’ Drug Asset Forfeiture Procedure Act (DAFPA) allows a law enforcement officer to seize- without a warrant- any property that he has probable cause to believe was used to facilitate a drug crime.

Six Plaintiffs arrested under DAFPA claim that the lack of a "speedy post-seizure hearing" to return the items, vehicles and money, was a direct violation of the Due Process Clause. Yet when the case came before the Supreme Court, three owners had their vehicle in their possession; two forfeited the money and one individual, requesting only a portion, left the rest with the State. Since all six had come to an agreement with the State, the Supreme Court had neither a legal case nor a controversy to decide. The Supreme Court, however, already granted certiorari to review the question regarding Due Process.

The State of Illinois returned the vehicles between 11 and 40 months after seizure and in the case on the money after 14 months. Something is rotten in the State of Illinois! After an officer seizes property, he must contact the Law Enforcement Agency who then contacts the State Attorney to begin the process of Judicial Forfeiture Review. The bureaucratic process spans about 5 months and in the finality favors the State as the individuals have legally forfeited their property.

Though the individuals in this case were fortunate to have their property returned, what about the countless others who are not as lucky? Law Enforcement Agencies can seize property with nothing more than probable cause, but what sort of precedent is this? Though the Supreme Court can only interpret law, law makers should create legislation to forbid this unconscionable practice of using loopholes to unfairly withhold property.

Victory in Houston for the LGBT Community

On December 12^th 2009, Annise Parker became Houston’s first openly gay mayor despite anti-gay attacks from fellow Democrat opponent Gene Locke's endorsed ads. Houston, the fourth largest city in the country, has become the biggest city to elect an openly gay mayor. As a result, many major gay-rights groups including The Victory Fund, a national organization dedicated to increasing the number of openly gay officials in office, and The Human Rights Campaign, the nation’s largest LGBT lobby group, have found this to be a major victory in the fight for LGBT equality. Human Rights Campaign President Joe Solmonese stated, “Houston…sent a positive message to the nation, that it chose the best person for the job based on her experience and qualifications.”

Parker defeated Locke 53 percent to 47 percent. This is an unprecedented event in a predominately conservative state where voters have outlawed gay marriage and denied benefits to same-sex partners of city government employees. Parker encountered difficulties when she began receiving anti-gay attacks from black pastors who organized groups to pass out fliers calling attention to her relationship with her partner and support from gay-rights lobby groups. Locke denied having any involvement in the attacks, but two members of his finance committee donated $40,000 to help finance these attacks against Parker.

Louis Menand, a literature professor at Harvard University, implied in his article, “Did the Voters Send a Message,” that voters, during the 2004 election, were more apt to select the candidate that provided the most safety and stability. Voters were shown to select Bush solely on the protection they felt he provided from terrorists. Issues regarding moral values became less important in the 2004 election, while providing protection and stability after the 9/11 attacks were the voters' primary concern. In the wake of the financial crisis, Annise Parker, the previous City Comptroller, appeared to be the best selection for Mayor of Houston, regardless of her sexual orientation, because she was more qualified to manage the city’s financial affairs. Parker and Locke's views did not differ greatly; however, the voters of Houston simply valued financial stability over Locke's promise to reduce crime.

Cracking Down on Wall Street

After three days of debate on the House floor, a Democratic proposal to increase federal regulation of Wall Street and banks was finally approved (by a relatively narrow margin of 223 to 202) this past Friday. This sweeping new measure would give the government a new range of powers including the ability to break up large firms, regulate hedge funds, oversee the derivatives market, and protect consumers against unfair mortgage practices through the creation of a new agency. This comprehensive plan, however, failed to gain a single Republican vote and even the votes of some moderate Democrats who argued that this new bill would give the government too much control over such things like credit and mortgages. Both parties are using their vote in the House to garner support for the coming midterm elections. Republicans who have opposed this bill on the claims that this new bill is money taken away from paying the national debt are hoping to reach out to Democrats in swing districts. Using Mayhew’s analysis of Congressmembers as “single minded seekers of re-election,” one can argue that such strong “position-taking” is a reflection of House members’ ultimate goal of re-election.

In light of the economic crisis, President Obama has made financial reform a priority and since then, has been persuading Congress to “act as quickly as possible.” Upon the approval of the massive bill, Obama stated that Americans have a “responsibility to learn from [the crisis] and to put in place reforms that will promote sound investment, encourage real competition and innovating and prevent such a crisis from ever happening again.” Such rhetoric used by the president re-iterates Neustadt’s idea of the “president as a clerk.”  The Madisonian framework of separation of government and sharing of authority forces the president to use his status and authority to persuade other political actors to carry out whatever agenda. However, even though the House has already passed some sort of regulatory reform legislation, the Senate has only just begun considering a similar bill. Financial lobbyists have vowed to appeal to not only Republicans, but also to moderate Democratic senators with a soft spot for businesses. Given that the lobbyists are successful, a handful of senators could prevent the casting of the necessary 60 votes to avoid a filibuster (which seems likely at this point). This is another example of why the Senate, according to Smith, “is a major chokehold in the legislative system.” 

Church and State in Ashville, North Carolina

Politicians are often scrutinized by their constituents because, in the opinion of the constituents, politicians have not done enough for the people, they are not being proactive in bettering the area, or because they are not voting the way the electorate wants them to. This is not the case for Cecil Bothwell, a City Councilman from Ashville, North Carolina. He is receiving criticism from his constituents because of his religious beliefs, or lack thereof. He has been an atheist since age 20, a fact that does not sit well with the citizens of Ashville. The people of Ashville, North Carolina do not trust a man who does not have faith in God. They want Bothwell removed from office, stating that they have the North Carolina Constitution on their side, which they do.

The North Carolina Constitution states that a person who does not believe in God cannot hold public office. Other states have had similar restrictions in the past; however, on numerous occasions the federal government has defeated them. The U.S. Constitution is on the side of Cecil Bothwell. In Article XI of the Constitution it states that “no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.” With the power of the Supremacy Clause, the U.S. Constitution will prevent the people of Ashville from removing Councilman Bothwell.

The Founding Fathers wanted states to have autonomy from the federal government in certain areas. States have unique laws, powers, and requirements within their own constitutions. These, however, cannot interfere with the federal Constitution because of the Supremacy Clause. This is not an issue of whether the state or national government has the right to decide if Bothwell stays in office. The Founding Fathers placed a clause in the Constitution stating that someone cannot be removed from office based on religious beliefs. The people of Ashville are scrutinizing Bothwell for no reason because the clause in the North Carolina Constitution that requires office holders to believe in God is unconstitutional, so they have no concrete argument for removing Bothwell.

Diffusion of Responsibilities

The budget crisis in California is really hurting the Cal State and UC system. This semester, the Cal State system has been plagued with furloughs, increased student fees, and cuts in classes. The situation seems to be getting worse by the moment. Academic buildings are being rented out to storage companies and there are talk of shutting down the phone system completely. Already, the phones and lights are turn off two days out of the month.

A Los Angeles Times article questions whether the state is “saving money or shooting itself in the foot”. Cal State Northridge president, Jolene Koester, said that CSUN has 3,000 more low-income students than the Ivy Leagues combined. She refers to a study that said for every dollar the state invests in the Cal State system, $4.50 is returned from the salaries of the workforce.

Children from families that cannot afford private institutions or more expensive public universities turn to the Cal State system to get a college education. Because of the budget crisis, the state schools are turning away more and more applicants which means that children who cannot afford other schools will have no alternatives. Cal State Long Beach received 71,000 undergrad applicants and can only accept 9,000 which not only makes the acceptance rate for CSULB lower than most Ivy Leagues but leaves thousands of students without a college to attend. Who is to blame for this disaster?

Under the American government’s separation of powers, pinpointing to someone or something that is responsible is difficult. The state governor can blame a dysfunctional legislature which can then point to unstable revenue sources. It is not fair that the students must suffer from this crisis. How, then, can a budget crisis like this be avoided again?

Obama Accepts Nobel Peace Prize

This past Thursday, December 9, President Obama accepted his Nobel Peace Prize in Oslo, Norway. When it was announced that Obama was the recipient of the prize this year, people were outraged. Obama had only been in office for 12 days by the time nominations were due. What had he done to receive such a prestigious award? The Norwegian Nobel Committee said they honoring Obama for his "extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples." Despite this, many people still disagree with the committee's choice. A Gallup Poll, from October 16-19, 2009, showed that 61% of Americans think that Obama did not deserve to win the prize (the poll had a 95% confidence level and a margin of error of plus or minus three percentage points).

In his acceptance speech on Thursday, Obama acknowledged the controversy surrounding the committee's decision, saying that part of it was caused by his short time in office so far and the slightness of his accomplishments. The other issue creating controversy is the fact that he's the commander in chief of a country fighting two wars. He said the war not winding down is "a conflict that America did not seek" one in which we are joined by forty-three other countries [...] in an effort to defend ourselves and all nations from further attacks." When speaking about the wars, he talked about the idea of a "just war" - a war "waged as a last resort or in self-defense." Obama's discussing of "just wars" could be considered "crafted talk." There is not much support for the war, so Obama is trying to point out that it is justified and that we wouldn't be there if it wasn't a necessity. If Obama's crafted talk works, his speech will garner more support for the war, and maybe even decrease the number of people that disagree with him winning the Nobel Peace Prize.

“I’ve got the power!”

Democrats had a reason to celebrate on Thursday when the much-anticipated House bill on the regulation of the financial system finally passed the House with an early evening procedural vote 238-186. This victory allowed the House floor to start consideration of 36 amendments. The final vote is targeted for Friday. The bill provides regulation on the $450-trillion over-the-counter derivatives market for the first time and gives the government new powers over large banks.

The passing of the financial regulations bill marked a hard-earned victory for Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, chief author of the bill, who had called the proposal the most significant increase in regulation of the financial sector since the Great Depression. Although backed by the Obama administration, the bill had met strong resistance from both Republican and Democratic House members. On one hand, Republicans attacked the bill as a measure that would destroy jobs, while setting up government bureaucracies and piling costs on businesses. On the other hand, the Congressional Black Caucus, which has been historically Democratic, threatened to oppose the bill unless more was done to address the economic troubles of minority communities. As a result, provisions were added to redirect $4 billion from the bank bailout fund to provide low-interest loans to unemployed homeowners and assistance for purchase and repair of foreclosed properties. In addition, a bloc of business-oriented House Democrats led by Representative Mellisa Bean from Illionois and her New Democrat Coalition worried that the bill will negatively affect financial institutions. To address their concerns, supporters of the bill including Speaker Nancy Pelosi compromised and revised the bill so that it met the objectives of Ms. Bean and her allies.

This phenomenon of party members threatening to block party proposals shows how unique the U.S. Congress is compared to other national legislatures. In a parliamentary system like the UK, party members are compelled to vote along party lines and members who vote differently risk being kicked out of the party. On the contrary, members of the Congress retain a large degree of autonomy from their party leaders that even a president from their own party can't tell them what to do. They are free to vote their own conscience or that of their constituents. This is because unlike the UK which has a strong party system, the U.S. has a weak two party system that allows Congress members to be responsible to their constituents alone, not to their party. The low level of discipline within the party and the low level of connection to the party all contribute to a weak party system and strong individual members of the Congress. As Smith points out in his American Anomaly which I agree, the U.S. Congress is the most powerful national legislature in the world.

 

Federalism: States Play Dirty

Because of the economic crisis, many states like California are scrambling to manage their state budget deficit. The key to easing the difficulty is to keep businesses running and to continue providing jobs. Michael Bergeron, business development manager for the state of New Hampshire, knows this. He has been advertising New Hampshire's low taxes because "That's what distinguishes us as a brand." However, this promoting of state brands has recently gotten hairy. A trend to ridicule other states has risen. Nevada has put up billboards directly bashing California's economic situation; "Keep Your Business in California and Kiss Your Assets Goodbye." In response, California circulated an ad equally as biting; "What happens in Vegas stays in Vegas, but what happens in California makes the world go 'round".

What is the cause of this playground drama? States are pined against one another in economic competition. The ads and billboards are outrageous. Each state has its own regulations, both beneficial and harmful for businesses, and instead of promoting the benefits, states have decided to play dirty and criticize competitive neighboring states. Is this the type of healthy competition that Madison had hoped for in Federalism?

Racism Challenges the American Creed

Long before Kody Brittingham was arrested for his assassination plot, Operation Patriot, President Barack Obama had already been the target of several assassination threats, the New York Times reports. A year and a half before Obama was even marked as a possible Democratic presidential candidate enough threats against his life had surfaced to warrant Secret Service protection. What exactly was a major cause for many of these threats? Barack Obama is an African American.

Although the election of an African American to the highest political office of the United States is a sign of tremendous progress, the racially charged death threats President Obama continues to received are evidence of the deep seated racial hatred still present in certain segments of society.

Racism continues to challenge the values outlined in the “American Creed” proposed by Samuel Huntington. The belief that Barack Obama should have been prohibited from running for the office of President due to his race conflicts with the value of equality, which requires a collective belief in equality of opportunity. In addition, the office of the democratically elected president would be respected by all in a society where democracy is collectively held as a core value. The racially charged death threats President Obama receives shows a disrespect for the democratic choice of majority of Americans to elect an African American president. Racism is more important to some Americans, as a value, than equality and democracy.

Election Law Success in Iraq

As a follow up to my previous blog post:
Today, the Iraq election laws finally emerged out of the Presidency council – consisting of the president, a Kurd, and a Sunni vice president and a Shiite vice president. A Sunni lawmaker described the situation to the Washington Post, “Every party wants a law that would guarantee its interests and victory.”
On November 11th, Sunni Vice President Tariq al-Hashemi vetoed the laws twice and pushed for equal voting rights for Iraqis living abroad, most of whom are Sunnis. An editorial in the New York Times commented that, “[al- Hashemi] put in doubt Iraq’s second national election, a critical test of whether democracy can endure as the United States withdraws its troops… American officials were instrumental in the last compromise and need to put the same kind of effort into resolving this impasse.”
The new parliament will be expanded from 275 seats to 325 with over 15 seats reserved for religious and ethnic minorities. Election lists will be “open” and have the names of candidates rather than just the parties, as “closed lists” have had in the past. The election is currently scheduled for January 16th, but a month or two long delay is expected since, according to the Iraq constitution, the election laws must be passed 60 days before it is held. This timeline will have a heavy impact on the withdrawal of US troops, which are currently scheduled to end missions by August. Now, the troops are waiting to see the stability of Iraq until after polling and possibility through to the inauguration of the new government. Furthermore, US troops and resources in Afghanistan partially rely on the distribution in Iraq. This delay could very well foil President Obama’s exit plan of full withdrawal by August 2010, though at the same time troop departures could not begin without it. The White House immediately released a statement of approval regarding the Iraqi election law this evening.
Unfortunately, participants of the negotiation and government officials are not permitted to brief the media and thus details of the negotiations are not fully known. Washington has time and time been reported to be lobbying for the polls to be held on time but United Nations officials and American diplomats were not informed about what happened with the Presidency Council negotiations. New York Times cited Western diplomats gathering to “compare notes to see if they could make sense of the latest development”. A conscientious move was made to keep the election law decisions within the Iraq system, though US, UN, and other groups appeals strongly to high ranking lawmakers. Though it has been a struggle, perhaps the Iraq government is demonstrating that they are finally ready to stand on their own.

Lobbyists lose influence in Washington

An initiative from the Obama administration could eject hundreds to thousands of lobbyists from federal advisory panels. The initiative, which received little attention, was issued in a blog by the White House ethics counsel, Norm Eisen, and could be the most “far-reaching lobbying rule change” so far from Obama, says the Washington Post. The policy would prohibit all of the more than 13,000 lobbyists in Washington from holding seats on committees which "advise agencies on trade rules, troop levels, environmental regulations, consumer protections” and numerous other government policies. These advisory panels work behind the scenes issuing reports and recommendations that are often very influential because policymakers seek their expertise for a wide range of subjects. Official estimates show that there are approximately 1,000 of these panels and more than 60,000 people in the groups. Members of the panels are not paid, but lobbyists have been able to use their position on these committees to present their clients’ views to government officials—influencing policy decisions.

The lobbyist community has been quick to react in a negative way. They feel that the White House is wrongfully demonizing their profession and warn that the removal of lobbyists will be detrimental to federal regulators who rely on the expertise of lobbyists in advisory committees. When discussing the effect of this policy, Robert Vastine, a lobbyist for the Coalition of Service Industries who also serves as chairman of a trade advisory board said, “It's a whole different and specialized world. It is not easily obtained knowledge, and they are crippling themselves terribly by ruling out all registered lobbyists."

But the White House feels differently. Eisen believes “it's healthy to move away from the professional advocates for the special interests and let some new voices be heard.” The White House recognizes that these lobbyists, though many of them have become experts, do have an agenda and use their position to unfairly advance their goals.

This initiative brings to mind the idea of pluralism and the role of lobbyists for various interest groups. In the pluralistic vision of democracy, decisions are made through negotiation among the various concerned interest groups. Interest groups provide a medium for those who feel most strongly and are experts on issues. These groups organize and hire lobbyists to negotiate and bargain with legislators to adopt their clients’ views. However, there usually is an inequality of resources (such as money, media attention, and volunteering) between the affected interest groups.

Lobbyists support the pluralistic vision and feel that it is important for the groups to have lobbyists who can fervently negotiate their views. The White House, on the other hand, recognizes the flaw of this vision and argues that the inequality of resources allows some special interest organizations to hire lobbyists who are more influential than others.

Bill White Announces He Will Run For Governor of Texas

Bill White, Democratic Mayor of Houston, announced his candidacy for Governor of Texas, in the 2010 election, earlier this week. A popular figure in Texas, he appears by all accounts to be an unusually strong candidate, whose candidacy has given Democrats in Texas new hope.

Recruited by Democratic leaders, White has proven his quality as a challenger by winning his last two mayoral elections by a large margin. His recognition immediately makes him stand out over the other Democratic candidates, a singer, and "hair-products magnate" who is new to politics. His strength as a challenger is also evident in the fact that he has already managed to raise 6.5 million dollars.

Running in a traditionally Republican state against a popular incumbent pressing for a third term, White's odds of winning are admittedly not high. However, his emergence, as a high quality Democratic candidate, in a a Republican state, and an election year that will likely be dominated by Republican wins is a sign of hope for Democrats. It suggests the Democrats may have a legitimate chance at winning. His candidacy has reportedly even excited Democratic contributors and fund-raisers.

White's announcement is a good example of how the Gubernatorial elections seem to follow a similar pattern as Congressional elections. The declaration of a high quality challenger changes the political environment, and inspires contibutors to give, when they otherwise wouldn't. This in turn, increases the challenger's ability to be a more prominent challenger. However, as in Congressional elections, this cycle begins long before the actual election, forcing, the many key players, including potential challengers and contributors, to make decisions based on a political environment that may (and likely will) change by election day. The decisions in turn, appear to further shape the political environment, creating a complicated web of speculation, cause and effect.

The New York Times coverage of this article is also of note as it highlights the role of elite media in the primary process. The NYT's approving review of White singles him out early as the Democratic front-runner in the upcoming election. Publicity in a highly regarded national paper, will undoubtedly help the Houston mayor's bid for Governor by introducing him to a wider audience and lending his candidacy substantial credibility.

Refusal to Give Precedence: Oppression of Christians

A federal district judge issued a decision on Nov 10 to strike down South Carolina's "official 'Christian' license plate," calling it a breach of the separation of church and state.

In the summer of 2008, state officials had the idea that it might be popular and lucrative to have a “Christian” license plate. This in itself is not an issue at all; however the usual process requires DMV paperwork, $4,000 in startup and at least 400 people ready to buy it. The “I Believe” license plate skipped this process.  Instead of waiting for a private group to sponsor the plate, the S.C. legislature passed a law ordering it to be created. It was also made clear that other religions should not expect the same preferential treatment. This was opposed not only by advocates of civil liberties and non-Christian religious groups who believe religion has no place in government, but also by a few prominent Christians who believe strongly that the government has no place in religion. At pro-plate rallies, one particular crowd-pleaser line catches the expository light, that Christians were being treated unfairly because the state had an “In Reason We Trust” plate. This is true, but that plate went through the normal DMV process, as could the “I Believe” plate. It highlights the power of wording and half-truths; in polling, the way one words a question can drastically influence the outcome. If it were said, “We shouldn’t have to follow procedure like the seculars –we’re Christians and our plate is better” the crowd might have been more puzzled and less inflamed.

Because at least one of the legislative proponents of the plate has decided to run for governor, the issue takes on a level of pandering. South Carolina has a formidable Christian voting bloc, and a record of having fought for Christian religious expression might go a long way, even though in reality it was a specious attack against the separation of church and state. In this case, democracy might not mean the rule of the majority, and it is a reminder of the value of a non-elected court whose sole interest is the preservation of the Constitution.

It's Hot... But it's Not Cause of Me

Monday kicks off the two week long climate summit in Copenhagen, Denmark. 192 countries are scheduled to meet in Copenhagen with the hopes of establishing a treaty that would ideally represent steps towards climate reform. A collaborative effort, between rich, industrialized nations and poor, developing ones, is facilitated through the summit with the intentions of promoting climate restoration. The summit is to mainly focus on the reductions of greenhouse gas emissions and the financing of clean energy technology for poorer nations by the richer nations.
Due to the stall in Congress concerning legislation, and Obama's decision to delay his attendance until the last day, many foresee that the summit will not result in more than a framework for the future. Obama’s delay is associated with his announcement of the reduction goal of emission by 17%, which China, India, Japan and the European Union responded to by outlining their own goals. The president wants to increase the chances for changes to be effected, and he sees the stressful last hours of a summit to be the best potential sphere of such change.
Although Obama does represent a characteristic of action for climate change, he is not the only factor because he has no impact without legislation from Congress. Other nations don't look at Congress as the power head of the American government, although it is the strongest legislative body of a democratic government in the world. Congress holds the very key in this dilemma of climate change. Any proposed action by Obama must be met by nationwide legislation, which is the case for his provision that is awaiting congressional action. Congress also controls the second goal to be addressed by the summit, the financing of clean energy technology in developing nations. This role goes along with the constitutionally based power of the "purse" and reasserts the power of Congress in this situation.
The Chief Environmental Affairs Correspondent at NBC News, Anne Thompson, asserts the impact Congress carries and the overall context of the Copenhagen summit.

"Some see Copenhagen as a test of U.S. leadership in the world. However, any
agreements made in Copenhagen will have to face domestic scrutiny as well. What
the world wants may not be what the Senate is willing to pass - and the
Senate will have to approve any climate treat".

Congress has found itself in a position of power over both the domestic and foreign spheres, which breaches the “2 presidencies” Wildavsky outlined. The legislative body of the United States is able to curtail the foreign policies set forth by the President due to its home bound impacts.

Environmentalists, country delegates and foreign law makers had looked at the election of Obama in 2008 as a 'win' for improvements in the climate effort- a policy window for international measures, so to speak. Obama's election marked an abandonment of American resistance established throughout the Bush administration and a progressive step forward for the U.S. in the future years of heightened awareness and action. Surprisingly, however, it seems that the Congress is to have just as much as an esteemed role in these upcoming decisions.

Majority Leader Harry Ried Strggles for 2010 Relection

Throughout the health care debate, Majority leader Harry Reid has involved himself to an unusual degree in assembling the final measure. He met with virtually every Senate Democrat and urged his colleagues to negotiate compromises among themselves and to bring their concerns directly to him. Mr. Reid has personally shepherded the complex measure through a favorable Congressional Budget Office review and held regular detailed discussions with Douglas W. Elmendorf, director of the office. On Dec 3, he announced that he will introduce a bill to pass at the Senate. Why is he overworking to win his health care legislation? This is because of the upcoming 2010 reelection.

During an election year, sentators hunker down and work on their image. Senators follow their state’s public opinion, sit for interviews, and address populist issues to garner support. However, Nevada Senator Reid is locked in a bitterly partisan fight over the health care debate, and he is one of the team captains. Being forced to make his clear standpoint, it is easy for Nevada voters to decide on whether they agree or disagree. Unfortunately, fifty-two percent of Nevadans oppose the Democrats’ plan for health reform. What is worse, new poll numbers from a Mason-Dixon Poll show that Reid has a low approval rating of 38 percent. In potential match-ups with both candidates currently vying for the GOP nomination, Reid loses to both.

Therefore, Reid not only has to work on his image, run ads around most of Nevada, but also needs to work on the health care bill to win the support of Nevada voters. I believe that one option is to propose a liberal bill, get a filibuster, and then encourage immediate negotiations on alternative approaches to come to a moderate compromise to satisfy his constituencies.

Objectivity-"Check"

Objectivity is defined as something not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; and unbiased. Every journalist knows this, but every few practice it.

Take the Associated Press (AP) for instance, a well respected news wire with Nobel Prize winning writers.

One would think that a news wire like the Associated Press would be far too busy to spend time fact checking a run of the mill autobiography, but apparently Sarah Palin is no run of the mill public figure. AP managed to track down a copy of Sarah Palin's autobiography, "Going Rogue" before its November 17, 2009 release date and dedicated 11 writers to 'fact check' it. According to AP, Palin apparently, "misstated travel expenses and tax-payer funded bailouts." But that's nothing compared to the real reason they probed the book: because AP thought it, "...has all the characteristics of a pre-campaign manifesto." That's great that AP wants to hold people accountable, but AP doesn't fact-check frequently if at all. How do they know its a "pre-campaign" manifesto? It's an autobiography, not a campaign platform. Books by Barack Obama, Joe Biden and Ted Kennedy all received traditional new stories upon their releases---not fact checks nor accusations that they were "manifestos".

No matter what Palin stated, didn't state, or even the way in which she stated it, need not be the concern of the AP. How is it that AP even has time to fact-check? There's news going on in the world that the AP is completely missing wasting time on Palin's book. Let the readers be the judge of Palin's truthfulness or lack thereof.

This demonstrates how media really works. Objectivity is a thing of the past and the Palin fact-check debacle is an excellent example of this. AP received copies before the release date with no reason to believe that anything in the autobiography was untrue. The writers read all 432 pages to find anything to discredit her. They let whatever bias they had cloud any sense of objectivity. This also demonstrates how the media is better with people than with policy. It is far more interesting to engage in sensationalist journalism and personalities than it is to focus on a Senate or House Committee meetings and debates of policy. Unfortunately for Palin, AP is more interested in her trips than her policies.

Funding the Afghan War: The Collision of Obama's Foreign and Domestic Policies

On Tuesday, December 1, 2009, at West Point Academy, President Obama announced his much anticipated plan for handling the war in Afghanistan. Obama detailed his plan to send an additional 30,000 U.S. troops to Afghanistan by summer 2010 and to start withdrawing troops in July of 2011. While this announcement helped to quell the buzz about what actions are to be taken in Afghanistan, it initiated yet another equally heated debate over the funding of Obama’s plan. Up from $43 billion in 2008 and $55 billion in 2009, the estimated cost of the war in Afghanistan is expected to reach $100 billion in 2010 with Obama’s plan, increasing the overall cost of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars to nearly $1 trillion.

While President Obama is demonstrating his power of the sword, the current economic situation is forcing President Obama and Congress to evoke their power of the purse very wisely to fund these military actions. The Republicans of Congress, rejecting proposals for increased taxes, support cutting back funds to federal agencies and/or using unspent stimulus funds to pay for the increased military spending while Democrats are pushing for a new “war surtax” with the fear that the new military spending may take away from much-needed domestic spending.

With Aaron Wildavsky’s classic concept of one U.S. president but “two presidencies,” one concerned with domestic affairs while the other handles foreign policy, in mind, it seems that President Obama’s two presidencies are clashing in competition for funding. With the U.S. in a bad recession and a war in need of a new direction in Afghanistan, it seems our President Obama is stuck between a rock and a hard place as far as funding his policies is concerned. Should he take away funding from his domestic economic stimulus policy to fund our Afghan efforts or should the burden be placed on the millions of American citizens that are struggling in the midst of the very recession his domestic policy is attempting to eradicate? The concept of two presidencies that has always described the success of the president in each sphere now represents one of his most pressing dilemmas.

MERRY christMAS?

Many of us are accustomed to seeing signs that connect Christmas to Christianity, with lights that shine, “Jesus is the Reason for the Season” or with the countless nativity scenes in front of churches and people’s homes. However, this year, there are unusual holiday messages that have started to appear in Washington D.C. They read, “No god? …No Problem!” or “Be good for goodness’ sake,” to name a few. These signs are part of an atheist campaign, sponsored by secular groups all over the world.

Roy Speckhardt, executive director of American Humanist Association explains, “We don’t intend to rain on anyone’s parade […] it’s just to say that you can be good without god.” Needless to say, his statement still did not prevent strong, dissenting reactions from religious communities. As Mathew D. Staver, Dean of Liberty University School of Law, says, “It is the ultimate Grinch to suggest there is no God during a holiday where millions of people around the world celebrate the birth of Jesus Christ.” This debate and demand for respect from both sides will likely “spark a theological war of words,” as mentioned in the article.

This brings to focus the debate about the American Creed, made up of a loose set of values: liberty, individualism, freedom, and egalitarianism. Followers of the American Creed believe that despite political disagreement, these values join in the idea of limiting government, thus, limiting political debate. However, dissenters of this belief, like Hertzke, do not feel that there is such a consensus, and that for Americans, there are conflicts on matters. It seems that in this case, Hertzke’s argument holds firm ground. It is obvious that religion is very important in American society and in American politics. So, in the midst of the atheist campaign versus Christian communities, one must wonder, “If people are fighting, is the liberal answer (everyone can do what he or she wants) good enough?”