Tuesday, November 30, 2010

Climate Change: The Next Legal Frontier

Imagine what would happen if people got together and sued industry companies for their greehouse gas emissions. Sounds pretty crazy, right? Believe it or not, that's exactly what has happened in Connecticut v. American Power Co., a controversial case in which a coalition of states and conservation groups has accused six electric power companies of causing a public nuisance with their emissions. The case was first brought to trial in 2004, with the plaintiffs arguing that the power companies were contributing to global warming and undermining public well-being with pollution from their coal-fired plants. The utilities have countered by arguing that the courts have no jurisdiction over an issue which should be discussed by the executive and legislative branches (an argument called the political question doctrine).


The political question doctrine defense worked so well for the utilities that in 2005 a New York district court judge dismissed the case. But although the battle may have been won the war was far from over: in 2009 the US Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit reversed the district court's decision by reasoning that the plaintiffs were not trying to formulate a far-reaching solution to global climate change (a task rightfully belonging to Congress and the President). All they wanted was to curb the emissions from six utilities companies which were clearly causing a public nuisance with their dirty emissions. The case now awaits the attention of the Supreme Court, if they choose to take it up.


Although Connecticut v. American Electric Power Co., has taken an exceptional step in successfully suing power companies for the damage their emissions are doing to public well-being, it is actually the continuation of a long history of environmental advocates circumventing a stalled or recalcitrant legislative system through the "back door" of law-making: the courts. For years the rules and regulations governing the administration of natural resources and the protection of endangered animals and plants have been hammered out in pitched legal battles (a process known by Robert Kagan and his devoted followers in POL1 200 as "adversarial legalism"). Connecticut v. American Electric Power Co. is the first time that a court has extended its jurisdiction over the intricate technical issues associated with addressing climate change, effectively signaling a vote of no confidence in the ability of the other two branches to do something about it. President Obama responded in August by asking the Supreme Court to dismiss the case, arguing that since emissions are already adequately regulated by the EPA there is no need for the judiciary to stick its oar in.


It remains to be seen what the Supreme Court will do. Will it grant the judiciary the right to regulate greenhouse gas emissions, opening the door for a flurry of similar lawsuits against polluters? Or will it place the issue one-and-for-all under the aegis of Congress and the President, returning to the familiar lobbying and interest group routine? No matter what its decision, it will be a momentous one which will shape the strategy of activists on all sides.

FTC, Protect Our Consumption!

Just last week, four interest groups filed a complaint with the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) against online sites engaging in medical advertising services and offering medical information deemed deceptive. The Center for Digital Democracy, Consumer Watchdog, the U.S Public Interest Research Group, and the World Privacy Forum, all claim that these sites are promoting the usage of specific drug brands and attempting to persuade members of the public to undergo certain health treatments. One site these claims target is WebMD, who according to the complaint, “[fails] to adequately disclose the relationship and role of advertisers and sponsors”. In addition to WebMD, other sites named in the complaint include AOL, Everyday Health, Google, and Health Central.

According to the complaint, not only are sites not disclosing any bias they may have in their drug and medical treatment marketing, but by providing free online newsletters and discounts for prescription drugs as well as tracking the web activities of users, these sites are collecting information about individuals and allowing health marketers to better determine how to market their goods to the individual. Some sites, the complaint filed said, are not transparent enough about how they track people through users’ online heath searches and other means.

The FTC, whose slogan “Protecting America’s Consumers” captures the agency’s responsibility in a nutshell, is in charge of regulating most of the marketing in the United States. In a statement the FTC submitted to Congress in May of this year, the FTC explains its primary authority over the advertising of food and drugs. In the Federal Commission Act which was recently amended in 2006, the commission is granted the power to investigate any persons or corporations engaged in businesses that affect commerce of food, drugs, devices, services, or cosmetics.

In light of this, the U.S Public Interest Research Group and the other three interest groups are using the FTC as an access point to change federal rules regarding how online marketing of drugs is regulated, specifically asking for the FTC , which already has rules against any person, partnership, or corporation which engages in “deceptive or unfair” practices, to investigate the data collection practices of these sites and to create more stringent rules that force sites to be explicit about their patient-profiling as well as drug and treatment sponsorships. If the FTC does not correct the areas the interest groups filed their complaint about, we may see this issue travel to the federal courts in an example of an agency-forcing action where an agency is sued, in this case by interest groups, in order to enforce certain rules.

Labels:

Monday, November 22, 2010

What the...frack?

What the…frack?

It is estimated by the Department of Energy that by the year 2020 shale gas will make up 20% of the country’s supply of national gas. However, at what cost? The process of hydraulic fracturing or “fracking” is the process of injecting water, sand, and a chemical cocktail under high pressure thousands of feet below the earth’s crust in order to fracture the shale and release the natural gases trapped within. When asked about the significance of natural gas to America’s energy future, Administrator Lisa Jackson of the EPA said, “I see an increasing role for natural gas in general […] the corollary is that you can see fracking playing a larger and larger role in obtaining that natural gas.”

The benefits cannot be ignored. Large-scale fracking in over ten states is creating thousands of jobs each year, helping the environment by providing more clean burning fuel to the nation, and the presence of companies like Cabot Oil and Gas and Halliburton have helped to salvage some of the poorest parishes in the county like DeSoto in Louisiana. “People who went to bed one night poor woke up the next day rich […] like the show ‘The Beverly Hillbillies,’” says a resident of the parish.

Although fracking has existed in the United States for many years, predominantly in the south and southwest, the subject has recently become very volatile with its expansion into northeastern states like Pennsylvania. Many residents who leased their land to these gas development companies, sometimes for $5,000 per acre, are realizing they may have leased their drinking water as well. “I knew the water went bad when we could light it,” Bill Ely, a resident of Susquehanna County in Pennsylvania, said. "From the fracking standpoint, we don't believe the process is contaminating the groundwater. As a technology, it's proven and safe," says George Stark, a spokesman for Cabot.

However, the issue has stimulated enough unrest in these areas that the EPA has been subpoenaed the gas development companies for information on their fracturing chemicals. Although the EPA does not have any evidence of contamination of water from fracking chemicals currently, it has initiated a congressionally mandated study to look into the impact of fracking on the drinking water supply of the country and will help determine what restrictions or regulations might need to be in place to protect the nation’s drinking water.

Up until recently, the federal government has left the regulation of fracking to the states. As a result, some states require more information about the chemicals and the fracking process than others. This is a key point in the fracking controversy. Supporters of state regulated fracking, like Senator Jim Inhofe of Oklahoma, fear that nationalizing safety and disclosure requirements will freeze the industry completely. As a result of America’s federalist system and the division between state and national legislatures it has been difficult to establish a national regulatory solution that will capitalize on this homegrown energy source while protecting the public health of the nation. “The American who chooses to develop natural gas recourses on their property may be impacting peoples’ property and wells that they don’t own. That’s why the federal government needs to take a look. That’s why the government has to get involved,” says Lisa Jackson.

Sunday, November 21, 2010

Gender equity stalled by filibuster

Republican senators successfully filibustered the Paycheck Fairness Act (which the House passed in summer 2008), which was intended to facilitate implementation of the Equal Pay Act of 1963. The text of the failed act revises several pieces of legislation and requires departments to collect information on wage discrepancies by gender, provide negotiation training for women, and create grants for organizations who work to reduce said discrepancies. Opponents of the act claim the act unreasonably burdens businesses because the EPA allows for punishment without proof of intention. Some claim the so-called wage gap does not even exist to a problematic extent; the Boston Globe, usually liberal, printed an article suggesting the wage gap is actually occurring in reverse in some groups. Proponents insist the wage gap persists in general and that this Paycheck Fairness Act is the next logical step towards equality. President Obama, who supports the act, met with feminist leaders after the filibuster. Ellie Smeal, President of the Feminist Majority Foundation, claims this filibuster proves that people “can no longer say there are moderate Republican senators;” this quote proves that Americans can see Duverger’s Law in action. Granted, Smeal is predisposed to consider opponents to the act ultra-conservative; yet in a multimember proportional election system, a third party might have held enough power to work with Democrats and break the filibuster.

The act’s failure also shows how Madison et al. successfully separated powers among and within branches and thus made passing a law extraordinarily difficult.

Although the political gender gap is not necessarily based on gender-specific issues, the wage gap could contribute to financially precarious situations that push women to vote Democrat. During midterms, women still voted Democrat more frequently than men. Yet even without the new Republican senators in their seats, the window of opportunity for this act has already closed. Through the lens of Kingdon’s stream theory, the bill’s death implies that the wage gap is considered a condition rather than a problem and thus does not merit a law lessening it. And without a window open enough for passage, it seems the Paycheck Fairness Act is “just a bill; [it is] only a bill,” and it is getting no further on Capitol Hill.

A Fight over the Fourth Branch of Government?

According to Reuters.com, two influential Republican lawmakers, Senator Bob Corker and Representative Mike Pence, proposed to narrow the Fed’s “Dual Mandates” in its monetary policy this week. In the CNBC interview, Pence believed that the Fed’s recent decision regarding the purchase of $600 billion government bonds by printing money was “no substitute for a sound fiscal policy”, since this monetary stimulus of QE2 would only fuel inflation in the long run. He emphasized the Fed’s failure in curbing the continuous high unemployment rate (around 9.4%) for 18 months. Therefore, the Fed should focus solely on controlling inflation. It is Congress and the President's job to tackle the unemployment by enacting pro-growth policies.

In contrast, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner and Federal Reserve Governor Kevin Warsh strongly opposed the move by Republicans, saying that “ it is very important to keep politics out of monetary policy.” Geithner even openly claimed that, “the White House would block any move by Republicans to narrow the Fed’s dual mandate to a single focus on battling inflation.” This ongoing battle between GOPs and Democrats is heating up, which has brought lots of attention to the Fed and could even draw more potential 2012 candidates into the inflation debate.

It is interesting to see that after winning the midterm election, the Republicans are further attacking the Obama Administration on the issues of the Fed’s mandates, which are the pursuit of price stability and full employment. But does Congress have the power to influence the Fed? Created by Congress in 1913, Federal Reserve as the Central Bank of America has the power to conduct the nation's monetary policy, regulate banking institutions, and maintain the stability of the financial system. It is an independent federal agency within the government, also known as “the fourth branch” of government besides the executive, legislative, and judiciary branches in “the Separation of Powers.” However, the Fed is “subject to oversight by Congress, which periodically reviews its activities and can alter its responsibilities by statute.” In other words, Congress has the power to change the Fed by passing bills. This is exactly what Pence is doing—bringing a legislation to narrow the Fed’s mission. However, it is unlikely that Pence's bill will pass and become law, since Senate is still controlled by the Democrats, and the president is Barack Obama.

Cameras in the Supreme Court?

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia was recently interviewed about, among other things, the prospect of opening the court’s argument sessions to news cameras. Scalia’s opposition to the idea hinges on two complaints, that people would not be interested in a large fraction of the court’s work, and that aspects of the more sensational cases would be taken out of context by the media.

Scalia’s contention that the vast majority of viewers would find most of the Supreme Court’s cases too boring to bother watching says a great deal about what viewers expect from political news, that it should be entertaining as well as informative. When the spectacle is lacking, it doesn’t get much attention. Since many of the Court’s cases address topics that are not exactly considered sensational, such as pensions or railroad taxes, it is possible that only the more glamorous, attention-getting cases would attract viewers. In the case that a case regarding a popular issue does come up, such as abortion or free speech, it would not be too difficult for a news source to cherry pick sound bites that support whatever message they wish to get across.

Scalia’s colleagues have varying opinions on the idea of cameras in their courtroom. Samuel Alito worries that media representation might affect the way justices ask questions and also allow lawyers to address the media for political purposes, while Ruth Bader Ginsburg would be accepting of the idea were it not for objections from some of the other justices. On the other hand the court’s newest member, Elena Kagan, has said several times that she strongly supports the idea and thinks it would be beneficial to both the court and the public.

Departing Senator Arlen Specter (D-PA) has been the strongest proponent of legislation regarding courtroom cameras. Specter’s departure most likely means the issue will remain on the back burner, or even vanish completely from the radar; as Kingdon would argue, its policy window has probably closed.

Between a Rock and a Hard Place

The news media has been buzzing nonstop about the controversial TSA measures to prevent airplane bombings. Fliers must now choose between two equally unappealing options, a full-body scan, or a very thorough pat-down. In the media, it appears as though most Americans see this as an invasion of their privacy and a violation of the 4th Amendment ("The right of the people to be secure [...] against unreasonable searches and seizures"). People are slowly getting more and more enraged after seeing news stories about TSA "victims," such as a cancer survivor who was forced to remove her prosthetic breast and an eight year old boy who was forced to get a pat-down.

People are also unhappy with full-body scans, mostly because it emits radiation and there is a possibility that their scanned images will be leaked. However, a new poll released by CBS reveals that an overwhelming majority (81%) said yes to the question "Should Airports Use Full-Body X-Ray Machines?" The TSA posted this poll to their blog to combat the current media backlash against them. Is this truly how the American public feels?

This poll can be used as an example of how question wording can affect polls. This is how the actual question was asked: "Some airports are now using "full-body" digital x-ray machines to electronically screen passengers in airport security lines. Do you think these new x-ray machines should or should not be used at airports? " The people answering this question probably imagined that it would be like a normal x-ray, showing bones, rather than every contour on their body. If they were asked whether they would be opposed to TSA agents seeing them naked from the neck down, it is likely that the majority of them would say yes. Their ignorance and therefore their non-attitudes is probably what led to the results of this poll, so the poll cannot be trusted as a true interpretation of public opinion.

Obama and Reid dare to DREAM

As the lame duck session in Congress begins, Obama has a last chance to encourage essential bills without the incoming massive partisan resistance. One that is on the agenda, and should be number one priority, is the DREAM Act.The DREAM Act provides education funding and legal residence status for minors who are in the country illegally and are trying to obtain a college degree or serve in the military.  
 
The stakes are high this lame duck session. First, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid must keep all of the promises made to his constituents , including those to the Latino voters, who re-elected him over Sharon Angle because of his support for the DREAM Act. The Democratic Party has to act quickly, as they currently still hold the majority in the House and Senate. But come January, the DREAM Act and other immigration bills will probably be blocked in the House by the new Republican Majority.
 
Secondly, passing the DREAM Act is important to help secure Obama’s re-election. On average, President Obama’s approval rating has dropped from 64% in January 2009 to a minority of 46% in November 2010. In fact, organizations have launched campaigns to garner support for the unpopular president, such as the “what the fuck has Obama done so far” website that details different accomplishments of the Obama Administration with the click of a button. Passing the DREAM Act can be extremely crucial to Obama’s re-election because in 2008, 67% of the Latino vote went to Obama largely because of his promises to create a comprehensive immigration reform. Minorities, always thought to be loyal to the Democratic Party, will only take so many broken promises before becoming disillusioned and staying home (or even voting Republican!) on Election Day in 2012.
 
Lastly, passing the DREAM Act has greater implications for the future of the Democratic Party. As the Latino population rises, the Democratic Party has an opportunity to be a clear majority of the United States. In fact, it is predicted that Latinos will represent 30% of the United States population by 2050. The problem is that Latinos, while normally Democratic, tend to be morally conservative because of strong Catholic beliefs. As they settle in and become more successful, evident in an increase of small businesses, they will also become more financially conservative. If the Democratic Party doesn’t keep courting the Latinos, they will be losing a battle they don't even realize they are fighting. They have grown complacent, but must always put Hispanics first. Therefore, if the Democratic Party can help pass the DREAM Act they will further establish themselves as the immigrant-friendly party—for years to come they can expect a growing voter turnout from Latinos.

School Scandal in San Fransisco

As schools face budget cuts and the financial crisis, a San Francisco school district scandal has many up in arms. According to the New York Times, despite a $113 million deficit, several San Francisco Unified School District administrators who work for the Student Support Services (SSS) Department, a U.S. Department of Education program, were discovered taking district money from community organizations for personal uses. The purpose of SSS is to offer after school programs, substance abuse assistance, and other educational resources to students through the aid of community organizations.

The head of SSS in San Francisco, Ms. Bascom, is under heavy investigation as she controlled how money was given to community organizations that were to offer programs to the schools. Shockingly, the community organizations were giving money directly to administrators. One official, Ms. Lovelace, took money from an organization as a bonus and faked authorization on contracts. She also accepted $40,000 from Edgewood Center for Children and Families; Edgewood also gave money to another official, who is accused of approving unlawful payments to another administrator in order to pocket the Edgewood money. Checks, invoices, and contracts were tampered with also.

Many are wondering how with such hard times facing schools, could public officials in essence be stealing from the district? The President of the United Educators of San Francisco, Dennis Kelly, said that the administrators of SSS at SF United have become an “empire with a moat around it without oversight or control by the central administration.” The administrators who are supposed to be regulating how much money to give to community organizations are in fact receiving personal gifts from them. In this example, the governmental agency, the SF district, that works for SSS, a Department of Education program, is captured by the community organizations. It can be assumed that officials are being paid off by interest groups, like Edgewood, to get more aid and form contracts with schools. Officials no longer act in the interest of the common good and pursue private interests in the form of checks. Interest groups are affecting how the agency runs – not a democracy at its best. In this case, intermediary institutions – interest groups – show the flaws of a pluralist democracy. Because of Madison’s separation of powers, passing legislation that restricts interest groups is difficult. Although the interest groups allow for those intensely interested in education to participate, how far is too far?

Holiday Harassment at the Airport

As the holiday season approaches the TSA has announced a number of new travel regulations that have earned protests from travelers, activists, and even workers in the airline industry. The new measures, which have been in varying levels of effect at airports across America, force passengers to choose between a full body scanner and a very thorough pat-down. Many travelers who have already experienced the new requirements opted for the pat-down out of a fear of radiation in the body scanner but said they felt uncomfortable and violated. This has resulted in a growing fear of sexual harassment at the airport and promises by several district attorneys that all sexual harassment cases filed against the TSA will be taken very seriously. Although a CNN commentator stated that he was not upset by the experience, he compared the pat-down to a trip “to the doctor for a physical.” Not exactly what most Americans have in mind for a trip to the airport.

As a result of all the conflict Texas Congressman Ron Paul has introduce the “American Traveler Dignity Act” to revoke some of the rights of the TSA and protect the privacy of travelers from overly-invasive search procedures. In a speech on the House floor Paul defended his bill and implored his fellow Congressmen for support. Although this issue has crossed party lines with both Democrats and Republicans opposing the new measures, it is unlikely much will be done before the travel rush of the Christmas Season. Paul has just introduced this bill and it must first pass through both houses of Congress before the president sees it. Even if it gains a large amount of support it is most likely going to face a number of revisions and amendments before going into effect. By the time all is said and done, most Christmas travelers will have already faced the decision between full body scans and pat-downs despite Paul’s legislative efforts. For the sake of future travelers Paul must be diligent and efficient to ensure that the policy window does not close on him before Americans move on the next controversial issue, forgetting completely about the American Traveler Dignity Act.


Looking Ahead: 2012 is a Good Year for Obama

This year’s midterm elections ended on a negative note for the Democratic Party as Republicans took control of the House and gained seats in the Senate. But a Yale econometrist, Ray C. Fair, is already delivering optimistic news for Democrats by making the claim that if Obama runs for reelection, he will win the 2012 presidential election by a landslide. The basis of Professor Fair’s claim is tied to James Carville’s popular slogan, “It’s the economy, stupid!” According to Fair’s econometric models–one that produces forecasts for the macro economy and another that uses economic inputs to forecast national popular vote–the economy will pick up by 2012 and this turn of events will make Obama wildly popular once again.


Of course, Professor Fair’s claim might be a bit premature, especially given that we don’t even know who all the potential candidates are. Also, polls show that public support for reelecting Obama continues to drop. Furthermore, the 2012 Electoral College map will undergo revisions based on the 2010 Census and projections currently show that the Democratic Party will have a net loss of six electoral votes in “safe states” while the Republican Party will have a net gain of six.


Despite the many factors that will play a role in determining the 2012 presidential result, Professor Fair’s claim is not one that should be ignored. When it comes to presidential elections, history has shown that voters use retrospective voting. They look at the incumbent’s performance, especially in relation to the economy, when casting their votes (as Obama is well aware). If Professor Fair is correct and the economy is back on its feet by 2012, Obama can very likely ride into his second term with as much hype as his first.

Wednesday, November 10, 2010

The Government's Problem with Cheese

A recent New York Times article has uncovered the fact that Dairy Management Inc. - a marketing branch of the United States Department of Agriculture, has partnered with numerous food chains to push the consumption of cheese in the United States.

According to the article, agricultural secretaries of both the Bush and Obama administrations have signed off on clandestine partnerships between this Dairy Management Inc. and several restaurants. The Dairy Management has been working with these suppliers to make their menu items more cheesy - an incentive for the consumer, as well as a benefit for both the restaurants and the dairy market.

These partnerships would not be of particular consequence if it were not for the large campaign backed by the current President and First Lady, and the very same government department, to end obesity. In the Agricultural Department's reports to Congress, the Department blatantly states that Americans are not consuming enough saturated fat, and that they must bring it back to consumer's diets through cheese. The average American now consumes 33 pounds of cheese annually, and according to the same Department's data, "Cheese has become the largest source of saturated fat; an ounce of many cheese contains as much saturated fat as a glass of whole milk."

However, the Agricultural Department is the same organization that funds the 'Got Milk?' campaign and that distributes brochures and flyers about how consumers can reduce the amount of saturated fat in their diets.

How are Americans, who when asked are generally unsatisfied with the way they think the government is run, supposed to gain trust in their leaders? I say we should expect several apologies from the involved administrations in the coming days.

Labels: , ,

Education reform: compatible with federalism?

With the economy crisis many eyes are being set to restructuring the education system. It is well-known that a country’s development rest on a high quality education system. In fact, it has been one of the principal topics in the recent movie on education ‘Waiting for Superman’.


When school reform is debated in the U.S, one of the most polemical issues it arises lies within the Federal system of the country. In fact, it is argued whether education policies should come from the Federal government and be the same for all the States (centralized/local policies), or, if the policies should be decided individually by each State and be specific to each one of them (decentralized policies). Decentralized policies like the U.S States education policies tend to enhance inequalities between States. In fact, not only do richer States invest more in education but there is no national curriculum. Furthermore, according to the Center on Education Policy (CEP) the number of years children must attend school varies within States from 9 to 13 years. Does a student ‘A’ who went to school 4 extra years than student ‘B’, and whose school received 50% more funding than student ‘B’, have the same opportunities? Of course not! Student A is advantaged. The American Dream that claims that everyone has equal opportunities and that, if (s)/he works hard, will achieve is an illusion.


Matt Miller, author of the article 'First, Kill All the School Boards', resumes the negative consequences of the local control of education in several points. First of all, he claims there is no way to know how the students are progressing because there is no uniform evaluation for the pupils across the States. Then, local control reinforces teachers unions power which only care for their members advantages; also it limits investments in Research and Development; and finally it enhances the financial inequity (the Federal State contributes very poorly, only 9%).


The main problem of turning to centralized/nationalized education policies is that they question the federal system of the country which has long roots in the American history. In fact, even during the battle between Federalists and Anti-federalists the issue was never close to taking the power away from the States to favor a centralized State. What was in debate was the degree of power which would be attributed to the States. Additionally, any policy coming from the Federal government is not very much liked by the Americans because it is not in their culture. Anything close to nationalization sounds like a communist threat. Think about it: in the U.S, institutions where conceived in order to limit the government. In the Federalist Papers No. 51, Madison characterized federalism as a double security to the rights of the people. The urgency of creating a Union as a ‘safeguard against domestic faction and insurrection’ has resulted in the creation of an ineffective and impotent State.


In order to have a real education reform in the U.S it must come from the top and it must be the same for all the States. Of course it is essential to take into consideration the local aspects but to put the light only in the local is leaving the education system in the shade, that is to say, unchanged. If a school is improved it’s great but what good does it do to the country if only one school is improved? What good is it if one rich State puts into place an incredible education policy if the others don’t have it? Education policies must be thought as a whole that involves the country and not just one district. Education is a structural matter. Education policies come hand in hand with the countries socioeconomic policies. They are part of a vision of a country. For Matt Miller there are two ways in which the Federal government can make a difference in education: number one would be for the federal State to contribute more in funding the public schools. And, number two, setting standards in a course set of subjects like reading, science and math.


Is a successful school reform compatible in a country with such a strong culture of federalism? It is possible for the U.S to centralize/nationalize education? Well, with the emergence of the Tea Party, its growing influence, and its vision of the government as Evil, it seems unlikely that this will happen any time soon.

Labels:

Immigration Reform: What do you think?

It is safe to say that people are still cooling down after the heated debate over the Arizona Immigration Bill SB 1070. Well, hold on tight because Texas is voting on another immigration proposal similar to Arizona's. After the change of power that occurred in these boarder states on November 2nd, it is going to be interesting to see what other new legislation is proposed for immigration reform. Despite whether or not you agree that there should be immigration reform, the fact is that there are millions of illegal immigrants living in America today, illegally. So, immigration is a pertinent issue.

The question becomes: How do Americans feel about illegal immigration? Should there be reform? According to an article from the Washington Independent, a majority of people support Obama's plan for immigration reform... and a majority of people are against Obama's plan for immigration reform. According to Lake Research Partners, when polled, "Americans [from both parties] support comprehensive immigration reform" despite being unaware of what the specific reforms would entail. The article goes on to say that according to another research group, Americans are against Obama's immigration reforms and are in favor of an "enforcement-first" strategy (like Arizona's and the proposed in Texas). Well, which is it?

If we were to try to decide the real American attitude towards illegal immigration, we'd have to take a closer look at both polls. How many people were asked? Was it a sample of the relevant population? How were the questions worded? How and when were the questions asked?

Labels: ,

This past Monday, the US Supreme Court turned down their first chance to review and rule on the Health Care Reform Bill, specifically the mandate that requires all citizens to have health insurance. Their refusal was more based on timing than any lack of interest—the mandate in question will not be put into effect until 2014, thus there really is no case to be tried just yet.

The highly controversial nature of the bill practically guarantees that it will be discussed in the Supreme Court once its provisions go into effect. The requirement for health insurance seems like a breach of freedom to many and has inspired many bold moves, from protests and fierce anti-Democrat sentiment to this most recent risky push to move a federal district case with little standing directly to the Supreme Court. The Court’s rejection of the case is not shocking, nor is it indicative of any future decisions they may make regarding hearing another case relating to the matter. Rather, the issues lies in the fact that no Health Care Reform case has even made it through federal appellate court—jumping directly to the Supreme Court is unheard of, and deeply unlikely, considering the court’s preference for holding onto old, long-held traditions and procedures.

Most interesting, however, is the fact that Justices Clarence Thomas and Elena Kagan participated in the decision to pass on the case. Both judges have had their impartiality drawn into question, Thomas because of his wife’s active participation in protesting the bill and Kagan because of her role as solicitor general in the Obama administration prior to being named a Supreme Court Justice. If both participated in rejecting this case, it can be assumed that both will participate in determining any future rulings on a similar case. One Justice is presumably biased against the bill, while the other for it—this could create an interesting outcry from Democrats and Republicans alike.

As cases regarding the Health Care Reform bill make their way through lower courts, it is important to keep track of what the decisions are and who is making them in order to be able to predict when the issue will make it into the Supreme Court and be ruled on, once and for all.

Labels: ,

Who’s At Fault For Making Our Problems Harder to Solve? The Media or Ourselves?

Could it be true that the Country’s and our problems are made harder to solve when cable television and other news and media sources such as the internet and the radio constantly debate them with the facts and the faux. Comedians, Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert, hosted a Rally to Restore Sanity and/or Fear. The Rally to Restore Sanity and/or Fear had its comedic parts and its serious parts such as Jon Stewart’s speech towards the end nailing the media shamelessly as some reporters watched on. He said, “If we amplify everything, we hear nothing… The country’s 24 hour political pundit perpetual panic conflictinator did not cause our problems but its existence makes solving them that much harder. The press can hold its magnifying up to our problems bringing them into focus, illuminating issues heretofore unseen…”

Today, according to a survey report from The Pew Research Center for People & the Press people today “consume” more news then before due to all the easy access to different types of media such as digital media these days. However, many news outlets these days tend to lean to one side or the other losing their objectivity. Not all news and media sources are at fault for causing too much noise and sometimes polarizing the nation with opposing conservative or liberal views. This may sometimes be the fault of the people choosing to listen to news supporting their own beliefs. Therefore, people consuming more news may not be a bad thing if they try to choose to listen to both sides of the argument.

Of course, psychology will come in to play trying to prevent us from opening up our minds. The confirmation bias and selective attention will kick in up there in our brains. So, people will mostly only accept the ideas they believe in making their beliefs stronger and confirming their bias. However, it’s always better listening to both sides of the story than just one in the era where reported news does not maintain the objectivity we would like. Maybe we can understand the world a little bit better by finding news outlets covering a variety of perspectives. That shouldn’t be too hard with our ease of obtaining it in the era of technology.

The Golden State and its Golden Crop

Is there a future for the legalization of marijuana?

Proposition 19, a ballot initiative on November 2, would have legalized marijuana for recreational uses in California for the first time in the nation. Never mind that there is a federal law called Controlled Substances Act, or that Supreme Court has supported this act in accordance with the commerce clause in Gonzales v. Raich. California was the first state to legalize marijuana for medical uses, and it seems like it will march on.

Even though the Proposition was rejected with 46% yes and 54% no, the approval rate was record high when Senate Bill No. 1449, in effect from next year, had already decriminalized possession of marijuana. Indeed, proponents are optimistic in the legalization’s future, believing that a higher turnout of young voters in 2012 Presidential election will lead them to glory.

But how did this complex state that had also passed Proposition 8 reach record high approval on the legalization of pot? It has to do with proposition's strongest argument, billions of dollars every year as tax revenue.

Initiative in California is an exemplary practice of plebiscitary democracy today, along with recall and referendum. However, instead of serving as a tool to deliberate public political opinion, it may simply be demonstrating citizens' discontent in the swamp of bad economy, particularly when unemployment rate in California is third highest in the nation with 12.4%. One might point out that the same discontent made Arnold Schwarzenegger a Governor, and recently pulled down his approval rating as low as his predecessor’s right before he was ousted by recall.

Driven by powerful interest as for the chief promoter of the proposition and medical marijuana entrepreneur Richard Lee, the struggle to legalize marijuana for recreational use will not rest. Will golden allure of marijuana attract more Californian tax payers? At the end of the day, it will largely depend on the economy.

Labels: , ,

The Constitutionality of Funding through Intermediaries

The United States Supreme Court recently heard arguments on the case Arizona Christian School Tuition v. Winn. The Court must decide whether the tax credit violates the Establishment Clause by allowing money to flow from the people to a private tuition organization through a government tax credit. It must also determine if the tuition organizations are truly private institutions, or if they are essentially bodies of the state, a fact some justices are questioning.

The deciding question is whether the Arizona government is in violation of the Establishment Clause by allowing money to flow from the people to a private tuition organization through a government tax credit. It must also determine if the tuition organizations are truly private institutions, or if they are essentially bodies of the state: a fact some justices are questioning.

The difference between a taxpayer funding a religiously focused program through the government versus independently is key. The option to allocate a certain amount of tax dollars to tuition organizations that fund religious schools violates the Establishment Clause because it directs the government to fund a religiously focused program. At the most fundamental level, this means that the government is affiliating itself with religion, which is unconstitutional.

Justice Kagan questioned the legitimacy of the defendant’s argument by questioning why states should be allowed to establish and use intermediaries in order to do things they are not constitutionally permitted. A ruling in favor of Arizona would reduce the separation of the government and private sector, allowing for government to circumvent the limits on its power by using private institutions to do whatever it is they are forbidden to do themselves. A ruling in favor of Winn would prevent this from happening, but it would also limit the government’s ability to solve certain problems that it cannot solve itself, and force it to rely upon the private sector to take a public interest independent of government influence.

Labels: , ,

Tuesday, November 09, 2010

Economy and the Midterm Election Results

During last week’s 2010 Midterm Elections, the Republicans made net gains of 6 seats in the Senate and 64 in the House. This was a dynamic shift from the Democrats to the Republicans (click on the 4th button to see that “This year’s election was one of the largest House shake-ups of the last 50 years”), and it mostly reflected the frustration and economic anxiety of the independent voters.

While every demographic shifted to the Republicans, there was a greater percentage shift toward the GOP among those who were worried about health care and the economy (Click on the 10th button to see that “The Republican wave was driven by many demographic groups”). Perhaps this is because even though the recession officially ended in June 2009, unemployment rate has continued to surge until the 9.6 percent we are at today. So, many households still feel like we are in recession and they blame it on the President and his party. According to New York Times, 37% of the voters “cast[ed] their votes to express opposition to Mr. Obama’s policies.”

However, it is important to note that it was not necessarily disgruntled party members that switched from voting Democrat to Republican, based on issues such as these. The swaying votes, which counteracted the results of the previous surge election, actually came from the 10-20% of “true independents,” who have become more conservative in their ideologies. According to Brookings, “If Independents had split their vote between the parties this year the way they did in 2006, the Republicans share would have been 4.7 percent lower—a huge difference.” Other factors such as a higher than usual voter turnout of older and more conservative voters, as well as a lower turnout of the younger generation that was more involved in the presidential elections, did not have as much overall effect as the votes of these “true independents.”

While the results of the Midterm Elections were able to send a clear message, it is debatable whether such achievement through retrospective voting is beneficial in the long run. At least, we are now in for two years of gridlock, with the House and Senate controlled by different parties.

Legalization of Marijuana-A battle between individual rights and the common good

Proposition 19 was the California 2010 ballot measure that proposed to legalize the recreational use of marijuana, granted with a number of restrictions. Proponents of the ballot measure, also know as the Regulate, Control and Tax Cannabis Act (http://www.voterguide.sos.ca.gov/propositions/19/analysis.htm), claimed that the proposition would benefit the community as a whole, allowing the government to control marijuana use and sales, while “generating billions of dollars in revenue”. However, opponents of Proposition 19 were skeptical. Those against Prop 19 argued that the stated regulations on marijuana would not actually be enforced, and that legalizing pot would be a threat to public safety. In the end, the measured failed, with 46% of voters voting yes on Prop 19, and 54% voting no.

While the arguments made against Proposition 19 seem valid, neither they, nor the proponents can realistically deny that people will continue to smoke pot even though the Prop 19 failed, so why didn’t voters seize the opportunity to set regulations on marijuana while increasing tax income? What does this say about the American political system? First, I think that it is important to note that the constituency of the electorate in midterm elections is not the same as the electorate that votes in presidential election years. Indeed, those who vote in midterm elections tend to be older and more conservative, which could explain their opposition to such a seemingly radical proposition. Another concept called into question by this issue is that of the American creed. Those against prop 19 viewed it as a threat to public safety. Many voters believed that by denying members of the public above the age of 21 what would be their personal right to smoke marijuana under the new state law, they were doing their part to keep the public safe. Therefore, in rejecting Prop 19, voters actively upheld the argument that there are times in which individualism, a central value in the American creed, must be limited to protect the common good.

Friday, November 05, 2010

Spin to Win, Not to Understand

Political scientists are just beginning to try to figure out exactly what happened in the 2010 election. Typically they emphasize structural factors such as: 1) incumbent parties typically lose seats in midterm elections, 2) the Democrats were holding a lot of seats in Republican-leaning districts after their successes in 2006 and 2008, and 3) the economy was bad, and voters typically hold incumbent parties responsible for this. Models based on these factors predicted roughly a 45-seat loss in the House; the 60+ seat loss may suggest that other factors--unpopular votes on the stimulus package and on health care reform, recruitment of an unusually strong group of Republican candidates--were also important.

But whatever the truth about this election, politicians on all sides are vying to make their interpretation--their "spin"--become the conventional wisdom, so that they can claim a mandate for their favored policies. The spin is based not on a careful study of the election but on the hopes and dreams of these politicians. For moderate Democrats, it's that Obama went too far to the left; for lefties, it's that he didn't go far enough. For Republicans, it's that Americans have turned against Obama's policies. For Tea Partiers, it's that fundamental reform is needed. And for Obama himself, as he argued in his press conference, it's that Americans are frustrated with the economy. As Jonathan Bernstein suggests, an election is just the beginning of the struggle; the battle over the meaning of the election is arguably just as important.

Wednesday, November 03, 2010

Changes In Congress to Affect Energy Issues

Throughout his term, President Obama has been devoted to environmental reform. The economic crisis, however, overshadowed many of the changes that have been made. Although Obama has made headway, it is clear that had the economy not been in shambles, the country would have made even more progress. Showing his devotion, in May, the President said that this year would be the year to make a difference.

However, because of the recent election, it is expected that passing legislation on energy will be significantly more difficult. While Democrats typically focus on changes to improve the environment in the long run, Republicans are more concerned about how changes could affect the state of the economy. And while President Obama claims the energy programs that he wants to implement are economically sustainable, Republicans remain skeptical.
In addition to these party differences, there are divisions between states regarding energy reform. Coal states, such as Virginia and West Virginia, rely on this energy source as their main money-maker. For example, Joe Manchin, the West Virginia Senator is a Democrat, but was endorsed by the coal industry and mine workers during his campaign for Senate. Even when these states have Democrats in Congress, they are much more likely to be conservative when it comes to reforms on the industries that rule their economies.

Hopefully, Republicans and Democrats can work together to create changes that will benefit all of us. It is indisputable that our energy consumption is unsustainable, but what we do to tackle that issue resides in the new dynamic of Congress.

Tearing down barriers through bipartisanship

The transition of power to the Republicans in the House obviously has many implications including cutbacks on government spending and lower taxes.  Another likely policy change that has not seen as much time in the limelight is the U.S.’s trade policy.  With the G-20 summit quickly approaching, the United States is in talks with South Korea over a free trade agreement signed but never approved three years ago that could open up the path for the U.S. beef industry and automakers.   South Korea put heavy restrictions on U.S. beef imports after a season of tumultuous protests from the Korean citizens in 2008, and the Hermit Kingdom has consistently maintained astronomically high barriers for foreign automobiles.  If approved, this FTA would be the largest in over fifteen years with over $68 billion in exports and imports—a definite plus for President Obama, who has made it a “national goal” to double our exports in five years
The newly Republican-dominated House will be much more inclined to approve the FTA with South Korea, which many hope will increase the likelihood of approving FTAs with Colombia and Panama which were also signed in 2007 by President Bush.    Aside from increased productivity in the beef and automobile industries, the FTAs would also help create jobs in the trade industry.  In a right-leaning House, there will be support for lower trade barriers (read, TAXES!), as well as a less-imposing presence of organized labor.  Although there are some outspoken Tea Party favorites, like the newly elected Rand Paul, who are strong supporters of free trade agreement, a potential roadblock exists in the Tea Party:   according to a poll conducted in September, 61% of Tea Party supporters felt that trade agreements were a detriment to America.  However, there is confidence from the Republicans in the House over this issue; Representative Kevin Brady (R-TX) of the House Ways and Means Committee said on Oct. 25, “Under a Republican House leadership, if the president is serious about moving forward on trade, he will have a serious partner on Capitol Hill.”
The U.S. has set the G-20 summit next week as a “deadline” for an agreement with South Korea.  This provides the Obama administration a timely opportunity to collaborate with the Republicans in a bipartisan effort in the House—a foreign concept to the President, who was blessed with significant majorities in Congress until now.  
FTAs FTW!  (Free-trade agreements for the win!)   

The Tug of War on Immigration

Immigration policies played an important role in the 2010 midterm elections, specifically with Latino voters dissatisfied with the extent of action taken on immigration reform. Latinos for Reform aired ad campaigns discouraging Latino voters from casting their ballots—for surely, this was the one way of having their voices heard, by abstaining from voting. The Republican group urged, “Latinos, don’t be taken for granted. This November, DON'T VOTE.”


Elections were particularly close in California, Colorado, and Nevada, all of which have a strong Latino presence in state, and the candidates were forced to dig deeper for votes in order to swing the numbers into their favor. For Republicans, this election could have been a potentially bad one if the Hispanic electorate voted Democrat as they typically do. Granted, many are unhappy with the current stagnancy under Obama, but this by no means guarantees a switch of votes—only, at the best, a decrease of votes. So instead of pulling the Latino electorate out to the booths to vote red, why not stop them from voting at all?


Obama, on the other front, attempted to ease the frustrations by making more promises to get more votes out. I just want a little bit of support so that I can actually get this [reform] passed. If the Republicans have their way, however, Obama’s hopes for the DREAM Act will soon be trashed. But to have their way—that is, to remove each of the 10.3 illegal immigrants from the states—the project is going to cost around $65 billion.

With the Democrats retaining control of the Senate and the Republicans now controlling the House, who will win?