Pendleton Pundits

2011-01-04T17:08:00.004-05:00

8 Hours of Dissent

2010-12-12T17:18:00.001-05:00

Bernie Sanders, the Vermont Senator who calls himself a Socialist but caucuses with the Democrats, took to the Senate Floor yesterday to speak for 8 hours in opposition to the tax-cut deal President Obama made earlier in the week with congressional Republicans. It wasn't a serious filibuster--Sanders knew he didn't have the 40 votes needed to stop cloture--but a chance for him to convey just how strongly he opposed the huge cuts in the estate tax that were part of the deal, which Sanders labeled "unconscionable." "This is not a tax on the rich," Sanders said. "This is a tax on the very, very, very rich."

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is, however, supportive of the deal, and it appears that it will pass the Senate easily. The potential roadblock is in the House, where the Democratic leadership has said it will not bring the package to the floor without further modification. But how strong is the the leadership's leverage? After all, as President Obama pointed out in his press conference, House Democrats will soon be in the minority, and when the Republicans take charge in 2011 they could threaten to modify the deal in ways even more objectionable to Sanders and his outraged colleagues in the House.

Rulemaking Takes Center Stage?

2010-12-12T17:05:00.001-05:00

While the fights over tax cuts and Don't Ask Don't Tell in Congress dominate the headlines, another set of titanic political struggles are currently raging in federal agencies. These are battles over rulemaking, and because rulemaking is a much more obscure process than legislating, reporters tend to ignore it. But if you want to understand what's going on in health policy, financial regulation or environmental politics right now, you'd be well advised to forget about major legislation in these realms--unlikely given the Republican victories in the congressional elections--and turn to rulemaking.

For example, environmental groups are furious with the Obama Administration because of its announcement just last week that it would be delaying new rules governing smog and toxic emissions. The delay has garnered praise from business groups like the National Association of Manufacturers, but has outraged environmental groups, who suspect that this move signals the Obama Administration will also be going slow on greenhouse gas emission rules currently being developed by the Environmental Protection Administration.

Meanwhile regulators working on health care reform and financial regulation are set to issue more than 300 rules over the next three years, attracting massive lobbying by Wall Street and the health care industry. These regulations, based on the two most significant laws enacted by Congress during the Obama Administration, will decide big money question like how much credit card companies can charge for their services and what kinds of medical procedures will be covered in insurance plans offered as part of the Affordable Care Act. The House Republican leadership has already signaled that it will be examining these rulemaking processes, and the industries involved have let it be known that they will sue in federal court if they don't like what the agencies have done, so expect this battle to be protected, contentious, consequential--and largely ignored by the media.

Class or No Class?

2010-12-08T23:44:00.003-05:00

The Supreme Court has agreed to hear the Walmart v. Dukes case that has recently come out of the 9^th Circuit Court of Appeals. The case handled by the 9^th Circuit determined that there was mass discrimination against female employees within the Wal-Mart corporation. However, the Supreme Court is ruling on whether the class action used to bring suit against Wal-Mart is legitimate.

A class action is when a lawsuit is brought by a single member of a group of people on behalf of the entire group. The argument supporting the plaintiff is that that this claim is a common enough occurrence and can plausibly have common ground, regardless of its size and diversity of location. The argument supporting the defendant is that this claim is being made by too diverse a group of people, who have little in common except the fact that they are women.

Class actions give the general population, like the women filing suit, the ability to have a significant chance at taking large corporations Wal-Mart to court and being able to properly challenge them. It allows less wealthy groups to pool their resources and eliminate a large corporation’s ability to tie up litigation in legal fees that prevent the plaintiff from continuing to pursue legal action. People, like the ones suing Wal-Mart, have the ability to protect their own rights, rather than rely upon larger organizations to protect their rights for them.

The idea of a class action is reminiscent of the founder’s desire to protect the minority from being overrun by the elite, or majority. Just as the checks and balances act as barriers to the elite from taking control of the government and oppressing the minority, class actions give the minority the necessary tools to protect their rights from being infringed upon.

Party Polarization Decreasing?

2010-12-08T21:52:00.007-05:00

In the most recent elections, many New York legislators focused on change and fair elections in their platforms. One of the main aspects they focused on was the issue of drawing district boundaries. In the past, it was politicians who drew these legislative boundaries, which has been contributing to the increasing polarization of the parties. Indeed, the way in which politicians draw these boundaries makes it so that “House districts get redder and redder or bluer and bluer”. Ultimately, this means that in these polarized districts, there is no chance for the opposing candidates, or even more moderate, same-party candidates. Now, however, according to a Times Union article, some New York legislatures have proposed that instead of politicians choosing the boundaries, it should be up to independent commissions to decide.

This idea of having members outside Congress designate the boundaries of legislative districts is not novel. Indeed, according to an article from The San Diego Union-Tribune, other states, like California, have reconsidered how to draw district boundaries as well. Schwarzenegger, the governor of California, supported change in this arena, declaring that it would “take [power] away [from the politicians] and give it back to the people”. While it’s true that changing the way legislative districts are drawn could shift power from politicians to the public, it could have other major effects as well. If the current method by which district boundaries are drawn is a contributing factor to party polarization, what effect could change have on the parties? Would it truly even the playing field? An unbiased, independent commission would allow the possibility for more diversity in terms of the constituency of the districts. Indeed, changing the way these boundaries are drawn so that its not just all the liberals in one district, and all the conservatives in another, but a mixture, could have a large effect on the party status of the district. If these two extremes, liberal and conservative were more evenly dispersed within districts, it could allow moderate politicians, and even opposing party members, a greater chance, decreasing party polarization.

Not His Fault

2010-12-08T21:31:00.008-05:00

On Monday, December 6, President Obama announced an agreement with the Republicans to extend all Bush tax cuts for the next two years, as well as inject short-term fiscal steroids into the economy. The new package, worth some $800 billion, could potentially be good news for the economy in the short term (if it passes the parties’ respective caucuses). Yet, it has also been regarded by some as “an abandonment of liberal, Democratic principles on the part of the president;” another presidential failure (CBS News). Some liberals even took the news personally, claiming that “[Obama] betrayed Democrats by cutting a deal with Republicans” (FOX News).

Obama’s announcement does appear to be a dramatic reversal of his long-term stance on the economy. In his 2008 campaign, Obama vowed not to extend the tax cuts for the rich, promising that tax cuts be only extended for those individuals with incomes up to $200,000 and couples with incomes up to $250,000. Later, he compromised and sought to extend the tax cuts for the rich temporarily, while making the rest permanent. The new package announced on Monday is a “retreat” on both counts. However, it is not fair to pin all the blame on the one man, just because he hasn’t been able to realize his vision and fulfill all his obligations.

While it is easy to think that the president has enormous powers on his own to do public policy, he is in fact, limited by Congress, popularity, time in term, and other factors -- especially on the domestic front. One of the problems this time was that Congress leaned toward short term and popular policies, and so the debate was mostly on an all-or-nothing basis with regard to extending the Bush tax cut. Introduction of new sets of tax rates were out of the question. Obama did personally oppose the extending income tax cuts at upper income levels and the more generous deal on estates. However, unlike prime ministers in parliamentary systems, as the president, he was forced negotiate on the mostly all-or-nothing basis. Should he insist on discontinuing tax cuts for the rich and risk the Congress session coming to an end without any conclusion, or should he give in to the Republicans for a temporary solution? In the end, “an agreement with Republicans was more important than a stalemate that would have resulted in higher income taxes at all levels on Jan. 1” (CBS 8).

This new package represents not so much Obama’s betrayal or abandonment of Democratic principles, as much as the complexity and power checks of the American political system -- especially in regard to presidential powers. It will be interesting to see now, how (or if) Obama can persuade his own Democrats that this new package is the best deal for the nation at this moment in time. If the Democrats cannot be persuaded, they may not even allow it onto the floor and then we may be forced back to square one. Hopefully, that will not be the case. In the mean time, it is important for us to remember that the president does not have complete command over our nation and so we should not blame him for everything that doesn't go our way.

Will there be a Great Compromise in 2010?

2010-12-08T21:28:00.007-05:00

On December 7, President Obama announced a tax-cut compromise—a combination of Bush era tax-cut extension and 13-month extension of federal unemployment programs—with the Republican Party that rules the House again after 2010 mid-term election. In this harsh time when the national unemployment rate is 9.8%, any kind of unemployment benefit that survived the Republican Renaissance would have expected wide-open and welcoming arms. Instead, the compromise stirs angry and anxious voices, even among Democrats. Why?

It is largely because the extreme ideological polarization of the political parties. After the breakdown of the New Deal Coalition followed by the party realignment, GOP and Democratic Party came to represent the ends of a liberal-conservative spectrum in the United States. One of the “issue dimensions” in the American politics according to Carmines is economic and social welfare dimension, including tax-cut, budget deficit, and welfare programs.

In the development of this issue, Republicans have consistently rejected welfare package for the unemployed because it increases the federal deficit. But sometimes, their arguments were not so clear other than their partisanship, as in the case of Senator Barrasso blocking the Senate’s unanimous consent agreement process against unemployment benefits last week, who apparently did not understand the details and made a blunder on the number. This particular tax-cut compromise has also raised concerns because of its cost $900 billion. However, even though the federal deficit in the long term is a detriment to the country, the short term effect of economic stimulation estimates about 3.1 million job creation is critical both for the salvation of economy and for the Democratic Party in the coming elections.

When President Obama still needs at least 18 Senate Democrats even with unanimous Republican votes, the Democratic support is unclear due to the concession he has made for extending the Bush era tax-cut that aroused discontent among Democrats. Even though this “partisan warfare”, as Mayor Bloomberg criticized this afternoon, is inevitable due to the ideological polarization in the present American politics, hopefully the Congress will reach the decision to save the drowning economy in any manner, in some time soon.

School reform: a call for teachers unions to join

2010-12-08T19:51:00.001-05:00

School reform: a call for teachers unions to join

The teachers unions aren't the biggest or the only problem facing our schools, but for many years now, they have been the most consistent, most powerful defenders of the unacceptable status quo.

What happens when interest groups such as teachers unions obstruct reforms which are clearly set out for a common good?

Antonio Villaraigosa, mayor of the City of Los Angeles criticizes teachers unions for impeding school reform to go forward. In fact, he claims that when there was a proposal to alter the seniority-based layoff system which only enhanced inequality, the interest group fought back, then when there was an idea to turn around failing schools by bring in outside school operators which had proven records of success, the unions fought back. Finally, now that they are trying to put into practice a way to measure teacher effectiveness in order to reward the best teachers and to replace the ineffective who are not encouraging children to learn, the unions keep fighting back.

All these measures have the common goal to raise the education level in the country. It is necessary that it be increased because these children are tomorrow’s future. If our education system is failing them how are they going to enter college or find a job that will assure them quality of life? Moreover, if the U.S keeps staying behind while other countries keep investing in education we can start saying goodbye to the number one spot in superpowers race. Nevertheless, teachers unions don’t care about this. Don’t get me wrong: they do care about the kids. However, at the end of the day when they come home to their families, how are they going to bring dinner to the table if they got fired because of some ‘test’ that labeled them as ‘ineffective’?

In a democracy it is important that everyone has the opportunity to speak up in order to assure freedom of speech. But, what happens when an interest group speaks up against a common good? To quote Madison, since it is impossible to remove the causes of factions* we should control its effects. Thus, a way to do this would be, instead of confronting each other, to think of policies in a consensual way. In other words, school reform should be thought in order to assure a ‘win-win’ situation and not a ‘winner-loser’ one.

*faction: Madison defines it as a ‘number of citizens, whether amounting to a majority or a minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adversed to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community’.

Social Insecurity?

2010-12-08T19:01:00.005-05:00

Bill H.R. 5987, the Seniors Protection Act, was voted down earlier today in both the Senate and House of Representatives. The bill was meant to to award $250 checks to Social Security recipients facing a second consecutive year without a cost-of-living increase. Due to the recent changes from the November elections, the bill fell short of the 2/3 majority in the House and was 7 votes away from the 60 necessary votes to advance the bill in the Senate. According to Speaker Nancy Pelosi, "the financial aid act was critical to seniors facing rising costs and falling home values and was fiscally responsible". However, notes from the GOP say that seniors "fared statistically better than the rest of the economy... the poverty rate increased for all Americans last year, but fell for people aged 65 and over".

As we learned in lecture, three core things must all line up for a bill to successfully become a law. Public opinion, interest group influence and support, and government personnel. After the November 2010 elections, it is quite clear that newly Republican dominated House and 6 seat swing in the Senate are not conducive to the approval of the Seniors Protection Act. Our economy has certainly not yet fully recovered and the federal budget deficit is enormous, making the idea of spending more money absolutely repulsive to the public. And although the AARP fully supported the bill, it was not enough to make a difference in the vote.

Perhaps when the tide of public opinion changes there can be some success with this motion.

DADT: to Repeal or not to Repeal? That is the question.

2010-12-08T17:33:00.007-05:00

The Don't Ask Don't Tell policy has been controversial ever since it was enacted almost seventeen years ago. There have been polls and studies released lately pertaining to the repeal of DADT. It is important to note the effects of wording bias. For example, the results of the poll change depending on whether the words "gay" or "homosexual" are used. Needless to say, the polls generally show the repeal as favorable to most Democrats and to some, though not nearly as many, Republicans.

The members of the Republican Party generally favor the policy as it is in place now, at least until the war is over. John McCain is leading the way in the argument for maintaining the status quo. He is open to discussion about the policy but feels strongly that there should be no major changes to the military while there is a war going on.

Party loyalty among voters is extremely high in American culture. However, loyalty to a party is less prevalent among already elected officials. They are generally more concerned with pleasing their constituents (perhaps to win re-election) than pleasing party elites. This is the case with Senator Scott Brown. Brown recently released his opinion on DADT and, surprisingly to some, it does not align with the mainstream Republican Party. The people of Massachusetts tend to be liberal and supportive of the repeal of DADT. Brown mirrors his constituents, at least when it comes to DADT.

Brown's opinion on repealing DADT is also very important because he has an extensive background in military service. He knows what it means to serve the country and he, more than most other senators, can say from first-hand knowledge that repealing the policy would not be detrimental to the effectiveness of the military.

Grandstanding, Payoff, or Genuine Concern?

2010-12-08T17:20:00.004-05:00

A United Kingdom parliament has the ability to pass environmental legislation on account of its unified nature. On the other hand, the separation of power between states and national government, bicameral legislative branch, and general weakness of the United States government makes it more difficult to make pass and implement important legislation. This weakness in government creates discrepancies between the powers of state and national government.

In Texas, EPA officials have decided to take action against Range Resources Corporations, overstepping state regulators. The national agency believes that the company has contaminated the nearby residents’ water supply. They claim that the state regulators have not done enough to ensure the safety of the residents; thus, the interference of the EPA. While the company and regulators are going back and forth disputing the cause of the water contamination, the issue still remains on who has primary control over regulations of the company- the Texas regulators or the EPA officials? This could be a case for the Interstate Commerce Clause in that air pollution would affect people’s health, which would, in turn, affect the economy by increasing unemployment (because of poor health) and thus affect Interstate Commerce. If that is true, then the EPA would have control over how to help residents nearby drilling sites. In contrast to the weak government of the United States, a stronger government would not have such problems between separations of power in state and national governments.

Having local regulators is useful because, let’s face it, EPA officials cannot do everything on their own. Having help on a state level distributes the power so that the EPA does not have an overwhelming amount of overseeing to do. Unfortunately, while it distributes the power in a helpful way, it also forces the EPA to go through state regulators who can easily be affected by interest groups.

Also, when the local regulators and EPA officials disagree, who REALLY has the residents’ best interests in mind? Perhaps the local regulators are being paid off by the company for paying less attention to safety regulations, similar to inspectors in the Gulf of Mexico. Or maybe this is just the EPA grandstanding, trying to get hype and support while showing off what they can do.

No matter what the underlying intentions of the EPA and the local regulators may have been or may be, the safety of residents is the most important aspect of this dispute. If, in the end of the investigation and work by the EPA and local regulators, the residents have clean water and are healthy and safe, then the EPA has done a fine job of fulfilling their purpose of “protecting human health and safeguarding the environment.”

Pardon Me

2010-12-08T17:05:00.008-05:00

Recently, President Barack Obama granted 9 pardons. These were the first of his presidency making him the second slowest president to issue pardons. However, the time the president took to use one of his greatest powers in office was not the point of criticism, but rather, the mere offenses he pardoned were the larger issue. An article in the Huffington Post, states that Obama has granted 9 out of 140 pardon requests and 0 for 1,157 commutation requests. Furthermore, not only has the president been reluctant to use his pardon power, but the 9 times he did use it were only to pardon minor offenses such as drug possession and mutilation of coins. Most of the crimes took place years and decades ago and moreover, 6 of the 9 people pardoned had not even gone to jail and the other 3 served very little time.

In a government where the President’s power is very limited on the domestic level to powers such as vetoes, executive orders, pardons, etc., shouldn’t President Obama be flexing his muscles a bit more while in office by using these powers more often. As a law school graduate from Harvard and the President of the Harvard Law Review, many would think that Obama would use his pardoning power to make a strong statement about some of the problems in the criminal justice system today.

Why did he wait so long to make a move? Well, after taking office with a bag of Former President Bush’s economic problems, his wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the health care problem, President Obama had a lot more on his plate. Because the pardoning power is one Obama can exercise at anytime without having to deal with other branches or agencies in the government, he made sure to put health care, the economy, and the wars first on his agenda. This was the platform he ran on when Americans voted retrospectively in the election following their experiences with a republican President for 8 years. The people proved they wanted change on these particular issues. Furthermore, to have legislation passed on these major issues would be easier with the Democratic Party in control of both houses in congress. Obama has been in a race against time, and he managed to pass major legislation such as the Health Care Bill with the Democratic congress knowing that a republican takeover somewhere in congress was inevitable. However, he managed to beat the clock then, and he managed to beat the clock with his pardons by not being the slowest President to issue them. President George W. Bush wins that trophy.

By making sure to make safe selections and to pardon those who had only committed small crimes, Obama avoided a rather bold move which would attract more attention. Although, it seems this strategy to please the crowd may have backfired as he continues to get hammered with the criticism for being too timid to take a stand. C’mon people! Give the man a break. He pardoned four possibly very dangerous and high level criminals in addition to these 9 pardons… his Thanksgiving turkeys...

Arizona Organizations Fight To Pass Prop 203

2010-12-02T22:29:00.013-05:00

On Monday November 15, almost 2 weeks after Arizona’s polls closed, constituents voted yes on the hotly debated medical-marijuana law. Although, Arizona is the fifteenth law to pass a law legalizing medical-marijuana use, it's the first state to pass such a law since 1996. Prop 203 (as it was presented on the November ballot) was intensely advocated for by the Medical Marijuana Project , an advocacy group which seeks to “Increase public support for non-punitive, non-coercive marijuana policies, identify and activate supporters of non-punitive, non-coercive marijuana policies, change state laws to reduce or eliminate penalties for the medical and non-medical use of marijuana”. Another group, which worked actively to get Proposition 203 passed, is the Arizona Medical Marijuana Policy Project (AMMPP) a grassroots organization based in the state. Last April the group submitted more than 250,000 signatures to the State’s office and in June the Arizona Secretary agreed to put it on the November ballot after finding all inscriptions valid.

But the proposition was not without many opponents, including “Keep AZ Drug-Free” . As to be expected Drug-Free America, S.T.A.N.D. (Students Taking Drugs Not Drugs) and the National Drug-Free Workplace Alliance were on this list as well. However, many other groups including the Arizona Chamber of Commerce, Arizona Association of Counties and Industry, and Arizona Manufacturers Council also came out against the measure. The < href =" http://www.azchamber.com/news/view_article.cfm?ID="> Arizona Chamber of Commerce and Industry which is committed to advancing economic growth and the state’s competitive position in the global market “cited concerns over workplace, and employer burdens” due to the fact that the law makes it illegal for an employer to discipline an employee enrolled in the states program regardless of the amount that is in his or her system. “The potential safety impacts on marijuana users’ co-workers, the customers they interact with or the general public cannot be overlooked”.

The debate over Prop 203, which ensued for months, demonstrated the immense and ever-growing prowess and influence of interest groups on American policy. According to CBS News Health Blog, Carolyn Short , chairwoman of Keep AZ Drug Free, believes that the law will “increase crime around dispensary locations, lead to more people driving and eventually lead to legalized pot for everyone”. But the list of groups in opposition to Prop 203 represent a wide array of interests which all differ from each other. In a system that is at least partially pluralist in nature, groups like Drug-Free America and the Arizona Manufacturers Council, which represent different interests, have coalesced towards the same position to oppose a policy which contradict the respective principles upon which they each stand. Keep AZ Drug Free has listed all of these groups on their webpage in a way that suggests a strong alliance of these associations on the Prop 203 issue.

Stop stalling and get STARTed, Republicans.

2010-12-02T20:25:00.013-05:00

Aftermath of the 2010 election: lame-duck Congress.

The office of John Boehner (R-OH) recently announced that the House Speaker-to-be plans to install the first-ever ladies' room next to the floor of the House of Representatives. But while Boehner has an agenda for remodeling Capitol Hill next year, he and his party members have been slow to act on more imminent issues that are currently on the floor. The new START treaty (for Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty), for example, has come to a screeching halt in the Senate as Republicans refuse to ratify the treaty. New START is a continuation of the 1991 START agreement that expired at the end of 2009. The treaty aims to ensure that the U.S. and Russia have a stable and transparent strategic nuclear arsenal.

Excuses, excuses.

Signed between President Obama and Russian president Dmitry Medvedev, the new START treaty is an important step in shaping U.S. foreign policy as well as in protecting national security. Yet, Republican senators such as Jon Kyl (R-AZ) have claimed that Senate does not have time to discuss the new START treaty amidst other legislation on the floor. With so much on his plate, Sen. Kyl is unable to prioritize. Or so it seems. He just might be waiting for the strong Republican minority to flow in next session before making any moves.

There’s no escaping party loyalty.

Although Senate is the only house that may ratify a treaty, a similar “stall” attitude is also rooted in House Republicans. Just take a look at the newly passed bill that will extend Bush tax-cuts to middle-income taxpayers. Rep. Boehner is enraged, but his buddy Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky) says rest assured -- “It’s not going anywhere”.

This phenomenon is a reflection of fundamental Republican Party ideology. According to the Gallup Poll, conservatives dominate the GOP. While the poll shows religion and age as key factors, it nonetheless demonstrates that Republicans are closely connected through over-lapping beliefs. Liberal Democrats are accustomed to compromise – such was Obama’s rhetoric when he introduced healthcare. Conservative Republicans, on the other hand, tend to come to a standstill when a progressive agenda is on the table. Secondly, the tax-cut bill simply brings us back to the Madisonian system of government. How difficult is it for bills to pass in Congress? Much harder than expected when it come down to two houses.

Back to the START: there is light at the end of the tunnel.

Among a mass of ideological-driven and uncompromising representatives is a knight (or politician) in shining armor. With the nation’s national security foremost in his mind, Richard Lugar (R-IN) has stood out against his own party, urging them to vote on this time-sensitive issue. Lugar has gone so far off the party line as to support a Democratic force vote in the Senate.

For the meantime…

One thing’s for sure, at least future Wellesley women in Washington will have a place to powder their noses. Thank you, Rep. Boehner, for that very thoughtful gesture.

Does food equal bipartisanship?

2010-12-02T00:03:00.005-05:00

In the United States, over 76 million individuals get food poisoning every year, and as a result, 5,000 people die each year. And with the recent E.Coli and salmonella outbreaks, there has been much discussion about how food is monitored within this country.

Earlier this week, Tuesday to be exact, the Senate passed a bill that will increase the power of the Food and Drug Administration in terms of seeing how food is produced and distributed. The Senate bill, referred to as Senate Bill 510, is the Senate version of the House of Representatives' Food and Modernization Act. The bill was enacted during 2009, and is considered to be very strict. But in order to maintain Republican support, Democrats had to compromise parts of the bill. For example, amendments were constructed in order to to avoid a $500 annual registration for farms. The Democrats compromises did work out though: 73 yeas against 25 nays. Some may consider this as bipartisanship.

If the House chooses to pass the bill, then the bill will be the first time the FDA's food regulation policy has been updated since 1938. It will cost $1.4 billion over the next four years, but will require the FDA to establish a minimum number of inspection of food processing facilities.

Even though the House created a earlier, different bill, it is very likely that the House will vote on the bill within the next few weeks, before the new Congress comes in in January. If the House chooses this route, then they will pass the contents of the Senate bill as a House measure and then send it back to the Senate. After the senate confirms, the bill should be ready for the president's desk.

But there is the possibility that debates may continue throughout the "lame duck" session and will have to face the new congress. Also, recently, Republican senators have signed a pledge stating that they will not agree to consider any legislation until Democrats agree to extend Bush era tax cuts.

The United States' Defining Deficit

2010-12-01T21:28:00.012-05:00

Today, the Dow saw its highest one-day gain in over two months. After ending on a fairly depressing note last month, this surge in the markets seems to point towards a brighter December. A weak dollar has been good news for exports, and the manufacturing sector has been riding a 16-month high. This is good news for the U.S. automobile industry, which has been making a strong push toward increasing its competitiveness in the international market. For example, Ford announced that it will be opening 100 additional dealerships in China, as emerging markets provide an opportunity to make up for profit losses in the U.S.

These small steps, like a weaker dollar and increasing our presence in emerging markets is essential to improving the U.S. trade deficit, which stands at a daunting $447 billion for 2010, and only increasing by the minute. World trade was up 19% in the third quarter of 2010 compared to Q3 2009, but United States only recorded a 1% increase in exports from Q2 to Q3, while countries like China boasted an increase of 11% in exports in the same time frame. The United States is clearly struggling with the dilemma of exporting much, but importing much more.

Ever since the U.S. began running a trade deficit in 1975, Democrats have harped on the dangers of running a high deficit. Republicans have argued that a trade deficit isn’t necessarily harmful, as it could be a sign of robust economic activity. Regardless of the fundamentals, both sides agree that the recent records set by the U.S. trade deficit are unacceptable. Our dependence on low-priced Chinese goods has led to an astounding 19.3% of our $1.575 trillion in imports to be from China. Another troubling number is the import of crude oil, which accounted for 8.2% of our total imports in 2009. We import as much oil as Japan, South Korea, and China combined. Certainly the recent news of increasing exports and our narrowing deficit comes at an opportune time. Perhaps with a continued increase in exports and a sincere effort to decrease our dependence on China and foreign oil, someday, we may be able to achieve the seemingly impossible: a trade surplus.

Will slow and steady win the race?

2010-12-01T21:18:00.004-05:00

The Pentagon finally released a long awaited report on its year-long study of the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy, first enacted under the Clinton administration in 1993. The findings revealed that a repeal of DADT would not have long term detrimental effects on the military. Of those who answered the survey, seventy percent said that an openly gay member serving in their unit would have a “positive, mixed or no effect.”

Advocates of the repeal are relying on the decision being made before the lame-duck session’s end; when the 112^th Congress meets on January 3, 2011, Republicans will gain majority in the House and will gain 6 seats in Senate. Since the report’s release on Tuesday, President Obama has been pleading to have the repeal enacted as soon as possible. The House has already approved of the repeal, so the decision now lies in Senate, where a 60 vote majority is necessary to pass it.

However, Obama’s Defense Secretary Robert Gates, who ordered the Pentagon’s review earlier this year, admitted that a rushed decision could result in a backlash. Senator Lieberman (I-CT), a strong supporter of the repeal, argued that this process should be given sufficient time to pass, rather than coming to a rushed decision. “I’m convinced we have more than the necessary 60 votes,” stated Sen. Lieberman, ensuring that Republicans would break the party line to repeal the law, but only if “we take the time to have the debate, not just on "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" but on the underlining Defense Authorization bill”. Among these senators are Silvestre Reyes (R-TX) and Susan Collins (R-ME).

Complicating the issue, however, was a recent decision by the Senate GOP conference to block all legislation until tax cuts are worked out. This was signed by all 42 Republican senators, including those who have indicated support for an amendment on the defense bill.

Hearings on the report will be held on December 2 and December 3, but regardless, it seems that little action will be taken before January unless other issues are cleared first.

Wikileaks, the ultimate democratic tool?

2010-12-01T20:42:00.002-05:00

If, as Jefferson once said, "Information is the currency of Democracy", wikileaks is the ultimate tool for a democratic regime. However, everyone is not so thrilled about it.

The web and even more the web 2.0 is the perfect way to broadcast alternative --as opposed to mainstream-- media: it is cheap and easy to use; amateurs can do journalists' job and release information free from any kind of censorship, giving a whole new dimension to information and journalism. And, in addition to that, it even creates a space for citizens to debate, allowing them to comment on the information they were given. All in all, the internet is the room a new public sphere in which people can shape a public opinion. The web sounds like the perfect tool to improve any type of democracy, for example, by bringing more representation in the Democracy as a Trusteeship model, or by allowing small interest groups to be heard in a pluralist democracy.

So why is the latest release of information by wikileaks raising so many indignations? Maybe because most of what was released is pointless for the public to know and therefore appears just as a provocation towards the US government, showing that it is not almighty, especially within the world wide web.

In the US, the Freedom of Information Act, allow people to gain access to classified documents and get their way. That’s even how websites such as Cryptome or Secrecy News work. It seems like a normal repercussion of the Freedom of Speech shared by the American Creed. The internet and wikileaks are evidence of that, and just made it really easier to spread news of anykind.

Maybe the cablegate proved that some things are better left unsaid.

The Almost-Reauthorization of the Child Nutrition Act

2010-12-01T19:53:00.003-05:00

It is imperative for students to have access to nourishing meals in order to succeed in the classroom. It is more difficult for a student to focus on their schoolwork if they are hungry, or if they are being fed unhealthy food. The US legislature is trying to put an end to this with the reauthorization of the Child Nutrition Act. This reauthorization is also known as the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010. The act is updated every five years and this year major updates to the act include: increasing funding to allow more low-income students eligibility for free or reduced lunch; requiring school food to be more nutritious; limiting the options for junk food in school cafeterias; and supporting farmers and communities through farm to school programs.

The act passed through the Senate by unanimous consent in August and today was supposed to be voted on in the House. The vote has been delayed due to a motion by Republicans that could derail the legislation all together. House Republicans are trying to amend the bill to require background checks for employees of the school receiving the funding. If the House amends the act, the Senate will not approve the amended act and the legislation will not pass. According to Lorelei DiSogra, “Any amendment to the bill would kill it, since the Senate won’t consider an amended bill….Any change — even one word — kills the bill. Even if they are good amendments, there can’t be any changes to the bill or otherwise the bill dies.” It appears that Republicans are attempting this amendment not for the sake of the amendment, but for the sake of derailing the bill. According to Republican John Kline, he and his Republican colleagues are against the bill because of “its higher costs for local districts and its rigid mandates”. This bill, to many Republicans speaks to the growth of government and an increase in taxes. Kline says that “everyone recognizes the importance of extending child nutrition programs but extending these programs does not mean expanding them”. Extending nutrition programs for every American school is a large project that requires immense funding, yet the Republicans want to implement the extension of the program without extending the cost to the government or the people.

This roadblock that congress has hit in trying to pass the reauthorization of the Child Nutrition Act is one example of the complexity involved in passing legislation in the American system. The bicameralism in congress has led to the act’s delay. If there were just one house in congress, perhaps the act would have passed in August and gone onto be signed by the president and made law. But, the Madisonian system has gotten in the way and we will have to wait for the house’s decision to see the fate of the Child Nutrition Act.

A Race Against Time

2010-12-01T18:01:00.005-05:00

Congress has a lot on their agenda, but more specifically, the Democrats have a lot to do before January 3, 2011. Before Republicans start flooding in both the House and Senate in January 2011, the Democrats want to successfully pass their bills. Naturally, the Republicans oppose most of these proposed legislations.

Take the DREAM Act, for example, which would provide amnesty for illegal immigrants. Outgoing Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi is desperate to get Congress to vote on the DREAM Act while the Democrats are still there. Even during these lame-duck sessions of Congress, Pelosi is clearly expecting party cohesion from the Democrats, which goes to show just how centralized the House is. In fact, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid revised the DREAM Act without even a hearing. The revisions were made in hopes of getting votes from the Democrats who were previously unhappy with the immigration bill. Despite the building of greater Democratic Party cohesion, the Democrats better be prepared for strong backlash from the Republicans, especially now that their confidence has been boosted by their success in the past November elections. In fact, many Republican senators are threatening to filibuster and block any legislation that they do not like.

It’s ironic. Although Republicans would like to portray Democrats as inefficient, it is the Republican who threatens each legislative measure with a filibuster because it does not please him/her. It is the incoming Republican Speaker of the House who turned down an offer from President Obama for a meeting. It is all forty-two Republican senators who formally signed a petition refusing to vote for any bill before the Bush-era income tax cuts are addressed in a manner that they approve of. Reid concluded that the Republicans are strategically wasting time “on critical matters, then blaming the Democrats for not addressing the needs of the American people. Very cynical, but very obvious, very transparent.” But let’s look at the Democrats. They are also using logistical means as a way of getting what they want. They hope to strategically “beat time” by relying on party cohesion to get these bills passed.

The Bush-era tax cuts, budget deficit resolutions, repeal of the ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ policy, and ratification of a nuclear arms treaty with Russia are only a few of the important pieces of legislation on the table for discussion…or lack thereof. Regardless of which party is dominant in Congress, who the Speaker of the House is, and when a new Congress will take over, our senators and representatives should not be relying on these logistical details in hopes of getting things done in their favor. Perhaps this calls for a second look at the procedural logistics of Congress, including filibusters, that the two parties are so dependent on. Otherwise, every lame-duck session of Congress will go through this vicious cycle.

The Presidency and Party Polarization: Obama's Pitfall

2010-12-01T16:50:00.005-05:00

Party polarization and increasing tension in Congress will certainly be making White House Political Strategist David Axelrod's job a little tougher as he begins to plan President Obama's 2012 re-election campaign within the next year. Because of the current strong common platform trend that each party has established nationwide, President Obama will have to do a very careful job of appealing to both Democrats and Republicans within the next year of his first term in office.

Now that the Republicans have won the majority in the House of Representatives, Mr. Obama will be forced to compromise many of his original campaign promises while still maintaining his liberal values in order to work with the GOP, who he admitted he didn’t reach out to enough in the first two years in office. His biggest battle may be about the Bush-era tax cuts: while Republicans want tax cuts to extend to all Americans, Mr. Obama refuses to spend the $700 billion that tax cuts to the wealthy would require.

As President Obama seeks bipartisanship, he will need to gain support from at least one Republican ally who can help him advocate and seek the support from the House and the Senate minority (hopefully causing more Senate centralization), which will be the key to compromising on domestic tax and government spending issues.

These major issues that are causing such grand divides in the parties will most likely not be among the first compromises made. Republican support may initially need to come through compromises in the energy and education reform that Mr. Obama has placed near the top of his agenda. Mr. Obama may be able to win the support of John Kyl (R), Arizona in a compromise over a nuclear arms treaty with Russia, a relationship that may give him an opening among the Senate minority and more support from the House.

However, incoming Speaker of the House John Boehner will not be jumping on the Obama Administration bandwagon just yet. Boehner has noted, “There's a reason why we have Democrats and Republicans. We believe in different things about the appropriate role of the federal government.” House Republican centralization under Boehner could be likened to that of Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich’s organization and leadership. A new “Republican Revolution” may be around the corner…potentially casting dark clouds over Obama’s chances of seeking effective compromise.

Climate Change: The Next Legal Frontier

2010-11-30T17:28:00.003-05:00

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!

2010-11-30T17:03:00.006-05:00

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.

What the...frack?

2010-11-22T12:10:00.000-05:00

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.

Gender equity stalled by filibuster

2010-11-21T20:28:00.005-05:00

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?

2010-11-21T18:25:00.005-05:00

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?

2010-11-21T17:01:00.002-05:00

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

2010-11-21T16:49:00.007-05:00

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

2010-11-21T16:14:00.002-05:00

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

2010-11-21T15:00:00.005-05:00

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

2010-11-21T11:51:00.002-05:00

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

2010-11-21T03:39:00.007-05:00

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.

The Government's Problem with Cheese

2010-11-10T21:10:00.005-05:00

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.

Education reform: compatible with federalism?

2010-11-10T20:17:00.013-05:00

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.

Immigration Reform: What do you think?

2010-11-10T20:16:00.005-05:00

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?

2010-11-10T15:56:00.001-05:00

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.

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

2010-11-10T15:54:00.011-05:00

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

2010-11-10T15:49:00.004-05:00

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.

The Constitutionality of Funding through Intermediaries

2010-11-10T12:58:00.012-05:00

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.

Economy and the Midterm Election Results

2010-11-09T21:30:00.003-05:00

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 4^th 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 10^th 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

2010-11-09T15:26:00.001-05:00

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.

Spin to Win, Not to Understand

2010-11-05T01:15:00.000-04:00

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.

Changes In Congress to Affect Energy Issues

2010-11-03T22:23:00.002-04:00

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

2010-11-03T21:54:00.000-04:00

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

2010-11-03T20:41:00.003-04:00

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?

The Real Importance of the 2010 Elections

2010-11-03T20:28:00.016-04:00

Due to the recent Supreme Court ruling Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, this fall’s midterm election will not be remembered as the end to the huge Democratic majority in the House, but as the election that spent an unprecedented amount of money on this year’s campaigns. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, interest groups alone have raised and spent about $300 million, a whopping four times greater than the amount spent by interest groups in the 2006 midterm elections.

In this past election, much more money was spent towards promoting conservative, Republican candidates and causes, than Democratic liberal ones. In this year’s midterm according to The Charlotte Observer, Republican interest groups have outspent Democratic interest groups by a 2-1 ratio, a complete reversal of the 2006 election where the Democratic groups led the spending by a 2-1 ratio.

The socially conservative interest groups particularly have won big this year. Groups, such as anti-abortion groups like National Right to Life Committee and anti-gay marriage groups, have not only donated more this fall towards independent campaigns, but were the ones that originally called for a change in the campaign finance laws last year. This year they saw it successfully pass in the Supreme Court, allowing them to increasingly and anonymously fund independent campaigns mostly for Republican candidates who support their causes. Socially liberal interest groups however are anxious about relationship between these conservative social interest groups and Republicans; saying that, “It’s an unholy marriage between some politically extreme elements and a very well-financed corporatist push”.

This 2010 election marks the beginning of the "privatization of America’s election process", in which political parties will now indirectly receive unlimited funding from corporations and organizations. With social issues like abortion and gay-marriage already being such huge dividing issues in politics, this new privatization phenomenon that allows social interest groups to play an even more integral part of the campaigns begs the question -- will we be seeing an even more hyper-pluralistic society and a larger division between America's two parties?

Bernanke: He's All About the Benjamins, Baby

2010-11-03T19:57:00.008-04:00

In order to buy $900 billion worth of Treasury bonds, the Federal Reserve announced today that it will print a whopping $600 billion in fresh bills over the next 8 months. The Fed hopes to speed economic growth by lowering long-term interest rates and promote borrowing.

Though the Federal Reserve acts independently from Congress, the new wave of Republican anti-stimulus plan sentiments entering the House puts the Fed in the pressure-cooker as disagreements escalate between the Democrat and Republican parties over tax-cuts and job creation. The Fed cannot fix the national debt alone, and will be looking for the backing of Congress to increase fiscal stimulus.

This sudden increase in anti-deficit, anti-government spending rallying from the Republicans may have spurred the Fed into forging forth with their new plan to fix a "disappointingly slow" economic recovery. Chairman Ben Bernanke has said, "Fiscal stimulus, accommodated by the Fed, is the single most powerful action the government can take for lowering the unemployment rate, when short-term rates are already at zero."

The recent 9.6% unemployment rate and the Republican's gain of (at least) 60 House seats puts President Obama in a rough situation. Obama announced today that he is rethinking the White House policy on the Bush Administration's soon-to-expire tax cuts and is willing to negotiate with both parties, though he noted, "How that negotiation works itself out I think is too early to say." Early? Excuse me, Mr. President, but this recession has lasted long enough. The Fed is pumping out more monies, but you need to hurry up and make some fiscal changes, too....or you're out.

And that's the way it is.

A Referendum on the Budget Deficit

2010-11-03T19:07:00.007-04:00

How Republicans managed to sweep the floor in the 2010 Congressional Election

According to the Gallup Poll, 40% of the American public view the federal debt as one of the top threats to the U.S. There is no doubt that the budget deficit greatly fueled the fire in this year’s campaign. Republicans were quick to point fingers at their opponents, who had a hard time standing their ground. As a result, Republicans picked up close to 60 seats in one of the most dramatic political realignments in history. How did Republicans, in an off-year election, secure a strong majority in the House and leave Democrats with only a margin of control in the Senate? How did Democrats end up as political scapegoats of the 1.3 trillion dollar budget deficit?

Recall, for a moment, the 2008 Wall-Street bailout (officially known as the Troubled Asset Relief Program, TARP). Although the bill was passed during the Bush Administration, Obama, unfortunately, inherited the blame for bailing out the rich and risky. Democrats were forced to distance themselves from the president and the bailout in the mid-term elections. A few extra-cautious Democrats even claimed to have voted against the bill even though they did not take office until 2009. The electorate seemed to have forgotten that both houses agreed to pass the Wall-Street bailout. Harvard economists who have thoroughly examined the after-effects of the bailout also agree that the economy would be worse off now had the government not stepped in. But what exactly was behind the voters’ psyche?

Enter anti-government spending and pro-tax cuts Republicans. Although there has been evidence of the bailout turning up profit, the prevailing theme in this year’s election was to denounce the federal debt. While Republican candidates campaigned on decreasing government expenditure, Democrats, in the past two years, championed for healthcare reform and the stimulus package – more big-ticket spending items.

The problem lies therein: the disconnect between voters’ ideal and their reality. In the eyes of the public, Democrats are driving the economy into the ground – and straight into the pockets of tax-payers. Republicans, though making two contradictory claims, promise a win-win situation.

Slowly but surely, the economy is on the road to recovery, in a large part due to the “big government” spending for which the Democrats were voted out of office. But recovery came too late. Now it seems the newly crowned kings of the House will get all the glory. According to The New York Times, Republicans are catching the “political wave” right at an economic upturn.

Tough luck, Democrats. This year’s election was certainly a referendum on the budget deficit. And the Republicans’ marketing strategy worked its magic.

What's next for healthcare reform?

2010-11-03T17:45:00.004-04:00

When Katie Couric asked Eric Cantor, the Republican whip about his plans for health care reform, he replied that he wants the health care bill repealed right away because "that is what the American people want." The soon to be majority leader is not the only one who feels this way; other Republican leaders want to repeal the bill as well. Many are concerned about the implications of the bill, for example, expansion of government and the great costs. But despite the fears and the ambition to repeal, many analysts are wondering if a repeal is the best way to go?

Not necessarily.

For one, the President has veto power. And it does not seem that the Democrat majority in the Senate and the Republican majority in the House will come to a consensus on overrides. Also, despite the overall unpopularity of the bill, many Americans are in favor of some provisions, for example keeping children on parents' insurance plans until children are 26 years old. Despite, these "obstacles" they now face, Republicans can use their new majority power in the House to block funding for provisions in the bill.

What should be the way to go?

Just by looking at various aspects of the election season, it seems that voters are tired of the constant bickering between Democrats and Republicans. Based on the two new different majorities in the House and Senate, Americans (on the whole) are not picking a favored party over another. Instead of immediately trashing the bill, perhaps the new Congress should tweak the bill. As Joe Boehner, the soon to be Speaker of the House mentioned, " it's important for us to lay the groundwork before we begin to repeal this monstrosity and replace it with commonsense reforms." And Democrats seem to be more receptive to amending the bill with Republicans. Only time will tell.

2010-11-03T17:44:00.001-04:00

Proposition 23: California v. Big Oil

2010-11-03T17:08:00.013-04:00

When California voters went to the polls yesterday they were confronted with Proposition 23, which aimed to put California's landmark Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (or AB 32) on hold until California's unemployment rate drops to 5.5% for four straight quarters. Supporters of Proposition 23 insisted that enacting AB 32 would raise energy prices and make life even harder for Californians, especially in the current climate of economic hardship. Opponents of Proposition 23 scoffed at these dire predictions and pointed out that an unemployment rate of under 5.5% is a state of affairs so unnatural to California that it has occurred only three times since 1980. In campaign ads such as this one they claimed that big oil companies from outside states like Texas were trying to stifle AB 32 indefinitely at the expense of an environmentally sustainable future for California's citizens.

After months of frenetic campaigning, California voters soundly rejected Proposition 23 yesterday by a margin of 59% to 41%, allowing environmentalists across the country to draw a collective breath of relief.

Proposition 23 may have been just another sideshow in the great tug-of-war that is American environmental politics, but it illustrates the failure of federalism in the face of a national--no, global--problem. Mr. Madison envisioned a sprawling republic which would drown out the insidious influence of factions by the sheer diversity of public opinion. But he could not have imagined that his carefully-balanced system would permit the rise of industrial interest groups which reach across state borders to interfere with the greater good. A large republic works well enough when factions are localized but when they become nationalized it contributes to their power and influence. In the case of Proposition 23, oil interest groups from states as varied as Texas, Louisiana, and Missouri spent a great deal of time and money in an attempt to influence California's policies in their favor. This brings up a difficult question: can the United States follow in the footsteps of other countries to enact environmentally sustainable policies or will those efforts constantly be thwarted by factions which exploit our federalist system?

We Voted for a Stalemate?

2010-11-03T17:08:00.012-04:00

In light of the congressional midterm election results, Republicans are clearly regaining control of both the House and Senate. However, the fact that Democrats still maintained control of the Senate begs the question: Was this a nationalized election, or were people still voting along party lines?

Of course, it doesn’t have to be only one or the other; both possibilities could have played a role in this election. But consider how people were predicting that Republicans would sweep the nation’s votes. According to pollingreport.com, regardless of how people planned to vote, the majority of the American public was convinced that Republicans would win control of the House. And they did. Media sources and even political analysts such as Charlie Cook fueled this popular notion that Republicans would sweep the House votes, otherwise known as the GOP wave. Election results, however, show that this wave was welcome only in the House and not in the Senate. Thus, it is important to note that there is a difference between acknowledging the GOP wave and acting on it. If this wave was supposed to be so big, why were the Republicans able to dominate only in the House?

While there may have been strong anti-Democrat sentiment on a national level with people propelling talk about the GOP wave, many people still voted along party lines. Different voting habits of the American population fueled this split in Congress and will inevitably set the tone for the next few terms. Slate notes that the “polls don’t show much affection for the new co-leaders of American politics.” Now that Americans have voted for the next best thing (or the second-worst, depending on how you look at it), Republicans, to control half of Congress, this will inevitably have Democrats and Republicans countering each other’s motives in their respective powerhouses, leading to a stalemate.

Charter Schools and Education Reform

2010-11-03T10:59:00.001-04:00

On 9/29/2010 education secretary, Arne Duncan, announced a $50 million grant to twelve high performing charter schools. In the midst of a hotly debated, media-popular time in education, this announcement is one of many examples of the Obama administration’s positive outlook on charter schools (not very different from Republicans and the Bush Administration). The benefits of charter schools are highly contested. One side argues that charter schools take funding away from traditional public schools without doing much to advance education. The other points to the number of high-performing charter schools that have given many students in low-income areas with inadequate public school systems an opportunity to receive a quality education. A concise summary of some important aspects of the debate are outlined in Newsweek’s article “Understanding Charter Schools”.

High quality charter schools are a testament to the progress that non-governmental organizations can make in education reform. Although charter schools are public, they are created by outside parties who, in many cases, usually know what they are doing when it comes to improving schools. For example, KIPP (Knowledge is Power Program), an extremely successful charter school program: “While less than one in five low-income students attends college nationally, KIPP's college matriculation rate stands at more than 85 percent for students who complete the eighth grade at KIPP”(www.kipp.org), was started by two experienced teachers. This suggests that perhaps a Pluralist democratic system would be best for education reform. People who have worked in schools, who know the complexities of the classroom, and the sensitivity of the subject, should be the ones making the policy decisions with students’ best interest in mind.

Cititzens United: How much for an election?

2010-11-03T08:25:00.002-04:00

Thanks to Citizens United, the candidates in the different races for the mid-term elections had a lot of money to spend on promoting themselves. As a result, television channels were inundated by political ads, and to be specific, by really nasty ones. As much as political ads can profit democracy when their purpose is to present the different candidates and their ideas to the voters, we can really wonder what negative ads can contribute to in a political campaign. The advertising strategy most of the candidates adopted was obviously not to give relevant information to help voters decide who would be the best candidate to represent their interests, but to create a buzz to get more advertisement (for free this time). Broadcasting those ads (sometimes really close to misinformation), the media which are supposed to create a public sphere in which the citizens can find the material to fuel a political debate, are actually hedging the debate. Especially when the people who paid for the ads are anonymous. Maybe a regulation on the ads as it exists in Canada, giving each candidate the same amount of advertising time on television would be a good way to prevent rich candidates from “buying” the elections.

What’s more, Citizens United allowed for the first time, media companies to contribute to political campaigns. Fox News for example donated one million dollar to the Republican Governors Association for this race. The link between Fox News and the Republican Party is not stunning news, but this new fact calls into question their point of view about the code of ethics of journalism: the truthfulness, accuracy, objectivity, impartiality, fairness and public accountability of the information they gave. Actually, the Democratic Governors Association asked Fox News to “add a formal disclaimer to your news coverage any time any of your programs cover governors or gubernatorial races between now and Election Day”, and that could be a solution to label partisan media as such. Then the audience would know what to believe or not.

At least, the whole campaign paid off the local stations’ debt…