Obama Attacks Execs Involved in Oil Spill

President Obama has been attacking the executives of the companies--British Petroleum, Transocean, and Halliburton--involved in the massive oil spill just off of the coast of Louisiana Reuters reported today.

The open question is whether or not the protracted effects of the oil spill will damper public support for Obama's plan to open up much of the Eastern Seaboard and parts of Alaska to oil exploration and drilling for the first time.

The Department of the Interior has suspended giving out new drilling permits until May 28, when a safety review is due to be completed.

All the companies have tried to shift the blame, which may be worse press than just trying to accept responsibility. It seems to me that after hearing other big businesses mess up recently--notably financial services businesses--the oil firms and subcontractors would want to be careful to strike a more conciliatory and repentant tone. Alas, they have not. If their reaction to the crisis hurts public opinion of increased offshore drilling to the point that lawmakers postpone opening the new waters, they will have themselves to blame. In this environment where the American public trusts big corporations only a little more than they trust their unpopular government, honesty is probably the best policy. Too bad big oil hasn't learned its lesson.

Protests, Baseball, and the Arizona Immigration Law

I'm surprised to hear that the Arizona boycott is actually gaining force – as my understanding, which is the same as the textbook's – is that most boycotts and other large-scale protests end up swept under the rug or directed to the "sit-in room" because much of the protest machine is, much of the time, fabricated and insincere.

According to a May 14 blog post on the NY Times website, the "Arizona Republic is reporting today that Gov. Jan Brewer and tourism-industry leaders are so worried about the loss in convention and tourism business that they are setting up a task force, funded by $250,000 from the state’s commerce department, to counter what they say is “misinformation’’ about the new law."

And just to illustrate how far the issue has gone, my dad mentioned tonight that he read the MLB players union strongly opposes SB1070, and that many players, particularly those of Latin origin, have promised to boycott the 2011 All-Star Game if it's held in Arizona.

This is what finally got my attention. This is proving to be a very costly 'misunderstanding' that's forever branded the state's image in the eyes of most people, and isn't as much a policy issue as it is a P.R. issue.

Tightening Up the Legal System by Matt Hollander

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100504/ap_on_go_co/us_too_many_crimes

There is a peculiar media exchange occurring between Congress and criminal defense lawyers. The charge is that congress is enacting laws that are not clearly defined. The controversy has focused on provisions, or rather the lack there of, for crimes relating to “criminal intent.” This qualification is important in defining defendants who intentionally broke the law from those who make unfortunate mistakes. In a practical scenario, these are the provisions that separate manslaughter from homicide. The difference is not just legal terminology, but significant punishments. The interpretation of intent can mean the difference in decades of jail time.

The criminal defense lawyers say that these laws are unfair to the defendants. The vagueness of these provisions creates situations where people can be prosecuted for crimes that they were unaware of. The lawyers have collectively requested a review of many recently enacted laws, and every practical, as well as constitutional, argument support proper adjustments.

On a fundamental level, the authors of the Bill of Rights had this scenario in mind when they crafted the sixth amendment. It was very important to distance the nation from tyrannical rule, and one such method was to ensure rights to the accused. It is established that the government can neither illegalize an act, nor increase due punishment, after the act has been committed. The ambiguity the referenced provisions essentially make this injustice possible.

Matt Hollander

To have your cake and eat it too: American polls on Illegal Immigration by Matt Hollander

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2010-05-03-immigration-poll_N.htm

In a recent USA Today poll on illegal immigration, two-thirds of Americans want the government to do a better job of securing boarders, but they are sympathetic to illegal immigrants who have been solid contributors to the economy. While, this seems like a reasonable position, the ideologies are conflicting and produce a classic case of “wanting your cake and eating it to.” A topic that is as politically and racially charged as illegal immigration elicits the full range of feelings, often ones that contradict each other. The issue of illegal immigration raises the logical dilemma of breaking laws, and the emotional dilemma of enforcing that law through deportation.

So if the people of this country are so inconsistent on the issue, how are legislators supposed to address this issue? The mixed signal has many lawmakers at a standstill. Illegal immigration is one of the most prevalent issues and seemingly no one knows how to proceed. Legislators would be remiss to not confront this problem with a logical solution. The fact of the matter is that no matter what, the plan will cost an exorbitant amount of money to enact. Americans need to make a stand and be prepared to pay the price for their wishes.

Matt Hollander

Obama's Drug Policy

After repeated delay, the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy released its first National Drug Control Strategy earlier this week. In a May 14 article in The New Republic, UChicago professor and substance-abuse expert Harold Pollack (who also happens to be Stephen Hawking's dopplegänger) dissects Obama's drug strategy, weighing in on its pros and cons.

What did the Obama administration overlook? Pollack states that the strategy is too focused on fighting drug suppliers, which really won't go anywhere. Pollack argues that money would be better spent in prevention programs, which could actually yield results. Pollack also says that the Obama administration should have focused on other addictive substances, such as alcohol and tobacco, as these "continue to undermine public health" (is he suggesting prohibition-type legislation?)

So what's the Obama administration doing differently? What is it doing right? Pollack argues that both the evolved attitude towards drugs and the focus of the strategy are huge improvements. Obama's strategy, while still focusing on the prevention of simple drug use, will focus more on the prevention of "more explicitly harmful consequences: deaths, illness, and injuries associated with drug use." Obama's strategy also focuses on "[integrating] addiction services with general medical care," and will provide financing for addiction treatment. Additionally, Obama's policy will deal "more diplomatically and effectively" with drugs abroad (including Central and South American countries).

Financial Reform

Very few are happy with large banks and the Federal reserve at the moment. With bailout after bailout for banks, and literally trillions of unaccounted dollars within the fed, it is no wonder why the people want change. It started with Congressman Ron Paul of Texas proposing a bill to audit the Fed and making it accountable for its missing funds. However, he lacked enough support to make progress and the bill died.However, the idea has rekindled; Senator Bernie Sanders has proposed a bill that would audit the fed, and the bill is receiving much greater support from both sides than before. In addition, a second bill to break up large banks into smaller more efficient ones made its way to the floor with great support as well. With these bills, the proposers hope to limit the secret deals and lending that the Fed more than likely has been making and also stop banks from becoming welfare moochers.

Economic and Foreign Policy

Impact of health bill

Foreign holdings of US debt

National Defense Spending

...............Nominal $...%Outlays....%GDP

1960 $48b............52%.............9.3%

2010 $719b..........19%.............4.9%

Obama's Deal

This course focused on the political process and its endgame: public policy. A few weeks ago, I found a program that illustrates this process - start to finish - better than almost anything else. It's a FRONTLINE documentary called "Obama's Deal" about the administration's healthcare overhaul.

The video is very interesting. It reveals details of the process that would usually not be available to DC outsiders. In just an hour-long show, it covers a year-long process - and does a pretty good job.

Benefits to New Media

The Washington Post has announced that it is planning on selling Newsweek due to continuous declines in sales since 2007. This article cites falling newstand and circulation. However, we know that newstand and circulation is falling for all forms of print media. This brings up the "problem" of the new media, but spokesmen from the publication said in a Newsweek article that they want to grow and adapt to their market. The industry is evolving, and Newsweek, as well as other forms of honest journalism that are being replaced with blogs and such, can only survive if they adapt. According to the Newsweek article, the challenges presented by the decline in sales have forced them to improve their quality. So, while we can expect the quantity of "old-fashioned" honest journalism to decline with the growth of blogs and fast-info news sources, the ones that stick around will have to be even higher quality than before.

Question of Impartiality of the Courts

Charles Dean Hood is waiting on death row after being convicted of killing two people in Plano, Texas. The verdict and condemning punishment makes the nature of his trial more questionable. The prosecutor (who also served as Collin County's District Attorney), Tom O'Connell, and Judge, Verla Sue Holland, of the trial had a past sexual relationship and are still close friends, making the trial lose its credibility and impartiality. Hood and his legal team have not been able to get a new trial in the Texas court system, and the Supreme Court recently declined to reconsider the case.

This story brings the Constitutional right to a fair trial into question. Our court system is supposed to allow a fair trial, but the Sixth Amendment of the Constitution only calls for the impartiality of the jury. The Judge Verla Sue Holland got her position through an election, and her values and judgement were scrutinized by the populace. With her position, the people decided that she had the values that would uphold the Constitutional right for those involved in her court. But her relationship with the District Attorney clearly made the courtroom impartial. As the director of The Texas Defender Service, Andrea Keilen, said of the case, "'No one should be prosecuted for a parking ticket, let alone for capital murder by the district attorney who has had a sexual affair with the judge handling the case."

This story shows that while our Constitution and our court systems are made to give the accused a fair trial, there are still shortcomings in the system that are not protected by the Constitution or popular elections.

US, China, and Taiwan

A lot of us have probably heard that China may surpass the United States in becoming the next superpower of the world due to its rapid economic growth etc. My question is whether these two countries will ever clash in some way? Some suspect that if they do, it would be about Taiwan. The United States has always maintained a very ambiguous policy towards Taiwan: it does not officially recognize Taiwan but sells arms to it to guard itself against enemies, which would obviously be China. The United States had a weapons deal worth 6.4 billion dollars with Taiwan earlier this year, which infuriated China. With its "One China" policy, China considers Taiwan as a part of China and will supposedly resort to military measures if Taiwan formally declares independence. At the same time, the United States seems to support Taiwan in that it will help Taiwan if China invades the country in the future. So, the United States doesn't seem to want China to take over Taiwan, but at the same time, it officially supports China's policy. So, what happens if Taiwan does declare independence? Will the United States come to Taiwan's defense? Will it be willing to engage in a war with China?

The Death Penalty

Lately, capital punishment has caught my attention because it is now a heated debate in Taiwan. After nearly five years of not executing anyone, the Ministry of Justice suddenly carried out the execution of four inmates that were sentenced to death, which shocked the entire country. Taiwan never officially abolished the death penalty, and although people have been sentenced to death before, it hasn't been carried out, so people generally think that it is just a kind of formality.

The interesting thing is that the general public in Taiwan supports capital punishment. Unlike the United States where people are split regarding this issue, the majority of people in Taiwan see capital punishment as something rather ordinary and compulsory. A specific example occurred when the former Minister of Justice resigned because of public pressure when she publicly announced her support for the abolition of the death penalty. In a way, instead of generating support of the abolition, she actually facilitated the renewal of the executions.

Unlike the United States where the death penalty lies within the state jurisdiction, it is in the hands of the federal government in Taiwan. Speaking of this, I was surprised when I first learned that the United States was one of the top countries that carry out executions, and even more puzzled when I learned that only certain states do so. I guess that is a perfect example of how federalism works in the United States.

Since its conception, the Internet has been tax free and open to everybody. If you buy access to the Internet through an Internet Service Provider, you may visit any site you wish at any time. All data that is sent or received is mandated by the FCC to be delivered on a first come, first serve basis to its intended recipient in order to promote an open and interconnected flow of information, unregulated by the cable companies that provide it. Corporations such as Verison, AT&T, and Comcast are fighting to gain control of the information that they distribute. By abolishing the mandates of net neutrality, corporations could control what content is seen first and which pages load fastest. Larger sites could pay for preferential treatment of their data, defeating the equal treatment of information that allows any user to visit any site he desires. Without net neutrality, phone companies could create virtual profiling checkpoints on the internet, controlling traffic in a way that prevents the free and easy exchange of ideas.

So much of the internet’s success developed through the ability to freely share information across sites and country borders. The internet’s speed and ease of access give it the power to spread aid in a time of crisis. It can sometimes reveal social injustice in countries that lack other pervasive communication networks. If phone and cable corporations continue to score legal victories against the FCC, the internet as we know it will disappear. Companies like Verison, AT&T, and Comcast will have the right to slow down or block certain information, potentially hindering humanitarian causes that rely on the efficient and all-encompassing network the internet provides. While we cannot be sure how these companies will proceed, some companies have already limited peer-to-peer connectivity, with plans to institute cell-phone like charges to access popular sites. The Obama administration’s stance on net neutrality will influence the struggle between the FCC and phone and cable companies and decide whether the internet will continue to exist as an open and interconnected network.

Federalism and Education

Yesterday, the New York Times came out with an article profiling Arne Duncan, the U.S. Secretary of Education. Previous secretaries have tended to stay out of the public focus, as state and local governments are largely responsible for the programs and funding given to schools. Arne Duncan is seeking to expand the role of the federal government in local schools. His "assertive" measures include a $4 billion school improvement competition and $3.5 billion to help failing schools. Congress doubled the Department of Education's budget last year in emergency education funding, giving Duncan far more resources than his predecessors had. Although there is a proposal to change the No Child Left Behind Act to give schools more flexibility, most of Duncan's efforts promote federal involvement in schooling.

Even though the budget for the Department of Education has doubled, it still accounts for very little of the overall budget on local education. The New York Times notes that "in recent decades, states and districts have paid more than 90 cents of every dollar spent on public schools." Some critics of the Department of Education's increased role have pointed out that the federal government is attempting to get more leverage in an area where they provide little of the funding. Such tensions in who should control and ultimately be responsible for social programs reflect the occasional challenges presented by our federal system. Education has traditionally been a state and local issue - while it is admirable that Duncan desires to improve our current education system, it is also understandable that local and state officials might resent increased regulations when they are the ones ultimately footing most of the bill.

One Jerk Might Ruin Our Fun

The recent car bombing scare in New York City has proven devastating for the nation. It is alleged that the act was done by one man and that there is no conspiracy. Representative Peter King has suggested that the bombing was caused by South Park and its recent episode in which it originally slandered the prophet Mohamed. After several threats, any reference to him in the episode was censored. Scenes where he was supposed to be on screen had a large black rectangle labeled 'censored'. The South Park creators still virtually got the image across, censorship or not.

If this in truth why the bombing occurred, then everyone needs to understand that South Park attacks everything. Every major religion had some under their ridicule at some point, among other things. One of their most notable almost-lawsuits was their episode criticizing the Whale Wars cast, specifically the leader of the project Paul Watson.


This picture was shown on TV as he was being personally slandered. South Park does not discriminate with what to attack; they go after anything, and this is why everyone loves the show.

Besides this, if the bombing is concluded to have been caused of South Park's depiction of Mohamed, we can only expect one thing, more censorship. South Park is free to poke fun at whomever they desire because no one can get insulted by their humor. If they did, they would find their careers being troubled. This is true among politicians and any public figures, the only way to avoid injury of words is to not react to them. FDR understood this in his early years campaigning for the presidency. His opponents would create absurd lies to slander him, and he would ignore them completely. Nothing much came of it. Now, because there may have been a violent recoil, the situation is different.

Censorship is counter-productive in a free society, which should encourage different opinions not the same. Censorship will only dull the message artists attempt to present. For South Park and like shows, this means they will have to be more careful about what they slander. We love these shows because of the over-the-top absurdity and their brave attacks on almost anyone. Their quality will only decrease if they are subject to greater censorship. Finally, the concept of American liberty becomes restrained as well. America is supposed to be the one country where one can speak their mind without fear of repercussions.

South Park had already faced some degree of censorship in the show. If the investigators of the bombing conclude that it was in fact the depiction of Mohamed that instigated the bomber, there will no doubt be tighter restrictions on what comedians can show to the public. For the South Park creators this means either more lawsuits or much worse content, ruining the fun for all of us. However, Representative King closed claiming the South Park theory is "one in a hundred". Hopefully, for the sake of artists, comedy, and liberty it is false.

Times Square Car Bomb linked to South Park

Last Saturday night, a car bomb was found in Times Square. Fortunately, although the device had apparently begun to detonate, it failed to explode. Representative Peter T. King, the ranking Republican on the House Committee on Homeland Security suggested that the car bomb could be linked to the controversial 'South Park' episode. The episode in question included a caricature of the prophet Muhammad dressed in a bear suit and spurred Islamic radical group Revolution Muslim to threaten the 'South Park' creators. A post on RevolutionMuslim.com declared, "We have to warn Matt and Trey that what they are doing is stupid and they will probably end up like Theo van Gogh for airing this show. This is not a threat, but a warning of the reality of what will happen to them" (foxnews.com). The car bomb itself was found nearby Viacom headquarters , the conglomerate that owns Comedy Central, on which South Park is aired.

A Double Standard

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad faced off at the UN Conference on Monday over the subject of nuclear proliferation. Clinton began, as you would expect, by accusing Iran of evading nuclear safeguard obligations and by calling on Iran to "fulfill our international obligations and work toward the goal of a safer world" (CNN.com). Ahmadinejad countered by denying allegations that Iran's nuclear program is focused on creating nuclear weapons and accusing the United States of promoting an "international system that... favored the West and nuclear weapon states while denying states like his the benefits of nuclear energy" (CNN.com). Ahmadinejad went on to argue that the U.S. held a double standard by denying states like Iran the right to hold nuclear weapons, while at the same time Israel continues to receive U.S. support despite their own undeclared nuclear stockpile. While the thought of Ahmadinejad getting his hands on a nuclear bomb does keeps me up at night, I can't help but feel that in some respect he is right. It is incredibly hypocritical of the U.S. to try and regulate how other countries develop their own nuclear power, while we are not only the world's largest distributor of commercial nuclear energy, but we are also currently sitting on a stockpile of over 5,000 nuclear missiles. This seems to be just another example of America policing the world and trying to push forward our own agenda. On that note, as a U.S. citizen, I am much more comfortable knowing that the U.S. will do whatever it can to stop countries like Iran and North Korea from attaining nuclear weapons. At the same time I can take advantage of the 19.6% of our total electricity consumption that is provided by nuclear energy.

Practice Final Exam

I. Identifications. Explain the meaning and significance of 12 of the 15 following items (4 points each). Each answer should be a brief paragraph. What is fair game for an identification?

• Items that we have discussed in class or on the blog;
• Items that appear in bold or italics in the readings;
• Items that cover several pages in the readings.

1. National Security Act of 1947
2. Progressive taxes
3. Stare decisis
4. Federal Register
5. Gulf of Tonkin Resolution
6. Cloture
7. Embedded journalist
8. Superdelegates
9. Exclusionary rule
10. AmeriCorps
11. Unfunded mandate
12. Bill of attainder
13. Medicaid
14. Party identification
15. Thirteenth Amendment

II. Short answers. Answer 3 of 4 (6 points each). Each answer should be a brief paragraph.

1. Explain the difference between unilateralism and multilateralism in foreign policy.

2. Briefly explain: “I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and to the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution, but would even be dangerous.”

3. Briefly explain: “Our written laws are often hard to understand, but everyone can read them, whereas nothing could be more obscure and out of research of the common man than a law founded on precedent.”

4. What has happened to the newspaper industry in recent years? How might the trend affect deliberative democracy?

III. General Essays. Answer 2 of 3 (17 points each). Each answer should take 3-4 small bluebook pages.

1. How can federalism foster deliberation and active citizenship?

2. The unemployment rate is 9.7 percent. Is the president responsible? In your answer, consider the structure of federal economic policymaking.

3. See the article at http://www.wilsoncountynews.com/article.php?id=27305&n=tead-off-americans-national-day-of-pray-gets-wrong-court-decision. Explain how it illustrates basic features of the nation’s civic culture and constitutional structure. Does it get anything wrong?

IV. Bonus questions (one point each) Very briefly identify the following:

• Annette Polly Williams
• Christine Todd Whitman
• Henry Waxman
• Byron White
• Sienna Wooten

California Budget Cuts

Acalanes Blueprint

I went to a public California high school in the East Bay in northern California. During my senior year, state budget cuts hit the public education system. Every teacher and every program was in the line of fire, and the situation is getting worse every year. Therefore, parcel tax measures have recently been a huge part of local politics.

One might blame the government for mishandling tax revenue, but as the most recent article in the student newspaper, the Blueprint, points out, others claim the problem is that “the teachers’ union…owns the state legislature” (see article). The California teachers’ union is a political powerhouse, and it has fought long and hard for decreased classroom size. This brings up the debate over which is more important: keeping teachers in their jobs and keeping class sizes down or continuing to fund more student programs. Personally, if I had the option of sitting on the floor all day in classes with 40 people or having my student newspaper cut, I’d choose sitting on the floor. I think every student at my school would do the same for their student organization, or to keep the opportunity to take AP courses.

How people feel about the parcel tax measures has a lot to do with the “feel-good” aspect of wanting everyone to contribute to the education of the "future of America". Therefore, those who oppose the parcel tax get a bad reputation for being greedy and selfish when really, they have the same interests at heart. As more free-market oriented, anti-regulatory voters, their stance stems from less faith in the ability of local level (and probably all levels of) government bureaucracy to handle something as important and serious as a crisis in the education system. They also have a different basic concept of how the economy functions in the long run. They call for temporary difficulty in favor of long-term gain, saying that, instead of tax increases that may erode the tax base and reduce tax revenue, we should encourage private fundraising by those whose interests are most invested in the education system.

Economic Policy

Power Point slides

Medicare actuary report on the health bill

Sources of information

Our future:

Obama at WHCD

While President Obama reminds us of his speaking skill during every speech and official speaking appearance, I had forgotten about his ability to remain well liked in almost any social situation. Whereas President Bush seemed decidedly uncomfortable at this White House Correspondents' Association dinner, Obama was in control throughout the entirety of his speech and, as reported by Politico, even topped Jay Leno's performance in terms of comedy. In his short speech preceding Jay Leno's spot, Obama demonstrated a welcome ability to laugh at himself, Biden, and the rest of his staff.

Some of the best lines included:

"I work a lot so I wasn't sure that I should actually come tonight. Biden talked me into it. He leaned over and he said, 'Mr. President, this is no ordinary dinner. This is a big "f**king meal!"

"Unfortunately John McCain couldn't make it. Recently he claimed that he had never identified himself as a maverick, and we all know what happens in Arizona when you don't have I.D."

By the end of the night, Obama had completely outdone Jay Leno (not that difficult an achievement), who had decided to play it safe with his routine. Although I can appreciate a President with a sense of humor, Politico aptly points out that Obama might not have attended the event and chosen to focus on the recent BP oil spill instead. Such action might have been more appropriate, but, for better or worse, Obama is a president who enjoys and excels in the limelight. I doubt he could have passed an opportunity like this up.

Are we Safe?

This Saturday around 6:28pm, a Nissan Pathfinder S.U.V. was found in the center of Times Square containing simple alarm clocks attached to gasoline pipes, propane, firecrackers and fertilizer. Less than a few minutes of having parked on West 45^th Street, a nearby vendor observed smoke coming out of the SUV and notified a police officer. The bomb squad appeared a few minutes later and successfully detonated it, leaving investigators to pour through hours of surveillance footage to find suspects. The bomb was reported to be a very simple one that would have set off a “fireball”, killing several civilians and tear the car to pieces but would not be able to demolish buildings. The New York Times reported that there are many theories floating as to why this bomb was planted. A video of the Al-Qaeda was found on YouTube claiming that they were responsible for the attack. However, terrorist analysts are skeptical and believe that this may be a propaganda stunt rather than the real deal. There has also been speculation about it being an attempt to bomb the Viacom building. Viacom owns the sitcom South Park which recently depicted the prophet Mohammad in a negative light. Since then the company has received many threats from Islamist groups. With these events occurring in broad day light we need to ask are we safe? What more can the government do to make events like this not occur? This time we got lucky that the car was parked in a central location and that the vendors were able to spot the smoke coming out. The Obama administration is now working hard trying to find the criminals behind this event and how to prevent it from occurring again.

Cost-control measures in the health care law

In class on Wednesday, we talked about the recently enacted health care law and touched on its immediate impact on health care spending in the United States. Per that discussion, I wanted to break down a few of the features of the bill that we didn’t touch on but have the potential to fundamentally reshape our health insurance system and “bend the curve” of growing health costs.

The exchanges

The law requires each state to set up a health insurance “exchange”—a health insurance marketplace, accessed online, in which insurance companies have to list their plans in clear detail for consumers to compare on the merits of quality and price. All plans sold in the exchange will have to meet minimum standards of coverage. In today’s insurance market, most consumers don’t know which coverage is best and how much it should cost, except for really sick people who spend time researching this kind of stuff. In the exchange, the relative quality of plans will be clearly indicated through both government and consumer ratings; in this transparent market, the economics of competition will work naturally to improve quality and reduce prices. At first, the exchanges will be open only to individuals and small businesses; in 2018, states will have the option of banding their exchanges together with those of other states, and allowing larger businesses to buy insurance on the exchanges. If this happens, we may see the kind of system-wide cost reduction we need.

The excise tax on “Cadillac” health plans

Though highly unpopular, this is the law’s most direct incentive for cost control. Basically, in 2018, a 40% tax will be applied on every dollar over $27,500 spent on a health insurance plan. This threshold will increase with inflation, which is slower than health care cost growth; unless costs start growing more slowly, more plans will fall under the tax. The ultimate goal is not to have employers pay the tax; the goal is for them to avoid paying the tax by choosing plans for their employees that cost less money. This, consequently, gives insurers who charge less a competitive advantage against those charging more.

The Medicare Commission

Right now, Congress has authority over Medicare payment rates and spending targets. The recently enacted law creates the Independent Medicare Advisory Commission, a 15-member board of experts appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate. The commission is empowered to bring Medicare in line with certain spending targets and institute reforms in Medicare to make meeting those targets easier. The key is that their recommendations are not subject to amendment by Congress; after they are made, the recommendations must be explicitly rejected, as a package, by both houses of Congress within a certain amount of time before they take effect. Congress hates to implement changes to Medicare that might hurt those who benefit from the current system; the commission solves this political problem. Most importantly, the commission can use Medicare to experiment with reforms in payment and delivery systems that, if they work, could be emulated system-wide.

The bundling of Medicare payments

With a few pockets of exception, our health care system currently operates under a “fee-for-service” model, in which doctors get paid more for every consultation, test, procedure, or prescription they order. And consumers do not want to second-guess the recommendations of medical professionals, no matter how skewed their incentives. A good explanation of the perils of this system is found in Atul Gawande’s article in The New Yorker from last June. You should be able to find it on Google.

Under the new law, instead of getting paid for each treatment and test, hospitals serving Medicare patients will receive a single fee for treating all of a patient’s ailments over a given period of time. This will give incentive for doctors to communicate with patients and other doctors, and provide a disincentive to order tests and procedures that might not be necessary. It could be the beginning of Americans paying for the quality of their health care rather than the quantity of their health care.

Arizona's Bad Timing

The U.S. state of Arizona recently passed a bill with the intent to crack down in a big way on illegal immigration. This bill makes it illegal to be in the state if you are not a U.S. citizen, allows for law enforcement officials to go up to anyone on the street and ask for U.S. identification, and lets Arizona citizens sue the police department of the state if they do not feel they are doing their job in catching and sending back illegal immigrants. This can and will most likely lead to racial profiling by law enforcement officials in checking ids, due to Arizona's shared border with Mexico. The Roman Catholic cardinal in Los Angeles has criticized this bill as nearing Nazism. Many Americans think that Mexico is the problem neighbor of America, whose people are crashing their party. In some ways this is true. Mexico is in the middle of a large conflict against their many drug cartels. Over 20,000 people have died in Mexico due to this conflict. The War on Drugs in Mexico has proven to be very different than the one in the U.S. Barack Obama and Felipe Calderon have been working closely because this crackdown on Mexico's drug cartels is of great interest to the U.S. Mexican cartels are responsible for an estimated 70% of the drugs that enter this country. The recently named most dangerous city in the world, Juarez, sits just across our border of Texas and New Mexico. This time, more than ever, calls for the U.S. and Mexico to work as closely as ever to help prevent the violence from continuing in Mexico, as well as spreading across our borders which is a strong possibility. Our government has pledged hundreds of millions of dollars to Mexico to help with military supplies as well as intelligence and troop training. The Merida Initiative is a joint security cooperation between Mexico, the U.S., and other Central American countries to help combat cartels and drugs. Arizona has chosen a poor time to pass the bill. President Calderon has openly stated his outrage over the bill, saying, "(the bill) opens the door to intolerance, hate, discrimination and abuse in law enforcement. Nobody can sit around with their arms crossed in the face of decisions that so clearly affect our countrymen" He is right. Mexico's state of Sonora which borders Arizona has pulled out of its annual Sonora-Arizona Commission, a cooperation meeting that has been held between the two states for over four decades. Mexico accounts for close to two-thirds of Arizona's exports. This will be no longer. Many expect the U.S. - Mexico relationship to deteriorate at a time where it must be especially strong for the safety of North America.

This bill by Arizona, constitutional or unconstitutional, has come at the worst time. It will cause the economy of Arizona to deteriorate in the middle of the recession which is starting to get better. It will hurt the relationship between our two countries when we need to be strong and focus our efforts on helping Mexico break up their drug cartels, decrease their violence, and keep drugs off our streets.

They Are Watching You!

As a now terrified member of Facebook, I have no idea who has access to my private pictures, statuses, messages, and personal information. In class, Professor Pitney told those of us with Facebook accounts to exercise caution when using the social networking site, as we can be tracked down by potential employers or others. It concerns me that the pictures and information we post on Facebook can jeopardize our employment, but I am more worried about how Facebook now keeps our information as a "permanent record." That's right, even into your eighties, Facebook could keep pictures of you "raging" at TNC. Furthermore, we don't even know who else has access to our personal information now that Facebook has begun to give users' personal information out to third-party websites. Third-party websites supposedly just look at a Facebook user's profile information in an attempt to personalize the online experience, but if Facebook gives this information to websites, who else could Facebook have given the information? While it doesn't bother me if my online experience is personalized, I certainly don't want to be judged in the future based on pictures of my actions in college, and I know that I am not the only one. Four democratic senators have asked Facebook's CEO Mark Zuckerberg to change privacy settings on the website, but he hasn't done anything to fulfill the request. One of their objections to the privacy settings is that users must opt-out of sharing information with other sites, and the steps to opt-out are complicated. So with Google, Amazon, and Facebook all keeping watch over user activity, we all have good reason to be paranoid.

Domestic Policy

Health

• Veterans Services
• Medicare for seniors, disabled people, and kidney patients
• Medicaid (Medi-Cal in California)
• White House summary of health bill.
• Report on financial effects

• Vaccine court

Social Welfare

• Social Security
• TANF

Education

• Education Stats
• Creationism

Gov 20 Students in the Press!

Anna Joseph on distracted driving.

Robert Daily on No Child Left Behind.

Sara Stern on Pell Grants.

The California Teacher's Association

The CTA
Although the Op-Ed I wrote praised all my former teachers, I can hardly call the teaching system they work in perfect. Teacher’s unions are one of the main deterrents in education. They hurt students and teachers from reaching their potential.

As the Economist points out, the California Teacher’s Association is one of the most powerful unions in the great state of California. They are also the biggest lobbyists in the state, spending $210 million last year alone. With that money, the CTA advocates for lower educational standards, less school voucher programs, and entry tests for teachers that are “laughably easy.” These revelations were hardly a surprise, but they still annoy me. California used to be the best example for effective secondary education. Now it is the worst.

But the CTA does not help all teachers. The Govenator recently proposed a bill that changes the way teachers are laid off. This bill would replace the seniority rule and instead fire teachers based on their effectiveness in the classroom. Obviously, the CTA hates this. They do not want to help the young passionate teacher who wants to make a difference. They want to help the mediocre teacher who has taught longer and given more union dues.

The bureaucracy in California’s education makes it impossible to give blame to one group for the decrease in California’s education. However, the CTA is definitely not helping.

Simplification of the Tax Code

While Tea Party activists have gotten lots of media coverage as they voiced their dismay over government spending and taxes, another group, the Office of the Taxpayer Advocate, worried over taxes headed by Nina Olson has remained relatively silent.

Implemented by Congress in 1996, this watchdog service has sought to simplify the tax code. An article in the Economist last week highlights their unheard plight. I found these statistics shocking:

“Americans now spend 7.6 billion hours a year grappling with an incomprehensible tangle of deductions, loopholes and arcane reporting requirements. That is the equivalent of 3.8 million skilled workers toiling full-time, year-round, just to handle the paperwork. By this measure the tax-compliance industry is six times larger than car-making.”

Think of all of this wasted time! This would be the equivalent of the entire nation of Palestine working only on American tax forms (assuming they are all skilled laborers).

The process is so convoluted and complex, that 82% of Americans pay for help, whether through a tax software program or accountant. I understand that additions are made to the tax code for a certain special interest group, but there must be some sort of way to filter the ever growing provisions to the tax code. The bureaucratic goals are far-reaching and thorough, and groups like the IRS rely solely on citizen response to their inquisitions.

There are loud talks of high unemployment, the levels of government spending, and tax rates, but I think there need to be stronger talks of decreasing American citizens extraneous work for the government, and then having to pay for it.

Is the Dems' Fall Outlook Improving?

It is amazing how much the sentiment on Democratic prospects have changed since the election of Scott Brown. Then, according to the Boston Globe:

Republicans in Washington and around the country yesterday said Scott Brown’s victorious Senate campaign in Massachusetts is a harbinger of a broader party surge.

Yet since Scott Brown was elected (and some would say because Scott Brown has been elected), healthcare reform has passed. While many aspects of the reform are unpopular, it does at least remove the critique that Democrats did nothing with their majority.

I think there are two other pieces of good news for Democrats: GM is expected to return to profitability, and Goldman Sachs is embroiled in an SEC investigation. Both of these events seem to underscore that big government can be good, or at least, preferable to the alternative. The government's takeover of GM has been highly successful; sales have been rising, and GM repaid their last government loan, although much of the money Uncle Sam loaned GM was in an equity stake, which won't be cashed out until the stock is re-issued, which is unlikely to be profitable.

The Republicans are gearing up to make Elena Kagan, a New York City liberal elite who didn't learn to drive until her 20s, a poster child for how out of touch the Democratic party is with the American people. I'm sure that this election will be messy--and Democrats may loose several seats. It does not, however, seem to be the doomsday it was a few short months ago.

Financial Reform: CDO's

Some believe that the majority of the blame for the financial crisis falls on irresponsible home-owners who defaulted on their loans. That they were uneducated in believing they could take a sub-prime mortgage and get away with it. First of all, the fine print of some housing loans would baffle most of us, so I doubt that it is a result of being uneducated. Yet some people were living beyond their means in houses they could not afford, true. Nevertheless, the amount of home-owners that got behind on their mortgages last year was 7% as reported in a TIME magazine article titled "One Bad Bond":

"Just 7% of all borrowers are behind on their loans, yet hundreds of billions of dollars of mortgage bonds are nearly worthless."

What is really scary is the Collateralized Debt Obligations, or CDO's, based called Mortgage-backed Securities that were sold amongst banks and investors, leaving the last people in this game of "hot potato" with bonds which account for approximately $8.5 trillion. The total U.S. debt is about $14 trillion and now we have created a new market of Nuclear bonds in which huge bonds like Goldmann Sachs' ABACUS 2007-AC1 and others' Jupiter High-grade V are now worth 0.40 cents on the dollar.

What has become of these risky bets you ask? Remember TARP, yeah the government bought them. And who is to answer? Currently Goldmann Sachs is being investigated for fraud in the creation and sale of ABACUS 2007-AC1, but even if convicted the American people will not get their money back. We can only hope Congress decides to regulate activities like this in the future.

Red Tape à la française

After reading Chapter 15 on bureaucracy, I was really shocked with how simple (yes, simple) some of the American bureaucratic processes are. Having moved to France which is (arguably) the most bureaucratic country on the planet, I can attest first-hand to the ridiculous and old-fashioned immigration policy.

Before leaving for France, I was required to fill out several visa applications. Not several forms, but several copies of the exact same application. Of course I needed to documents such as my birth certificate - translated in French. With my capacity in French, I could have translated a simple birth certificate myself, but it needed to be official. I paid over $100 for a (poor) but acceptable translation, approved by the notary public. I sent in my passport and application with all supporting documents, but my package was returned a couple of weeks later! Turns out - following a change of policy - I needed my work visa approved in France before obtaining a visa from the Consulate General of France in Los Angeles. Also, due to my proximity to Los Angeles (Phoenix?) I was requested to apply in person. With only a few weeks left before leaving for France, I had to have my employer in France fill out three employment contracts. Due to a shortage of time, she had to forge my signature on all three copies and get an official "stamp" from the French Department of Labor on all forms. She then had to rush a copy to me so that I could include it with my visa application.

With all documents in hand, I drove to Los Angeles only a week before leaving for France. I had to pay about $90 for the processing of my visa, and I was given a temporary three-month visa. I To avoid an illegal or irregular situation in France, I had to go to the police préfecture within my first three months in France.

I will never forget the first time I went to the préfecture in Nice, France. So many immigrants, fighting to get a good place in line. When the police officer opened the gates to the préfecture at 8am, crowds of young Africans began to push women and children to the ground... there was no order, and only the youngest and strongest made it to the front of the line. When I finally got to the window, after waiting 5 hours, my picture was taken, and my visa and passport were examined. I had to pay another hefty fee, and I was given a very flimsy piece of paper - a receipt - to serve as my residency card. I was promised a residency card in a few weeks.

About two months later, I received a letter in the mail. In order to get my official residency card, I had to go to a neighboring city (about 30 miles away) and attend an all-day presentation on what it "means to be French." After the presentation, I had to pay a medical fee, and I had to undergo a health exam. I was told that upon completion of the medical exam, I could simply walk to the préfecture and get my residency card.

The card was never there. I left France a few days later. What a mess!

Bureaucracy

Public Sector Unions

• Largest is AFSCME
• Largest federal is AFGE
• Others
• Political role

Regulation

• Administrative rules (from 4/19 blog entry)
• Instructions for IRS Form 1
• Federal Regulations (see esp. graph on p. 14).

Organizational Culture and Organizational Complexity

• The special case of the military
• DHS Organization Chart
  
  

The Citizen's Perspective

• A spaghetti chart
• Services for kids on the spectrum

SEC surfed porn while economy fell

In a shocking report, ABC broke news that as the world watched the financial system teeter on the brink of collapse, SEC employees were watching something else: porn. Senior staffers at the Securities and Exchange Commission spent hours surfing pornographic websites on government-issued computers while they were being paid to police Wall Street. And if you think they were all low-level officials, think again. Seventeen of the employees were "at a senior level," earning up to $222,418 a year while spending hours on sites like naughty.com, skankwire, and youporn.

The revelations have (understandably) sparked Congressional outrage. Rep. Darell Issa (CA-R) expressed anger that the SEC "was preoccupied with other distractions" at a time when it was needed most. The event also undermines the credibility of SEC's recently announced lawsuit against Goldman Sachs. What's more, it's a nice comeback to calls for financial reform: why should we give the government more regulatory power if they'll just use it to look at porn?

National Day of Prayer

The Pentagon recently withdrew their invitation to Franklin Graham to speak at its National Day of Prayer services on May 6. This was in response to complaints from advocacy groups that Graham had made biased shortly after 9/11, calling Islam “evil”. Representatives from the Pentagon said Graham’s presence would be “inappropriate for an inclusive, multi-faith observance.”
This is hypocritical because the National Day of Prayer is not an inclusive tradition. It was established in 1952, strongly lobbied for by Billy Graham, Franklin Graham’s father, and ever since it has been controversial due to the Judeo-Christian language associated with the day, which excludes atheists, agnostics, and polytheists. Yet the government tends to ignore this fact, and this year Obama plans to ignore the decision by Judge Barbara Crabb that it is unconstitutional on the grounds that violates the separation of Church and State. Graham responded to the Pentagon’s decision by saying that he loves the Islamic people, but wants them to find Christ. To me, it seems obvious that every denominational leader speaking at the service believes that the other religions present have gotten it wrong, which is why excluding Graham for using negative language about Muslims (which the American President was also doing at that point in time) seems hypocritical. I think the government and pentagon should stop focusing on how they will celebrate the National Day of Prayer, and abolish it instead.

Truth forever on the Scaffold

The clip of Johnnie Cochran's final plea with the jury reminded me of something. Johnnie Cochran alludes to a scaffold that always sways the future, and that the throne (the judges and prosecutors) are forever wrong. Very poetic Johnnie, just not original and definitely not applicable to OJ Simpson. I think Johnnie Cochran pawned this "allusion" from a speech Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. gave titled "We Shall Overcome" in which he cites James Russell Lowell for the actual quote. It is funny to see how quotes have been used for different purposes in every facet of life.

Here is the speech we've already seen of Johnnie Cochran:

.

Here is Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. using it:

.

And the actual quote from a poem by James Russell Lowell titled "The Present Crisis" (1845):

"Truth forever on the scaffold, Wrong forever on the throne,- Yet that scaffold sways the future, and behind the dim unknown, Standeth God within the shadow keeping watch above His own"

Congratulations Johnnie Cochran for totally misusing the quote on somebody like OJ Simpson!

Keyboard cat Play Him Off!

Behind the Basic Black: A Brief History of the Judges' Robes

When I think of a judge, a single article of clothing stands out in my mind.  The simple black robe is a marker of the wearer's impartiality, consistency, and transcendence of society's numerous divisions.  These are qualities that Americans value in the judiciary; unbiased, pure thought is most reliable when it comes to handling our rights.  Thomas Jefferson was among the originators of this trend; many of the Founding Fathers sought to distance the American judiciary from the "needless official appeal" of the aristocratic British judges.  The dissent others expressed at the nation's founding resulted in a compromise: the loathed official wigs were banned, though more elaborate robes of office remained permissible.  Over time, however, the judicial robe's adornments dwindled until a formal uniform ceased to exist.  By the mid-19th century, the simple black robe worn by most judges today became the traditional attire.  Still, inconsistencies abound: female judges often accessorize with a frilly white collar, some state Supreme Court judges wear colored sashes, and the justices of Puerto Rico don robes with Spanish-style sleeves.  In any case, these robes surely signify what the Founding Fathers wanted the judiciary to embody: authority, duty, and unbiased thought.     

Judiciary II

C-SPAN documentary on the court (start at 36:40)

Oyez: audio and transcript of oral argument

The current court

Future of news

As paper media dies its slow death, Internet usage is growing. Hundreds of thousands of users visit social news websites like Digg or Reddit. Members of these sites post links to news stories or articles, and “digg” or ‘upvote’ the links to stories they enjoy. If an article receives enough votes, it moves from the story queue to the main page. Stories are organized by popularity, so stories with more votes are displayed higher on the screen. Social news does not discriminate between news provider and news consumer, allowing constituents to shape the news and react instantly when a story breaks. When Wikileaks released the graphic Apache video, the top Reddit stories were links to the video with headlines that demanded coverage from bigger aggregate sites like CNN and BBC. Sites like Digg and Reddit contain innate incentives to seek out unique or controversial stories, adding a degree of accountability and involvement that normal media lacks. Bank bonuses, scandals, the next iPhone are all examples of links that get voted to the front page. It should be no question of why newspapers are dying off: they lack the personal accountability and feeling of control and customization that an online community provides.

Social media’s ease of access is also its downfall. As the number of members grows, the average quality per submission falls. Some users game the system so their stories reach the main page more quickly or at the expense of others. Other compromising participants spam links to the point where finding an interesting and engaging article becomes a chore. By creating an abundance of articles that advertise at the expense of information, spammers profit from the masses of users who have made the site a part of their news regimen. Before social news sites catch on as a dependable source of news, spam and other malignancies must be fixed. Until then, it will serve as a news supplement for the growing Internet generations.

Judiciary I

Here is a concise guide to federal statutes.

• Statutes at Large
• US Code

After Congress passes law, the bureaucracy drafts rules:

• Federal Register
• Code of Federal Regulations

Then the courts may act

• The Structure
• Guide to Supreme Court decisions

At the state level:

• State courts
• State statutes
• National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws

The system in practice:

"The Lecture" from Anatomy of a Murder (start at 20:00). They show this scene in law schools.

C-SPAN documentary on the court (start at 36:40)

Census Awareness

Last class we talked a little about different ways the Census could be administrated. This Saturday, an article was posted in the New York Times stating 1 in 3 Americans Failed to Return Census Forms. The states that had the highest participation were Wisconsin with 78% participation and Minnesota with 76%. States that had the lowest participation were New Mexico with 59% and Louisiana with 60%. In bigger cities, areas that were predominantly black and Hispanic had lower participation rates.

According to the article, as of Friday March 16, there was only 68% mail participation. This is a 4% drop as compared to the 2000 census where there was 72% mail participation. With more Americans not filling out the Census, we need to find cost efficient ways to raise awareness and involvement. For those who live in poorer communities and do not send in their forms, the government has issued workers to go door to door. This process, though effective, is very time consuming and costly. We must find different ways to make all residing Americans fill out this form. One idea could be linking the form to jobs. All those individuals who do not fill out the census cannot receive their next pay check. Although this method may be harsh, and hard to execute, it will help Americans realize the importance of filling out the Census. Another idea would be for the government to introduce a penalty. On the cover of the census it clearly states, “By law you are required to fill this form”. If all individuals were made to pay a fine for not filling out the Census, it would increase incentive especially for the low income community.

Sometimes I feel that our prime concern is low income households that fail to return the census. However, we do not to realize that there are many white collared individuals who do not fill out the Census due to a lack of time. If the Census were available online, it would allow easier access to fill out and email back. Something must be done to raise participation whether it is by making the form available online, or fining the public, it will later serve the greater good of the community.