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.

The National Debt

I.O.U.S.A. – the 30-Minute Version from IOUSA the Movie on Vimeo.

Mitt Romney Comes to CMC

I went to Ath last night to hear Mitt Romney speak and I wanted to share my thoughts / provide a little summary in case you didn’t go. The Governor's talk was especially relevant to our class and interesting regardless of your political views. Also I think his speech builds perfectly on Brian’s blog post reagarding the problem the deficit is and will continue to become. While his cure for the problem, much smaller government, many of you diagree with he highlighted and continuely stressed that the deficit is the largest problem we currently face. Romney talked about how lately government has been heading the wrong direction to paraphrase him, spending like we have a credit card from China. I believe he is rightfully worried about what happens when these interest payments begin to come due and how taxes will have to rise exponentially in order to support government spending and service the interest payments. This problem is not as simple of a fix as raising taxes. Higher taxes will drive business aborad further decreasing the total taxable income of corporations and individuals in this country. It is important that our generation realizes the problem WE will be faced with and Romney made that point clear numerous times throughout the talk.

Romney went on to talk about how every great nation has fallen in history so far. From the Ottomans to the British, empires have come and gone. The Governor went on to talk about how America in his opinion could easily go down this same road and be surpassed. However he believes America is different and can avoid this fate if its citizens stand up and vote for action and change (Or in my words, fight off the evil government.)

Romney drew on parralles between the USA and some of the most successful corporations (i.e.
Microsoft, Wal-Mart, Walt Disney and Apple) He talked about how these companies all embody the personality of their founders. He used this point to talk about how much influence the founding of an organization can have on its operations and culture forever. He went on to say this needs to be the case with the country as well. It is important for us to return to the founding of America and how the founders did something brand new when they established the government of the United States. They reversed the trend of the government being the royalty and the people being the servants. Instead they founded a nation built on the idea that citizens would have the power (through voting) and that the government would serve them. Romney believes Americans stand up and make the government work for them again.

Romney ended by calling on everyone to get involved and to speak their voice / vote. He joked, "I don't care if you vote Republican or Democrat... wait actually I do care, Vote Republican!"

The question session also proved to be quite insightful as the croud asked Romney to address three big questions.
1) How he would have handled the financial crisis differently than Bush and Obama?
Romney made a ridiculous claim that he hopes he would have seen the housing crisis coming and been able to act proactively. While some people did predict the bubble bursting, I cannot imagine what Romney would have done as a politician to prevent the crisis from materializing. However, I was impressed that in response to the stimulus he gave a specific plan that he would have pursued. He pointed out that in a recession / depression like we were facing in March 2008, consumers lose confidence and begin saving and acting very cautionary. Therefore giving money to extra cautious citizens like Obama’s stimulus plan did, is not an efficient use of money because so many Americans spent on only the bare neccessities in this time quite possibly saving the extra stimulus check not knowing how bad the coming times would be. Instead Romney proposed that businesses should have been given incentives to make capital expenditures. He claimed that business are better at looking at the long-term and that giving business incentives to grow would pick up the entire economy. While "incentivizing business" is often simply a typical Republican answer, I was impressed that he went one step further and expressed that he would have accomplished this by allowing companies to expense any capital expenditure (computers, software, vehicles, buildings etc) at the time of purchase therefore giving businesses the tax benefit right away instead over 5-20 year depreciable life of the asset. I think this would have been a great stimulus for our country and would have fueled growth much faster than giving every American a $1,000 check to put under their pillow.

2) How can he champion his Massachusetts' healthcare bill but be against the recent reform?
Here he argued that recent reform in its 2,000 pages gave the power to the government to either make insurance industry very rich or broke. He argued against parts of the legislation that will allow the gov't to say what insurance companies must offer and how much they can charge for it. He argued his plan just erased the free rider problem of some citizens not paying for health care insurance but instead relying on tax payers to foot their bill. (He stated this country already had "universal health care" in that everyone gets medical coverage when needed. He said if someone without health care insurance has a heart attack or other medical emergency they go to the hospital and the state / the tax payers pay for their care.
He argued that his seventy page bill made sure everyone paid for the care they received by forcing citizens who choose to not have health insurance to pay a penalty for the extra cost they are imposing on the tax payers. He also made sure to make the popular Republican argument that health care should be up to the states and that the government needs to stay out of American business. Overall, I was interested to see how he would address the heatlh care reform topic and I think his answer / explanation to the differences between his plan and Obama's will play a big role if he (when) he chooses to run in 2012.
3) How does he think he can capture the Evangelical vote given his Mormon religion?
He stated that theologians have been battling out religion for centuries so he doesn't think he can add anything to that debate or that he should get involved. His whole speech / platform is about appealing to the thinking, fiscal Republicans. While this may win him my support, will it suffice for Moral Majority Christians? I think he needs to continue to follow in Kennedy's footstep with more speeches like this.

The Power of the Veto Threat

In a timely article relevant to our class discussion, CBS reports that if the financial reform bill doesn't regulate derivative markets, the President will veto it. Obama is also pushing Senate Democrats to eliminate a proposed $50 billion bank liquidation fund from the bill:

"In remarks at the start of his meeting with his Economic Recovery team, the president said he wants financial regulatory reform legislation because "we can't allow history to repeat itself." He said Americans should not have to step in and pay the price for the irresponsibility of speculators on Wall Street."

The event exemplifies a salient theme of the The Federalist: ambition being made to counteract ambition. Checks and balances such as the veto - and Congress's power to override them - pit the different branches of government against each other. This encourages confrontation. The system requires leveraging, bargaining, and ultimately, cutting a deal. Obama knows this, and he has positioned himself to take advantage.

.

"Who do I call if I want to call Europe?"

There may now be an answer to Kissinger’s famous question. As of 1 December 2009, the European Union has an official president - Herman Van Rompuy. Although president of the supranational institutions of 27 Member States and 500 million European citizens, you probably have never heard of or seen this man. Conservative Member of the European Parliament, Nigel Farage, offers a brief introduction to Van Rompuy in a striking personal attack.

This man is paid more than Obama, yet nobody knows who he is. How do Van Rompuy’s powers compare to those of the American presidency? First off, there are important distinctions to make. The European Union does have branches of government, like the United States, but there are differences in order to maintain the sovereign federal structure of the EU. The European Parliament serves as the legislative branch, the European Commission serves as the executive branch, and the the Court of Justice of the European Union serves as the judicial branch. There is a fourth branch of power called the European Council, and its members are the 27 heads of state of the Member States of the EU and, now, the permanent President of the European Council, Herman Van Rompuy. Unlike President Obama who has the power to drive our nation’s policies and serve as Commander in Chief of the armed forces, President Van Rompuy’s role is largely symbolic.

Under Article 9b of the Treaty of Lisbon (the "Constitution of Europe), the President's role and powers are defined as follows:

5. The European Council shall elect its President, by a qualified majority, for a term of two and a half years, renewable once. In the event of an impediment or serious misconduct, the European Council can end the President's term of office in accordance with the same procedure.

6. The President of the European Council:

(a) shall chair it and drive forward its work;

(b) shall ensure the preparation and continuity of the work of the European Council in cooperation with the President of the Commission, and on the basis of the work of the General Affairs Council;

(c) shall endeavour to facilitate cohesion and consensus within the European Council;

(d) shall present a report to the European Parliament after each of the meetings of the European Council.

The President of the European Council shall, at his level and in that capacity, ensure the external representation of the Union on issues concerning its common foreign and security policy, without prejudice to the powers of the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy.

The President of the European Council shall not hold a national office.

In this way, we see that the executive powers are spread out in the European Union, and that the President himself does not have a large degree of power. This raises a valid question. Because Van Rompuy is the symbolic leader of 500 million citizens, is the method by which he was chosen democratic?

A Fight over Federalism

A recent article in the NY Times reports an interesting battle between the states and the federal government that has implications for a slew of issues from gays to guns. The controversy is over states' declarations of their right, in some cases, to assert supremacy over federal authority. Gov. Mike Rounds of South Dakota, for example, signed a bill declaring federal regulation of firearms invalid if a weapon is made and used in South Dakota. Utah's governor did the same. Their brazenness has sparked debate over how far states' rights go in American federalism - and where those rights end.

So what actually happens when state sovereignty and federal authority collide? The constitution is clear: the Feds win. But recent events - like DOJ's willingness to respect state medical marijuana laws - have shown that nullification can work. Article 6 would settle state vs. federal government scuffles in court. But that's only if the issue gets to court. If it doesn't, some states can do things their way, contradict federal law, and get away with it.

Utah state Representative Carl Wimmer argues Utah should have

to sign off on any federal health reform.

Presidency II

Federalist 70

Tocqueville, p. 126: "If the Union’s existence were constantly menaced, and if its great interests were continually interwoven with those of other powerful nations, one would see the prestige of the executive growing, because of what was expected from it and of what it did."

DEBT: Coming to a Generation Near You!

I write this blog after reading the TIME magazine article “How to Tame the Deficit” by Jeffrey D. Sachs. Many of the statistics used in this blog come directly from his article and my opinions and ideas were heavily shaped by reading it. Here is the link to the original article.

The American economy is on the brink of ruin. A demographic tsunami of retired baby boomers supported by a smaller workforce, a second housing crisis set to detonate in 2011-2012 (altay and option-arm loans set to cause 8 million defaults), a huge trade imbalance with countries like China, and a debt that takes up 60% of the U.S. GDP have formed into a large freight train ready to cream Uncle Sam as he attempts to pick himself up. What do the politicians of America say to do? The same two things as always: cut taxes and spend more. The ironic thing is this is exactly what Congress and President Obama have done. The Republicans got their tax cuts and the Democrats got more spending, so who’s mad? The American people should be. How is it possible to reduce government income and increase government expenditures and expect anything but debt? The answer is: you can’t.

Ask a Republican about debt and they’ll say it’s the Democrats’ fault for increasing social expenditures. Ask a Democrat and they’ll say it’s the Republicans’ fault for cutting taxes on wealthy individuals and corporate profits (in addition to spending on the Iraq war). Yet both are at fault. Currently the United States government collects only 17% of GDP through taxes. That accounts for spending on four government programs. 5% of GDP goes to military, 5% goes to health (Medicare and Medicaid), 5% goes to Social Security, and 2% goes to paying interest on the national debt. There goes your 17%.

Now here is a list of programs that need are not paid for at current tax levels:

· Homeland Security

· Unemployment Compensation

· Job Training

· Support for State and Local governments

· Federal higher-education outlays

· Satellites

· Manned Space Missions

· The National Science Foundation

· The National Institutes of Health

· The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

· Community Development

· Food Stamps

· Low-costing Housing

· Roads and Bridges

· Environmental Protection and Conservation

· Emergency Relief and Reconstruction (like Hurricane Katrina aid)

· Judicial and Penal systems

· International Diplomacy

· Poverty Reduction

· Renewable Energy

These are fundamental services provided by the government: a judicial system, border-patrol, environmental clean-up, food stamps, and unemployment aid. These fundamental services are being paid for by loans from China; this is not really a good government policy. So now, there is no question as to why America is in debt up to our eye-balls and sinking rapidly: we spend too much and tax too little. It is true that the United States has been more indebted in the past, during the mid-1940s debt exceeded 100% of GDP, the difference is we were in a world war and eliminated the debt by way of American tanks and American taxes. Now, American tanks no longer seem a viable option. Nevertheless, American taxes are part of the solution that will end our spiraling deficits and spiraling debt.

Some would argue that we need only to cut spending and wasteful earmarks to solve our problems. Look at long list above and pick what to cut first; not too many good options. It is true that government can spend less on certain programs and spend more efficiently on others. Military spending can be reduced by eliminating wasteful defense projects, like Post Cold-War Top Gun fighter jets, and slashing pay to overpriced defense contractors. Yet government outlay on military spending remains 6 times larger than the outlay on education. Earmarks are great campaign scapegoats, labeled as “wasteful government spending”, but only account for less than 1% of the annual national deficit.

The solution to America’s national debt is either reduce government spending on entitlements or increase taxes. Frankly, someone needs to bite the bullet and tell the American people the way it is: taxes need to be higher, way higher, or entitlements must be reduced. As for entitlements, Americans must learn to live with smaller social security checks or hope that my generation makes a lot of money to support the baby boomers. It seems unlikely that major cuts in entitlements are means justified by their ends: less funding for troops, the poor, and the elderly seem like bad ideas that will reduce the debt at the cost of making the nation as a whole worse off. As for taxes, the total take of American governmental revenue (federal, local, and state) accounts to 28%-30% of GDP; this is 10% less than the average European total revenue. The programs listed earlier in this blog post need to be funded. They account for 11% of GDP, a percentage we currently borrow from China only to pay interest on later. The United States government could at least increase taxes on all but the extremely poor, by an extra 10% of GDP.

Bottom line: The U.S. Government needs to become more efficient with its spending, but TAXES MUST BE HIGHER TO PROVIDE 330 MILLION PEOPLE WITH THE FUNDAMENTAL SERVICES PROVIDED BY A GOOD GOVERNMENT.

But the real question is: who in their right mind would use this as a campaign slogan?

Number of Bills Sponsored

While I was doing research for my last paper, I looked up the bills that my Congressman, David Dreier [R-CA-26], was head sponsoring in this current session of Congress. He is sponsoring a total of 9. At first I thought, "Wow. This Guy is not doing very much. He is only trying to pass 9 bills." This makes sense when one thinks of the thousands of bills that are proposed each session of Congress. I looked up six other random members of Congress to see how many bills they were proposing this session. On the lowest end, Nancy Pelosi [D-CA-8] and John Boehner [R-OH-8] each were proposing 12 bills. Then Louie Gohmert [R-TX-1] was sponsoring 13 of his own. Then came Neil Abercrombie [D-HI-1] with 20, John Campbell [R-CA-48] with 23, and Barney Frank [D-MA-4] with 46 of his own. All six of these members of Congress come out to averaging a head-sponsorship of 21 bills each in this current session of Congress. That's 12 more than my Congressman, David Dreier. I realized that this is probobly not a case of laziness by an incumbent, but that it is actually a plus. To only introduce a small number of bills compared to the average, you are able to focus more of your efforts, time, and resources to securing the passage of those. I'm sure that Barney Frank, if he is taking an active role in securing the passage of his 46 bills, has his plate too full and his work cut out for him. David Dreier, on the other hand, is able to focus on passing bills only for the topics that are the most important to him and his constituents. More members of Congress should think about trimming the amount of societal "good" they are trying to do and focus their efforts on passing less, but more effective legislation.

Financial Reform

Does anyone sympathize with the "fat cats?" After we all watched Wall Street dig an economic ditch for our country, the answer is "no." This spring, Senate Democrats will look to take advantage of the public's negative attitudes by proposing a strong financial reform bill. With only 59 seats in the senate, Democrats will need some bipartisan support. Though house and senate Republicans have opposed most liberal legislation since Obama took office, it will be a tough political stance to oppose fairly strict regulations on Wall Street. If Republicans vote to pass the bill, Democrats get what they want. If Republicans oppose the bill, Democrats get what they want. Since voters won't be happy with a party that wants to keep finance on Wall Street the way it has been (disastrous), Republicans might be forced by public opinion to pass the bill. So whether or not Democrats pass their liberal legislation, they will benefit either by policy or by the upcoming midterm elections.

Presidency I

Congressional powers in Article I

• Presidential powers in Article II
• Prerogative power and the oath
• Reprieves and pardons
• Treaties
• Appointments and recess appointments

Washington

FDR

Congress II

BLOG!!!!

• A Blogger tutorial.
• Posting video to Blogger
• Posting images to Blogger

Congress and the New Media

• House Hub and House homepage
• Senate Hub and Senate homepage

Motives of members

• Reelection
• Power
• Policy

Federalist 57:

[The] House of Representatives is so constituted as to support in the members an habitual recollection of their dependence on the people. Before the sentiments impressed on their minds by the mode of their elevation can be effaced by the exercise of power, they will be compelled to anticipate the moment when their power is to cease, when their exercise of it is to be reviewed, and when they must descend to the level from which they were raised; there forever to remain unless a faithful discharge of their trust shall have established their title to a renewal of it. I will add, as a fifth circumstance in the situation of the House of Representatives, restraining them from oppressive measures, that they can make no law which will not have its full operation on themselves and their friends, as well as on the great mass of the society.

Federalist 63 on continuity and the Senate:

Yet however requisite a sense of national character may be, it is evident that it can never be sufficiently possessed by a numerous and changeable body. It can only be found in a number so small that a sensible degree of the praise and blame of public measures may be the portion of each individual; or in an assembly so durably invested with public trust, that the pride and consequence of its members may be sensibly incorporated with the reputation and prosperity of the community.

Tocqueville:

When you enter the House of Representatives in Washington, you feel yourself struck by the vulgar aspect of this great assembly. Often the eye seeks in vain for a celebrated man within it. Almost all its members are obscure persons, whose name furnishes no image to one’s thought. They are, for the most part, village attorneys, or those in trade. . . . In a country where instruction is almost universally widespread, it is said that the people’s representatives do not always know how to write correctly.

Characteristics of members

Congressional powers in Article I

Congress I

The official version

Introducing a bill:

Congressional Staffer Salary

Last week, Politico reported, “Nearly 2,000 House of Representative staffers pulled down six-figure salaries in 2009, including 43 staffers who earned the maximum $172,50.” This number has outraged some, especially those on the right, because the economy still hasn’t picked up and the unemployment rate is still a very high 9.7%.

Reading the textbook and hearing the lectures on the role of the Congressional staffer, I am almost inclined to think some staffers should be paid more than their congressmen. Mainly through ignorance, I think the public has a misconception of how essential the average staffer is to Congress. Without their staff, members of congress would be sloppy, unprepared, and overworked. As the textbook states, “No responsibility of congressional staff is more important than helping the elected members pass sound legislation.” Without them, no one would read the bills.

Even you do not think congressional staffers should handle the majority of the legislative process, you should believe in fair compensation. Nancy Pelosi spokesman Brendan Daly reminds people, these staffers “could be making a lot more money in the private sector, but they choose to work here.” These men and women have risked better financial stability for their families in order to work for the government. People should remember this before they are outraged at the six-figure salary.

Maybe in the future, Congressmen will have time to read each bill they vote on and time to write speeches and press releases. I am not holding my breath. The staffers are essential to political process.