After the Imperial Presidency

An excellent magazine piece by Jonathan Mahler examines whether a Democratic Congress has made any strides in reasserting Congressional authority over the executive (not much) and what the implications are.  From the summary:

Will Congress simply insist on being asked for its blessing before empowering the president to do whatever he sees fit? And if so, what will it take for what the historian Arthur Schlesinger Jr. identified as democracy’s greatest virtue — “its capacity for self-correction” — to kick in and restore the constitutional balance?

What's the Word? Tinklenberg.

Michele Bachmann is a nutter, and now her opponent is featured in a rap.  What a race.

Senate bailout passes (with lard)

The Senate took the failed House bill and sexed it up with a few juicy (and often unrelated) components to win some more votes.  It passed this evening.

Some of the additions:

• Increasing FDIC insurance to $250,000 from $100,000 (the maximum you get back if your bank goes under)
• Renewables and "renewables"
  
• Extending the renewable energy credits for wind and biofuel for 1 year, and for other technologies for 2 years
• Lots of coal related tax credits (for things like "refined coal," "advanced" coal and "coal gasification")
• Tax credits for plug-in hybrid cars
  
• Mental health parity for health insurance (yay!)

And then there are a few smaller items like this:

• SEC. 503. EXEMPTION FROM EXCISE TAX FOR CERTAIN WOODEN ARROWS DESIGNED FOR USE BY CHILDREN.
• SEC. 325. EXTENSION AND MODIFICATION OF DUTY SUSPENSION ON WOOL PRODUCTS

I think I agree with Paul Krugman that this stinks, but may be necessary.

The power to declare war

An interesting look at the Constitutional authority to declare war, including a letter written by Abraham Lincoln on why it's important for Congress to retain it.

High oil prices explained - 1 chart

In addition to an excoriation of the ridiculous pagentry over oil prices on Capitol Hill, R-Squared provides the chart that explains it all. When world supply is lower than demand, prices go up. (R-Squared credits Optimist for this chart)

Bush: I regret that I have but one life to give to my country telco

In the ongoing coverage of the FISA renewal, mcjoan of Dailykos notes that President Bush has immunity for telecommunications companies as his litmus test for the "Protect America Act" (gag me with a spoon).

The interesting twist? Bush has already declared that Americans could die if this renewal is not passed by Congress. In other words:

Let's just remember Sen. Kennedy's summation of Bush's position on FISA:

The President has said that American lives will be sacrificed if Congress does not change FISA. But he has also said that he will veto any FISA bill that does not grant retro-active immunity. No immunity, no FISA bill. So if we take the President at his word, he's willing to let Americans die to protect the phone companies. (emphasis mine)

You can get more on the new wiretap law from Moldy's ongoing FISA coverage.

How to write your senator about the wiretap debate

Here's a copy of the letter I wrote to my two senators about the current wiretap debate in the U.S. Senate. Please feel free to copy and paste:

Dear Senator XXX,

I'm writing to you about the wiretapping legislation currently being debated in the Senate. I'm extremely disappointed in the course of the debate. There are two provisions that I strongly urge you to support:

1) Exclusivity. Without this provision, the legislation is meaningless. It would allow a president to simply ignore the civil liberties protections supposedly guaranteed by the act. It was part of the original FISA law for a good reason and its violation by President Bush shows that it is just as important now.

2) No immunity for violators. Telecommunications companies who willfully violated FISA are using the Nuremberg defense and it's tragic that the Senate is accepting it. President Bush acted illegally. Whether or not he is brought to account should have no impact on the guilt of these private companies who were fully aware of the illegality of their behavior. I strongly encourage you to oppose immunity for lawbreakers.

Sincerely,

Think wiretapping is over? Think again

If you haven't heard much on illegal wiretapping since a judge struck down the program, the big decisions about it are being made in the U.S. Senate today. And the decisions aren't positive for rule of law and liberty:

• The Senate rejected amendments that would have held telecommunications companies responsible for their participation in illegal wiretapping. Basically, the Senate is saying, "you broke the law, but because Bush told you to, you're forgiven." Nuremberg defense, anyone?
• The Senate rejected "exclusivity," a provision from the original FISA law that would say that this wiretap law covers ALL wiretapping done by the U.S. government. To leave it out says, "this law covers wiretapping, except if the President decides to do some other kinds of wiretapping and says it's not covered under this law. Basically, he can do whatever he wants."

Dailykos has several ongoing threads about the FISA debate. Call your Senator and tell them to protect civil liberties and punish those who break laws about illegally spying on Americans!

For more on the wiretap legislatio, read up on what provisions SHOULD be included.

Flushing good money after bad

With the U.S. supposedly teetering on the edge of recession, Congress is preparing an "economic stimulus" package to [help prevent recession/slow the progress toward recession/make the recession less severe]. Unfortunately, Paul Krugman (economist) notes that most of the stimulus isn't going to those who will actually spend it. Which makes it a pretty expensive ($150 billion) "not much of a stimulus" package.

That's the point

In response to the climate change bill introduced in the U.S. Senate, proposing greenhouse gas reductions of 65% from 2005 levels by 2050, the CEO of the American Chemistry Council had this to say:

The bill would "turn energy markets upside down, causing massive reductions in coal usage and enormous increases in natural gas and renewable fuels usage."

Yes.

And the war goes on

Senate Democrats failed to convince enough Republicans to support legislation to end the Iraq War last night. The Democratic leadership pushed for an actual deadline this time - the legislation would have required troops to return home by May 2008.

Interestingly, a recent poll shows that while 43% of Americans want troops home by next spring (the bill's target), another 40% would be satisfied if troops were withdrawn to Iraqi bases to focus on training locals to take over the fight.

Asked another way, however, 53% of Americans want to end the military presence in Iraq in one year or less. In other words, it seems some people have bought the Republican line that withdrawal equals defeat (or that we're "turning the corner" in Iraq...)

A lot of the stalling has come down to the anticipated report by the leading commander in Iraq, General David Petraeus. Planned for September, it will provide feedback on the "surge" and provide President Bush with some badly needed political cover for the next two months. Bush has made a lot of hay about trusting the "commanders on the ground" (though his administration has demonized and fired three already), so I'm fascinated to see what happens to Petraeus should he refuse to toe the line.

Redistrict your heart out with Redistricting: The Game!

Is redistricting Congressional seats fun enough to be a game? If you're at the Annenberg Center, it is. And surprisingly, even if you are just political enough to wonder how redistricting affects political fairness, this game is a fun exercise.

Redistricting is the process by which congressional seats are allocated based on the decennial census. In other words, each of the 435 seats in the U.S. House of Representatives is supposed to represent approximately the same number of people. Every 10 years the number of reps assigned to each state is adjusted based on population changes and the districts represented have to be modified to keep population nearly equal across districts.

As with most things related to political power, political parties have found ways to game this system to secure disproportionate representation. For example, Fairvote.org has analysis of all 50 states, highlighting some of the crazily-shaped districts (see Texas #6) around the country. Texas, of course, if famous for the redistricting that took place in 2003 by the Republican-controlled legislature for the express purpose of increasing Republican control of Congressional seats.

The Annenberg Center studies a slew of issues related to communication in the digital age, and has done other work on the role of the press in presidential elections. This online game is an excellent learning tool for redistricting and from my this-lunch-break-was-over-15-minutes-ago experience, it's worth a few minutes of your time.

President Bush gets his war bill

Congressional Democrats caved this week, giving the President Bush a war funding bill with no deadline. Let me count the ways this stinks:

1. The American people sent the Democrats to Congress in a landslide victory in November 2006 because of two things: Republican corruption (Tom DeLay, Tom Foley, et al) and the War in Iraq.
   
2. Congress has been reasserting its rightful constitutional authority by starting investigations of many highly corrupt activities in this administration (wiretapping, political nepotism, lying, cheating, stealing, et al). Taking control of the purse strings is part of that job.
3. What really serves the troops better? Giving the President license to keep them fighting and dying or bringing them home?

Let's put it this way. The constitution expressly gives the power of warmaking to Congress. Here's a quick tutorial on war powers, for those whose last constitution-reading came in high school:

ARTICLE 1, SECTION 8

The Congress shall have Power:

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress....

ARTICLE II, SECTION 2

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States....

He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur....

Notice where most of the bold type is? Congress - the people - rules the army. In other words, Congress decides how big the army is, when it should be called into action, how it shall be funded, and when it shall come home. The President's constitutional authority is to toot the horn.

Congress should pass a deadline for troop withdrawal by cutting off war funding. Then let President Bush decide whether to toot the horn for withdrawal - he either brings the troops home, or wants them to fight without money. Who supports the troops then?

Junk food could be out at public schools

Asked by Congress to develop nutritional standards for all food in schools, the Institute of Medicine rolled out its two-tier nutrition recommendations today. Tier 1 applies elementary and middle-school children for the entire day, and to high school kids during school hours. Tier 2 standards are somewhat looser and apply only to high school kids after school hours.

The major items?

1. School lunch - with all its dietary guidelines - should be the primary source of nutrition for school children. (This GAO report on school lunch reveals its shortcomings).
2. Competing foods to school lunch should be limited
3. When available, competing foods should *gasp* meet the 2005 Dietary Guidelines for Americans.

Here's what the guidelines are for Tier 1 (you won't find Twinkies in here):

Fruits, vegetables, whole grains, and related combination products* and nonfat and low-fat dairy that are limited to 200 calories or less per portion as packaged.

Beverages include:

• Water without flavoring, additives, or carbonation.
• Low-fat (1%) and nonfat milk:
• Lactose-free and soy beverages are included
• flavored milk with no more than 22g of total sugars per 8-oz. serving
• 100-percent fruit juice in 4-oz. portion as packaged for elementary/middle school and 8 oz. (two portions) for high school.
• Caffeine-free, with the exception of trace amounts of naturally occurring caffeine substances.

These restrictions would apply anywhere on the school campus including vending machines and the "a la carte" lines. Remember when you could still get a burger and fries at school? That's over, because all items sold will have to meet the National School Lunch standards for fat, sodium, and sugar.

Tier 2 foods don't have to be quite so healthy - no mention of fruits or veggies - but you won't likely find a Twinkie here either. Diet soda pop clears the 5-calorie hurdle, but only if it lacks caffeine:

Tier 2 snack foods are those that do not exceed 200 calories per portion as packaged and:

• No more than 35 percent of total calories from fat
• Less than 10 percent of total calories from saturated fats
• Zero Trans fat (≤ 0.5 g per portion)
• 35 percent or less of calories from total sugars
• Sodium content of 200 mg or less per portion as packaged.

Tier 2 beverages are:

• Non-caffeinated, non-fortified beverages with less than 5 calories per portion as packaged (with or without nonnutritive sweeteners, carbonation, or flavoring).

Despite the fact that these items are recommendations to Congress (not even close to actual standards for schools), the food and beverage lobby is already coming out swinging:

The Center for Consumer Freedom worried that the report could lead to a government "no child with a fat behind" program.

The growing rate of obesity is caused by lack of physical activity rather than overeating, according to the group, which describes itself as representing restaurants, food companies and individuals.

Folks, we could only hope for an America that has "no child with a fat behind."

For all the gritty details of the Institute's recommendations, check out their fact sheet. For more on efforts to improve nutrition in schools, check out former President Clinton's success with a voluntary restriction on soda pop in school vending machines.

Congress: fiscal responsibility returns with the Democrats

With Democrats in control of both chambers of Congress, their Budget Committee chairman have both reinstated PAYGO rules, requiring any spending increases or tax cuts to be offset with increased revenue. The rules were originally enacted in the early 1990s but allowed to lapse by the Republican Congress in 2001.

There's a lot that can be said about the benefits of pay-as-you-go, but few words could be as valuable as this image:

Creationism is to Science Education as ______ is to Sex Education

If you guessed "Abstinence," give yourself a point and pat yourself on the back; you now understand sex education better than Congress.

The Minneapolis Star Tribune reports today that abstinence programs had literally no effect on the number of sexual partners or the age of first sexual experience of teens in the programs versus those taking conventional sex education courses. This report is far from the first evidence; there are numerous studies showing the ineffectiveness of abstinence education. In fact, some abstinence programs not only fail to restrain sexual activity, but cause youth to be less likely to use contraception.

And yet, here's what the original newspaper story had to say about the funding for these ineffective programs:

Congress will consider renewing funding for abstinence education.

Hopefully that means Congress will consider more abstinence education funding like President Bush considers becoming pro-choice.

Congress: The Suggesting Branch of Government

President Bush recently submitted his fiscal request for Iraq - all emergency spending of course - for nearly $100 billion. Democrats were initially planning to set conditions on the war policy before giving the President his fat check, but have apparently been shamed into de-linking war funding from policy by Republicans, who are waving the bloody shirt again and accusing Democrats of trying to harm the troops in the field.

Aside: for the love of Pete, get a backbone! Is it worse for the troops to limit funds that will require them to be sent home or to keep funding this failed war?

So what's the bold move? The Democrats are going to require that troops are equipped and rested before Bush sends them off to Iran Iraq. Of course, this is already the policy, but it can be waived by the Defense Department. The new policy - the sum total of Democratic war-ending efforts - is that the new policy requires the President to waive the readiness requirement.

Newsflash 1: The Defense Department works for Bush. When they waive the requirement, they do so at his bidding. He is the Commander in Chief.

Newsflash 2: Bush has already taken the blame for Iraq (see Approval Rating and 2006 Elections).

In other words, this is posturing on the level of "you don't support the troops because you want to end a war!" (see Republican Party)

The Democrats need to do two things:
1) Exert Congress' muscles in wartime and tell the President that he can plan a war, but he can't pay for one without approval.
2) Do what they were elected to do - end the war - by putting heavy restrictions on the fiscal authorization such as:
a) no troop readiness certification can be waived, period.
b) no troop surge can be sent without Congressional approval.
c) no war in Iran without Congressional approval (and no money for it, period).
d) no more war funding without some way to pay for it - i.e. taxes
e) no more war funding without a comprehensive plan for caring for injured vets (and paying for such care).

State of the Union

In case you were too busy to catch the State of the Union, here's a quick analysis from your favorite progressive news source (for those that don't read Daily Kos, anyway).

Bush started with the domestic agenda, which was probably a good idea given that the foreign stuff isn't looking so good. So what's on his plate?

• Renewing No Child Left Behind
• Changing the tax code to make it easier for people to privately acquire health care
• Getting on the energy security/climate change bandwagon by...
• Quintupling the renewable fuels mandate to 35 billion gallons per year by 2017 (the equivalent of 15% of gasoline usage)
  
• Committing the U.S. to reduce gasoline usage by 20% by 2017
• Increasing CAFE fuel economy standards (starting in 2010) by 4% (or 1 mpg) per year
• Doubling the strategic petroleum reserve

NCLB is legislation with lofty goals (eliminating the racial achievement gap), but it has never been fully funded. I won't get into it here, but there are a lot of reasons why basing educational achievement on high-stakes testing might not be the best formula for success.

The health care stuff is just hand waving. Changing the tax code is a pittance compared to the efforts being made in states like Massachusetts or even Minnesota to guarantee universal health coverage.

The climate change proposals are a mixed bag. The renewable fuel mandate is a bold move, along with a commitment to reduce gasoline used by 20%. However, the Johnny-come-lately provisions are unlikely to even level off U.S. carbon emissions, which scientists have said may need to drop by as much as 80% to halt irreversible climate change. So, it's a good jumping off point for the Democratic Congress.

The foreign agenda involved three major items:

• Emphasizing the importance of the troop surge
• Covering the rest of the war on terror that we've put on hold (Afghanistan, Iran, North Korea, etc)
• Discussing a few items of foreign aid, such as combating AIDS (something he talked about ages ago) and malaria in Africa.
  
• I lied - the fourth item was a proposed permanent increase in the size of the army and marines.
  

I won't even get into the futility of the surge, the lost war on terror, or the African two pence. Increasing the size of the army is beyond idiotic, however. First, it gives us more flexibility to stay in Iraq. Bad. It also frees up troops for other cockamamie freedom plans for countries like Iran or North Korea. But generally, it's a poor idea for a democratic nation to have a large standing army. It makes it too easy to get ourselves in more quagmires. I hope that someone with some sense stomps this idea like the cockroach it is.

1/4 in to the first 100 hours

Check out the progress the new Democratic majority is making on their First 100 Hours proposals.

Screw bipartisanship - just get to work

I just saw a recent national survey that once again finds Americans interested in a Congress that is "bipartisan" and "get things done." After all, most of the spending bills got tabled until the new Congress convenes and a lot of work is needed on the minimum wage, ethics, health care, and of course, Iraq.

But I think that the question about bipartisanship is kind of a false question. People want government to do things that are good for them and good for the country. They want lower taxes, but only if it can be done without damaging good programs. They want good health care, but only if it doesn't break the bank. They want good paying jobs. And when it comes down to it, they aren't going to care if these things come via party-line vote, as long as they're effective.

There's an illusion out there that good policy has to be bipartisan, but I think that some of the best government work ever accomplished (Social Security, Medicare) only succeeded because the Democrats had overwhelming control of Congress. Bipartisanship only matters when good legislation fails because the proposing party can't peel off enough of its opposites to pass the legislation. And some really vile legislation (the Bush tax cuts, the Iraq war authorization, the Medicare prescription drug benefit) had plentiful votes from both sides of the aisle.

So when Congress convenes in January, I want them to get things done. If it happens to be bipartisan, that's the icing on the cake.