Analysis Future generations of Texans will be considerably more ignorant when it comes to basic nutrition, sex education, and alcohol awareness. Embarrassing.
A new report by the Congressoinal Black Caucus raises concerns that a number of committees, chaired by whites, have far too few black staffers and aides serving on them. I have no reason to doubt the CBC's numbers, but I strongly disagree with how problematic that is.
Besides drawing on seasoned veterans (yes, not every congressional staffer is a rich college intern), most committee chairs use their privileged position to reward their home constituencies. Meaning, their committees tend to reflect their home districts. Committees chaired by blacks have more black staffers because their district is black. You really wouldn't expect an Agriculture committee or its subcommittees, which are manly populated by Plains state legislators that represent states and districts that are upwards of 90% white to have large numbers of minorities.
Does it affect policy? Yes. But, so does not having strict gender parity too.
The Economist has a special report on Texas. It is an honest, sobering look at the state. This includes both the good (Texas economic growth) and bad (the state's many shortcomings in education and insurance).
As a political scientist, one of my pet subjects is federalism, the relationship between the states and the federal government. One benefit (there are many flaws, but that's for a later discussion) of living in a federal system is that states are generally free to experiment with public policy in order to find the best recipe for that state's particular circumstances. To that end, I've focused often on Texas (because I'm from there) and California (because it has been the single-biggest engine for economic growth in post-war America and it houses 1 in 8 of all Americans).
So, I'm not terribly surprised to see that The Economist has copied me with a story on both California and Texas. California is in a fiscal funk; Texas barrels on a path of sunshine success. At the end of the day, for all their warts, Texas and California are the two most important states in the country (Manhattan runs a close third) and they deserve the ink. What happens in these two states are realistic harbingers for America's future.
Recent work by the New York Times and the United States Conference of Mayors shows that large cities often get far short of what they should in stimulus spending (based on population and economic activity) by state officials that are more concerned with spreading the money around instead of focusing on greatest need. It's a real shame because research by the Texas Transportation Institute estimates Americans waste over 4 billion hours a year stuck in traffic. Talk about inefficiencies. You would think that alone (not to mention the millions of gallons of gas wasted each year by idling engines) to spur the demand for more mass transit.
As an aside, did you know that Pawlenty is leaving office? He announced he won't run, but is finishing out his term, unlike Alaska's Sarah Palin. The odds are pretty good that he'll run for president and I expect people will respect him a lot more than Palin.
In other related resignation news, the news that Illinois Senator Roland Burris won't seek reelection is not news. He had said all along that he would be a fill-in. That he hasn't raised huge sums of money for a reelection bid isn't a sign he can't raise money, but an indication he never tried.
Vibe Magazine is no more. Call me harsh, but can't say I miss it. That's because I never read it. Always sad to see folks lose their jobs, but the closing of Vibe represents two distinct phenomena.
First, we're in a severe recession and advertising revenue always declines during recessions. It's an easy for companies to save a few bucks. But, for media outlets (i.e. the troubled newspaper industry is the prime example of this), losing advertising revenue is a death-knell and this is what happened to Vibe.
One thing the American voter taught us in 2008 is that they don't want an intensely partisan, polarizing figure as president. After her actions last week, it is clear that nearly former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin (R) if remains polarizing to Alaskans, there's no way she can be a unifying force for the national electorate. It might not help that she thinks there is a federal Department of Law.
Obama has sent plans to Congress on creating a consumer protection agency. Presumably, Congress should do this, but has repeatedly shown it to be an incapable body for that purpose.
Jim Quinn of XM Channel 158 has managed to ruffle more than a few feathers with some obnoxious comments. Read more about him here. Classy. Damn that liberal media. FYI: That's some sarcasm for you.
But, chronic problems (i.e. wildfires, earthquakes, recessions. battles with labor unions) and a very high cost of living are huge drawbacks to the allure of the state. To quote from a recent Forbes article on business climate...
"Bringing up the rear of our rankings are the troubled spots in California. The Golden State had its worst showing ever in our tally. It is home to six of the seven lowest-rated spots, and Riverside was the only one of its 21 metro areas (among the country's 200 biggest) that cracked the top 100. Most California metros are burdened with sky-high living and business costs, and the job outlook is week. The unemployment rate in 199th-ranked Merced, Calif., is expected to hit 21% in 2010."
If you read the above link in full you'll read that Forbes can't drool enough over the business climate in Texas. Yet, Texas has many of its own problems too, so a good business climate cannot lead to a de facto claim of superiority. For instance, it's embarrassing the focus in Texas schools is on creationism and not science.
Meanwhile, California's system of higher education is the envy of nearly state - and ultimately this is what drives innovation. Remember, California didn't become expensive by accident, its cost-of-living is so high because 1 in 8 Americans are drawn to the state by its good climate and lots and lots of jobs.
California will recover from this recession. The only question is when.
Analysis Remains to be seen if this high level of party support will continue, but Harry Reid must be pleased. I would expect, on critical votes, for Specter to continue exhibiting his independent streak, but on important but not terribly public votes for Specter to toe the party line. At least through the 2010 Democratic primary.
Essentially, Obama has threatened to make life worse for the health care bureaucracy unless they come to the bargaining table. The goal is to squeeze savings wherever possible to pay for expanding health care to every American. The total cost of such a plan could exceed $1 trillion and these small steps (really these steps are quite major) will help pave a smoother road for congressional negotiators. Politically, this will make it harder for Republicans to resist reform efforts on the grounds that it is anti-medical industry. Getting the drug industry and the hospitals on board are two of the major constituents in this debate. Who knows if reform will actually happen, but these are positive steps.
This style of governing by negotiating with major constituent groups is actually quite common in other groups. It's known as consociationalism.
Analysis I'll admit to texting and driving and reading texts while driving. I know I shouldn't it. Sometimes I rationalize that it's no different than changing the radio station or fiddling with my IPod. Still, that doesn't make it right. Yet, should we pass laws to ban these practices? At the same time, can we honestly expect people - especially new, young drivers - to do the right thing, if we all don't the right thing?
With 257 votes in the House, the Democratic Party can lose up to 39 votes and still prevail. Of course, they'd rather not lose 39 votes, but the point is they can. Besides being able to claim a mandate due to the 2006 and 2008 elections where the Party won big, a huge majority also allows the Democratic leadership to be more patient, tolerant and forgiving of members that vote against the party line. This story from CQ Politics discusses these apostate members (the GOP has their fair share too).
But, it's more than just the current large majority that allows the Democratic leadership to be more tolerant. An examination of party unity scores (how often a member votes with his party) going back to WWII will demonstrate that Democrats are more likely to buck their party than Republicans will buck their party. Why? The very nature of modern, American liberalism is that it is a political ideology fonded on openness, inclusiveness and tolerance. To be progressive is to be inclusive of that which is different. Yet, the nature of modern conservatism is to reject that what is different in pursuit of constraining dissent and vigorous debate. To be a House Democrat is to tolerate the different, to be a House Republican is to reject it.
0
comments
Monday, July 13, 2009
Posts
