Politics, Government & Public Policy: July 2009 Archives
(Well ok, "chairmen" are just called "chairs" now because some of them are women, but whatever; shouldn't it be "chairpersons"?)
Anyway, Jay Cost has written a terrific explanation for why Democrats in Congress can't pass bills despite their commanding majority: their committee chairmen are far more leftist than the median Congressional Democrat.
From 1954 to 1970, there was generally a tight correspondence between the committee chairs and the median legislator, with each being pretty moderate. In the mid-70s, they all tacked to the left - but whereas the median legislator quickly swung back to the right, the chairs kept trending leftward. By the 103rd Congress (1993-94), the differences had become quite substantial - with committee chairs being well to the left of the median legislator. After 12 years of Republican rule, the Democrats returned to power - and their chairs had moved farther leftward while the median voter was basically unchanged. The 110th Congress (2006-07) exhibits the largest divergence between the chairs and the median legislator since World War II. We don't yet have ideological scores for the current Congress, but I am sure there is still a great deal of space between these groups.Much of this deviation can be explained by the system of seniority that governs chairmanships. It's not a formal rule among House Democrats, but nevertheless:
[Nancy] Pelosi, unlike her GOP predecessors, chose to follow seniority in designating committee chairs. As a result, many of the Democratic chairs are liberal "old bulls" who either headed or were senior members of several of the most influential committees prior to the GOP takeover in 1995. [Davidson, Oleszek, and Lee (2008), 213.]I mentioned last week that Bush's median share of the 2004 vote in the districts of current chairmen was just 36%. Democrats in liberal districts are less likely to be defeated, meaning that they are around long enough to ascend to chairmanships, and more likely to be liberal.
Meanwhile, thanks to majority-minority districting, as well as the party's overwhelming strength in densely populated urban areas, Democrats win 80-90% of the presidential vote in many congressional districts, which means they are quite safe. But it also means that to find 218 seats, they have to carry districts where their presidential candidates win less than 50%. Thus, you get a phenomenon like the current one: Heath Shuler (D-NC) and Stephanie Herseth Sandlin (D-SD) make the difference between majority and minority status, but Charlie Rangel (D-NY) and Barney Frank (D-MA) gavel the key committees once the majority has been achieved.
Representatives like Shuler and Herseth gave the Democrats their majority, but because of their lack of seniority (due to the lack of security of their seats) they don't have much influence in the House. It's no surprise that these chairmen craft leftist bills that the Representatives their majority depends on cannot vote for.
Side note: that "fringe" party members have little effect on policy is generally an under-appreciated benefit of the two-party system. Many multi-party parliamentary systems end up seating tiny delegations from the, e.g., Communist or Nazi parties which, despite their minuscule sizes, end up being instrumental in breaking ties when the larger parties disagree.
(HT: The Corner.)
Nebraska may join the chorus of states asserting their sovereignty by passing bills reminding the Federal Government of the 10th Amendment, but they and all the rest would do better to begin a nationwide initiative to repeal the 17th Amendment.
Senators were originally chosen by state legislatures instead of by direct election by the populations of the various states, and the point of this process was to give the states a voice in the federal Congress. Senators were expected to protect the individual sovereignty of the various states against the vagaries of the more-democratic House of Representatives. Unfortunately the states disarmed themselves when they ratified the 17th Amendment, and things have been downhill ever since.
If you enjoy statistical analysis and being pissed off at our government, read about how "stimulus" money is being directed to states that have suffered the least from the recession.
The stimulus bill "includes help for those hardest hit by our economic crisis," President Obama promised when he signed the bill into law on Feb. 17. "As a whole, this plan will help poor and working Americans."But FOXNews.com has analyzed data tracking how the stimulus money is being given out across the 50 states and the District of Columbia, and it has found a perverse pattern: the states hardest hit by the recession received the least money. States with higher bankruptcy, foreclosure and unemployment rates got less money. And higher income states received more.
The transfers to the states having the least problems are large. Even after accounting for other factors, each $1,000 in a state's per capita income means that the state got $21 more per capita in stimulus funds. With a spread of almost $38,000 in per-person income between the top and bottom states, this has a sizable impact. High-income states get considerably more stimulus money.
States with higher bankruptcy rates got a lot less, not more, money — roughly $86 less per person for each percentage point increase in the state's bankruptcy rate. States with higher foreclosure rates were treated very similarly, losing $82 per person for each one percentage point more of the people suffering foreclosures.
There are charts at the link!
It should be obvious to any observer that the "stimulus" money is being used to reward political allies rather than to actually spur the economy.
Politico reported on June 5 that the “Stimulus tour” — visits by Mr. Obama and other administration officials “across the country to tout the massive spending program or hand out stimulus cash to grateful local officials” — overwhelmingly took place in states that voted for Obama: “52 of the 66 events were in states that backed Obama.” The other 14 events were in states that Obama lost only narrowly. A new study released by USA Today also finds that counties that voted for Obama received about twice as much stimulus money per capita as those that voted for McCain.
Hope and change!
President Obama has delayed releasing budget and economic updates for more than a month in an effort to prevent the total evaporation of support for government takeover of the health care industry.
The White House is being forced to acknowledge the wide gap between its once-upbeat predictions about the economy and today's bleak landscape.The administration's annual midsummer budget update is sure to show higher deficits and unemployment and slower growth than projected in President Barack Obama's budget in February and update in May, and that could complicate his efforts to get his signature health care and global-warming proposals through Congress.
The release of the update - usually scheduled for mid-July - has been put off until the middle of next month, giving rise to speculation the White House is delaying the bad news at least until Congress leaves town on its August 7 summer recess.
The administration is pressing for votes before then on its $1 trillion health care initiative, which lawmakers are arguing over how to finance.
I'm sure independent voters will love this sleight-of-hand.
(HT: Gateway Pundit.)
Since Republicans are somewhat hesitant to completely betray the American people, President Obama has decided to redefine "bipartisanship".
White House officials said they had a new standard for bipartisanship: the number of Republican ideas incorporated in the legislation, rather than the number of Republican votes for a Democratic bill. Mr. Obama said the health committee bill “includes 160 Republican amendments,” and he said that was “a hopeful sign of bipartisan support for the final product.”Republicans said many of those amendments were technical, and they were scathing in their criticism of the bill approved by the health committee.
Yes, we're living in "1984".
Here are some great pictures from last weekend's Hands Off Our Healthcare rally in suburban St. Louis.
On the morning of Saturday, July 11th, the St.Louis region was engulfed with more soggy weather, much like July 4th, but again this did not deter Tea Party protesters from making their voices heard. The St.Louis "Show Us the Bill - Hands Off Our Healthcare" Rally took place in downtown Clayton, Missouri, a suburb of St.Louis, in Memorial Park by the courthouse. Many of the frustration for this rally has been driven by many issues with Congress and the current Administration but the major one's in these protester's eyes have been the lack of Congress reading the bills before they pass them and the impending passing of a universal healthcare plan.
Naturally there was very little coverage by the dino-media, despite the hundreds in attendance.
President Obama says he met his wife in class at Harvard:
Too bad the Obamas didn't overlap as students at Harvard:
Though both Barack and Michelle went to Harvard Law, they didn't overlap — she got her degree in '88 and he graduated in '91. They actually met in Chicago when he was a summer associate at a law firm in Chicago.
Tell us more about this "chicago law firm" where the Obamas met!
Actually, Barack Obama landed this amazing summer job while in school at the Sidley Austin Law Firm where terrorist Bernadine Dohrn, the wife of terrorist Bill Ayers, just happened to be working. Bill Ayers' father had pull at the firm.Barack met his future wife Michelle at that law firm.
I.e., President Obama met his wife at a terrorist training camp. I can see why he conveniently "forgot" this factoid, but I'm still not sure his wife will be pleased.
