A bill moving through the KY legislature highlights the fact that not everyone chooses to have a say in the political process. The bill would require drug testing for welfare recipients. If they test positive, they face the risk of losing benefits.
An unscientific online poll at Hazard TV station (and Chanel 27 affiliate) WYMT showed more than 90% of the voters believed this bill should pass: http://www.wkyt.com/polls?pollID=13968092
Whatever your feelings on this bill, it's likely that quite a few people on welfare won't be exicted about peeing in a cup on a regular basis just to keep their beneifts coming. And it's probably say to safe that more than 10% of the folks in Eastern KY (although you could be anywhere in the world when you take this poll given the fact that it's online, I should point out) are on or have friends or family who're on welfare. Yet their perspective is silent in this survey.
Wednesday, January 30, 2008
Public Opinion and the Presidential Election
For a look at the Presidential polls, go here: http://realclearpolitics.com/polls/
Monday, January 28, 2008
Federalism and the Presidential Election
Here are snippets of a column that ran on Fox News re the Presidential election and Federalism:
No matter the outcome in Iowa this week, the show of democracy that it represents should make us proud. Polished politicians have been obliged to bow down to the common sense of common people and to the power of the single vote.
This kind of bottom-up politics doesn’t happen anymore in Europe. Here, in the old continent, elections are now fought and won almost exclusively on television, in newspapers and in big partisan arenas.
National politicians in Europe certainly don’t eat in diners. They don’t ride in buses, visit fire stations, or chitchat with the regulars over coffee and donuts. And who would blame them? Certainly not the presidential hopefuls beating the pavement in Iowa! Right about now, you can bet Hillary, Mike, Barack, Fred, Mitt and John are getting tired of staged town hall meetings, downtown walking tours, artificial meet-and-greets, and corny church socials — where candidates are always expected to be on a first name basis with everyone.
American politicians do this dance because they still have to. And for the good of democracy, that’s the way it should stay, even as money and media threaten to take humanity out of the election process once and for all.
Not everyone in America agrees. In fact, some political activists are expressing outright disdain for the tradition of giving little states big roles. Chuck Rocha, a worker for John Edwards’ campaign (the champion of the middle class), told USA Today, “the bad part is 100,000 people in a little state called Iowa may be picking the next president.” Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.) recently grumbled to the same reporter, “This is a cockamamie system to nominate someone for the most powerful position in the world.”
If you listen to political commentary this week on traditional national media outlets, you will hear much of the same. Scorn for Iowa, because it is only Iowa — and not California, D.C., or New York — is reminiscent of the kind of complaining we hear every four years after the general election, especially when the outcome is close. Some big states hate the fact that they can’t win the general election on their own. They begrudge the electoral system for forcing the presidential candidates to give so much attention to “flyover states” like Ohio, or “ghost towns” like the state of Maine.
At the heart of such discontent — both with the campaigning in Iowa and the electoral system in general — is a misunderstanding of American democracy and the federalist system established by the U.S. Constitution. The president of the United States was never meant to be a national mayor who is to decide what’s probably best for the greatest number of people regarding all things social and political. Instead, the federal government (of which the president is only a part) is to do only those things that have not already been entrusted to the States (oops!). This limitation of federal power was not a random afterthought of our founding fathers. Nor is restraint of power replaceable with another model of governance. American federalism and the importance it gives to local initiative flows from the universal ethical principle of “subsidiarity.” This principle of justice demands that a higher level of government should not do anything that a lower level could do just as well.
I hope these reflections give us pause this week when we are tempted to mock or tire of the admittedly forced and sometimes artificial behavior of our national politicians as they submerse themselves in the daily lives of residents of Iowa, New Hampshire, and beyond. Certainly each of these presidential hopefuls would prefer to run a campaign from the comfort of a home office, but thankfully, at least for the time being, hanging out in Washington doesn’t make a president.
Whoever the eventual party nominees of 2008, they will be better off for this up-close contact with ordinary people and with the interests, needs and autonomy of individual states.
Link: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,319710,00.html
No matter the outcome in Iowa this week, the show of democracy that it represents should make us proud. Polished politicians have been obliged to bow down to the common sense of common people and to the power of the single vote.
This kind of bottom-up politics doesn’t happen anymore in Europe. Here, in the old continent, elections are now fought and won almost exclusively on television, in newspapers and in big partisan arenas.
National politicians in Europe certainly don’t eat in diners. They don’t ride in buses, visit fire stations, or chitchat with the regulars over coffee and donuts. And who would blame them? Certainly not the presidential hopefuls beating the pavement in Iowa! Right about now, you can bet Hillary, Mike, Barack, Fred, Mitt and John are getting tired of staged town hall meetings, downtown walking tours, artificial meet-and-greets, and corny church socials — where candidates are always expected to be on a first name basis with everyone.
American politicians do this dance because they still have to. And for the good of democracy, that’s the way it should stay, even as money and media threaten to take humanity out of the election process once and for all.
Not everyone in America agrees. In fact, some political activists are expressing outright disdain for the tradition of giving little states big roles. Chuck Rocha, a worker for John Edwards’ campaign (the champion of the middle class), told USA Today, “the bad part is 100,000 people in a little state called Iowa may be picking the next president.” Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.) recently grumbled to the same reporter, “This is a cockamamie system to nominate someone for the most powerful position in the world.”
If you listen to political commentary this week on traditional national media outlets, you will hear much of the same. Scorn for Iowa, because it is only Iowa — and not California, D.C., or New York — is reminiscent of the kind of complaining we hear every four years after the general election, especially when the outcome is close. Some big states hate the fact that they can’t win the general election on their own. They begrudge the electoral system for forcing the presidential candidates to give so much attention to “flyover states” like Ohio, or “ghost towns” like the state of Maine.
At the heart of such discontent — both with the campaigning in Iowa and the electoral system in general — is a misunderstanding of American democracy and the federalist system established by the U.S. Constitution. The president of the United States was never meant to be a national mayor who is to decide what’s probably best for the greatest number of people regarding all things social and political. Instead, the federal government (of which the president is only a part) is to do only those things that have not already been entrusted to the States (oops!). This limitation of federal power was not a random afterthought of our founding fathers. Nor is restraint of power replaceable with another model of governance. American federalism and the importance it gives to local initiative flows from the universal ethical principle of “subsidiarity.” This principle of justice demands that a higher level of government should not do anything that a lower level could do just as well.
I hope these reflections give us pause this week when we are tempted to mock or tire of the admittedly forced and sometimes artificial behavior of our national politicians as they submerse themselves in the daily lives of residents of Iowa, New Hampshire, and beyond. Certainly each of these presidential hopefuls would prefer to run a campaign from the comfort of a home office, but thankfully, at least for the time being, hanging out in Washington doesn’t make a president.
Whoever the eventual party nominees of 2008, they will be better off for this up-close contact with ordinary people and with the interests, needs and autonomy of individual states.
Link: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,319710,00.html
Structural Foundations of U.S. Government: The International System
While the United States has never operated in a vaccum and has always had to position itself to respond to events overseas, today that trend is especially strong. Because of the power of weapons, the ease with which non-state (i.e. private) actors like terrorists can acquire them, and the relative ease by which these weapons can be shipped into this country, many believe Americans can't wait for threats to approach us here at home. Instead, we have to be very active in the affairs of other nations lest we find its too late to respond.
A great book that discusses these trends is Shield of Achilles by Philip Bobbitt, a professor of Constitutional Law and an expert on International Relations. Here's snippet of a book review that brings this home:
"This chaotic situation has led political thinkers on both sides of the Atlantic – Philip Bobbitt in America, Robert Cooper over here – to demand a total paradigm shift in our approach to international order. Globalisation, they argue, has meant the end of the territorial nation state and the advent, they argue, of 'market-states' or nation-states whose power transends territorial boundaries. With that power goes – or should go – responsibility for the maintenance of order among impotant and backward 'pre-modern' states, not only moral but prudential responsibility for rescuing their populations from starvation, enforcing human rights, and ensuring that they do not spawn bellicose dictators or provide safe harbour for terrorist and pirates." – Financial Times [London based publication similar to our Wall Street Journal]
A great book that discusses these trends is Shield of Achilles by Philip Bobbitt, a professor of Constitutional Law and an expert on International Relations. Here's snippet of a book review that brings this home:
"This chaotic situation has led political thinkers on both sides of the Atlantic – Philip Bobbitt in America, Robert Cooper over here – to demand a total paradigm shift in our approach to international order. Globalisation, they argue, has meant the end of the territorial nation state and the advent, they argue, of 'market-states' or nation-states whose power transends territorial boundaries. With that power goes – or should go – responsibility for the maintenance of order among impotant and backward 'pre-modern' states, not only moral but prudential responsibility for rescuing their populations from starvation, enforcing human rights, and ensuring that they do not spawn bellicose dictators or provide safe harbour for terrorist and pirates." – Financial Times [London based publication similar to our Wall Street Journal]
Wednesday, January 23, 2008
What Does the Constitution Mean
Currently a case is before the Supreme Court that argues that a D.C. gun ban is unconstitutional as it violates the 2nd Amendment. The U.S. Court of Appeals said it was and now the parties are asking the Supreme Court for their wisdom. You might think that the court wouldn't be interested in arguments about policy, such as whether this ban is a good thing or a bad thing, and that all they'd be interested in is what does the constitution say. But you'd be wrong.
The court does take policy reccomendations into account, along with arguments about the text of the constitution, the original intent, etc. This can be confusing and causes many to say "the constitution says whatever 5 [of 9] U.S. Supreme Court Justices say it says." Not a bad rule of thumb, when you think about it, but I don't want to give you the impression the Supremes are just flipping coins on these important matters.
Here's an article that talks about some of the policy stuff: http://www.timesunion.com/AspStories/story.asp?storyID=657155&category=OPINION&newsdate=1/22/2008
You can find out more simply by reading this Wiki article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
The court does take policy reccomendations into account, along with arguments about the text of the constitution, the original intent, etc. This can be confusing and causes many to say "the constitution says whatever 5 [of 9] U.S. Supreme Court Justices say it says." Not a bad rule of thumb, when you think about it, but I don't want to give you the impression the Supremes are just flipping coins on these important matters.
Here's an article that talks about some of the policy stuff: http://www.timesunion.com/AspStories/story.asp?storyID=657155&category=OPINION&newsdate=1/22/2008
You can find out more simply by reading this Wiki article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
Preventing a Recession: The Fed Tries to Stave Off Disaster
Some of you following the news may have heard all the talk about the Fed, or Federal Reserve Bank, cutting rates as well as the proposed stimulus package that President Bush is attempting to get through Congress. We’ll cover these topics later in the semester, so you may want to pay attention to these stories when you see them and hear them on the news.
Here's a good article that talks about what the Fed is trying to do and what it’s historically done. Ben Bernanke, the subject of the article, is the Chairman of the Federal Reserve Bank, one of those bureaucracies we talked about in the first class. He replaced Alan Greenspan who retired last year.
FYI, Fed action falls into a category known as "monetary policy", that is policy that seeks to control the supply of money through the cost of borrowing. The fed cuts interest rates, it's cheaper to borrow money for banks, banks can lower their rates for borrowers, and more businesses can borrow and do more business... thereby growing the economy, in theory. Or there are times when the Fed wants to do the opposite and actually contract the supply of money and increase the costs of borrowing so as to slow things down. Think of these as the gas pedal and the brakes. Both have uses.
Fiscal policy, on the other hand, falls into the realm of spending by the government. This includes actual spending as well as tax cuts or tax increases. Both can be used in efforts to brake the economy or to give the economy some gas. Since politicians want to be reelected, there aren't many instances where they deliberately hit the brakes on the economy, regardless of the need... such as inflation, which we'll get to later...
Here's a good article that talks about what the Fed is trying to do and what it’s historically done. Ben Bernanke, the subject of the article, is the Chairman of the Federal Reserve Bank, one of those bureaucracies we talked about in the first class. He replaced Alan Greenspan who retired last year.
FYI, Fed action falls into a category known as "monetary policy", that is policy that seeks to control the supply of money through the cost of borrowing. The fed cuts interest rates, it's cheaper to borrow money for banks, banks can lower their rates for borrowers, and more businesses can borrow and do more business... thereby growing the economy, in theory. Or there are times when the Fed wants to do the opposite and actually contract the supply of money and increase the costs of borrowing so as to slow things down. Think of these as the gas pedal and the brakes. Both have uses.
Fiscal policy, on the other hand, falls into the realm of spending by the government. This includes actual spending as well as tax cuts or tax increases. Both can be used in efforts to brake the economy or to give the economy some gas. Since politicians want to be reelected, there aren't many instances where they deliberately hit the brakes on the economy, regardless of the need... such as inflation, which we'll get to later...
Wednesday, January 16, 2008
Welcome to the Course
Just want to welcome everyone to the class. This is a subject that I love- as you can probably tell- and I spend a lot of time thinking about. I hope some of that will transfer to you.
By all means, please ask questions, disagree, agree, complain... whatever it takes to communicate with me. I'm very approachable.
This blog will be a site where I hope you can post commnents about the material, questions, etc. You can do anonymously or publicly. Please keep it civil as I reserve the right to delete offensive material.
By all means, please ask questions, disagree, agree, complain... whatever it takes to communicate with me. I'm very approachable.
This blog will be a site where I hope you can post commnents about the material, questions, etc. You can do anonymously or publicly. Please keep it civil as I reserve the right to delete offensive material.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)