November 6th, 2008
Speculation over the shape the new Democratic power structure will take is mostly focused on the various Obama Admin cabinet possibilities, but I think it’s worth taking a look at the legislative side, too. Joe Lieberman out as chairman of anything but his own one man party should be a given, of course. On the House side, I’d like to see Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA) succeed in his bid to take the Energy and Commerce Committee chairmanship from Rep. John Dingell (D-MI). Rep. Dingell is, to be sure, an extremely smart, talented, and principled legislator. He is also, I think, entirely too grounded in the Detroit manufacturing industry. Those ties will stand in the way of truly transformative energy policy, I’m afraid, and Waxman’s demonstrated aggressiveness will be an asset in the Committee’s oversight roles. I don’t know if Waxman’s willingness to be open with this effort will bring other challenges out into the open, but I think a bit of competition for these chairmanships can be healthy.
Also, I think that we should expect to see a fundamental change in the way that goverment operates. Sure, the Democrat in the White House and the Democrats in the Senate and House share a lot of common policy goals, and should be expected to work together to achieve them. But they are in two fundamentally different branches of government. I don’t think it will take long before we see House Dems reassert the power they have as a seperate and co-equal branch of government. This, of course, will be cheered on by the Republicans, who will welcome it as a sign of Democratic weakness. I think the public, however, should see it as a sign of the strength of the American system of government. Checks and balances are healthy, and lead to more durable legislation and policy.
(If you’re interested in the origin of the current system of Party First, check out this interview with former Congressman Mickey Edwards (R-OK). In it, he describes Gingrich’s reshaping of the Republicans in Congress from a seperate institutional power to a supporting cast for President George H.W. Bush, and how that eventually led to this idea that it’s entirely about party, rather than insitution, country, or Constitution. I found it very interesting. It’s about 18 minutes long.)
Update: An informative take on the process of selecting the committee chairs.
November 5th, 2008
There remain many things to be said about the politics that resulted in yesterday’s massive vote for change. And I’ll get to them. But taking everything in is leaving me rather circumspect, at the moment. Further, I’m very much looking forward to spending less time on politics, and more time on governing. We placed an enormous amount of hope on Barack Obama last night, and now it’s time to make sure he delivers. His election was not an end in and of itself. It is - if we all do our part - a means to a better country and a better world.
October 29th, 2008
The Flex Your Rights Foundation has put together a handy guide to how to refuse the ridiculous searches that Metro recently announced.
(Even if you’re not in DC, check out the site in general. I heartily approve of their mission.)
October 25th, 2008
A few days ago, I pointed to a Washington Post story that noted bailout recipient banks were not using the government money to increase liquidity (the stated justification for the bailout), but to acquire other banks. The New York Times advances the story:
In point of fact, the dirty little secret of the banking industry is that it has no intention of using the money to make new loans. But this [J.P. Morgan] executive was the first insider who’s been indiscreet enough to say it within earshot of a journalist.
(He didn’t mean to, of course, but I obtained the call-in number and listened to a recording.)
“Twenty-five billion dollars is obviously going to help the folks who are struggling more than Chase,” he began. “What we do think it will help us do is perhaps be a little bit more active on the acquisition side or opportunistic side for some banks who are still struggling. And I would not assume that we are done on the acquisition side just because of the Washington Mutual and Bear Stearns mergers. I think there are going to be some great opportunities for us to grow in this environment, and I think we have an opportunity to use that $25 billion in that way and obviously depending on whether recession turns into depression or what happens in the future, you know, we have that as a backstop.”
Read that answer as many times as you want — you are not going to find a single word in there about making loans to help the American economy.
So, let’s see, where have we seen this happen before? You know, where the American public is rushed in to commit enormous resources to protect the common good, only to find out that the effort is mostly benefitting the already strong? Hmmm:
It is starting to appear as if one of Treasury’s key rationales for the recapitalization program — namely, that it will cause banks to start lending again — is a fig leaf, Treasury’s version of the weapons of mass destruction.
Gosh. I’m shocked. I don’t doubt that there was/is an enormous problem requiring an enormous solution. What I was 99% sure of before the bailout, and 100% sure of now, is that no one should ever have taken the “trust us” requests of the bailout proponents seriously:
There are lots of reasons the markets remain unstable — fears of a global recession, companies offering poor profit projections for the rest of the year, and the continuing uncertainties brought on by the credit crisis. But another reason, I now believe, is that investors no longer trust Treasury. First it says it has to have $700 billion to buy back toxic mortgage-backed securities. Then, as Mr. Paulson divulged to The Times this week, it turns out that even before the bill passed the House, he told his staff to start drawing up a plan for capital injections. Fearing Congress’s reaction, he didn’t tell the Hill about his change of heart.
Now, he’s shifted gears again, and is directing Treasury to use the money to force bank acquisitions. Sneaking in the tax break isn’t exactly confidence-inspiring, either.
There’s that theme again - a constantly shifting rationale covering up what seems to be a pretty straightforward underlying plan. We can be sure Congress won’t let them get away with it this time, right? There’s a quote near the end from Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT) about how there will “be hell to pay” if the banks are hoarding the cash rather than using it for loads. For some reason, I can’t quite bring myself to trust that, either.
October 23rd, 2008
A couple of developments on the travel monitoring “security” front have made the news, lately. First, the Department of Homeland Security, come January, will:
take over responsibility for checking airline passenger names against government watch lists beginning in January, and will require travelers for the first time to provide their full name, birth date and gender as a condition for boarding commercial flights.
Even assuming that DHS can use this to better filter its “No Fly” list of false positives, we’re still left with the question - how can the government know someone to be so dangerous that they cannot be allowed onboard a plane, yet they cannot arrest them? My view is that they can’t, and that this is merely another bit of security theatre. It has the added bonus, however, of permitting the gradual building of an all-encompassing monitoring structure that I’m sure will never be abused.
The second story speaks to the “all encompassing monitoring structure”, too. The ACLU highlights recent government efforts to create what the ACLU is calling a “Constitution Free Zone” that is defined as 100 miles inland from the external borders of the US (including coasts). The ACLU summarizes the issue:
- Normally under the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, the American people are not generally subject to random and arbitrary stops and searches.
- The border, however, has always been an exception. There, the longstanding view is that the normal rules do not apply. For example the authorities do not need a warrant or probable cause to conduct a “routine search.”
- But what is “the border”? According to the government, it is a 100-mile wide strip that wraps around the “external boundary” of the United States.
- As a result of this claimed authority, individuals who are far away from the border, American citizens traveling from one place in America to another, are being stopped and harassed in ways that our Constitution does not permit.
- Border Patrol has been setting up checkpoints inland — on highways in states such as California, Texas and Arizona, and at ferry terminals in Washington State. Typically, the agents ask drivers and passengers about their citizenship. Unfortunately, our courts so far have permitted these kinds of checkpoints – legally speaking, they are “administrative” stops that are permitted only for the specific purpose of protecting the nation’s borders. They cannot become general drug-search or other law enforcement efforts.
- However, these stops by Border Patrol agents are not remaining confined to that border security purpose. On the roads of California and elsewhere in the nation – places far removed from the actual border – agents are stopping, interrogating, and searching Americans on an everyday basis with absolutely no suspicion of wrongdoing.
Yesterday, the ACLU held a press conference to illustrate some of the results of this expansive view of the border and related powers:
Vince Peppard, a retired social worker, told of being stopped and harassed by the border authorities at least 15 miles from the Mexico border with his wife, Berlant.
Craig Johnson, a music professor at a San Diego college, told how he participated in a peaceful demonstration near the border to protest against the destruction of a state park so that offense could be constructed along the U.S. border. CBP agents monitored the protest and collected the license plate information of those who participated. Since this protest, Mr. Johnson has twice crossed the U.S.-Mexico border and, each time, he has been pulled aside for additional screening. He was taken to another room, handcuffed and questioned. On his first crossing, he was also partially stripped and subjected to a body cavity search. A CBP agent also told Mr. Johnson that he was on an “armed and dangerous” list. Before the protest, Mr. Johnson crossed the U.S.-Mexico border numerous times without incident. It is difficult to believe that his subsequent harassment at the border is unrelated to his protest activity. If it is related, that would constitute a significant abuse.
This is something to take seriously. The grip of the state on individual freedoms has been tightening, and there’s no reason to believe that trend will reverse without significant public attention. Obama is not going to wave a magic wand and make this all go away in January. It’s up to you and me.
(And in case you’re wondering why I focus so much on these issues, this might help explain.)
October 23rd, 2008
Late last week, I noted this great Jeffery Goldberg article demonstrating what a joke TSA security continues to be. Bruce Schneier was involved, and he points us to TSA head Kip Hawley’s response, noting:
Unfortunately, there’s not really anything to his response. It’s obvious he doesn’t want to admit that they’ve been checking ID’s all this time to no purpose whatsoever, so he just emits vague generalities like a frightened squid filling the water with ink. Yes, some of the stunts in article are silly (who cares if people fly with Hezbollah T-shirts?) so that gives him an opportunity to minimize the real issues.
Watch-lists and identity checks are important and effective security measures. We identify dozens of terrorist-related individuals a week and stop No-Flys regularly with our watch-list process.
It is simply impossible that the TSA catches dozens of terrorists every week. If it were true, the administration would be trumpeting this all over the press — it would be an amazing success story in their war on terrorism. But note that Hawley doesn’t exactly say that; he calls them “terrorist-related individuals.” Which means exactly what? People so dangerous they can’t be allowed to fly for any reason, yet so innocent they can’t be arrested — even under the provisions of the Patriot Act.
Ayup. Kip Hawley is still an idiot. When Obama and Congress are looking for budget fat to cut next year, they should start at the TSA.
October 22nd, 2008
That bailout money that went to banks so they could provide that so-essential-we-need-it-yesterday liquidity to the market? The banks seem to think they’ve found a better use for it. Buying other banks:
Several major U.S. banks are leaning toward spending a portion of their federal rescue money on acquiring other financial firms rather than for issuing new loans, the primary purpose of the government’s $250 billion initiative to invest in banks.
J.P. Morgan Chase, BB&T, and Zions Bancorporation have all said in recent days that they are considering using some of their federal money to buy other banks.
About 10 financial institutions belonging to the Financial Services Roundtable, which represents 100 of the nation’s largest financial services firms, are also considering making acquisitions with the money, said Scott Talbott, the group’s senior vice president.
October 22nd, 2008
Interesting story on the adoption of rules permitting land lease/transfer in China:
Although China’s 800 million farmers own their produce, farmland in China is still collectively owned and parceled out in 30-year leasing contracts. Allowing the transfer of land-use rights is a major step toward privatization.
Okay, this sounds like a good idea. Why? In theory:
Markets for land leasing and rights transfer will be set up to allow farmers to subcontract, exchange and swap their rights, the agency said. All transfers of land-use rights must be voluntary, with adequate payment.
I suspect, however, there’s going to be no small problem with that last part. If you’re interested in the future of China, that’ll be something to follow.
