"Movin' Out"

The Political Agenda is moving! From now on, posts will be on Tumblr. All previous posts have been transferred to the Agenda's Tumblr account.

The new URL:
http://thepoliticalagenda.tumblr.com

Please be sure to visit the new, improved Agenda on Tumblr...

Goodbye Blogger!

"Megalomaniacal Munchies"

Marijuana Decriminalization Considered in R.I.
From Jointogether.org

February 8, 2010

A state Senate leader and the group Law Enforcement Against Prohibition (LEAP) are pressing state lawmakers to decriminalize marijuana possession in Rhode Island, the Wall Street Journal reported Feb. 3.

Sen. Josh Miller, a local restaurant owner, heads a special legislative commission that is studying issues around marijuana prohibition and has held hearings on drug-policy reform, including decriminalization of small amounts of the drug. Miller said that Massachusetts' recent move to decriminalize marijuana, along with the argument that the policy shift would save the state money, have helped propel the debate.

Miller's panel recently took testimony from Jack Cole, a former narcotics officer who heads LEAP. Miller and Cole said that the key to their success could lie in convincing law-and-order politicians that pursuing marijuana offenders keeps police from preventing more serious crimes.

The Rhode Island District Attorney's office has told Miller's panel that decriminalization would not save the state any money and could take leverage away from police and prosecutors in pursuit of higher-level offenders.

Rhode Island’s consideration of the decriminalization of marijuana is a brazen action against the supremacy of federal policy. The cultural shift that has lead to a more liberal acceptance of marijuana for medical or even recreational purposes has prompted 13 other states to take similar actions. Under federal law, marijuana possession, use, and cultivation are illegal; it is classified under schedule one restriction – the most highly restricted class of drugs (which includes heroin, cocaine, etc.). In states that allow the usage of marijuana, users are able to partake in marijuana consumption because of lax federal enforcement of anti-cannabis laws. Under the recent Clinton and Bush administrations, prosecution of marijuana violations was common – a part of the overall “War on Drugs” policies. However, under the Obama administration there has been a movement away from strict enforcement of federal laws restricting marijuana in states that have decided to decriminalize the substance. Federal prosecutors have been directed to focus on high level drug trafficking, money laundering, and disruptive legal activity – while largely ignoring medical marijuana dispensaries and usage in states where it has been determined legal.

Even though the federal laws regarding the criminalization of cannabis are largely ignored as of late, the policy is still in existence, and is Constitutionally superior to any laws passed by states legalizing the substance. The supremacy clause of Article VI establishes that federal policies are the highest form of law in the US legal system, mandating that they remain upheld even if state laws conflict. The decriminalization of marijuana is essentially a direct violation of Article VI.

Despite the lack of federal action in enforcing the national policy, the US government has the capacity and Constitutional authority to punish these disorderly states. Potentially, the federal government could instate cross-over sanctions on any and all federal funding towards state programs in order to force preemption of new state decriminalization laws. Because the federal government is such a major source of funding for state governments, tightening the purse strings would inevitably result in massive budget shortages in the states. This would definitely be an effective tactic of establishing federal supremacy, although it could potentially have devastating effects on already struggling state economies. Another less callous way of retaliating against these states would be to bring charges against them in the court system, where the actions of the states would almost certainly be declared unconstitutional.

In the defense of Rhode Island and the other states that have moved towards the decriminalization of marijuana, it is debatable whether or not the federal government has the Constitutional authority to pass anti-cannabis legislation. Many would argue that it is a stretched interpretation of the Necessary and Proper clause of Article I. Furthermore, the Supreme Court ruling on Wickard v. Fillburn (1942) bloated federal power even more by blurring the lines between intrastate and interstate commerce.

Once upon a time in WWII-era Ohio, farmer Roscoe Filburn was growing wheat to feed his chickens. The U.S. government had imposed limits on wheat production based on acreage owned by a farmer, in order to drive up wheat prices during the Great Depression. Filburn was growing more than the limits permitted and was therefore ordered to destroy his crops and pay a fine, even though he was producing the excess wheat for his OWN use and was NOT selling it. The Supreme Court invoked the United States Constitution's Commerce Clause (which allows Congress to regulate interstate commerce) deciding that because Filburn's wheat growing activities reduced the amount of wheat he would buy for chicken feed on the interstate market, Filburn's production of more wheat than he was allotted was affecting interstate commerce, and could be regulated by the federal government. So basically, the federal government now had the power to regulate any and all trade, as long as it at least could POSSIBLY affect interstate markets... in other words, states lost major economic power.

Due to this “loose” interpretation of the Commerce clause of Article I, the federal government has the ability to declare marijuana sales within one state an influence on interstate trade, because of potential macroeconomic implications of pricing. So even if there is no sale of marijuana across state lines, it is still considered to fall under the scope of interstate trade, and can be regulated by the federal government. It is possible that states such as Rhode Island could challenge that weak constitutional argument by taking the issue up with the Supreme Court. But what seems more likely, is that the current leadership in Washington will continue to allow the policy to go informally unenforced until more states pass similar decriminalization legislation – and further shift the national opinion of a change in federal drug policy. However, if a new administration decides to enforce federal policies on cannabis; state governments, marijuana dispensaries, and cannabis consumers will all feel the effects of a steroidal federal government that has hacked away at states’ rights since FDR’s presidency.

"Where's Hillary?! - The State of The Union 2010"

A brief recap: I actually thought this was an excellent speech - as usual. President Obama managed to provide a good amount of detail in his plans for the future ... a bit of flip-flopping with his decision for a 3 year freeze on discretionary spending (a flop that I fully support) ... a couple of ballsy jabs at the Republican opposition ... an attempt to rally the wimpy Democrats in Congress ... a few laughs and a lame joke or two ... and not a peep out of Joe Wilson.

And where the heck was Hillary Clinton? She's the Secretary of State, shouldn't she be present? The other cabinet members were there. I was convinced that she had planted a bomb in the capitol building set to go off during the speech - killing the President, Vice President, Speaker of the House, and the President Pro Tempore of the Senate - leaving her as the next in line to the presidency. Sadly, thats not how it went down. These are kinds of things I think about.

.

.

- his primary focus was on the economy, specifically job-creation.

- pledged to impose fees on large financial firms that received Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) funds to repay taxpayer money

- legislation calling for $30 billion of the money Wall Street banks repay to be reallocated towards helping community banks lend to small businesses, it would create a new small business tax credit, it would eliminate all capital gains taxes on small business investment and provide tax incentives for businesses to invest in new plants and equipment

- urged the Senate to pass a comprehensive energy and climate bill with incentives for businesses to make clean energy achievable

- calls for America to concentrate on creating innovative advanced bio-fuels and clean coal technologies

- “We need to export more of our goods.”

- goal to double American exports over the next 5 years

- “To help meet this goal, we’re launching a National Export Initiative that will help farmers and small businesses increase their exports, and reform export controls consistent with national security."

- called on colleges and universities to do their part to make education more affordable

- proposed giving families with kids enrolled in four-year universities a $10,000 tax credit, and called for an increase in Pell grants

- monthly student loan payments shouldn’t exceed 10 percent of a graduate’s income and that all student loan debt will be forgiven after 20 years of payment or after 10 years if the graduate goes into public service

- “No one in America should go broke because they chose to go to college.”

- called upon Congress to approve a comprehensive health care reform bill that will bring down premiums, bring down the deficit, and reign in insurance companies

- cites the Congressional Budget Office’s estimate that the bill he supports will save $1 trillion over the next two decades

- admitted his stimulus package added $1 trillion to the national debt but did so to prevent a second great depression

- to pay for that $1 trillion, in 2011, when the economy is stronger, a three-year freeze on the federal government’s discretionary spending that’s not related to national security or entitlement programs

- create a bipartisan Fiscal Proposal Commission to offer a specific set of solutions by a certain deadline to tackle the budget deficit

- impose strict restrictions on lobbyist activity

- approve legislation in response to the recent Supreme Court decision on campaign finance laws

- publish all earmark requests on a single web site before voting

- overturn "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy for glbt military service

.

.

Sounds nice, but we'll see if the President manages to rally Congress and follow through with his agenda.

Also, just a thought - thats a LOT of government action going on. I'm fine with big government, but this has some clusterf*ck potential. But then again, maybe this kind of intervention is necessary to get us out of the hole we've gotten ourselves into. Food for thought...

Tell 'em Hillary.

"Apples to Appleby - The Game of Obvious Comparisons"

Many people consider private sector business leaders to be some of the best candidates for public office. 20th century political philosopher, Paul Appleby, addressed this thesis in his study Big Democracy.

In many ways, the government of the United States is designed to be businesslike. In the implementation of public policy, the government strives to use business principles of efficiency and effectiveness to promote swift administrative action. The government is not, however, like any other corporation in existence – as Paul Appleby explains in Big Democracy - “Government is Different”. There is no other institution whose every action is held fully accountable to the public. Furthermore, no institution other than the government simultaneously deals with such a wide scope of issues and people. Appleby explains the difference quite well in his statement that politics exists within most institutions, but “government is politics”.

Appleby’s overall argument is indeed valid, but his explanations seem to be convoluted and frequently backtracking upon themselves – at least for the first half of his discussion. He suggests that individuals with excellent records in the private sector will not always make effective government officials, but then admits that the organizational and executive experiences of business help to groom effective public officials. According to Appleby, large business provides the executive with more experience than that of small business. While this is almost undoubtedly true, it is a bit of a moot point. Logically, a larger, more encompassing business would provide the leader with more executive experience in dealing with public interest. The necessity for a “sense of action” in high positions of government is mirrored by the same necessity in a business executive – another similarity rather than a difference. One could infer that effectiveness of a government official depends more on the skills of that particular person, rather than whether or not he or she has a business background. In discussing the differences between government officials and business officials, Appleby does a much better job of highlighting their similarities.

Appleby much more adequately draws up the differences between the actual entities of government and private businesses. Industry exists solely for profit, without a great deal of energy and resources spent on public interest. Government, on the other hand, exists specifically to promote and protect public interest. No private institution encompasses anywhere near the breadth of government’s activities or is held so publically accountable; every action that the government undertakes is open to public scrutiny, debate, and investigation. A private institution is not as dependent on the will of the public beyond that of market demand, and certainly does not have an equal “appeal and concern” for all individuals. Government is fundamentally different from private business because it is far broader than any other entity – it must consider the heterogeneous will of the public. In the recurring words of Paul Appleby, “Government is different because government is politics.”

Appleby’s distinction is not at all inaccurate, but it merely seems like common knowledge that most people likely already comprehend. It is blatantly obvious to say that government has businesslike qualities, but is fundamentally different from a private business. The fact that government is interwoven with the political culture of the United States is the essential reason that it is distinct from business. While politics may exist within businesses – especially large corporations – politics permeate and blend seamlessly with the “business” of government. Looking past Appleby’s long-winded language, perhaps the best public administration-oriented point to take away from this study is that a business executive can be effective with managerial skill and sense to take action, but these traits in addition to a sense of public interest and responsibility are all required of effective government officials.

Paul Henson Appleby (second from right), born Sept 13 1891-1963, served as the Dean of the Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs of Syracuse University where he became a noted author of studies on public administration

"The End of Liberalism? : The Defense"

Theodore Lowi’s "The End of Liberalism: The Indictment" carries a great deal of weighty criticism and discontentment in title as well as content. Lowi insists that modern democracy has been corrupted by the political philosophy of “interest group liberalism”. He cites the concept of pluralism in government as the philosophical component of this policy of interest group liberalism. He summarizes the four components of his indictment:

First, he states that the public philosophy of interest group liberalism inherently corrupts the democratic system because it distorts expectations of democratic institutions. According to Lowi, by allowing interest groups to influence politics, legitimacy of the authority of leaders is uncertain. “Liberal practices reveal a basic disrespect for democracy” in that they cause integrity of the institution and justice to be questionable.

Second, Lowi accuses interest group liberalism of rendering government ‘impotent”. Essentially, he argues that many plans are presented as possibilities, but resolute plans are never agreed upon and put into action. The more government expands to include more input from various interests, the more public order suffers.

Lowi goes on to assert that interest group liberalism demoralizes government because liberal government is unable to achieve justice. The definition of justice under liberalism is unclear, and difficult to put to use. In fact, “The whole idea of justice is absurd.” He determines that liberal government lacks effective rules for government actions to be regulated by – basically, government runs rampant without constraint as does the bull in his clichéd china shop analogy.

In his final point, Lowi observes that interest group liberalism cripples the formalisms found within democracy. Informal bargaining is a necessity in a political climate dominated by interest groups, which overshadows the often unpopular observance of formality constraints. This separation between rules and reality often causes a degree of healthy political cynicism, but can also evolve into distrust.

Lowi concludes that while interest group liberalism is meant to combat the absolutist nature of majority/minority rule in democracy, it only succeeds in stripping democracy of its authoritativeness. This liberal effort negates democratic power rather than enhances it.

While Lowi’s argument is based in valid concern, it is debatable whether or not the pluralistic nature of United States political culture is a negative. Interest group activity is a common way for citizens to influence policy by supporting an interest group they identify with. It is difficult for citizens who are distant from the Washington epicenter of politics to have any considerable influence on policy without the collective force of an organized interest group. Interest groups often encourage more citizens to become involved in elections by spotlighting important political issues, resulting in greater span of democratic participation. Admittedly, interest groups do cause problems in democracy, especially in the case of national interest groups intruding into state and local politics. But overall, interest groups reflect the variety of opinions and concerns of the US public that would otherwise go unnoticed by most government officials.

It is important to keep Theodore Lowi’s claims in consideration in order to prevent interest groups from damaging the legitimacy of the US representative democracy. As long as well-moneyed interests do not grow to exercise an unjustly disproportionate amount of political capitol, interest groups should be welcomed in American politics as a means by which the average citizen can enjoy a greater amount of political efficacy.

Works Cited

"The End of Liberalism: The Indictment" by Theordore Lowi from Classics of Public Administration

Theodore J. Lowi (born July 9, 1931) is the John L. Senior Professor of American Institutions in the government department at Cornell University. His area of research is American government and public policy.

"The Elephant in the Room"

The Republican National Committee have recently proposed a sort of “Purity Test” demanding candidates embrace at least 8 of 10 conservative principles in order to receive financial backing and endorsement from the RNC. The proposed resolution is based on President Reagan's Unity Principle for Support of Candidates – which basically says that one should ally with people who agree on 80% of the issues rather than bickering over the 20% difference. The test is designed for candidates to prove that they support "conservative principles" while opposing President Obama's super-scary “socialist and Marxist and communist OH MY!” agenda. The proposal underscores the relentless struggle for the ideological soul of the Republican Party between the conservative crazies and the moderate conservatives. The Conservative Purity Test has been met with skepticism from Republicans and party outsiders alike. The test alienates moderate conservatives – which is about 40-60% of America depending on the poll you look at.

This proposition came on the heels of the highly publicized GOP loss in New York's 23rd district, which has been a Republican-held office since the 1800’s. Dede Scozzafava, an RNC-endorsed moderate Republican, was forced out of the race in favor of Doug Hoffman, a more conservative candidate backed by super-conservative figureheads like Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin. After Scozzafava (Don’t you love that name? I do.) dropped out of the race, the RNC shifted its endorsement to Hoffman, who lost to the Democratic candidate, Bill Owens. Fail.

James Bopp Jr., an Indiana attorney, initiated the resolution with the reasoning that "conservatives have lost trust in the Republican party." Bopp also spawned a failed proposal earlier this year that demanded that the Democratic Party rename their party the "Democrat Socialist Party". Bopp and 10 RNC co-sponsors cited Reagan in naming the resolution because the former president said that "someone who agreed with him 8 out of 10 times was his friend, not his opponent."

The 10 guidelines:
(and some commentary)

1. We support smaller government, smaller national debt, lower deficits, and lower taxes by opposing bills like Obama's "stimulus" bill. (I agree. But what about President Bush’s Economic Stimulus Act of 2008? You guys supported that “stimulus” bill.)

2. We support market-based health care reform and oppose Obama-style government run healthcare. (More of the same? ... full text of House Majority Leader John Boehner’s alternative bill: http://rulesrepublicans.house.gov/Media/PDF/RepublicanAlternative3962_9.pdf )

3. We support market-based energy reforms by opposing cap and trade legislation. (Cap and trade isn’t the way to go, but there should be SOME government effort in energy reform ... tax break incentives maybe? Reward energy companies that work on development of “green” technology...)

4. We support workers' right to secret ballot by opposing card check. (I’m with them on this one.)

5. We support legal immigration and assimilation into American society by opposing amnesty for illegal immigrants. (Should we deport them all? Raid some houses? Separate families? Let’s throw in some internment camps for good measure.)

6. We support victory in Iraq and Afghanistan by supporting military-recommended troop surges. (We’ll just keep printing money to pay for those wars, no big.)

7. We support containment of Iran and North Korea, particularly effective action to eliminate their nuclear weapons threat. (Team America, World Police)

8. We support retention of the Defense of Marriage Act. (Yes, that’s really on the list. For those of you who don’t know, that’s the Act that denies same-sex married couples the same federal rights that heterosexual marriages have.)

9. We support protecting the lives of vulnerable persons by opposing health care rationing, denial of health care, and government funding of abortion. (None of those things are even in the current health care reform bill.)

10. We support the right to keep and bear arms by opposing government restrictions on gun ownership. (I agree!)

This is why I can’t be in the Republican Party. They won’t let me in! That lists shuns a lot of people. You would think that a political party would want to be inclusive of different ideological factions in order to attain major goals. I have conservative opinions on most issues, I do, really! I would consider myself a Republican if it weren’t for two things: gay rights and religion. Even before the list, the "core" of the Republican Party had framed itself as a party exclusive to heterosexual, Christian, “patriotic” white people. There’s no place in the Republican Party for pro-gay rights Jews – even if they are conservative. It’s a sad truth, people.

Isn’t free market capitalism more important than homophobia, ethnocentrism, and talking about Ronald Reagan?

If the Republican Party wants to win back a majority – I’m talking Reagan-esque sweeping Red victories – they have to abandon the tired theocratic notions of government enforced morality, and focus on the true conservative ideology that the US has thrived on.

Shrinking government, encouraging economic competition, keeping taxes low, constitutionalism, ensuring civil rights and liberties...

Shouldn’t that be what is important to the Republican Party?

I guess not.

I’m begrudgingly sticking with the Donkey for now.

A good “Cap and Trade” definition:

http://www.generationgreen.org/cap-trade.htm

The RNC website:

http://www.rnc.org/

"You Betcha"

Really, people? Really?