Search This Blog

About this Blog

During the semester, I shall post course material and students will comment on it. Students are also free to comment on any aspect of American politics, either current or historical. There are only two major limitations: no coarse language, and no derogatory comments about people at the Claremont Colleges. This blog is on the open Internet, so post nothing that you would not want a potential employer to see. Syllabus: http://gov20h.blogspot.com/2023/08/draft-introduction-to-american-politics.html

Friday, November 30, 2007

On Elected Judges and Torts

I know this post may straddle the line on whether or not we can post about Claremont faculty, but I'm going to do it anyways. If it's inappropriate, I'll readily delete it. What can I say, I love to live on the edge.

This Forbes.com article I found over the summer (hurray for waiting for the Court topic!) about tort abuse mentions research conducted by CMC Economics Professor Eric Helland. He and his colleague come to the disturbing conclusion that elected judges do play partisan politics, despite the pledges they take to uphold the Constitution.

Tort awards are supposed to depend on how much someone is injured and whether another person is at fault. Such awards are supposed to have nothing at all to do with politics. So why are tort awards much higher in states where judges are elected?

In many states, including Alabama, Texas and West Virginia, judges run for election on partisan ballots, just like other politicians. But an elected judge faces different incentives than an appointed judge. To an elected judge, a plaintiff is a constituent. And what better form of constituent service than to take money from an out-of-state corporate defendant and give it to an in-state plaintiff?

Helland and his colleague continue. They mention a rather candid retired judge admitting to basically playing partisan politics. Here's more of the article.
In research published in the Journal of Law and Economics, Eric Helland, associate professor of economics at Claremont McKenna College, and I analyzed thousands of tort awards throughout the U.S. We found that awards against out-of-state defendants were 42% higher in states that use partisan elections to select their judges than in states that appoint judges; a $363,000 per-case increase on average.

Such awards help judges get re-elected. In a remarkably frank admission, Richard Neely, a West Virginia Supreme Court judge (now retired), explained the incentives that govern elected judges: "As long as I am allowed to redistribute wealth from out-of-state companies to injured in-state plaintiffs, I shall continue to do so. Not only is my sleep enhanced when I give someone else's money away, but so is my job security, because the in-state plaintiffs, their families and their friends will re-elect me."

Though the article doesn't mention this fact, when judges award high penalties, this price is carried by the consumers. Understandably, torts hurt confidence in markets. I'm told that comparatively few companies fight these tort abuses, presumably due to fear that by tying up the company in lawsuits, they will get negative press and so they settle.

What do you guys think? Should judges be elected? Does anyone know about other studies affecting the election of judges? Are elected judges more likely to give lengthy prison terms for child molesters, rapists, etc.?

Thursday, November 29, 2007

Youtube Republican Debate

The CNN/Youtube Republican Debate yesterday highlighted some themes that have often been mentioned throughout the course. We mentioned the flat tax in class, and one subject that came up was the national fair tax, first Huckabee mentioned it, then Uncle Sam asked a question about it. The fair tax plan is to eliminate the IRS and impose a national retail sales tax for all new goods and services. It gained a lot of support in 2005 when Neil Boortz and John Linder released The Fair Tax Book supporting the Fair Tax Act.
Federalism also came up in relation to abortion. Candidates were asked if, after Roe v. Wade were overturned, they would sign a bill banning all abortions. Giuliani and Romney were the only candidates to respond, but I'm interested in how Fred Thompson would have responded since he is both a vocal supporter of federalism and pro-life. I was disappointed in Romney for so easily abandoning federalism but meh he is a politician.
There are also suspicions that one interesting questioner was another Hillary plant, which seems odd since her husband was responsible for don't ask, don't tell.

President Huckabee?

Although the news networks have been slow to cover his surge, Mike Huckabee is making substantial gains in the national polls and has taken the lead in a recent Iowa poll by Rasmussen.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_2008__1/2008_presidential_election/iowa/republican_iowa_caucus

With a three-point lead over Mitt Romney, Huckabee may widen that gap in the next few weeks.  His populist economic views and strong opposition to abortion will play likely play well among conservatives in Iowa.

Huckabee has only recently made these gains, so little polling data is available on him in head to head races against any Democrat.  His name recognition remains relatively low, but as that number increases his share of the vote is going to have to increase dramatically for him to win the nomination.  I expect a few head to head polls involving Huckabee to come out in the next week given his recent surge.  Watch those numbers, folks.  You might just be looking at the second governor of Arkansas to serve as president during this decade.


Wednesday, November 28, 2007

Economic Policy

Here are some basic graphs on economic policy.

Here are tax rate tables for 2006. Remember that marginal tax rates are not the same as effective tax rates. The equity of the tax burden is an issue in the 2008 presidential campaign, and this document provides some relevant data.

The Alternative Minimum Tax is also a big issue for lawmakers and presidential candidates.

Regulations, which normally do not show up as budget items, also have substantial benefits and costs.

Tuesday, November 27, 2007

Who's more electable, Clinton or Obama?

So I've been following the current debate about the electability of Obama and Clinton, and have read some very disparate statistics and conclusions. Although many people believe that Obama couldn't win the general election some recent articles, particuarlly in Time (Lightning Rod:http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1682258,00.html and Obama's Iowa Surge: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1686821,00.html), have made me wonder if he isn't actually the more electable of the two; a conclusion that his recent gains in Iowa might verify.
I've always felt that the Democrats would be stupid to select Clinton as their candidate due to her polarizing nature, so maybe I'm biased. But the statistics on how she stacks up better against Guiliani in swing and red states were particuarlly striking to me. And, of course, it might all depend on how they run their campaigns and the strategies that they use, but what do you guys think?

Parents of Disabled Kids Push for Separate Classrooms

Page 1 article in today's WSJ - very relevant to yesterday's discussion.

Campbell Takes on Rangel Over Earmarks



This video is admittedly old, but it gets to the whole thing about how patronage controls everything in the House and how Members of Congress (MCs)effectively buy votes through our tax dollars.

Monday, November 26, 2007

Inside Bush's Bunker

Per our discussion of the White House and protocols, check out this Vanity Fair piece by Todd Purdum on "The Bush Bunker" - lots of cool facts about how the White House actually operates.

Sunday, November 25, 2007

Bureaucracy

The motion picture "United 93" recreates the events of 9/11 with many of the actual people who responded, including Ben Sliney, FAA Director of Operations. If you had been in Sliney's shoes -- not knowing what you know now -- could you have done anything differently?

After 9/11, Congress and the president tried to "streamline" the bureaucracy by creating the Department of Homeland Security. Here is the organization chart. What do you think of their handiwork?

Bureaucratic complexity is not just an abstract concept that interests policy wonks. It affects real people. Consider the "spaghetti chart" confronting Californians who seek social services. Also consider the case of special education services. How do you think an average parent reacts to this complexity?

Tuesday, November 20, 2007

Fred Thompson's Call for Cash

This article seemed perfect given our recent discussion on the interaction between media and politics. Fred Thompson sent out a massive e-mail asking for contributions to help air television advertisements in Iowa and South Carolina.

This hits several topics we talked about. For one, it takes us back to the Sabato readings and about the impact the internet has on campaigning. The advent of e-mail lets a politician sent out a cry for help to his or her constituents in a matter of minutes. The benefit to this is you know the people on your mailing list are interested, and will probably actually skim your e-mail rather than immediately deeming it junk mail. E-mails are also free for the most part, making it a very cost-effective option.

Of course, it also applies to our last essays, specifically the Congress in 30 Seconds prompt. Television, while the most effective medium for advertisements, is also the most expensive. Determining which outlet while give an advertiser the “most bang for their buck” is important, and is why Thompson has decided to air the ads in Iowa and South Carolina, two key early states. The article says:

However, Thompson's e-mail pitch is more straightforward than most: he asks supporters to cover the cost of an entire 30-second ad, and outlines just how much the campaign says those ads will cost in different media markets.

Because of the cost of television, Thompson needs to appeal to his supporters for funds. If he was asking me to pay for his entire commercial, I personally would want to be in it. :)

Maybe if Fred Thompson had gotten his act together sooner and actually recognized that campaigning for President of the United States takes some effort, he wouldn’t have to be so worried about coming up with money for a few commercials.

Ethics, Science, and the White House

There's been somewhat of a major development in stem cell technology which has some interesting political implications. The White House and many social conservatives have objected to the use of stem cells from embryos, but scientist are now able to create stem cells from human skin cells. The White House has hailed this development.

This article has some more information about the scientific implications of the discovery, and this one outlines the potential ethical implications.

I think that this development could potentially remove a great deal of tension surrounding the stem cell debate which played a significant role in 2006.

Thoughts?

Democrats Use Plants Like Mad! Check Out This Video!

Huckabee's plan to secure the border? "Two words: Chuck Norris."

Presidential candidate Mike Huckabee launched his first ad on Sunday, watch it here:




“We want to show that running for president is serious business. But a person ought to have fun doing it,” Huckabee said.

However, Huckabee has been criticized for making his first ad humorous. Good point--after watching the ad (and laughing) I am less inclined to take him seriously. However, it's probably the only political ad I will forward to friends, and it's bound to be popular among the YouTube crowd. We'll see if the trade-off of professionalism for such a wide distribution is worth it...

Monday, November 19, 2007

John McCain Answers Question of Constituent



We've talked a lot about the different sides of John McCain.
This is my personal John McCain.

Kean endorses McCain

Following up on our discussion of John McCain today, I thought this would be pertinent. Today, the New York Times reported that former New Jersey Governor Thomas Kean, who also served as the co-chairman of the 9/11 commission, officially endorsed McCain for the presidential race.

Kean supported his decision by saying, “John McCain understands the nature of the terrorist threats that continue to confront us all. Senator McCain has been in the forefront of every effort that has been taken in the aftermath of September 11 to enhance the security of the American people.”

The article points out that the endorsement also shows Kean’s disapproval of Rudy Giuliani, who had tried to get Kean to endorse him earlier. Considering Kean hasn’t endorsed a candidate for 20 years and he turned down Giuliani, who was mayor of New York during the 9/11 attacks, his decision is rather interesting. Part of Giuliani’s campaign has centered about his efforts against terrorism, yet he was unable to garner Kean’s support.

This follows on Pat Robertson’s surprising endorsement of Giuliani. Future candidate endorsements should be interesting.

Sunday, November 18, 2007

For me, it was Dennis Kucinich.

KillerStartups.com reviews startup websites of all genres, trying to find "the next big thing".

Number one on their "Top Ten" picks, with 197 votes, is GlassBooth.org which takes a small survey and then indicates which presidential candidate you best align with.

I highly suggest taking it and seeing not only who you align with, but how much you align with "the other side". A very worthwhile five minutes spent.

Wired Magazine on Tom Coburn's Decision to Put a Hold on GINA

This Wired.com article (yes, I know I'm a geek) echoes what Professor Pitney was saying in class -- that you effectively need 60 votes to pass anything in the Senate and the power interest groups (or causes, depending how you look at it) can have on a senator's stances. Witness Tom Coburn (R-Oklahoma) who is singlehandedly stopping Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA) because of his concern for its adverse effects on businesses.

This action effectively puts the kibosh on the burgeoning DNA sequencing companies, the kind of which Professor Pitney frequented when he got his DNA sequenced.

The bill also ties into federalism in that by not providing a federal solution to the issue of genetic discrimination several state governments have stepped in.

Now Sen. Coburn, acting perhaps out of principle, perhaps out of concern for his constituents, would certainly not score points in Fantasy Congress. ;) According to George Will, he just doesn't do earmarks.

As a fellow pro-lifer, Sen. Coburn has long been a hero of mine. Here's a quotation of his that really resonates with me and reiterates some of the things we've discussed in class.
"Our founding fathers never envisioned a situation in which people would make a career of elective politics. They viewed public office as a temporary sacrifice....More and more we are represented in Congress by politicians who do not live in our communities, who do not share our values, who do not understand our problems, and who do not respond to our needs and wishes. They are a privileged political elite who justify their existence by spending our money, raising our taxes, and regulating our lives. They vote themselves huge salaries, hire large staffs who spend much of their time engaged in activities designed to re-elect their employers, and send us thinly disguised campaign mail at our own expense to convince us of our need to retain them in office." --Tom Coburn, at his announcement to run for Oklahoma House district in 1994, (Breach of Trust, 2003, 9).

CMC Professor Charles Lofgren on the Question of Constitutionality of War Powers

I came across this bit from Professor Charles Lofgren when I was combing through the National Review Online. Enjoy!

Charles Lofgren of Claremont McKenna College remarked nearly 40 years ago in a classic article titled "Mr. Truman's War":

Because the Truman Administration did not seriously maintain that the various resolutions of the [U.N.] Security Council provided a substitute for a congressional declaration of war, the issue in the debate over the legality of the Korean intervention was whether the President had properly exercised his powers as Commander-in-Chief.

Lofgren concluded with some wisdom that is conspicuously lacking in the "Constitution Project," Representative Jones, and George Will:

Both sides in the Korean debate conceded that the President could act, without Congress, to counter an immediate, dangerous threat to American interests and security. Thus the real issue became (and remains): What constitutes such a threat? To answer that question takes one beyond the province of constitutional law.

Saturday, November 17, 2007

Presidency

[Note: sorry for the earlier premature posting of the Dec 3 material: h/t to Jacinth for catching the error.]

We shall start by looking at two faces of John McCain as a member of Congress. Then we segue to our discussion of the presidency by looking at his biographical video. What image is he trying to project -- and how does it differ from the "home style" and "Hill Style" of a lawmaker?

Read Tocqueville's reflections on presidential power, esp. pp. 125-126. How do they relate to the current status of the presidency? In early 1961, Ike gave his Farewell Address, famously warning of the military-industrial complex. Days later, the torch passed to JFK, who took a distinctly militant tone in the Cold War.

(His successor, Lyndon Johnson, had an earthy way of expressing himself.)

Look here for a list of White House offices. All presidents worry about staff leaks. LBJ did. Even the Bartlet White House did. So do we have "plurality in the Executive"?

Senate Politics

Since we've been talking about the workings of Congress, I thought this article might be interesting. Harry Reid is threatening to keep Congress in session over the Thanksgiving recess in order to prevent President Bush from making certain recess appointments.

As well, a recent Robert Novak column (you have to scroll down a little bit) pointed out that since Sen. Dodd has been on the campaign trail appointments have been piling up before the Banking Committee he chairs.

Both stories shed a bit more light on a few of the issues related to senate confirmation.

Your thoughts?

Friday, November 16, 2007

Jonah Goldberg on IPod Democracy

The idea that we need more voters and that somehow these voters would all vote Democrat isn't born out by the facts, argues Jonah Goldberg in today's National Review.

Check it out here.

Thursday, November 15, 2007

Chemerinsky Flip Flops on the Senate Filibuster

Hopefully I'll get the chance to go after him about this on Monday, but here's Erwin Chemerinsky switching his views on the filibuster. How partisan!

Chemerinsky's Changed Tune on Filibusters (Courtesy of the Volokh Conspiracy)
In yesterday's L.A. Times, law professors Erwin Chemerinsky (Duke) and Michael Gerhardt (William & Mary) argue against Republican proposals to eliminate the availability of filibusters for judicial nominations. This so-called "nuclear option," Chemerinsky and Gerhardt write, would be "a cynical exercise of raw power and not based on constitutional principle or precedent." Elimination of the filibuster "would transform the Senate into a rubber stamp." That's what Chemerinsky says now. But in 1997 -- when there was a Democratic President who found some of his nominees slowed by a Republican Senate -- Chemerinsky sang a different tune. As Patrick Frey documents here, Chemerinsky co-authored a 1997 law review article taking a quite different stance.

The modern filibuster . . . has little to do with deliberation and even less to do with debate. The modern filibuster is simply a minority veto, and a powerful one at that. It is not part of a long Senate tradition and history alone cannot justify it.

Indeed, in 1997 Chemerinsky appeared to endorse the view that Senate Rule XXII, which purports to require a two-thirds vote to change the filibuster requirement, is unconstitutional.

Tuesday, November 13, 2007

Speechwriters on Policy

I wrote Paper 3 on the role of speechwriters on policy. I posted my paper on my blog. Intro graf:
This paper will briefly explore the role of speechwriting on policy by examining the creation of three important phrases in American presidential history: Ronald Reagan's "evil empire" remark in 1983, Ronald Reagan's "tear down this wall" remark in 1987, and George W. Bush's "evil axis" remark in 2002. I will argue that in these high profile cases the influence between policy experts and speechwriters was bi-directional, with speechwriters creating policy (or a presidential attitude) as much as interpreting and verbalizing it.

House Members and Senators


We have done the online exercise on flag-burning. Here is a real-life measure.
If you want to know a member of Congress, you better know a district. (See if your home member appeared.) Why did Rahm Emanuel, chair of the Democratic Caucus, tell first-term members to avoid Colbert? What does his advice tell us about the merging of news and entertainment?

Members nowadays reach constituents through the web. See the homepages of Representatives Lois Capps (D-CA), David Dreier (R-CA), and Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY), Look at various constituent services. How do they help members win reelection?

In addition to helping individual constituents, senators and House members steer projects to their constituencies. See CNN report on an "earmark." See here for a map of some earmarks.

And just to follow up on Ben's post, I found The Best Taiwanese Parliament Fights of All Time.

Monday, November 12, 2007

Taiwan Parliment Brawl


From an old post on my personal blog, here's a pic of Taiwan parliment in action. And you thought US congress was rough and tough?!

Unfortunately the MSNBC link no longer works, but here's a passage from it:
Scores of Taiwan legislators sprayed water, threw stacks of paper and exchanged punches in parliament on Tuesday due to disagreements over a bill, again delaying passage of the long-overdue 2007 annual budget.

Sunday, November 11, 2007

An Interesting Series of Commentaries

In this week's reading Tocqueville comments on mediocre legislators issuing uneducated, mediocre harangues in office. This struck me as particularly interesting because in our last essay I wrote about Roman L. Hruska, a past senator from Nebraska (go Cornhuskers! what a fabulous team name) who, in attempt to get Harold Carswell approved to the Supreme Court, said this:

"It has been held against this nominee that he is mediocre," he told the Senate chamber. "Even if he is mediocre, there are a lot of mediocre judges and people and lawyers. They are entitled to a little representation, aren't they? And a little chance? We can't have all Brandeises, Cardozos and Frankfurters and stuff like that there."

Well, Carswell was not approved. And recent critics have argued that today's government is representative of Hruskra's theory on mediocrity--that is, today's government is full of mediocre politicians.

Hope you enjoyed the fun fact. Oh, and if anyone runs for office, please assert your non-mediocrity... or call out the mediocrity of other politicians. Keeping the country's government staffed by intellectuals and entrepreneurs seems like a moral obligation to me.

Saturday, November 10, 2007

Congress

This week, we discuss Congress. On Monday, we shall look at Congress as an institution, then move to the behavior of individual members.

Review the standing of your Fantasy Congress team. What accounts for your players' performance?

From last week's selections, reread Tocqueville's comparison of the House and Senate (pp. 200-201). And look at this week's selection (on congressional debate). Do his observations still apply?

Over the summer, there was a partisan fight over a contested floor vote in the House. Read about it here. And see it here. This fight obviously reflected the partisan polarization that we have discussed. As we shall see in class, however, this incident has precedents going back twenty years, under both Democratic and Republican control. What does such conflict say about party power in the House of Representatives?

As for Charlie's questions:

1. It is a good question, but hard to answer. They almost never read the bills in the first place.
2. An early source is Bauer, Pool, and Dexter, American Business and Public Policy (1963).
3. It is legal because Congress has not banned the practice -- and probably could not. Suggesting legislative language enjoys the protection of the First Amendment.

Questions on the Congress reading

Assuming there were a way to measure how divided ideologically a Congress is, does that division go down or up when congressmen read the bills?

Prof. Pitney and Prof. Bessette argue that there is a weak link between interest groups and floor votes. Which scholars have said that first?

I've read elsewhere that interest groups tend to draft all of some bills. How is that legal? How does that relate to the Congress chapter?

Wednesday, November 7, 2007

Campaigning

See here for various visual depictions of Red and Blue America in 2004. And look here for what may happen in 2008.

Incumbents tend to win reelection, as these graphs show vividly.

The economy has a huge impact. Economist Ray Fair, among others, has devised a formula for predicting elections. You may plug in your own assumptions to test various scenarios.

For historical campaign ads, see here and here.

See Mike's post (below) for ads in the 2006 Maryland Senate race.

See here for an independent expenditure ad by a 527 group.

Thanks for Your Comments

Thanks so much for your comments and suggestions. While I cannot respond to all of them here, let me offer a few reactions.
  • Several asked about the final exam. I will hand out a practice final, similar to the air midterm. Feel free to organize your own study guide. (I do not grade on a curve, so you do not lose out by cooperating.) Though a bit out of date, Andrew Lee's "Beating Professor Pitney" is still helpful.
  • I shall talk more about the readings, especially Tocqueville, Publius, and Alinsky. You can help me here by posing specific questions, either in class, through an email, or on the blog. I will be happy to respond on the blog if appropriate. That is especially true if I tell you that I shall return to a question in class, and then forget to do so. Remind me when I do that -- I am old!
  • More generally, several said that the blog could be better. So keep posts short and relevant to what we are discussing in class at the time. Rather than post the entire text of articles, use links. (See here for a guide on how to do it.)

Monday, November 5, 2007

Democrats Eat More Sushi?

So we know that race, nationality, and other factors can be used in gerrymandering. What about number of sushi restaurants?

Not surprising to me... it would be interesting to see what other unrelated lifestyle differences correlate to party preferences. For example, I'm sure map makers could predict voting trends using data on number of Starbucks cafes and Walmart stores in a district.

Side note: There are hundreds of Starbucks in New York City, but not one Walmart. I'm a Walmart fan though. We have a K-Mart under Astor Place, I think. I like my sushi, but I don't drink coffee. I bet Starbucks could get away with selling sushi in those cute display cases. Maybe next to Clinton '08 stickers. I'd buy the sushi, at least. Nothing too fancy, just some california rolls. Bundle it with Starbucks Green Tea and bam. So money.

Interesting Ads in Maryland Senate Race

The reading in The Sixth Year Itch briefly mentioned the Maryland Senate race, but the advertisements in the race were really interesting and worth looking at. Briefly put, the race was for an open Democratic seat and put Congressman Ben Cardin, the Democrat, against Lieutenant Governor Michael Steele, the Republican. Throughout the campaign Cardin was portrayed as a do nothing boring Congressman while Steele was portrayed as someone who could bring change to Washington because he was different and above partisanship (yes, I admit, I worked for the Steele campaign). Steele began the campaign with his change video, which seemed much more relaxed and conversational compared to normal campaign videos. He then released his puppy ads, which some thought were amusing and others thought were just silly. Steele later released his taking out the trash ad where he harshly criticized Cardin, and for the first time began focusing on Cardin’s negatives compared to Steele’s positives. Steele’s ads look very different compared with Cardin’s. Cardin’s appear typical and boring. Sure, he discusses issues but his ads look like every other Senate ad in the country. The DSCC also got involved and did some of Cardin’s most negative ads. Cardin also emphasized the Bush element. Almost every time you turned on the TV in the DC area you would see an ad with Bush and Steele together; many believe these pictures of Steele and the President cost Steele the election. Towards the end of the campaign the Michael J. Fox ads became important and Steele fought back with personal ads. In the end Steele lost (by a decent margin) because Democratic Maryland wanted another Democratic Senator. However, the election was very interesting. Unlike many places where intense elections were happening and people were sick of seeing campaign ads, in Maryland it was amusing because the ads were constantly changing, and Steele tried to make his ads less boring and more humorous.

The Mechanics of Elections

When you discuss voter participation, be careful to distinguish turnout as a percentage of
  • Registered voters,
  • Voting-age population (VAP), and
  • Voter-eligible population (VEP).

VAP on includes many people who cannot legally vote, such as aliens and felons. (See here for felon disenfranchisement laws.) One can argue that VEP gives a more accurate picture of participation. See graph of 1944-2004 and a 2006 data table. The Census Bureau has very comprehensive data on the demographics of turnout.

As for the ballots themselves, see this recent news story.

The Rose Institute has its own redistricting Hall of Shame. You have already made your own additions by using The Redistricting Game.

You may work out alternative electoral college scenarios at this site.

Sunday, November 4, 2007

I have a question for the better educated...

Well, better educated than I am anyway.

So I am reading our Tocqueville text and the section "Influence of American Democracy Upon Electoral Laws" (pg. 202 in my edition, ed. Mayer, Perennial Classics) discusses how the mutability of our laws is the greatest downfall of our government. Earlier this year, I mentioned my frustration with the growing amount of statutes and our government's inability to streamline and maintain efficiency.

Now, Thomas Jefferson wrote on December 20, 1787 in a letter to Madison that "a twelve-month between engrossing a bill and passing it" should be necessary in order to avoid the evil which is "the instability of our laws".



Has there been any legislation to attempt to do something similar to this? Why not?
Would a bill proposing this year-long waiting period be immediately shot down because legislators could not get quick pork for their home states, should this sort of proposal be pushed exactly for this reason?

Thoughts please!

A happy result for Mr. Huntington

This article is over a week old, but it is still relevant. On October 26th, the New York Times ran an article"Mexicans Miss Money From Relatives Up North." The article talks about how the flow of remittances to family members in Mexico is starting to stagnate. It also mentions that various rhetoric and enforcement campaigns against illegal immigrants has made many Mexicans decided that the risk of coming to the United States for jobs is too high. Part of this is the result of the end of the housing boom: there are now less construction jobs that made up a huge portion of where illegal immigrants were employed.

I think one of the more interesting things about the article though, is that it mentions it is becoming more difficult for Mexicans who were counting on remittances to start businesses in Mexico. The net effect is that illegal immigrants' trouble getting jobs in the United States is making it harder for Mexico to build a strong domestic economy and thus is forcing more people to seek jobs in the United States.


Article is here: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/26/business/worldbusiness/26remit.html?hp=&pagewanted=all