Category Archives: Government

Strict Constitutionalists?

Leave a reply

One of the things I'm more than a little tired of is the taint of hypocrisy that permeates our public discourse.  The most recent example involved the reading of the Constitution in the House to kick off the first session of the 112th Congress.  I guess the Republicans wanted to make a statement in their return to the majority by reading the Constitution and implying that the Democrats, okay capital "L" liberals, had veered away from a strict adherence to the Constitution and were taking our country to hell in a hand basket by taking an interpretive approach to the document that is the bedrock of our government.

Here comes the hypocrisy: the Republicans decided to read a version of the Constitution that doesn't include some of the original language that was later amended. Check this out:

Even before the reading could begin, Rep. Jay Inslee, D-Wash., was on his feet trying to determine why the reading would not include the original language of the document. After a moment of parliamentary debate, Inslee asked Rep. Bob Goodlatte, R-Va.—who was overseeing the reading—to clarify why language was being "deleted" from the reading. Goodlatte replied that he'd consulted with the Congressional Research Service and the Library of Congress which "actually maintains a copy of the Constitution which includes those sections that have been superseded by amendment, and so we are not reading those sections that have been superseded by amendment."

Hmmm…here's the problem with that explanation:

There is only one official, canonical version of the Constitution—and most of the folks who read today, Republicans and Democrats alike, have a copy in their offices, if not their breast pockets. The suggestion that there is some other, agreed-upon, document, whose "portions [were] superseded by amendment" is simply untrue. As CBS News Capitol Hill Correspondent Bob Fuss pointed out, the "redacted" version as read this morning had no coherent logic. They skipped over the three-fifths compromise but included the constitutional clause referring to the preservation of voting rights only for males over the age of 21—a provision superseded by the 26th Amendment. They skipped the 18th Amendment (Prohibition) then read the 21st(repealing Prohibition). Andrea Stone at AOL News picked up on the fact that they "read 14 words from Article I, Section 9 about taxation. Under a strict reading of the ground rules, though, it likely should have been excised because of the later passage of the 16thAmendment that legalized the federal income tax."

Believe me, I know that this type of crap isn't unique to the Republicans, but it's an inauspicious start for leaders who want us to believe that they're going to adhere to some strict adherence to the Constitution as our Founding Fathers meant them to.  Actually that's another pet peeve: people who argue for strict adherence to the Constitution and belittle those who disagree with them as taking an "interpretative" approach as if they themselves aren't interpreting the Constitution. By definition you have to interpret the Constitution, or any other document, if you are to understand it and take action based on it, and reasonable people can always interpret something differently. This stunt by the Republican leaders of the House makes that abundantly clear.

The Argument About Religion and American Government is Nothing New

Leave a reply

Slacktivist reads The Godless Constitution: The Case Against Religious Correctness and base on his post I'm ready to read it myself.  My favorite quote from the post isn't really about his take on the book, rather it's his take on the Republicans in the house kicking off the 112th Congress by reading the entire US Constitution:

I'm a big fan of the Constitution and I'm all for reading it — publicly or privately, silently or aloud. If almost anyone else were proposing this stunt, I'd say it couldn't hurt. But I pay attention, and after years of seeing this lot disrespecting national symbols and institutions by reducing them to tribalist slogans and playground taunts I don't relish the idea of these idiots doing the same to the Constitution. I don't want to see it distorted and disrespected the way the John Birchers of the tea party movement treat the American flag, the national anthem, the names and memories of the founders and every other symbol they can usurp for use as a culture-war weapon while failing utterly to comprehend its meaning.

I'm also worried that some member of the GOP's growing Bircher contingent — Michelle Bachmann, maybe — will come away from this reading convinced that President Obama should be impeached because he only counts as three-fifths of a person.

What I'm most interested in watching for during this stunt, however, is to see if any of the more theocratically minded members of Congress notice what the Constitution does not say. Unlike these pious politicians, the Constitution never mentions God. At all.

Sadly I think he could be right to worry about Bachmann.  Every time I think she's maxed out the crazyspeak-ometer she goes out and tops herself.

Using Social Media to Brainstorm Changes for North Carolina’s Government

Leave a reply

Former Forsyth County commissioner and NC State rep Ted Kaplan is using Facebook to share ideas on how to reduce the state budget.  He's posting one suggestion a day and thus far we have:

Day 1:Increase tuition rates by 24% (at $4,400 we are the lowest in the land) and reduce the number of years to get a bachelors degree to 3. There may be some summer work. In total the tuition increase won’t cost student's more (less room and board too) but will allow for more students to get degrees.

Day 2:Today’s proposal: To consolidate the admissions offices of the University System. Each applicant sends in one application to the UNC system with a list of preferred schools. The applicant will get back a list of schools which best fits the student. This would reduce the costs for applications. There will be exceptions , athletics and scholarships. The costs of eliminating each schools admissions office and funding a new universal admissions office will save over $30 million and reduce paperwork.

He received over 40 comments on day one and already today, day two, he has five comments. If I was a state leader I'd be considering this as a method of getting some constituent feedback.

Frodo’s Ring

Leave a reply

Tom Terrell's fantastic blog post on former NC Gov. Easley's plea deal contains a fantastic reminder for anyone in public service:

But the point, nonetheless, remains.  From lowly Soil and Water Conservation District representatives to the President, men and women elevated to elected and appointed positions have fiduciary duties to the public.  They exercise and are entrusted with powers we have handed them to take care of the rest of us. This power can be used beneficially for the common good, or it can be abused for all the reasons that gave rise to Shakespeare’s many tragedies.

The problem is that political power is like Frodo’s ring. When you possess it, it consumes you in ways you don’t understand, and it works its black magic before you realize it’s happening. All we can do is to be vigilant and to keep reminding ourselves of the weakness of the human spirit and the dangers inherent in power itself.

Our faith in our own cities and counties as well as our state and nation depends upon it.

 

Mr. Otterbourg and Alcoa

4 Replies

Those of you who live in Winston-Salem may remember that we have a daily newspaper called the Winston-Salem Journal.  You may also remember that the newspaper used to employ an editor by the name of Ken Otterbourg, and that Mr. Ottberbourg left the paper a while back after having a bit of a disagreement with senior management at Media General.  When he was still with the paper I liked the fact that Mr. Otterbourg tried to take the online lead by penning a blog and I was also impressed that he was willing to take the abuse that comes with that territory.  If nothing else his blog made the paper feel a little more personal, at least to me, so I was sad to see him and his blog go.  I'm not sure what he's up to these days but I was happy to see his name pop up in my news reader as the author of this article, Alcoa and the great North Carolina power grab, in Fortune.

To power its operations, Alcoa (AA) built a series of enormous hydroelectric dams, four in all, along a 38-mile stretch of the Yadkin River as it cuts through the heart of the state. But with the smelter disassembled and the ingot room gone cold, the power is a commodity, sold into an electrical grid hungry for clean energy. Alcoa's federal license, received in 1958, has expired, and it operates the dams under an extension as it seeks relicensing for another 50 years' use of the river.

In another era Alcoa would already have its license. But North Carolina Gov. Bev Perdue and officials in Stanly County, home to three of the dams, are asking federal regulators to do what they have never done before: say no. Their message is simple. With the smelter and the local jobs and much of the tax base gone, they say Alcoa's right to the license, its right to make money from the river, has vanished. They want control of the river — and the revenue it generates — returned to the public.

Says Keith Crisco, North Carolina's secretary of commerce: "Everybody's done a good job of making this a complicated issue, but to me it's pretty basic: There's an economic asset there, and it's our job today to get the best value for the people of North Carolina."

The battle over the Alcoa dams — and it is a battle, fought on both a grand and often personal scale by armies of lawyers, lobbyists, and neighbors — is about the control of a resource. But it's also about what, if any, obligations corporations have to the places like Badin that they leave behind as their businesses change. As Stanly County's manager Andy Lucas puts it: "They're giving us the crumbs off the king's table. That's our water. It should benefit us."

Meet the President?

Leave a reply

President Obama is making his way to Forsyth Tech next Monday.  My oldest has a class (International Biz) at Forsyth Tech every M-W-F, so there's a chance he could see the President.  He asked me if it's okay if he misses a class or two at Career Center or West Forsyth if he has the chance to see the President.  In my mind meeting/seeing the President is about as good an excuse for a potentially unexcused absence as you're ever going to have so he's going to get the green light.

America’s Top 400

Leave a reply

The IRS annually produces a report that shows the tax rate for the 400 families with the highest household income and compares it to the tax rates for the other tens of millions of households.  The Clinton administration was the first to publicize the report, the Bush administration stopped the practice (surprise!) and the Obama administration has once again started to publicize them.  So what do you think happened?

The incomes of the top 400 American households soared to a new record high in dollars and as a share of all income in 2007, while the income tax rates they paid fell to a record low, newly disclosed tax data show. 

In 2007 the top 400 taxpayers had an average income of $344.8 million, up 31 percent from their average $263.3 million income in 2006, according to figures in a report that the IRS posted to its Web site without announcement that were discovered February 16. (For the report, see Tax Analysts Doc 2010-3372 .)…

Payroll taxes did not add a significant burden to the top 400, not changing the rounding of rates by even one decimal. With payroll taxes taken into account, the effective tax rate of the top 400 would be 17.2 percent in 2006 and 16.6 percent in 2007, my analysis shows — the same as not counting payroll taxes. As a point of comparison, about two-thirds of Americans pay more in Social Security, Medicare, and unemployment taxes than in federal income taxes…

Most of the income going to the top 400 tax returns is from capital. Salaries and wages accounted for only 6.5 percent of the top 400's income in 2007, down from 7.4 percent in 2006 and 26.2 percent in 1992. The average salary rose from 2006 to 2007, however, just at a slower rate than overall income growth. 

The biggest source of income was capital gains, which are taxed at a maximum rate of 15 percent. Gains accounted for 66.3 percent of 2007 income for the top 400, up from 62.8 percent in 2006 and 36.1 percent in 1992…

The report shows that the number of the top 400 who paid an effective tax rate of 0 percent to 10 percent declined slightly, to 25 in 2007 from 31 in 2006. In 1992 only 6 of the top 400 paid an effective income tax rate of less than 10 percent. 

Another 127 paid 10 percent to 15 percent in 2007, up from 113 in 2006. 

 Only 33 of the top 400 paid an effective tax rate of 30 percent to 35 percent, which is the maximum federal tax rate.  

DC Metro System Taken for a Ride

Leave a reply

Technology can be annoying.  Just ask anyone who's dealt with a Blue Screen of Death on their PC, or had to take the car to the mechanic 86 times because the wrench light won't turn off, and they'll tell you just how annoying it is.  I'm thinking that the folks running the DC Metro systems would take those problems over their own situation any day:

"The Washington, DC transit authority contracted with a proprietary company for their RFID-based fare card system,SmarTrip. Now, just six years after getting the system fully installed, the DC Metro system says that their contractor Cubic will no longer sell them the farecards, and they only have enough stockpile to last until 2012. The best solution they've got is replacing every fare box and farecard… again. Kicker: they're paying more than $3 each for bog-standard 13.56MHz RFIDs, which can be purchased singly by normal folks for $.25."

Apparently this is all coming to light because the Metro Board recently passed the largest fare hike ever and at that time promised significant discounts for SmarTrip users, but those discounts are not likely doable because the SmarTrip system can be gamed by riders and it could end up costing the system $1 million a month.  It was during the discussion of this matter that the whole "we're not making the cards anymore" situation came to light. 

Getting Emotional Over Dirt

Leave a reply

You'd think that a blog about land use and zoning law would be, well, dry.  Maybe you'd be right, but when you stop to think about it there aren't many things people get more emotional about than what happens to their stuff, and the most important "stuff" they own is their land/house.  Trust me, if you want to fill the city council chambers just propose opening a landfill in the middle of a neighborhood, or changing the zoning from residential to commercial near an existing neighborhood.

Attorney Tom Terrell writes a very good blog about land use and I really like his most recent post, Getting Emotional Over Dirt.  An excerpt:

Land use, like the political cauldrons in which land use decisions are made, does not always follow logical and linear decision-making processes.  We study the legal and logical aspects of land in our universities, but the critical decisions that affect its development and changes are propelled, more often than not, through emotional decision-making.  I’ve written and spoken about this relatively unexplored phenomenon on many occasions.  The world of litigation is full of studies on how and why juries do as juries do.  Although they probably exist, I’ve never seen similar academic studies of how and why elected officials make certain decisions on land use following presentations at public hearings.

When we do study the emotional aspects of land use, chances are the fears and anxieties are hidden behind surrogate issues and the fearful and the anxious are elevated in stature by calling them “stakeholders,” almost as if they had an equal right to the use of the land as the person who owns it.

This past Sunday New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof blogged about public decisions being made because of fears of Islam (“Is Islamophobia the New Hysteria”), much the same as actions that were taken over the decades and centuries against Catholics and Germans and Mormons and Irish and Jews and Japanese where “fear spread in part because of misinformation.” When we are scared, he reminds us, we can do unconscionable things.