Tonight's DOT public hearing on ferry tolls is the second such public hearing in Pamlico County.
We almost didn't have any.
Until Town Dock intervened.
Melinda Penkava, who can be very insistent, called DOT to get an explanation as to why DOT was holding no public hearing in the county most directly affected.
"There's no place in Pamlico County large enough for a crowd of 200," she was told. "Oh, yes, there is," she replied.
So DOT, whose planners developed Pamlico County's Comprehensive Transportation Plan, including addressing public transportation requirements associated with Pamlico County Community College, apparently knew nothing about the college's Delamar Center.
What else don't they know about Pamlico County?
Thank Goodness for Melinda Penkava.
Showing posts with label democracy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label democracy. Show all posts
Tuesday, March 20, 2012
Monday, March 19, 2012
Is It Enough To Follow The Money?
A few days ago, I suggested that following the money is a good way to determine what is really going on in the political process. The key question, I suggested is "who benefits and who pays?"
Yesterday's New York Times offered a different analysis. In his article, "Forget The Money, Follow The Sacredness," Jonathan Haidt offers an alternate explanation of the American political process. He explains politics as a "competition among coalitions of tribes."
"The key to understanding tribal behavior," Haidt explains, "is not money, it’s sacredness. The great trick that humans developed at some point in the last few hundred thousand years is the ability to circle around a tree, rock, ancestor, flag, book or god, and then treat that thing as sacred. People who worship the same idol can trust one another, work as a team and prevail over less cohesive groups. So if you want to understand politics, and especially our divisive culture wars, you must follow the sacredness."
I don't deny that Haidt has a good point regarding voter behavior. On the other hand, how does it come about that a particular person, place or thing becomes viewed as sacred?
Sacred things don't necessarily become that way by growing organically from grass roots. The idea of sacredness is usually planted, watered, fertilized and nurtured by forces with a lot of money and power.
The mechanics of how this is done are examined in today's New York Times in an opinion piece, "The Uses Of Polarization."
The central question seems to be whether our admittedly flawed political process can be improved. I am reminded of Winston Churchill's observation that Democracy is the "worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time."
So what is to be done?
Once again Churchill has a suggestion: "What is the use of living, if it be not to strive for noble causes and to make this muddled world a better place for those who will live in it after we are gone?"
Yesterday's New York Times offered a different analysis. In his article, "Forget The Money, Follow The Sacredness," Jonathan Haidt offers an alternate explanation of the American political process. He explains politics as a "competition among coalitions of tribes."
"The key to understanding tribal behavior," Haidt explains, "is not money, it’s sacredness. The great trick that humans developed at some point in the last few hundred thousand years is the ability to circle around a tree, rock, ancestor, flag, book or god, and then treat that thing as sacred. People who worship the same idol can trust one another, work as a team and prevail over less cohesive groups. So if you want to understand politics, and especially our divisive culture wars, you must follow the sacredness."
I don't deny that Haidt has a good point regarding voter behavior. On the other hand, how does it come about that a particular person, place or thing becomes viewed as sacred?
Sacred things don't necessarily become that way by growing organically from grass roots. The idea of sacredness is usually planted, watered, fertilized and nurtured by forces with a lot of money and power.
The mechanics of how this is done are examined in today's New York Times in an opinion piece, "The Uses Of Polarization."
The central question seems to be whether our admittedly flawed political process can be improved. I am reminded of Winston Churchill's observation that Democracy is the "worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time."
So what is to be done?
Once again Churchill has a suggestion: "What is the use of living, if it be not to strive for noble causes and to make this muddled world a better place for those who will live in it after we are gone?"
Tuesday, March 13, 2012
Public Morality
It seems like every even year, we have a flurry of political rhetoric about SEX. For many, it seems that morality = SEX and associated discontents.
There is a different view: public morality has to do with questions of who benefits and who pays. Government's principal activity is to make the rules that control economic outcomes. Members of the public who believe the deck is being stacked against them should see this as the moral issue of our day.
There are those who spend a lot of time thinking and analyzing such issues. Foremost among them is Robert Reich.
I commend to your attention his latest article, "The Difference Between Public And Private Morality."
The heart of his argument: "There is moral rot in America but it’s not found in the private behavior of ordinary people. It’s located in the public behavior of people who control our economy and are turning our democracy into a financial slush pump. It’s found in Wall Street fraud, exorbitant pay of top executives, financial conflicts of interest, insider trading, and the outright bribery of public officials through unlimited campaign 'donations.'"
That hits the nail on the head.
There is a different view: public morality has to do with questions of who benefits and who pays. Government's principal activity is to make the rules that control economic outcomes. Members of the public who believe the deck is being stacked against them should see this as the moral issue of our day.
There are those who spend a lot of time thinking and analyzing such issues. Foremost among them is Robert Reich.
I commend to your attention his latest article, "The Difference Between Public And Private Morality."
The heart of his argument: "There is moral rot in America but it’s not found in the private behavior of ordinary people. It’s located in the public behavior of people who control our economy and are turning our democracy into a financial slush pump. It’s found in Wall Street fraud, exorbitant pay of top executives, financial conflicts of interest, insider trading, and the outright bribery of public officials through unlimited campaign 'donations.'"
That hits the nail on the head.
Monday, March 12, 2012
White Man's Burden II?
I spent my adult life in defense of democracy. Not because our own democracy is perfect, but because it has the chance of standing up to various forms of authoritarianism and despotism. I was not an anticommunist crusader. I did support the late George Frost Kennan's approach of defending American interests by containing Soviet power.
At the same time, I agreed with the late Marshall Shulman's view of the Soviet-American conflict as a "limited adversary relationship," not an apocalyptic one.
Through all of the Cold War period, I never thought the United States had an obligation to establish democratic regimes in other countries. Not our job. Beyond our power.
My entire life has been spent against a backdrop of war and rumors of war. But the most important efforts in defense of democracy have been right here in the USA.
Authoritarianism and despotism continually lurk in the wings. And they have deep pockets.
The overwhelming question was raised by Abraham Lincoln: can a nation "of the people, by the people and for the people" long endure. The "existential threat" so frequently mentioned by the G.W. Bush administration, comes not from abroad, but just as in 1861, it comes from ourselves.
These thoughts are pondered in the somber light of the actions by an American sergeant in Afghanistan. That sergeant's systematic murder of sixteen Afghan citizens in their beds for no apparent reason highlights the tensions between our servicemen and local residents in Afghanistan.
Here, in an article by David Rieff, is one of the most thoughtful and thought-provoking examinations of our proper role in the world I have seen recently. It's worth reading and pondering.
Maybe it's time to bring our forces home.
At the same time, I agreed with the late Marshall Shulman's view of the Soviet-American conflict as a "limited adversary relationship," not an apocalyptic one.
Through all of the Cold War period, I never thought the United States had an obligation to establish democratic regimes in other countries. Not our job. Beyond our power.
My entire life has been spent against a backdrop of war and rumors of war. But the most important efforts in defense of democracy have been right here in the USA.
Authoritarianism and despotism continually lurk in the wings. And they have deep pockets.
The overwhelming question was raised by Abraham Lincoln: can a nation "of the people, by the people and for the people" long endure. The "existential threat" so frequently mentioned by the G.W. Bush administration, comes not from abroad, but just as in 1861, it comes from ourselves.
These thoughts are pondered in the somber light of the actions by an American sergeant in Afghanistan. That sergeant's systematic murder of sixteen Afghan citizens in their beds for no apparent reason highlights the tensions between our servicemen and local residents in Afghanistan.
Here, in an article by David Rieff, is one of the most thoughtful and thought-provoking examinations of our proper role in the world I have seen recently. It's worth reading and pondering.
Maybe it's time to bring our forces home.
Monday, February 27, 2012
House Bill 200
Last week, the County Commissioners not only failed to adopt a measure to hire a lobbyist, they also failed to pass a measure authorizing the County Attorney to research issues surrounding a possible law suit by the county seeking injunctive or other relief from the tolls. The attorney explained that he would have to research a number of issues, including whether the county government has standing to bring a suit or whether only a citizen or taxpayer has standing. He would have to research court precedents for case law on point, including a review of North Carolina constitutional law.
This morning's session did not reexamine the issue of going to court.
Is a suit worth pursuing? Would there be a chance of success in a court, especially since a suit would have to be filed in Wake County Superior Court rather than in Pamlico County? I don't have a clue. But in addition to the provision of North Carolina General Statutes that appear to prevent turning a previously toll-free highway into a toll road, there are some constitutional provisions that seem at odds with H200:
I won't post the entire bill of 343 pages. But it is interesting to look at the pertinent provisions.
First, what was the bill about? Here is the stated purpose:
This morning's session did not reexamine the issue of going to court.
Is a suit worth pursuing? Would there be a chance of success in a court, especially since a suit would have to be filed in Wake County Superior Court rather than in Pamlico County? I don't have a clue. But in addition to the provision of North Carolina General Statutes that appear to prevent turning a previously toll-free highway into a toll road, there are some constitutional provisions that seem at odds with H200:
I won't post the entire bill of 343 pages. But it is interesting to look at the pertinent provisions.
First, what was the bill about? Here is the stated purpose:
"GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF NORTH CAROLINA
SESSION
2011
SESSION
LAW 2011-145
HOUSE
BILL 200
AN ACT to
Spur the creation of private sector jobs; reorganize and reform state
government; make base budget appropriations for current operations of state
departments and institutions; and to enact budget related amendments.
The General Assembly of North Carolina enacts:
PART I. Introduction and Title of Act
SECTION 1.1. This act shall be known as the
"Current Operations and Capital Improvements Appropriations Act of
2011."
SECTION 1.2. The appropriations made in this act
are for maximum amounts necessary to provide the services and accomplish the
purposes described in the budget. Savings shall be effected where the total
amounts appropriated are not required to perform these services and accomplish
these purposes and, except as allowed by the State Budget Act, or this act, the
savings shall revert to the appropriate fund at the end of each fiscal year."
In other words, it was presented as an appropriations bill. But here are the ferry provisions:
"Transportation/Ferry
Division Tolling
SECTION 31.30.(a) Effective April 1, 2012,
G.S. 136‑82 reads as rewritten:
"§ 136‑82.
Department of Transportation to establish and maintain ferries.
The Department of Transportation is vested with authority to
provide for the establishment and maintenance of ferries connecting the parts
of the State highway system, whenever in its discretion the public good may so
require, and to prescribe and collect such tolls therefor as may, in the
discretion of the Department of Transportation, be expedient. The Board of
Transportation shall establish tolls for all ferry routes, except for the Ocracoke/Hatteras
Ferry and the Knotts Island Ferry.
To accomplish the purpose of this section said Department of
Transportation is authorized to acquire, own, lease, charter or otherwise
control all necessary vessels, boats, terminals or other facilities required
for the proper operation of such ferries or to enter into contracts with
persons, firms or corporations for the operation thereof and to pay therefor
such reasonable sums as may in the opinion of said Department of Transportation
represent the fair value of the public service rendered.
The Department of Transportation, notwithstanding any other
provision of law, may operate, or contract for the operation of, concessions on
the ferries and at ferry facilities to provide to passengers on the ferries
food, drink, and other refreshments, personal comfort items, and souvenirs
publicizing the ferry system."
SECTION 31.30.(b) The Board of Transportation
shall toll all ferry routes no later than the effective date of subsection (a)
of this section but is encouraged to begin tolling on all routes before that
date. In establishing tolls for ferry routes under G.S. 136‑82, as
amended by this section, the Board of Transportation shall consider the needs
of commuters and other frequent passengers."
The establishment of tolls for previously toll-free segments of the state highway system is arguably not an appropriations measure, but a revenue bill.
Because the effect of the measure on citizens affects Craven, Pamlico, and Beaufort Counties, it is also arguably a local bill.
Here is what the NC Constitution has to say about revenue bills and local bills:
"ARTICLE II
LEGISLATIVE
"Sec. 23. Revenue bills.
No law shall be enacted to raise money on the credit of the
State, or to pledge the faith of the State directly or indirectly for the
payment of any debt, or to impose any tax upon the people of the State, or to
allow the counties, cities, or towns to do so, unless the bill for the purpose
shall have been read three several times in each house of the General Assembly
and passed three several readings, which readings shall have been on three
different days, and shall have been agreed to by each house respectively, and
unless the yeas and nays on the second and third readings of the bill shall
have been entered on the journal.
"Sec. 24. Limitations on local, private, and special
legislation.
(1) Prohibited subjects. The General Assembly shall
not enact any local, private, or special act or resolution:
(a) Relating to health, sanitation, and the abatement
of nuisances;
(b) Changing the names of cities, towns, and townships;
(c) Authorizing the laying out, opening, altering,
maintaining, or discontinuing of highways, streets, or alleys;
(d) Relating to ferries or bridges;
(e) Relating to non-navigable streams;
(f) Relating to cemeteries;
(g) Relating to the pay of jurors;
(h) Erecting new townships, or changing township lines,
or establishing or changing the lines of school districts;
(i) Remitting fines, penalties, and forfeitures, or
refunding moneys legally paid into the public treasury;
(j) Regulating labor, trade, mining, or manufacturing;
(k) Extending the time for the levy or collection of
taxes or otherwise relieving any collector of taxes from the due performance of
his official duties or his sureties from liability;
(l) Giving effect to informal wills and deeds;
(m) Granting a divorce or securing alimony in any
individual case;
(n) Altering the name of any person, or legitimating
any person not born in lawful wedlock, or restoring to the rights of
citizenship any person convicted of a felony.
(2) Repeals. Nor shall the General Assembly enact any
such local, private, or special act by the partial repeal of a general law; but
the General Assembly may at any time repeal local, private, or special laws
enacted by it.
(3) Prohibited acts void. Any local, private, or
special act or resolution enacted in violation of the provisions of this
Section shall be void.
(4) General laws. The General Assembly may enact
general laws regulating the matters set out in this Section."
As to form, it may be argued that H200 is a general law. As to the substantive effect of the ferry provisions, though, it is arguably a local bill.
The provision requiring tolls for segments of the state highway is certainly a revenue provision, not an appropriation provision, and therefore improperly included in H200.
Fodder for attorneys?
Fodder for attorneys?
Pamlico County Ferry Lobbyist
This morning at a brief 9 o'clock meeting, Pamlico County commissioners voted 4-3 to hire an experienced local lobbyist to undo the Republican legislature's measure establishing tolls on our two commuter ferries. Both ferries are shown in DOT transportation system maps as segments of state highway 306. The tolls, possibly as high as $7 per one-way trip across the Neuse, will be a heavy burden on workers who commute to and from Havelock.
The three commissioners who voted against hiring a lobbyist expressed doubt that the measure will succeed, and frustration that it wasn't attempted by our elected legislators. Commissioner Ollison expressed the view that the tolls are "a done deal."
My view: there is a risk of failure, but the consequences of the tolls on the county's economy are substantial.
In a democracy, there are no permanent "done deals."
The three commissioners who voted against hiring a lobbyist expressed doubt that the measure will succeed, and frustration that it wasn't attempted by our elected legislators. Commissioner Ollison expressed the view that the tolls are "a done deal."
My view: there is a risk of failure, but the consequences of the tolls on the county's economy are substantial.
In a democracy, there are no permanent "done deals."
Thursday, February 23, 2012
This Is The Way We Starve The Beast - One Bite At A Time
Today's commuter ferry tax story fits in with a theme I wrote about almost exactly a year ago here. This latest move is just more evidence that the ferry issue isn't about budgets. It's about services to citizens.
Tuesday, February 21, 2012
New Web Site In The County
The furor over over the legislature's decision to impose a commuter tax on Pamlico County continues to grow. County citizens determined to make sure this is not yet a "done deal" have started a new web site, tollfreeferry.org, with up to date information on the facts and the controversy.
Make sure to check it out.
Sign a petition.
Sign up for a bus trip to Raleigh.
Stay up to date by following towndock.net as well. Check out the letters. They keep coming in.
Just learned from Town Dock that the County Commissioners will reexamine last night's tie votes at a special meeting Monday, February 27 at 9:00 am.
Make sure to check it out.
Sign a petition.
Sign up for a bus trip to Raleigh.
Stay up to date by following towndock.net as well. Check out the letters. They keep coming in.
Just learned from Town Dock that the County Commissioners will reexamine last night's tie votes at a special meeting Monday, February 27 at 9:00 am.
All Politics Is Local - Pamlico County Version
Last night's meeting (Feb. 20) of the Pamlico County Commissioners failed to adopt a measure to join adjoining counties in hiring a lobbyist to work the state legislature for repeal of the Ferry toll. The vote was a tie - three commissioners for (Mele, Heath and Delamar) and three opposed (Spain, Brinson and Ollison). Commissioner Holton was absent for only the third time in the past ten years.
The commission also failed to adopt a motion to allow the County Attorney to expend up to $5,000 to research legal issues connected with a possible law suit, including the issue of whether the county has standing to file such a suit. That motion failed by the same vote.
How could that happen? One reason may be that residents of the three districts represented by Mr. Spain, Mr. Brinson and Mr. Ollison don't believe that they are affected by the tolls. I believe no one from those three districts spoke out against the tolls at last week's public hearings.
Representation in this country has always been based on geography. That is, representatives were supposed to represent the interests of the constituents in their own districts, not necessarily the population at large. This has been true from as early as 1750, when the phrase "no taxation without representation" was first used. The Parliament contended that they provided "virtual representation" to all subjects of the crown, wherever they lived. Americans rejected that view. We still do.
So don't expect members of any elected body to represent the general welfare of the entire municipality, county, state or nation instead of the welfare of the district from which they were elected. It isn't in our genes.
Political Scholar Richard Neustadt made the point decades ago (during the Kennedy administration) that the challenge of alliance diplomacy was to convince enough people and the right people on the other side that what we want to accomplish is what is also in their interest. It seems to me this principle applies to all politics and diplomacy if anything is ever to be accomplished.
The commission also failed to adopt a motion to allow the County Attorney to expend up to $5,000 to research legal issues connected with a possible law suit, including the issue of whether the county has standing to file such a suit. That motion failed by the same vote.
How could that happen? One reason may be that residents of the three districts represented by Mr. Spain, Mr. Brinson and Mr. Ollison don't believe that they are affected by the tolls. I believe no one from those three districts spoke out against the tolls at last week's public hearings.
Representation in this country has always been based on geography. That is, representatives were supposed to represent the interests of the constituents in their own districts, not necessarily the population at large. This has been true from as early as 1750, when the phrase "no taxation without representation" was first used. The Parliament contended that they provided "virtual representation" to all subjects of the crown, wherever they lived. Americans rejected that view. We still do.
So don't expect members of any elected body to represent the general welfare of the entire municipality, county, state or nation instead of the welfare of the district from which they were elected. It isn't in our genes.
Political Scholar Richard Neustadt made the point decades ago (during the Kennedy administration) that the challenge of alliance diplomacy was to convince enough people and the right people on the other side that what we want to accomplish is what is also in their interest. It seems to me this principle applies to all politics and diplomacy if anything is ever to be accomplished.
Monday, February 20, 2012
On Making Various Kinds Of Sausage
Tonight's meeting of the Pamlico County Board of Commissioners offered a number of examples of the hazards of sausage-making. When combined with the revelations made during last week's public hearing on ferry tolls by NCDOT, it provides the raw material for a text book on American Politics at the state, county and local level. There is also a connection to national politics.
I won't tackle the whole thing in tonight's post, but I recommend reading Town Dock's report on How Pamlico County Got Stuck With Ferry Tolls.
The story illustrates themes such as: American theories of representation; the practice of representation; the "all politics is local" view; the tension between "I vote for the candidate, not the party" and actual policy outcomes; and why party matters, more so the higher you go up the political ladder.
I'll try to develop these themes over the next few days.
I won't tackle the whole thing in tonight's post, but I recommend reading Town Dock's report on How Pamlico County Got Stuck With Ferry Tolls.
The story illustrates themes such as: American theories of representation; the practice of representation; the "all politics is local" view; the tension between "I vote for the candidate, not the party" and actual policy outcomes; and why party matters, more so the higher you go up the political ladder.
I'll try to develop these themes over the next few days.
Monday, February 6, 2012
Local Bill Shenanigans
Thirty-five years ago, the North Carolina state legislature passed a local bill taking away the right of municipalities in Pamlico County to exercise extraterritorial jurisdiction (ETJ) subject to the same conditions that apply in all of the other 99 counties in North Carolina. In essence, this deprives citizens of Pamlico County of equal protection of the laws.
The original local bill also added preconditions to annexation that did not apply in other counties. The annexation provisions were repealed in 1983 by another session law, Chapter 636, Senate Bill 107, Section 37.1.
I believe Chapter 478, House Bill 1045 of the North Carolina General Assembly 1977 Session is an example of abuse of the local bill system and should be repealed.
The original local bill also added preconditions to annexation that did not apply in other counties. The annexation provisions were repealed in 1983 by another session law, Chapter 636, Senate Bill 107, Section 37.1.
I believe Chapter 478, House Bill 1045 of the North Carolina General Assembly 1977 Session is an example of abuse of the local bill system and should be repealed.
1977 SESSION
CHAPTER 478
HOUSE BILL 1045
AN ACT TO AMEND CHAPTER 160A OF THE GENERAL STATUTES
RELATING TO ANNEXATION BY MUNICIPALITIES IN PAMLICO COUNTY.
The General Assembly of North Carolina enacts:
Section 1. G.S. 160A-44 is hereby amended by
adding a new sentence at the end of the first paragraph to read:
"No territory in Pamlico County may be annexed under the
provisions of this Part by any town or city with a population of 1,000 or less
according to the most recent federal decennial census."
Sec. 2. G.S. 160A-25 is amended by adding at the
end thereof the following new paragraph.
"No territory in Pamlico County may be annexed under the
provisions of G.S. 160A-24 through G.S. 160A-30 by any town or city with a population
of 1,000 or less, according to the most recent federal decennial census, unless
the persons living in the area to be annexed vote in favor of annexation and
the governing body shall not adopt an annexation ordinance until after a
favorable vote has been obtained in the area to be annexed."
Sec. 3. G.S. 160A-360 is amended by adding a new
subsection (k) at the end thereof to read:
"(k) No town or city in Pamlico County having a
population of 1,000 or less, according to the most recent federal decennial
census, shall exercise any extraterritorial jurisdiction or powers outside its
corporate limits pursuant to the provisions of this Article."
Sec. 4. This act shall become effective upon
ratification.
In the General Assembly read three times and ratified, this
the 7th day of June, 1977.
Thursday, January 12, 2012
Hungary Update
Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban seems well on his way to turning Hungary into an authoritarian dictatorship. In an earlier post, I suggested Hungary was beginning to resemble the authoritarian regime of Admiral Horthy, who led Hungary from 1922 to 1944.
That was a good guess. Viktor Orban himself has called attention to Horthy as a model. The latest report from Hungary by Professor Scheppele is not good. The most hopeful sign is that the EU is calling Hungary to task. Whether the EU's measures will work any better than the timid measures taken by the League of Nations in the 1920's and 1930's is anybody's guess.
What seems clear is that the events in Hungary are a serious threat to democracy in Europe.
That was a good guess. Viktor Orban himself has called attention to Horthy as a model. The latest report from Hungary by Professor Scheppele is not good. The most hopeful sign is that the EU is calling Hungary to task. Whether the EU's measures will work any better than the timid measures taken by the League of Nations in the 1920's and 1930's is anybody's guess.
What seems clear is that the events in Hungary are a serious threat to democracy in Europe.
Monday, January 9, 2012
How To Fix Congress - And Why It Won't Happen
According to polls, public approval of Congress is at an all time low - about 12% and disapproval at an all time high - about 84%. How to fix this? I have some ideas, but before suggesting a cure, there must first be a diagnosis.
So. What's wrong with the congress?
Some of the ills of congress are built into our constitution. The US Senate, for example, which likes to characterize itself as "the world's greatest deliberative body" is arguably the "free world's" least democratic body. That is, first of all, a consequence of the constitutional arrangement that each state, regardless of size or economic output, have an equal number of senators. This is compounded by the increasingly inexplicable commitment of the senate to the requirement of a supermajority of senators to pass any legislation at all. My solution to that: get rid of paper filibusters imposed by the cloture rule. Let's go back to "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington" style of filibuster. Filibusters would become more rare because voters could see what was happening and better understand what it was about.
By the way, some republicans want to fix the senate by repealing the seventeenth amendment that provided direct popular election of senators. What, we have too much democracy?
A common complaint about the House of Representatives is "My representative doesn't listen to people like me."
Some advocate term limits to fix this. I say, we already have term limits. Elections. What we don't have is enough representatives.
We are going through redistricting right now. This is the process after every decenniel census (except for the 1920 census - there was not a reapportionment after that census). First congress reapportions seats in the House of Representatives to the states according to population. District boundaries are then redrawn by state legislatures and in some cases by courts.
Contrary to popular opinion, the number of seats in the House of Representatives is not in the constitution. But the number has not changed since it was set at 435 in 1911. At that time, each member of the House represented about 216,000 citizens. Since then, our population has more than tripled, but the number remains the same. Now each member represents about 708,000 constituents.
My suggestion: enlarge the House so that each member represents about 216,000 citizens. With modern communications systems, that would allow the members closer communication with constituents. It would also lower the financial and organizational barriers to running for office. It might reduce the influence of money in politics and even create opportunities for more political parties to become competitive.
How many representatives would we have? About 1,426. Admittedly, that might make the body even more unwieldy, but it might force more cooperation. It would certainly induce representatives to be more responsive to constituents.
How could we accommodate so many representatives? We could replace the desks on the floor of the House with benches. We could also reduce representatives' personal staffs. Currently, members are allowed to hire as many as eighteen personal staffers. Reduce that to five per member. Representatives might have to study bills themselves, possibly answer phones and write some of their own correspondence. Where would they get the time to do this? By going to fewer fund raising events.
Something else worth trying is proportional representation, but that's a really wonky subject I'll save for later.
None of this will happen, because all of these measures would reduce the present power of incumbents and wealthy patrons.
So. What's wrong with the congress?
Some of the ills of congress are built into our constitution. The US Senate, for example, which likes to characterize itself as "the world's greatest deliberative body" is arguably the "free world's" least democratic body. That is, first of all, a consequence of the constitutional arrangement that each state, regardless of size or economic output, have an equal number of senators. This is compounded by the increasingly inexplicable commitment of the senate to the requirement of a supermajority of senators to pass any legislation at all. My solution to that: get rid of paper filibusters imposed by the cloture rule. Let's go back to "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington" style of filibuster. Filibusters would become more rare because voters could see what was happening and better understand what it was about.
By the way, some republicans want to fix the senate by repealing the seventeenth amendment that provided direct popular election of senators. What, we have too much democracy?
A common complaint about the House of Representatives is "My representative doesn't listen to people like me."
Some advocate term limits to fix this. I say, we already have term limits. Elections. What we don't have is enough representatives.
We are going through redistricting right now. This is the process after every decenniel census (except for the 1920 census - there was not a reapportionment after that census). First congress reapportions seats in the House of Representatives to the states according to population. District boundaries are then redrawn by state legislatures and in some cases by courts.
Contrary to popular opinion, the number of seats in the House of Representatives is not in the constitution. But the number has not changed since it was set at 435 in 1911. At that time, each member of the House represented about 216,000 citizens. Since then, our population has more than tripled, but the number remains the same. Now each member represents about 708,000 constituents.
My suggestion: enlarge the House so that each member represents about 216,000 citizens. With modern communications systems, that would allow the members closer communication with constituents. It would also lower the financial and organizational barriers to running for office. It might reduce the influence of money in politics and even create opportunities for more political parties to become competitive.
How many representatives would we have? About 1,426. Admittedly, that might make the body even more unwieldy, but it might force more cooperation. It would certainly induce representatives to be more responsive to constituents.
How could we accommodate so many representatives? We could replace the desks on the floor of the House with benches. We could also reduce representatives' personal staffs. Currently, members are allowed to hire as many as eighteen personal staffers. Reduce that to five per member. Representatives might have to study bills themselves, possibly answer phones and write some of their own correspondence. Where would they get the time to do this? By going to fewer fund raising events.
Something else worth trying is proportional representation, but that's a really wonky subject I'll save for later.
None of this will happen, because all of these measures would reduce the present power of incumbents and wealthy patrons.
Friday, January 6, 2012
YOYO vs. WITT
Much of today's vicious political discourse reflects a conflict between those who believe in YOYO (you're on your own) against those who favor concerted action for the common good (WITT - we're in this together). This is an ancient struggle, but the twentieth century saw great strides in the ability of American society to work together for the "general welfare," as our constitution puts it. We came out of the great depression and defeated the Axis powers by following the policies of WITT. We created general prosperity for two and a half decades after WWII by extending the policies and attitudes of WITT.
The efforts of government at both the federal and the state level to act in the public good has been under constant attack for about four decades now. Last night's attack by North Carolina Republican legislators on public school teachers is a recent example of the YOYO philosophy.
This Wednesday, Robert Reich, Professor of Public Policy at the University of California, posted a very thought-provoking article entitled "The Decline of the Public Good." I recommend it.
Reich makes it clear that the decline in spending on public assets that everyone uses is a consequence of relentless attacks. Not only public schools, but parks, roads, playgrounds and transit systems have been victims. His most striking statistic: "Outside of defense, domestic discretionary spending is down sharply as a percent of the economy. Add in declines in state and local spending, and total public spending on education, infrastructure, and basic research has dropped from 12 percent of GDP in the 1970s to less than 3 percent by 2011."
Anyone who uses those public assets knows about the decline.
The efforts of government at both the federal and the state level to act in the public good has been under constant attack for about four decades now. Last night's attack by North Carolina Republican legislators on public school teachers is a recent example of the YOYO philosophy.
This Wednesday, Robert Reich, Professor of Public Policy at the University of California, posted a very thought-provoking article entitled "The Decline of the Public Good." I recommend it.
Reich makes it clear that the decline in spending on public assets that everyone uses is a consequence of relentless attacks. Not only public schools, but parks, roads, playgrounds and transit systems have been victims. His most striking statistic: "Outside of defense, domestic discretionary spending is down sharply as a percent of the economy. Add in declines in state and local spending, and total public spending on education, infrastructure, and basic research has dropped from 12 percent of GDP in the 1970s to less than 3 percent by 2011."
Anyone who uses those public assets knows about the decline.
Wednesday, January 4, 2012
How To Buy A State Law
Ever hear of the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC)? Sounds pretty harmless.
In fact, ALEC is a powerful and influential lobbying organization, able to influence its members (predominately Republican state legislators) to pass legislation (which ALEC drafts) favorable to wealthy corporate interests (who fund ALEC). A large percentage of the legislation passed by the Republican legislature of North Carolina this year was drafted by ALEC, including legislation affecting elections.
Business Week has a very informative article on ALEC entitled "Pssst... Wanna Buy a Law?" Makes interesting reading for anyone who wants to learn how corporate interests distort the legislative process.
In fact, ALEC is a powerful and influential lobbying organization, able to influence its members (predominately Republican state legislators) to pass legislation (which ALEC drafts) favorable to wealthy corporate interests (who fund ALEC). A large percentage of the legislation passed by the Republican legislature of North Carolina this year was drafted by ALEC, including legislation affecting elections.
Business Week has a very informative article on ALEC entitled "Pssst... Wanna Buy a Law?" Makes interesting reading for anyone who wants to learn how corporate interests distort the legislative process.
Civilian Control Of The Military
I have to tell you, I am very uncomfortable with a sight I saw tonight in Iowa.
At Congressman Ron Paul's celebration of his impressive showing tonight in Iowa, he introduced a soldier in uniform who proceeded to give a speech supporting Ron Paul for president.
I'm not uncomfortable because he was supporting Ron Paul - I think those who have gone into harm's way for this country have every right to support their choices for political office. But not while wearing their uniform.
The soldier in question wasn't an officer, but that still doesn't make it right.
In the latter half of the nineteenth century, military and naval officers and their supporters in civilian organizations like the Navy League worked tirelessly to establish the military calling as a profession. As individuals, they often retained strong party loyalties. As military professionals, though, there was no such thing as a Democratic general or a Republican general; only competent and less competent generals.
During my time in service, I gave the same professional advice to my civilian superiors no matter who was in the White House. I would have had little respect for any senior officer who tailored his advice to what he thought the boss wanted to hear. Such advice is worthless.
We had not only the legal prohibitions of the Hatch Act, we had a strong professional ethic.
Make no mistake about it. I did not keep my political sentiments a secret from my colleagues and friends. But I never would have thought of appearing in uniform at a political event.
The most extreme case of a firm dividing line between partisan politics and military professionalism was that of George Catlett Marshall. General Marshall never voted. Ever. He thought the act of voting would have compromised his professional objectivity. Nor did he vote even after being appointed Secretary of State under President Truman. During all his years of service, General Eisenhower never disclosed his own choice of party. In fact, both parties tried to recruit him as a presidential candidate in 1952.
This all began to change after the creation of the "all volunteer force," when military reservists and members of the national guard became a more integral part of the armed forces than during the Cold War.
Now reservists and national guard members move back and forth between active duty and civilian life many times in the course of a career. The lines have become confused and the rules are apparently less clear than they once were. I think General Marshall wouldn't be pleased.
Nor am I.
At Congressman Ron Paul's celebration of his impressive showing tonight in Iowa, he introduced a soldier in uniform who proceeded to give a speech supporting Ron Paul for president.
I'm not uncomfortable because he was supporting Ron Paul - I think those who have gone into harm's way for this country have every right to support their choices for political office. But not while wearing their uniform.
The soldier in question wasn't an officer, but that still doesn't make it right.
In the latter half of the nineteenth century, military and naval officers and their supporters in civilian organizations like the Navy League worked tirelessly to establish the military calling as a profession. As individuals, they often retained strong party loyalties. As military professionals, though, there was no such thing as a Democratic general or a Republican general; only competent and less competent generals.
During my time in service, I gave the same professional advice to my civilian superiors no matter who was in the White House. I would have had little respect for any senior officer who tailored his advice to what he thought the boss wanted to hear. Such advice is worthless.
We had not only the legal prohibitions of the Hatch Act, we had a strong professional ethic.
Make no mistake about it. I did not keep my political sentiments a secret from my colleagues and friends. But I never would have thought of appearing in uniform at a political event.
The most extreme case of a firm dividing line between partisan politics and military professionalism was that of George Catlett Marshall. General Marshall never voted. Ever. He thought the act of voting would have compromised his professional objectivity. Nor did he vote even after being appointed Secretary of State under President Truman. During all his years of service, General Eisenhower never disclosed his own choice of party. In fact, both parties tried to recruit him as a presidential candidate in 1952.
This all began to change after the creation of the "all volunteer force," when military reservists and members of the national guard became a more integral part of the armed forces than during the Cold War.
Now reservists and national guard members move back and forth between active duty and civilian life many times in the course of a career. The lines have become confused and the rules are apparently less clear than they once were. I think General Marshall wouldn't be pleased.
Nor am I.
Monday, January 2, 2012
More On Hungary - News Isn't Good
Paul Krugman has posted another update on Hungary by his colleague, Kim Lane Scheppele. The news is really not good. Hungary is on the cusp of becoming a despotism.
Monday, December 19, 2011
Hungary - Back To The Future?
Disturbing post today on Hungary's authoritarian revolution. It sounds like a more extreme version of what has been happening in Wisconsin, Michigan and other states in the United States.
The post appears on Paul Krugman's web site, but it is written by Kim Lane Scheppele, Director of the Law and Public Policy program at Princeton University.
It sounds like what is happening in Hungary is a reappearance of the kind of authoritarian regime that has characterized Hungary in the past, including the notorious period of Admiral Horthy's dominance from 1920 to 1946. The forms of governance may resemble those of democracy, but the content is increasingly that of authoritarianism.
By the way, Newt Gingrich's recent diatribes against judges would fit right in with the new Hungarian system.
The post appears on Paul Krugman's web site, but it is written by Kim Lane Scheppele, Director of the Law and Public Policy program at Princeton University.
It sounds like what is happening in Hungary is a reappearance of the kind of authoritarian regime that has characterized Hungary in the past, including the notorious period of Admiral Horthy's dominance from 1920 to 1946. The forms of governance may resemble those of democracy, but the content is increasingly that of authoritarianism.
By the way, Newt Gingrich's recent diatribes against judges would fit right in with the new Hungarian system.
Sunday, December 11, 2011
Democracy: What Is The Recipe?
I have spent my adult life in defense of democracy.
Even so, I sometimes find democracy puzzling. What is it, exactly? How do you get it? How do you keep it?
I have some ideas on the subject, which I hope to share from time to time.
The first question to examine is, what is the relationship of democracy to elections?
Can you have democracy without elections? Possibly. There may be other methods of popular choice of leaders than elections. Offhand, I can't think of any historical examples, though.
Can you have elections without democracy? We have seen all too many examples of that.
Tentative conclusion: "popular choice of leaders is a necessary but not necessarily sufficient condition for democracy."
Give it some thought.
Even so, I sometimes find democracy puzzling. What is it, exactly? How do you get it? How do you keep it?
I have some ideas on the subject, which I hope to share from time to time.
The first question to examine is, what is the relationship of democracy to elections?
Can you have democracy without elections? Possibly. There may be other methods of popular choice of leaders than elections. Offhand, I can't think of any historical examples, though.
Can you have elections without democracy? We have seen all too many examples of that.
Tentative conclusion: "popular choice of leaders is a necessary but not necessarily sufficient condition for democracy."
Give it some thought.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
