"On a day when buildings fell, heroes rose," Bush said. "... One of the worst days in America's history saw some of the bravest acts in America's history."
A Nation Remembers
As the nation remembers the events of 9/11, the candidates are appearing tonight at a forum in New York. Now, they will both appear together at Ground Zero, which is the exact kind of show of solidarity the candidates should show on a day like today. As for the rest of this evening's activities, I think today should be a day for honoring fallen heroes and victims, not a day for more partisan politics.
Thursday, September 11, 2008
Tuesday, September 02, 2008
Family Values
In her two years as governor of Alaska, and especially in the four months since her son was born with Down syndrome, Sarah Palin has been portrayed as the very model of a working mother: She answers her BlackBerry while pumping breast milk for her infant; keeps a playpen by her desk; and manages a state while cooking caribou hot dogs for her family. But some people, looking at that tableau, wonder whether it is possible to perform that juggling act on the highest wire of all, a heartbeat away from the presidency. Those questions came into higher relief on Monday as Gov. Palin, just days after she was introduced as the Republican vice-presidential pick, disclosed that her 17-year-old daughter, Bristol, is about five months pregnant. She said Bristol plans to keep the baby and marry the father.
WSJ Article
Let me start off by saying that I think Sen. McCain made a mistake choosing Alaska Governor Sarah Palin as his running mate. By trying to find a woman to appeal to Hilary supporters, McCain chose a candidate with too many holes in her public face. Her youth and inexperience will work against those same arguments McCain's campaign has made against Sen. Obama. The current investigation into Palin's alleged abuse of power, by trying to have her state trooper ex-brother in law fired, works against her credibility. Now, the fact that her 17 year old daughter is pregnant and may possibly marry the 18 year old father is being used to damage her belief family values. Regardless of how good of a person she may be, there are just too many problems for the McCain campaign to have picked her at this juncture.
Having said that, let me come out and say that I am appalled at the way the situation with her daughter is being handled, by both the media and the Democrats. For those families that are not in the public eye, such an event would be kept as quiet as possible, until the family was forced to acknowledge the pregnancy amongst their community. For a politician, especially one running for Vice President of the United States, every family matter becomes a matter of public record. The McCain campaign did not release the news until after they announced Palin as the VP candidate. However, to think that the campaign was unaware of the pregnancy is both naive and foolish. Any campaign consultant worth anything would know that it would be impossible to hide something of this nature. As such, McCain went ahead and chose Palin. That means he either believes in her ability to carry out her duties as VP, or that he believes her appeal to women will outweigh all the points against her, depending on how cynical you are.
Democrats are using Bristol's condition to try and paint Palin as a hypocrite who claims to support family values, but did not bother to instill such values in her daughter. This offends me on a deep level. Palin's attackers claim that because her daughter made a mistake, that she is a failure as a daughter, and Palin is a failure as a mother. I find this view repugnant. Bristol made a mistake. There is no way around that. She is young, still considered a minor in the eye of the law, and she engaged in sexual acts outside the bond of marriage, producing an unwanted pregnancy. However, not all mistakes end badly.
My older bother has a daughter, despite the fact that he has never been married. Granted, he was 23 when she was born, legally an adult, but age is only one factor in this debate. Despite the circumstance surround the birth of my niece, she has been nothing but a blessing to my family. My mother did not take the news well when my brother confessed that he had fathered a child. I am sure part of her felt that she failed in her parental duties. My parents raised their children in the church, working to instill Christian values in all of us. Obviously, my bother made some mistakes on his way to becoming a man. However, he is now raising the child, with the help of my parents and my sister. He works a job he does not particularly enjoy, so he can provide for his little girl, and still have time to spend with her each day when she gets home from school. This is evidence that those vary same values my mother worked to instill in our lives is very present in my brother. He owned up to his mistake, and is now working to raise a child as a single parent, hoping to instill those same Christian values in his daughter that our mother instilled in us.
My mother worked hard to raise her children right, teaching us to be God-fearing, upright American citizens. In the end, all a parent can do is teach their children how to live, and hope those lessons guide them through life. It was my brother's choices that led to my niece being born, not my mother's. Now, as the cycle continues, my bother is trying to teach his daughter how to live, knowing she will grow up to make her own choices along the way. Does this mean my mother or my brother do not support traditional family values? No, it means they believe in those values, which include the value of forgiveness. Human beings are not perfect. We are prone to make mistakes. But part of the blessed gift we receive from On High is the gift of forgiveness, for those who earnestly seek it. I am sure Bristol has asked for such forgiveness, and for her part, I am sure Gov. Palin has granted it.
So, before Obama supporters and the media offer up the Palin family for public sacrifice, maybe they should rethink their own values, and what it means to be human. That is just my opinion.
WSJ Article
Let me start off by saying that I think Sen. McCain made a mistake choosing Alaska Governor Sarah Palin as his running mate. By trying to find a woman to appeal to Hilary supporters, McCain chose a candidate with too many holes in her public face. Her youth and inexperience will work against those same arguments McCain's campaign has made against Sen. Obama. The current investigation into Palin's alleged abuse of power, by trying to have her state trooper ex-brother in law fired, works against her credibility. Now, the fact that her 17 year old daughter is pregnant and may possibly marry the 18 year old father is being used to damage her belief family values. Regardless of how good of a person she may be, there are just too many problems for the McCain campaign to have picked her at this juncture.
Having said that, let me come out and say that I am appalled at the way the situation with her daughter is being handled, by both the media and the Democrats. For those families that are not in the public eye, such an event would be kept as quiet as possible, until the family was forced to acknowledge the pregnancy amongst their community. For a politician, especially one running for Vice President of the United States, every family matter becomes a matter of public record. The McCain campaign did not release the news until after they announced Palin as the VP candidate. However, to think that the campaign was unaware of the pregnancy is both naive and foolish. Any campaign consultant worth anything would know that it would be impossible to hide something of this nature. As such, McCain went ahead and chose Palin. That means he either believes in her ability to carry out her duties as VP, or that he believes her appeal to women will outweigh all the points against her, depending on how cynical you are.
Democrats are using Bristol's condition to try and paint Palin as a hypocrite who claims to support family values, but did not bother to instill such values in her daughter. This offends me on a deep level. Palin's attackers claim that because her daughter made a mistake, that she is a failure as a daughter, and Palin is a failure as a mother. I find this view repugnant. Bristol made a mistake. There is no way around that. She is young, still considered a minor in the eye of the law, and she engaged in sexual acts outside the bond of marriage, producing an unwanted pregnancy. However, not all mistakes end badly.
My older bother has a daughter, despite the fact that he has never been married. Granted, he was 23 when she was born, legally an adult, but age is only one factor in this debate. Despite the circumstance surround the birth of my niece, she has been nothing but a blessing to my family. My mother did not take the news well when my brother confessed that he had fathered a child. I am sure part of her felt that she failed in her parental duties. My parents raised their children in the church, working to instill Christian values in all of us. Obviously, my bother made some mistakes on his way to becoming a man. However, he is now raising the child, with the help of my parents and my sister. He works a job he does not particularly enjoy, so he can provide for his little girl, and still have time to spend with her each day when she gets home from school. This is evidence that those vary same values my mother worked to instill in our lives is very present in my brother. He owned up to his mistake, and is now working to raise a child as a single parent, hoping to instill those same Christian values in his daughter that our mother instilled in us.
My mother worked hard to raise her children right, teaching us to be God-fearing, upright American citizens. In the end, all a parent can do is teach their children how to live, and hope those lessons guide them through life. It was my brother's choices that led to my niece being born, not my mother's. Now, as the cycle continues, my bother is trying to teach his daughter how to live, knowing she will grow up to make her own choices along the way. Does this mean my mother or my brother do not support traditional family values? No, it means they believe in those values, which include the value of forgiveness. Human beings are not perfect. We are prone to make mistakes. But part of the blessed gift we receive from On High is the gift of forgiveness, for those who earnestly seek it. I am sure Bristol has asked for such forgiveness, and for her part, I am sure Gov. Palin has granted it.
So, before Obama supporters and the media offer up the Palin family for public sacrifice, maybe they should rethink their own values, and what it means to be human. That is just my opinion.
Monday, August 25, 2008
Is Biden a Wise Choice?
The first national poll conducted after Barack Obama publicly named Joe Biden as his running mate suggests that the battle for the presidency between the Illinois senator and John McCain is all tied up.
CNN Article
Friday night, Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) announced Sen. Joe Biden (D-DE)as his running mate for the Presidential election. In the most recent polls since this announcement, It appears Obama and Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) are now in a dead heat for the Presidency. Now, there is no conclusive way to say that Biden is the cause of this closing of the gap, but it would be awfully naive to believe he had nothing to do with it.
Obama chose biden, despite the 28% of registered democrats who wanted him to chose Sen. Hilary Clinton (D-NY). Recent polls have shown that 1-in-5 of Clinton supporters are voting for McCain over Obama. Choosing Biden only further ostracizes this same group of voters. Furthermore, Biden has failed multiple times to even get the nomination for the White House. He first ran in 1988, but withdrew after accusations of plagiarizing a speech. He has been in the senate for 36 years, so he is very popular with the people of Delaware, but that is not going to help on a national scale. Time will tell.
CNN Article
Friday night, Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) announced Sen. Joe Biden (D-DE)as his running mate for the Presidential election. In the most recent polls since this announcement, It appears Obama and Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) are now in a dead heat for the Presidency. Now, there is no conclusive way to say that Biden is the cause of this closing of the gap, but it would be awfully naive to believe he had nothing to do with it.
Obama chose biden, despite the 28% of registered democrats who wanted him to chose Sen. Hilary Clinton (D-NY). Recent polls have shown that 1-in-5 of Clinton supporters are voting for McCain over Obama. Choosing Biden only further ostracizes this same group of voters. Furthermore, Biden has failed multiple times to even get the nomination for the White House. He first ran in 1988, but withdrew after accusations of plagiarizing a speech. He has been in the senate for 36 years, so he is very popular with the people of Delaware, but that is not going to help on a national scale. Time will tell.
Monday, August 18, 2008
Spirituality is Not a Political Commodity
"I also believe that talking too much about one's faith and religion, in my view, is something between me and God." - John McCain
CNN Article
Over the weekend, mega-church Pastor Rick Warren, made famous by his best selling book, "Purpose Driven Life," held a forum with the two Presidential candidates. This forum is one of the first times Republican Candidate John McCain discussed his faith in detail. Often one to deflect the question or change the subject (evident in the above quote), McCain very clearly spelled out his spiritual status when he told forum attendees that he is, "saved and forgiven."
This election marks one of the first times that evangelical Christian voters are considered a battleground between Republicans and Democrats. The media has been overwhelmingly interested in how young evangelicals may be leaving their GOP base to side with Democrats on a number of social justice and environmental issues. Ryan Messmore, the William E. Simon Fellow in Religion and a Free Society at the Heritage Foundation, addresses the way that the media has failed to accurately report this supposed shit, noting that these are topics that Christians have shown interest in for years (Heritage Foundation Article).
Sen. Obama has become such a popular candidate among his fellow party members because of his constant reference to his faith and to scripture. Democratic strategists are hoping that he can pull many young evangelicals away from the GOP. While I certainly do not fault Sen. Obama for speaking his faith, I do take issue with those politicians who use their faith as a political selling point. While a number of Republican strategists may have done so with President Bush, which I do not condone, the President himself has only ever mentioned his faith in personal ways and how his beliefs affect his decisions. As such, my problem is with Obama's handlers, not Obama himself (as of yet). Let me again point out that Republicans are often just as guilty, if not more so, when it comes to this.
I believe that all people, regardless of their political aspirations, should consider their beliefs when making any worthwhile decisions. I support those candidates that not only vote their conscience, but also factor in their spirituality. What I do not condone is political mercenaries who use a person's spiritual beliefs as a way to sell their candidate to the masses. You should not have to point out that this candidate is religious, or has views that coincide with certain religious subgroups. You should simply lay out your political views and your campaign platform, and rely individuals to decide if they agree with you or not. God is not a politician, and He is not selling point for your political aspirations. Follow Him, run your race, and see where it takes you.
CNN Article
Over the weekend, mega-church Pastor Rick Warren, made famous by his best selling book, "Purpose Driven Life," held a forum with the two Presidential candidates. This forum is one of the first times Republican Candidate John McCain discussed his faith in detail. Often one to deflect the question or change the subject (evident in the above quote), McCain very clearly spelled out his spiritual status when he told forum attendees that he is, "saved and forgiven."
This election marks one of the first times that evangelical Christian voters are considered a battleground between Republicans and Democrats. The media has been overwhelmingly interested in how young evangelicals may be leaving their GOP base to side with Democrats on a number of social justice and environmental issues. Ryan Messmore, the William E. Simon Fellow in Religion and a Free Society at the Heritage Foundation, addresses the way that the media has failed to accurately report this supposed shit, noting that these are topics that Christians have shown interest in for years (Heritage Foundation Article).
Sen. Obama has become such a popular candidate among his fellow party members because of his constant reference to his faith and to scripture. Democratic strategists are hoping that he can pull many young evangelicals away from the GOP. While I certainly do not fault Sen. Obama for speaking his faith, I do take issue with those politicians who use their faith as a political selling point. While a number of Republican strategists may have done so with President Bush, which I do not condone, the President himself has only ever mentioned his faith in personal ways and how his beliefs affect his decisions. As such, my problem is with Obama's handlers, not Obama himself (as of yet). Let me again point out that Republicans are often just as guilty, if not more so, when it comes to this.
I believe that all people, regardless of their political aspirations, should consider their beliefs when making any worthwhile decisions. I support those candidates that not only vote their conscience, but also factor in their spirituality. What I do not condone is political mercenaries who use a person's spiritual beliefs as a way to sell their candidate to the masses. You should not have to point out that this candidate is religious, or has views that coincide with certain religious subgroups. You should simply lay out your political views and your campaign platform, and rely individuals to decide if they agree with you or not. God is not a politician, and He is not selling point for your political aspirations. Follow Him, run your race, and see where it takes you.
Thursday, August 14, 2008
Pelosi Threatens Free Thinking Party Members
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi blasted Sen. Joe Lieberman on Wednesday for making what she called "totally irresponsible" remarks about Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama and warned that the Senate might retaliate by revoking Lieberman's committee chairmanship.
SF Gate Article
I am glad to see that individuality and free thinking are so well embraced by the Democratic Party Leaders.
SF Gate Article
I am glad to see that individuality and free thinking are so well embraced by the Democratic Party Leaders.
Tuesday, August 12, 2008
Candidates Take Different Routes to Same Conclusion on Georgia
Obama later Monday read a statement on camera in which he seemed to come closer to McCain's position, saying Russia's invasion was a "turning point" in its relationship with the West.
CNN Article
As of now, both Senator Barack Obama (D-IL) and Senator John McCain (R-AZ) have pit themselves against Russia over the current hostilities in Georgia. Both Presidential Candidates place the blame for the conflict squarely on Russia's shoulders. However, Sen. McCain was a little quicker in getting to that point.
Just to bring you up to speed, Russian forces invaded Georgia last Friday, after Georgian military forces shot down two Russian military jets. Georgian officials claim the Russian aircraft were bombing Georgian forces in South Ossetia, a pro-Russian region that wants to secede from Georgia. French President Nicolas Sarkozy, the current head of the European Union, claims that he and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev have negotiated a "cease fire" (though Georgia says the violence continues) but not an absolute end to the conflict. Russian forces still occupy territory in Georgia.
"Russia should immediately and unconditionally cease its military operations and withdraw all forces from sovereign Georgian territory," McCain said in a statement to reporters shortly after his campaign plane landed in Iowa on Friday. From the start, McCain was condemning Russia for entering Georgian territory. McCain is known for his biased views against Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin, often referring to Putin's KGB roots. While McCain was quick to condemn Russia, Obama was a bit more cautious.
"I strongly condemn the outbreak of violence in Georgia, and urge an immediate end to armed conflict," Obama said on Friday. The Junior Senator from Illinois is currently vacationing with his family in Hawaii, though his campaign claims he is keeping abreast of the situation. While he called for a end to the violence, he did not go so far as to place any blame on Russia...at first. After speaking with Georgian President Mikhail Saakashvili, Obama changed his tone, but continued to keep a take a peace oriented approach.
"Now is the time for Georgia and Russia to show restraint, and to avoid an escalation to full scale war. Georgia's territorial integrity must be respected. All sides should enter into direct talks on behalf of stability in Georgia, and the United States, the United Nations Security Council, and the international community should fully support a peaceful resolution to this crisis."
So the question here, is who had the best reaction? McCain immediately condemned Russia, now considered by most of the international community as the unwarranted aggressor. Obama refrained from condemning either country until he had all the facts, finally speaking against Russia on Monday. To a certain extent, both candidates reacted in the proper manner.
Obama chose not to jump to conclusions until he had more information (which might have been sooner if he were not on vacation). Taking time to gather the facts is certainly an admirable quality. However, there are certain times when a national leader must be seen as decisive and steadfast. McCain showed himself to be just that, basing his stance off of initial reports, as well as his considerable experience in foreign affairs.
At the same time, if further investigation had shown that Georgian military forces were committing atrocities in South Ossetia, then McCain would have looked like a trigger happy cowboy. However, McCain is an intelligent man (his campaign flops notwithstanding) with a great deal of experience in international matters. He made an initial read of the situation, and took a stand, showing his leadership skills and his decisive nature.
In the end, this is a matter for individual voters to decide, but McCain's response showed him to be the intelligent, confident leader, while Obama seemed to be indecisive and unsure what side to take. It could be for a lack of experience, or it could be a charachter flaw. Of course, this is just one man's opinion.
CNN Article
As of now, both Senator Barack Obama (D-IL) and Senator John McCain (R-AZ) have pit themselves against Russia over the current hostilities in Georgia. Both Presidential Candidates place the blame for the conflict squarely on Russia's shoulders. However, Sen. McCain was a little quicker in getting to that point.
Just to bring you up to speed, Russian forces invaded Georgia last Friday, after Georgian military forces shot down two Russian military jets. Georgian officials claim the Russian aircraft were bombing Georgian forces in South Ossetia, a pro-Russian region that wants to secede from Georgia. French President Nicolas Sarkozy, the current head of the European Union, claims that he and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev have negotiated a "cease fire" (though Georgia says the violence continues) but not an absolute end to the conflict. Russian forces still occupy territory in Georgia.
"Russia should immediately and unconditionally cease its military operations and withdraw all forces from sovereign Georgian territory," McCain said in a statement to reporters shortly after his campaign plane landed in Iowa on Friday. From the start, McCain was condemning Russia for entering Georgian territory. McCain is known for his biased views against Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin, often referring to Putin's KGB roots. While McCain was quick to condemn Russia, Obama was a bit more cautious.
"I strongly condemn the outbreak of violence in Georgia, and urge an immediate end to armed conflict," Obama said on Friday. The Junior Senator from Illinois is currently vacationing with his family in Hawaii, though his campaign claims he is keeping abreast of the situation. While he called for a end to the violence, he did not go so far as to place any blame on Russia...at first. After speaking with Georgian President Mikhail Saakashvili, Obama changed his tone, but continued to keep a take a peace oriented approach.
"Now is the time for Georgia and Russia to show restraint, and to avoid an escalation to full scale war. Georgia's territorial integrity must be respected. All sides should enter into direct talks on behalf of stability in Georgia, and the United States, the United Nations Security Council, and the international community should fully support a peaceful resolution to this crisis."
So the question here, is who had the best reaction? McCain immediately condemned Russia, now considered by most of the international community as the unwarranted aggressor. Obama refrained from condemning either country until he had all the facts, finally speaking against Russia on Monday. To a certain extent, both candidates reacted in the proper manner.
Obama chose not to jump to conclusions until he had more information (which might have been sooner if he were not on vacation). Taking time to gather the facts is certainly an admirable quality. However, there are certain times when a national leader must be seen as decisive and steadfast. McCain showed himself to be just that, basing his stance off of initial reports, as well as his considerable experience in foreign affairs.
At the same time, if further investigation had shown that Georgian military forces were committing atrocities in South Ossetia, then McCain would have looked like a trigger happy cowboy. However, McCain is an intelligent man (his campaign flops notwithstanding) with a great deal of experience in international matters. He made an initial read of the situation, and took a stand, showing his leadership skills and his decisive nature.
In the end, this is a matter for individual voters to decide, but McCain's response showed him to be the intelligent, confident leader, while Obama seemed to be indecisive and unsure what side to take. It could be for a lack of experience, or it could be a charachter flaw. Of course, this is just one man's opinion.
Thursday, August 07, 2008
McCain Better Fit For Teachers Unions?
The top goal of both teachers’ unions is driving a stake into the federal No Child Left Behind Act. That stake, however, is far more likely to get pounded in by John McCain than by Barack Obama, who won the overwhelming endorsement of both unions.
http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2008/08/08/45read.h27.html
Richard Whitmire, an editorial writer for USA Today, makes a fairly novel point in that both the National Education Association (NEA) and the American Federation of Teachers (AFT) endorsed Senator Obama for President, despite the fact that McCain may actually serve their interests on No Child Left Behind better than Barack. Whitmire looks at Obama's speeches on NCLB, noting that he does not actually address anything in the law, instead relying on useless rhetoric to gain support from the leftist unions.
When you break down the issues, McCain and Obama are both useless in the areas of federal education spending, school choice, and performance pay for teachers. While McCain would not raise spending, the Democratically controlled Congress holds the power of the purse, not the President. On school choice, there are too few optimal choices for public school swapping, leaving Charter Schools as the only viable option. Obama is a strong supporter of charter schools, so that would put him at odds with the unions, along with McCain. Both candidates have come out in favor of performance pay for teachers, so that just leaves NCLB.
This is just another case of political entities (which is all the NEA and AFT are) following the status quo of supporting a Democrat, regardless of his policies.
http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2008/08/08/45read.h27.html
Richard Whitmire, an editorial writer for USA Today, makes a fairly novel point in that both the National Education Association (NEA) and the American Federation of Teachers (AFT) endorsed Senator Obama for President, despite the fact that McCain may actually serve their interests on No Child Left Behind better than Barack. Whitmire looks at Obama's speeches on NCLB, noting that he does not actually address anything in the law, instead relying on useless rhetoric to gain support from the leftist unions.
When you break down the issues, McCain and Obama are both useless in the areas of federal education spending, school choice, and performance pay for teachers. While McCain would not raise spending, the Democratically controlled Congress holds the power of the purse, not the President. On school choice, there are too few optimal choices for public school swapping, leaving Charter Schools as the only viable option. Obama is a strong supporter of charter schools, so that would put him at odds with the unions, along with McCain. Both candidates have come out in favor of performance pay for teachers, so that just leaves NCLB.
This is just another case of political entities (which is all the NEA and AFT are) following the status quo of supporting a Democrat, regardless of his policies.
Tuesday, July 29, 2008
Candidates' Views on Education
Although both Obama and McCain have criticized the No Child Left Behind Act, neither proposes scrapping it altogether. While Obama regularly bashes the landmark education law for being underfunded, he is not planning to drop the measure's reliance on standardized tests, which is its most controversial provision.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=93004032
Education often gets overlooked in the polls. NPR has a very good layout for each candidate's views on a variety of education issues. I recommend reading through it.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=93004032
Education often gets overlooked in the polls. NPR has a very good layout for each candidate's views on a variety of education issues. I recommend reading through it.
Monday, July 28, 2008
Gas Prices...What Can Be Done?
The economics of extracting resources is quite simple and intuitive. If you own property that has oil in the ground, then you have to decide how rapidly you wish to deplete your resource. If prices are low today, and you expect them to be much higher in the future, then you will hold off pumping a lot.
http://www.aei.org/publications/pubID.28383,filter.all/pub_detail.asp
With rising gas prices listed as the number one concern in the upcoming election, voters need to educate themselves about their options for attempting to lower fuel costs. While I personally agree with many Democrats that the U.S. needs to look into alternative fuel sources, that is not a solution to the current problem. The oil is eventually going to run out. At that time, we will need proven alternative methods in practice. For now, however, we should not let planning for the future blind us to our current situation.
The U.S. Department of the Interior claims that there are about 86 billion barrels of recoverable oil in the nation's outer continental shelf. That is roughly ten times our annual consumption of 7.5 billion barrels per year. Democrats argue that oil discoveries can't affect the current high price, because any newly discovered reserves take so long to deliver.
However, a recent study by economists Param Silvapulle and Imad Moosa of Monash University in Australia found strong evidence of what is called bidirectional causality. Future prices and spot prices are inextricably linked. This apparently an already widely known truth among economists, as noted in the quote above, that knowledge of prices in the future will certainly effect actions and prices today. So, while I am happy to learn that most economists understand the probable effects 86 billion barrels of oil will have on the current market, voters seem more then willing to remain blissfully ignorant.
http://www.aei.org/publications/pubID.28383,filter.all/pub_detail.asp
With rising gas prices listed as the number one concern in the upcoming election, voters need to educate themselves about their options for attempting to lower fuel costs. While I personally agree with many Democrats that the U.S. needs to look into alternative fuel sources, that is not a solution to the current problem. The oil is eventually going to run out. At that time, we will need proven alternative methods in practice. For now, however, we should not let planning for the future blind us to our current situation.
The U.S. Department of the Interior claims that there are about 86 billion barrels of recoverable oil in the nation's outer continental shelf. That is roughly ten times our annual consumption of 7.5 billion barrels per year. Democrats argue that oil discoveries can't affect the current high price, because any newly discovered reserves take so long to deliver.
However, a recent study by economists Param Silvapulle and Imad Moosa of Monash University in Australia found strong evidence of what is called bidirectional causality. Future prices and spot prices are inextricably linked. This apparently an already widely known truth among economists, as noted in the quote above, that knowledge of prices in the future will certainly effect actions and prices today. So, while I am happy to learn that most economists understand the probable effects 86 billion barrels of oil will have on the current market, voters seem more then willing to remain blissfully ignorant.
Monday, July 21, 2008
Back...for a while anyway
So, you may notice that I have three posts in the last week, after more than a year of being absent from here. Well, a mixture of work, blogging apathy, and getting through my first year of law school led me to remain idle in my blogging. So, I am back now, though who can tell how long this will last. If it does, I hope you stay with me for the duration, thanks.
Media Again Blasts McCain
In the world of politics, it used to be a hard-and-fast rule: "Politics ends at the water's edge" — the old Washington practice that when politicians used to travel abroad, their political opponents often refrained from criticism, at least with regards to foreign policy
But as Barack Obama continues his trip throughout the Middle East, John McCain sharply criticized the Illinois senator Monday morning over his initial opposition to the surge policy in Iraq and his short resume in dealing with foreign affairs.
I was unaware that campaigning is supposed to stop when one candidate is out of the country. Considering that there is a small army of reporters following Obama around, do you think he is refraining from comparing and contrasting his foreign policy with John McCain's? But McCain is not supposed to say anything about Obama's foreign policy while Barack is abroad? Sorry, but Obama would not even be on this trip if he were not running for President. And the small brigade of reporters tagging along only further points to this being a political trip. As such, McCain should not be expected to sit and take it without issuing his own statements. One more bit of evidence of who the media is supporting this election year. Objectivity be damned, I guess.
But as Barack Obama continues his trip throughout the Middle East, John McCain sharply criticized the Illinois senator Monday morning over his initial opposition to the surge policy in Iraq and his short resume in dealing with foreign affairs.
I was unaware that campaigning is supposed to stop when one candidate is out of the country. Considering that there is a small army of reporters following Obama around, do you think he is refraining from comparing and contrasting his foreign policy with John McCain's? But McCain is not supposed to say anything about Obama's foreign policy while Barack is abroad? Sorry, but Obama would not even be on this trip if he were not running for President. And the small brigade of reporters tagging along only further points to this being a political trip. As such, McCain should not be expected to sit and take it without issuing his own statements. One more bit of evidence of who the media is supporting this election year. Objectivity be damned, I guess.
American Brewing Gaint Falters
As a native of the St. Louis metro area, people have been asking me what I think of the recent “merger” of Anheuser-Busch, the largest American brewing company, and InBev, a Belgian brewer. The fact is, I have two conflicting opinions. As a son of the St. Louis metro area, I am saddened by the fact that the brewing company that is the heart and soul of that region of the country will be owned by a foreign entity. The pride that I always felt knowing the number one American brewer had its head quarters in my neck of the woods is going to be greatly diminished. This is how my heart feels about this merger. My head, however, has a better appreciation for the work and planning that went into this deal.
Keep in mind, I certainly do not have all of the details of this transaction, and I am certain even the press is not fully aware of everything going on behind the scenes. However, as I understand it, the only real loss here will be an emotional loss similar to the feeling I have already expressed. First, let’s look at what is actually transpiring, assuming the share holders and anti-trust officials approve the deal. The press is referring to this as a merger of two brewing companies. A merger is a statutory combination of two or more corporations by the transfer of the properties to one surviving corporation. In this case, the surviving corporation is InBev, though many aspects of Anheuser-Busch are likely to survive the merger.
The new company, currently branded as Anheuser-Busch InBev, will effectively become the largest brewing company in the world. Anheuser-Busch already accounts for 48% of the American market, and InBev will provide additional distribution through all of Europe and elsewhere. InBev and Anheuser-Busch already had various partnerships before this deal. InBev was the largest Anheuser-Busch distributor in Canada, I believe. So, in the end, it comes down to assessing the actual changes that will take place.
InBev has stated their intention to keep all twelve of the Anheuser-Busch breweries operating in the United States, and to keep their North American headquarters in St. Louis. Now, Anheuser-Busch was already planning to eliminate about 1200 jobs, mainly by offering early retirement and not filling open positions. Aside from this, InBev has not released any plans to layoff workers in the United States. Chances are, these layoffs will come sometime in the next year or so, but that may have happened regardless of who owned the company, that’s just business. Meanwhile, August Busch IV will maintain a position on the board of directors, but will not hold any executive position in the new company. While it is sad that a Busch will not be running this company, that is just the way business goes sometimes.
There are a lot of people out there who are trying to decide if they will continue to drink Anheuser-Busch products, now that it is no longer an American owned company. I find a slight flaw in this logic, as it now stands, since the beer is still going to be brewed in the United States. However, I am also the kind of person that does not base my consumer decisions on politics or other issues. If I like a product, I will buy it. Now, I grew up in an area that is greatly influenced by Anheuser-Busch products, which is why I buy their products. Personally, I do not drink much anymore, but when I do, rest assured that 75% of the time, it will be an Anheuser-Busch beverage.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/07/14/anheuser.inbev.ap/index.html
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/merger
Keep in mind, I certainly do not have all of the details of this transaction, and I am certain even the press is not fully aware of everything going on behind the scenes. However, as I understand it, the only real loss here will be an emotional loss similar to the feeling I have already expressed. First, let’s look at what is actually transpiring, assuming the share holders and anti-trust officials approve the deal. The press is referring to this as a merger of two brewing companies. A merger is a statutory combination of two or more corporations by the transfer of the properties to one surviving corporation. In this case, the surviving corporation is InBev, though many aspects of Anheuser-Busch are likely to survive the merger.
The new company, currently branded as Anheuser-Busch InBev, will effectively become the largest brewing company in the world. Anheuser-Busch already accounts for 48% of the American market, and InBev will provide additional distribution through all of Europe and elsewhere. InBev and Anheuser-Busch already had various partnerships before this deal. InBev was the largest Anheuser-Busch distributor in Canada, I believe. So, in the end, it comes down to assessing the actual changes that will take place.
InBev has stated their intention to keep all twelve of the Anheuser-Busch breweries operating in the United States, and to keep their North American headquarters in St. Louis. Now, Anheuser-Busch was already planning to eliminate about 1200 jobs, mainly by offering early retirement and not filling open positions. Aside from this, InBev has not released any plans to layoff workers in the United States. Chances are, these layoffs will come sometime in the next year or so, but that may have happened regardless of who owned the company, that’s just business. Meanwhile, August Busch IV will maintain a position on the board of directors, but will not hold any executive position in the new company. While it is sad that a Busch will not be running this company, that is just the way business goes sometimes.
There are a lot of people out there who are trying to decide if they will continue to drink Anheuser-Busch products, now that it is no longer an American owned company. I find a slight flaw in this logic, as it now stands, since the beer is still going to be brewed in the United States. However, I am also the kind of person that does not base my consumer decisions on politics or other issues. If I like a product, I will buy it. Now, I grew up in an area that is greatly influenced by Anheuser-Busch products, which is why I buy their products. Personally, I do not drink much anymore, but when I do, rest assured that 75% of the time, it will be an Anheuser-Busch beverage.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/07/14/anheuser.inbev.ap/index.html
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/merger
Thursday, July 17, 2008
"Objective" Media Strikes Again
The three broadcast network newscasts, which have 20 million viewers combined, spent about 114 minutes covering Obama since June, compared to 48 minutes for McCain. Obama has been on the cover of Time and Newsweek magazines 12 times in the last 3 years, compared with 5 for McCain. And in the last few weeks, Obama has also landed on the cover of Rolling Stone and US Weekly, along with interview of his family by “Access Hollywood.”
Cafferty File
I am glad to see the "liberal bias" in the media no longer exists. This is yet another case of the media trying to generate the news, rather than report it. Kevin Wuzzardo, an ABC News Anchor in Wilmington, North Carolina, has a more detailed post on this topic in his blog, which can be found here.
Cafferty File
I am glad to see the "liberal bias" in the media no longer exists. This is yet another case of the media trying to generate the news, rather than report it. Kevin Wuzzardo, an ABC News Anchor in Wilmington, North Carolina, has a more detailed post on this topic in his blog, which can be found here.
Tuesday, June 05, 2007
Presidential Info
So, in my never ending quest to turn this blog into something useful, I am planning on creating a database of the Presidential Hopefuls and their stances on various issues. As the playing field weeds out the pretenders, I will try and get more in depth with the analysis. I have no idea if I will actually get this done, but hey, it's worth a shot.
Thursday, March 29, 2007
Reserve Funds May Kill Growth
On Thursday, March 29, 2007, The U.S. Commerce Department reported that U.S. economic growth was moderately stronger in the fourth quarter than previously thought. Gross domestic product (GDP), which measures total goods and services output within U.S. borders, expanded at a 2.5% annual rate instead of 2.2%, the department said in its final revision of fourth-quarter economic performance. The final figure meant the economy expanded by a solid 3.3% during 2006. This is the third straight year that GDP expanded at a rate over 3% percent (3.2% in 2005, 3.9% in 2004). Why am I bringing this to your attention, because it is additional proof that the economy operating under the Republican-controlled government was in much better condition then the Democrats have led voters to believe. Considering that the House is passing their budget resolution today, the outlook of the U.S. economy is certainly a prime concern for the country right now.
House Democratic leaders expect to win easy adoption of their fiscal 2008 budget plan Thursday, rejecting Republican criticism that it relies on a big tax increase to reach a $153 billion surplus in 2012. House Democrats say their budget blueprint would erase the federal deficit without raising "a single penny" in new taxes. But the proposal requires either that millions of middle-class families be hit with higher taxes next spring or that somebody else pay an extra $50 billion. That stark choice is the result of the inexorable expansion of the alternative minimum tax, a parallel tax structure that adds $6,800, on average, to a family's tax bill. Next month, an estimated 4.2 million Americans will pay the tax. Next spring, that number will balloon to 23 million unless Congress takes action. Democratic leaders have made overhauling the AMT a top priority, but they have yet to lay out a plan to make up the revenue that would be lost. According to Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI), the ranking Republican on the House Budget Committee, the Democrats budget shows proceeds from the tax continuing to swell. Ryan claims that Democrats will have to raise taxes by $50 billion if they intend to fix the AMT while keeping all other spending within their budget parameters.
However, in the “special” world that Democrats seem to live in, they have created “reserve funds” to pay for projects that they don’t have the money to implement. For example, Democrats are promoting a $50 billion, five-year expansion of children's health insurance but have not yet come up with a source for that money. Instead, they have created a special reserve fund that health-care advocates in Congress will be required to fill with an equal amount in tax increases or spending cuts to get their money. If you look throughout the Democrat’s budget, they have reserve funds set up for multiple projects. This little maneuver is a way for Democrats to spend money on programs without violating the pay-as-you-go rules they set up at the beginning of this session (Pay-Go). The Senate budget resolution (S Con Res 21) relies on about two dozen reserve funds. The beauty of reserve funds, from the Democrats’ perspective is that it allows them to fully fund program without cutting defense spending, raising taxes, or increasing the deficit. Sadly, these reserve funds are all empty. To fill them with the necessary funds, Democrats will have to decrease defense spending, raise taxes, or increase the deficit…see the problem?
All of last year, Democrats blasted the Bush Administration for creating the worst deficit in U.S. history. Therefore, we should only assume that they will not increase the deficit. With U.S. troops in Afghanistan and Iraq, I do not believe the Republicans would want to cut defense spending, for fear of the political backlash that could come with cutting funds for troops in a war zone. That only leaves one choice…raising taxes. With three years of GDP increases of more then 3%, should Congress even be willing to raise taxes? The Commerce Department’s report shows that investment in new-home building plummeted by 19.8% and has declined for five straight quarters. The fourth-quarter drop was the sharpest since a 21.7% plunge in the first quarter of 1991 when the economy was on the brink of recession. If people are not buying new houses, should Congress take more money out of their pockets? I am not an economist, but this does not seem like sound fiscal policy to me.
While denying that they want to raise taxes, House Democrats say they want to preserve key parts of Bush's signature tax cuts. However, they project a surplus in 2012 only by assuming that all of the cuts expire on schedule in 2010. The budget plan expresses support for certain cuts that would require another reserve fund to be filled with hundreds of billions of dollars in tax increases to cover the cost. House Budget Committee Chairman John M. Spratt (D-S.C.) acknowledges that particular problem, saying Democrats have three years to figure out how to come up with the money to keep their favorite tax cuts. Considering how efficient Congress has been in dealing with fiscal problems, do the American people really trust Congress to come up with a solution within that time frame, especially with most focus in Washington already drifting towards the 2008 Presidential elections?
The problem inherent in Congress is that they are afraid to cut funding to programs, even if there is statitistical evidence that the program is not serving its purpose. This is especially true regarding programs within the U.S. Department of Education (ED). Every year, ED releases a Performance and Accountatbitly Report, which shows the adequacy of each program under its jurisdiction. Programs are assessed using the Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART). PART was created to show what programs are and are not working, allowing Congress to make informed decisions about the programs they fund, using American tax dollars. Every year, President Bush uses data collected through PART as justification for cutting funding to programs that are deemed ineffective, or not producing the results they were created to produce. To save $2.2 billion in taxpayer dollars, the President's budget request recommends eliminating 44 programs that are duplicative, narrowly focused, or unable to demonstrate effectiveness. Once again, Congress is ignoring this proposal, and there by continues to waste $2.2 billion dollars in taxpayer’s money, and that is just within ED. that number increases exponentially when considering all the other government agencies within the U.S. government.
Why does Congress continually fund programs that are deemed inadequate? The simple answer is that the goal of every elected official is to get reelected. By cutting a program’s funding, you are essentially laying off anyone who has gained employment under this program. That is certainly an unfortunate, but that is not reason enough to continue to waste money on useless programs. It is bad enough the federal government consistently provides financial bail0outs to the airline industry and Amtrak. Continued farm subsidies to farming combines that do not need the federal money are already wasting American tax dollars. As such, the U.S. cannot afford to keep funding wasteful programs simply because advocates for those programs do not want to lose their jobs. If less money is spent on wasteful programs, more money is opened up for new, more efficient programs. God forbid, that excess money could also be used for additional tax cuts, which has been proven induce economic growth. More growth means more jobs, there by allowing those laid off but cutting programs to find alternate career paths. This is certainly not an easy choice to make, and not an easy choice to live with. However, these elected officials were not elected to only make easy decisions. The purpose of elected officials is to do what is best for the country, not what is best for a specific group of advocates.
So, I advise all of you to enjoy what little economic growth we are seeing while you can. Because there are bumpy roads ahead.
Resources:
“GDP Growth Revised Up,” Reuters, 3/29/2007.
http://money.cnn.com/2007/03/29/news/economy/gdp.reut/index.htm
Lori Montgomery, “Budget Plan Wipes Out Deficit But Leaves $50 Billion Dilemma, “Washington Post, 3/29/2007.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/28/AR2007032802060.html
Joel Havemann, “Democrats' Budget Relies on Empty Reserves,” LA Times, 3/27/2007.
http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/asection/la-na-budget27mar27,1,4795960.story?coll=la-news-a_section
House Democratic leaders expect to win easy adoption of their fiscal 2008 budget plan Thursday, rejecting Republican criticism that it relies on a big tax increase to reach a $153 billion surplus in 2012. House Democrats say their budget blueprint would erase the federal deficit without raising "a single penny" in new taxes. But the proposal requires either that millions of middle-class families be hit with higher taxes next spring or that somebody else pay an extra $50 billion. That stark choice is the result of the inexorable expansion of the alternative minimum tax, a parallel tax structure that adds $6,800, on average, to a family's tax bill. Next month, an estimated 4.2 million Americans will pay the tax. Next spring, that number will balloon to 23 million unless Congress takes action. Democratic leaders have made overhauling the AMT a top priority, but they have yet to lay out a plan to make up the revenue that would be lost. According to Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI), the ranking Republican on the House Budget Committee, the Democrats budget shows proceeds from the tax continuing to swell. Ryan claims that Democrats will have to raise taxes by $50 billion if they intend to fix the AMT while keeping all other spending within their budget parameters.
However, in the “special” world that Democrats seem to live in, they have created “reserve funds” to pay for projects that they don’t have the money to implement. For example, Democrats are promoting a $50 billion, five-year expansion of children's health insurance but have not yet come up with a source for that money. Instead, they have created a special reserve fund that health-care advocates in Congress will be required to fill with an equal amount in tax increases or spending cuts to get their money. If you look throughout the Democrat’s budget, they have reserve funds set up for multiple projects. This little maneuver is a way for Democrats to spend money on programs without violating the pay-as-you-go rules they set up at the beginning of this session (Pay-Go). The Senate budget resolution (S Con Res 21) relies on about two dozen reserve funds. The beauty of reserve funds, from the Democrats’ perspective is that it allows them to fully fund program without cutting defense spending, raising taxes, or increasing the deficit. Sadly, these reserve funds are all empty. To fill them with the necessary funds, Democrats will have to decrease defense spending, raise taxes, or increase the deficit…see the problem?
All of last year, Democrats blasted the Bush Administration for creating the worst deficit in U.S. history. Therefore, we should only assume that they will not increase the deficit. With U.S. troops in Afghanistan and Iraq, I do not believe the Republicans would want to cut defense spending, for fear of the political backlash that could come with cutting funds for troops in a war zone. That only leaves one choice…raising taxes. With three years of GDP increases of more then 3%, should Congress even be willing to raise taxes? The Commerce Department’s report shows that investment in new-home building plummeted by 19.8% and has declined for five straight quarters. The fourth-quarter drop was the sharpest since a 21.7% plunge in the first quarter of 1991 when the economy was on the brink of recession. If people are not buying new houses, should Congress take more money out of their pockets? I am not an economist, but this does not seem like sound fiscal policy to me.
While denying that they want to raise taxes, House Democrats say they want to preserve key parts of Bush's signature tax cuts. However, they project a surplus in 2012 only by assuming that all of the cuts expire on schedule in 2010. The budget plan expresses support for certain cuts that would require another reserve fund to be filled with hundreds of billions of dollars in tax increases to cover the cost. House Budget Committee Chairman John M. Spratt (D-S.C.) acknowledges that particular problem, saying Democrats have three years to figure out how to come up with the money to keep their favorite tax cuts. Considering how efficient Congress has been in dealing with fiscal problems, do the American people really trust Congress to come up with a solution within that time frame, especially with most focus in Washington already drifting towards the 2008 Presidential elections?
The problem inherent in Congress is that they are afraid to cut funding to programs, even if there is statitistical evidence that the program is not serving its purpose. This is especially true regarding programs within the U.S. Department of Education (ED). Every year, ED releases a Performance and Accountatbitly Report, which shows the adequacy of each program under its jurisdiction. Programs are assessed using the Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART). PART was created to show what programs are and are not working, allowing Congress to make informed decisions about the programs they fund, using American tax dollars. Every year, President Bush uses data collected through PART as justification for cutting funding to programs that are deemed ineffective, or not producing the results they were created to produce. To save $2.2 billion in taxpayer dollars, the President's budget request recommends eliminating 44 programs that are duplicative, narrowly focused, or unable to demonstrate effectiveness. Once again, Congress is ignoring this proposal, and there by continues to waste $2.2 billion dollars in taxpayer’s money, and that is just within ED. that number increases exponentially when considering all the other government agencies within the U.S. government.
Why does Congress continually fund programs that are deemed inadequate? The simple answer is that the goal of every elected official is to get reelected. By cutting a program’s funding, you are essentially laying off anyone who has gained employment under this program. That is certainly an unfortunate, but that is not reason enough to continue to waste money on useless programs. It is bad enough the federal government consistently provides financial bail0outs to the airline industry and Amtrak. Continued farm subsidies to farming combines that do not need the federal money are already wasting American tax dollars. As such, the U.S. cannot afford to keep funding wasteful programs simply because advocates for those programs do not want to lose their jobs. If less money is spent on wasteful programs, more money is opened up for new, more efficient programs. God forbid, that excess money could also be used for additional tax cuts, which has been proven induce economic growth. More growth means more jobs, there by allowing those laid off but cutting programs to find alternate career paths. This is certainly not an easy choice to make, and not an easy choice to live with. However, these elected officials were not elected to only make easy decisions. The purpose of elected officials is to do what is best for the country, not what is best for a specific group of advocates.
So, I advise all of you to enjoy what little economic growth we are seeing while you can. Because there are bumpy roads ahead.
Resources:
“GDP Growth Revised Up,” Reuters, 3/29/2007.
http://money.cnn.com/2007/03/29/news/economy/gdp.reut/index.htm
Lori Montgomery, “Budget Plan Wipes Out Deficit But Leaves $50 Billion Dilemma, “Washington Post, 3/29/2007.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/28/AR2007032802060.html
Joel Havemann, “Democrats' Budget Relies on Empty Reserves,” LA Times, 3/27/2007.
http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/asection/la-na-budget27mar27,1,4795960.story?coll=la-news-a_section
Give It The Old College Try
Sorry for my long absence, yet again, but I am going to try and get back into a rythm here. However, I must be honest, with law school on the horizon for next fall, I forsee another serious lack of posting in the future. If I cannot get into at least a weekly schedule, I will probably close this off. We'll see how things go.
Wednesday, January 17, 2007
Adding and Subtracting
I had to delete some of my posts from the last two weeks because of some conflict of interest issues. I will try and have some posts up to replace the deleted ones by the end of the week, but this is going to be a VERY busy week. I apologize for the inconvenience.
Friday, January 05, 2007
Senate Battlefield
As the 110th Congress convened on Thursday, the attention was almost entirely on the House. All eyes were on Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), the first female Speaker of the House. House members had their families on the floor for the chamber. Pelosi’s grandchildren surrounded her as the vote for Speaker took place. Applause and laughter could be heard as each person cast their vote. In the Senate, the ceremonies were much quieter, with Vice President Dick Cheney swearing in the new members of the Senate, and only a few non-members on the floor. However, while the House gets all the attention, the real battles will likely be fought in the Senate.
Prior to the first session on the Senate floor, party leaders met in the old Senate chambers in the U.S. Capitol to discuss their views for where the body should head in the 110th. Specific issues were left off the table, with the two sides discussing hopes and frustrations instead. That type of bipartisan cooperation is normally nonexistent in the House. In the House, each side presented their own candidate for Speaker, each side had their own nominations for the administrative House positions and the Democrats did not allow the minority the opportunity to introduce an alternative rules package. In the Senate, majority leader Harry Reid (D-NV) and minority Mitch McConnell (R-KY) acted as cosponsors of the organizing resolution for the 110th. The two held a press conference stating their intention to work together now and in the future.
While the Senate has always been more dependent on consensus then the House, the 110th Congress starts out in a more co-dependent situation then normal. The Democrats hold a 31 seat majority in the House, while Senate Democrats hold a close 51-49 majority. Now, with Senator Tim Johnson (D-SD) possibly out for months wile recovering from emergency brain surgery, the Democrats now barely maintain that majority. With procedural motions like closing off debate requiring 60 votes, this does not give Senate Democrats the same free reign that the House can enjoy. This means the likelihood of getting bills passed quickly through the Senate is unlikely.
As is often the case, the devil will be in the details, and both parties will have to reach consensus if they plan to pass any meaningful legislation.
Unlike the House, which just pushed through its ethics reform package this week, the Senate will have to battle over every bill, making sure that they not only have the votes to pass the bill, but enough votes to keep the opposition from slowing down important legislation, or even attempting a filibuster. The Senate Democrats are going to have to fight for everything they get, likely doing some heavy horse-trading to get the votes they need. It could even end up being the Senate GOP that bogs down final passage of Pelosi’s “First 100 hours” agenda. The Senate should be a very entertaining to monitor these next two years.
Prior to the first session on the Senate floor, party leaders met in the old Senate chambers in the U.S. Capitol to discuss their views for where the body should head in the 110th. Specific issues were left off the table, with the two sides discussing hopes and frustrations instead. That type of bipartisan cooperation is normally nonexistent in the House. In the House, each side presented their own candidate for Speaker, each side had their own nominations for the administrative House positions and the Democrats did not allow the minority the opportunity to introduce an alternative rules package. In the Senate, majority leader Harry Reid (D-NV) and minority Mitch McConnell (R-KY) acted as cosponsors of the organizing resolution for the 110th. The two held a press conference stating their intention to work together now and in the future.
While the Senate has always been more dependent on consensus then the House, the 110th Congress starts out in a more co-dependent situation then normal. The Democrats hold a 31 seat majority in the House, while Senate Democrats hold a close 51-49 majority. Now, with Senator Tim Johnson (D-SD) possibly out for months wile recovering from emergency brain surgery, the Democrats now barely maintain that majority. With procedural motions like closing off debate requiring 60 votes, this does not give Senate Democrats the same free reign that the House can enjoy. This means the likelihood of getting bills passed quickly through the Senate is unlikely.
As is often the case, the devil will be in the details, and both parties will have to reach consensus if they plan to pass any meaningful legislation.
Unlike the House, which just pushed through its ethics reform package this week, the Senate will have to battle over every bill, making sure that they not only have the votes to pass the bill, but enough votes to keep the opposition from slowing down important legislation, or even attempting a filibuster. The Senate Democrats are going to have to fight for everything they get, likely doing some heavy horse-trading to get the votes they need. It could even end up being the Senate GOP that bogs down final passage of Pelosi’s “First 100 hours” agenda. The Senate should be a very entertaining to monitor these next two years.
Thursday, November 09, 2006
Election Results and Looking Ahead
Election Snapshot
Although the final results are not all in, the 2006 midterm elections had a profound impact on the political landscape on Capitol Hill. As predicted, the Democrats are now in control of the U.S. House of Representatives. To gain a majority, Democrats needed to have a net gain of 15 Republican seats. As of right now, the Democrats have picked up 28 Republican seats, with ten races still undecided. That puts the House at 229 Democrats to 196 Republicans. Giving the Democrats, and Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), control of the house for the first time sine 1994.
One of those 196 Republican seats is still in question though. In Florida’s 13th district, Republican Vern Buchanan appears to have beaten Democrat Christine Jennings by 373 votes. Although Democratic lawyers are attempting to force another recount, Buchanan has stated his intention to be in Washington, D.C. on Monday for new member orientation.
Regarding the other 10 seats in question, Louisiana’s 2nd district, and Texas’ 23rd district will have to wait until run off elections in December to declare a winner. In Louisiana, Rep. William Jefferson (D) led the twelve other candidates in the single ballot election with 30% of the votes. However, Louisiana law requires the winner to have a clear majority, so Jefferson will have to race in a run off election with Democrat Karen Carter, who received 22% of the vote. Regardless of the outcome, the seat will stay in Democratic hands.
In Texas, incumbent Henry Bonilla (R) finished ahead of the pack on the single ballot with 48% of the vote. Bonilla has to face former Congressmen Ciro Rodriguez (D), who received 20% of the general vote, in the December Runoff. The strong Hispanic population in the 23rd district may prove too much for Bonilla to overcome now that Rodriguez is the only Democrat on the ballot.
Of the remaining eight races, seven incumbents, five Republicans and two Democrats, are leading in the polls. However, in Connecticut’s 2nd Congressional district, Democratic challenger Joseph Courtney is leading Republic incumbent Rob Simmons by 170 votes. As close as the races are, we can expect a lot of recounts across the country, leaving official results unavailable until late November or early December. If the numbers stay as they are, the Democrats will have gained a total of 29 Republican seats making it 232 Democrats to 203 Republicans. However, the run off election in Texas may show yet another shit, making it a 233-202 Democrat majority, giving the Democrats a gain of 30 Republican seats.
In the Senate, the Democrats needed a net gain of 6 seats, and that is exactly what they got. The Democrats now have a 51-49 majority for the first time in 12 years. The six seats the Republicans lost were Pennsylvania (Rick Santorum), Rhode Island (Lincoln Chafee), Ohio (Mike DeWine), Missouri (Jim Talent), Montana (Conrad Burns), and Virginia (George Allen). Virginia was the last race in the Senate to declare a winner. On Thursday, Republican George Allen conceded to Democrat Jim Webb, a former Secretary of the Navy.
Democrats now have a majority over both Houses of Congress. With a Republican President who has two years left in office, history says we will see two years of gridlock, until both parties attempt to retain or gain control of both the Executive and the Legislature. President Bush has met with soon to be Speaker Pelosi and the next Senate majority leader Harry Reid (D-NV). Both sides are promising to work in a bipartisan fashion for the good of the country. Time will tell if this honeymoon can last for at least two years.
Leadership Changes
The political shift in Congress brings a shift in leadership for the 110th Congress. Current House minority leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) has already been named the next Speaker of the House, replacing Dennis Hastert (R-IL) as the top House official. Current minority whip Steny Hoyer (D-MD) is already facing competition to become the new House majority leader in Rep. John Murtha (D-PA). Murtha had stated his intention to challenge Hoyer earlier this year, but backed down when party leaders thought it was to early to begin dividing party loyalties. Now that the elections are over, Murtha has restarted his leadership campaign. Rep. Rahm Emanuel (D-IL) might challenge Caucus Chairman James E. Clyburn (D-SC) for the No. 3 job of majority whip. If Emmanuel decides not to run, Rep. Diana DeGette (D-CO) may enter the race.
For the Republicans, Hastert has stated his intention not to vie for the minority leader position. Current House majority leader John Boehner (R-OH) appears to already have challengers to lead the GOP in the 110th Congress. Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN) stated his intention to run for the minority leader position in January and Rep. Joe Barton (R-TX) has also expressed interest in running. John Shadegg (R-AZ) intends to run for the Republican whip, against the current majority whip Roy Blunt (R-MO), who lost his bid for majority leader to Boehner last winter.
In the Senate, Harry Reid (D-NV) will continue his leadership role as the majority leader in the 110th Congress. Dick Durbin will continue as Democratic whip. Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY), the current majority whip is expected to run for the GOP Leadership position, to replace outgoing leader Bill Frist (R-TN), who did not seek reelection this year.
The current ranking member in the House Committee on Education and the Workforce, George Miller (D-CA), will replace Rep. Howard “Buck” McKeon (R-CA) as chairman of the committee. In the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP), Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-MA), the current ranking member on the Committee, will likely take over as the new Committee Chairman. As for the subcommittees, leadership meeting are being held next week, so we do not expect to hear much new before then.
Political Shifts in the New Congress
The 110th Congress is looking much more centered then previous Congresses. In the House, the election of candidates like Brad Ellsworth (D-IN) and former NFL Quarterback Heath Shuler (D-NC) show that voters were looking for much more moderate candidates.
Ellsworth has been described as a “conservative democrat,” who favors gun rights, supports enforcement-oriented immigration reform, opposes abortion rights and is against setting a withdrawal date from Iraq. But he also favors allowing prescription drug re-importation from Canada, backs implementing all recommendations of the Sept. 11 Commission, and opposes allowing private investment of Social Security funds.
Shuler, a devout Christian, is more conservative than the average Democrat. He opposes abortion rights and gun control, and he plans to fight for balanced budgets. He believes, however, in the power of an active government and plans to push for greater funding for children's health care and for research into alternative energy sources. It will be interesting to see how more “conservative” democrats interact with the more liberal party leaders such as Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and Steny Hoyer (D-MD).
In the Senate, perhaps the most telling sign that voters are looking for more moderate representation comes in the reelection of Sen. Joe Lieberman (D-CT). Lieberman was defeated in the Democratic primaries because of his choice to stand with the President in regards to the war in Iraq. Connecticut Democrats tried to paint Lieberman, who ran as an Independent candidate, as too conservative and too willing to compromise with the Administration.
Those aspects of his voting record are what got him reelected, mainly by Connecticut Republicans and Independents. Lieberman has stated his intention to caucus with the Democrats, but considering 23% of his voters were Republicans, it is likely he will toe the line as often as possible, so as to not alienate his conservative supporters. With relations strained from a lack of support in the elections, it is important that the new majority leaders not alienate Lieberman, especially if they wish to keep him caucusing with their side.
Also in the Senate, incoming Senators like Jim Webb (D-VA), Jon Tester (D-MT), and Bob Casey (D-PA) are all considered much more moderate then the senior Senators like Reid, Hillary Clinton (D-NY) and Charles Schumer (D-NY). With such a close majority in the Senate (51-49), it is imperative for the Democratic leaders to keep the moderate freshmen in line if they want to use that majority to their advantage.
Although the final results are not all in, the 2006 midterm elections had a profound impact on the political landscape on Capitol Hill. As predicted, the Democrats are now in control of the U.S. House of Representatives. To gain a majority, Democrats needed to have a net gain of 15 Republican seats. As of right now, the Democrats have picked up 28 Republican seats, with ten races still undecided. That puts the House at 229 Democrats to 196 Republicans. Giving the Democrats, and Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), control of the house for the first time sine 1994.
One of those 196 Republican seats is still in question though. In Florida’s 13th district, Republican Vern Buchanan appears to have beaten Democrat Christine Jennings by 373 votes. Although Democratic lawyers are attempting to force another recount, Buchanan has stated his intention to be in Washington, D.C. on Monday for new member orientation.
Regarding the other 10 seats in question, Louisiana’s 2nd district, and Texas’ 23rd district will have to wait until run off elections in December to declare a winner. In Louisiana, Rep. William Jefferson (D) led the twelve other candidates in the single ballot election with 30% of the votes. However, Louisiana law requires the winner to have a clear majority, so Jefferson will have to race in a run off election with Democrat Karen Carter, who received 22% of the vote. Regardless of the outcome, the seat will stay in Democratic hands.
In Texas, incumbent Henry Bonilla (R) finished ahead of the pack on the single ballot with 48% of the vote. Bonilla has to face former Congressmen Ciro Rodriguez (D), who received 20% of the general vote, in the December Runoff. The strong Hispanic population in the 23rd district may prove too much for Bonilla to overcome now that Rodriguez is the only Democrat on the ballot.
Of the remaining eight races, seven incumbents, five Republicans and two Democrats, are leading in the polls. However, in Connecticut’s 2nd Congressional district, Democratic challenger Joseph Courtney is leading Republic incumbent Rob Simmons by 170 votes. As close as the races are, we can expect a lot of recounts across the country, leaving official results unavailable until late November or early December. If the numbers stay as they are, the Democrats will have gained a total of 29 Republican seats making it 232 Democrats to 203 Republicans. However, the run off election in Texas may show yet another shit, making it a 233-202 Democrat majority, giving the Democrats a gain of 30 Republican seats.
In the Senate, the Democrats needed a net gain of 6 seats, and that is exactly what they got. The Democrats now have a 51-49 majority for the first time in 12 years. The six seats the Republicans lost were Pennsylvania (Rick Santorum), Rhode Island (Lincoln Chafee), Ohio (Mike DeWine), Missouri (Jim Talent), Montana (Conrad Burns), and Virginia (George Allen). Virginia was the last race in the Senate to declare a winner. On Thursday, Republican George Allen conceded to Democrat Jim Webb, a former Secretary of the Navy.
Democrats now have a majority over both Houses of Congress. With a Republican President who has two years left in office, history says we will see two years of gridlock, until both parties attempt to retain or gain control of both the Executive and the Legislature. President Bush has met with soon to be Speaker Pelosi and the next Senate majority leader Harry Reid (D-NV). Both sides are promising to work in a bipartisan fashion for the good of the country. Time will tell if this honeymoon can last for at least two years.
Leadership Changes
The political shift in Congress brings a shift in leadership for the 110th Congress. Current House minority leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) has already been named the next Speaker of the House, replacing Dennis Hastert (R-IL) as the top House official. Current minority whip Steny Hoyer (D-MD) is already facing competition to become the new House majority leader in Rep. John Murtha (D-PA). Murtha had stated his intention to challenge Hoyer earlier this year, but backed down when party leaders thought it was to early to begin dividing party loyalties. Now that the elections are over, Murtha has restarted his leadership campaign. Rep. Rahm Emanuel (D-IL) might challenge Caucus Chairman James E. Clyburn (D-SC) for the No. 3 job of majority whip. If Emmanuel decides not to run, Rep. Diana DeGette (D-CO) may enter the race.
For the Republicans, Hastert has stated his intention not to vie for the minority leader position. Current House majority leader John Boehner (R-OH) appears to already have challengers to lead the GOP in the 110th Congress. Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN) stated his intention to run for the minority leader position in January and Rep. Joe Barton (R-TX) has also expressed interest in running. John Shadegg (R-AZ) intends to run for the Republican whip, against the current majority whip Roy Blunt (R-MO), who lost his bid for majority leader to Boehner last winter.
In the Senate, Harry Reid (D-NV) will continue his leadership role as the majority leader in the 110th Congress. Dick Durbin will continue as Democratic whip. Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY), the current majority whip is expected to run for the GOP Leadership position, to replace outgoing leader Bill Frist (R-TN), who did not seek reelection this year.
The current ranking member in the House Committee on Education and the Workforce, George Miller (D-CA), will replace Rep. Howard “Buck” McKeon (R-CA) as chairman of the committee. In the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP), Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-MA), the current ranking member on the Committee, will likely take over as the new Committee Chairman. As for the subcommittees, leadership meeting are being held next week, so we do not expect to hear much new before then.
Political Shifts in the New Congress
The 110th Congress is looking much more centered then previous Congresses. In the House, the election of candidates like Brad Ellsworth (D-IN) and former NFL Quarterback Heath Shuler (D-NC) show that voters were looking for much more moderate candidates.
Ellsworth has been described as a “conservative democrat,” who favors gun rights, supports enforcement-oriented immigration reform, opposes abortion rights and is against setting a withdrawal date from Iraq. But he also favors allowing prescription drug re-importation from Canada, backs implementing all recommendations of the Sept. 11 Commission, and opposes allowing private investment of Social Security funds.
Shuler, a devout Christian, is more conservative than the average Democrat. He opposes abortion rights and gun control, and he plans to fight for balanced budgets. He believes, however, in the power of an active government and plans to push for greater funding for children's health care and for research into alternative energy sources. It will be interesting to see how more “conservative” democrats interact with the more liberal party leaders such as Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and Steny Hoyer (D-MD).
In the Senate, perhaps the most telling sign that voters are looking for more moderate representation comes in the reelection of Sen. Joe Lieberman (D-CT). Lieberman was defeated in the Democratic primaries because of his choice to stand with the President in regards to the war in Iraq. Connecticut Democrats tried to paint Lieberman, who ran as an Independent candidate, as too conservative and too willing to compromise with the Administration.
Those aspects of his voting record are what got him reelected, mainly by Connecticut Republicans and Independents. Lieberman has stated his intention to caucus with the Democrats, but considering 23% of his voters were Republicans, it is likely he will toe the line as often as possible, so as to not alienate his conservative supporters. With relations strained from a lack of support in the elections, it is important that the new majority leaders not alienate Lieberman, especially if they wish to keep him caucusing with their side.
Also in the Senate, incoming Senators like Jim Webb (D-VA), Jon Tester (D-MT), and Bob Casey (D-PA) are all considered much more moderate then the senior Senators like Reid, Hillary Clinton (D-NY) and Charles Schumer (D-NY). With such a close majority in the Senate (51-49), it is imperative for the Democratic leaders to keep the moderate freshmen in line if they want to use that majority to their advantage.
Tuesday, November 07, 2006
2006 Elections
I. The Balance of Power
Thirty-four specific races for seats in the House and nine races in the Senate will determine the control of Congress. The Democratic Party needs to win an additional 15 seats to take control of the House and 6 seats in the Senate. Of the key races, many are too close to call but most lean toward the Democrats.
The sense in Washington, DC is that the Democrats will end up with the necessary victories to take control of the House and possibly the Senate. Lobbying firms and interest groups have long begun the process of hiring new Democratic staff and cementing ties to Democratic leaders in anticipation of the power-shift. Republican staffers have been working on their resumes and revisiting former employer contacts. However, if history has taught us anything, it is that anything can happen on Election Day. After the election, we will provide a memo that analyzes the outcome and considers the implication of those results on education policy and legislation.
II. The Latest Snapshot
The USA Today/Gallup poll released their final polls before the midterm elections this weekend. When asked: “If the elections for Congress were being held today, which party's candidate would you vote for in your Congressional district?” respondents favored a Democratic candidate over a Republican candidate 51% to 44%. That gap, however, is down 6 points from last month and down 16 percentage points from two weeks before that. This declining GOP gap is consistent among most recent polls, but it is also consistent across most elections as Election Day nears.
In the House, Democrats need a net gain of 15 seats if they hope to wrestle control away from the Republicans. Of the 35 most hotly contested races, three races are leaning Republican, 12 are leaning Democrat, while 20 are a statistical toss up, and are too close to call. In the Senate, Democrats need to net a gain of six seats in order take control from the Republicans. Thirty-three seats are up for reelection, with nine seats seen as key races. Of those nine seats, five are leaning Democrat while four of them are virtual toss-ups.
There are many tight races to monitor on the House side. According to the National Journal, the most hotly contested races include Arizona’s 8th district where Randy Graf (R) and Gabrielle Giffords (D) are locked in a dead heat race. In Pennsylvania, Curt Weldon (R) seeks to extend his 20-year Congressional career, but faces strong opposition from Joe Sestak (D). As in many of these House races, the Republicans are trying to make the issues local, but the national backlash against entrenched GOP power makes this hard to do. Many local campaigns simply identify the Republican candidate with the number of deaths of U.S. Troops in Iraq, with President Bush or with disgraced former lobbyist Jack Abramoff and the likes of former Rep. Duke Cunningham (R-CA) and former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-TX).
On the Senate side, the two races that are drawing national attention are in Virginia and Tennessee. In Virginia, incumbent George Allen (R) is currently suffering from his close ties to President Bush and the White House agenda. His opponent, former Navy Secretary Jim Webb (D) has made the election about supporting the Administration, which seriously works to his advantage, since the President’s approval rating is currently between 35-37%. Gallup showed Sen. Allen ahead of Webb 49% to 46%, while Mason-Dixon had Webb in the lead 46% to 45%.
In Tennessee, current Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R) is leaving his seat in order to run for the 2008 Republican Presidential nomination and Rep. Harold Ford (D) is running against Bob Corker (R), the former Mayor of Chattanooga to fill the gap. That race has become decidedly nasty, with attacks from both sides on each candidates ethical, moral, as well as political background. Gallup gave Corker a slim 49% to 46% margin over Rep. Ford, while in the Mason-Dixon survey Corker enjoyed a much wider 50% to 38% lead. If the current Majority Leader’s seat changes party hands, it will provide a devastating blow to the majority party.
The Democrat and Republican focus on the last day is to make sure that registered voters get to the polls. Both parties have initiated intense campaigns on their voters to try to ensure a victory at the polls. Democrats are reassuring their voters that the shrinking margin of victory is only a sign of a few more Republican voters offering their opinions, while the Republicans are trying to convince their voters that they will continue to make up lost ground and will continue to control Congress.
III. After The Elections
If you go by the polling data it appears that the 110th Congress will be split – a Republican Senate and a Democratic House. This creates a big problem for the Bush Administration, who was having trouble this year working with a Congress controlled by his own party. His chance of getting anything passed through a divided Congress seems less likely, which raises questions about the reauthorization of the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB).
NCLB is scheduled to be reauthorized in 2007, but Democrats will not likely allow a Republican victory on NCLB prior to the 2008 Presidential elections. At the same time, Republicans may not wish to compromise with a Democratic House Majority before the 2008 Presidential election and, therefore, may hold off until after the 2008 election. That, however, is a question that can wait until Wednesday, when the political landscape for the next Congress is clearer.
Thirty-four specific races for seats in the House and nine races in the Senate will determine the control of Congress. The Democratic Party needs to win an additional 15 seats to take control of the House and 6 seats in the Senate. Of the key races, many are too close to call but most lean toward the Democrats.
The sense in Washington, DC is that the Democrats will end up with the necessary victories to take control of the House and possibly the Senate. Lobbying firms and interest groups have long begun the process of hiring new Democratic staff and cementing ties to Democratic leaders in anticipation of the power-shift. Republican staffers have been working on their resumes and revisiting former employer contacts. However, if history has taught us anything, it is that anything can happen on Election Day. After the election, we will provide a memo that analyzes the outcome and considers the implication of those results on education policy and legislation.
II. The Latest Snapshot
The USA Today/Gallup poll released their final polls before the midterm elections this weekend. When asked: “If the elections for Congress were being held today, which party's candidate would you vote for in your Congressional district?” respondents favored a Democratic candidate over a Republican candidate 51% to 44%. That gap, however, is down 6 points from last month and down 16 percentage points from two weeks before that. This declining GOP gap is consistent among most recent polls, but it is also consistent across most elections as Election Day nears.
In the House, Democrats need a net gain of 15 seats if they hope to wrestle control away from the Republicans. Of the 35 most hotly contested races, three races are leaning Republican, 12 are leaning Democrat, while 20 are a statistical toss up, and are too close to call. In the Senate, Democrats need to net a gain of six seats in order take control from the Republicans. Thirty-three seats are up for reelection, with nine seats seen as key races. Of those nine seats, five are leaning Democrat while four of them are virtual toss-ups.
There are many tight races to monitor on the House side. According to the National Journal, the most hotly contested races include Arizona’s 8th district where Randy Graf (R) and Gabrielle Giffords (D) are locked in a dead heat race. In Pennsylvania, Curt Weldon (R) seeks to extend his 20-year Congressional career, but faces strong opposition from Joe Sestak (D). As in many of these House races, the Republicans are trying to make the issues local, but the national backlash against entrenched GOP power makes this hard to do. Many local campaigns simply identify the Republican candidate with the number of deaths of U.S. Troops in Iraq, with President Bush or with disgraced former lobbyist Jack Abramoff and the likes of former Rep. Duke Cunningham (R-CA) and former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-TX).
On the Senate side, the two races that are drawing national attention are in Virginia and Tennessee. In Virginia, incumbent George Allen (R) is currently suffering from his close ties to President Bush and the White House agenda. His opponent, former Navy Secretary Jim Webb (D) has made the election about supporting the Administration, which seriously works to his advantage, since the President’s approval rating is currently between 35-37%. Gallup showed Sen. Allen ahead of Webb 49% to 46%, while Mason-Dixon had Webb in the lead 46% to 45%.
In Tennessee, current Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R) is leaving his seat in order to run for the 2008 Republican Presidential nomination and Rep. Harold Ford (D) is running against Bob Corker (R), the former Mayor of Chattanooga to fill the gap. That race has become decidedly nasty, with attacks from both sides on each candidates ethical, moral, as well as political background. Gallup gave Corker a slim 49% to 46% margin over Rep. Ford, while in the Mason-Dixon survey Corker enjoyed a much wider 50% to 38% lead. If the current Majority Leader’s seat changes party hands, it will provide a devastating blow to the majority party.
The Democrat and Republican focus on the last day is to make sure that registered voters get to the polls. Both parties have initiated intense campaigns on their voters to try to ensure a victory at the polls. Democrats are reassuring their voters that the shrinking margin of victory is only a sign of a few more Republican voters offering their opinions, while the Republicans are trying to convince their voters that they will continue to make up lost ground and will continue to control Congress.
III. After The Elections
If you go by the polling data it appears that the 110th Congress will be split – a Republican Senate and a Democratic House. This creates a big problem for the Bush Administration, who was having trouble this year working with a Congress controlled by his own party. His chance of getting anything passed through a divided Congress seems less likely, which raises questions about the reauthorization of the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB).
NCLB is scheduled to be reauthorized in 2007, but Democrats will not likely allow a Republican victory on NCLB prior to the 2008 Presidential elections. At the same time, Republicans may not wish to compromise with a Democratic House Majority before the 2008 Presidential election and, therefore, may hold off until after the 2008 election. That, however, is a question that can wait until Wednesday, when the political landscape for the next Congress is clearer.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
