Two interesting quotes from Sarah Palin:
From the debate: "Well, our founding fathers were very wise there in allowing through the Constitution much flexibility there in the office of the vice president. "
From a third grader's question: "[T]hey’re in charge of the U.S. Senate so if they want to they can really get in there with the senators and make a lot of good policy changes that will make life better for Brandon and his family and his classroom."
A lot has been made of these quotes as showing a lack of understanding on her part about what the Vice President does. In fact she (or someone she's working with) may know a lot more than we think. In fact, the Vice President is in charge of the senate, and presides over the Senate, period. If the Vice President is away (which is usually), then a President Pro Tem is elected.
But what if Sarah Palin is telling us she intends to be an activist Vice President?
An activist president of the Senate could do a lot of things that would essentially hold the senate hostage, preventing it from getting anything done until such time she sees fit. As an example, a cloture vote. What if the President of the senate simply refuses to call a cloture vote on a bill she doesn't like? She's a one-woman filibuster, one that can't be voted down.
What if she shuts down the Senate and refuses to open proceedings unless she gets her way on a specific bill? These are actually enormous powers, they have just never been used, and I suspect that Sarah Palin could be preparing to use them.
Why? Well for one, she is the leading Neocon, now that George the W. has started to quack. The people behind Dubya (in particular David Addington, legal enabler for Dick Cheney) have already been at it, inventing all kinds of new powers for the President and Vice President. Remember the idea that the Veep is not a member of the executive branch? Remember the "Nuclear option"? That depended on the role of the Vice President, as President of the Senate, to rule on a point of order requiring only a majority vote for cloture henceforth. So clearly they're thinking about it.
Why hasn't it ever happened? 1) The Senate is a very (small-c) conservative and tradition-bound body. 2) Nobody's ever tried it. Remember that since Addington's been in office, it's never been that useful for the Veep to throw his weight around in the Senate -- the Senate is a largely ineffective body since 2000. Even in Democratic hands, with Joe Lieberman casting the 51st vote, the Senate is no barrier to the powers of the imperial executive. However, with a very Democratic Senate, the Vice President all of a sudden makes it possible to shut down congress completely.
What recourse would congress have? Well, they could consider that an abuse of power and decide to impeach the VP. But her sentencing would go to the Senate, where, guess what, it never comes up for a vote. Constitutional crisis time, and the Supreme Court is asked to decide. Which way will the Roberts court go, strict constructionists that they are?
I wonder...
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
What's your wish list?
What are the most important things Barack Obama, should he win, needs to do right away? Having asked the question, I won't wait around holding my breath until somebody answers -- here's what I think:
1) Clear out all the extra-constitutional crap that has accumulated as "current practice" in our government. By this I mean:
- Signing statements: Get laws passed nullifying the legal effect of all signing statements past present and future. This might be done simply by deliberately making a particularly egregious one that the supreme court would strike down.
- Torture: Make it impossible for future administrations to commit torture and call it legal. How? I don't know.
- Extralegal detentions: Close Guantanamo, CIA black sites, and make it impossible (once again by a well-timed Supreme court challenge perhaps) for such activities to be considered outside US legal jurisdiction.
2) Comprehensive election reform. This means developing federal standards for voting equipment, establishing a federal election review board to oversee state procedures for voter roll verification and prevent caging, purging (and yes, voter fraud).
3) Repeal the AUMF. Once again, the supreme court could be forced to conclude that future declarations of war by congress must contain a specific enemy or enemies and a timeline in order to be legal. continure the war by specific act of congress if need be.
4) Join the ICC.
5) Double the budget for basic science.
1) Clear out all the extra-constitutional crap that has accumulated as "current practice" in our government. By this I mean:
- Signing statements: Get laws passed nullifying the legal effect of all signing statements past present and future. This might be done simply by deliberately making a particularly egregious one that the supreme court would strike down.
- Torture: Make it impossible for future administrations to commit torture and call it legal. How? I don't know.
- Extralegal detentions: Close Guantanamo, CIA black sites, and make it impossible (once again by a well-timed Supreme court challenge perhaps) for such activities to be considered outside US legal jurisdiction.
2) Comprehensive election reform. This means developing federal standards for voting equipment, establishing a federal election review board to oversee state procedures for voter roll verification and prevent caging, purging (and yes, voter fraud).
3) Repeal the AUMF. Once again, the supreme court could be forced to conclude that future declarations of war by congress must contain a specific enemy or enemies and a timeline in order to be legal. continure the war by specific act of congress if need be.
4) Join the ICC.
5) Double the budget for basic science.
Wednesday, October 8, 2008
The AIG "boondoggle" ... really?
Wait a second, when I do the math for 70 people for a week, I get about $125 per person per day, and that doesn't seem that expensive. Especially for a retreat where they're going to be deciding how to save the company.
Seems to me the outrage on this is a little overheated.
Update: I slipped a decimal point, it's $1270 per day, which is over the top by anybody's definition.
Seems to me the outrage on this is a little overheated.
Update: I slipped a decimal point, it's $1270 per day, which is over the top by anybody's definition.
Saturday, September 20, 2008
Flat bailout plan: Some numbers
OK, let's say we have 10 million non-millionaire investors in this country who have maxed out the full $100K of losses 10^7 * 10^5 is 10^12, the same order of magnitude as the current bailout. This depends of course on the structure of investing in this country (how many people will lose $100,000+ ?), and requires a method to pass the losses fairly through individual pension plans and mutual funds.
This is just a matter of bean counting though, and a far easier task than pricing derivatives correctly, which the Paulson plan requires. That is a task that appears on its face to be impossible. Possibly by design.
OK, let's make part of the flat bailout in federally backed tuition loan guarantees at the current prime. Another $50K each? Not everyone will or can use these, so it might not be so expensive.
This is just a matter of bean counting though, and a far easier task than pricing derivatives correctly, which the Paulson plan requires. That is a task that appears on its face to be impossible. Possibly by design.
OK, let's make part of the flat bailout in federally backed tuition loan guarantees at the current prime. Another $50K each? Not everyone will or can use these, so it might not be so expensive.
Alternate bailout plan.
The Iraq war took years to gin up, once W got his enabling act. The bailout of wealthy investors by the federal government took a few weeks to organize. Amazing!
I have a better plan. It's called a flat bailout and it works like a flat tax, in reverse. The federal government indemnifies each individual investor with a net worth of less than $1M up to a flat rate of $100,000 total, nah make it $200,000 per person on the fallout from this whole mess. Everybody else can go to hell, like they're supposed to in a market capitalist system.
I bet this will cost a lot less than half a trillion plus.
I have a better plan. It's called a flat bailout and it works like a flat tax, in reverse. The federal government indemnifies each individual investor with a net worth of less than $1M up to a flat rate of $100,000 total, nah make it $200,000 per person on the fallout from this whole mess. Everybody else can go to hell, like they're supposed to in a market capitalist system.
I bet this will cost a lot less than half a trillion plus.
Friday, September 19, 2008
Emasculating McCain
John McCain has a new problem.
That's aside from the fact that he picked an unqualified nincompoop for a running mate to satisfy the right, rather than the very qualified nincompoop he wanted. The problem is, she's got more star power than he does. It makes him look very bad (not to mention old and decrepit) and there's no way out.
Already, she gives speeches in front of cheering crowds, who then head for the exits when McCain starts to drone. Already she starts referring to him as "my running mate" like *he*'s the VP candidate. Already his solo speeches are extremely poorly attended. This has to hurt. Maybe that's part of the reason why he has seemed so deflated and un-feisty lately. If he can't control the agenda of his own campaign, how is he going to even *seem* like he can run the nation.
What happened to McCain? He used to be a very different guy!
I think the important moment he was broken was not in the 60's, it was in 2000 during the South Carolina primary. And the guy who did it (Rove) is both running the show now from behind the scenes, AND the one responsible for his disastrous VP pick.
McCain used to be an interesting guy, yes a hero and a maverick. But face facts, the guy is old and losing it. Remember when the famous general von Bismarck became president of his country with a charismatic young right-wing prime minister? But von Bismarck was old and could not control the show any more by mere force of his considerable personality. We all know how that turned out.
That's aside from the fact that he picked an unqualified nincompoop for a running mate to satisfy the right, rather than the very qualified nincompoop he wanted. The problem is, she's got more star power than he does. It makes him look very bad (not to mention old and decrepit) and there's no way out.
Already, she gives speeches in front of cheering crowds, who then head for the exits when McCain starts to drone. Already she starts referring to him as "my running mate" like *he*'s the VP candidate. Already his solo speeches are extremely poorly attended. This has to hurt. Maybe that's part of the reason why he has seemed so deflated and un-feisty lately. If he can't control the agenda of his own campaign, how is he going to even *seem* like he can run the nation.
What happened to McCain? He used to be a very different guy!
I think the important moment he was broken was not in the 60's, it was in 2000 during the South Carolina primary. And the guy who did it (Rove) is both running the show now from behind the scenes, AND the one responsible for his disastrous VP pick.
McCain used to be an interesting guy, yes a hero and a maverick. But face facts, the guy is old and losing it. Remember when the famous general von Bismarck became president of his country with a charismatic young right-wing prime minister? But von Bismarck was old and could not control the show any more by mere force of his considerable personality. We all know how that turned out.
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
Call Them Lies, Barack! Use the word! Words matter!
...
Folks, it's pretty simple:
When John McCain says I'm going to increase taxes on folks making $42,000, he's lying to you.
When John McCain says I called his running mate a pig, he's lying to you.
When John McCain says I want to increase the size of government 23%, he's lying to you.
When John McCain says he never asked for an earmark or pork barrel project for his state, He's lying to you too.
Folks, John McCain is a liar. The straight talk express has become the doubletalk express. He lies to you and me now and will lie to us if he ever reaches the White House. And if that's the kind of president you want, you should go ahead and vote for him. That's not the kind of president I'll be.
Personally, I think we're here you and I, on a mission to restore honesty and integrity to the White House, something that's been missing there for nearly 8 years, and John McCain has shown he's just as bad as the current bunch, and maybe worse.
...
Folks, it's pretty simple:
When John McCain says I'm going to increase taxes on folks making $42,000, he's lying to you.
When John McCain says I called his running mate a pig, he's lying to you.
When John McCain says I want to increase the size of government 23%, he's lying to you.
When John McCain says he never asked for an earmark or pork barrel project for his state, He's lying to you too.
Folks, John McCain is a liar. The straight talk express has become the doubletalk express. He lies to you and me now and will lie to us if he ever reaches the White House. And if that's the kind of president you want, you should go ahead and vote for him. That's not the kind of president I'll be.
Personally, I think we're here you and I, on a mission to restore honesty and integrity to the White House, something that's been missing there for nearly 8 years, and John McCain has shown he's just as bad as the current bunch, and maybe worse.
...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
