Thanks for posting. Since I sent this in I've continues to think about two things I said, and they both feel important to me (a) it's import not to overestimate what a political campaign can accomplish and (b) that Republican and right-wing obstructionism is one of the major political features of our time. For example seeing this story seems like another example of making life difficult.
One way to chart Snopes's increasing prominence is by measuring the rise in fake news about the site itself. If you believe the internet, the founder of Snopes, David Mikkelson, has a longer rap sheet than Al Capone. He was supposedly arrested for committing fraud and corruption and running a pit bull ring. In the wake of a deal that Snopes and others made this month to start fact-checking for Facebook, new slurs and allegations poured forth.
I'm starting to think that Heebie's billboard idea is a good one (with some refinement of the message, but you have to experiment); there has to be something to do, as a way to make liberal arguments visible outside of what politicians are doing.
I was hoping this comments section would remain eloquently silent.
there has to be something to do, as a way to make liberal arguments visible outside of what politicians are doing.
Quite a few people are pointing to the Moral Mondays movement in N.C. as a blueprint for resistance. It's not quite a means to make liberal arguments visible as much as an approach to making the bad shit following from Republican policies front and center, repeatedly.
cf. this account of the Moral Mondays strategy:
the Moral Monday movement pushed back hard. Its constant visibility forced all of these issues to stay in the headlines. Its efforts ensured that voters in the state were educated about what was going on in Raleigh, and as voters became aware of what was going on, they got mad. All those people who had seen McCrory as a moderate, as a different kind of Republican, had those views quickly changed. By July McCrory had a negative approval rating- 40% of voters approving of him to 49% who disapproved.
So yeah, billboards, Facebook posts, whatever keeps up the drumbeat connecting bad consequences to Republican policies.
FWIW, the head of NPR said over the weekend that NPR's plan for the upcoming year is to support local and state level media coverage of local news, including but not limited to coverage of what goes on in state legislatures. That's not just NPR themselves doing national stories on such things; rather, they want to partner with local/state media outlets to beef up local reporting, whether broadcast or print.
It can't be said enough how necessary this is.
How local? I'm still bitter that they killed LPFM. And they lied to do it too. NPR can fuck a box of rusty knives.
Tangential: This Atlantic interview about Trump with some twerp from "First Things" is very depressing, in the way that reading Ross Douthat is depressing because the regular displays of Douthat's sexual fears make one wonder whether he spends his non-churchgoing time interring teenage runaways under his basement.
I like the idea of the campaign, but I fucking hate billboards. Also, they are all owned by Clear-Channel, which is in bed with the Republicans.
6: I guess not that local. Whatever. You can look up what the head of NPR said.
Meanwhile, since this is the political thread, I want to point to something I think is matter of grave concern.
The REINS Act, expected to be up for a vote before Trump is sworn in, ready for his signature upon inauguration.
The incoming House majority plans to schedule a vote on the Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny Act (REINS Act) soon after new members are sworn in next Tuesday. A top priority of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the leading lobby group for big business, REINS would fundamentally alter the federal government in ways that could hobble federal agencies during periods when the same party controls Congress and the White House -- and absolutely cripple those agencies during periods of divided government.
Under its terms, a new regulation that has an "annual economic impact of $100 million or more," which is less than 0.0006 percent of the U.S. economy, must be approved by Congress within "70 session days" or it does not go into effect.
Read the whole thing. This is really bad: essentially, federal laws passed could only actually be executed by the relevant agencies (through their formulation of regulations) if Congress additionally passes an approval of the latter -- on top of the originally passed law. I only read about this yesterday, and googling around, found next to nothing about it on liberal/non-partisan sites, but a huge amount on highly conservative sites. This is going remarkably underreported. Please take note.
This REINS Act has been around for several years, to my surprise. It's been entirely off my radar. Ian Millhiser had a piece about a year ago outlining the extent to which conservative groups have been clamoring for this in recent years - most notably the Federalist Society.
Shorter Congress: We're too lazy to regulate everything that needs regulating, let the President do it. But we can still tell them "you're doing it wrong".
Is Trump going to sign something that will limit his power?
Should I know what LPFM is/was?
I actually like HG's billboard campaign, but you know goddamn well that 50% of the response to it would be smug liberals "debunking" the causation. Drum noted the other day that the reason Reid made his "Romney paid no taxes" accusation is that he literally couldn't find anyone else who'd do it. If Henry II had been a Democrat, he would have gotten an earful about how inappropriate it was to even suggest that a turbulent* priest should be gotten rid of, and that the separation between blablahblah.
*kudos to Google for serving me Becket's wiki page by the time I typed "who will rid me of" to confirm this adjective
11: Shorter Congress: We're too lazy to regulate everything that needs regulating, let the President do it. But we can still tell them "you're doing it wrong".
Well, not exactly: Congress already doesn't approve regulations that put the executive in compliance with federally passed laws. It never did.* It never did regulate everything that needs regulating. But yes: this provides them with veto power over regulations that purport to bring the executive in compliance with laws they themselves passed.
12: Is Trump going to sign something that will limit his power?
My guess is that (a) he won't realize it limits his power, or (b) to the extent that he does, he'll buy their promise that they'll approve everything he wants approved. (And they probably will.)
* This is something far too few people realize: it would do well for the American public to realize that the vast majority of regulations aren't some willy-nilly power grab on the part of the executive branch, but just the executive complying with stuff the legislature passed. Like, you know, the Clear Air Act.
Just like far too many members of the American public don't realize that raising the debt ceiling is just a means to pay the bills the Congressional budget has already agreed to pay.
But I rant. As evidenced by my bad grammar.
With respect to the REINS Act, I haven't gotten far enough to see whether there's any pushback to be found in the Senate.
In fact, you can create all sorts of bogus causations with this formulation, if you wanted to.
Right. If the liberals come up with a successful formulation, the rightwing will co-opt it and be more successful with it, because they don't have the same self-imposed limitations that liberals do. They can judge their words based solely on efficacy, rather than decency or accuracy or whatever.
It'd be different in a country with a functional news media, but here we are.
Also (and lastly!), as far as I can tell, this Act is not some sort of optional thing, as though Congress can vote down only regulations they don't like: they have to vote on every single regulation affecting over $100 million of the US economy. That will jam them up terrifically, schedule-wise, in both House and Senate. It's nuts.
What bugs me about the REINS Act is that we just had a campaign, and this shit was never even mentioned. Its one thing to promise to do terrible things, get elected on that platform, then then do them. But to not bother putting the question before the voters, and then do it anyway, its bullshit.
I do not want more liberal voters.
I want social democrat voters and democratic socialist voters.
I do not want more liberal voters.
I want social democrat voters and democratic socialist voters.
19: There was lots of blather during the campaign about getting regulations under control.
Can someone who has his ear please tell Kevin Drum to put up a post about this?
18.last seems like a good thing in the short term. Procedural gridlock is now one of the only tools Dems have.
So, the OP talks about how Trump uses symbols like the Carrier plant, which don't really accomplish much but make people feel like he's actually doing something. What are the symbols we can bust out on the other side? What would a symbol for resistance to the REINS Act look like?
A boot stepping on $100 million dollars, forever.
Yeah, I also got nothing.
That's the problem. The REINS Act can do a huge amount of damage, but its going to be tough to make people care about it. Partly because, in theory Congressional oversight of the Executive branch is a good thing, when in reality it just inserts another veto point into a system which... which... ..... see, this is the problem. Its important, but its boring. Something that boring, how can you get people to care?
On the other hand, the House Republicans are about to kill the Office of Congressional Ethics. That's some cartoon villain shit right there.
Is the REINS Act constitutional? Does it infringe on executive powers?
Reading more of the book, which I had gotten side-tracked from, here's a heartening story about political education done well:
Under Navar's leadership Communication Workers of America (CWA) created a comprehensive curriculum to educate its members, which included education about current political fights, such as the Trans-Pacific Partnership debate. But the real meat of the curriculum is the political economy, which is currently part of a presentation called "The 40-Year Class War," which tackles the biggest problems Navar sees among the working class: a lack of strong class analysis: "We have to start off from a commonality and a perspective that critiques the economic system," he said, "that is really at fault for why the white working class has been losing earnings and wages and then tie that common problem to how it is impacting people of color." ... The union is currently engaging its members around immigration, holding a series of two-day "boot camps." Navar shows the film Harvest of Empire, which examines how policies in Latin America driven both by our trade policy and by major corporations fueled immigration to the United States. When Navar ran this boot camp in southern Virginia for a group of white members and one black member, it was transformative. The members were angry upon learning the story, and understood that their struggle was intertwined with that of Latino workers.
I'm fairly sure the journalist who found people could not even see politics was about policy is Chris Hayes. I asked the same question in a thread a few months ago as the one in the post.
This is something far too few people realize: it would do well for the American public to realize that the vast majority of regulations aren't some willy-nilly power grab on the part of the executive branch, but just the executive complying with stuff the legislature passed.
Yeah, it should be much more widely known that in a lot of cases what regulations actually do is limit the power of federal agencies rather than expand it, largely by clarifying potential ambiguities in statutory language.
I actually like HG's billboard campaign, but you know goddamn well that 50% of the response to it would be smug liberals "debunking" the causation.
True, but it doesn't matter because the people who are the targets of the billboard campaign are never going to hear anything liberal pundits say.
Obviously I have lots more to say on this topic but it's late and I haven't slept much in the past few days.
As much as microtargeting, I think fear-based attack ads would work wonders. Show a (hard-working, decent, well-educated, middle class, white) Republican voter who was wiped out by a health emergency. Show an identical person from Canada (or Massachusetts? Does Romneycare work?) who rode out such an emergency just fine thanks to public healthcare.
Is the REINS Act going to affect quasi-independent offices of the executive branch, like the FCC? Comcast would just love that.
Maybe someone will explain to Trump that the point of REINS is to shift power from Trump to Ryan -- or, God forbid, Shumer -- and he'll veto it too.
Well, with regard to the Ethics Office thing, the House Republicans just demonstrated that they are a pack of rabid weasels who can't be trusted not to bite their own asses. Trump may become wary of associating himself too much with them... its bad for the brand.
20% of the way through the Draut, and I am thinking the book should carry a label:
"This book is totally safe for Democrats and liberals. Absolutely 100% guaranteed to not challenge assumptions or cause discomfort."
Lots and lots of facts and well done succinct illustrative personal stories. Quality derp.
"Post-truth politics" is just what we have been living under. The "monstrous worship of facts," as Wilde called it, the tyranny of technique, is an avoidance of truth.In a narrow sense, it is possible to question whether a given statement is true or not -- that is, whether it is factual. But what would it mean to ask whether liberalism, socialism, or fascism were factual? Each of these discourses can organise a set of factual claims in their support, but their truth or falsehood seems to reside elsewhere, in the register of desire. When politics obscures this, when we can no longer inquire as to the truth of the discourse by which we are governed, our politics has become "post-truth".
How this situation came about is not obscure. Politics can only be a matter of management, rather than struggle, if one side is comprehensively and crushingly victorious.
Facts for management (or self-management) of populations is Foucault of course.
"The injunction to practice intellectual honesty usually amounts to sabotage of thought." -- Theodore Adorno.
Imagination and lies are the domain of freedom
Ugh, html fail
blockquote etc is Richard Seymour
Lawmakers in several deep-blue states want to require presidential candidates to release their tax returns in order to appear on the ballot in those states, a sharp rebuke of President-elect Donald Trump's ongoing refusal to make his tax records public.
That's a nice move, but unfortunately he doesn't need to be on the ballot in Maryland, New York, Massachusetts, California or Maine.
20% of the way through the Draut, and I am thinking the book should carry a label:
"This book is totally safe for Democrats and liberals. Absolutely 100% guaranteed to not challenge assumptions or cause discomfort."
I'd agree with that. It's closer to campaign literature than social science. But, I picked it up after the election in part because I was curious how much of it would feel already dated, after Trump's win, and the answer was surprisingly little.
There's a bunch of good stuff in the book, but it's not attempting to be even-handed.
The President of the NAACP got himself arrested today occupying Senator Sessions' office in Alabama. That's how its done.
Trying to be even handed got me to read this: http://www.everyjoe.com/2017/01/02/politics/trump-inauguration-all-your-base-are-belong-to-us/#1
Trying to see yourself through the eyes of others, when those others are crazy, might be problematic.
30: Is the REINS Act constitutional? Does it infringe on executive powers?
Good question - I dunno, but I assume the Congressional argument will be that it's within their purview as holders of the purse strings. (Even though they already passed whatever legislation called for said regulations!)* I'm guessing approval of various regulations will be considered part of budget reconciliation -- passes with a sheer majority, not subject to filibuster, etc.
* I'm also guessing this will be a way not just for them to block regulations disliked by industry, but also to somehow or other make a case that the expenditures you'd think they've already approved (through passage of legislation) they haven't actually approved. They get to look good from time to time by passing popular legislation, while blocking its implementation in a way mostly invisible to the vast majority of the country. Hm ... also makes a mess of CBO projections on the cost of implementing this or that legislation under consideration, doesn't it? CBO says, "This will cost $x", Congress says, "No it won't - we won't approve that part." This is just so ... weird.
One last thought on this: doesn't this also encroach on the judicial branch? As I understand it, when there's a dispute about whether a given regulation is in keeping with the statute under which it's being justified, the question goes to ... um, the DC Circuit Court? So, when EPA puts out a new rule regarding coal-fired power plants or whatever, the courts hold the power to decide whether it's in keeping with legislative intent. I'm a bit hazy on this -- am I getting this wrong?
And there's something called the Chevron defense -- I'm sorry, "deference". According to the Washington Post a few days ago, they want to do away with this as well.
It looks like a power grab from not just the executive but also the judiciary. Please correct me if I'm not understanding the latter situation properly.
One last thought on this: doesn't this also encroach on the judicial branch?
The other question that I had, what happens if there's a dispute about the economic impact of a regulation (and whether it crosses the threshold)? Presumably a court would have to decide that?
Thanks for the various comments on the issue, it wasn't something that I'd been paying attention to, and it does sound like a mess.
what happens if there's a dispute about the economic impact of a regulation
Yeah. Who knows how it's decided whether a given regulation affects more than $100 million of the economy. The CBO?
I doubt the courts would be involved in deciding the economic impact of a given regulation.
When I tried to impassion my co-worker yesterday about this, his first thought was that there was an "easy" way around it: regulatory agencies can just ensure that any rule they pass will fall below the threshold. Put out the rules in micro-fashion, a hundred mincing steps. I laughed at how impossible that would be.
Spike is certainly right up at 28 that this is tough to make people care about.
At a first pass, link it to the popular discomfort with something like the WTO: industries essentially have veto power over sovereign state decisions.
The other one to keep an eye on is the so-called "Separation of Powers Restoration Act" -- that's the one that gets rid of Chevron, among other things.
47: The potential constitutional problem with the REINS Act is that it is as a practical matter a unicameral veto on the executive branch's execution of the laws, which the SCt held unconstitutional in Chadha back in 1983. The counterargument doesn't have anything to do with purse strings (much less reconciliation, which is purely a matter of procedure), it's that the executive branch only gets to exercise powers Congress gives it in the first place, so this would just be Congress setting different ground rules on its delegation of rulemaking authority ahead of time. I think that's a very stupid formalism, but it'd also bet it's more likely than not to survive review by a Trump-enhanced Supreme Court, and possibly even the Court as currently composed (unless Breyer has had a change of heart since some post-Chadha commentary of his suggesting that he thinks something like this would be constitutional).
49: I don't think the $100M threshold would as a practical matter be a huge issue. It's a well-established administrative category already (rules above that threshold have some procedural hoops associated with them via executive order) and the kinds of regs that the REINS Act is aimed at will be indisputably well above that threshold.
Thanks, potchkeh.
it's that the executive branch only gets to exercise powers Congress gives it in the first place, so this would just be Congress setting different ground rules on its delegation of rulemaking authority ahead of time.
This strikes me as a bullshit counterargument. Is it really true that the executive's rulemaking authority is under the control of Congress? It seems like more than a formalism to argue so, but I'm not a constitutional scholar.
Depressing to think that it would survive judicial scrutiny, in any case.
Is it really true that the executive's rulemaking authority is under the control of Congress?
Yeah, as a general matter, when an agency issues regulations, it's doing so at Congress's command--the agency is implementing legislation, and the Constitution vests legislative power in Congress. So, for example, the FAA doesn't get to issue airline safety regs just because they or the president think it would be a good idea; in some statute ages ago Congress told them to make air travel safer (or something to that effect). There's a ton of fiction in all this, of course, and this is one of the places Chevron deference comes in: courts don't look all that hard at how the agencies decide to implement the instructions, presuming instead that Congress wanted to give them latitude. But Congress has to confer that authority in the first place via statute, and can take it away as well if it wants. The REINS Act would effectively say "Congress no longer gives agencies the authority to enact regs with a significant economic impact: from here on in, they can propose such regs, and then we'll decide."
I should add that I don't think this thing is anywhere near a slam dunk to pass. The business community is certainly not united in favor of it. Even industries that whine constantly about being overregulated don't typically want the regulatory machinery to seize up altogether--they want to control it, and (rightly) feel like that's pretty much in their grasp right now. I suspect Republican leadership will be happy to let a filibuster threat derail things, blame the Dems to the extent anyone gives a shit, and get on with the pressing business of regulatory capture. They can revive it again in four (or, god forbid, eight) years.
Update on the REINS Act.
The newest development seems to be that Obama has been on a "regulatory spree", fast-tracking so-called "midnight rules" prior to leaving office, in order to make it more time-consuming for Congress to have to address, one by one, the regulations it wants to deny/overturn.
In response, the House just passed the so-called Midnight Rules Relief Act of 2017.
(Sec. 2) This bill amends the Congressional Review Act to allow Congress to consider a joint resolution to disapprove multiple regulations that federal agencies have submitted for congressional review within the last 60 legislative days of a session of Congress during the final year of a President's term. Congress may disapprove a group of such regulations together (i.e., "en bloc") instead of the current procedure of considering only one regulation at a time.
I wish I knew what to say about trying to combat this.
I suppose it's possible that a particular regulation included in the bundled group to be disapproved could be considered enough of a poison pill that Republican Congresspersons could be pressured to put up a fuss about disapproving the entire bundle.
It would then eat up time for them to remove that particular regulation from the bundle, rewrite the bundle, etc.
It frustrates me that these sorts of developments aren't covered more prominently by the media before they've actually taken place.
That kind of sounds like it might need 60 votes to get through the Senate. Call your senators.
The media isn't covering this kind of thing very well because they are judging that 'wild man says stupid thing' will get way more clicks and sell more soap. Are they wrong about that? I don't think so, but it's not really my field.
The vision of the media as something other than a collection of revenue incented entities may well lead to frustration. Snap out of it.
That kind of sounds like it might need 60 votes to get through the Senate.
Hm. I don't know -- doesn't regulation fall under (budget) reconciliation?
I'm confused now about how this proceeds. I mean, it's a change to the Congressional Review Act, right? So yes, seems like it needs 60 votes in the Senate. Okay.
The Senate Committee to which it's been referred includes McCaskill as ranking member, and Carper from your neighborhood. Tester also.
Tester is also on the subcommittee on regulatory affairs, as is Booker. McCain and Portman are probably the most reality based of the Rs on the comm and subcomm.
Your senators may be able to do something constructive here.
Carper from my neighborhood? He's Delaware. Does it seem that my Senators (Maryland) may be able to influence Carper?
Apologies for my ignorance here, but I'd need to understand what I'm proposing they do.
And ... just so I understand correctly: my impression had been that even if the Committee to which something initially goes declines to give an unconditional thumbs-up to a piece of legislation (they don't endorse it), it can still go to the full Senate for a vote. Yes? Or no?
Committees can kill bills. I would expect the Maryland senators to have pretty good relationships with Carper.
What you want them to do is to encourahe their colleagues in the committee to kill the bill, and, if it gets out of committee to kill it themselves. Congress has the power to review individual regulations. That's sufficient check on the Executive.
60: Charley, how would you say it? I will call or e-mail if someone can write out an outline of something, because I don't understand the issue enough to come up with something on my own and don't have the time to research the whole thing.
How about:
"Radical House Republicans have pushed through a measure to undo as many of the regulatory accomplishments of the Obama Administration as possible at a stroke. The law already gives Congress all the authority it needs to roll back regulations that do not conform to the law: the so-called "Midnight Rules Relief Act" is really just a partisan power grab. Please encourage your colleagues on the Homeland Security and Government Affairs committee to kill this unnecessary measure."
The law already gives Congress all the authority it needs to roll back regulations that do not conform to the law
This bit confused me a little. I would revise somewhat to "Current law already gives Congress all the authority it needs to roll back regulations that are not consistent with existing legal mandates..."
Thinking more clearly about this today: the REINS Act was to affect new regulations. The Midnight Rules Relief Act applies to past regulations, those put into effect in the last 60 legislative days of a President's term.
The version of the REINS Act that actually passed at the beginning of the year is no longer for new regulations:
The centerpiece of the Republican action was the REINS Act, which cleared the House on Friday, with an amendment that extended its reach to include all regulations adopted by federal agencies within the past 10 years.
...
The amendment that expands the scope of the REINS Act was added by Rep. Steve King, a Tea Party-allied Iowa Republican. It would cover any rule issued by the Obama administration and the final two years of the George W. Bush administration.
Under King's amendment, Congress would require every federal agency each year to submit 10 percent of its regulations adopted over the past decade. The agencies would have to do this for 10 years, until all their rules have been reviewed by Congress. Unless both chambers approve a rule, it would be discarded. In essence, agencies would face a Solomon's choice of having to select which of their own rules to discard first.
!!!
Trump has apparently promised in writing to one Phil Kerpen, flunky of the Koch brothers, that he would sign such a bill.
This needs action too.
Alright, you will think I'm foolish, but I've written to Rachel Maddow, Steve Benen, and John Cole so far entreating them to cover this issue. Kevin Drum is next, but folks, I know some of you have greater access to him than I do. I'm getting tired.
I'm contacting Senators individually, but this just needs a wider public airing and call to arms. I'm not on the Twitter, but I may have to rethink that, not that my presence or voice there would have any impact. Can you please, if you know any people with a greater public voice, ask them to talk about this, loudly?
I'm reviving this thread to note that Republicans are intending to expand on the Congressional Review Act by passing not only the REINS Act, but also the Regulatory Accountability Act (which ends Chevron deference).
First, we began structural reform by passing the REINS Act, an acronym for Regulations From the Executive in Need of Scrutiny. If the bill becomes law, new regulations that cost $100 million or more will require congressional approval before they take effect. The House also passed the Regulatory Accountability Act, which would require agencies to choose the least-costly option available to accomplish their goals. That bill would also prohibit large rules from going into effect while they are being challenged in court. Further, it would end "Chevron deference," a doctrine that stacks the legal system in favor of the bureaucracy by directing judges to defer to an agency's interpretation of its own rules.
Further intending to override 5 specific regulations that went into effect within the last 60 legislative days of Obama's tenure.
It's worth noting that House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy cites the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a bunch of libertarian charlatans if ever you saw one.
I have no point, yet, beyond this. Oh, except that Kim Strassel (gag) had a piece in the Wall Street Journal the other day crowing over how the CRA allows the rolling back of regulations back to 2009, since Obama took office, and indeed back to 1996, when it was first passed.
I have yet to figure out how to counter these endeavors. We need an army of lawyers.
Ah, I see the Center for American Progress has an overview from yesterday.