Earmarks and Congressional Clout

Steve Benen posted a discussion of earmarks, on which I commented.  David Farenthold had an article in the Post on the lame duck House members, who have now moved out of their fancy offices into temporary offices in the basement until the House adjourns.  I see these two paragraphs as relating to earmarks:

The departing members also remembered, fondly, their power to intercede for constituents. As lowly as a freshman is on Capitol Hill, he is a giant to a bureaucrat.
"I was surprised by the extent of power that I had," said Rep. Anh "Joseph" Cao (R-La.). Cao recalled his ability to make Federal Emergency Management Agency officials help his constituents still recovering from Hurricane Katrina. "I can go into a federal agency, and people would jump."

The point being, even if earmarks are banned, a bureaucrat is still going to jump when a member of Congress contacts her. So my fear is we'll replace earmarks which are in writing and fairly transparent with less transparent meetings and letters, all of which arrive at understandings, a wink and a nod as it were. Things might be helped if Congress agreed to post all correspondence with the bureaucracy and list all meetings on their web sites.

Bureaucratic Response of the Year

Cass Sunstein to his future wife, Samatha Power, on their first date, as he recounts at the recent e-rulemaking symposium:

"And she was trying to get to know me, so she said if you could have any job at all in the world, any job you wanted -- this is kind of a date-like question, isn’t it -- what would it be? And I found out many months later she was hoping I’d say play left field for the Boston Red Sox or be backup guitar for Bruce Springsteen. And I responded with apparently a glazed look in my eye looking off into the distance and in an imaginary sunset. I said OIRA." 

Orin Kerr Reveals All

Or at least the definitive theory of legal interpretation: " That doesn’t mean I don’t have my own normative theory of constitutional interpretation. I do: It’s called the Edsel X62 HutHut 1 Theory." 

Clue: Edsel

Food Deserts

James McWilliams discusses some options on reducing obesity, including this point:

There’s plenty of evidence supporting a strong correlation between ease of access to healthy food and reduced obesity risk. Similarly, there’s proof that those with limited access to healthy food spend less on it. Causation, though, is another matter. A couple of things to consider: a) a study of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) recipients found that participants lived an average of 1.8 miles from the nearest source of fresh produce but still traveled an average of 4.9 miles (most likely to a superstore) to buy their groceries; and b) sixty-eight percent of Americans are fat but—at the most—8 percent of us lack easy access to healthy food choices. Interpreting these points, Michele Ver Ploeg sums up their implications nicely: “Even though most Americans have fabulous access to healthy foods, on average, they eat only about half the recommended daily levels of fruits and vegetables.”

 The first sentence struck me: there seems to be a strong correlation between class/money and obesity/thinness.  Given that the U.S. tends to segregate by money, perhaps the pattern is the new suburbs are designed and built around the super supermarkets. So the rich are better able to maintain their waistlines and the poor less able to.

Framing the Issue

How issues are framed is important.  "Extending tax cuts on taxpayers under $250K" is different than "extending tax cuts on income under $250K"

As an example of how easily even liberals slip into the wrong language:, the first sentence of a Huffington Post post:

"Last week, CBS News released a poll finding that 53 percent of adults preferred to extend the Bush-era tax cuts only to those making less than $250,000, twice as many as preferred to keep the cuts for everyone."

How difficult would it be to say "... only to income of less than $250,000, twice as many preferred to keep the cuts for all income."

Whoopsie

I get home delivery of the NYTimes so it often doesn't have the results of late games.  (The Post used to, but no longer, not since the cutbacks.) So I just finished reading William Rhoden's column in the Times about how the Jets were on the way up and the Patriots on the way down, I log on and see in the news headlines--Pats 45, Jets 3.

Procrastinators, Avoid Amazon

I thought I'd pass on a warning to all my fellow procrastinators about the perils of shopping on Amazon. I've developed a habit; I often go to Amazon, find something I want, add it to my shopping cart, then get hit with an attack of the "slows", as I think Lincoln said about McClellan. Ultimately I log off without paying for the item. Which means, of course, that the item remains in the shopping cart.  And, it turns out, when I come back and check the cart, the item is still there, tempting in all its glory.

Tempting, that is, except in the interim Amazon has figured me out.  Mr. Bezos says to himself: Harshaw is already emotionally committed to buying this item, he just is hesitating over pulling the trigger. Let's boost the price a bit, 10 percent or so, and see if he still goes through with the purchase. And guess what, as often as not Mr. Bezos is right and I pay a penalty for procrastinating.

Wrongest Sentence of the Day

From Ta Na-hesi Coates: "The people" is not a synonym for "all those who agree with me."

At least as a description of how "the people" is used, this is 100 percent wrong.

Clause of the Day, Dec. 6

"If Congress does not extend the Bush-era tax cuts for the highest income levels, a typical worker who earns a $1 million bonus would pay $40,000 to $50,000 more in taxes next year than this year, depending on base salary.[emphasis added, from a NYTimes article on Wall street bonuses being moved up]

What Do Bureaucratic Leaders Do?

ProPublica has Secretary Geithner's schedule for several months on-line.

Just skimming through them, without worrying about what was hot during the time, Geithner talks a lot with Rahm Emanuel and the White House economists (Summers, Romer), talks a lot with Senators, talks a lot with foreign counterparts, and, other than staff meetings, very little with Treasury Department employees.