Should Congress Go Paperless?

Should Congress Go Paperless?: "

Rep. Chris Lee [R, NY-26] and the 39 bipartisan co-sponsors of his recently introduced ‘STOP the OverPrinting Act’ think so.

Currently, when a bill is introduced into Congress, the Government Printing Office (GPO) automatically prints five copies of the entire text for the office of each co-sponsor. That means that for H.R. 3962, the House’s health care bill, which is 2,070 pages long and has 7 total sponsors, the GPO printed out a total of 72,450 pages. That’s 151 reams.

The STOP the Overprinting Act would only allow bills to be printed by the GPO if they are specifically requested by a member of Congress or a committee. According to Lee, ‘the Congressional Research Service estimates the potential cost savings of Lee’s legislation would be upwards of $2.2 million in 2010 alone.’ Every bill is already made available to members of Congress and the public on the internet. Sites like OpenCongress, Thomas and GovTrack post them, as does the GPO itself through their GPO Access website. For lawmakers who find paper copies of bills easier to read and digest, Lee’s bill would accommodate them.

Presumably, since this isn’t law yet, 5 copies of the ‘STOP the OverPrinting Act’ were printed up by the GPO and distributed to each of its 40 sponsors. But it’s a short bill — only 3 pages long — so it only amounted to 600 pages, or one and a quarter reams.

Image used under CC license from pawpaw67.

"

(Via Open Congress : Blog.)

A Riddle

What is the difference between terrorism and a man that flies his plane into an IRS building in Austin, TX?

In a desperate attempt not to call this ambush terrorism, an FAA official called it "apparently a criminal act" to deflect concerns it could have been terrorism.

I guess he didn't fit the government's profile of terrorist: foreign brown person...

Shoot First, Ask Questions...Never

A recent WaPo article reveals that Obama's weapon of choice for dealing with high-value terrorism targets has been just that...a weapon. In lieu of capturing the target for further questions, he has erred toward killing from afar. In fact, this shift in policy has led to "dozens of targeted killings and no reports of high-value detentions." Although some may say that missiles launched from a helicopter, for instance, are sure ways of eliminating a threat (and, therefore, enhancing national security), such a tactic forfeits valuable intelligence that no corpse could give. For me, this policy is misguided from both a utilitarian and a moral point of view.

That isn't all to say that we should torture the suspect once he or she is in our custody. In fact, there are utilitarian arguments against that, too. All I'm saying is that, if we truly are in a battle of good intelligence, why wipe out the source?

Quiz Time!

Which branch of the United States Government at the federal level doesn't even have one elected official? For the answer, try consulting the tags for this post!

Is Congress THE Problem?

Is Congress THE Problem?: "

Nothing Lawrence Lessig says here is false exactly. But if Congress is the problem and the problem is the money, how can there never -- in anybody's predictable articles on this topic -- be any mention of the fact that the president takes more money than any congress member, and power to do most things has been handed over by Congress to the president? How can these two points be avoided?

"

(Via Let's Try Democracy.)

Is Independent Government-Funded Media an Oxymoron?

Do We Have Freedom of the Press?: ""

(Via Let's Try Democracy.)

Why did U.S. aid focus on securing Haiti rather than helping Haitians?

Why did U.S. aid focus on securing Haiti rather than helping Haitians?: "Slate
"The beginning of an answer can be found in what Rebecca Solnit, author of A Paradise Built in Hell, calls "elite panic"—the conviction of the powerful that their own Hobbesian corporate ethic is innate in all of us, that in the absence of centralized authority, only cannibalism can reign."

- By Ben Ehrenreich - Jan. 21 (Opinion) - Air-traffic control in the Haitian capital was outsourced to an Air Force base in Florida, which, not surprisingly, gave priority to its own pilots. While the military flew in troops and equipment, planes bearing supplies for the Red Cross, the World Food Program, and Doctors Without Borders were rerouted to Santo Domingo in neighboring Dominican Republic. Aid flights from Mexico, Russia, and France were refused permission to land. On Monday, the British Daily Telegraph reported, the French minister in charge of humanitarian aid admitted he had been involved in a 'scuffle' with a U.S. commander in the airport's control tower. According to the Telegraph, it took the intervention of the United Nations for the United States to agree to prioritize humanitarian flights over military deliveries.

NewsTrust Rating: Not rated yet - See Info » - Review It        Visit NewsTrust | About | Sign Up | Disclaimer

"

(Via NewsTrust - Politics - Most Recent Stories.)

SCOTUS: Foreign Corporations Have Rights, Too!

SCOTUS: Foreign Corporations Have Rights, Too!: "

Politico's Josh Gerstein has a great story today pointing out that, in the wake of yesterdays Supreme Court decision allowing corporations to spend unlimited amounts of money on elections, theres really nothing to stop foreign companies from supporting or opposing US candidates. It would be as easy as setting up a US subsidiary and having the subsidiary spend the money. Some of Gersteins sources argue that foreign corporations would be reluctant to interfere in US politics because it could bring bad press. But that doesnt seem like much of a deterrent to the worst corporations. Do foreign corporations like Gazprom that are largely state-owned really care what the US press writes about them? Law professor Mark Kleiman has more: 

One aspect of the ruling that hasn’t gathered much attention: as far as I can tell, the analysis doesn’t distinguish between domestic and foreign corporations.  Not that it would matter much, since a foreign corporation can always establish a domestic subsidiary, or buy an American company:   Cities Service, for example, is a unit of PDVSA, the Venezuelan state oil company.  So the ruling allows Hugo Chavez to spend as much money as he wants to helping and harming American politicians.   If the Russian, Saudi, and Chinese governments don’t currently have appropriate vehicles for doing so, you can count on it:  they soon will.

Nor is this a problem that can be handled by 'disclosure.'  The ad on TV praising the opponent of the congressman who did something to annoy Hugo Chavez won’t say 'Paid for by Hugo Chavez.'  It will say 'Paid for by Citizens for Truth, Justice, and the American Way,' which in turn will have gotten a contribution from 'Americans for Niceness,' which in turn will have gotten a contribution from a lobbyist for a subsidiary of Cities Service that no one has ever heard of.

This week just keeps getting better.

1 Comment | Post Comment

     

"

(Via MoJo Blogs and Articles.)

Privacy through forgetfulness

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=114276194&ft=1&f=1001

GOP Argues Insurance Mandate Violates Constitution

GOP Argues Insurance Mandate Violates Constitution: "

Republicans claim a health overhaul requirement that everyone in the country have health insurance should be found unconstitutional. They argue the mandate violates Fifth Amendment protections against the government taking private property without just compensation.

» E-Mail This     » Add to Del.icio.us

"

(Via Top Stories.)

After health-care reform, Senate reform

After health-care reform, Senate reform: "Washington Post - By Ezra Klein - Dec. 27 (Opinion) - To understand why the modern legislative process is so bad, why every Senator seems able to demand a king's ransom in return for his or her vote and no bill ever seems to be truly bipartisan, you need to understand one basic fact: The government can function if the minority party has either the incentive to make the majority fail or the power to make the majority fail. It cannot function if it has both.

NewsTrust Rating: 4.2 average (not enough reviews) - See Review » - Review It        Visit NewsTrust | About | Sign Up | Disclaimer

"

(Via NewsTrust - Politics - Most Recent Stories.)

How liberal elitism will sink this country

http://www.truthout.org/1111099

The Powell Memo and the Teaching Machines of Right-Wing Extremists

The Powell Memo and the Teaching Machines of Right-Wing Extremists:

From the article:

"For Krugman, a wacky and discredited right-wing politics is far from dead and, in fact, one of the great challenges of the current moment is to try to understand the conditions that allow it to once again shape American politics and culture, given the enormous problems it has produced at all levels of American society, including the current recession...The [Powell Memo] is important because it reveals the power that conservatives attributed to the political nature of education and the significance this view had in shaping the long-term strategy they put into place."

Is Buying Green a Moral Offset?

Is Buying Green a Moral Offset?:

While consumers can restore their eco-ego through carbon offset programs after buying an SUV or plane ticket, new research suggests that buying green products functions as a type of 'moral offset.'

Researchers at the University of Toronto questioned the assumption that the 'green consumer' is also socially responsible and a humanitarian. The study found that making environmentally responsible consumer choices leads people to make unethical decisions (or at least not as nice ones) later on:

'the halo associated with green consumerism has to be taken with reservations. While mere exposure to green products can have a positive societal effect by inducing pro-social and ethical acts, purchasing green products may license indulgence in self-interested and unethical behaviors.'

The researchers conducted three experiments in which students were asked to purchase or evaluate green products, or buy conventional ones, and then participate in an 'unrelated' task. In each experiment, students who didn't buy green products acted more altruistically and honestly in the second task than those who did. In the words of the researchers, 'people act less altruistically and are more likely to cheat and steal after purchasing green products as opposed to conventional products.' However, if you consider that 98 percent of so-called 'green products' are based on misleading claims, then that moral high ground is even shakier.

So are Prius drivers and folks who drink organic, fairly traded coffee not as nice as those driving a conventional sedan and drinking Starbucks? Seems like a question to ask the Girl Scouts and Salvation Army: Are people more generous in front of Safeway or Whole Foods?

(Via MoJo Blogs and Articles.)