Posts archived in Executive - incoming
As support grows for regular question time between the President and Congress to be broadcast live, resistance amongst the administration and members of Congress remains steady.
If you want to see more live, unedited, unfiltered public forums involving the President and Congress, sign the petition on the right.
CNET carried a wonderful article this weekend, reporting on a case brought up by the Obama justice department to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals concerning the burden of proof required to be shown by government officials in pursuing stored or prospective tracking records of people’s cell phones. These cases are not uncommon, where the electronic records from one’s telecom provider are deemed necessary in furthering an ongoing investigation – this article briefly mentions cases involving drug smuggling over the Mexico-US border and a murder in LA where suspect’s cell phone records led to their apprehension/conviction. The issue, more specifically, in this case was over exactly what burden of proof was required – be it probable cause, or relevancy or more than probable cause. This presents itself as an interesting dilemma in the execution of the coercive powers of the state, as the judiciary has taken up the cause of seeking to resolve the disparity that may exist between the rulings of different judges in so far as how cellular electronic tracking differentiates itself from other investigative methods that require a warrant to be issued from a judge.
In a 2005 case, Magistrate judge James Orenstein issued this opinion in part :
“…it is my understanding based on anecdotal information that magistrate judges in other jurisdictions are being confronted with the same issue but have not yet achieved consensus on how to resolve it. If the government intends to continue seeking authority to obtain cell site location information in aid of its criminal investigations, I urge it to seek appropriate review of this order so that magistrate judges will have more authoritative guidance in determining whether controlling law permits such relief on the basis of the relaxed standard set forth (under federal law), or instead requires adherence to the more exacting standard of probable cause.”
That was 2005, under the Bush DoJ, where the above opinion resulted in the denial of a Patriot Act surveillance request.
In this more recent case, the Obama DoJ sought to appeal a lower court ruling which was perceived by the DoJ to have required more evidence than the statute regulating the government’s obtaining of electronics records requires. The statute, Title 18, 2703 requires less than probable cause. It requires that “the governmental entity offers specific and articulable facts showing that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the contents of a wire or electronic communication, or the records or other information sought, are relevant and material to an ongoing criminal investigation,”. As such, the district court, whose opinion the Obama DoJ is appealing, asked of the government to provide probable cause.
Thus, the Obama Department of Justice believes that the tracking of individuals through their cell-phone or other electronics should not require probable cause. They believe that despite a clear judicial review of this issue, as alluded to in the 2005 opinion above, the requirements for a court order be at most what is outlined in the statute regulating this issue – if a court demands more, like probable cause, the Obama DoJ will appeal to a higher court. Keep Reading »
The Obama administration loves to tout their support for clean energy. Who wouldn’t? They know it is popular, they know there is a huge market for it and they know it will help our economy in the short-term and long-term.
More importantly though, the awardees of the clean energy manufacturing tax credit have been announced, with the award total reaching 2.3$ billion amongst 43 states and 183 manufacturing facilities (White House press release here). The full list of projects, tax credit requested, technology area, city, state, and description is available here. An abbreviated list of 10 awardees with brief descriptions is here.
Of all the great projects and innovation being supported through this tax credit, one giant contradiction is smacking me in the face.
There are only two projects being awarded tax credits (in other words, only two employable, marketable, innovations) that have anything to do with “carbon dioxide capture and sequestration equipment”, or if you prefer clean coal. Only two projects, less than 5$ million awarded to anything related to clean coal, carbon dioxide capture or sequestration equipment out of the whole 2.3$ billion pot. Yet Obama keeps as a key selling point in his press release. Why?
From the Jan 8, 2010 press release:
Qualifying manufacturing facilities included the production of a wide range of clean energy products:
- Solar, wind, geothermal, or other renewable energy equipment
- Electric grids and storage for renewables
- Fuel cells and microturbines
- Energy storage systems for electric or hybrid vehicles
- Carbon dioxide capture and sequestration equipment
- Equipment for refining or blending renewable fuels
- Equipment for energy conservation, including lighting and smart grid technologies
- Plug-in electric vehicles or their components, such as electric motors, generators, and power control units
- Other advanced energy property designed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions may also be eligible as determined by the Secretary of the Treasury.
[emphasis added]
One of the projects, based out of Kaukauna, WI, is a system designed to “extract/trap carbon from waste streams from coal fired power plants”. They were awarded a 75,000$ tax credit (awards ranged to 141$ million). Another project based out of Bellevue, WA promises “more efficient and cost effective Carbon capture and storage”, and was awarded 4.7$ million.
What about the gigantic amounts of carbon released in mountain-top removal, which this relatively small investment does not attempt to mitigate? We have seen no action on this contradiction of our energy/environmental policies, and the practice continues to be used in the Appalachians. The renewed support for the EPA under Obama has resulted in less permits being awarded for mountain-top removal mines, but numerous permits are still granted, perpetuating the presence of this horribly destructive practice within our energy policy. Follow this to see the most recent action by the EPA on this issue.
It would be swell if our energy policy supported where we want to go, as opposed to the habits in which we’re entrenched.
A headline on the Huffington Post caught my eye just now. It read “Paulson, Buffet : Bank bailout may result in profit for U.S. taxpayers”.
The article was a terrible let-down, as it provided the least thorough of an analysis possible. They basically provided some out-of-context quotes and short narrative descriptions in between. Very limited. And I really wish they sourced their articles better, it is nearly impossible to look further into an issue when presented by the Huffington Post. I usually don’t get any deeper than the headlines, for this reason.
But that sounds good doesn’t it – the bank bailout resulting in a profit for the taxpayer? It would be great for it to actually be true and not just the educated guess of two very rich, white men. Despite how often that scenario leads to let-down, this time it seems likely to be true.
Now that is where the Obama administration has hit a home-run. Never mind the lock-step opposition by Republicans to Obama’s every policy, this policy really sells itself especially in a time when lob losses on Main St. are high and Wall St. is reporting record bonus payouts. You might know what I’m talking about here, especially if you watched the State of the Union. If not, look below and pay special attention around 1:40.
The arguments against this will be tenuous, but hopefully they will be based on facts, not like that Republican representative who used some fuzzy math during the lead-in to his question to the President. An interesting NYTimes article gives some numbers associated with this proposal, and arguments from both sides. I just don’t see there being much of an upside for the Repubs to push back on this, especially not while simultaneously trying woo the tea partiers (I’m forgetting, do they like the bank bailout?)…
The latest from the open government initiative, launched by the Obama administration, in from the National Science Foundation:
“On Saturday, Feb. 6, the National Science Foundation launched a new interactive Web page designed to encourage participation and collaboration between the agency and the citizens it serves. Additional information about this activity, as well as a link to the OpenNSF dialogue, is accessible at www.nsf.gov/open. The dialogue page is open for ideas and comments from Feb. 6-March 19.
In working to achieve the transparency, public participation and collaboration outlined by the Obama Administration’s Open Government Directive, agencies across the government have established Open Government Web pages to collect ideas and suggestions from the public.”
Add the NSF to the long list of executive branch agencies that have fulfilled the open government initiative‘s objectives.
The only agencies left to complete the laundry list of milestones are the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the Office of Personnel Management, the Council on Environmental Quality, and the Office of the United States Trade Representative.
Not exactly the institutionalization of “question-time”, but a darn good idea – a live broadcast “Bipartisan Summit”.
The point of this summit would be to use as a starting point the bills that passed the House and Senate and, as President Obama says, “to go through systematically all the best ideas that are out there and move it forward,” (NYTimes, 2/7/10). That means unscripted, unedited health care reform negotiations will be aired on live TV.
Sounds like this is exactly what candidate Obama promised to do when he was elected (albeit it 1 year late). I, for one, think this is a major tool in Obama’s political arsenal that he should use more often. We saw the gains that Obama made following the State of the Union, with his 2 live q&a sessions with Congress, in terms re-framing the health care debate and his legislative agenda. Also, we saw the gains he has made in the polls. But more importantly, at the last crossroads of the health care debate, we the people will be let into the room – so this summit will have an inherently different quality than all other health care negotiations to date. No one who was involved with writing this legislation at any point thus far was brokering deals with the American news media looking over their shoulders, they were brokering these deals in closed rooms, bowing to the power of any single senator who happens to be positioned as that 60th vote. Snowe, Nelson, Lieberman – we know the crew. So what I am looking forward to the most is to be able to see these folks, the 60th vote crew, try and yield that inordinate amount of power while the American public is watching. My bet is that they won’t, that they can’t; but this will just reinforce how good candidate Obama’s idea really was. And how much of a shame it is to be employed so late in the game – literally the last possible moment it could have been used.
President Obama, Vice President Biden to Announce $8 Billion for High-Speed Rail Projects Across the Country
Mmm, mmm, mmm, I’m still thinking about those trains. I hear about them from everyone who is so bold to visit Japan or travel Europe, and every time I do I’m left imagining how radical it would be to jump on a train and confidently traverse the US. Somehow I don’t think I’m the first to have that daydream, but man is it a good one. More encouragement, from a White House press release :
The majority of the dollars announced today will go toward developing new, large-scale high-speed rail programs. This includes projects in Florida, which is receiving up to $1.25 billion to develop a new high-speed rail corridor between Tampa and Orlando with trains running up to 168 miles per hour, and in California, which is receiving up to $2.25 billion for its planned project to connect Los Angeles to San Francisco and points in between with trains running up to 220 miles per hour.
I grew up in a city that thrives largely because of the revolutionary potential of the railroad – Barrington, IL – it lies along one of the early northwest lines from Chicago and its railroad station dates from the 1920s. That train is predictably packed every day, shoveling working men and women to/from their suburban lives from/into all corners of the city. All these people benefit from the risky, headstrong investment started in the 1850s.
Now, I live in a city that doesn’t have the railroad enmeshed in its identity – Eugene, OR. Sure, we have a railroad station, a commuter train and there are freight trains. But this infrastructure is a vastly inferior amenity than the railroad is around Chicago. The rail stops in Eugene along the way from Sacramento to Seattle and is party to a beautiful landscape all through Southern Oregon. But I haven’t found a single opportunity to make good use of the train yet (this is terrible for me to realize as I’m now thinking about how essential the train was in Barrington). I say this because the one time I attempted to make a good use of the train, a week long trip from Eugene to San Fransisco with my lovely lady, we were delayed for about 12 hours and the train proved too expensive and unreliable to ride it back (we flew back). To say the least, Eugene and larger Oregon is wasting the potential of the rail.
Below is a segment of the award descriptions and amounts in the “West Region” made up of California and Eugene-Portland-Seattle :
Considering that California is now going to be moving forward with the LA – SF High-Speed Rail, I am a bit dismayed that there isn’t any movement in that direction yet in the Pacific Northwest. An Eugene – Portland line that can reliably ferry larger volumes of commuters would do wonders for the people of the Willamette Valley – and it could easily transfer to the Airport light-rail in Portland. It could even benefit the relationship between Eugene and Corvallis, which have so much to offer each other – currently though, if I am going to get in the car and go 40 minutes anywhere it will be into the mountains or to the ocean. That is a much different situation though, if it is a no-hassle ride on the train for a low-easy fare.
Nice little game show style portion from the YouTube Obama interview. These were prompted by ideas submitted and voted upon on Youtube, which is the first phrase. The GOOD / BAD idea is Obama’s direct answer, followed by a paraphrasing of his short explanation :
Privatization of Gov’t services : BAD IDEA (conditionally)…private interests likely to only preserve profitable portions of gov’t services, example of USPS providing universal service.
Health Education as Incentive for Lower Premiums : GOOD IDEA, but we don’t want the insurance companies to make those decisions, maybe independent organizations.
Solar Panels on all Federal, State, Local Buildings : GOOD IDEA, frames this as a win-win for gov’t and private corporations who do this.
Robert Gibbs is right now feeling the pressure from ABC’s Jake Tapper on why Obama needed to go through an executive order to establish a “debt commission”. Tapper is harping on this fact that because of Republican filibuster threats, Democrats in Congress are forced to try and secure 60 votes for even non-controversial legislature, but Tapper keeps trying to frame this as evidence of Democrat’s and Obama’s inability to govern. As Tapper says “you guys control the House and Senate – why are you not able to make the tough decisions?”, Gibbs continues to smile and returns to the President’s message prompting the minority party to help try and solve problems rather than secure political victories.
This dispute between Tapper and Gibbs in still going on, Tapper seems to draw the conclusion that a piece of legislature’s inability to garner 60 votes must imply that this is bad legislature (using the debt commission as an example). I guess it is easier to ignore the realities of legislating and making good policy when trying to corner the Press Secretary – this would have been a much more poignant interchange if not for Tapper’s insistence that the problem is Obama’s unwillingness to “man-up and make the tough decisions”.
For spending about 10 minutes on this in the briefing, I don’t think anything of substance was communicated to the press. Tapper secured some sound bytes, maybe a small quote about the WhiteHouse’s view of politicking, but that is about it.
Another day, another attempt by the White House to more closely control how their information reaches the public. This time, it is in the form of a Q&A session with YouTube users and President Obama, with his response provided in real-time. NYTimes picked up the article just yesterday, and in its capacity as media-siphons, neglected to provide a link to the forum and neglected to include any information on how one could participate (considering this article was meant for publishing this morning – after the youtube channel was officially ‘closed for questions’). But I am cunning and quick, so I was able to find this link despite the NYTimes efforts to hamper that search with a titillating, but dead-end article.
1:45 ET – tune in to watch interview LIVE at Youtube’s Citizentube channel
Sit down for story time kids, here comes the president in Prime-time and high-definition : talking. Just like it should be.
…and everything in between
